	Copyright

Home
England under Foreign Kings

England under Foreign Kings

It is a common observation that our early history divides by reigns much more easily than our later history. The reason, too, is as plain as the fact. It is not because the character of each monarch differed more widely in early days than in later ones, but because there was a wider field for difference in character to show itself. When the king had himself a large share in government, it made much difference to the kingdom whether he was strong or feeble, honest or untrustworthy, ambitious or lazy. So long as the ministers he chose merely did his will, then all in the end turned on his character. Government of this kind is called personal Government. But now another body has grown up which has taken from the king many of his powers and duties. Consequently the character of Parliament, and of the ministers who carry out the will of Parliament, has become more important than the character of the king. Hence in later days we draw our divisions rather by ministries than by reigns; this is the era of representative Government.

It would then be quite a reasonable method to divide the period from the Norman Conquest to the accession of Henry II merely by reigns, for the characters of the kings are themselves diverse enough to give a distinct stamp to each. But we must not only observe differences, we must seek for likenesses also; and such a search does not go far before it shows that all four reigns have a peculiarity common to them all, and yet possessed by no reign which follows. Each of the four kings has the character of a foreigner ruling by right of conquest over a conquered people. The kings were Norman, and the people Saxon; Saxon subjects held down by Norman conquerors. It is true that Saxon revolts were not quite so common as might be expected, but the Saxons learnt that to rebel was to invite the chastisement of scorpions in place of the chastisement of whips. Their position was hopeless. In addition, they speedily found that, hard master as the king was, the Norman baron was worse, and so they supported the Crown against the "petty tyrant". Yet it was a sullen support, given from self-interest, with no motive of loyalty or affection about it. Kings and barons alike were hateful to them as foreigners: they submitted to the rule of a foreign king as being better than that of foreign barons. But their real desire was to be rid of them all.

By the time Henry II's reign is reached this feeling of antagonism was dwindling. Henry II was no longer regarded as a foreign king; the division between conquerors and conquered was growing less sharp; even the barons were taking a more national character. We shall have to dwell more upon this in the next period; for the present it is enough to draw a mental line of division between Stephen and Henry II. On one side of it are Norman kings, on the other English kings.

Chronology

Flat in kiev, apartment rent in Kiev order in internet.