All is fair in war and love... and history

History can be harsh on the powerful, and it's part and parcel of being up on the hill. But some 'great men' (and a disproportionate amount of great women) get a worse treatment than others and that may be a bit unfair.

Even redemption at the hands of the press may come in unfair ways. King Richard III owes much of his new popularity to the novelty of his discovery under a car park in Leicester. A surprising PR move for a man more used to riding horses on unpaved roads.

Humble Scribe, in another excellent post, asks the question why King John has not received a similar revival. While the historical record has been very negative for him, this is largely due of him not being around and his haters holding the quill. John was an able administrator and general as recorded in Ralph Turner's King John: England´s Evil King?, but this is overlooked because of his major character failings.

Popular perception might have to do more with representations in literature and movies than history books. As many people have noted, Shakespeare has been instrumental in demonising both Richard III and John, while Walter Scott's depictions of John and his henchmen in Robin Hood confirmed this in the 19th century. 20th century writers and directors have used these images rather than provide reinterpretations.

This durability of historical stereotypes is also manifest in the appreciation of Willem, Hereditary Prince of Orange and later King Willem II of the Netherlands. Demetrius Boulger, in his 1904 article on 'the Belgians at Waterloo' notes that Siborne, Maclachlan and Alison have been the principal culprits in attributing the failures of the campaign to the Netherlands troops and Willem in particular.

But according to Boulger the greatest damage was done by Thackeray reproducing them in Vanity Fair. And it is easy to see when British writers in the 1960s and 70s uncritically adopt this perspective. Luckily, the image is now being rectified somewhat (of course, Willem hasn't suddenly become a great commander) by closer study of individual accounts of the battle.

By the way, if you're on facebook and have an interest in restoring King John to his rightful place in history, why not join the King John Appreciation Society?

And as a fitting farewell to King Richard, the song dedicated to him by Supergrass. A fittingly brilliant one!

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords, or the origins of Anglo-Saxon kingship

"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!" Monty Python

I picked up The Saxon And Norman Kings by Christopher Brooke about a decade ago in a second hand book shop in London and I remember reading it on the trip or soon after. I enjoyed it a lot then, as it's an interesting book and well written. That's also what made me read it again for my Dark Ages project.

It starts out, not with biographies, but an overview of how kings were selected, what they did, the origin of kingship etc. Only then it turns to the more conventional chronological narrative up to the ascension of Henry II and the establishment of the Angevin monarchy.


Central in this book is the matter of succession. The question was not as formalised as in the later monarchies, and elements of inheritance or royal blood, election and designatio by the incumbent monarch all played a part. Historians have disagreed about which element here was the most important. As time went by, Brooke holds, the royal bloodline became ever more important and even though the suggestion of election is always there, it is not likely that it played a big role.

Except of course in a few very controversial cases. The choices for Harold Godwinson in 1066 and Mathilda in 1135 clearly turn in a different direction with the backing of the most important barons in the land. But Brooke would argue that these are the exceptions that prove the rule. In all the rules seem to have allowed for a certain lattitude. While not all kings could claim all three elements of legitimacy, one or two could be enough when backed with force.

The book also shows the close links between the Anglo-Saxon kings and the church, which did a lot for legitimacy and their historical record. Great sponsors of the church are still better documented and better received than those that looked upon the church as a necessary evil or useful tool rather than a holy institution in its own right.

Obviously, this book was written without a lot of the archeological evidence available today and its far from complete. Nevertheless, it gives a good introduction to the age from an interesting viewpoint.