Establishing and maintaining control

Model answer

A is Robert Curthose, William's eldest son, who inherited Normandy. B is William Rufus, who became King William II of England.

Model answer

Interpretation A is convincing in several ways. Two of the three rebel earls were indeed William's own men. Roger de Breteuil, Earl of Hereford, was the son of William's close friend William FitzOsbern, and Ralph de Gael, Earl of East Anglia, was half-Breton, with lands in Brittany; only Waltheof came from an old English noble family. They plotted at Ralph's wedding feast at Exning while William was in Normandy, and they invited a Danish fleet. A is right that loyal followers saved William: Archbishop Lanfranc excommunicated Roger, Bishop Wulfstan and the sheriff Urse d'Abetot stopped Roger's army at the Severn, and Odo of Bayeux and Geoffrey of Coutances defeated Ralph near Cambridge. The Danish fleet of about 200 ships arrived too late, raided York and sailed home. A is also right about the future: after 1075 the main threats to the Norman kings came from Normans - Robert Curthose's rebellion against his father, Odo's arrest in 1082, the rebellion of 1088 against William II and Robert de Mowbray's revolt in 1095.

However, A is less convincing in other ways. It was not 'the first time' danger came from outside the English: Eustace of Boulogne had attacked Dover in 1067, and the Danes had invaded in 1069. The revolt was also far less dangerous than A suggests. It was small, badly coordinated and quickly crushed, nothing like the northern risings and Danish invasion of 1069. It failed not 'only' because of loyalty and the Danes' lateness, but also because Waltheof lost his nerve and confessed to Lanfranc, and because the English did not join it; English bishops and soldiers supported the king.

Overall, Interpretation A is convincing that 1075 marked a turning point, as the threat to Norman rule moved from the English to the Norman elite, but it exaggerates how dangerous the revolt was and simplifies why it failed.

Model answer

The rebellion of 1088 was important first because it showed the danger created by William I's division of his lands. In 1087 Normandy went to Robert Curthose and England to William Rufus, crowned by Lanfranc on 26 September. But many barons held land in both countries and wanted a single ruler, and Robert was thought to be easier to manage. In spring 1088 Odo of Bayeux, Robert of Mortain, the Bishop of Durham, William of St Calais, and others rebelled to make Robert King of England, with risings in Kent, Sussex, the west and East Anglia.

Secondly, the rebellion showed how Rufus would rule. Facing many of his father's greatest barons, he turned to the English. He promised them good laws, lower taxes and fairer forest laws, and the English fyrd fought for him. He besieged Tonbridge, then Pevensey, where Odo and Robert of Mortain surrendered after about six weeks, and then Rochester, which also surrendered. Robert Curthose never came to help his supporters. This showed Rufus to be a decisive military leader, but he soon broke his promises to the English.

Thirdly, the defeat of the rebellion secured Rufus's position. Within a year of becoming king he had defeated his most dangerous opponents. Odo was exiled to Normandy and never returned to English politics, and William of St Calais was put on trial and exiled, while some rebels were pardoned to divide the opposition. This allowed Rufus to go on the attack: from 1089 he campaigned in Normandy against Robert, leading to the Treaty of Rouen in 1091.

So the rebellion of 1088 was important because it tested Rufus at the start of his reign, revealed the problems caused by the division of 1087 and, through its defeat, established him as a strong king, although further rebellion came in 1095.

Model answer

William's leadership was the most important reason the Normans kept control of England, but it worked through other factors, such as castles, the land settlement and the use of English government, which made Norman control permanent.

William's leadership was decisive in the crises of 1067-71. He moved fast: to Exeter in 1068, to York in 1068 and twice in 1069, and across the Pennines to Chester in the winter of 1070. He was flexible, accepting Exeter's surrender on fairly lenient terms, pardoning Edwin, Morcar and Waltheof, and paying the Danes to leave in 1070. When he judged it necessary he was utterly ruthless: the Harrying of the North destroyed the north's ability to rebel, and later Morcar was imprisoned for life and Waltheof executed in 1076. He forced Malcolm III to submit at Abernethy in 1072. Later he dealt with new threats firmly, arresting his own half-brother Odo in 1082, hiring a huge mercenary army against the Danish threat in 1085, ordering the Domesday survey and making the major landholders swear loyalty at Salisbury in 1086.

However, other factors were essential. Castles let small Norman garrisons dominate towns, roads and rivers; they were built in every rebellious town and perhaps around 500 existed by 1100. The land settlement was even more important in the long run. The lands of English nobles who had fought or rebelled passed to Normans, so that by 1086 only about 5% was held by the English. These Norman lords owed William knight service and had every reason to defend the conquest, because their own lands depended on it.

William also kept the efficient Anglo-Saxon system of government. Shires, sheriffs, courts, writs and the geld continued, now run mainly by Normans, which allowed him to govern England even while he spent long periods in Normandy. The Church was another pillar of Norman control: Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1070, and the Norman bishops supported the king, and in 1075 Lanfranc and the loyal bishop Wulfstan helped crush the Revolt of the Earls while William was away. Finally, the English were weak and divided: after Harold's death there was no strong leader, their revolts were mostly local, and their Danish and Scottish allies proved unreliable.

These factors were closely linked to William's leadership. He chose to build the castles, to transfer land to his followers, to keep the English system of government and to appoint loyal men such as Lanfranc and Odo. English weaknesses gave him opportunities, but it was his speed and ruthlessness that exploited them.

Overall, William's leadership was the main reason for Norman control, because it lay behind the castles, the land settlement and the use of English government and the Church. Those factors made control permanent, so that by 1075 the system could defend itself even in his absence, but they were the results of his decisions.