Economic and social changes and their consequences

Model answer

Area A is woodland, which villagers used to collect firewood and timber and to let their pigs feed on acorns in the autumn. Area B is the common pasture, where all the villagers could graze their cattle and sheep.

Model answer

Interpretation A is convincing about the effects of the Conquest on English noblewomen, but it is much less convincing as a description of all women in England.

The interpretation is right that Anglo-Saxon noblewomen could hold and inherit land, make wills and run estates. In 1066 Godgifu, Countess of Mercia, Gytha, Harold's mother, and Queen Edith were all major landholders. Under the Normans, land was held in return for knight service, and lords controlled the marriages of heiresses and widows; the king could sell them or use them as rewards for his followers. Some Normans married English heiresses to strengthen their claim to land, as Robert d'Oilly married the daughter of Wigod of Wallingford. Archbishop Lanfranc had to rule on English women who had fled to nunneries out of fear of the Normans, allowing those who had not truly become nuns to leave. As English families lost their land, their women lost status too.

However, the interpretation needs qualifying. Anglo-Saxon women's freedom should not be exaggerated, as most lived under the authority of their fathers and husbands. The great majority of women were peasants, and their work of spinning, weaving, brewing, dairy work and helping at harvest did not change after 1066. Norman women could still hold land as heiresses and widows, and some were very powerful. William's wife Matilda was crowned queen in 1068 and governed Normandy for him, and Countess Judith, William's niece and the widow of Waltheof, held large estates recorded in Domesday Book.

Overall, the interpretation is convincing for English noblewomen, who lost land, status and the freedom to choose whom they married. But, written as a history of women's rights in 1995, it focuses on the landholding minority and is far less convincing for peasant women, whose lives changed little, or for Norman women, some of whom held great power.

Model answer

After the Norman Conquest the daily routine of English peasants stayed much the same, but many faced new lords, heavier demands and less freedom, and in some regions great suffering.

The first change was in who ruled the village. By 1086 almost every manor had a Norman lord or under-tenant who spoke French. Many held manors in several shires and rarely visited, so villages were run by stewards or English reeves.

Many new lords demanded more from their peasants. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle complained that William let his land at rent as dearly as he could, and his barons followed his example. Domesday Book shows that many manors were worth more in 1086 than when their Norman lords received them, partly because rents and labour services had been raised.

As a result, many peasants lost freedom. Domesday shows that the number of freemen and sokemen fell, as many were pushed down into villeinage, owing week-work and boon-work on the lord's demesne. This happened especially in the Danelaw. Lordship was now tied to land, so peasants could no longer choose their lord. At the bottom of society, however, slavery declined. Many slaves became bordars or cottars with small plots of land, and churchmen opposed the slave trade.

In some places the Conquest brought disaster. In 1069-70 the Harrying of the North destroyed villages, crops and animals across Yorkshire, causing famine and sending refugees south. After William created the New Forest in about 1079, villagers living in royal forests lost rights to hunt, gather wood and graze their animals freely, and faced harsh punishments.

Peasants also bore new burdens. Local people were forced to work on building castles, heavy gelds such as six shillings a hide in 1084 fell on the land, and the murdrum fine punished whole hundreds.

Yet much stayed the same. Peasants still farmed their strips in the open fields through the same farming year, lived in timber houses, ate bread and pottage and went to the village church. Overall, how much life changed depended on where peasants lived and on their status: freemen and northerners lost most, while some slaves gained.

Model answer

By 1100 many English towns, especially in the south and east, were growing and prospering under Norman rule. However, the Conquest first brought serious damage, and some towns, particularly in the north, suffered badly, so the statement is only partly true.

There is good evidence of growth. Because England and Normandy now had one ruler, trade across the Channel increased. Wine came from France, Caen stone was imported for building, and English wool continued to be exported, which helped ports such as London, Southampton, Dover and Sandwich. French settlers arrived, and new 'French boroughs' were built beside old towns such as Norwich and Nottingham, adding markets and people. William invited Jews from Rouen to London, where they lent money to merchants and the king. New towns grew up beside castles and abbeys, such as Newcastle upon Tyne around the castle built in 1080 and Battle around Battle Abbey.

The Church also helped towns grow. In the 1070s several bishops moved their cathedrals into towns, for example from Dorchester to Lincoln and from Selsey to Chichester, and in 1094 the see of Thetford moved to Norwich. Rebuilding cathedrals and building castles employed masons, carpenters and labourers for decades. London became even more important, with the White Tower, begun in about 1078, and William II's Westminster Hall, built in 1097-99.

However, the Conquest also damaged towns. Exeter was besieged in 1068, and York was burned in 1069 and its region devastated in the Harrying of 1069-70. Castles were built inside towns, and houses were cleared to make room: Domesday Book records 166 houses destroyed at Lincoln, and a whole ward of York was laid waste for the castles. Townspeople paid heavy gelds, such as that of 1084, and Domesday records many waste or empty houses in towns such as York and Norwich. York's trading links with Scandinavia declined as England turned towards France.

The picture depends on time and place. Most damage came in the years of conquest and rebellion, between 1066 and 1071, while growth came more after the 1070s. Southern and eastern towns and ports gained most from trade with France, while northern towns suffered most.

In conclusion, the statement is too simple. Many towns suffered in the short term, and northern towns in particular did not prosper. But by 1100 trade, settlers and building had helped many towns recover and grow, so the statement is largely true of southern and eastern England in the later part of the period.