Syllabus Edition
First teaching 2016
Last exams 2025
The Structure of Norman Government (Edexcel GCSE History)
Revision Note
Written by: Zoe Wade
Reviewed by: Bridgette Barrett
What Motivated William to Change or Keep Parts of Anglo-Saxon Government? - Summary
William had some motivation to keep parts of the Anglo-Saxon government when he became King of England in 1066. Normandy did not have a sophisticated government. Anglo-Saxon government was more advanced than Normandy's. As a result, William decided to keep what worked in Anglo-Saxon England. This helped create a smoother transition from Edward the Confessor's reign to William's. William could also refine government systems for his own benefit.
There were serious issues with how Edward the Confessor governed that William needed to change. William wanted more power and control over his subjects. During his rule, Edward relied on earls like Godwin for military support. Earls like Godwin became powerful and threatened Edward's authority as king. Earls also began to act in their own interests instead of the king's. An example of this is Tostig's exile in 1065. William desired to create a centralised government, which gave him ultimate power.
How did Government Change Under William the Conqueror?
Change | Continuity |
|---|---|
William centralised power. He owned all of the land in England. He used the feudal system to pass on this land as fiefs. Land gave him control over tenants-in-chief and the Church. Conditions for William granting land to his subjects included the payment of geld tax and supplying knights. The Domesday Book allowed William to calculate the wealth of all of the land in England | William kept the units of measuring land such as the hide, the hundred and the shire. This helped William to work out people's tax payments |
William reduced the power of the earls and the size of earldoms. The power of Marcher earls decreased over William's reign. This caused resentment among Norman nobility as shown in the Revolt of the Earls in 1075. Tenants-in-chief had less power and wealth than Anglo-Saxon earls | William kept the Witan. In 1085, under threat of a Danish invasion, William assembled important landholders to discuss the issue. This is how the Anglo-Saxon Witan operated. William called this system the Curia Regis, or 'royal council' |
William relied on regents when he returned to Normandy. In 1075, Lanfranc proved capable of keeping control of England in William's absence. During his reign, William began leaving regents in Normandy. He believed Normandy was easier to govern than England. Also, regents like Bishop Odo abused their power when William was abroad | The royal treasury stayed in Winchester. William used silver pennies in the economy as the Anglo-Saxons had. William minted coins, which was a responsibility of Anglo-Saxon monarchs |
Worked Example
Describe one feature of Norman government
2 marks
Answer:
One feature of Norman government was William's centralised power (1). William created the Domesday Book so he could calculate the wealth of all of the land in England and charge tax (1).
Examiner Tips and Tricks
An exam question based on this section could ask you how far you agree that Norman government was different to Anglo-Saxon government. When approaching this style of question, consider:
The extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Use words like 'partially' or 'fully' to explain this
The strength of both sides of the argument. William did make the position of monarch much more powerful and he reduced the role of earls. However, William kept many aspects of Anglo-Saxon government, for example, the use of hides and coinage
Concluding your thoughts with a reflection on key concepts. You should consider short- and long-term consequences, importance and impact. For example, the introduction of the feudal system revolutionised tax collection and land disputes. This had long-term consequences on how monarchs governed England throughout the medieval period
The Role of Sheriffs in Norman England
Part of the role | Anglo-Saxon shire reeves | Norman sheriffs |
|---|---|---|
Key responsibilities | The king's representative in the shire. Shire reeves collected geld tax and monitored the king's demesne | Norman sheriffs also were the king's representatives in the shire. They continued to collect geld tax and monitor the king's demesne |
Importance in society | Shire reeves were less important than earls. They had to represent the earl and report back to them. Shire reeves could not upset their earl. Shire reeves rarely reported to the king if the earl was failing to govern his land correctly | Sheriffs were very powerful in society. Sheriffs answered to no one but the king. A sheriff could be a tenant-in-chief or a castellan. If the king was unhappy with a sheriff, he could demote him |
Law and order | Shire reeves maintained law and order in the shire. Shire reeves enforced collective responsibility on the tithing. They also sat on the shire court | Sheriffs continued to enforce law and order. However, William added more laws due to rebellions. The establishment of Church courts and the manorial courts reduced the legal responsibilities of sheriffs |
Defence | The shire reeve ensured that the shire met its military obligation to the fyrd. They also made sure roads and fortifications were in good order | Sheriffs maintained their military role in the shire. The feudal system added knight service to their responsibilities. Sheriffs also had to protect castles in the shire |
How did Anglo-Saxons view Norman sheriffs?
Sheriffs were not popular with Anglo-Saxons
Sheriffs had a reputation for greed and illegal activity
This created resentment between them and the people of their shire
By 1071, William replaced the majority of Anglo-Saxon shire reeves with Normans
Some shire reeves had rebelled against William, for example, Maerleswein
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Some students confuse shire reeves and sheriffs. To avoid this confusion, refer to shire reeves when speaking about Anglo-Saxon England and sheriffs when discussing Norman England. This will help you to remember that this role had different names in the two periods.
The Introduction of 'Forests' in Norman England
William was a keen hunter
His favourite animals to hunt were deer and wild boar
William wanted to extend where he could hunt as king
In Anglo-Saxon times, the king could only hunt on his demesne
William held more royal land than Edward the Confessor had
William changed areas into 'forest'
Around 30% of England became ‘royal forest’
Some forests were especially large, like the New Forest in southern England
William took land away from other landholders
Village communities and farmers faced evictions
'Forests' did not have to have trees
Forest land meant that William reserved and protected the land for hunting by law
What Were the Forest Laws?
Poaching was a crime throughout the medieval period
The Forest Laws made poaching a much more serious crime in Norman England than it had been in Anglo-Saxon England
The Forest Laws aimed to protect the animals that were best for hunting and their food supply
Royal forests in Norman England
The Forest Laws were deeply unpopular because many thought they were unfair
People could no longer use the land for farming
This created resentment among ordinary people
The Forest Laws changed traditional ways of life
In Anglo-Saxon England, it was legal to graze animals, cut down trees and hunt on common land
The Significance of the Forest to Norman England
The establishment of the forest strengthened William's authority
'Forest' is Latin for 'outside', showing the land was different from the rest of society
William imposed harsh punishments on those who broke the Forest Laws
Killing William's deer had the punishment of blinding
William's personal land increased
By extending the forest, William could land grab from his subjects
William's actions seemed more legitimate than land grabs by sheriffs. As King of England, William was the law
Forests gave William another source of money
Those who broke the Forest Laws paid fines to William
People could purchase hunting rights
They were so expensive that no peasant could afford them
Causes and consequences of the forest
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?
