Most people are familiar with famous proverb “like father like son” but I would like to take this a step further and examine the differences between a great-grandfather and a great-grandson. That is, in context of 11th and 12th Century England and the reigns of William I and Henry II of course. More specifically, the differences in kingdoms governed by the two. On October 16th 1066, William Duke of Normandy set sail for England, and soon enough was crowned King of England. Over a century later, his great-grandson Henry II sat on the throne of England, but the kingdom which Henry II ruled over was vastly different than that ruled by his great-grandfather. Many of these differences surrounded the legal systems of both periods, and how each ruler
…show more content…
Under Henry II, we begin to see prosecution at the suit of the crown. Henry II is responsible for this by beginning to sell writs to his subjects. By purchasing these writs, subjects could now have their cases heard in royal courts which would be heard by a jury, as a sheriff will call 12 men good and true to serve as this jury. (Greenberg, Lecture, Sept 20). So why is this is important? Say for instance, a vassal accuses his lord of stealing his land and his cattle, and with it, his livelihood. Under William I, this represents a breach of the the feudal contract and may be settled in a feudal court. These courts ,however, were ran by the accused lords so verdicts were often products of corruption. This changes under the rule of Henry II and his introduction of the writ system. If the same vassal were to buy a writ from Henry II, he would now have authority to regain control of his land and cattle as long as the 12 men good and true supported his story. This new royal justice under Henry II was not as subject to corruption so it incentivized royal justice. Consequently taking power away from the nobility. It is important to note that the scenario described above does not fit into the category of criminal law which the Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton predominantly dealt with. In fact, one could not purchase a writ for …show more content…
Because of the massive reforms that each ruler took to maintain law and order, the differences in their respective kingdoms really started to add up. Much of these differences stemmed from the extraordinary changes in the legal system. When a legal system goes through as many changes as it did from the time William I ruled to the time Henry II ruled, it is not surprising that the countries will differ significantly. Throughout this essay, the differences between these kingdoms have been discussed whether it be in regard to the prominence of feudalism, the power of the nobility, importance of royal courts, etc. All of these elements represent shifts that occurred between the reigns of the two rulers and together they help account for why the kingdoms were so different. Both William I and Henry II created reforms that dramatically altered their kingdoms and although both proved to be extremely competent rulers, based on the differences in their kingdoms I do not think the saying “like great-grandfather like great-grandson” will catch on anytime
Under Henry II, we begin to see prosecution at the suit of the crown. Henry II is responsible for this by beginning to sell writs to his subjects. By purchasing these writs, subjects could now have their cases heard in royal courts which would be heard by a jury, as a sheriff will call 12 men good and true to serve as this jury. (Greenberg, Lecture, Sept 20). So why is this is important? Say for instance, a vassal accuses his lord of stealing his land and his cattle, and with it, his livelihood. Under William I, this represents a breach of the the feudal contract and may be settled in a feudal court. These courts ,however, were ran by the accused lords so verdicts were often products of corruption. This changes under the rule of Henry II and his introduction of the writ system. If the same vassal were to buy a writ from Henry II, he would now have authority to regain control of his land and cattle as long as the 12 men good and true supported his story. This new royal justice under Henry II was not as subject to corruption so it incentivized royal justice. Consequently taking power away from the nobility. It is important to note that the scenario described above does not fit into the category of criminal law which the Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton predominantly dealt with. In fact, one could not purchase a writ for …show more content…
Because of the massive reforms that each ruler took to maintain law and order, the differences in their respective kingdoms really started to add up. Much of these differences stemmed from the extraordinary changes in the legal system. When a legal system goes through as many changes as it did from the time William I ruled to the time Henry II ruled, it is not surprising that the countries will differ significantly. Throughout this essay, the differences between these kingdoms have been discussed whether it be in regard to the prominence of feudalism, the power of the nobility, importance of royal courts, etc. All of these elements represent shifts that occurred between the reigns of the two rulers and together they help account for why the kingdoms were so different. Both William I and Henry II created reforms that dramatically altered their kingdoms and although both proved to be extremely competent rulers, based on the differences in their kingdoms I do not think the saying “like great-grandfather like great-grandson” will catch on anytime