Henry I: King of England and Duke of Normandy (review)

Judith Green’s first book was an extremely thorough and illuminating study of The Government of England under Henry I, published in 1986. She has now returned to the same king, but this time to provide an analytic biography. Examination of administration and politics remains central to this study, but the view of government has notably broadened. In particular, Henry’s relations with the aristocracy are given much more space, following on from her volume on The Aristocracy of England, published in 1997. She starts by examining the sources, before ten chapters take us chronologically through Henry’s life. Within these chapters, narrative is interspersed with analysis. Next come three thematic chapters, entitled ‘The ruler’, “‘Guardian of the Church”’, and ‘Court and Culture’. The conclusion draws together the various threads.

Green portrays Henry as a ruler intent on the expansion of his area of power, and in this way very similar to his father and brother. For example, he pursued his claims to superiority over Scotland. His success, and the peace his lands – particularly England – enjoyed came in large part from the fact that he ‘was consummate master of political management’ (p. 233). In addition, he exerted his power militarily, notably through the building of castles in Normandy (p. 234). The nature of his administration did not change fundamentally from that of his predecessors, although incrementally major changes were taking place (see especially pp. 252–3). Green concludes that ‘Henry I was not an administrator or a social engineer. He was an extremely able ruler who understood the art of propaganda, of playing a waiting game, and of manipulating the hopes and fears of men. His nature was calculating, determined, even ruthless; he loved material possessions, and was self-evidently a man of strong sexual appetites. Yet there was more to Henry than political cunning: this was a man who, if feared by some, could win and keep the loyalty of others’ (pp. 320–1).

Green’s tone is judicious, speculation is generally shunned. Given her knowledge of Henry’s reign and her years of living with ideas on his personality, this is a shame. The basis of men’s fear of Henry, for example in his dispatch of the rebel Conan from the top of the tower of Rouen in 1090, might have been explored further, and perhaps related to his success in treating later rebels less ferociously. The reasons why Henry I abandoned the regular sequence of crown-wearings at major festivals, as practised by his father, might have been investigated; it is not clear that it should be related to either his personal views or to changes in the nature of kingship, but both are possibilities. These limitations of Green’s study are in part self-imposed but may also result from difficulties inherent in a genre that combines biography, narrative history, and analysis, a genre that is very familiar but perhaps more problematic than sometimes thought. There are occasional technical flaws. For example, at p. 72 the point made does not seem properly linked to the reference in footnote 76, and on the same page a cross-reference ‘see below, p. 72’, has survived the editing process. At p. 308 Henry is said to have been about sixteen years old when he spent some time at Abingdon in 1084. A cross-reference is given to p. 26, although the discussion of Henry’s 1084 stay at Abingdon is really at pp. 22–3, and at p. 23 he is said to have been fifteen years old at that point. The index has one entry for Robert Malarteis, not followed by a cross-reference, and another to Malarteis, with a cross-reference to Robert Malarteis; Malarteis was in fact Robert’s nickname. Only three page references are given for Scotland, with another for ‘Scotland, church in’; no cross-reference is given to, for example, David I, Margaret, or Lothian. Given the arrangement of the book, with...