“How important was the takeover of Kingship during the Medieval time-period?”
In order to gauge the strength of the Kings’ reign during the time period, it is firstly necessary to elucidate what is meant by a ‘strong succession’ and a ‘strong reign’. The former symbolises an effective reconstruction of ideologies from the previous reigns, whilst ensuring that support from society was maintained, primarily from the barons, the Londoners and the Church. The latter suggests a stabile method of rule through the kingship, following on from a succession; but the influence of the former on the latter, sparks continuous debate between historians. Hence, it can be argued that perhaps the personality of the Kings may have had a much more influential factor in maintaining a strong reign throughout the Kingship.
Firstly, the suppression of the rebellions, and the complete annihilation of opposition were paramount if a King was to secure and maintain a successful reign. Perhaps the king that encountered the most rebellions was William the conqueror. This was inevitable as he was the first monarch to enter an unchartered England, as not only a foreigner, but also a foreigner that would be the new king of England. William firstly set the precedent for what became icons for other kings in time of initial succession. He sailed from Anjou, travelled straight to Winchester and laid claim to the treasury, within two weeks he was crowned publicly, thereafter is where William saw opposition to his kingship. It took nearly six years for William to consolidate his conquest; he changed the administrative system completely with the introduction of the feudal system, successfully employed by the French to run the country smoothly and effectively. Within the first year of his reign, William encountered extensive rebellions from the northern borders of England, those who still felt aggrieved to Harold, and disliked change. With this William hit down hard, destroying crops and killing all men who opposed, which even by medieval standards at the time, this was regarded as an exceptionally malicious act. However brutal though, its success repelled rebellion and lead to a form of conformity from the people, becoming a stepping-stone in Williams strong succession. In juxtaposition to William’s undoubted success, Stephen was in comparison poor at suppressing rebellions, despite a strong succession. His failure to deal with opposition is highlighted by his failure to eliminate Matilida, a key adversary to Stephen’s regime, when he allowed them free passage in 1939 to England. This sparked a downwards spiral for Stephen’s reign as it set of an unprecedented set of rebellions within the kingdom, ultimately leading to this reign being accurately labelled as an anarchy. This however, helps to consolidate the previous point about the kings’ personality being the primary factor in maintaining a strong reign, as if an intolerant approach of William I was adopted, Stephen may have been able to eliminate the possible threat and revert away from the anarchical reign that he inevitably created.
