This year with many books and exhibitions we
remember the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.
That’s terrific, but however important the events of 1215 turned out to be, don’t imagine that they were only, or even the first time an English king had been wrestled to the conference table by his subjects.
That’s terrific, but however important the events of 1215 turned out to be, don’t imagine that they were only, or even the first time an English king had been wrestled to the conference table by his subjects.
We should perhaps have been celebrating two
years ago - and the anniversary would have been millennial. 1014 saw the penultimate
crisis in the disastrous reign of Aethelred the ‘Unready’ [978-1016]. Here's a beautiful gold coin of his, minted in 1003-1006.
He's wearing armour, as mediaeval kings often did! Aethelred's father was the great Edgar, whose prestige dominated the British isles and glowed
throughout Europe. But this ‘badly-advised’ [unraed
in old English, hence ‘unready’] monarch brought his Kingdom to destruction by
a mixture of willful politics and military failure. Assailed by renewed attacks
from Denmark, latterly led by the Danish king Swein Forkbeard, in the winter of
1013 Aethelred lost control of the country altogether, and was forced to seek
refuge with his brother-in-law Duke Richard of Normandy. As he clambered aboard
the longship which took him to Rouen, Aethelred may have thought the disaster
final. But suddenly, at the moment of triumph, Sweyn Forkbeard died. For the
English there was a last opportunity to restore the situation and they took it.
Sweyn’s Danish army and the mercenaries of the fleet were for enthroning his
young son Canute, but somehow, all pulling together, the English elite resisted
as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates:
‘The fleet all chose Canute for king;
whereupon advised all the counsellors of England, clergy and laity, that they
should send after King Aethelred; saying, that no sovereign was dearer to them
than their natural lord, if he would govern them better than he did
before. Then sent the king hither his
son Edward, with his messengers; who had orders to greet all his people, saying
that he would be their faithful lord – would better each of those things that
they disliked -- and that each of the things should be forgiven which had been
either done or said against him; provided they all unanimously, without
treachery, turned to him. Then was full
friendship established, in word and in deed and in compact, on either side. And
every Danish king they proclaimed an outlaw for ever from England . Then
came King Aethelred home, in Lent, to his own people; and he was gladly
received by them all.’
Here for the first time we can see that
conditions are being imposed on the king in return for the throne. The
situation must have been not unlike that at Runnymede, more than two hundred
years later. This was a king whose political and military failure had made him
vulnerable to demands from his subjects.
What those demands were we can gather from a
sermon preached at the time by Wulfstan, Archbishop of York which has become
famous as the Sermon of ‘the Wolf’ to the
English. It was probably given in the presence of King Aethelred and his
council, and it indicates the kind of issues that were exercising them: injustice,
excessive taxes and treason.
‘the rights of freemen are taken away and the
rights of slaves are restricted and charitable obligations are curtailed. Free
men may not keep their independence, nor go where they wish, nor deal with
their property just as they desire…
Nothing has prospered now for a long time
either at home or abroad, but there has been military devastation and hunger,
burning and bloodshed in nearly every district time and again… And excessive
taxes have afflicted us…’
Experts think that the wording of the
Chronicle is copied from a writ or document which Aethelred issued, which would
have detailed the agreement. Eleventh-century writs were letters sent by the
King to his governors in the shires, often specifically to be read out in the
Shire court; such writs always began with ‘The King greets his people…’ as in
the Chronicle. Usually the extent to which kings rely on the consent of the governed is concealed beneath the rhetoric of royal
power. Here, it's made public. In the context of the then unusual sophistication of the English monarchy, working as it did through
shire and hundred [district] assemblies, this is even more revealing. In
administering the shires, the king’s officials relied, as we have seen, on the
empanelment of juries, that is the participation of his subjects in their
government. It seems that both at this subordinate level and at the highest
reaches of politics, the English felt they had rights, that, as in the forests
of Germany
centuries before, sovereignty emanated, not just from above, from God, but also
to some extent from below, from the people.
Constitutional encounters of this kind
happened elsewhere in Europe at roughly this time, but what makes 1014 special
for us is that the agreement comes at the beginning of a continuing series of
such agreements which would govern the development of the English state down to
our own times. Four years later, after Canute had eventually defeated Aethelred’s
successor, he found himself making a similar agreement in Oxford, which he was
to reiterate in two celebrated ‘Letters to the English’ in 1019 and 1027. King
Edward the Confessor [the Edward in fact who crossed from Normandy to begin the negotiations in 1014]
inherited this set-up, indeed was to confirm it publicly in 1065. The way
he ruled was explicitly the basis of the regime of his Norman successors. That
was made clear in the Charter issued by Henry I at his Coronation in 1100,
which itself in turn became the basis of the restoration of order by Henry II
after the ‘anarchy’ of King Stephen’s reign. Henry I’s Coronation Charter was instrumental
in the negotiations before Magna Carta too. Thence, by way of Magna Carta itself, we reach Simon de Montfort, the ‘comune of
England’ and the beginnings of Parliament. There was nothing inevitable about
this, as there was nothing inevitable, indeed, about the survival of England as unified
kingdom, but the fact remains that English constitutional history descends in a
direct line, not unlike the monarchy itself, from those tense discussions in
the aftermath of Danish disaster.