Loyalty oaths are found throughout the Middle Ages. This act of fealty from one person to another was a political tool used to unite kingdoms and justify acts of hostility in 11th and 12th century England. It was used by all levels of society—both secular and ecclesial—and was an extremely important function in a time where written treaties were still scarce. When an oath was broken the security of a realm was often compromised as the opposing parties usually settled their politically justifiable differences through warfare. Twice in this time period, England is thrown into war over oaths in regards to the monarch’s successor. This first occurred in the 11th century when William the Conqueror invaded, and again in the 12th century civil war between Stephen and Matilda.
In 1066, at the Battle of Hastings, two opposing forces met each other in armed combat to decide the fate of the English crown. Both parties believed they were the rightful successor to Edward the Confessor, and they justified their position with oaths. This is illustrated in the communication described by William of Poitiers, between Harold and William the Conqueror before the confrontation took place. Harold’s representative declared that his lord was in the right because according to ancient English custom a deathbed oath is unchallengeable, and nullified the earlier pledges given to William by Edward and Harold. “It is therefore with justice that he bids you return with your followers to your own country.” William’s rebuttal reaffirms his right to inherit England and to claim the crown through force if need be. Edward and Harold gave an oath of loyalty, and now the latter had broken this promise. With neither side accepting the validity of the others oath the Battle of Hastings commenced. Rather the claims of these two powerful men were absolutely true is irrelevant. What matters is that they both used oaths as political justification for their actions to claim the English thrown.
Seventy years after the Norman invasion, England faces another succession crises after the death of Henry I. This time the contenders are Henry’s nephew Stephen of Bios, and his daughter Matilda. Before his death Henry I, “bound the nobles of all England, likewise the bishops and abbots, by the obligation of an oath that, if he himself died without a male heir, they would immediately and without hesitation accept his daughter Matilda, formerly Empress, as their lady.” Henry I sought to secure his successor by using the same political tool that William and Harold used before him—an oath. Those barons that would eventually side with Stephen defended their betrayal of Matilda by arguing against the validity of the original pledge. Roger, Bishop of Salisbury stated, “that he was released from the oath he had taken to the Empress because he had sworn only on condition that the king should not give his daughter in marriage to anyone outside the kingdom without consulting himself and the other chief men…” Matilda marrying Geoffrey of Anjou thus nullified the previous oath, and gave the opposing barons and bishops political justification for engaging in hostile actions.
This civil war—unlike the Norman invasion—witnessed fickle nobility flip-flopping between Stephen and Matilda. This suggests that the strength or legitimacy of an oath was very dependent on the individual giving homage, and the resources he/she had at their disposal. A powerful baron may break a pledge if he believes that he has enough military and/or political might to defend the conflict that is sure to follow. This is denoted in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for the year 1137, “They (barons and bishops) had done him (Stephen) homage, and sworn oaths, but they kept no pledge; all of them were perjured and their pledges nullified, for every powerful man built his castles and held them against him and they filled the country full of castles.” These rebellious barons could have been flexing their political muscle in hopes of a more prosperous position, or could have been defending Matilda whom they swore loyalty to in front of the previous king Henry I—or both. Despite their mysterious motives, these barons and bishops justified their actions—like the nobility of the previous century—politically with the circumstances surrounding the original oath dispute.
No comments:
Post a Comment