King
John who reigned between 1199-1216 had trouble governing given that he wasn’t
popular, but it should be taken into consideration that despite his character
and lack of experience in ruling, royal government was effective to some extent
as John generated huge sums of finance via exploiting different means and had
mediocre relationships with barons. However, the effectiveness of royal
government could be disputed as justice and law under King John due to the
declining influence of the judicial office.
Royal
finance was an effective measure which demonstrated the effectiveness of royal
government as despite the fact that royal finances was largely lost in 1204 due
to King John’s predecessor who had alienated a lot of the royal demesne, John
was able to regenerate huge sums of money from a variety of innovations. Like
his brother Richard, John auctioned shrievalties to the highest bidder and also
expanded the concept of increments which sheriffs were obligated to pay their farms.
Not only did John do this, he sought to
extract more money from the profits that sheriffs made from extortion in their
shires and as a result it was estimated between 1207-1212 that John had gained
£1,400 every year from this. Furthermore, despite John’s conflict with the
papacy which caused him significant political problems, the interdict provided
John a financial opportunity to exploit the vacant bishoprics and abbacies as
it was estimated that from this, John had raised over 100,000 marks from the
ecclesiastical finances which he only paid 33,000 marks back. Of course, there
were other means of which John had extorted finances from, specifically the
barons. Examples of this would be in 1210, John demanded 10,000 marks from
Reginald of Cornhill and in 1213, charged a relief of 7,000 marks from John de
Lacy for succeeding to Pontefract. John had levied 11 scutages in 16 years,
exploited feudal incidents such as feudal relief, wardships and payments from
baronial widows as well as exceptional measures of charters, privileges and
taxes. Two taxations were raised in 1203 and 1207 demanding a portion of value
of all moveable property and/or all incomes and this raised an enormous sum of
£60,000. The vast amount of royal finances which John raised has proven that
royal government was effective as even though payments for the altered
innovations were high, there was little complaint and barons and sheriffs were
willing to pay.
John’s
relationship with the barons also determined the effectiveness of royal
government in his reign. Being known for his untrustworthy and fast-temper, he
had still managed to rally support from barons as well as had good
relationships with them. A few examples of this would include the loyalty of
Roger de Lacy who defended Chateau Gaillard and was in return rewarded
Pontefract Castle in 1199 and in 1205, John had paid Hubert de Burgh’s ransom. On
the other hand, John did experience troubles with barons as when he fell out
with William Marshal, Marshal had performed homage to Philip and also refused
to participate in a siege with John in 1205 to recapture Norman lands,
revealing that to some degree, royal government wasn’t as effective under King
John. It was further demonstrated throughout the early years of John’s reign
that royal governance wasn’t as effective due to his ruthless behaviour.
English baron William de Braose was highly favoured by John, however due to
alleged rumours that his wife Matilda had refused to hand over hostages and
openly stated that he murdered his nephew. Failing to negotiate with his once
favoured baron, instead John decided to punish de Braose’s son and wife by
starving them to death in prison and claiming that his actions were prompted by
de Braose’s failure to pay his debts when requested. King John’s relationship
with barons deteriorated and the situation had worsened by August 1212 as
barons were plotting to murder him, presenting the fact that many barons were
dissent with his ruling. Although John had some kind of support from barons,
there are many indications which suggest that royal government under King John
was less effective as the majority of barons had despised of him, a key
incident would be that Robert FitzWalter and Saer de Quincy had suspiciously
surrendered the Norman castle of Vaudreuil to Philip in 1203, demonstrating the
disloyalty of the barons and the ineffectiveness of royal government under
John.
Another
factor in which determined whether or not royal government was effective under
King John was justice and the law. John had continued the process of
afforestation (forest law) which provided him with an economic advantage as
anything within the designated areas could be taxed from privileges and exemptions
such as fines and amercements. This had provided the Crown with substantial
income, as by 1212 the forest eyre had generated £5,000 which was an increase
of the usual £2,000. However, many northern barons had despised of John’s
determination to enforce forest law, fines and other aspects of royal
administrations from the areas that had traditionally been a peripheral to the
Kings of England. Besides the enforcement of forest law, John was resident in
1204 which meant that the judicial office had become less influential and that
John had also closed the ‘king’s bench’ between 1209 and 1214. A big mistake
was for John to rule through the chamber, this meant that he had more direct
and personal control. John had made unpopular decisions in person and these
often angered barons. A key example is with William de Mowbray who offered John
2,000 marks for ‘justice’ in a dispute with rival William de Stuteville. Yet,
John had decided to rule against him and demanded that he pay in full which was
a practice against the expected norm. Clearly this exemplifies that justice and
the law did not make royal government under King John effective as despite
generating further income via forest law and other justices, John’s
relationship with barons worsened and not much ‘justice’ was being done as his
decisions had bred tense resentment.
To
conclude, to some extent royal government under King John was effective as he
generated vast sums of royal finance through means of: feudal incidents,
exploiting ecclesiastical lands, profits from justice and forest law. This is
evident as he raised 100,000 marks from ecclesiastical lands, a sum of £60,000
through taxation and £5,000 from forest law. However, royal government wasn’t
entirely effective under King John as the relationships he had with barons
deteriorated through resentment of their debt to John, John’s fines,
innovations and injustice. As a result of this, John lost key castles like
Vaudreuil and the support of a powerful barons, de Braose and William Marshal
due to minor altercations and alleged rumours. Thus, royal government under
King John was to some degree effective solely due to the finances generated
whilst on the other hand it was ineffective due to his inadequate relationship
with the barons and service in justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to correct any mistakes, add your opinion, or just a comment in general!