Conqueror's Son: Duke Robert Curthose, Thwarted King

by Katherine Lack

This study redresses the balance of opinion on Robert Curthose. There is no doubt that Robert was rebellious, but the fact remains that the throne of England was meant to pass to him on the death of William the Conqueror. William Rufus and Henry I were thus usurpers, which casts a new light on English history. Had Robert succeeded, the Church would have been spared the depredations of Rufus's reign and there would have been better relations with Scotland. The key elements of later history would also have been changed for the better.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Historical, British Literature, Biography

266 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 1, 2008

About the author

Katherine Lack (1958-2021) held doctorates in Agricultural Science (Oxford) and Social HIstory (Birmingham), and worked as a freelance researcher in Herefordshire.

Reviews

[Julie Yates · Rating 4 out of 5]

Henry 's genius, if it can be called that, was that he had the driving ambition and relentless determination to achieve his political aims. Robert Curthose’s failing, if such it was, was that he lacked the ruthlessness to subordinate solemn agreements to the pursuit of worldly goals.”

My first book on Duke Robert of Normandy so I am not sure how to rate it. May downgrade later. Definitely not higher than a 4. Lack attempts to make 4 main points:

1. William the Conqueror wanted eldest son Robert to inherit the entire kingdom of England and Normandy. She is relatively persuasive in this, pointing out that Robert is always mentioned in charters ahead of his brothers, even at the end of WtC when they supposedly would have been fighting (which she makes a secondary case the fighting has been exaggerated.)

But the charters from the last years of the reign give no indication that Rufus might have been in any way supplanting Robert: the order of attestations remains according to age and Rufus is never given any title other than “count”. Indeed, he is styled count on only 3 extent charters that could date from the last years of the rain and in the last 2 he has No title at all. For all the writers of these documents, then, Rufus was not a man who was accorded particular respect beyond that due to the son of a king.

2. Normandy was not “poorly” run under Duke Robert, and he was well liked by his subjects. The belief he needed to be removed from power is post-Henry propaganda.

As with so many other moments of his life, a close analysis of the sources for Curthose’s actions shows that it was only after his cause was publicly lost that a negative twist is introduced, although his natural good nature and the lack of thrusting ambition of many of his contemporaries cannot be denied.
and
During Henry’s reign, there as an unprecedented flowering of historical writing, and since history is generally written by the victors, the story that is told is not kind to the defeated duke.

3. Robert came home triumphant from the first crusade and was honored as a solider for Christ. [These chapters drag a bit for me as someone who is not interested in the Crusades.] He in integral part of the success and an excellent leader. He should be remembered for this, but instead his actions have been mainly wiped out.

4. Rufus was dishonesty but youngest brother Henry was a ruthless, ambitions schemer who just may have committed murder. In addition Robert, while a decent leader, he seemed lacked the cut throat ambition of his brothers. He honored his treaties; he was unwilling to sin; and he tended to give people 2nd chances. All of this potentially made him a decent guy, but kept him from being the King of England.

for Henry however the news of his oldest brother survival and imminent return was surely a devastating blow. There is nothing in the evidence of his later years to suggest that he was content with his subordinate role, and with Rufus still unmarried after 13 years on the throne one must assume that Henry had become accustomed to the idea that he would in due course succeed not only to England but to Normandy as well … now however came tidings that Curthose was not only on his way home, but at the age of 50 was unexpectedly bringing a bride with him. Suddenly Henry 's place in the royal family had changed radically and not for the better.
And
thus it was that when Curthose returned to Normandy to a hero’s welcome, he was confronted with the astonishing news that Rufus was lately killed, and for the second time in his life he had lost the crown of England to a younger brother.


Great quote:
the half-brothers count William of Evreux and Ralph of Conches, had a disagreement: Orderic says it began with their wives quarrelling, which has always been an easy explanation for irrational behavior among men

[G Liguori · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would have given this book five stars but for the fact that the ending seems somewhat rushed. I would have liked to have known more about Duke Robert's life during his captivity. I have read elsewhere that he might have accepted and even enjoyed his new "life" and that he spent much of his time reading and learning. This book fills a hole in Norman history that is at times glossed over as the focus is on others. My take from the book is that Robert was not a bad leader but lacked the ruthlessness of his brothers. He was a capable general but lucked out to Norman barons who were more interested in their own prospects than what might be good for Normandy and England. A common theme amongst the Normans.

[Becky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting about the Conquerers eldest son

[Therese · Rating 3 out of 5]

$16.03

This is the book I never would have chosen, but I am glad that Marilyn had curiosity about William the Conqueror's oldest son, Robert and why he never took the throne. Back in medieval times, or at lease in these times, unless an heir was specifically named, it didn't automatically go to the oldest male relative. There are conflicting reports as to whether William left England to Robert, his oldest son, or William, his third son. He did leave the dukedom to Robert, and while Robert was taking care of Normandy, Rufus charged to England after his father's death and proclaimed himself king. He didn't seem to have any scruples about doing this, and while William had planned carefully for his future, I don't see that Robert did. So while Rufus was governing in England, Robert decided to go on a crusade. This was when he finally got married at about 50, and it is not mentioned who looks after his affairs while he is gone, something William always made sure someone was doing for him. (William also had loyal brothers and had chosen his aides well while the sons, and in particular Robert didn't seem to have that ability.) When suddenly Rufus is killed in a hunting accident, Henry rushes in just as Robert it's getting back from the holy land and grabbed the throne. Robert tried with both of his brothers to come to an understanding, but he didn't seem to have the killer instinct that they did. On the other hand it doesn't appear that he was lazy as most historians make him out to be, but perhaps he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, not to mention he seemed to keep his word even though as a young man he was impatient to be the Duke of Normandy while his father still held that title and did not want to share with anyone. While Rufus wasn't as concerned with Normandy, Henry was. He challenged Robert and after they wrote up a treaty, he broke every word and wound up putting is brother in jail where Robert lived until a very ripe age (especially for that time) into his 80s and basically forgotten by the world. One can only wonder what would have happened IF Robert had become Robert I instead of the forgotten and lazy one... I have also thought it ironic that throughout the ages marriages were arranged for political reasons to ensure safety and add extra land to the family and yet brothers didn't hesitate to take up arms against each other and in some cases even kill each other. I can only wonder what the sisters were thinking, if anything, because they were probably not around although you never know. I'm looking forward to seeing what is said about Rufus and then Henry I.

[Andrew Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating history. Lack makes a pretty good case that Robert Curthose was more than the contemporary political histories, written in the service of his younger brothers, made him out to be. Particularly intriguing is the contention, well-argued, that William the Conqueror had no intention of dividing his realm, and that William II was therefore a usurper. However, Curthose does seem to lack the ruthless drive needed of 11th century kings in general and Norman princes in particular. A century or two later, he might have been a saintly crusader in the fashion of St. Louis. As it happens, he seemed always a step behind his brothers, and so became an also-ran.

[Donna Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good insights and alternative view of Robert; however, I felt it took potshots at Stephen-Henry of Blois, never missing an opportunity to compare the two so that Robert came out on top. But much of the speculation re Stephen's motive is just as biased as the record the author is trying to correct on Robert. This extends to statements about his son Stephen's incompetence as a ruler. OK if true but it wasn't clear that the negative view of those two men was indisputable.

[Lucy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly researched and referenced, a very convincing take on Duke Robert. We'll never know the whole truth, but Dr Lack makes a good case for rehabilitating him. Seems like he was just too nice for his times.