Henry I

The English Monarchs

by C. Warren Hollister, Amanda Clark Frost

Henry I, son of William the Conqueror, ruled from 1100 to 1135, a time of fundamental change in the Anglo-Norman world. This long-awaited biography, written by one of the most distinguished medievalists of his generation, offers a major reassessment of Henry’s character and reign. Challenging the dark and dated portrait of the king as brutal, greedy, and repressive, it argues instead that Henry’s rule was based on reason and order.

C. Warren Hollister points out that Henry laid the foundations for judicial and financial institutions usually attributed to his grandson, Henry II. Royal government was centralized and systematized, leading to firm, stable, and peaceful rule for his subjects in both England and Normandy. By mid-reign Henry I was the most powerful king in Western Europe, and with astute diplomacy, an intelligence network, and strategic marriages of his children (legitimate and illegitimate), he was able to undermine the various coalitions mounted against him. Henry strove throughout his reign to solidify the Anglo-Norman dynasty, and his marriage linked the Normans to the Old English line.

Hollister vividly describes Henry’s life and reign, places them against the political background of the time, and provides analytical studies of the king and his magnates, the royal administration, and relations between king and church. The resulting volume is one that will be welcomed by students and general readers alike.

Genres: History, Biography, Medieval, Nonfiction, British Literature, Medieval History, European History

588 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

A specialist in medieval English history, Charles Warren Hollister graduated with honors from Harvard University in 1951 and received his Ph.D. from UCLA in 1958. He was one of the founding members of the University of California Santa Barbara history department, where he taught until his retirement in 1994.

Reviews

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Henry I
C. Warren Hollister
Read it Hard Back weighing in strong at 554 pages, appendix and bibliography at 499.

The stage is set, 1087AD, the great Conqueror William from Normandy is dead. To his three sons he would leave the oldest Robert with the family holdings of Normandy, Rufus, his second born son would be granted the lands of England thus splitting the empire William formed; while Henry would only be left with a pile of silver and gold with no place to lodge it.

"And what, Father, do you give me? The King answered him, "I give you five thousand pounds of silver from my treasure." To which Henry said, "What shall I do with treasure if I have no place to make my home?"

A landless rich noble in a time when holdings distinguished and empowered you above all else. His brothers immediately took war to one another while Henry desperately sold his inheritance to Robert for some modest holdings in Normandy that would then empower Henry to inevitably vault to one of the most lauded English monarchs of all time at the misfortune and ill management of his brothers rules. This is the story of Henry I, his early rise, difficulties, battles, political genius, and his interactions within his empire that would revolutionize kingship and bring a foundation of thirty years of peace to England, setting its course for the next three hundred years of interaction within the continent. A time when feudalism could no longer reward it's great magnates with new conquest and land holdings, Henry changed the dynamic and prospered despite great tragedies and the undermining of other great magnates and kings who continuously looked to wage war on his frontiers.

Hollister displays a very grand mastering of the sources and knowledge, and tells the story with relatively little self-opinions expressed, and when doing so makes sure to demonstrate other authors and sources with disagreeing points of view giving the reader a full and distinguished picture. In addition, Hollister does a fantastic job on shedding light on the magnets that comprised Henry's court and some of his greatest adversaries, further empowering the reader to understand the very complicated political tapestry of the 1100 and 1200's through Henry I's reign. While the original work was destroyed in a fire, Hollister was forced to re-write the entirety of the book, in which he died before its completion. Amanda Clark Frost finishes up the last couple chapters for Hollister so that it could be published posthumously in his honor.

It's gripping, exciting, interesting, and very well executed. Highly recommended for anyone looking for a more detailed depiction of Henry I's reign. While I certainly wouldn't tell just anyone to start with this (I would recommend Dan Jones 'The Plantagenents' first), this is invaluable to understanding the interactions of the great magnates of 1050-1130 Normandy and England.

[Gerry · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was quite fascinating with all the events that led up to and within the Reign of King Henry I throne of England and Normandy. Like so many great books, great or very good authors have a story in the backdrop – C. Warren Hollister is one of those authors (sort of reminds me of Dr. Bernard B. Fall.) This book was originally completed in 1991; however, a major Southern California forest fire led to a portion of the campus of the University of California – Santa Barbara (UCSB) ruined, one of the casualties in this fire was the complete work of Hollister. At the time of the fire, it was housed on floppy disks, documents organized, and work completed along with multitudes of research compiled over many years. He was determined to recreate this work and in fact kept to his promise. Prior to completing the last 2 or 3 chapters of the recreated effort, Mr. Hollister passed away suddenly – enter Amanda Clark Frost. Her professional efforts completed the book a few years after the death of Hollister, the book is dedicated to C. Warren Hollister’s surviving wife. It is a masterpiece in every sense of the word.

I began this book by reading the Appendix – the first time I opened it, the appendix flipped open – for this book I am glad it had. The editors’ comment had focused on some criticism previously posted by Author/Historian Dr. David Bates (I read his work of the Monarch Series – Yale University Press – William the Conqueror), in a manner of speaking it revealed what I came away with on my previous read. The Foreword to this book and Editor’s Preface were both highly valuable in not only on this book, but the Author himself and his untimely death.

The first chapter clearly set the tone for this book, as is normally the case the first chapter of any Historical work can make or break the book in its entirety. “Setting and Sources” was the title of Chapter 1, as a student of History and Military History I was most grateful in this attempt to assist myself as reader for the pages that would follow. King Henry I was the youngest son of William the Conqueror, Robert Curthose, Richard and William Rufus were his older brothers – there were sisters older than Henry and not much is written on them other than who they later married or the abbeys they later joined. Henry was the one who seems to have had least flaws that would negatively impact the throne in an overarching sense of the time. Henry I was the father to no less than 20 “known” bastard children; one illegitimate son would join him in his Royal Court, while one daughter Juliana would pay a price with her two daughters and later attempt to kill her Father. Juliana would later repent to her Father, but after one reads what happened to her daughters it is no wonder she made the attempt that she had upon the Kings life. The year following her father’s death, Juliana would spend her days in an abbey as a Nun. Eustace would pass on in 1136.

There were in effect two events that occurred that I had hoped would have been better covered within this work. The first as mentioned above was Juliana and her husband Comte Eustice and their daughters, the other was the White Ship accident of 25 November 1120 in which Henry’s only legitimate son was killed (William Adelin.) The White Ship (so named as it was the first ship literally painted and in white by the ship builder Thomas fitz Stephen specifically for King Henry I) took the lives of all the passengers except for a butcher who was aboard the boat attempting to gain payment that was due on meat that previously prepared and provided for Royal Court visits. The White Ship has been (in modern times) compared to the catastrophe that occurred with the Titanic in 1912. It is better understood to have been a much worse event than the Titanic catastrophe – consider for a moment that there were survivors from the Titanic, on the White Ship there was one survivor – the butcher Burold from Rouen. Burold had clung to a spar during the night to survive where he was then able to make it back to shore. The White Ship passengers were the ruling class of their era to include the sole heir to the throne of King Henry I; Titanic had many of the Baron Class along with the many decent third-class passengers who had no hope of rescue. The day following the catastrophe Burold was brought across the Channel – Burold had heard William Adelin’s cousin calling for him as he was attempting to escape the crash area, his cousin pulled him under when he returned to save her – Burold was able to hear the event as it occurred, and this story has survived a near millennium. Whether this fact was provided to King Henry I the next day is unknown – when Burold was brought to the Court to inform King Henry, he refused as he was too scared – everyone else in the Royal Court was also too scared. In comes a 6-year-old boy who is then recruited to tell King Henry of the horrific accident of the night before. The script the boy memorized was appropriate for a 6-year-old, it lacked most if not all the above detail. The really odd thing I find in all of this is that King Henry used his own ship to cross the English Channel – he declined the new boat but allowed his son to race him back home, even more strange was the fact that Henry had departed at least 45 minutes ahead of William and the White Ship. Stephen, also the cousin to William Adelin, would become the next King after Henry’s death with a score of years fight with Matilda and Geoffrey of Anjou for the throne. Stephen had left the decks of the White Ship before it departed as history and Stephen’s account is that he had a bad case of diarrhea.

In an organizational sense, King Henry had the same skill sets of his Father. King William I had the Domesday Book (1086 AD) created, King Henry created the Exchequer (1111 AD) and the Pipe Roll (1130 AD); reading of the Domesday Book and the ensuing meetings that followed within the time were simply astounding – King Henry I, like his Father King William I took nothing for granted. His reign was essentially free from major conflicts from 1101 until his death in 1135. This historical biography was a terrific read and quite often was difficult to put down – I wanted the book to continue and I enjoyed taking the slow read on the life of a great King. I have only begun the surface of this History and have now many sources for long reading going forward – this is an amazing journey; however, it is after all History, a place where we all belong and once existed.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not as good as Judith Green's biography of HI, but a good solid reference work when it doesn't stray into personal opinion.

[Julie Yates · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative in an easily accessible writing style. Manages to make the minutiae of court church politics interesting. I’m not sure I agree with all of his opinions (IE: Rufus was cruel and disliked, Curthose was incompetent, Stephen of Blois was incompetent etc.) It’s clear Hollister thinks highly of King Henry, but his continual throwaway comments about the unsuitability of his adversaries leads me to think less of Henry, rather than more highly. (Also this is my first attempt at importing my Kindle highlights and I have too many "characters.")

The great victim of the treaty was of course Henry. It was clearly with the aim of seizing Henry's countship that Curthose obtained Rufus' pledge to help restore ducal power throughout Normandy except in lands ceded to the king. In recompense for this service Rufus was to receive, as a kind of commission, Henry's town of Cherbourg and abbey of Mont-Saint-Michel. As a final touch, the treaty disinherited Henry so long as either of his brothers should live.

Perhaps surprisingly, the most powerful of all Henry's friends was William Rufus, whom Robert of Torigny describes as giving his “consent” to Henry's reestablishing himself in western Normandy. Rufus' break with Robert Curthose at the 1091 Christmas court, together with the growth of Henry's strength at Domfront, activated a diplomatic revolution in which Rufus now aligned himself with Henry against Curthose. Since Henry was already

waging war against the duke and Rufus was determined once again to conquer all of Normandy, the interests of the two younger brothers coalesced. To Rufus, the count of the Cotentin could be an even more valuable client than the count of Eu. We know that by early 1095 Rufus was providing Henry with generous financial backing for his campaign against Curthose, and it is possible that some such backing had been flowing into Domfront at an earlier date as an accompaniment to the king's “consent.”270 Thenceforth, for the remainder of William Rufus' life he and his younger brother remained staunch allies.

In the absence of firm ducal authority the peace of Normandy was shattered by feuds and private warfare, and Curthose, “distressed at the sight of such misery and fearing still worse to come since almost everyone had abandoned him, resolved on the advice of certain men of religion to
relinquish the governance of the duchy to his brother” and take up the Cross.307 Needing money as usual, Curthose arranged, through the intervention of the papal envoy Jarento abbot of Saint-Bénigne, Dijon, to make peace with Rufus and to grant him Normandy in pawn for ten thousand marks of silver.

Henry's claim on the kingship of England cannot be regarded as a “usurpation.” The Conqueror's eldest son, Robert Curthose, had already been passed over once for the royal succession, at his father's command. It has been alleged that the succession had been decided by a formal agreement between Curthose and Rufus in 1091, but this is incorrect. In the words of the AngloSaxon chronicler, the agreement of 1091 “lasted only a little while”; Curthose repudiated it at Christmas 1093 and it is not known to have been renewed.12 Henry justified his claim to the throne, in part, by the theory of “porphyrogeniture,” the right of having been the only one of the Conqueror's sons to have been born of a reigning king and queen—born “in the purple.”

"I restore to you,” Henry wrote, “the law of King Edward.” This was doubtless the fundamental principle underlying the coronation charter, just as the idea of continuity with the Anglo-Saxon royal line and the Anglo-Saxon past was a major theme of Henry's reign. There was of course, literally speaking, no “law of King Edward.” Unlike a number of his Old English predecessors, Edward the Confessor issued no dooms. But as is made clear in legal treatises written during Henry I's reign—the Quadripartitus and the Leges Henrici Primi—the “law of King Edward” was taken to summarize the entire Anglo-Saxon past; it constituted the totality of earlier Anglo-Saxon laws that remained in effect during Edward's reign.

The chief motivation for the marriage, however, was Matilda's Anglo-Saxon lineage. It could be argued that Henry was deliberately seeking to legitimize his dynasty by choosing a wife whose offspring would carry the blood of the Old English royal line, and such an argument has much to commend it. Henry may not, however, have been quite so calculating. It may simply have been natural for a king whose coronation charter placed such heavy emphasis on perpetuating the laws of Edward the Confessor to marry an Anglo-Saxon princess, joining Edward's lineage to his own. Henry's offspring would thus become members of the Anglo-Saxon royal line, and Henry himself would in some sense become an Anglo-Saxon king.

Curthose clearly had every intention of challenging Henry's rule of England, and he could count on the support of not only Robert of Bellême and William of Warenne but most of the other Anglo- Norman magnates as well. All were homage-bound to Curthose, and most of them would have preferred the loose, happy-go-lucky governance of the Conqueror's eldest son to the keenly intelligent, centralizing policies of Henry I and the Beaumonts.

to the threatened war, Henry and his entourage traversed the fifteen miles from Alton to Winchester, arriving by 31 July. There, on 2 August—the first anniversary of William Rufus' death—the treaty was solemnly ratified by the oaths of twelve leading men from each side.146 Traditionally known to historians as the “treaty of Alton,” it might more accurately be identified as the “treaty of Winchester.” But whatever one calls it, the agreement was a turning point in Henry's reign and a key to the long peace that afterward prevailed in England.

The distribution of bribes to win over potential Norman supporters was of course not a novel policy, but Henry—who distributed not only gold and silver but lands, heiresses, and bastard daughters as well—courted the Norman nobility with unprecedented finesse.

Moreover, Henry accompanied his enticements with a barrage of propaganda, the major theme of which was that he came to restore peace to strife-ridden Normandy. This theme was all the more effective because it was essentially true—as witnessed by an abundance of fleeing peasants, crops, laid waste, endemic lawlessness, refugee prelates such as Serlo and Ralph of Sées, and churches burned down or converted into fortresses (for example, Tournay near Sées and Saint- Pierre sur Dives). Orderic is clearly reflecting both royal propaganda and vexatious fact when he dwells on the anarchy that afflicted Normandy at this time. Henry, like Rufus before him, assumed the role of savior of the Normans and their Church from the pillaging of evil men permitted by Curthose's incompetence.134

It has been said that Henry made the greatest mistake of his career in not placing the child in strict confinement then and there. But the deadly threats to Henry's rule that would be advanced in Clito's behalf in later years by the king of France and the counts of Flanders and Anjou were not yet discernible.

Henry ill fit the eleventh-century Norman image of the all-conquering warrior. He disliked war, and having reunited his father's Anglo-Norman realm, he seems to have had no further territorial ambitions. … Peace he loved, and peace he kept, perhaps more effectively than any previous prince in the annals of Western Christendom. It is well known that during all but the first two years of his thirty- five-year rule of England the kingdom was at peace. It has been less well appreciated that after 1106 Henry was also remarkably successful in keeping the peace in Normandy, where twenty- seven of his twenty-nine years were virtually free of domestic turmoil.9 Notwithstanding successive international conspiracies in favor of William Clito, Normandy suffered warfare within its boundaries on only two occasions during Henry's reign.

Back at the time of his victory at Tinchebray in 1106, Henry had displayed an abundance of confidence. He released most of his captives and took pity on his three-year-old nephew William Clito by placing him under the protection of Helias of Saint-Saens, Curthose's devoted follower, whose chief castle was dangerously close to Normandy's north-eastern frontier. It would have been difficult for Henry to foresee in 1106 the great shifts in European political history that lay just ahead: the surge of French royal authority that commenced in 1108 or the parallel surge that followed Fulk V's succession to Anjou in the following year.

Indeed, several of the military and diplomatic confrontations between Henry and Louis during the seventeen years between 1111 and 1128 were affected dramatically by the strange coincidence that four successive counts of Flanders—Robert II, Baldwin VII, Charles the Good, and William Clito—suffered violent and premature deaths.

His territorial ambitions never extended beyond the restoration of his father's dominions; his prime goals were peace with his neighbors and the curbing of violence within the Anglo- Norman world. Through astute diplomacy, a precocious intelligence system, and an abundance of marriageable bastard daughters, he had quelled the threats of France and Anjou while shielding Normandy and its people from the horrors of warfare with its attendant scorched-earth tactics. But France and Anjou were only momentarily placated:

Henry now faced coordinated attacks from Louis VI (whose treaty of friendship proved short- lived), Fulk V of Anjou, and the young Baldwin VII count of Flanders (who is not reported to have settled with Henry in 1113). The three princes forged a coalition in behalf of William Clito, and their combined assaults against Normandy in 1118–1119, along with defections by some of his own Norman barons, constituted the most formidable military challenge that Henry was ever to encounter.

The expulsion of the Montgomerys had brought both Shropshire (from Robert of Bellême) and the earldom of Pembroke (from Arnulf of Montgomery) into the king's fold, and Henry proceeded to integrate both regions into his kingdomwide administrative system. Extensive areas of major Norman penetration in south Wales, much of which had been conquered and colonized under the first two Williams, now passed into the control of Henry or his greater and lesser barons.

He also sent envoys to the French royal court, offering a large sum of money in return for Louis' conceding Normandy to William Adelin and receiving William's “profession” (professio) for the duchy.21 Louis, who was by no means immune to the influence of silver,22 was on the point of agreeing to the proposal but was dissuaded by William II count of Nevers.23 Thus, instead of accepting William Adelin's submission, King Louis gave his full support to William Clito,24 thereby rejecting the legitimacy of Henry's authority and instigating a war that would disrupt Normandy and France for the next several years. The

It was a compromise characteristic of Henry's astute diplomacy: without humbling himself by rendering homage personally, he would place Louis under the moral obligation of a good lord to reject Clito's pretensions and accept the legitimacy of Henry's rule and the succession rights of his son and heir.

Henry, in urging that his son render homage in his place, was proposing an essentially novel approach to the restructuring of Normandy's feudal relationship with France. It was an arrangement that Louis VI would eventually accept, but only after more than four years of warfare.

The war began in earnest following the deaths of three of the most eminent persons in Henry's realm: William count of Evreux on 18 April 1118, Queen Matilda on 1 May, and Robert count of Meulan on 5 June (Robert may have retired in 1116/1117 to his family monastery of Saint-Leger, Préaux). “After these persons had died,” Orderic laments, “great trials began for the Normans.”58 The effectiveness of Henry I's governance was seriously damaged by the loss of his capable wife, who had served effectively and devotedly as his English regent, and of Robert of Meulan, his sagacious adviser, who had contributed significantly, so contemporaries stated, to the political and diplomatic acumen of Henry's regime. William count of Evreux, however, was neither devoted nor sagacious, but his death precipitated a crisis in Normandy by permitting his county of Evreux to pass to his nephew, Henry's premier enemy, Amaury III de Montfort. Amaury,

Had he [William Citro] chosen to become an Anglo-Norman earl and courtier, the loss of the royal son and heir a year thereafter might well have deflected the succession to him—unless, of course, he had chosen to board the White Ship himself. But even in the best of circumstances, it would have been painful for Henry to offer the succession to the person against whose claims he had struggled so long. And there was always the hazard that, in theory at least, recognizing Clito's right to succeed might have cast doubt on Henry's right to rule. If Clito were the rightful heir, why should he not be the rightful king?

With the approach of peace, it is useful to look back on the preceding years of warfare and draw what conclusions one can. First, the fact that William Clito remained alive and at large gave Henry's enemies, both internal and external, the unique advantage of a plausible rival to support. Second, during these times of crisis, bonds of fealty proved surprisingly fragile as former oath- bound fideles—William Crispin, Eustace of Breteuil, Hugh of Gournay, Robert of Neubourg, Amaury de Montfort—changed loyalties in accordance with their personal advantages and impulses.

Third, the geographical patterns of rebellion within Normandy leave no doubt that domestic uprisings were tightly linked to and made possible by the hostilities of external principalities; thus, the northeastern Norman rebellions ceased when Flanders withdrew, those of southern Normandy died out when Henry reached an accommodation with Anjou, and the cessation of French attacks ended hostilities among rebellious barons in the east. Finally, the months of invasion and rebellion make amply clear the ghastly consequences of medieval warfare (burned fields, villages, and cities, kidnapped or murdered peasant families) and show with even greater clarity the reasons why the majority of Henry I's subjects appreciated so deeply the peace that he maintained throughout most of the years of his reign. The wars of 1118–1119 seriously afflicted only the outer reaches of Normandy and for only about fifteen months.

The most striking aspect of the peace of 1120 is that Henry had managed to win the full benefit of Louis VI's lordship while eluding the responsibility and embarrassment of personal vassalage.


Henry was, as the Welsh chronicler declared, “the man against whom no one could prevail except God himself,” it could perhaps be concluded that God, in a singularly cruel and capricious mood, had prevailed indeed.

various ways the calamity of the White Ship cast its shadow into the future. Much of Henry I's political activity during the years that followed was shaped, directly or indirectly, by that single disaster. The death of William Adelin made it vital that the king remarry and produce another son. For as matters now stood, William Clito was the most plausible heir to Henry's throne, and Henry had fought long and determinedly to thwart his succession.

Like the wars of 1118–1119, the rebellion of 1123–1124 was orchestrated by Amaury de Montfort.

The battle of Rougemontier, or Bourgthéroulde as it is usually called, cannot have lasted for more than half an hour, and it entailed no clashes of arms in the traditional sense. Yet it marked a decisive end to the rebellion of 1123–1124, and even though Henry I was not present, it can properly be regarded as his last battle. For the final dozen years of his reign, as Robert of Torigny observed, “the duchy of Normandy and the kingdom of England were completely at peace.”

With respect to Anjou, Henry began working with the papacy to obtain an annulment of the marriage between Sibyl of Anjou and William Clito.

Indeed, the Church usually tolerated such marriages unless someone objected strongly to them. Henry did indeed object and accompanied his objection with a flood of money into the papal treasury; Whatever means, Henry won over the papal legate Gérard bishop of Angoulême, who issued an official condemnation of the marriage.

the case of Maud, however, a single great court sufficed: it met at Windsor at Christmas 1126 and adjourned to Westminster a few days later, where the oaths were taken. The courtiers swore to uphold the succession not only of Maud but also of her legitimate son, if she should have one. In short, Henry's great men committed themselves to the rule of the future Henry II some six years before his birth.

But since the future of the Anglo-Norman monarchy was at issue, the decision in favor of Maud was not made rashly. John of Worcester states that before making his choice Henry had taken counsel with his great men, and William of Malmesbury adds that he arrived at his decision “after deliberating long and deeply.”112 On the nature of these deliberations contemporary writers are silent; they disclose neither what alternatives if any to Maud's succession were considered, nor what advice the king received, nor from whom. But buried in the sources are certain clues that point to a clash of opinion at the court of 1126—a dispute between Maud's friends and opponents which divided Henry's curiales and dimly foreshadowed the savage political factions of the next reign.

Contemporary writers speak not a word about his candidacy until after Henry I's death, but it may perhaps be significant that in 1125, by Henry's arrangement, he was wed to Matilda of Boulogne, daughter and heiress of Count Eustace III.114 Matilda of Boulogne's mother, Mary of Scotland, was the sister of the late Queen Matilda, Henry's first wife, and like her a descendant of Alfred the Great and Edmund Ironside. Stephen's children would thus graft the Norman and Anglo-Saxon royal branches no less truly than the children of Henry I and Queen Matilda. Henry cannot have been unaware of this fact. At the time that he was arranging the marriage (probably 1124 or 1125) the empress Maud was still reigning in Germany and unavailable. Until she was widowed in late May 1125, Henry may have taken Stephen's candidacy seriously.

[Jeremy Perron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Warren Hollister's Henry I was published posthumously. The work was completed and edited by Amanda Clark Frost. The book is a great legacy for not only the life and career of the subject but for the author as well. Hollister tells the story a young prince, who as his father's youngest son was not going to be expected to be a king himself, but ended up as one of the most powerful rulers in Western Christendom.

The story of Henry I begins a few years after his father's conquest of England. As the youngest son of the Conqueror, it is unlikely that he will ever rule anything since his three older brothers will come first. Even after the death of the second oldest and the almost disinheritance of the oldest*, young Henry was only left with a small sum of money and no land. However after the accidental death** of his closest brother, King William II, Henry lays claim to the crown of England. Up to this point, he had lived his life as either the King's son or the King's brother, now he was the King himself.

Known as the King who created the Exchequer, Hollister describes King Henry I to be an administrative wonder. As king, Henry would issue multiple laws and actually took the time to have them widely published. More interested in governing his kingdom and duchy than waging war, Henry's reign would leave a legacy of peace. In one exciting adventure he did manage to wrest Normandy from his disinherited older brother Duke Robert. They fought in the battle of Tinchebray, a conflict that lasted only an hour compared to the battle of Hastings forty years earlier. (Interestingly, the battle of Tinchebray literally reversed the battle of Hastings for this time the King of England conquered the Duke of Normandy.)

Hollister goes into great detail discussing the various aspects of the reign of King Henry I. One the most important problems that King Henry faced were his struggles against the Church over the King's rights vs. the Church's rights. His struggles with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Anslem, a feud which would echo another two generations later but with far less deadly results. In this case the King in the Archbishop were able to work out a compromise that both could live with. Their successors would not be so lucky.

I do have some technical quibbles with the book. Hollister refers to King Henry's first wife as Queen Matilda II, in order to avoid confusion with Henry I's mother who was also Queen Matilda. The problem is it is wrong. Queens consort do not receive numbers, only queens regina do. For example the modern Queen of Great Britain is Queen Elizabeth II not Queen Elizabeth V.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who would like to know more about England in the 12th century or about the life of one of its better monarchs. Hollister was a very good writer and it is sad that he is no longer with us.

*Robert was able to inherit Normandy but denied England.

**And it does appear to have been accidental.

[Best British Biographies]

One of the distinguishing features of the Yale English Monarchs series has been the editors’ commitment to getting the most renowned experts on the respective kings and queens of England to write biographies about them. The result has been works of high scholarly distinction which reflect some of the latest thinking about not just their subjects but the times in which they lived. The books themselves may not necessarily be the “best” biographies available about that particular monarch, but they all reflect the highest possible standard of scholarship and set a formidable bar for students going forward.

For the rest of my review, click on the link:

https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2022/...

[Duane Donecker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely enjoyed this book, although it is not meant for the average reader of history, or for those who love the exciting evolutions which occur in history, don't get me wrong this book has that and more, but it also goes into depth in the more mundane aspects of peoples lives such as record keeping in such matters as which noblemen provided ships, knights and infantry which I happen to find quite interesting. Personally I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of Europe and the monarchy but just be prepared for what some people may considered dry.

[Melisende · Rating 4 out of 5]

Along with Green's biography, another solid tome on Henry I.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Yale English Monarchs is a mammoth series, attempting to covering every single King (And Queen of England). While the series is not yet complete, going up to George IV (ruled 1820 -1830) and missing some monarchs out in the years between Wiliam the Conqueror and George IV, what has been published is some of the finest works on the monarchs of England out there. This book looks at the third Anglo - Norman King, Henry I, the youngest son of William the Conqueror.

The book starts off with the author looking at the various available sources to us and giving us background information on the main chroniclers of Henry's reign. We then look at some of the institutions that were in lace and some of the things that the Conqueror put into place. The book then follows a standard chronological look at Henry's life, debunking some of the myths that have grown up around him (for example the myths surrounding his education. While more educated then most, indeed, he was one of the first kings of England with the ability to read and write, his level of scholarship was not as high as others have made out).

We follow Henry from childhood, (where unfortunately there is very little information about) to his time in Normandy after his father's death, where his power grew under his lethargic brother Robert, Duke of Normandy, his exile from Normandy when his two brothers united against him for very little reason, his return to Normandy, reconciliation with his brother William King of England, his surprise ascension to the throne of England with the accidental death of William. We then have the conflict with his brother Robert, who had been on the first Crusade, but returned to challenge Henry's claim to the throne. Once that crisis had been dealt with, the rest of the reign is one of consolidation and improvement of royal power and government, and then the attempt to secure the throne for his daughter, when his son died in a tragic accident. (which was ultimately unsuccessful)

This is a well written book, well researched, with plenty of footnotes. it can be a littel difficult to read occassionally, but all in all, a good book about one of the greatest kings of England.

[Simon Bradley · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very comprehensive if perhaps overly long biography. A 100 page chapter on his relations with the church could have been cut in half and perhaps replaced with more information on the wider European scene fot those of us who need to brish up on our C12 european politics! That said author does a very good job of explaining why this monarch is important and so many things he started are still around in the UK today.

[Les Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very disappointed, I read the book to learn something of Henry; but the book is really only about monasteries and how much of his subjects money he gave to them. Nothing in it to make me believe he was a good King to his people.

[G. Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not a short tome by any means, and at times dull, but mostly, mainly interesting. Would not call it riveting, but a steady, solid history book

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finally finished!

[Anne Cupero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best of my Yale English Monarch series so far, maybe it was because I just liked this guy, but the most readable and of course, well-researched.

[s r hillary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amidst read

An excellent in-depth study of Henry's life, his political acumen, piety. He governed using will power and the carrot and the stick with great success.

[Tudor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Henry'nin ailə üzvləri ilə münasibətlərinə də geniş yer verilsəydi yaxşı olardı, bunun xaricində çox əhatəli və professional şəkildə yazılıb.

[James Spurgeon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Henry I, the youngest son of William the Conqueror, was set to inherit basically nothing. His two eldest brothers Robert Curthose and William Rufus inherited Normandy and England respectfully. William Rufus died while Robert Curthose was on Crusade, so Henry slid in to take the reigns. Eventually, he would take Normandy from Robert Curthose to reunite the empire of his father. He did not seek any additional lands to expand upon it, just it's unification.

He was a man of peace, not war. He brought stability to England that would last throughout his reign after a couple of shaky years. In Normandy, he would bring that same stability though it would be interrupted by a few rebellions that were brought about by outside interference.

He reformed and centralized government. He was extremely charitable to churches, abbeys, etc. He even founded the cathedral in Reading, where he would request to be buried. And he could be quite forgiving even against those who rebelled against him (such as William of Warrenne). Though he was not afraid to punish those that crossed him. He even made peace with the Scots and did not attempt conquering them... a long standing peace that none of his descendants could attain.

Henry I was an effective ruler. Something that neither of his older brothers were. If it hadn't been for him, both England and Normandy probably would have succumbed to rebellions and anarchy.

[Glyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

An astonishing piece of scholarship that brings one of England's greatest yet least known Kings to the forefront.

Warren Hollister displays a complete grasp and understanding of the sources as he demonstrates that Henry was a careful politician and surprisisingly merciful to enemies whose continued betrayal and bad faith would drive most monarchs to brutal acts. A comparison between him and his grandson Henry II is implicit in that he never had a ranting "Will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest>" moment Hollister is eager to disassociate Henry from the reputation that he has gained in some quartets for authoritarian brutality though he admits that he was not totally beyond acts of cold blooded pragmatism or occasional brutality.

Due to lack of sources he is unable to really dismiss claims about his judicial system and the way it dealt with the common people. It is clear that his mercy was aimed mainly at those of the upper societal tiers who affected him or posed a threat to him.

[Duncan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wanted to read about Henry I after he was referenced in a book about King John. I was expecting to read about a brutal king but what I found was a brilliant leader. C Warren Hollister makes a convincing and well researched study that leads me to think that Henry I was one of England's greatest monarchs. such a contrast to John who mismanaged just about every element of leadership. part of what they refer to the 12th century renaissance, Henry prefers to battle in the council chamber rather than on the battlefield. a shrewd leader who is able to offer compromise but can also threaten those that choose to undermine the kingdom (but with mutilation rather than death). some may find chapters 8-10 a little too dry and academic so if you struggle if recommend keeping to the final chapter to finish the story of Henry's life without going into too much minutia. highly highly recommended

[Sean Brennan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This lifetime project which Hollister never saw printed is quite simply a masterpiece!

[Simon Farrow · Rating 5 out of 5]

An almost perfect historian biography of the greatest king England has ever had.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

My favorite historical biography of all time. C. Warren Hollister is a historian who I judge all others by.

[Lezley · Rating 2 out of 5]

A tough slog.Lots of facts but lacks the personal touch.

[Samantha Glasser]

I am a descendant of Henry I through his illegitimate son Robert of Gloucester.

[Paul Parkinson]

Really hard to read. It is essentially a text book and extremely detailed. When he states something, he mentions several other authors (modern and ancient) and their take. Interesting guy (first truly educated monarch). I've renewed it too many times so I have to take it back. But as my direct ancestor, I want to know more about him.

So I'm not putting in tried but couldn't slot.