Feudalism and government

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 that patronage gave the Norman barons strong reasons to support William, but it is less convincing that patronage, more than anything else, held Norman England together.

William certainly rewarded his followers on an enormous scale. His half-brothers Odo of Bayeux and Robert of Mortain received vast estates, Odo becoming Earl of Kent and Robert holding Cornwall and the rape of Pevensey. William FitzOsbern became Earl of Hereford, Roger of Montgomery Earl of Shrewsbury and Hugh d'Avranches Earl of Chester. William also gave out sheriffdoms, castles, bishoprics and the marriages of heiresses. By 1086 Norman barons held about half the land, so their wealth depended on William defending it against English rebels and foreign invaders; they fought with him in 1069-70. Because what the king gave he could take away, patronage also discouraged disloyalty.

However, the barons did not always stay loyal. In 1075 the Revolt of the Earls was led by Roger, Earl of Hereford, the son of FitzOsbern, and Ralph, Earl of East Anglia, men who had done well out of William's patronage. William had to arrest his own half-brother Odo in 1082. In 1088 Odo and Robert of Mortain led a rebellion against William II in favour of Robert Curthose, partly because barons with lands in both England and Normandy wanted a single lord. Patronage could therefore create powerful men who threatened the king.

Norman England was also held together by other things: castles and their garrisons, force such as the Harrying of the North, the Church under Lanfranc, the Anglo-Saxon system of government and oaths such as the Oath of Salisbury in 1086.

Overall, the interpretation is partly convincing. Patronage was essential in binding the barons to William, but the rebellions show it was not enough on its own, so 'more than anything else' overstates its importance.

Model answer

Land passed from English to Norman hands in stages between 1066 and 1086, with rebellion turning a partial settlement into an almost complete takeover.

After his victory at Hastings, William claimed all the land of England as Edward the Confessor's rightful heir and as conqueror. The lands of Harold, his brothers Gyrth and Leofwine and the many thegns who had fought against William were forfeited. William used them to reward his closest followers: his half-brother Odo of Bayeux received Kent, and William FitzOsbern became Earl of Hereford. At this stage, however, many English landholders kept their land. Some paid William to keep it, and the earls Edwin, Morcar and Waltheof kept their earldoms.

This changed because of rebellion. Between 1068 and 1071 there were risings at Exeter, in Mercia under Edwin and Morcar, in the north around York, and at Ely under Hereward. Each failure led to more confiscations. After the Harrying of the North in 1069-70, northern estates were given to Normans such as Alan the Red at Richmond and Ilbert de Lacy at Pontefract. Edwin was killed in 1071 and Morcar imprisoned.

The way land was granted also mattered. Most barons received the lands of particular English predecessors, which made the transfer look lawful but left their estates scattered across many shires. On the frontiers, however, William created compact lordships, such as the earldoms of Chester, Shrewsbury and Hereford on the Welsh border and the rapes of Sussex. Normans also seized land illegally; Odo took lands belonging to Canterbury, which Archbishop Lanfranc won back at the trial on Penenden Heath.

The Revolt of the Earls in 1075 led to more forfeitures, and in 1076 Waltheof, the last English earl, was executed. Meanwhile Norman bishops and abbots took control of church lands.

By 1086 Domesday Book showed the result: English landholders held only about 5 per cent of the land, and many thegns had become sub-tenants of Normans on their old estates. The Normans now formed a ruling class that held its land in return for service to the king.

Model answer

In some areas Norman justice was clearly harsher, especially where it protected the conquerors and the king's hunting. However, Anglo-Saxon justice was itself severe, and most of it continued after 1066. I therefore disagree that the Norman legal system was much harsher overall.

There are strong arguments for the statement. The murdrum fine meant that if a Norman was found murdered and the killer was not handed over, the whole hundred paid a heavy fine, so innocent communities were punished. The Normans introduced trial by combat. Above all, forest law was harsh: according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William ruled that anyone who killed a hart or a hind should be blinded, and villagers living in royal forests lost rights to hunt, graze animals and gather wood freely. The courts were now run by Norman sheriffs, some of whom, such as Urse d'Abetot in Worcestershire and Picot in Cambridgeshire, were accused of seizing land. Under William II justice could be arbitrary: Eadmer reported that when about fifty men accused of forest offences passed the ordeal of hot iron, the king mocked the result.

However, Anglo-Saxon law had already been harsh. Thieves and other serious criminals could be executed, and the laws of King Cnut laid down mutilation for repeat offenders. Trial by ordeal, with hot iron, hot water or cold water, was an Anglo-Saxon practice that the Normans inherited. Collective responsibility was also English: men were grouped in tithings that were responsible for each other's behaviour, and everyone had to join the hue and cry. Outlawry existed before and after 1066.

There was also much continuity. William claimed to be Edward the Confessor's heir and promised to keep the laws of King Edward. Shire and hundred courts carried on, with local men acting as suitors and witnesses. Compensation payments such as wergild survived for a time.

In some ways Norman justice was even less harsh. William's laws replaced execution with mutilation, such as blinding, which was brutal but meant fewer deaths. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, though critical of William, praised the good peace he kept, saying that a man could travel the kingdom unharmed with a bosom full of gold. The Normans also opposed the slave trade, and slavery was declining: slaves made up only about a tenth of the people recorded in Domesday Book.

The key difference, therefore, was not that punishments became much more severe, but that new laws such as murdrum and forest law protected the conquerors and the king's rights, and so felt foreign and unfair to the English.

In conclusion, the Norman legal system was harsher in specific ways that targeted the English, especially murdrum and forest law, but it was not much harsher overall. Anglo-Saxon justice was already severe, and the courts, ordeals and customs that most English people experienced continued largely unchanged.