monarchy had more influence on a national level in the community’s

 monarchy had more influence on a national level in the community’s

The feudal system was brought into England by William the Conqueror, Barlow says that “This thorough feudalisation of England increased the actual and the potential power of the monarchy” [1] Wickson however states that “the Norman conquest saw a wholesale of landownership and among the beneficiaries were the great churchmen”[2] It can be argued that the monarchy became more wealthy and powerful due to the development of the exchequer, which allowed taxes to be monitored  and could “maintain pressure on those who owed them”[3] The church’s tithe system also took money off people as a form of tax, however the money and produce taken from the church may have been seen by communities to be better spent. Arnold says “In contrast to the occasional royal tax spent on foreign wars tithing provided a local service immediately visible and accessible to all”[4] This shows that although the monarchy had more influence on a national level in the community’s,  people may have actually “not much resented”[5] the transaction of giving tithes.[6]

The monarchy can be seen as greedy in pursue of wealth, which may have led to the downfall of King John. “Posts within the royal administration were sought after by the ambitious because this was an avenue to status and wealth in the highest reaches of the English church”[7] During Stephen’s reign “Of the nineteen bishops appointed… only one was a royal clerk”[8] This shows that the church was being used for its money, those of royal status became bishops for the attraction of the money and not their devotion to God. This indicates that the monarchy may have power over the church as money and land was getting transferred to the king. Henry  1^st “was guilty… of exploiting the churches which came under his control”. “He took profits from Canterbury”[9] For all the exploitation that can be seen Henry  1^st didn’t just exploit the workers of England. Wickson says “He was known to have made gifts to hermits, the weak and the poor, even societies outcasts”[10] On the whole however as Arnold says “even among the higher echelons of the village-provided very little surplus in most years, and many would be impoverished when harvests failed”.[11]

Military campaigns brought more and more revenue into the monarchy. “In 1188 another crusading tax on income was raised, the so-called saladin tithe”[12] and “In 1204 and 1205 Scutages were raised to meet the cost of military campaigns which never took place: John was simply abusing the system”[13] The influence of carucage can be seen to frustrate the clergy and Bishops under Richard 1^st who refused to pay it. The Cistercian monasteries under King John’s reign also refused to pay and the Cistercians were exempt from the taxation. This proves that the more taxes imposed by Kings the more resistance there was, the first barons war is a factor in what ultimately took away King Johns credibility and made him surrender his power to the people.

The creation of feudalisation did provide wealth for the monarchy as Wickson points out it “increased the actual and potential power of the monarchy” however it can be seen that the Kings over this period abused the taxation system and abused the wealth that could be generated. When taxes were taken for the benefit of the church it was more accepted than land taxes or carucages and although Kings thought that the church were easy pickings for wealth, eventually the generation of taxes left King Richard and King John unpopular, diminishing their power.

[1] Barlow, pg 88

[2] Wickson, pg 6

[3] Huscroft, pg 96

[4] Arnold pg 111

[5] Arnold, pg 111

[6] Arnold, pg 111

[7] Huscroft, pg 120

[8] Huscroft, pg 120

[9] Huscroft, pg 94

[10] Wickson, pg 26

[11] Arnold, pg 110

[12] Huscroft, pg 162

[13] Huscroft, pg 163