Category: Book Reviews

I found another jewel! Author K.B. McFarlane was universally extolled by his fellow historians for his exhaustive scholarship on late Medieval England, but he met an untimely death by stroke in 1966, leaving most of his work unpublished. Fortunately, he gave many lectures and wrote many papers that were gathered by his associates and published complete with footnotes they researched to support the text. We are assured that these essays were not written for publication (he didn’t publish most of his work) and therefore not polished, but I found them quite readable. The amount if information was incredible to me; he discussed—in detail—many topics I only “sort of” understood. The eight sections are as follows:

1. The English Nobility 1290-1536 (sub-sections include Nobility and War, the Land, the Family, Expenditure, Service and Maintenance, Continuity)
2. Extinction and Recruitment
3. The Wars of the Roses and the Financial Position of the Higher Nobility
4. The Beauchamps and the Staffords
5. Landlord versus Minister and Tenant
6. The Education of the Nobility
7. Had Edward I a ‘Policy’ towards the Earls?
8. The English Nobility in the Later Middle Ages

This may sound a little dry, but this is the kind of book where you will learn “why” things happened as well as “what”. For instance, he goes into great detail about inheritance and primogeniture. It is a big theme in this book that most great families failed to produce direct heirs to continue the line: “I do not mean they were sterile; in each generation there were as a rule large numbers of children; but few reached manhood, fewer still had male children of their own.” In this quote he is actually referring to the cadet branches; the the same thing applies to the direct heirs. “In 1300 there were 136 families whose head had by then received at least one personal writ of summons to Parliament from Edward I and whose issue can be traced… Of the original 136 only 16 were still represented by a male in 1500.” The rest “had been interrupted by the intervention of an heiress or of several coheiresses”.

When the heirs are female, there is a strong possibility that the estates will be broken up by marriage, and her portion will go to the husband (prime example Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick—Kingmaker—who married into the Beauchamp inheritance). This is one way that great families increased their wealth—at the expense of other families. Also, if the head of the family arranged for the estate to be broken up between younger sons or daughters they went to great lengths to protect the inheritance; this is where we get to entails. “The intention (of the Statute of Westminster the Second 1285) was to ensure that should a man grant lands to his younger sons, or to his daughters in free marriage, these should not be alienated by them until after the third generation; if the line failed before a third heir (i.e. the fourth generation) had entered, then the estate was to revert to the head of the family.” This is just the beginning; it gets more complicated from there! We learn about the many types of inheritances, wills, escheats, extinctions, feoffees, entails, etc. In the end, it all boils down to this: “With minor exceptions the law governing the inheritance of a fief was simple and unambiguous: primogeniture among males, equal shares between females, a son always preferred to a daughter, a daughter to a brother or other collateral (kin).” Of course, as he goes on to say, “It was thus essential that its proprietor, if not childless, should have at least one son or, failing sons, not more than one daughter. Those were difficult conditions to fulfil.”  There is a lot to digest here, and I’m sure it will take another reading or two before I’ve absorbed most of it. It’s a great addition to my library.

I’ve had this book on my shelves for years, waiting for the right moment to tackle it. The moment has arrived! I am doing research on Richard II, and the Peasant Revolt is a great place to start. I certainly picked up the right book; Charles Oman has given a thorough explanation of this pivotal event all the way down to the tax rolls (in the appendix, fortunately). Like most armchair historians, I knew about Wat Tyler and the London riot. What I didn’t know was that the Great Revolt extended through much of England and lasted a couple of weeks past the day Tyler was killed.

As for the revolt itself, we get a thorough description, as expected. We saw Richard’s courage in approaching the rebels: “His position had been so much changed by the fall of London, that he was now forced to take the risk of being imprisoned or even murdered by the rebels, which had seemed unnecessary on the previous day.” We saw the rioting in London and the fear of the authorities who stood helpless in the face of the insurgency. It was Richard alone who quelled the rebellion and sent many of the participants home. This was truly his greatest hour.

I always wondered about Richard’s reversal after he promised everything to the peasants: was he idealistic and later forced to recant by his uncles, or did he lie through his teeth to get out of a tight situation? Apparently, Oman thinks the king leaned toward the latter, and not without reason. Significantly, the famous line “Villeins ye are still, and villeins ye shall remain” did not come unprovoked. Richard’s proclamation was made after he marched to Waltham at the head of an army a week later to put down further insurrections; a new embassy of Essex insurgents had approached him “with a demand for the ratification of the promises made at Mile End on June 14, and a request that they might be granted the additional privilege of freedom from the duty of attending the King’s courts…” The author adds: “It is clear that the sentimental sympathy for the oppressed peasantry attributed to the young king by some modern authors had no real existence. He was incensed at the duress which he had suffered on June 14-15, and anxious to revenge himself.” To me, this interpretation of Richard’s actions goes a long way toward defining who he really was. But at the same time, Richard’s courage was irrefutable and he alone saved the day. “What might not have been hoped from a boy of fourteen capable of such an achievement, and who could have guessed that this gifted but wayward king was to wreck his own career and end as the miserable starved prisoner of Pontefract?”

What I took away from this book was the understanding that conditions leading up to the Peasant Revolt were long-term and widespread. When taking a broad look, apparently the leaders of the revolt were not in communication with each other; the participants were reacting to the situation as the opportunities presented themselves (and not all of them were peasants). In the long run, things went on the same as before: “If we had not the chronicles of Tyler’s rising, we should never have gathered from the court rolls of the manors that there had been an earth-shaking convulsion in 1381”. But there was one tangible result; now the peasants had a new ideal to strive for. They cherished the charters of freedom and amnesty that were issued by the king, and although all Richard’s promises were broken, they knew it could be done. It was a sad and enlightening event, and I found this book to be most satisfying.

[spider_facebook id=”1″] [Widget_Twitter id=”1″]

This book is part two in the series that covers, firstly, the Battle of Fulford, and in this volume, the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Both books can stand alone, but it helps to see the extent of the Anglo-Saxon victory over the Norwegians when you realize just how much of a beating they took at the first battle. Harald Hardrada’s victory was complete; Earls Edwin and Morcar were on the run and York surrendered without the slightest hesitation. No wonder our hero Coenred and the remnants of the English army gathered disconsolately at Tadcaster, hoping against hope that King Harold would come to their rescue. And he did!

Coenred’s life quickly got complicated when his casual interest in the widow Mildryth deepened into something much more compelling, on both sides. Suddenly he had someone to go home to, but at the same time she became someone who could distract him from the business of war. The author tells a sweet story of their budding romance, forced into the background by compelling events he could never ignore. And when Harold Godwinson gathered his forces for a confrontation against the Viking invaders, Coenred was at the forefront of York’s support.

Meanwhile the Norwegians, confident that the resistance is at an end, gather at Stamford Bridge to collect hostages and supplies; about a third of the army stays with the ships at Ricall, around 10 miles away. The atmosphere is nearly festive, as they lay in the sun, swim in the river, and generally rest from their recent efforts. Most of them left their armor behind, only bringing a helmet and sword. When the grim and vengeful Anglo-Saxons approach from York, the Norwegians are surprised and totally unprepared. They fight well but their lack of armor ultimately decides the battle. Nonetheless, many stout English warriors fall by their sides.

Whitaker is very, very good at writing battle scenes. He brings us right into the midst of the action, and events are so cleanly depicted that there is no confusion. We also feel the desperate fear of the inexperienced fighters and the bitter determination of the veterans, intent on redeeming their losses at Fulford. The dialog reads much like a saga, full of glory and poetry, which gives this novel an other-worldly ambience of another time in another place.