The document provides a summary of two medieval English history documents related to the development of limited monarchy. The first document describes the rebellion against King John in 1215 that forced him to sign the Magna Carta, establishing the barons' power over the monarch. The second document from 1297 confirms the charters and emphasizes the importance of Magna Carta still being enforced generations later under King Edward I. Together they show the transition from a monarchy with total royal power to one with more checks on the king's authority, where he had to consider the barons and rule of law.

1. Medieval England: Take-Home Examination
Amanda Iliadis
Hist 2101
April 7th
2016
Dr. Cynthia Neville

2. Part A
The development of limited monarchy in medieval England is clearly set forth in the following
two documents. The first is document 34: “Roger of Wendover's Account of the Rebellion Against
King John”. This document represents the superiority of the barons over an ordained king. It illustrates
the power that others can impose on a monarch through the use of rebellion and force. The second
document is 44: “Confirmation of Charters, 1297”. This document emphasizes the power and
importance of Magna Carta's inception, and how the charter was still enforced generations later. It
confirms the transition from a total limited monarchy, to one in which the king has more authority and
the kingdom, more stability. These two documents combined depict the development of a limited
monarchy in the thirteenth-century beginning from the reign of King John, tracing to the reign of his
grandson, Edward I. Furthermore, documents 34 and 44 can provide scholars writing about
monarchical development, a comparison of the foreign affairs that faced both monarchs, and how each
succumbed to the similar conclusion of executing a mass charter.
Examining document 34, it is evident that King John had lost most of his French territories
through war, to king Phillip II of France (Amt, p. 210). The barons were discontent and irritated at the
humiliating and expensive military failure of their king. They no longer held any hope of regaining
their French inheritances, as that notion had dissipated along with his grand failure (Amt, p. 210). The
barons were noblemen who pledged their loyalty, service and protection to the king in return for land
that they could pass on to their heirs under freehold tenure. Therefore, having been completely devoted
to their king, the barons could not fathom any behavior that was unfair or arbitrary in fashion.
However, King John had imposed high taxes for his war efforts against France, dictating his lack of
responsibility and cordial kingship. Scholars writing about monarchical development in the period
might find it important that both Henry I and Henry II did not act arbitrarily. Therefore, this was the
first account of poor kingship and arbitrary rule since the Norman Conquest. Moreover, the barons
collectively dismissed the king's truce and sent a messenger to him explaining their demands of the

3. laws and ancient customs of the kingdom. They declared that unless the king agreed to their requests
willingly, granting them with proof of his seal, they would force him to do so by taking control of his
fortresses (Amt, 211). King John replied, “'Amongst these unjust demands, why didn't the barons ask
for my kingdom too? Their demands are vain and visionary, and are unsupported by any plea of reason
whatever” (Amt, 211). He then angrily declared an oath that he would never approve their requests, in
fear that he would be acting as their slave if he accepted (Amt, p.211). The baronage's power was
strong and relentless. After the baron's siege of London, King John was left deserted and therefore told
them that, to save the honor and peace of the kingdom, he would readily grant them the laws and
requests they required (Amt, 213). They forced the king to sign Magna Carta in 1215 as a promise to
rule in a fair, responsible, and dignified manor, in accordance to benevolent kingship. Magna Carta also
promised that the king would assent to the advice and counseling of the barons, without immediately
dismissing their suggestions. King John could see that he was inferior to the strength and power of the
barons, therefore, he finally submitted to granting the requests that the barons demanded, and
confirmed them in the great charter (Amt, p.213). The creation of Magna Carta and King John's
reluctance to respond to the baronage's grievances and demands, is an important aspect of this
document for scholars writing about monarchical development in medieval England. This is because it
illustrates the interference of a lower class against an ordained king, and therefore the very essence of a
limited monarchy. After King John signed the document, the barons renewed their oaths of loyalty to
the king. In this document of the baron's rebellion, the importance and power of the baronage in the
early thirteenth-century is evident. They wanted King John to act fairly and responsibly as any monarch
should, which is why they forced the king to acknowledge his misdeeds and obligations. Scholars who
write about the development of the monarchy in medieval England might consider this source useful
and important in representing their arguments for other reasons as well. The account of the baron's
rebellion against their own king is not a story that is often repeated; it is rare circumstance that the
king's subjects are that discontent and exasperated with their ruler. Therefore, this document can give

4. scholars clear insight into the grievances of the nobility with their king, and therefore the dawn of
establishing a limited monarchy due to those grievances. In this source, scholars can review that King
John had been reduced to a petty monarch that could not guarantee who would remain loyal to him.
During the rebellion, “there was no one to make a valuation for the king or to obey him in anything”
because even the Exchequer and sheriff's pleas had ceased (Amt, 212). It is evident that due to his
arbitrary rule, the king was left alone and defenseless to the point in which he had no choice but to
succumb to the wishes of the baronage. He was now a limited monarch, for he was forcefully accepting
the mandatory desires of his noble subjects.
Turning to document 44, it is clear that King Edward I had a very contrasting experience to that
of his grandfather, but yet a similar conclusion. It was important for the baronage to 'put the king in his
place' by forcing him to agree not to tax subjects without their consent. Thus was the problem for King
Edward I in the 1290s (Amt, p. 263). King Edward was a strong, skillful, and successful military
leader, an important trait for a monarch. However, Edward had levied taxes arbitrarily to fund his war
campaigns against the Welsh and Scottish, and for Eleanor of Castille's landholdings. For Edward I’s
barons, the price of their financial and military support for the Welsh and Scottish campaigns was
Edward's guarantee that he would call regular parliaments and observe the rule of law as laid out in
Magna Carta. However, levying arbitrary taxes was an unjust action taken against his subjects, and
therefore the king had surpassed the boundary of ruling in accordance to the great charter. By reissuing
Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest numerous times over the course of his reign, Edward made a
public statement that he was committed to the rule of law in England, challenging those who
questioned his financial and military demands on his subjects. However, it was not until the issuing of
the “Confirmation of Charters” (1297) and a fully revised Magna Carta (1300) that Edward addressed
the rule of law, and freedom from arbitrary taxation. In the “Confirmation of Charters” he emphasized
the protection of the rights and justice of the people of England. Contrary to the reign of King John,
there was never an English rebellion against Edward I, and he took up the task to adhere to his mistakes

5. without the need of force. Scholars who write about the development of the monarchy in medieval
England might consider this source as important for numerous reasons. First of all, in the document,
King Edward states that previous charters made by his father (Henry III) would be held to across the
whole country without any alterations (Amt, 263). This suggests the importance of Henry III's charters
for the entire realm. In the year 1258 of Henry III's reign, the barons wanted control of the
appointments of offices and re-gain the right to council the king. In order to do this, they took a stand
once again as they had with King John and created the Provisions of Oxford, in which all of their
demands were put forth. Henry abolished the Provisions which led to civil war directed by the
baronage. When their leader (Simon de Montfort) was killed, Henry resumed his authority. This
transfer of arbitrary rule and baronage power from John to Edward, heavily included Henry III as well.
This information coming from Henry's son is important when understanding the development of
medieval English monarchy. Furthermore, clause 5 of the document provides Edward's
acknowledgment of the populace's fear that the aids and tasks (money and military service) they had
provided towards his war campaigns would lead them and their heirs to bondage or the confiscation of
their goods (Amt, 265). In this clause (as well as clause 6), the king not only acknowledges the problem
of his subjects, but confirms that “for no business from henceforth will [they] take such manner of aids,
tasks, nor prises [confiscations], but by the common consent of the realm” (Amt, 265). For scholars,
this information is crucial in understanding the development of limited and absolute monarchy. King
John did not have military skill, spent an abundance of money that led to failure, behaved in a ruthless
and arbitrary manor, and was eventually forced to create Magna Carta after a significant rebellion.
Edward I on the other hand, was a skillful military leader, succeeded in his war campaigns, behaved
arbitrarily, but then assented to the changes in rule that he needed to make. Edward I fully
acknowledged his fault, whilst King John (and even Henry III) did not. Scholars can therefore trace the
development of monarchy in the thirteenth-century using this source, from the original faulty kingship
of King John to the improvements of Edward I's reign. Following Edward I, medieval monarchy

6. maintains more stability and courteous kingship. Furthermore, the governing power of monarchs begins
to flourish once again in the turn of the century, and limited monarchy decreases.
The development of limited monarchy in medieval England is illustrated in the following two
documents. The first document (34): “Roger of Wendover's Account of the Rebellion Against King
John”. This document depicts the power and authority of the baronage over King John that leads him to
forcefully create and seal Magna Carta in 1215. The document emphasizes the king's lack of control,
the dawn of limited monarchy, and the idea of a king being dominated by a lower class on the social
strata. The second document (44): “Confirmation of Charters, 1297” enforces the profound influence of
Magna Carta throughout the entirety of the thirteenth-century, and the way in which the charter was
used to consistently rectify the behavior of monarchs. Both of these documents work together to
illustrate the progression of a limited monarchy throughout the thirteenth-century, and how this concept
changed for the better from grandfather to grandson. Scholars can use both sources to aid as references
in their writing due to a plethora of monarchical knowledge that can be gained from close observation
of the documents. Furthermore, documents 34 and 44 provide a clear comparison of the war campaigns
that faced both monarchs, and how each contrasting story led to a similar conclusion of executing a
mass charter for the greater good of England.

7. Part B
In the high to late middle ages, many important factors influenced the social and economic
lives of rural English people. Three circumstances in particular stand out as having shaped the social
and economic lives of the laity in the period. First, the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 saw a
slow decline in the population, and therefore, agricultural productivity across the country. The conquest
also disrupted trade and caused devastating warfare. However, with the death of William I came a rapid
population boom because the Normans worked to restore England with the building of new towns,
followed by the relatively prosperous reign of Henry I. Second, the Black Death (1348-9) dramatically
affected English population, trade, and the economy. However, it accelerated English economy for the
Crown due to a rise in the cost of merchandise, which led to the Peasant's Revolt (1381). Finally, the
Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) acted as an economic stimulus due to high wages and ransoms, but
destroyed the English wool trade and imposed heavy taxation on the populace to support military
expeditions. The Norman Conquest, Black Death, and Hundred Years' War both negatively and
somewhat positively influenced the social and economic lives of the rural populace of England between
1050 and 1400.
The Norman Conquest led by William Duke of Normandy in 1066 caused the population of
England to decline due to warfare, the destruction of many towns, a disruption in trade, and the
establishment of Normans in England for the first time. However, post 1086, the remnants of the
conquest and Henry I had rapidly increased the populations of rural English communities. Dramatic
warfare swept most of the country when William I invaded England to defeat his new-found rival,
Harold Godwinson, at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 (Amt, 73). Warfare therefore cost many lives and
began to decrease the population. Northern England was least affected by the spread of war and
Norman invaders. After his coronation, William the Conqueror made many changes to English lifestyle.
The church was made Norman, many towns were destroyed to build new castles, and Garrisons were

8. established for the first time to fortify them. England was changing, and the social and economic lives
of the rural communities were being affected. Due to the decline in population, there was less
agricultural productivity, and therefore an economic struggle. With the destruction of towns, many
people lost their homes and their lives in the process. Trade too, was suffering. Trade had been
conducted with France and Germany prior to the conquest, however, due to the destruction of important
towns to make room for motte and bailey fortifications, some of the major English trading ports were
destroyed. The replacing of the English elite by the Normans, crafted the domination of local trade to
land in the lap of the French. The language in England was also changing, beginning with the elite who
spoke Old French instead of Old English. However in time, English churches and towns became
wealthier, and new towns were built to replace those that had previously been destroyed. By 1086 there
was partial recovery of the population in larger towns as evident from the Domesday Book. So in fact,
after the devastation the Normans had caused in England, they in turn helped to rebuild its' prosperity,
as it was now their new country as well. With the death of William I and the eventual succession of his
youngest son Henry I, England began to gain the upper hand once more and saw a boom in the
population. The twelfth-century saw an expansion of trade due to the drastic increase in population and
therefore, agricultural outputs and the exportation of raw materials. England also experienced the first
emergence of guilds that sought to make the welfare of laborers a priority and regulate wages and
prices for all crafts and trades in a fair manor (Amt, 312). The Norman Conquest led by William the
Conqueror in 1066 caused the population of England to decline due to warfare, the destruction of many
towns, a disruption in trade, and the establishment of Normans in England. However, post 1086, the
Normans and Henry I worked to rebuild England's livelihood which rapidly increased the population of
rural English communities.
The Black Death (1348-9) caused great devastation across England. The social and economic
order was disrupted more than it had ever been, due to the Bubonic and Pneumonic Plagues which
affected the entire populace The Bubonic Plague originated in Asia and lived in flees. It was contracted

9. through Western trade with Asia along the Silk Road. The Pneumonic Plague was an even deadlier
strain of the Bubonic Plague that was caught second-hand usually through human to human contact.
Some 30-40% of total town populations were eliminated across the country. The population of rural
communities saw a 50% decline in clergy alone, in locations such as Winchester, Exeter, and Norwich.
This vast population decline in a short time period caused crop and harvest failures and the death of
countless livestock because there were far fewer people to tend to the crops and animals. No body quite
knew what to do with such a loss in population. Moreover, the wages rose to account for the large
decline in laborers. The next generation however, saw a slow rise in the population. It did not last for
long because beginning in 1369, numerous plague outbreaks continued to devastate England every few
years well into the fifteenth-century. The results were similar to that of the Black Death, with only one
positive exception- the acceleration of the English economy. In 1381, rural peasants revolted due to the
expectations of prices and wages enforced by their lords, and the creation of the poll tax (Amt, 350).
The peasants had many grievances concerning economic changes that were made post-plagues. After
which, some trials were held against the peasants that had revolted too severely (Amt, 354). Besides the
Black Death and the plagues that followed, there was also economic crisis brought on by the so called
“ice age”. It was a period of intense cooling beginning in the early fourteenth-century. Awful weather
did not work in the peasants' favor as it brought about poor harvests and crop failures. The Black Death
(1348-9) and subsequent plagues caused great devastation across England. The social and economic
order was disturbed more than it had ever been due to the Bubonic and Pneumonic Plagues, frequent
periods of famine and pestilence, and extreme cold climate. The Peasant's Revolt illustrates the
frustration and discontent of the general rural populace regarding economics during this period of
extreme devastation.
The Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) was a time of brutal and consistent warfare between
England and France that once again demanded too much from England's rural populace. It acted as an
economic stimulus due to high wages and ransoms, but destroyed the English wool trade and imposed

10. heavy taxation on the populace to support military expeditions. The burden of taxation to supply the
costs of military campaigns and the effects of purveyance on rural society required too much money
from the ordinary rural population. Moreover, the effect of recruitment on the labor force of England
tore families apart within the laity. All of these factors led to social and economic turmoil, regardless
that the warfare itself did not have much effect on the country. There were occasionally attempts at
hearth and poll taxes that differed from the standard taxes imposed on the laity. The aforesaid taxes
were also combined with levies of local troops, and of purveyance (the commandeering of goods for
the Crown at price lower than market value). There were complaints that the taxes were levied unfairly,
and that bribes had to be paid. Moreover, the poor were not exempt from the indirect effects of the
taxes. Villages were economic communities, and the removal of large quantities of money affected the
entire village from the poorest farmers to the wealthiest merchants. Furthermore, there was also indirect
taxation that played an essential role in the crown's finances. The most important aspect of which, was
the continued levy of a subsidy on wool exports. In 1450, the Hansiatic league decided to cut off
English trade ties, impacting international trade on the whole. This meant the end of trade between
England and the Baltic region as well as through the North Sea. The effect on international trade, and
therefore wool producers (northern trade countries) in particular, was significant. The rural economy of
England also faced the burden of requests for unfeasible quantities of war supplies. On the other hand,
one must also consider the benefits of war. There was an influx of money for the Crown due to high
wages and ransoms. This monetary increase under the reign of Edward III and possibly subsequent
reigns, was due to the capture of first the King of Scots (David II), and later the French king (John II)
for ransom money. Being captive kings, the money was sure to arrive and fill up the English king's
coffers. As with the Black Death and the Norman Conquest, economic success was standard for the
Crown while the laity continued to constantly be under economic distress. The Hundred Years' War was
a time of near constant warfare between England and France that requested heavy taxation of many
forms to support military missions from the rural populace. It interfered with rural families due to an

11. increase in labor recruitment, and destroyed England's wool trade with the northern regions. However,
the war did bring great economic success to the Crown, and in the long run, England in its entirety.
In the high to late middle ages, numerous factors influenced the social and economic lives of
rural English people. Three circumstances in particular serve as primary examples of this social and
economic upheaval. The first, is the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 led by William Duke of
Normandy. During and post-invasion, England saw a slow decline in the population, and therefore, a
decline in agricultural productivity across the country, as well as in trade. However, with the death of
William I came a rapid population boom because the Normans worked to restore England with the
building of new towns from those they had destroyed prior. Moreover, the reign of Henry I brought
about new prosperity for England. Secondly, the Black Death (1348-9) and subsequent plagues and
famine, negatively affected the English population, trade, and economics. However, it accelerated
English economy for the elite due to a rise in prices, which led to the Peasant's Revolt (1381). Finally,
the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) acted as an economic stimulus due to high wages and ransoms,
but destroyed the English wool trade and imposed numerous taxations on the populace to support
military endeavors. The Norman Conquest, Black Death, and Hundred Years' War both negatively and
somewhat positively influenced the social and economic lives of the rural populace of England between
1050 and 1400.