How far did England become a feudal state during the reign of William I?
Perhaps the greatest legacy that the Normans are seen to have left is the feudal
system, with Norman knights and barons replacing the English earls and thegns. The
situation is not however quite so simple- in some parts of England Feudalism was
slow to take hold, and in certain cases it could in fact be argued that England had
become a feudal state before the reign of William.
The evidence from the Domesday Book would certainly support the idea that England
had become a feudal state during the reign of William I, with the earls, thegns and
housecarls that had survived the events of 1066 forced out by new types of succession
where there was no absolute right of inheritance to fiefs. According to Domesday, by
1086, 20 prominent lords and 12 prelates such as Odo of Bayeux and the Count of
Mortain holding 40% of the land. This idea of the majority of land being held by a
small number of Norman invaders, rather than the native English populations would
certainly suggest that England had become a feudal state, as shown by the fact that
most of the English had been dispossessed of their lands. To reinforce this point
further, by the time of the Domesday Book, King William held 20% of the English
land, a far cry from the reign of Edward the Confessor, where he held virtually
nothing.
Whilst it is evident that William did make England more feudal, it is important to
remember that in certain parts of the country, most notably the more remote regions
of the north and the west remained outside of the feudal system. Although these were
in the minority, one way in which it could be argued England did not become fully
feudal was the continued existence of the fyrd, who William used to deal with both
the Exeter and Northern Risings. This was significant, as in the feudal system it was
the knights who were supposed to deal with rebellion- the fyrd stemmed from the pre
conquest days where all freemen were obliged to give military service to the king.
Again however this argument does not really hold weight, as although William did
utilise the fyrd twice, this was only when his own knights were too stretched. The fact
that the fyrd were not used again in his reign after the 1070 Northern Revolt would
again seem to prove that despite using traditional Saxon practises when it suited them,
William had made England an increasingly feudal state.
A strong case can however be made to suggest that some form of feudalism existed in
Anglo Saxon England, questioning the extent to which the Normans fully imposed
feudalism upon England. This was most obvious amongst the lower echelons of
society amongst the peasant class, commonly referred to as the villains. Both the
cottars and the Boors (members of the villain class) were not freemen. Boors had to
work 2-3 days per week for the lord, and Cottars had to work for him three days a
week during harvest time. Furthermore, neither was able to leave their land without
permission of the lord, and they had to pay both a tax to the lord (the merchet) when
their daughter married, as well as when they inherited land (the heriot). In mind of
this, it is clear that the Normans did not fully impose feudalism upon England, as
feudalism in the conventional sense certainly existed at the bottom of English society,
with the villains tied to their lords. It is however clear that amongst the higher
echelons of society, feudalism did not exist before the Norman conquest, as
demonstrated by both the thegns and the Earls. Under feudalism, the Barons (who
played a similar role to the pre conquest Earls) only received land in return for
providing the king with soldiers for military service. They did not own this land, and
refusal to provide this service would see them forfit it as shown by William de
Breteuil in 1075. Furthermore, all major tenants had to swear an oath of loyalty to
William as shown at the 1086 Salisbury Oath, where William gathered all of his
major Barons from throughout the country. In contrast, under Edward the Confessor
the Earls owed no such obligation, as shown in 1052 where the Northern Earls refused
to help Edward following the return of the Godwins from exile. Similarly, whilst in
the feudal system knights had no lands of their own and were merely tenants, the
thegns (the knights’ equivalent under the Saxons) held bookland, which was theirs to
be sold or given away. It is therefore clear that the Normans did impose a system of
feudalism on the thegns and earls of Saxon England, but not upon the villains, as for
them a system of feudalism was already in place.
Although feudalism had existed amongst the peasantry before William’s reign, it is
indisputable that William’s reign saw the transition from a semi-feudal to an almost
entirely feudal state. Whilst the small number of urban dwellers (less than 10% of the
population) were not absorbed into the feudal structure, by the end of his reign both
the earls and the thegns had been removed, with their replacements, the Barons and
the knights only holding land as tenants of the king, testimony to the extent to which
England had become a feudal state under William.