Industrial Revolution Definition

Industrial Revolution Definition: History,
Pros, and Cons

By
JAMES CHEN
Updated May 25, 2023
Reviewed by JULIUS MANSA

Fact checked by KIRSTEN ROHRS SCHMITT
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/entrepreneur.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=Government%20of
%20the,16%20July%202010
Government of the United Kingdom

45 languages
 Article
 Talk
 Read
 Edit
 View history
Tools













From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"His Majesty's Government" redirects here. For the use of the term, see His Majesty's
Government (term).
This article is about the way the UK is governed. For the people in the current British
administration, see British Government frontbench.
His Majesty's Government
Welsh: Llywodraeth ei Fawrhydi
Irish: Rialtas a Shoilse
Scottish Gaelic: Riaghaltas a Mhòrachd
HM Government's logo and wordmark (top), and Royal Arms (bottom)
Overview
Established 1707
State United Kingdom
Leader Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
Appointed by Monarch of the United Kingdom (Charles III)
Main organ Cabinet of the United Kingdom
Ministries 23 ministerial departments, 20 non-ministerial
departments
Responsible to Parliament of the United Kingdom
Annual budget £882 billion
Headquarters 10 Downing Street, London
Website www.gov.uk
This article is part of a series on
Politics of the United Kingdom
show
Constitution
show
The Crown
show
Executive
show
Legislature
show
Judiciary
show
Bank of England
show
Elections and referendums
show
Devolution
show
Administration
show
Crown Dependencies
show
Overseas Territories
show
Foreign relations
United Kingdom portal
 England
 Northern Ireland
 Scotland
 Wales
 Other countries
 v
 t
 e
His Majesty's Government (abbreviated to HM Government, commonly known as

the Government of the United Kingdom, British Government or UK Government) is
the central executive authority of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.[1][2] The government is led by the prime minister (currently Rishi Sunak, since
25 October 2022) who selects all the other ministers. The country has had
a Conservative-led government since 2010, with successive prime ministers being the
then leader of the Conservative Party. The prime minister and their most senior
ministers belong to the supreme decision-making committee, known as the Cabinet.[2]
Ministers of the Crown are responsible to the House in which they sit; they make
statements in that House and take questions from members of that House. For most
senior ministers this is usually the elected House of Commons rather than the House of
Lords. The government is dependent on Parliament to make primary legislation,
[3]
and general elections are held every five years (at most) to elect a new House of
Commons, unless the prime minister advises the monarch to dissolve Parliament, in
which case an election may be held sooner. After an election, the monarch selects as
prime minister the leader of the party most likely to command the confidence of the
House of Commons, usually by possessing a majority of MPs.[4]
Under the uncodified British constitution, executive authority lies with the sovereign,
although this authority is exercised only after receiving the advice of the Privy Council.
[5]
The prime minister, the House of Lords, the Leader of the Opposition, and the police
and military high command serve as members and advisers of the monarch on the Privy
Council. In most cases the cabinet exercise power directly as leaders of the government
departments, though some Cabinet positions are sinecures to a greater or lesser
degree (for instance Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or Lord Privy Seal).
The government is sometimes referred to by the metonym "Westminster" or "Whitehall",
as many of its offices are situated there. These metonyms are used especially by
members of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland
Executive in order to differentiate their government from His Majesty's Government.
History[edit]
Further information: History of the constitution of the United Kingdom and History of
monarchy in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy in which the reigning monarch (that is,
the king or queen who is the head of state at any given time) does not make any open
political decisions. All political decisions are taken by the government and Parliament.
This constitutional state of affairs is the result of a long history of constraining and
reducing the political power of the monarch, beginning with Magna Carta in 1215.
Since the start of Edward VII's reign in 1901, by convention the prime minister has been
an elected member of Parliament (MP) and thus answerable to the House of Commons,
although there were two weeks in 1963 when Alec Douglas-Home was first a member
of the House of Lords and then of neither house. A similar convention applies to the
position of chancellor of the exchequer, as it would probably now be politically
unacceptable for the budget speech to be given in the House of Lords, with members of
Parliament unable to question the Chancellor directly. The last chancellor of the
exchequer to be a member of the House of Lords was Lord Denman, who served for
one month in 1834.[6]
His Majesty's Government and the Crown[edit]

Main article: Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom
The British monarch is the head of state and the sovereign, but not the head of
government. The monarch takes little direct part in governing the country and remains
neutral in political affairs. However, the authority of the state that is vested in the
sovereign, known as the Crown, remains as the source of executive power exercised by
the government.
In addition to explicit statutory authority, the Crown also possesses a body of powers in
certain matters collectively known as the royal prerogative. These powers range from
the authority to issue or withdraw passports to declarations of war. By long-standing
convention, most of these powers are delegated from the sovereign to various ministers
or other officers of the Crown, who may use them without having to obtain the consent
of Parliament.
The prime minister also has weekly meetings with the monarch, who "has a right and a
duty to express [their] views on Government matters ... These meetings, as with all
communications between the king and his Government, remain strictly confidential.
Having expressed his views, the king abides by the advice of his ministers."[7]
Royal prerogative powers include, but are not limited to, the following:
Domestic powers[edit]
 The power to appoint (and in theory, dismiss) a prime minister. This power is
exercised by the monarch personally. By convention they appoint (and are expected
to appoint) the individual most likely to be capable of commanding the confidence of
a majority in the House of Commons.
 The power to appoint and dismiss other ministers. This power is exercised by the
monarch on the advice of the prime minister.
 The power to assent to and enact laws by giving royal assent to bills passed by
Parliament, which is required in order for a law to become effective (an act). This is
exercised by the monarch, who also theoretically has the power to refuse assent,
although no monarch has refused assent to a bill passed by Parliament since Queen
Anne in 1708.
 The power to give and to issue commissions to commissioned officers in the Armed
Forces.
 The power to command the Armed Forces. This power is exercised by the Defence
Council in the King's name.
 The power to appoint members to the Privy Council.
 The power to issue, suspend, cancel, recall, impound, withdraw or revoke British
passports and the general power to provide or deny British passport facilities to
British citizens and British nationals. This is exercised in the United Kingdom (but
not necessarily in the Isle of Man, Channel Islands or British Overseas Territories)
by the Home Secretary.
 The power to pardon any conviction (the royal prerogative of mercy).
 The power to grant, cancel and annul any honours.
 The power to create corporations (including the status of being a city, with its own
corporation) by royal charter, and to amend, replace and revoke existing charters.
Foreign powers[edit]
 The power to make and ratify treaties.
 The power to declare war and conclude peace with other nations.
 The power to deploy the Armed Forces overseas.
 The power to recognise states.
 The power to credit and receive diplomats.
Even though the United Kingdom has no single constitutional document, the
government published the above list in October 2003 to increase transparency, as some
of the powers exercised in the name of the monarch are part of the royal prerogative.
[8]
However, the complete extent of the royal prerogative powers has never been fully set
out, as many of them originated in ancient custom and the period of absolute monarchy,
or were modified by later constitutional practice.
Ministers and departments[edit]
Foreign Office, London
Main articles: List of government ministers of the United Kingdom and Departments of
the Government of the United Kingdom
As of 2019, there are around 120 government ministers[9] supported by 560,000[10] civil
servants and other staff working in the 25 ministerial departments[11] and their executive
agencies. There are also an additional 20 non-ministerial departments with a range of
further responsibilities.
In theory a government minister does not have to be a member of either House of
Parliament. In practice, however, convention is that ministers must be members of
either the House of Commons or House of Lords in order to be accountable to
Parliament. From time to time, prime ministers appoint non-parliamentarians as
ministers. In recent years such ministers have been appointed to the House of Lords.[12]
Government in Parliament[edit]
Under the British system, the government is required by convention and for practical
reasons to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. It requires the support of
the House of Commons for the maintenance of supply (by voting through the
government's budgets) and to pass primary legislation. By convention, if a
government loses the confidence of the House of Commons it must either resign or a
general election is held. The support of the Lords, while useful to the government in
getting its legislation passed without delay, is not vital. A government is not required to
resign even if it loses the confidence of the Lords and is defeated in key votes in that
House. The House of Commons is thus the responsible house.
The prime minister is held to account during Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) which
provides an opportunity for MPs from all parties to question the PM on any subject.
There are also departmental questions when ministers answer questions relating to
their specific departmental brief. Unlike PMQs both the cabinet ministers for the
department and junior ministers within the department may answer on behalf of the
government, depending on the topic of the question.
During debates on legislation proposed by the government, ministers—usually with
departmental responsibility for the bill—will lead the debate for the government and
respond to points made by MPs or Lords.
Committees[13] of both the House of Commons and House of Lords hold the government
to account, scrutinise its work and examine in detail proposals for legislation. Ministers
appear before committees to give evidence and answer questions.
Government ministers are also required by convention and the Ministerial Code,[14] when
Parliament is sitting, to make major statements regarding government policy or issues
of national importance to Parliament. This allows MPs or Lords to question the
government on the statement. When the government instead chooses to make
announcements first outside Parliament, it is often the subject of significant criticism
from MPs and the speaker of the House of Commons.[15]
Location[edit]
The main entrance of 10 Downing Street, the official residence and office of the First Lord of the Treasury, who
is by law nowadays also the prime minister
The prime minister is based at 10 Downing Street in Westminster, London. Cabinet

meetings also take place here. Most government departments have their headquarters
nearby in Whitehall.
Limits of government power[edit]

See also: Act of Parliament (UK) and Powers of the prime minister of the United
Kingdom
The government's powers include general executive and statutory powers, delegated
legislation, and numerous powers of appointment and patronage. However, some
powerful officials and bodies, (e.g. HM judges, local authorities, and the charity
commissions) are legally more or less independent of the government, and government
powers are legally limited to those retained by the Crown under common law or granted
and limited by act of Parliament. Both substantive and procedural limitations are
enforceable in the courts by judicial review.
Nevertheless, magistrates and mayors can still be arrested for and put on trial for
corruption, and the government has powers to insert commissioners into a local
authority to oversee its work, and to issue directives that must be obeyed by the local
authority, if the local authority is not abiding by its statutory obligations.[16]
By contrast, as in European Union (EU) member states, EU officials cannot be
prosecuted for any actions carried out in pursuit of their official duties, and foreign
country diplomats (though not their employees) and foreign members of the European
Parliament[17] are immune from prosecution in EU states under any circumstance. As a
consequence, neither EU bodies nor diplomats have to pay taxes, since it would not be
possible to prosecute them for tax evasion. When the UK was a member of the EU, this
caused a dispute when the US ambassador to the UK claimed that London's congestion
charge was a tax, and not a charge (despite the name), and therefore he did not have to
pay it—a claim the Greater London Authority disputed.
Similarly, the monarch is totally immune from criminal prosecution and may only be
sued with his permission (this is known as sovereign immunity). The sovereign, by law,
is not required to pay income tax, but Queen Elizabeth II voluntarily paid it from 1993
until the end of her reign in 2022, and also paid local rates voluntarily. However, the
monarchy also receives a substantial grant from the government, the Sovereign Support
Grant, and Queen Elizabeth II's inheritance from her mother, Queen Elizabeth The
Queen Mother, was exempt from inheritance tax.
In addition to legislative powers, His Majesty's Government has substantial influence
over local authorities and other bodies set up by it, by financial powers and grants.
Many functions carried out by local authorities, such as paying out housing benefit and
council tax benefit, are funded or substantially part-funded by central government.
Neither the central government nor local authorities are permitted to sue anyone
for defamation. Individual politicians are allowed to sue people for defamation in a
personal capacity and without using government funds, but this is relatively rare
(although George Galloway, who was a backbench MP for a quarter of a century, has
sued or threatened to sue for defamation a number of times). However, it is a criminal
offence to make a false statement about any election candidate during an election, with
the purpose of reducing the number of votes they receive (as with libel, opinions do not
count).
Terminology[edit]
While the government is the current group of ministers (the British Government
frontbench), the government is also sometimes seen more broadly as including people
or organisations that work for the ministers. The civil service, while 'independent of
government',[18] is sometimes described as being part of the government,[19][20][21][22] due to
the closeness of its working with ministers, in advising them, supporting them, and
implementing their executive decisions. Some individuals who work for ministers even
have the word 'Government' in their title, such as the Government Actuary and
the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, as do civil service organisations such as
the Government Statistical Service, the Government Legal Profession, and
the Government Office for Science. Companies owned by the government can also be
seen as parts of the government, such as UK Government Investments[23] and HS2 Ltd.[24]
Similarly, Parliamentary Private Secretaries are not ministers and so not part of the
government.[25] However, they are bound by parts of the ministerial code, are part of
the payroll vote, and can be seen as being on the 'first rung of the ministerial ladder'. [26]
[27]
They are sometimes described as being part of the government.[28][29][30]
Devolved governments[edit]
Main article: Devolution in the United Kingdom
Since 1999, certain areas of central government have been devolved to accountable
governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These are not part of His
Majesty's Government, and are directly accountable to their own institutions, with their
own authority under the Crown; in contrast, there is no devolved government in
England.
Local government[edit]
Refurbishment notice at Old Fire Station, Oxford, showing government support

Main articles: Local government in England, Local government in Scotland, Local
government in Wales, and Local government in Northern Ireland
Up to three layers of elected local authorities (such as county, district and parish
Councils) exist throughout all parts of the United Kingdom, in some places merged
into unitary authorities. They have limited local tax-raising powers. Many other
authorities and agencies also have statutory powers, generally subject to some central
government supervision.
See also[edit]
 Politics portal
 United Kingdom portal
 Constitutional reform in the United Kingdom

 Departments of the United Kingdom Government
 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
 Gov.uk
 Government spending in the United Kingdom
 British Government Frontbench
 His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition
 List of British governments
 Northern Ireland Executive
 Scottish Government
 Welsh Government
 Whole of Government Accounts
 Office for Veterans' Affairs
References[edit]
1. ^ His Majesty's Government Archived 17 November 2019 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 28 June
2010
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Overview of the UK system of government : Directgov – Government, citizens and
rights. Archived direct.gov.uk webpage. Retrieved on 29 August 2014.
3. ^ "Legislation". UK Parliament. 2013. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
4. ^ House of Commons – Justice Committee – Written Evidence Archived 1 December 2020 at
the Wayback Machine. Publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved on 19 October 2010.
5. ^ The monarchy : Directgov – Government, citizens and rights. Archived direct.gov.uk webpage.
Retrieved on 29 August 2014.
6. ^ The Parliament Acts – UK Parliament Archived 5 November 2010 at the Wayback Machine.
Parliament.uk (21 April 2010). Retrieved on 12 October 2011.
7. ^ "Queen and Prime Minister". The British Monarchy. 2013. Archived from the original on 14 April
2010. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
8. ^ Mystery lifted on Queen's powers | Politics Archived 4 December 2020 at the Wayback Machine.
The Guardian. Retrieved on 12 October 2011.
9. ^ Maer, Lucinda; Kelly, Richard (31 March 2021). "Limitations on the number of Ministers". Archived
from the original on 9 May 2021. Retrieved 31 March 2021 – via commonslibrary.parliament.uk.
10. ^ Civil Service Statistics Archived 10 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine. civilservant.org.uk.
September 2011
11. ^ LIST OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES Including Executive Agencies and NonMinisterial
Departments. Cabinet Office 2009
12. ^ Maer, Lucinda (4 September 2017). "Ministers in the House of Lords".
13. ^ Committees – UK Parliament Archived 7 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Parliament.uk
(21 April 2010). Retrieved on 12 October 2011.
14. ^ Ministerial Code. Cabinet Office 2010
15. ^ "Speakers' statements on ministerial policy announcements made outside the House" (PDF).
Archived from the original on 16 July 2011. Retrieved 29 November 2010.. Parliamentary Information
List. Department of Information Services. www.parliament.uk. 16 July 2010
12.2 The Origins of Personality

Learning Objectives
1. Describe the strengths and limitations of the psychodynamic approach to explaining personality.
2. Summarize the accomplishments of the neo-Freudians.
3. Identify the major contributions of the humanistic approach to understanding personality.
Although measures such as the Big Five and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI) are able to effectively assess personality, they do not say much about where personality
comes from. In this section we will consider two major theories of the origin of
personality: psychodynamic and humanistic approaches.
Psychodynamic Theories of Personality: The Role of the Unconscious
One of the most important psychological approaches to understanding personality is based on the
theorizing of the Austrian physician and psychologist Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), who founded
what today is known as the psychodynamic approach, an approach to understanding human
behaviour that focuses on the role of unconscious thoughts, feelings, and memories. Many
people know about Freud because his work has had a huge impact on our everyday thinking
about psychology, and the psychodynamic approach is one of the most important approaches to
psychological therapy (Roudinesco, 2003; Taylor, 2009). Freud is probably the best known of all
psychologists, in part because of his impressive observation and analyses of personality (there
are 24 volumes of his writings). As is true of all theories, many of Freud’s ingenious ideas have
turned out to be at least partially incorrect, and yet other aspects of his theories are still
influencing psychology.
Freud was influenced by the work of the French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893),
who had been interviewing patients (almost all women) who were experiencing what was at the
time known as hysteria. Although it is no longer used to describe a psychological
disorder, hysteria at the time referred to a set of personality and physical symptoms that
included chronic pain, fainting, seizures, and paralysis.
Charcot could find no biological reason for the symptoms. For instance, some women
experienced a loss of feeling in their hands and yet not in their arms, and this seemed impossible
given that the nerves in the arms are the same as those in the hands. Charcot was experimenting
with the use of hypnosis, and he and Freud found that under hypnosis many of the hysterical
patients reported having experienced a traumatic sexual experience, such as sexual abuse, as
children (Dolnick, 1998).
Freud and Charcot also found that during hypnosis the remembering of the trauma was often
accompanied by an outpouring of emotion, known as catharsis, and that following the catharsis
the patient’s symptoms were frequently reduced in severity. These observations led Freud and
Charcot to conclude that these disorders were caused by psychological rather than physiological
factors.
Freud used the observations that he and Charcot had made to develop his theory regarding the
sources of personality and behaviour, and his insights are central to the fundamental themes of
psychology. In terms of free will, Freud did not believe that we were able to control our own
behaviours. Rather, he believed that all behaviours are predetermined by motivations that lie
outside our awareness, in the unconscious. These forces show themselves in our dreams, in
neurotic symptoms such as obsessions, while we are under hypnosis, and in Freudian “slips of
the tongue” in which people reveal their unconscious desires in language. Freud argued that we
rarely understand why we do what we do, although we can make up explanations for our
behaviours after the fact. For Freud the mind was like an iceberg, with the many motivations of
the unconscious being much larger, but also out of sight, in comparison to the consciousness of
which we are aware (Figure 12.7, “Mind as Iceberg”).
Figure 12.7 Mind as Iceberg. In
Sigmund Freud’s conceptualization of personality, the most important motivations are
unconscious, just as the major part of an iceberg is under water.
Id, Ego, and Superego
Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id, ego, and superego, and that
the interactions and conflicts among the components create personality (Freud,
1923/1949). According to Freudian theory, the id is the component of personality that forms the
basis of our most primitive impulses. The id is entirely unconscious, and it drives our most
important motivations, including the sexual drive (libido) and the aggressive or destructive drive
(Thanatos). According to Freud, the id is driven by the pleasure principle — the desire for
immediate gratification of our sexual and aggressive urges. The id is why we smoke cigarettes,
drink alcohol, view pornography, tell mean jokes about people, and engage in other fun or
harmful behaviours, often at the cost of doing more productive activities.
In stark contrast to the id, the superego represents our sense of morality and oughts. The
superego tell us all the things that we shouldn’t do, or the duties and obligations of society. The
superego strives for perfection, and when we fail to live up to its demands we feel guilty.
In contrast to the id, which is about the pleasure principle, the function of the ego is based on
the reality principle — the idea that we must delay gratification of our basic motivations until
the appropriate time with the appropriate outlet. The ego is the largely conscious controller or
decision-maker of personality. The ego serves as the intermediary between the desires of the id
and the constraints of society contained in the superego (Figure 12.8, “Ego, Id, and Superego in
Interaction”). We may wish to scream, yell, or hit, and yet our ego normally tells us to wait,
reflect, and choose a more appropriate response.
Figure 12.8 Ego, Id, and Superego

in Interaction.
Freud believed that psychological disorders, and particularly the experience of anxiety, occur
when there is conflict or imbalance among the motivations of the id, ego, and superego. When
the ego finds that the id is pressing too hard for immediate pleasure, it attempts to correct for this
problem, often through the use of defence mechanisms — unconscious psychological strategies
used to cope with anxiety and maintain a positive self-image. Freud believed that the defence
mechanisms were essential for effective coping with everyday life, but that any of them could be
overused (Table 12.4, “The Major Freudian Defence Mechanisms”).
Table 12.4 The Major Freudian Defence Mechanisms.
[Skip Table]
Defence
Definition Possible behavioural example
mechanism
Displacement Diverting threatening impulses away A student who is angry at her professor
from the source of the anxiety and for a low grade lashes out at her
Table 12.4 The Major Freudian Defence Mechanisms.
[Skip Table]
Defence
Definition Possible behavioural example
mechanism
roommate, who is a safer target of her

toward a more acceptable source
anger.
A man with powerful unconscious sexual

Disguising threatening impulses by
Projection desires for women claims that women use
attributing them to others
him as a sex object.
A drama student convinces herself that

Generating self-justifying explanations
Rationalization getting the part in the play wasn’t that
for our negative behaviours
important after all.
Jane is sexually attracted to friend Jake,

Reaction Making unacceptable motivations
but she claims in public that she intensely
formation appear as their exact opposite
dislikes him.
Retreating to an earlier, more A university student who is worried about

Regression childlike, and safer stage of an important test begins to suck on his
development finger.
A person who witnesses his parents

Repression (or Pushing anxiety-arousing thoughts
having sex is later unable to remember
denial) into the unconscious
anything about the event.
A person participates in sports to

Channeling unacceptable sexual or
sublimate aggressive drives. A person
Sublimation aggressive desires into acceptable
creates music or art to sublimate sexual
activities
drives.
The most controversial, and least scientifically valid, part of Freudian theory is its explanations
of personality development. Freud argued that personality is developed through a series
of psychosexual stages, each focusing on pleasure from a different part of the body (Table 12.5,
“Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development”). Freud believed that sexuality begins in
infancy, and that the appropriate resolution of each stage has implications for later personality
development.
Table 12.5 Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development.
[Skip Table]
Approximate
Stage Description
ages
Birth to 18 Pleasure comes from the mouth in the form of sucking, biting, and
Oral
months chewing.
18 months to 3 Pleasure comes from bowel and bladder elimination and the constraints
Anal
years of toilet training.
Pleasure comes from the genitals, and the conflict is with sexual desires
Phallic 3 years to 6 years
for the opposite-sex parent.
Latenc
6 years to puberty Sexual feelings are less important.
y
If prior stages have been properly reached, mature sexual orientation

Genital Puberty and older
develops.
In the first of Freud’s proposed stages of psychosexual development, which begins at birth and
lasts until about 18 months of age, the focus is on the mouth. During this oral stage, the infant
obtains sexual pleasure by sucking and drinking. Infants who receive either too little or too much
gratification become fixated or locked in the oral stage, and are likely to regress to these points of
fixation under stress, even as adults. According to Freud, a child who receives too little oral
gratification (e.g., who was underfed or neglected) will become orally dependent as an adult and
be likely to manipulate others to fulfill his or her needs rather than becoming independent. On
the other hand, the child who was overfed or overly gratified will resist growing up and try to
return to the prior state of dependency by acting helpless, demanding satisfaction from others,
and acting in a needy way.
The anal stage, lasting from about 18 months to three years of age, is when children first
experience psychological conflict. During this stage children desire to experience pleasure
through bowel movements, but they are also being toilet trained to delay this gratification. Freud
believed that if this toilet training was either too harsh or too lenient, children would become
fixated in the anal stage and become likely to regress to this stage under stress as adults. If the
child received too little anal gratification (i.e., if the parents had been very harsh about toilet
training), the adult personality will be anal retentive — stingy, with a compulsive seeking of
order and tidiness. On the other hand, if the parents had been too lenient, the anal
expulsive personality results, characterized by a lack of self-control and a tendency toward
messiness and carelessness.
The phallic stage, which lasts from age three to age six is when the penis (for boys) and clitoris
(for girls) become the primary erogenous zone for sexual pleasure. During this stage, Freud
believed that children develop a powerful but unconscious attraction for the opposite-sex parent,
as well as a desire to eliminate the same-sex parent as a rival. Freud based his theory of sexual
development in boys (the Oedipus complex) on the Greek mythological character Oedipus, who
unknowingly killed his father and married his mother, and then put his own eyes out when he
learned what he had done. Freud argued that boys will normally eventually abandon their love of
the mother, and instead identify with the father, also taking on the father’s personality
characteristics, but that boys who do not successfully resolve the Oedipus complex will
experience psychological problems later in life. Although it was not as important in Freud’s
theorizing, in girls the phallic stage is often termed the Electra complex, after the Greek
character who avenged her father’s murder by killing her mother. Freud believed that girls
frequently experienced penis envy, the sense of deprivation supposedly experienced by girls
because they do not have a penis.
The latency stage is a period of relative calm that lasts from about six years to 12 years. During
this time, Freud believed that sexual impulses were repressed, leading boys and girls to have
little or no interest in members of the opposite sex.
The fifth and last stage, the genital stage, begins about 12 years of age and lasts into adulthood.
According to Freud, sexual impulses return during this time frame, and if development has
proceeded normally to this point, the child is able to move into the development of mature
romantic relationships. But if earlier problems have not been appropriately resolved, difficulties
with establishing intimate love attachments are likely.
Freud’s Followers: The Neo-Freudians
Freudian theory was so popular that it led to a number of followers, including many of Freud’s
own students, who developed, modified, and expanded his theories. Taken together, these
approaches are known as neo-Freudian theories. The neo-Freudian theories are theories based
on Freudian principles that emphasize the role of the unconscious and early experience in
shaping personality but place less evidence on sexuality as the primary motivating force in
personality and are more optimistic concerning the prospects for personality growth and change
in personality in adults.
Alfred Adler (1870-1937) was a follower of Freud’s who developed his own interpretation of
Freudian theory. Adler proposed that the primary motivation in human personality was not sex or
aggression, but rather the striving for superiority. According to Adler, we desire to be better than
others and we accomplish this goal by creating a unique and valuable life. We may attempt to
satisfy our need for superiority through our school or professional accomplishments, or by our
enjoyment of music, athletics, or other activities that seem important to us.
Adler believed that psychological disorders begin in early childhood. He argued that children
who are either overly nurtured or overly neglected by their parents are later likely to develop
an inferiority complex — a psychological state in which people feel that they are not living up
to expectations, leading them to have low self-esteem, with a tendency to try to overcompensate
for the negative feelings. People with an inferiority complex often attempt to demonstrate their
superiority to others at all costs, even if it means humiliating, dominating, or alienating them.
According to Adler, most psychological disorders result from misguided attempts to compensate
for the inferiority complex in order meet the goal of superiority.
Carl Jung (1875-1961) was another student of Freud’s who developed his own theories about
personality. Jung agreed with Freud about the power of the unconscious but felt that Freud
overemphasized the importance of sexuality. Jung argued that in addition to the personal
unconscious, there was also a collective unconscious, or a collection of shared ancestral
memories. Jung believed that the collective unconscious contains a variety of archetypes,
or cross-culturally universal symbols, which explain the similarities among people in their
emotional reactions to many stimuli. Important archetypes include the mother, the goddess, the
hero, and the mandala or circle, which Jung believed symbolized a desire for wholeness or unity.
For Jung, the underlying motivation that guides successful personality is self-realization,
or learning about and developing the self to the fullest possible extent.
Karen Horney (the last syllable of her last name rhymes with “eye”; 1855-1952) was a German
physician who applied Freudian theories to create a personality theory that she thought was more
balanced between men and women. Horney believed that parts of Freudian theory, and
particularly the ideas of the Oedipus complex and penis envy, were biased against women.
Horney argued that women’s sense of inferiority was not due to their lack of a penis but rather to
their dependency on men, an approach that the culture made it difficult for them to break from.
For Horney, the underlying motivation that guides personality development is the desire
for security, the ability to develop appropriate and supportive relationships with others.
Another important neo-Freudian was Erich Fromm (1900-1980). Fromm’s focus was on the
negative impact of technology, arguing that the increases in its use have led people to feel
increasingly isolated from others. Fromm believed that the independence that technology brings
us also creates the need to “escape from freedom,” that is, to become closer to others.
Research Focus: How the Fear of Death Causes Aggressive Behaviour
Fromm believed that the primary human motivation was to escape the fear of death, and contemporary
research has shown how our concerns about dying can influence our behaviour. In this research, people
have been made to confront their death by writing about it or otherwise being reminded of it, and effects
on their behaviour are then observed. In one relevant study, McGregor and
colleagues (1998) demonstrated that people who are provoked may be particularly aggressive after they
have been reminded of the possibility of their own death. The participants in the study had been selected,
on the basis of prior reporting, to have either politically liberal or politically conservative views. When
they arrived at the lab they were asked to write a short paragraph describing their opinion of politics in the
United States. In addition, half of the participants (the mortality salient condition) were asked to “briefly
describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you” and to “jot down as specifically
as you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically die, and once you are physically dead.”
Participants in the exam control condition also thought about a negative event, but not one associated with
a fear of death. They were instructed to “please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your next
important exam arouses in you” and to “jot down as specifically as you can, what you think will happen
to you as you physically take your next exam, and once you are physically taking your next exam.”
Then the participants read the essay that had supposedly just been written by another person. (The other
person did not exist, but the participants didn’t know this until the end of the experiment.) The essay that
they read had been prepared by the experimenters to be very negative toward politically liberal views or
to be very negative toward politically conservative views. Thus one-half of the participants were
provoked by the other person by reading a statement that strongly conflicted with their own political
beliefs, whereas the other half read an essay in which the other person’s views supported their own
(liberal or conservative) beliefs.
At this point the participants moved on to what they thought was a completely separate study in which
they were to be tasting and giving their impression of some foods. Furthermore, they were told that it was
necessary for the participants in the research to administer the food samples to each other. At this point,
the participants found out that the food they were going to be sampling was spicy hot sauce and that they
were going to be administering the sauce to the very person whose essay they had just read. In addition,
the participants read some information about the other person that indicated that he very much disliked
eating spicy food. Participants were given a taste of the hot sauce (it was really hot!) and then instructed
to place a quantity of it into a cup for the other person to sample. Furthermore, they were told that the
other person would have to eat all the sauce.
As you can see in Figure 12.9, “Aggression as a Function of Mortality Salience and Provocation,”
McGregor and colleagues found that the participants who had not been reminded of their own death, even
if they had been insulted by the partner, did not retaliate by giving him a lot of hot sauce to eat. On the
other hand, the participants who were both provoked by the other person and who had also been reminded
of their own death administered significantly more hot sauce than did the participants in the other three
conditions. McGregor and colleagues (1998) argued that thinking about one’s own death creates a strong
concern with maintaining one’s one cherished worldviews (in this case our political beliefs). When we are
concerned about dying we become more motivated to defend these important beliefs from the challenges
made by others, in this case by aggressing through the hot sauce.
Figure 12.9 Aggression as a Function
of Mortality Salience and Provocation. Participants who had been provoked by a stranger who disagreed
with them on important opinions, and who had also been reminded of their own death, administered
significantly more unpleasant hot sauce to the partner than did the participants in the other three
conditions. [Long Description]
Strengths and Limitations of Freudian and Neo-Freudian Approaches
Freud has probably exerted a greater impact on the public’s understanding of personality than
any other thinker, and he has also in large part defined the field of psychology. Although
Freudian psychologists no longer talk about oral, anal, or genital fixations, they do continue to
believe that our childhood experiences and unconscious motivations shape our personalities and
our attachments with others, and they still make use of psychodynamic concepts when they
conduct psychological therapy.
Nevertheless, Freud’s theories, as well as those of the neo-Freudians, have in many cases failed
to pass the test of empiricism, and as a result they are less influential now than they have been in
the past (Crews, 1998). The problems are, first, that it has proved to be difficult to rigorously test
Freudian theory because the predictions that it makes (particularly those regarding defence
mechanisms) are often vague and unfalsifiable and, second, that the aspects of the theory that can
be tested often have not received much empirical support.
As examples, although Freud claimed that children exposed to overly harsh toilet training would
become fixated in the anal stage and thus be prone to excessive neatness, stinginess, and
stubbornness in adulthood, research has found few reliable associations between toilet training
practices and adult personality (Fisher & Greenberg, 1996). And since the time of Freud, the
need to repress sexual desires would seem to have become much less necessary as societies have
tolerated a wider variety of sexual practices. And yet the psychological disorders that Freud
thought we caused by this repression have not decreased.
There is also little scientific support for most of the Freudian defence mechanisms. For example,
studies have failed to yield evidence for the existence of repression. People who are exposed to
traumatic experiences in war have been found to remember their traumas only too well
(Kihlstrom, 1997). Although we may attempt to push information that is anxiety-arousing into
our unconscious, this often has the ironic effect of making us think about the information even
more strongly than if we hadn’t tried to repress it (Newman, Duff, & Baumeister, 1997). It is true
that children remember little of their childhood experiences, but this seems to be true of both
negative as well as positive experiences, is true for animals as well, and probably is better
explained in terms of the brain’s inability to form long-term memories than in terms of
repression. On the other hand, Freud’s important idea that expressing or talking through one’s
difficulties can be psychologically helpful has been supported in current research (Baddeley &
Pennebaker, 2009) and has become a mainstay of psychological therapy.
A particular problem for testing Freudian theories is that almost anything that conflicts with a
prediction based in Freudian theory can be explained away in terms of the use of a defence
mechanism. A man who expresses a lot of anger toward his father may be seen via Freudian
theory to be experiencing the Oedipus complex, which includes conflict with the father. But a
man who expresses no anger at all toward the father also may be seen as experiencing the
Oedipus complex by repressing the anger. Because Freud hypothesized that either was possible,
but did not specify when repression would or would not occur, the theory is difficult to falsify.
In terms of the important role of the unconscious, Freud seems to have been at least in part
correct. More and more research demonstrates that a large part of everyday behaviour is driven
by processes that are outside our conscious awareness (Kihlstrom, 1987). And yet, although our
unconscious motivations influence every aspect of our learning and behaviour, Freud probably
overestimated the extent to which these unconscious motivations are primarily sexual and
aggressive.
Taken together, it is fair to say that Freudian theory, like most psychological theories, was not
entirely correct and that it has had to be modified over time as the results of new studies have
become available. But the fundamental ideas about personality that Freud proposed, as well as
the use of talk therapy as an essential component of therapy, are nevertheless still a major part of
psychology and are used by clinical psychologists every day.
Focusing on the Self: Humanism and Self-Actualization
Psychoanalytic models of personality were complemented during the 1950s and 1960s by
the theories of humanistic psychologists, an approach to psychology that embraces the notions
of self-esteem, self-actualization, and free will. In contrast to the proponents of psychoanalysis,
humanists embraced the notion of free will. Arguing that people are free to choose their own
lives and make their own decisions, humanistic psychologists focused on the underlying
motivations that they believed drove personality, focusing on the nature of the self-concept, the
set of beliefs about who we are, and self-esteem, our positive feelings about the self.
One of the most important humanists, Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), conceptualized

personality in terms of a pyramid-shaped hierarchy of motives, also called the hierarchy of
needs, (Figure 12.10 “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs”). At the base of the pyramid are the
lowest-level motivations, including hunger and thirst, and safety and belongingness. Maslow
argued that only when people are able to meet the lower-level needs are they able to move on to
achieve the higher-level needs of self-esteem, and eventually self-actualization, which is the
motivation to develop our innate potential to the fullest possible extent.
Maslow studied how successful people, including Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Martin
Luther King Jr., Helen Keller, and Mahatma Gandhi, had been able to lead such successful and
productive lives. Maslow (1970) believed that self-actualized people are creative, spontaneous,
and loving of themselves and others. They tend to have a few deep friendships rather than many
superficial ones, and are generally private. He felt that these individuals do not need to conform
to the opinions of others because they are very confident and thus free to express unpopular
opinions. Self-actualized people are also likely to have peak experiences, or transcendent
moments of tranquility accompanied by a strong sense of connection with others.
Figure 12.10 Maslow’s Hierarchy

of Needs. Abraham Maslow conceptualized personality in terms of a hierarchy of needs. The
highest of these motivations is self-actualization. [Long Description]
Perhaps the best-known humanistic theorist is Carl Rogers (1902-1987). Rogers was positive
about human nature, viewing people as primarily moral and helpful to others, and believed that
we can achieve our full potential for emotional fulfilment if the self-concept is characterized
by unconditional positive regard — a set of behaviours including being genuine, open to
experience, transparent, able to listen to others, and self-disclosing and empathic. When we treat
ourselves or others with unconditional positive regard, we express understanding and support,
even while we may acknowledge failings. Unconditional positive regard allows us to admit our
fears and failures, to drop our pretenses, and yet at the same time to feel completely accepted for
what we are. The principle of unconditional positive regard has become a foundation of
psychological therapy; therapists who use it in their practice are more effective than those who
do not (Prochaska & Norcross, 2007; Yalom, 1995).
Although there are critiques of the humanistic psychologists (e.g., that Maslow focused on
historically productive rather than destructive personalities in his research and thus drew overly
optimistic conclusions about the capacity of people to do good), the ideas of humanism are so
powerful and optimistic that they have continued to influence both everyday experiences
and psychology. Today the positive psychology movement argues for many of these ideas, and
research has documented the extent to which thinking positively and openly has important
positive consequences for our relationships, our life satisfaction, and our psychological and
physical health (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
Research Focus: Self-Discrepancies, Anxiety, and Depression
Tory Higgins and his colleagues (Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986; Strauman & Higgins,
1988) have studied how different aspects of the self-concept relate to personality characteristics. These
researchers focused on the types of emotional distress that we might experience as a result of how we are
currently evaluating our self-concept. Higgins proposes that the emotions we experience are determined
both by our perceptions of how well our own behaviours meet up to the standards and goals we have
provided ourselves (our internal standards) and by our perceptions of how others think about us
(our external standards). Furthermore, Higgins argues that different types of self-discrepancies lead to
different types of negative emotions.
In one of Higgins’s experiments (Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986), participants were first asked
to describe themselves using a self-report measure. The participants listed 10 thoughts that they thought
described the kind of person they actually are; this is the actual self-concept. Then, participants also listed
10 thoughts that they thought described the type of person they would ideally like to be (the ideal self-
concept) as well as 10 thoughts describing the way that someone else — for instance, a parent — thinks
they ought to be (the ought self-concept).
Higgins then divided his participants into two groups. Those with low self-concept discrepancies were
those who listed similar traits on all three lists. Their ideal, ought, and actual self-concepts were all pretty
similar and so they were not considered to be vulnerable to threats to their self-concept. The other half of
the participants, those with high self-concept discrepancies, were those for whom the traits listed on the
ideal and ought lists were very different from those listed on the actual self list. These participants were
expected to be vulnerable to threats to the self-concept.
Then, at a later research session, Higgins first asked people to express their current emotions, including
those related to sadness and anxiety. After obtaining this baseline measure, Higgins activated either ideal
or ought discrepancies for the participants. Participants in the ideal self-discrepancy priming condition
were asked to think about and discuss their own and their parents’ hopes and goals for them. Participants
in the ought self-priming condition listed their own and their parents’ beliefs concerning their duty and
obligations. Then all participants again indicated their current emotions.
As you can see in Figure 12.11, “Research Results,” for low self-concept discrepancy participants,
thinking about their ideal or ought selves did not much change their emotions. For high self-concept
discrepancy participants, however, priming the ideal self-concept increased their sadness and dejection,
whereas priming the ought self-concept increased their anxiety and agitation. These results are consistent
with the idea that discrepancies between the ideal and the actual self lead us to experience sadness,
dissatisfaction, and other depression-related emotions, whereas discrepancies between the actual and
ought self are more likely to lead to fear, worry, tension, and other anxiety-related emotions.
Figure 12.11 Research Results.
Higgins and his colleagues documented the impact of self-concept discrepancies on emotion. For
participants with low self-concept discrepancies (right bars), seeing words that related to the self had little
influence on emotions. For those with high self-concept discrepancies (left bars), priming the ideal self
increased dejection whereas priming the ought self increased agitation. [Long Description]
One of the critical aspects of Higgins’s approach is that, as is our personality, our feelings are influenced
both by our own behaviour and by our expectations of how other people view us. This makes it clear that
even though you might not care that much about achieving in school, your failure to do well may still
produce negative emotions because you realize that your parents do think it is important.
Key Takeaways
 One of the most important psychological approaches to understanding personality is based on the
psychodynamic approach to personality developed by Sigmund Freud.
 For Freud the mind was like an iceberg, with the many motivations of the unconscious being much
larger, but also out of sight, in comparison to the consciousness of which we are aware.
 Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id, ego, and superego, and that the
interactions and conflicts among the components create personality.
 Freud proposed that we use defence mechanisms to cope with anxiety and maintain a positive self-
image.
 Freud argued that personality is developed through a series of psychosexual stages, each focusing on
pleasure from a different part of the body.
 The neo-Freudian theorists, including Adler, Jung, Horney, and Fromm, emphasized the role of the
unconscious and early experience in shaping personality, but placed less evidence on sexuality as the
primary motivating force in personality.
 Psychoanalytic and behavioural models of personality were complemented during the 1950s and 1960s
by the theories of humanistic psychologists, including Maslow and Rogers.
Exercises and Critical Thinking
1. Based on your understanding of psychodynamic theories, how would you analyze your own
personality? Are there aspects of the theory that might help you explain your own strengths and
weaknesses?
2. Based on your understanding of humanistic theories, how would you try to change your behaviour to
better meet the underlying motivations of security, acceptance, and self-realization?
3. Consider your own self-concept discrepancies. Do you have an actual-ideal or actual-ought
discrepancy? Which one is more important for you, and why?
References
Baddeley, J. L., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). Expressive writing. In W. T. O’Donohue & J. E.

Fisher (Eds.), General principles and empirically supported techniques of cognitive behavior
therapy (pp. 295–299). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Crews, F. C. (1998). Unauthorized Freud: Doubters confront a legend. New York, NY: Viking
Press.
Dolnick, E. (1998). Madness on the couch: Blaming the victim in the heyday of
psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Fisher, S., & Greenberg, R. P. (1996). Freud scientifically reappraised: Testing the theories and
therapy. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Freud, S. (1923/1949). The ego and the id. London, England: Hogarth Press. (Original work
published 1923)
Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional
vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 5–15.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237(4821), 1445–1452.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1997). Memory, abuse, and science. American Psychologist, 52(9), 994–995.
Maslow, Abraham (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper.
McGregor, H. A., Lieberman, J. D., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., Simon, L.,…
Pyszczynski, T. (1998). Terror management and aggression: Evidence that mortality salience
motivates aggression against worldview-threatening others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(3), 590–605.
Newman, L. S., Duff, K. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). A new look at defensive projection:
Thought suppression, accessibility, and biased person perception. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72(5), 980–1001.
Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2007). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical

analysis (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Roudinesco, E. (2003). Why psychoanalysis? New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An

introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.
Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to

distinct syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality, 56(4), 685–707.
Taylor, E. (2009). The mystery of personality: A history of psychodynamic theories. New York,
NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
Yalom, I. (1995). Introduction. In C. Rogers, A way of being. (1980). New York, NY: Houghton
Mifflin.
Image Attributions
Figure 12.9: Adapted from McGregor, et al., 1998.
Figure 12.11: Adapted from Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986.
Long Description
Figure 12.9 long description: Aggression as a Function of Mortality Salience and Provocation
Provocation Morality Salience Control condition
No 15 grams of hot sauce 17 grams of hot sauce
Yes 26 grams of hot sauce 11 grams of hot sauce
[Return to Figure 12.9]

Figure 12.10 long description: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, from bottom to top.
Physiological
Need to satisfy hunger and thirst.
(Base)
Need to feel that the world is organized and predictable; need to feel
Safety
safe, secure, and stable.
Need to love and be loved, to belong and be accepted; need to avoid

Love/belonging
loneliness and alienation.
Investopedia / Matthew Collins
What Was the Industrial Revolution?

The Industrial Revolution was a period of major mechanization and innovation that began in
Great Britain during the mid-18th century and early 19th century and later spread throughout
much of the world. The British Industrial Revolution was dominated by the exploitation of coal
and iron.
The American Industrial Revolution, sometimes referred to as the Second Industrial Revolution,
began in the 1870s and continued through World War II. The era saw the mechanization of
agriculture and manufacturing and the introduction of new modes of transportation including
steamships, the automobile, and airplanes.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
 The first Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain in the 1700s and 1800s and was a
time of significant innovation.
 The American Industrial Revolution followed in the late 19th century and was an engine
of economic growth in the U.S.
 The Industrial Revolution led to inventions that included the assembly line, telegraph,
steam engine, sewing machine, and internal combustion engine.
 Working for businesses during the Industrial Revolution paid better wages than
agricultural work.
 The increase in the number of factories and migration to the cities led to pollution,
deplorable working and living conditions, and child labor.
How Did the Industrial Revolution Impact Society?

Although the Industrial Revolution occurred approximately 200 years ago, it is a period that left
a profound impact on how people lived and the way businesses operated. Arguably, the factory
systems developed during the Industrial Revolution are responsible for creating capitalism and
the modern cities of today.
Before this period, most households made their living farming and lived primarily in small, rural
communities. With the advent of factories during the 18th century, people began working for
companies located in urban areas for the first time. Often the wages were low, and conditions
were harsh. However, working for such businesses still paid a better living wage than farming.1
Production efficiency improved during the Industrial Revolution with inventions such as the
steam engine. The steam engine dramatically reduced the time it took to manufacture products.
More efficient production subsequently reduced prices for products, primarily due to lower labor
costs, opening the marketing doors to a new level of customers.
The Industrial Revolution developed in conjunction with the capitalist economies.
Under capitalism, business owners (capitalists) began to organize labor centrally into factories
and introduced a division of labor to increase output and profitability. Compared to the craft and
guild systems that preceded it, capitalist production incentivized technological change and
innovation at an unprecedented rate.
The Industrial Revolution was driven, in part, by the adoption of coal as an energy source.
Before the use of coal, wood was the primary energy source; coal provided three times more
energy than wood, and Britain had large coal deposits.1
What Were the Effects of the Industrial Revolution on

Tariffs?
The Industrial Revolution was not always organic or directed alone by free market forces. The
United States government, for instance, helped domestic industry at the time by instituting tariffs
—taxes on foreign imported goods—so that products like steel made by U.S. companies were
cheaper than foreign imports. Cheaper steel prices encouraged the development
of infrastructure such as railroads and bridges during the American Industrial Revolution.
Advantages of Industrialization
The Industrial Revolution created an increase in employment opportunities. Wages at factories
were higher than what individuals were making as farmers. As factories became widespread,
additional managers and employees were required to operate them, increasing the supply of jobs
and overall wages.
Since most of the factories and large companies were located near cities, populations migrated to
urban areas searching for jobs, often overwhelming the available housing supply. This led to
significant improvements in city planning.
Increased innovation also led to higher levels of education, often resulting in several
groundbreaking inventions still used today. These inventions include the sewing machine, X-ray,
lightbulb, calculator, and anesthesia.
Due to the Industrial Revolution's advancements, the nation saw the first combustible engine,
incandescent light bulb, and modern assembly line used in manufacturing. The Industrial
Revolution changed how people worked, the technologies available to them, and in turn where
they lived. It made life comfortable for many though living conditions for workers remained
abhorrent, which eventually fueled the rise of labor unions that led to improved working
conditions and fair wages.
Disadvantages of Industrialization
Although there were numerous advancements during the Industrial Revolution, rapid progress
caused many issues. As workers left their farms to work in factories for higher wages, it led to
a shortage of food production.
The sharp increase in the number of factories caused an increase in urban pollution. Pollution
wasn't contained only in the factories; as people flocked to the cities, living conditions became
deplorable as the urban resources were overwhelmed.
Sewage flowed in the streets in some cities while manufacturers dumped waste from factories
into rivers. Water supplies were not tested and protected as they are today. As a result,
regulations, and laws were enacted to protect the population.
The Industrial Revolution provided an incentive to increase profits, and as a result, working
conditions in factories deteriorated. Long hours, inadequate remuneration, and minimal breaks
became the norm. Child labor was a significant issue. Health issues arose for many of the factory
workers giving rise to the labor movement throughout the U.S.
Pros
 Advancements in production
 Growth in innovations and inventions
 Workers earned higher wages
 Improvements in transportation networks
Cons
 Deplorable working conditions and child labor
 Unsanitary living conditions and pollution
 Food shortages
What Key Innovations Took Place During the

Industrial Revolution?
The first cotton mill was built after Samuel Slater brought Britain's manufacturing technology to
the United States. The mill was powered by water bringing jobs and commerce to the Northeast.
In the following years, many factories and mills were built using the same technologies.2
In 1869, the first transcontinental railroad was completed and was a major accomplishment for
the U.S. since it allowed the transportation of goods, people, and raw materials nationwide.3
Also, during the American Industrial Revolution, Samuel Morse created the telegraph, which
sent electric signals over a wire allowing the nation to communicate.4 Andrew Carnegie built the
first steel mills in the U.S. while Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone.5
How Is the Industrial Revolution Best Defined?

The Industrial Revolution shifted societies from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing
economy where products were no longer made solely by hand but by machines. This led to
increased production and efficiency, lower prices, more goods, improved wages, and migration
from rural areas to urban areas.
When Was the Industrial Revolution?

The first Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain in the mid-to-late 1700s when innovation
led to goods being produced in large quantities due to machine manufacturing. This spread
around the globe, and the Second Industrial Revolution began in the U.S. in the late 1800s that
saw further advancements in technology that drove greater efficiency.
What 3 Things Played a Role in the Industrial Revolution?

Technological changes, such as the use of iron and steel, new energy sources such as coal and
steam, and the factory system, led to a division of labor and specialization, which increased
efficiency.
What Were the Most Important Inventions of the Industrial

Revolution?
Among the most important inventions of the first Industrial Revolution include the steam engine,
the spinning jenny, cotton gin, and the telegraph. This was followed by the second Industrial
Revolution, which saw the advent of the internal combustion engine, controlled electricity, and
the lightbulb.
Compete Risk Free with $100,000 in Virtual Cash

Put your trading skills to the test with our FREE Stock Simulator. Compete with thousands of
Investopedia traders and trade your way to the top! Submit trades in a virtual environment before
you start risking your own money. Practice trading strategies so that when you're ready to enter
the real market, you've had the practice you need. Try our Stock Simulator today >>
ARTICLE SOURCES
Compare Accounts
Advertiser Disclosure
PROVIDER
NAME
DESCRIPTION
Related Terms
Industrialization: What It Is, Examples, and Impacts on Society
Industrialization is the process of transforming the economy of a nation from
a focus on agriculture to a reliance on manufacturing.
more
Social Science: What It Is and the 5 Major Branches
Social science is a group of academic disciplines that examine human
behavior and includes anthropology, economics, psychology, and sociology.
more
What Is Capitalism: Varieties, History, Pros & Cons, Socialism
Capitalism is an economic system whereby monetary goods are owned by
individuals or companies, and where workers earn only wages.
more
Marxism: What It Is and Comparison to Communism, Socialism, and
Capitalism
Marxism is a set of social, political, and economic theories developed by Karl
Marx that formed the basis of socialist principles.
more
Rust Belt: Definition, Why It’s Called That, List of States
The Rust Belt is a colloquial term used to describe the region from New York
to the Midwest that was once dominated by industrial manufacturing.
more
Entrepreneur: What It Means to Be One and How to Get Started
Entrepreneurs create new businesses, taking on all the risks and rewards of
their company. Learn about entrepreneurship and the challenges facing
entrepreneurs.
more
Partner Links
Related Articles
GUIDE TO MICROECONOMICS
What Impact Does Industrialization Have on Wages?
ECONOMICS
H
narratology
literary criticism
Print Cite Share Feedback
Written and fact-checked by
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

Last Updated: Article History
Table of Contents
Related Topics:
art criticism narrative

See all related content →
narratology, in literary theory, the study of narrative structure. Narratology looks at
what narratives have in common and what makes one different from another.
Like structuralism and semiotics, from which it derived, narratology is based on the idea
of a common literary language, or a universal pattern of codes that operates within the
text of a work. Its theoretical starting point is the fact that narratives are found and
communicated through a wide variety of media—such as oral and written language,
gestures, and music—and that the “same” narrative can be seen in many different forms.
The development of this body of theory, and its corresponding terminology, accelerated
in the mid-20th century.
The foundations of narratology were laid in such books as Vladimir

Propp’s Morfologiya skazki (1928; Morphology of the Folk Tale), which created a
model for folktales based on seven “spheres of action” and 31 “functions” of
narrative; Claude Lévi-Strauss’s Anthropologie structurale (1958; Structural
Anthropology), which outlined a grammar of mythology; A.J. Greimas’s Sémantique
structurale (1966; Structural Semantics), which proposed a system of six structural
units called “actants”; and Tzvetan Todorov’s Grammaire du Décaméron (1969; The
Grammar of the Decameron), which introduced the term narratologie. In Figures
III (1972; partial translation, Narrative Discourse) and Nouveau Discours de
récit (1983; Narrative Discourse Revisited), Gérard Genette codified a system of
analysis that examined both the actual narration and the act of narrating as they existed
apart from the story or the content. Other influential theorists in narratology
were Roland Barthes, Claude Bremond, Gerald Prince, Seymour Chatman, and Mieke
Bal.
This article was most recently revised and updated by Adam Augustyn.
flashback
Table of Contents
HomeLiteratureLiterary Terms
flashback
cinematography and literature

Table of Contents
Related Topics:
narrative technique
flashback, in motion pictures and literature, narrative technique of interrupting
the chronological sequence of events to interject events of earlier occurrence. The earlier
events often take the form of reminiscence. The flashback technique is as old as Western
literature. In the Odyssey, most of the adventures that befell Odysseus on his journey
home from Troy are told in flashback by Odysseus when he is at the court of the
Phaeacians.
The use of flashback enables the author to start the story from a point of high interest
and to avoid the monotony of chronological exposition. It also keeps the story in the
objective, dramatic present.
More From Britannica
film noir: The omniscient narrator and the flashback
In motion pictures, flashback is indicated not only by narrative devices but also by a
variety of optical techniques such as fade-in or fade-out (the emergence of a scene from
blackness to full definition, or its opposite), dissolves (the gradual exposure of a second
image over the first while it is fading away), or iris-in or iris-out (the expansion or
contraction of a circle enclosing the scene).
climax
Table of Contents
HomeLiteraturePlays
climax
literature
Also known as: crisis

Table of Contents
Related Topics:
dramatic literature anticlimax narrative

climax, (Greek: “ladder”), in dramatic and nondramatic fiction, the point at which the
highest level of interest and emotional response is achieved.
In rhetoric, climax is achieved by the arrangement of units of meaning (words, phrases,
clauses, or sentences) in an ascending order of importance. The following passage from
Melville’s Moby Dick (1851) is an example:
All that most maddens and torments; all that
stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice
in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the
brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and
thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly
personified and made practically assailable in
Moby Dick.
In the structure of a play the climax, or crisis, is the decisive moment, or turning point,
at which the rising action of the play is reversed to falling action. It may or may not
coincide with the highest point of interest in the drama. In the influential pyramidal
outline of five-act dramatic structure, advanced by the German playwright Gustav
Freytag in Die Technik des Dramas (1863), the climax, in the sense of crisis, occurs
close to the conclusion of the third act. By the end of the 19th century, when the
traditional five-act drama was abandoned in favour of the three-act, both the crisis and
the emotional climax were placed close to the end of the play.
explication de texte
Table of Contents
HomePhilosophy & ReligionHumanities
explication de texte
literary criticism

Table of Contents
Related Topics:
art criticism
explication de texte, (French: “explanation of text”) a method of literary
criticism involving a detailed examination of each part of a work, such as structure,
style, and imagery, and an exposition of the relationship of these parts to each other and
to the whole work. The method was originally used to teach literature in France and has
since become a tool for use by literary critics in other countries, particularly by
practitioners of New Criticism.
anamnesis
Table of Contents
anamnesis
ritual

Table of Contents
Related Topics:
reminiscence narrative
anamnesis, a recalling to mind, or reminiscence. Anamnesis is often used as a
narrative technique in fiction and poetry as well as in memoirs and autobiographies. A
notable example is Marcel Proust’s anamnesis brought on by the taste of a madeleine in
the first volume of Remembrance of Things Past (1913–27). The word is from the
Greek anámnēsis, “to recall or remember.”
beast tale
Table of Contents
beast tale
literature

Table of Contents
Related Topics:
beast epic Chanticleer beast fable narrative

beast tale, a prose or verse narrative similar to the beast fable in that it portrays animal
characters acting as humans but unlike the fable in that it usually lacks a moral. Joel
Chandler Harris’s Uncle Remus: His Songs and His Sayings (1880) derived many
episodes from beast tales carried to the United States by African slaves. Animal
Farm (1945), an anti-utopian satire by George Orwell, is a modern adaptation of the
beast tale.
plot
Table of Contents
HomeLiteraturePlays
plot
literature

Last Updated: Jun 12, 2023 • Article History
Table of Contents
Related Topics:
dramatic literature catastasis narrative

plot, in fiction, the structure of interrelated actions, consciously selected and arranged
by the author. Plot involves a considerably higher level of narrative organization than
normally occurs in a story or fable. According to E.M. Forster in Aspects of the
Novel (1927), a story is a “narrative of events arranged in their time-sequence,” whereas
a plot organizes the events according to a “sense of causality.”
In the history of literary criticism, plot has undergone a variety of interpretations. In

the Poetics, Aristotle assigned primary importance to plot (mythos) and considered it
the very “soul” of a tragedy. Later critics tended to reduce plot to a more mechanical
function, until, in the Romantic era, the term was theoretically degraded to an outline
on which the content of fiction was hung. Such outlines were popularly thought to exist
apart from any particular work and to be reusable and interchangeable. They might be
endowed with life by a particular author through his development of character, dialogue,
or some other element. The publication of books of “basic plots” brought plot to its
lowest esteem.
More From Britannica

novel: Plot
In the 20th century there have been many attempts to redefine plot as movement, and
some critics have even reverted to the position of Aristotle in giving it primary
importance in fiction. These neo-Aristotelians (or Chicago school of critics), following
the leadership of the critic Ronald S. Crane, have described plot as the author’s control
of the reader’s emotional responses—his arousal of the reader’s interest and anxiety and
the careful control of that anxiety over a duration of time. This approach is only one of
many attempts to restore plot to its former place of priority in fiction.
anagnorisis
literature

Table of Contents
Related Topics:
narrative
anagnorisis, (Greek: “recognition”), in a literary work, the startling discovery that
produces a change from ignorance to knowledge. It is discussed by Aristotle in
the Poetics as an essential part of the plot of a tragedy, although anagnorisis occurs in
comedy, epic, and, at a later date, the novel as well. Anagnorisis usually involves
revelation of the true identity of persons previously unknown, as when a father
recognizes a stranger as his son, or vice versa. One of the finest occurs in
Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex when a messenger reveals to Oedipus his true birth,
and Oedipus recognizes his wife Jocasta as his mother, the man he slew at the
crossroads as his father, and himself as the unnatural sinner who brought misfortune on
Thebes. This recognition is the more artistically satisfying because it is accompanied by
a peripeteia (“reversal”), the shift in fortune from good to bad that moves on to the
tragic catastrophe. An anagnorisis is not always accompanied by a peripeteia, as in
the Odyssey, when Alcinous, ruler of Phaeacia, has his minstrel entertain a shipwrecked
stranger with songs of the Trojan War, and the stranger begins to weep and reveals
himself as none other than Odysseus. Aristotle discusses several kinds of anagnorisis
employed by dramatists. The simplest kind, used, as he says, “from poverty of wit,” is
recognition by scars, birthmarks, or tokens. More interesting are those that arise
naturally from incidents of the plot.
skaz
Russian literature

Table of Contents
Related Topics:
narrative
skaz, in Russian literature, a written narrative that imitates a spontaneous oral account
in its use of dialect, slang, and the peculiar idiom of that persona. Among the well-
known writers who have used this device are Nikolay Leskov, Aleksey Remizov, Mikhail
Zoshchenko, and Yevgeny Zamyatin.
The word is of Russian origin and literally means “tale”; it is derived from skazat, “to
say.”
peripeteia
Table of Contents
 Introduction
Fast Facts
 Related Content
More
 More Articles On This Topic

 Contributors
 Article History
peripeteia
drama

Table of Contents
Related Topics:
narrative
peripeteia, (Greek: “reversal”) the turning point in a drama after which the plot moves
steadily to its denouement. It is discussed by Aristotle in the Poetics as the shift of the
tragic protagonist’s fortune from good to bad, which is essential to the plot of a tragedy.
It is often an ironic twist, as in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex when a messenger
brings Oedipus news about his parents that he thinks will cheer him, but the news
instead slowly brings about the awful recognition that leads to Oedipus’s catastrophe.
History at your fingertips – Sign up here to see what happened On This Day,
every day in your inbox!
Enter your email
Subscribe
By signing up for this email, you are agreeing to news, offers, and information from
Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Click here to view our Privacy Notice. Easy unsubscribe links are provided in every email.
STAY CONNECTED
 About Us & Legal Info

 Contact Us
 Privacy Policy
 Terms of Use
©2023 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

https://www.britannica.com/art/plot#:~:text=Humanities-,narratology,%C2%A92023%20Encyclop
%C3%A6dia%20Britannica%2C%20Inc.
What is Narrative Analysis?

This is part of our Essential Guide to Coding Qualitative Data | Start a Free Trial | Free
Qualitative Data Analysis Course
What is narrative analysis in

qualitative research?
Researchers use narrative analysis to understand how research participants construct story and
narrative from their own personal experience. That means there is a dual layer of interpretation
in narrative analysis. First the research participants interpret their own lives through narrative.
Then the researcher interprets the construction of that narrative.
Narratives can be derived from journals, letters, conversations, autobiographies, transcripts of

in-depth interviews, focus groups, or other types of narrative qualitative research and then used
in narrative research.
This post is in part a summary of our interpretation of Catherine Kohler Riessman’s Narrative
Analysis.
Learn about other methods of qualitative analysis on Delve’s YouTube channel.
Examples of personal narratives

Personal narratives come in a variety of forms and can all be used in narrative research.
 Topical stories
o A restricted story about one specific moment in time with a plot, characters, and
setting, but doesn’t encompass the entirety of a person’s life. Example: a research
participant’s answer to a single interview question
 Personal narrative
o Personal narratives come from a long interview or a series of long narrative
interviews that give an extended account of someone’s life. Example: a researcher
conducting an in-depth interview, or a series of in-depth interviews with an
individual over an extended period of time.
 Entire life story
o Constructed from a collection of interviews, observations, and documents about a
person’s life. Example: a historian putting together the biography of someone’s life
from past artifacts.
Capturing narrative data

While humans naturally create narratives and stories when interpreting their own lives, certain
data collection methods are more conducive to understanding your research participants' sense
of self narrative. Semi-structured interviews, for example, give the interviewee the space to go
on narrative tangents and fully convey their internal narratives. Heavily structured interviews
that follow a question answer format or written surveys, are less likely to capture narrative
data.
Transcribing narrative data

As mentioned earlier, narrative analysis has dual layers of interpretation. Researchers should
not take narrative interviews at face value because they are not just summarizing a research
participant's self-narrative. Instead, researchers should actively interpret how the interviewee
created that self-narrative. Thus narrative analysis emphasizes taking verbatim transcription of
narrative interviews, where it is important to include pauses, filler words, and stray utterances
like “um….”.
For more information on transcription options, please see our guide on how to transcribe
interviews.
Coding in narrative analysis

There are many methods for coding narrative data. They range from deductive coding where
you start with a list of codes, and inductive coding where you do not. You can also learn about
many other ways to code in our Essential Guide to Coding Qualitative Data or take our Free
Course on Qualitative Data Analysis.
What is narrative research

In addition to narrative analysis, you can also practice narrative research, which is a type of
study that seeks to understand and encapsulate the human experience by using in depth
methods to explore the meanings associated to people’s lived experiences. You can utilize
narrative research design to learn about these concepts. Narrative analysis can be used in
narrative research as well as other approaches such as grounded theory, action research,
ethnology and more.
Download Free Narrative Analysis Guide

Want to learn how to do narrative analysis? Submit your email to request our free narrative
analysis guide with tips on how to get started with your own narrative analysis. You will get a
narrative analysis in qualitative research PDF emailed to you.
Email(required)
Download Free Na rrative Ana lysis Guide
Inductive method for narrative analysis

Learn about inductive narrative method:
It is common for inductive methods of narrative analysis to code much larger blocks of text
than traditional coding methods. Narrative analysis differs from other qualitative analysis
methods, in that it attempts to keep the individual narratives intact. In many coding methods, it
is common to split up an interviewee’s narrative into smaller pieces and group them by theme
with other interviewee’s statements. This breaks up the individual’s personal narrative.
Narrative analysis treats a complete story as the individual piece of datum that you are
analyzing. So in the inductive method of narrative analysis, you should code the entire block of
text for each of your research participants' stories. This section of text is called a “narrative
block”
Entrance and Exit Talk
There are tricks to identifying narrative blocks in your research participants’ narrative
interviews. Riesssman recommended looking for “entrance and exit talk”. Your participants
may give you verbal hints when they begin and end a story.
A story may start with the phrases:
 “There was this one time…”,

 “Let me give you an example”,
 and “I’ll always remember when…”
Likewise, you can detect the end of stories with exit talk such as:
 “So that’s how that wrapped up…”

 “That is a pretty classic example of…”
 and “and that was the end of that.”
You can’t always depend on “entrance and exit talk”, as they will not always be used.
Furthermore, semi-structured interviews are not screenplays. Narratives won’t always exist as
nice neat narrative blocks. Participants may meander and go on tangents. But the narrative
through-line may still exist. And using coding you group together a narrative that is spread
across an interview.
Deductive method for narrative analysis

Learn about deductive narrative method:
There are many existing story structure frameworks. With a deductive method of narrative
analysis, researchers can use a story structure framework and as their initial set of codes. This
can be as simple as “Beginning”, “Middle” and “End”. In “Doing Narrative Research”,
Patterson used the following codes for his narrative structure.
 Abstract: The core thesis of the story, summary

 Orientation: Time, place, situation, and characters
 Complicating action: Sequence of events, plot
 Evaluation: How the storyteller comments on meaning
 Resolution: Outcome of the story
 Coda: Story’s ending
At Delve, when we conduct narrative analysis we prefer the “Story Circle” for our initial set of
codes:
1. You - A character is in a zone of comfort

2. Need - But they want something.
3. Go - They enter an unfamiliar situation,
4. Search - Adapt to it,
5. Find - Get what they wanted,
6. Take/Pay - Pay a heavy price for it,
7. Return - Then return to their familiar situation,
8. Change - Having changed.
When utilizing the deductive method, you may want to keep track of the existing framework in
a codebook. See our guide on “How to Create a Qualitative Codebook”.
Hybrid Inductive and Deductive Narrative

Analysis
As is common in other methods of qualitative analysis, combining inductive and deductive can
be helpful. For narrative analysis, this involves first coding inductively the narrative blocks in
your transcripts. Then within those narrative blocks, code deductively using a story structure
framework. We will delve deeper into this in the following sections.
How to analyze data in a narrative

interview
Narrative analysis, like many qual methods, takes a set of data like interviews and reduces it to
abstract findings. The difference is that while many popular qualitative methods aim to reduce
interviews to a set of core themes or findings, narrative analysis aims to reduce interviews to a
set of core narratives.
A core narrative is a generalized narrative grounded in your research participants’ stories. This
is not implying that all stories in your narrative study will be perfectly encapsulated by one
core narrative. There will be outliers and nuance. And as in all qualitative analysis, embracing
and communicating this is an important part of the process.
A step by step approach to narrative analysis
and finding the core narratives
There is no one agreed-upon method of narrative analysis or narrative research method. There
are many types of narrative research designs. That being said, we thought it would be helpful
to provide a step-by-step narrative approach to at least one method of narrative analysis that
will help you find core narratives in research.
Step 1: Code Narrative Blocks

Inductively code the narrative blocks you find in your interviews. You should code narrative
blocks about similar “life events” with the same code.
For example, stories about how someone decided to have children could be coded as
“Narratives about deciding to have children”.
Step 2: Group and Read By Live-Event

Read over all the narratives that you coded with the same “life event” code. As you do so, note
their similarities and differences. This is the beginning of your analysis!
Step 3: Create Nested Story Structure Codes

For every “life event” code, create and nest codes based on your story structure framework of
choice. For example:
 Narratives about deciding to have children (this is your inductively created life-event
code)
o Abstract (these codes are based on story structure)
o Orientation
o Complicating action
o Evaluation
o Resolution
o Coda
More generally put:
 Life Event Code

o Story Structure Code 1
o Story Structure Code 2
o ...
Now break up your narrative blocks, by applying these story structure codes.
Step 4: Delve into the Story Structure

Now you can collate each life event by its story structure code. For example within “narratives
about deciding to have children'', you can focus on “Orientation”. In all the stories about
deciding to have children, you can compare and contrast how different research participants
oriented their stories. The similarities and differences can be written down as you observe
them. Differences can be further coded to help with later analysis. For example, if it was
common for your participants to talk about their parent’s marital status, you may end up with
the following code structure.
 Deciding to have children

o Abstract
o Orientation
 Parent divorce
 Parents still together
o etc...
Step 5: Compare Across Story Structure

As you break up your narrative blocks by story structure, do not lose sight of the overarching
narrative. Switch between reading your narrative blocks as a whole, and diving into each
individual story structure code. Pay attention to how story structure codes relate across a life
event.
For example, participants who talked about their parents’ divorce, may construct meaning
differently than those whose parents remained together. You may discover this finding by
comparing “Orientation” with “Evaluation”.
Step 6: Tell the Core Narrative

At the end of these steps, you will have fully explored each narrative block. You will have a
deep understanding of how your research participants self-narrate their lives. You will have
observed how your participants' stories relate, but also how they diverge. And through the
process, you may have a theory why these stories diverge.
For each life-event take the structure you used (in our example Patterson’s Abstract,
Orientation, etc…) and write a core narrative that encapsulates the commonalities between
your participants. If you have found fundamental differences within your research base, you
can capture that nuance in a single core narrative. Alternatively, you can break a life event into
two core narratives and compare them. In our example above we may write one core narrative
from the perspective of participants whose parents divorced and another perspective of
participants whose parents stayed together.
Now that you’ve learned about various models of narrative analysis, take the next step by
seeing how to code the data that you collect from these methods. Check out our Essential
Guide to Coding Qualitative Data or take our Free Online Course on Qualitative Data
Analysis.
Try Delve, Narrative Analysis Software

Online software such as Delve can help streamline how you’re coding your qualitative coding.
Try a free trial or watch a demo of the Delve.
References:
Riessman, Catherine Kohler. (©1993) Narrative analysis /Newbury Park, CA : Sage
Publications,
Cite this blog post:
Delve, Ho, L., & Limpaecher, A. (2020b, September 15). What is Narrative Analysis?
Essential Guide to Coding Qualitative Data. https://delvetool.com/blog/narrativeanalysis
https://delvetool.com/blog/narrativeanalysis#:~:text=What%20is%20Narrative,com/blog/
narrativeanalysis
Articulating Trauma
Anne Goarzin
p. 11-22
https://doi.org/10.4000/etudesirlandaises.2116
Outline | Text | Notes | References | Cited by | About the author
Outline
Trauma and Trauma Theory

The Modalities of Traumatic Experience
Trauma Studies: A Genealogy
Narrating Trauma: Speaking the Unspeakable?
Expressing Trauma: Making the Most The Lack
The Blind Spots of Trauma Theory
Trauma, Memory and Ireland
Top of page
Full text
PDFSend by e-mail
Trauma and Trauma Theory

1 See A. Goldberg, “Trauma, Narrative, and Two Forms of Death”, Literature and Medicine, 25:1, Spring (...)
2 Geoffrey H. Hartman, “On Traumatic Knowledge and Literary Studies”, New Literary History, 26:3, 199 (...)
3 Roger Luckhurst, The Trauma Question, London and New York, Routledge, 2008.
4 Ibid., p. 4.
1Trauma may be defined as an original inner catastrophe, as an experience of excess which

overwhelms the subject symbolically and/or physically and is not accessible to him. This “radical and
shocking interruption of the universe, but not its total destruction 1” means that the pain experienced
by the subject is forcefully relocated into the subconscious. As Geoffrey Hartman puts it: “The
knowledge of trauma… is composed of two contradictory elements. One is the traumatic event,
registered rather than experienced. It seems to have bypassed perception and consciousness, and
falls directly into the psyche. The other is a kind of memory of the event, in the form of a perpetual
troping of it by the bypassed or severely split (dissociated) psyche 2.” This involves the disjunction and
the forever belated, incomplete understanding of the event, as Roger Luckhurst argues in his recent
comprehensive treatment of The Trauma Question3, thus fostering Cathy Caruth’s designation of
trauma as a crisis of representation, of history and truth, and of narrative time 4.
5 Geoffrey H. Hartman, op.cit., p. 547.
6 Ibid.
7 This is what Geoffrey Hartman argues Romantic poetry also does – it is in a “perpetual troping”, a (...)
8 Judith Herman, Trauma and Recovery (1992), London, BasicBooks, 2001, p. 1.
2“What is the relevance of trauma theory for reading, or practical criticism 5?” Hartman aptly asks. His
answer is that, while trauma theory provides no definitive answers, “it stays longer in the negative
and allows disturbances of language and mind the quality we give to literature 6”. Literature is indeed
one way to express whatever kind of memory the traumatic event allows: it appears in the form of
perpetual troping of it by the psyche, and is best phrased through figurative language 7. As the subject
struggles within his mental cage, the ineffable memories seek a way out and may take the guise of
seemingly inexplicable and compulsive behaviours (the compulsion to repeat), as trauma calls for a
silence filled with hauntings. The central dialectic of psychological trauma is “the conflict between the
will to deny horrible events and the will to proclaim them aloud 8” to take up Judith Herman’s phrasing.
3The need to revisit events and “proclaim them aloud” is also exemplified by the writings of social
historians. While they might not stand out as victims or witnesses, their determination to look back on
previously ill-defined or deliberately overlooked events or chronically violent conditions in the history
of a nation is central to criticism, in that it makes sense of the recurring trauma of past traumatizing
violent histories (which in the case of Ireland include colonial invasion, war, terrorism, revolution,
etc.). This volume seeks to address some of the narratives that “ghost” Irish history and culture
(about the Travellers, the victims of child abuse or previously unquestioned interpretations of 1968 in
Northern Ireland, for example). It also provides an insight into how literature perceives, deals with or
memorizes inner or collective trauma.
The Modalities of Traumatic Experience
9 Gabriele Schwab, “Writing Against Memory and Forgetting”, Literature and Medicine, 25:1, Spring 200 (...)
10 Ibid., p. 95-96.
11 Judith Herman, op. cit., p. 1.
4In the case of a traumatic event, the subject’s defences are radically called into question. There is
also an overwhelming side to traumatic experience, in that it questions the usual systems of care and
control, or connection and meaning experienced by the individual. Trauma is thus ambivalent on the
individual level, as an experience of excess that can only be manifested in the lack of a meaningful
structure or form to express this extreme, unbearable moment the self goes through. Trauma is a
death of the subject, Gabriele Schwab says, indicating that “trauma kills the pulsing of desire, the
embodied self. Trauma attacks and sometimes kills language 9”. The traumatised subject is bound to
live as the living dead, as someone who struggles to “disentangle the self from the dead bodies they
are trying to hide10” – “Atrocities refuse to be buried”, as Judith Herman states in her landmark
study Trauma and Recovery (1992)11.
12 See Judith Herman, p. 35-43, quoted in Jane Robinett, “The Narrative Shape of Traumatic Experience” (...)
13 Jane Robinett, “The Narrrative Shape…”, p. 290.
14 A. Goldberg, “Trauma, Narrative, and Two Forms of Death”, p. 133.
5The traumatic experience also affects the ability of its victim to deal with his environment serenely
(i.e. linearly), and one may note the following manifestations of mental or physical disruption among
potential symptoms12: hyperarousal (persistent expectation of danger, startled reaction and
hyperalertness); intrusion (during which the traumatic events are relived “as if they were occurring in
the present”); constriction (numbing, withdrawal, indifference, acute passivity or surrender). Robinett
follows neurobiologist Van der Kolk’s view that people who undergo trauma experience “‘speechless
terror… the experience cannot be organized on a linguistic level’ and thus becomes not only
inaccessible but also irrepresentable 13”. Because by nature, trauma is registered and not experienced,
it resurfaces in many different ways. In terms of Lacanian psychoanalysis, the overwhelming nature of
trauma corresponds to the encounter with the Real: “Trauma is caused by the subject’s close
encounter with what Lacan calls the ‘Real’ – a situation or an event that exceeds the symbolic order
and therefore cannot gain any meaning in the subject’s symbolic framework. Something in this
encounter bypasses the cognitive mental apparatus and is experienced by the subject as excess. This
[…] excess is doomed to return as a traumatic symptom and to haunt the subject in a compulsory
manner14”.
6In his thorough study of the modalities of traumatic experience, Goldberg also points out its specific,
repetitive and belated temporal structure which fails to fit in the more comfortable linear temporality
of the narrative: in a way, one may also say that trauma theory thus engages one with the “real”
world that is outside the symbolic order of academia and into darker areas of perception and
knowledge.
Trauma Studies: A Genealogy

15 Roger Luckhurst, The Trauma Question, p. 20.
16 Ibid., p. 19.
17 The term shell-shock was first coined in The Lancet in 1915. But most strikingly, Luckhurst devotes (...)
7Roger Luckhurst vividly shows that the concept of trauma emerged with modernity and matched its
“intrinsic ambivalences: progress and ruin, liberation and constraint, individualisation and
massification… perhaps best concretized by technology 15”. These “ambivalences” can be traced “as an
effect of the rise, in the nineteenth century, of the technological and statistical society that can
generate, multiply and quantify the ‘shocks’ of modern life 16”. In the wake of these shocks17 a series
of specialised approaches including law, psychiatry and industrialized warfare” emerged, all of which
marked the irruption of temporal dislocation and loss of memory in the Western psyche.
18 Judith Herman, op. cit., p. 2
19 Ibidem, p. 7.
20 David Lloyd, Irish Times, Temporalities of Modernity, Field Day Files 4, University of Notre Dame/ (...)
8Herman’s insight into trauma is related to her involvement in the women’s movement in the 1970s:
she set out “to speak out against the denial of women’s experiences in [her] own profession [as a
psychiatric resident] and testify to what I had witnessed 18”. Within two decades, the work initiated
with victims of sexual and domestic violence came to take in other traumatic experiences, such as
those of the war veterans or those of the victims of political terror. In his thorough chapter which
explores “The genealogy of a concept”, Luckhurst follows in the footsteps of Judith Herman, stressing
that the history of trauma itself is marked by “periodic amnesia 19” that is, by a tendency to obliterate
and then rediscover lines of inquiry intro trauma. This is markedly true of Ireland, where centenary
commemorations (of the Famine, of Easter 1916, of the Great War) have led to a renewed interest in
events that had become anathema. David Lloyd’s statement that “Irish memory is at once the
memory of modernity and its catastrophes and that of living otherwise” is aptly illustrated in his
chapter that questions “Colonial Trauma/Postcolonial Recovery? Mourning the Irish Famine 20”.
21 See A. Goldberg, op. cit.
9From the 1960s onwards, interest in trauma shifted to “survivor syndromes” following nuclear war
and Nazi persecution and trauma studies began to be theorized in the 1980s, which was demonstrated
by the shift in terms from the vague “nervous shock” to that of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).
Central to this theorizing is the Holocaust: the unthinkable inhumanity of the Shoah, its apocalyptic
barbarity, constitutes an aporia, and is the crux of trauma theory as elaborated by Cathy Caruth or
Dominick LaCapra, while also the premise of further applications of trauma theory. A good illustration
of how the Shoah can be read using the tools of trauma theory is provided in Amos Goldberg’s article
regarding the Jewish subject at the heart of the trauma of the 20th century – the Shoah, often
translated as “the catastrophe21”.
Narrating Trauma: Speaking the

Unspeakable?
22 R. Luckhurst, op.cit., p. 65.
23 Ibid.
24 Theodor Adorno, Prisms, trans. S. and S. Weber, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1981.
25 R. Luckhurst, op. cit., p. 5.

10The Holocaust can therefore be understood as an aporetic event, “traumatic enough to shatter the
frame of historiography or representation itself22”, one that escapes the narrative possibilities of
“mémoire ordinaire23” an event which import and massiveness precludes resolution or registration.
“To write after Auschwitz is barbaric”, Theodor Adorno wrote in Prisms (1981)24 – all of Western
conscience is “at once contaminated by and complicit with Auschwitz, yet the denial of culture is also
barbaric25”. Auschwitz thus constitutes a moment of rupture, one which challenges our approach to
history and the rules of knowledge.
26 A. Goldberg, op. cit., p. 132.
27 Ibid.
11The first instance of excessive control of the subject consists in the physical marking of the victim
and the imposition of the annihilator’s symbols on them. Marking the victim, from the Jewish Star of
David to the tattoos in the death camps, makes it impossible to disconnect the pure identity of the
individual as self and the concept of “Jewishness” – there is no distinction between the sign and the
real body, and there is a sense that their fate is thus imposed on the victims. The difficulty for the self
is thus to retain some subjectivity, and to “move beyond fate”, beyond the Nazi assertion that “a Jew
as signifier is a Jew as concept is a Jew as a real material body […] there are no gaps between the
subject and the signifier and between one signifier and another since the Jew has only one signifier.
Central in this is the idea that total identity is reached 26”. Such identity precludes any possibility to
differ and denies the ability for the subject to diverge from the artificial identity that he has been
ascribed by the Nazis: “in other words, the subject’s constant and everlasting search for his or her
signifier, or identity, is blocked 27.” Or, to put it slightly differently, what is lacking is lack itself: that
is, the very possibility to lack something or someone – to search for or construct one’s subjective
identity – is denied to the individual. Utter objectification is the end of the individual and his or her
dehumanization.
28 Ibid., p. 123.
12This is undeniably where a Lacanian reading of trauma is convincing.Indeed, narrating trauma

allows for the initial trauma to be “framed so that it will not collapse into two very much more radical
forms of death – the death of the victim subject by the annihilator’s signifier and the victim’s ‘symbolic
death’28”. However this framing, more often than not, is imperfect, and failures or gaps testify to the
difficulty for the traumatised subject to recall and create knowledge of the past in the present.
Expressing Trauma: Making the Most The

Lack
13How then may trauma be expressed and find a way out of this suffocated voice/self? What are the
different ways to grasp the elusive traumatic event and thus move beyond the irrepresentable?
14The language of literature, be it figurative or not, offers the opportunity to tackle those issues, as
Geoffrey Hartman points out:
29 Geoffrey H. Hartman, op. cit., p. 547.
[I]n literature, as much as in life, the simplest event can resonate mysteriously, be invested with aura, and
tend toward the symbolic. The symbolic, in this sense, is not a denial of literal or referential but its uncanny
intensification […] In short we get a clearer view of the relation of literature to mental functioning in several
key areas, including reference, subjectivity, and narration 29.
30 Ibid.
31 Gabriele Schwab, “Writing Against Memory and Forgetting”, p. 102.
32 Jane Robinett, op. cit., p. 297.
15Hartman goes on to say that this need for the symbolic also makes for a very human and
compulsive questioning “that grapples, again and again, with issues of reality, bodily integrity,
and identity30”. Most importantly, he adds, trauma theory does not provide premature answers to
these questions but allows the “quality of time” necessary to reflect on the disturbances of language
and mind. Trauma theory allows us to “read the wound’ with the aid of literature. This does not mean
that trauma theory offers an infallible, all-encompassing framework for the interpretation of all
atrocities whatever their scale, individual or historical. Gabriele Schwab phrases this reservation most
adequately: “How then do we write what resists representation 31?” For the critical theorist, this
involves examining how telling and witnessing are steps in the healing of trauma. Namely, one may
wonder how writing a life narrative can compensate for that lack and come to terms with the event.
Trauma theory therefore entails examining what it takes for a subject to overcome PTSD and return to
language, to question or phrase (even in a fragmentary fashion) the violent trauma he/she has
undergone. One way to come to terms with this lack of form is to reflect the gaping hole of knowledge
or memory caused by traumatic experience in similarly lacking narrative structures that are
“fractured, erratic structures and disintegration of self and society, culture or world 32” and constitute
prominent features of trauma, says Jane Robinett.
33 For example, David Lloyd stresses the need, “[i]n the very cusp of catastrophe […] [to bespeak] the (...)
16To a certain extent, this is also the paradoxical imperative assigned to the artist in her/his attempt
to phrase the unspeakable event, as well as to the critic – as someone who narrates what has been
obliterated33. Both must make choices as they grapple with the possibilities of making sense of
trauma. All these standpoints provide the self with more than a mere re-living of the trauma, whether
they stand as subject and first-hand witness who experienced trauma in their body and mind,
conveying the intricate sense of fragmented representation and commemoration, or as a dissociated
(distanciated) I/eye (that of the fiction writer or of the poet, that of the historian or anthropologist),
since they propose ideological choices to the approach of the events.
17Thus while trauma is never a chosen experience and durably disseminates the sense of the self, it
appears that there might be a possibility for healing in the choices operated in the narratives of
trauma. One of the ways of working through trauma implies narrating it, whatever form this takes.
This corresponds to an intermediary stage on the path to recovery, which is usually described clinically
as follows: first, the establishment of safety, next remembrance and mourning, which then leads to
reconnection with ordinary life. While the failure to contemplate the past in narrative form results in
trauma, with memories remaining outside the subject altogether and enacted as drama, at best – as
opposed to synthesised and narrated by a subject who masters them – the narrative appears as one
way to recover, and more precisely, to remember and mourn. It might sometimes achieve the
liberating feat of enacting the original traumatic event.
34 Feldmann and Laub in Roger Luckhurst, The Trauma Question, p. 7.
35 David Lloyd, op. cit., p. 40.
36 Ibidem, p. 44.
18The greatest challenge may even be to take remembering and mourning one step further. David
Lloyd’s writing about the Irish Famine (1845-52) and its consequences (the disappearance of one
quarter of the population of Ireland due to starvation) seems an apt summary of what is at stake in
catastrophic events. Whether the focus is on the Holocaust or the Famine and even though they are
contextually very distinct, both events are confronted with a crisis of witnessing, that is, with the
aporetic difficulty of representing an event whose witnesses have been eradicated: “the necessity of
testimony derives from the impossibility of testimony 34.” Indeed, Lloyd argues that the post-traumatic
discourse involves a degree of risk-taking in confronting the victims’ ghosts:“Mourning is no redress
[…] Commemoration too is unavailing in so far as it fixes the dead in the past, where what the dead
require is a place in the future that were denied to them 35”. The attempt at healing and redressing
events is undeniably a perilous venture, for “the paradox of redress is that the catastrophic violence of
history can be righted only in relinquishing the desire to set it right, in order instead to make room for
the spectres in whose restlessness the rhythms of another mode of living is speaking to us 36”. These
ghosts keep reappearing in unexpected ways in cultural practices and pointing at the memories of
futures not lived and of “paths not taken”.
The Blind Spots of Trauma Theory

19One may wonder however about the power issues reflected by the scale of the trauma that is
narrated. Trauma theory is sometimes said to locate itself in the rather exclusive field of major-scale
traumatic events from which “smaller” traumas are excluded and collective traumas dominate over
“individual” narratives. In other words, what does it take to interpret violent history? More often than
not, it means reading through the cryptographic dimension of stories, as is the case for instance with
a secret covered up defensively which requires reading against the grain.
37 See Roger Luckhurst, The Trauma Question for a summary of Cathy Caruth’s main lines of thought, i.e (...)
20While most critics acknowledge the pioneering and much-needed nature of Cathy Caruth’s or
Dominick LaCapra’s studies on trauma37, some have stressed what trauma theory fails to address.
Because it works on a specific causal framework (for example, child abuse, or the Holocaust, or any
relevant historical traumatic events), one may argue that what trauma theory does not take into
account should also be considered. One might indeed contend, along with Greg Forter, that it
obliterates the “mundanely catastrophic”:
38 Greg Forter, “Freud, Faulkner, Caruth: Trauma and the Politics of Literary Form”, Narrative, 15:3, (...)
I am speaking here of the trauma induced by patriarchal identity formation rather, say, than the trauma of
rape, the violence not of lynching but of everyday racism. These phenomena are indeed traumas in the
sense of having decisive and deforming effects on the psyche that give rise to compulsively repeated and
highly rigidified social relations. But such traumas are also chronic and cumulative, so woven into the fabric
of our societies, that they cannot count as “shocks” in the way that Nazi persecution and genocide do in the
accounts of Caruth and others38.
39 Victoria Burrows, “The Heterotopic Spaces of Postcolonial Trauma in Michael Ondaatje’s Anil’s Ghost(...)
40 Ibid.
41 See also Stef Craps and Gert Buelens, “Introduction : Postcolonial Trauma Novels”, Studies in the N (...)
21Victoria Burrows for instance stresses that there is a notable tendency in these seminal works to not
to address the issue of trauma as represented in colonialism and postcolonialism. The “ability to listen”
to the other does not encompass the otherness of the non-White, non-Western subject, with
Eurocentrism one of the most notable blind spots of trauma theory, Burrows argues, in contradiction
with Cathy Caruth’s approach. For Burrows, Caruth “manifestly ignores power structures 39” and there
is a blatant need to reassess the idea of trauma as “temporal disruption of belatedness 40” to address
postcolonial trauma as well as ongoing traumas which are, for many people, related to the changes in
power structures: neocolonialism, cultural imperialism and global capital 41.
Trauma, Memory and Ireland

42 On the topic of commemoration, see Jay Winter’s analyses. Winter describes three phases in the proc (...)
22Memory Studies, which may be said to be an offspring of trauma theory, make for an
interdisciplinary field in their own right, comprising the politics of memory, individual and social
memory, embodiment and representation. Individual and social memory are two different approaches:
individual memory is often theorized as located within the mind of one person, and social memory as
located externally in sites such as archives, objects, narratives, or cultural practices 42.
43 Again, in the case of Ireland, recent reports on child abuse, in particular those in the care of th (...)
23The first chapter of this volume offers insights into the modalities of cultural memory in Ireland.
While John O’Callaghan’s approach to the way history was taught in Irish secondary schools between
1922-70 focuses on the ideological functions of an institutionalized, national(ist) memory, it also lays
the basis for a much-needed reappraisal of non-conformist (or one might say heterotopic) discourses.
Mícheál Ó hAodha’s essay on Travellers’ narratives and memory provides additional insight into the
elaboration of a narrative counter-memory that resists hegemonic discourses and asserts the
existence of the Travellers as a liminal group. Much of the vibrant literary and cultural
autobiographical contributions quoted in the essay unearth their long-forgotten existence as a
community that is both “other” and engages with the questions of Irishness. Peter Guy looks into how
the “values” associated with the Irish State throughout the construction of the nation (i.e. caring for
the poor or dispensing goodness) were distorted to a point where Christian care came to mean
horrendous institutionalized violence in gulag-like “industrial schools”. Guy shows how through the
years of silent abuse, the voices of some victims managed to find a way, if fragmentarily, into
memoirs or novels which indicted the system long before the 2009 Ryan Report exposed the scale of
the abuse43.
44 Gabriele Schwab, op. cit., p. 96.
24One might claim, as often do the perpetrators of abuse or of terror, that forgetting has also a
central role in social memory – or that remembering the forgotten may have a role to play in the
elaboration of a common history that attempts to do justice not only, in the case of Ireland for
example, to a dreamed collective nation-building but also to the place of the individual in that process.
But forgetting is not on the agenda for those victims, nor is it for the Bloody Sunday survivors, as
Charlotte Barcat shows. In both cases, collective trauma has been passed on through the generations,
taking the shape of what Schwab calls, quoting Freud, “Schilcksalneurose, that is a ‘fate neurosis’ […]
hidden and intangible, relegated to secrecy and silence 44” which consists in living under a bad spell or
curse that often preceded one’s life. The effects of transgenerational memory or the lack of it, and the
transmission of body memories through somatic manifestations are but variations on this “curse”. It is
also quite palatable in the physical and psychological traumatic aftermath of Bloody Sunday: the
traumatic experience seems to burst at the seams, questioning the conclusions of two successive
inquiries and memorizing obsessively the story of the events. While showing a concern with the
European scale of the Northern Irish events, Chris Reynolds challenges the customary obliteration of
the 1968 Troubles from the historiographic map by locating Northern Ireland’s pivotal year in the
wider body of European (and specifically, French) revolts, thus redefining the significance of 1968 for
Northern Ireland and offering a much-needed transnational appraisal of the upheaval.
45 Central for making this point is David Lloyd’s analysis: “Trauma entails violent intrusion and a se (...)
46 Ibid., p. 2.
25The second chapter in this collection entitled “Approaches to violence and warfare in Irish
Literature” addresses the possibility of writing about “an atrocity one did not really know”, beginning
with Shane Alcobia-Murphy’s reading of Medbh McGuckian’s “Holocaust poems”, which examines
poetic strategies to reveal trauma through the distortions of language. The section also allows the
writer to focus on the consequences of the crucial moment in the traumatic history of Ireland that is
colonisation45. Both Sylvie Mikowski and Edwina Keown’s articles centre on the colonial condition of
Ireland. Sebastian Barry’s A Long Long Way and Bowen’s novel The Last September account for the
characters’ encounters with violence in the Irish colonial context. Sebastian Barry’s character, a young
Irish soldier fighting on the British side in the Somme goes through the throes of terror and meets an
untimely death in the trenches, while Bowen’s Anglo-Irish character Lois in The Last September has
only a somewhat hazy perception of the after-effects of colonisation on the Irish people’s yearning for
independence. These novels provide a lens through which the loss of innocence is represented. They
also stress the necessity for a transgressive discourse that suggests how the differing natures and
scales of trauma are acknowledged. For even while these moments in Irish history are indeed central,
they are definitely not ideologically clear-cut and both authors suggest that they foster a critical
discourse on ambivalent moments which do not fit in the convenient progressive mould defined by the
historical revisionist, as says Lloyd, to “embrace the idea of Ireland’s modernization” in order to
contradict the usual “statements on our backwardness”: in that context, the Great Famine, the advent
of independence, or the programmatic modernization of Ireland since the Whitaker report in 1959 to
the present stand as emblematic moments associated with the upbeat (yet Whiggish) notion that
Ireland has “moved on” and “left behind […] all the symptoms of an uncured backwardness 46”– thus
obliterating, for example, the contemporary social consequences of Ireland’s accelerated growth and
ongoing economic recession.
26Hélène Lecossois’s essay on Marina Carr’s drama and Sandrine Brisset’s reading of Brendan
Kennelly’s “inspired” poetry offer an apposite conclusion to the volume by affirming the spectral
dimension looming above the entire collection. Carr’s The Mai and The Bog of Cats are peopled by
ghosts. Omnipresent memories of the dead hover as the characters struggle with the impossibility to
mourn, and while the stage makes intimate trauma palatable, it remains unresolved: the modern
subject can only die of an excess of self-knowledge and language fails to liberate him. Brisset, on the
other hand, argues that Kennelly’s poetry converts traumatic disruption into controlled poetic
language by reverting to ancient bardic tradition, thus allowing psychic trauma to filter through the
mind in its visionary violent moments, and into the material/body of the poem.
27All the contributions in this collection attempt to isolate the intricacies of trauma in a specifically
Irish context and to examine how the wound, which cannot be apprehended directly by the victims of
historical or institutionalized violence in the contemporary era, sometimes finds its expression in
poetry, drama or fiction. The volume also offers renewed critical approaches of founding moments in
the definition of the nation, all of which confirm the necessity to go beyond the protective attempt at
forgetting in order to memorize and possibly heal.
Top of page
Notes
1 See A. Goldberg, “Trauma, Narrative, and Two Forms of Death”, Literature and Medicine, 25:1, Spring
2006, p. 122-141 (p. 137).
2 Geoffrey H. Hartman, “On Traumatic Knowledge and Literary Studies”, New Literary History, 26:3, 1995,
p. 537-563 (p. 537).
3 Roger Luckhurst, The Trauma Question, London and New York, Routledge, 2008.
4 Ibid., p. 4.
5 Geoffrey H. Hartman, op.cit., p. 547.
6 Ibid.
7 This is what Geoffrey Hartman argues Romantic poetry also does – it is in a “perpetual troping”, a
compulsive repetition of a tale, as for instance in Samuel Coleridge’s “The Rhyme of the Ancient
Mariner”, ibid., p. 542.
8 Judith Herman, Trauma and Recovery (1992), London, BasicBooks, 2001, p. 1.
9 Gabriele Schwab, “Writing Against Memory and Forgetting”, Literature and Medicine, 25:1, Spring 2006,
p. 92-121 (p. 95).
10 Ibid., p. 95-96.
11 Judith Herman, op. cit., p. 1.
12 See Judith Herman, p. 35-43, quoted in Jane Robinett, “The Narrative Shape of Traumatic
Experience”, Literature and Medicine, 26: 2, Fall 2007, p. 290-311 (p. 296).
13 Jane Robinett, “The Narrrative Shape…”, p. 290.
14 A. Goldberg, “Trauma, Narrative, and Two Forms of Death”, p. 133.
15 Roger Luckhurst, The Trauma Question, p. 20.
16 Ibid., p. 19.
17 The term shell-shock was first coined in The Lancet in 1915. But most strikingly, Luckhurst devotes a
section of his essay to the way in which trauma initially came to be associated with the expansion of the
railways in the 1860s (see Luckhurst, p. 20-26). In the case of Ireland, those “shocks” include: the Famine
of 1845-52; the tragedy of the Belfast-launched Titanic in 1912, or “shell-shock” as exemplified by the
casualties of the Battle of the Somme in 1916.
18 Judith Herman, op. cit., p. 2
19 Ibidem, p. 7.
20 David Lloyd, Irish Times, Temporalities of Modernity, Field Day Files 4, University of Notre Dame/ Field
Day, Dublin, 2008, p. 6.
21 See A. Goldberg, op. cit.
22 R. Luckhurst, op.cit., p. 65.
23 Ibid.
24 Theodor Adorno, Prisms, trans. S. and S. Weber, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1981.
25 R. Luckhurst, op. cit., p. 5.

26 A. Goldberg, op. cit., p. 132.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., p. 123.
29 Geoffrey H. Hartman, op. cit., p. 547.
30 Ibid.
31 Gabriele Schwab, “Writing Against Memory and Forgetting”, p. 102.
32 Jane Robinett, op. cit., p. 297.
33 For example, David Lloyd stresses the need, “[i]n the very cusp of catastrophe […] [to bespeak] the
memory of alternative possibilities that live on athwart the mournful logic of historicize events”( Irish
Times…, p. 38). In that sense, the Famine has peculiar significance because it does not serve only to evince
the spectre of Irish misery and contains a paradoxical and obliterated possibility. One of the paradoxes of
the Famine, Lloyd argues, “is the cultural recalcitrance of the Irish miserable as their conditions of life were,
they clung to them with often vehement resistance, to the despair of English ‘improvers’ […] the Irish poor
resisted tenaciously and persisted in practices that British political economists regarded as profoundly
irrational and immoral.” Namely, “their lack of interest in material progress, their idleness, but also their
vivacity and pleasure, qualities that grate on the Protestant sensibility of the English capitalist and
administrator.” (See Irish Times…, p. 45).
34 Feldmann and Laub in Roger Luckhurst, The Trauma Question, p. 7.
35 David Lloyd, op. cit., p. 40.
36 Ibidem, p. 44.
37 See Roger Luckhurst, The Trauma Question for a summary of Cathy Caruth’s main lines of thought, i.e.:
Adorno; Derrida and aporia; and psychoanalysis (p. 4-10).
38 Greg Forter, “Freud, Faulkner, Caruth: Trauma and the Politics of Literary Form”, Narrative, 15:3,
October 2007, p. 259-285 (p. 260).
39 Victoria Burrows, “The Heterotopic Spaces of Postcolonial Trauma in Michael Ondaatje’s Anil’s
Ghost, Studies in the Novel, vol. 40, nos. 1 & 2, Spring and Summer 2008, p. 161-177 (p. 163).
40 Ibid.
41 See also Stef Craps and Gert Buelens, “Introduction : Postcolonial Trauma Novels”, Studies in the Novel,
vol. 40, no. 1 & 2, Spring and Summer 2008, p. 1-12. They emphasize the fact that “trauma studies […] are
almost exclusively concerned with traumatic experiences of white Westerners and solely employ critical
methodologies emanating from a Euro-American context” (p. 2).
42 On the topic of commemoration, see Jay Winter’s analyses. Winter describes three phases in the process
of commemoration for sites as follows: “the creative phase, defined by a trigger or impetus to remember,
implies a debate about the appropriate forms memory should take: a monument, the production of a
memorial site / public unveiling of sites. The institutional phase: solidifies and routinizes a commemorative
calendar through repetitive rituals and texts. The third phase is that of the transformation of memory, in
which second and subsequent generations inherit sites. It is a phase of symbolic accretion during which new
interpretations are added by new generations. While this threefold process seems attractive, it may also fall
prey to a biased reading, for example such as one might encounter in a Nationalist agenda” (qtd in Karen T.
Hill’s thorough review on “Memory Studies”, History Workshop Journal, Issue 62, Autumn 2006, p. 325-341,
p. 327).
43 Again, in the case of Ireland, recent reports on child abuse, in particular those in the care of the so-
called “Industrial schools” priests and nuns or of Magdalen laundries, have substantiated the plight of sexual
abuse survivors, whose symptoms may include “symptoms of dissociation, self-harm, multiple and
borderline personality disorders or ‘somatization’”, all of which “could be confidently traced back to 97 per
cent of cases to incidents of sexual abuse of childhood” (J. Herman qtd by Roger Luckhurst, op. cit., p. 72).
44 Gabriele Schwab, op. cit., p. 96.
45 Central for making this point is David Lloyd’s analysis: “Trauma entails violent intrusion and a sense of
utter objectification that annihilates the person as subject or agent. This is no less apt a description of the
effects and mechanisms of colonization : the overwhelming technological, military and economic power of
the colonizer; the violence and programmatically excessive atrocities committed in the course of putting
down resistance and intrusion, the deliberate destruction of the symbolic and practical resources of whole
populations. It would seem that we can map the psychological effects of trauma onto the cultures that
undergo colonization.” (op. cit., p. 24)
46 Ibid., p. 2.
Top of page
References
Bibliographical reference
Anne Goarzin, “Articulating Trauma”, Études irlandaises, 36-1 | 2011, 11-22.
Electronic reference
Anne Goarzin, “Articulating Trauma”, Études irlandaises [Online], 36-1 | 2011, Online since 30 June 2013,
connection on 20 June 2023. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/etudesirlandaises/2116; DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4000/etudesirlandaises.2116
Top of page
This article is cited by
 Donoghue, Kate. (2018) The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Irish Theatre and Performance.
DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-58588-2_40
 Zaharchenko, Tanya. (2019) The Synchronous War Novel: Ordeal of the Unarmed Person in Serhiy
Zhadan's Internat. Slavic Review, 78. DOI: 10.1017/slr.2019.95
Top of page
About the author
Anne Goarzin
Université Européenne de Bretagne, Rennes 2
By this author
 Catherine Conan, La littérature irlandaise au XXIe siècle : matière, espace, environnement [Full text]
Published in Études irlandaises, 46-2 | 2021
 Introduction [Full text]
 Reviewing the Aftermath Project (2013-2014) in the Light of Affect Theory [Full text]
 The Rising Goes Digital : Century Ireland.ie [Full text]
 The Politics of Irish Memory [Full text]
 The Politics of Irish Writing [Full text]

Top of page
Copyright
Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
https://journals.openedition.org/etudesirlandaises/2116?lang=en#:~:text=m%C3%A9moire%20en
%20Irlande-,Articulating%20Trauma,https%3A//creativecommons.org/licenses/by%2Dnc%2Dsa/4.0/,-
Top%20of%20page
GUIDES
Aug, 21 2021
Updated: Jul, 5 2022
• 10 min read
The Elements of Narrative Writing

Discover how to level up your writing practice by learning the basic elements of
narrative writing.
SHARE

What is narrative writing?
To paraphrase an old definition of stories from writer Edward Morgan Forster, let’s put it
this way. “The king died and then the queen died” is a statement. “The king died, and
then the queen died of grief” is narrative writing.
But what is it about narrative writing that makes it such a unique skill set—and how do
you learn that skill set? This narrative writing guide will help steer you through the art of
storytelling.
Quick Links
o Narrative Writing: What Is It?

o The Basic Elements of Narrative Writing
o Narrative Writing Styles
o Narrative Writing Strategies for Getting Started
o Narrative Writing Tips You Can Use Today
o What Is Narrative Writing Style?
Narrative Writing: What Is It?
Narrative writing is all about providing story structure to any form of writing. To learn
about narrative writing is to learn about the art of storytelling. That’s true no matter what
you’re writing: a novel, a biography, an article, or an essay. If you’ve had an introduction
to narrative writing, you can structure any tale to hold people spellbound.
We’ve tackled some examples of narrative writing before, especially personal narrative
essays. But anything that tells a story becomes a narrative. Edgar Allen Poe’s “The
Raven” is a narrative poem with a specific story. Citizen Kane is a biographical film of a
fictional character.
What is our bottom line narrative writing definition? Narrative writing is the use of every
writing tool at your disposal to create a cogent story.
The Basic Elements of Narrative Writing
Plot
Your plot is the basic narrative writing structure that drives the events of the story.
Consider our opening example of the death of a queen and a king.
A king dying, followed by the queen? That’s a chronology. A king dying, and then the
queen dying of grief? That becomes a plot.
To get more specific, plot is made up of these essential narrative writing techniques:
o Exposition: The background world and context for the characters. In Cinderella, a
classic narrative, our first-act exposition is that Cinderella finds herself downtrodden by
her evil step-sisters.
o Rising action: Something happens to disturb the context we’ve established. This
should set our character on a new journey. Even in a character-driven work like The
Catcher in the Rye, there is an element of this when Holden Caufield learns he won’t be
allowed back at boarding school.
o Climax: The highest point of drama, wherein the fates of the characters are decided. In
the classic film Jaws, the climax is the confrontation between three men on a boat and
the destructive shark plaguing Amity Island.
Theme
If you’re writing an essay, your theme might rise from your narrative writing prompt. This
is essentially the point of your story. What are you trying to say? What should your
readers take away from the experience?
Done well, you won’t have to explain your theme; you can simply let the events of the
plot point in its direction.
Think of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and the “green light at the end of
Daisy’s dock.” To Gatsby, that light represents a future that always seems to elude him.
“It eluded us then, but that’s no matter,” says narrator Nick Carraway.
These last few paragraphs don’t just wrap up the story’s events—they reveal the theme.
Fitzgerald elevates Gatsby’s green light into a metaphor for the unrealized American
dream of the 1920s.
Characters
Human beings are social creatures. We’ll only connect with a narrative if we can see it
through someone’s eyes. That’s why vividly developed characters drive some of the
best narrative writing.
Great fiction is made up of all sorts of memorable characters. Captain Ahab, Emma
Woodhouse, Atticus Finch—we remember the people just as much as we do the
stories.
But you don’t have to be writing a novel to make character important, either. Look at
how Malcolm X, in his autobiography, vividly paints the character of his father:
“He had only one eye. How he lost the other one I have never known.”
In two sentences, we know that Malcolm X’s father isn’t an ordinary preacher. He’s a
unique individual with a background painted in vivid detail.
No matter what you’re writing—poetry, screenplays, novels, essays—we need a sense

of the unique personalities to whom the narrative is happening. If you can describe your
characters in vivid detail, and they feel real, even the smallest disturbance in events will
have us on the edge of our seats.
Master the Basics of Storytelling

Storytelling 101: Character, Conflict, Context & Craft
Take the Class

Narrative Writing Styles
So far, you have a list of ingredients, but you don’t have a recipe. Let’s explore some of
the most common narrative writing styles so you can figure out how to proceed with the
story that’s been in your head:
Narrative Writing Style #1: The Quest
The most straightforward narrative style is to take a character, give them a purpose, and
then watch events unfold as the character struggles for that purpose.
You can find examples of quests all over classic literature, from Odysseus’ perilous
voyage to his home of Ithaca to Dante’s sojourn through the afterlife.
This narrative style is timeless because we can all relate to wanting something. The
story can be compelling, even if that something is simply for a character to get back
home to the life they knew.
Narrative Writing Style #2: The Non-Linear Form
Of all the narrative writing types, this can be the trickiest.
It might seem like a new style, but even The Odyssey starts in the middle of its story.
The non-linear form can be engaging because it introduces a problem right off the bat.
In The Odyssey, the story doesn’t begin with the end of the Trojan War, but it should
from a strictly linear narrative. Instead, it opens at Odysseus’ home: 10 years have
gone, and Odysseus has yet to return.
What’s gone wrong? We have to read on to find out—as we do, through flashbacks.
Narrative Writing Style #3: Viewpoint Shifts
In George R.R. Martin’s fantasy epic A Song of Ice and Fire, the chronology is relatively
straightforward. It starts at the beginning and events unfold in a mostly linear fashion.
However, every chapter opens with a unique viewpoint character—and it’s not always
obvious who it is.
Shifting the viewpoint in the narrative can take a straightforward narrative writing outline
and inject some tension into it. In A Clash of Kings, Martin uses this to great effect when
there are rumors that one of the main characters has died. We don’t read a point-of-
view chapter from that character, only enhancing the tension . . .
. . . until that character’s name pops up again as the title of the last chapter. Martin held
us in suspense the entire book, then used the narrative structure itself to reveal the
twist.
Citizen Kane also explores viewpoint shifts to great effect. It employs the device of an
investigative journalist to tell the story of Charles Kane from different angles. We meet
his business partner, his friend, his mistress—and these viewpoints add layers of
complexity to a narrative that otherwise would be a straightforward biopic.
Narrative Style #4: The Narrator (Reliable or Not)

The Great Gatsby might focus on Gatsby. But it’s Nick Carraway, essentially a side
character, who tells the story. Why? Through Carraway’s limited point of view, we see
two sides of Gatsby: the successful self-made man who eventually becomes a ruined
con artist. As Carraway peels back the layers of Gatsby’s onion, so do the readers.
In Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl (warning: spoilers ahead!), we hear from Amy’s perspective
through entries in her diary. She seems sweet and innocent—and possibly murdered by
her husband, Nick.
Until it turns out her diaries were fakes all along.
Flynn masterfully lulled her readers into suspecting Nick was the unreliable narrator.
Then the second half of the book flips that on its head and creates a whole new depth of
context.
Narrative Writing Strategies for Getting Started
Select Your Narrative Writing Topic First
It may seem like a schooltime chore to begin your writing with a selection of “narrative
writing topics.” But choosing your theme will invigorate your story with a sense of
purpose. Think of it as laying the foundation before you can build the skyscraper.
Choosing a topic gives your narrative the structure it needs. In David Foster Wallace’s
essay “Ticket to the Fair,” he chooses a day at the fair as the structure. Sections begin
with simple denotations of time: what happened at 9:00, 9:50, and so on. It’s an ideal
choice for what becomes a kaleidoscope of experiences.
Identify the Most Compelling Starting Point
One of Kurt Vonnegut’s edicts for good writing was simple: Start as close to the end as
possible.
What is the most compelling starting point you can use? What starts the story with a
bang?
You can do this in all different types of narrative writing. In The Divine Comedy, the epic
poem picks up right as the problem begins: Dante gets lost in the woods and needs to
find the way back.
It works just as well in nonfiction. In The Autobiography of Malcolm X, the book opens
with a gripping narrative of Malcolm X’s childhood home as his mother protects the
family from the Ku Klux Klan. Everything else in the autobiography then springs out of
this harrowing context.
Narrative Writing Tips You Can Use Today
Tip #1: Don’t Spell It Out; Demonstrate Your Points With Stories
The old writing advice of “show, don’t tell” certainly applies here. If the theme of your
college essay is how hard your father worked to provide for your family, don’t just tell us
that.
Respect the judgment of your audience. Show us the stories of that father arriving home
from work at 10 p.m. at night and falling asleep in front of the TV from exhaustion.
Consider this an essential box on any decent narrative writing checklist.
Tip #2: Limit Your Use of “I”
Whether writing fiction or nonfiction, writing “I” too much can be a telltale sign that you’re
losing your grip on the narrative writing format. You’re too close to your own thoughts
rather than focusing on the story as it unfolds.
For example, let’s take a section of mediocre writing:
I grew up poor, you could say. I remember how I was always thinking about food. I
really wanted a cherry pie at the local diner, but I had no money, so there was nothing I
could do. I walked down the street, feeling hungry. I didn’t know how to work for it just
yet. I was jealous of the people who could just walk into a diner and buy that cherry pie.
I wanted to ask one of them to buy some for me.
That’s 10 uses of the word “I.”
But let’s start with the exact same sentence and rewrite the rest. How would limit the
use of “I” to, say, three instances?
I grew up poor, you could say. Some days, I’d walk by Ma’s Diner just to get a whiff of
their cherry pies on the street. They’d put a pie in the window and people in suits and
Sunday dresses would come in with big smiles, ordering slices without even looking at
the price. I would rub the lint in my pockets and walk home, still thinking of cherries.
The reader still gets the point, and with more vivid detail. If we don’t rely on the crutch of
“I,” we’re forced to select key details that tell the same story through narrative writing
techniques.
Tip #3: Remember There Isn’t a Narrative Without a Goal
Even compelling writing without a story should still have a goal. Consider Martin Luther
King Jr.’s famous speech, “I Have a Dream.”
You wouldn’t call it a speech about a story, yet it’s compelling nonetheless.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will
not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
The speech is uplifting because of the universal nature of its goals. It’s not a mythical
quest out of classic literature, but the central struggle is no less inspiring. The only
difference is that the setting and the characters are real.
Whether you’re telling a fictional story or rousing a crowd to the realities of today’s
challenge, it’s only once you know the narrative of what you want to say that people will
connect to it.
What Is Narrative Writing Style?
Whether you’re writing an essay or an epic poem, narrative writing style always comes
down to the story choices you make. What do your themes say about the world? What
are the key events that draw us into the message you want to send?
Without a narrative writing outline forming the bare bones of your message, you may
find it hard to connect with an audience. But if you master the forms of narrative writing,
you’ll be able to tell any story you want—and people will listen.
Take Your Storytelling to the Next Level!

Writing for Expression: How to Make Your Words More Artful & Lyrical
Take the Class
Written by:
Dan Kenitz
SHARE
Your creative journey starts here.
Get Started for Free
 Unlimited access to every class
 Supportive online creative community
 Learn offline with Skillshare's app
Related Posts
GUIDES
Aug, 3 2022
Flashback: What It Is and How to Use It in Your

Writing
Starting a story in the middle of the action can leave your reader with a lot of questions.
Flashbacks help answer those questions without a lot of exposition.
GUIDES
Aug, 26 2021
The Art of the Narrative Poem
What is a narrative poem? How do I write one? What are some great examples? We
answer all these questions and more. Read on!
GUIDES
Aug, 27 2021
Make Your Story Sing: 7 Narrative Examples to Follow

When you need inspiration, reading narrative examples of what others have written can
show you what to do—and what not to do.
Join Skillshare
Join today for unlimited access to thousands of classes and more.
Try Skillshare For Free
Community
 Team Plans
 Refer a Friend
 Limited Memberships
 Scholarships
 Free Classes
Company
 About
 Careers
 Press
 Blog
 Affiliates
 Partnership
https://www.skillshare.com/en/blog/the-elements-of-narrative-writing/#:~:text=What%20is
%20narrative,grief%E2%80%9D%20is%20narrative
History of monarchy in the United Kingdom

EditView history

 History of monarchy in the United Kingdom
 2 languages
 Article
 Talk
 Read
 Edit
 View history
 Tools









 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The union of Great Britain and Ireland into the United Kingdom occurred in 1801 during the reign of
King George III.
 Part of a series on the
 History of the United Kingdom

 Timeline
 Topics
 United Kingdom portal
 v
 t
 e
 The history of the monarchy of the United Kingdom and its evolution into a constitutional and
ceremonial monarchy is a major theme in the historical development of the British constitution.[1] The
British monarchy traces its origins to the petty kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England and early medieval
Scotland, which consolidated into the kingdoms of England and Scotland by the 10th century. Anglo-
Saxon England had an elective monarchy, but this was replaced by primogeniture after England was
conquered by the Normans in 1066. The Norman and Plantagenet dynasties expanded their authority
throughout the British Isles, creating the Lordship of Ireland in 1177 and conquering Wales in 1283. In
1215, King John agreed to limit his own powers over his subjects according to the terms of Magna
Carta. To gain the consent of the political community, English kings began summoning Parliaments to
approve taxation and to enact statutes. Gradually, Parliament's authority expanded at the expense of
royal power.
 From 1603, the English and Scottish kingdoms were ruled by a single sovereign in the Union of the
Crowns. From 1649 to 1660, the tradition of monarchy was broken by the republican Commonwealth
of England, which followed the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Following the installation of William and
Mary as co-monarchs in the Glorious Revolution, a constitutional monarchy was established with
power shifting to Parliament. The Bill of Rights 1689, and its Scottish counterpart the Claim of Right
Act 1689, further curtailed the power of the monarchy and excluded Roman Catholics from succession
to the throne.
 In 1707, the kingdoms of England and Scotland were merged to create the Kingdom of Great Britain,
and in 1801, the Kingdom of Ireland joined to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The British monarch was the nominal head of the vast British Empire, which covered a quarter of the
world's land area at its greatest extent in 1921.
 The Balfour Declaration of 1926 recognised the evolution of the Dominions of the Empire into
separate, self-governing countries within a Commonwealth of Nations. In the years after the Second
World War, the vast majority of British colonies and territories became independent, effectively
bringing the Empire to an end. George VI and his successors, Elizabeth II and Charles III, adopted the
title Head of the Commonwealth as a symbol of the free association of its independent member states.
The United Kingdom and fourteen other independent sovereign states that share the same person as
their monarch are called Commonwealth realms. Although the monarch is shared, each country is
sovereign and independent of the others, and the monarch has a different, specific, and official
national title and style for each realm.
 English monarchy[edit]
 Further information: List of English monarchs
 Anglo-Saxon period (800s–1066)[edit]
 Further information: History of Anglo-Saxon England
 The origins of the English monarchy lie in the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which in the
7th century consolidated into seven kingdoms known as the Heptarchy.[2] At certain times, one of the
Anglo-Saxon kings was strong enough to claim the title bretwalda or overlord of England.[3]
 House of Wessex[edit]

 England in 878 during the reign of Alfred the Great

 Frontispiece portraying King Æthelstan presenting St Cuthbert with Bede's Life of Saint Cuthbert[4]
 Further information: House of Wessex
 In the 9th century, most Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were conquered by Viking invaders. Wessex survived
due to the leadership of Alfred the Great (r. 871–899) who secured Wessex, absorbed Kent and
western Mercia, and assumed the title "king of the Anglo-Saxons".[5][2] Alfred's son, Edward the Elder
(r. 899–924), and grandsons reconquered Anglo-Saxon lands and created a unitary Kingdom of
England, though its constituent parts retained strong regional identities.[6] Æthelstan (r. 924–939) is
often considered the founder of the English monarchy, mainly due to his own propaganda in the form
of coins and charters naming him "king of the English".[7]
 In theory, all governing authority resided with the king. He alone could make Anglo-Saxon law, raise
geld (land tax), mint coins, raise the fyrd, or make foreign policy. In reality, kings needed the support of
the nobility and the English church to rule.[8] They governed in consultation with the Witan, the council
of bishops, ealdormen, and thegns that advised the king.[9] The Witan also elected new kings from
among male members of the royal family (æthelings).The rule of primogeniture was not yet
established, so weak candidates could be replaced with stronger ones.[10]
 A monarch's rule was not legitimate unless consecrated by the church in a coronation. The coronation
of Edgar the Peaceful (r. 959–975) in 973 served as a model for future British coronations, including for
Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953. Before the king was anointed and crowned, he swore a threefold oath
to protect the church, defend his people, and administer justice.[11]
 While the capital was at Winchester, the king traveled with his itinerant court from one royal vill to
another as they collected food rent and heard petitions.[12] The king's income came from revenue
generated from the royal demesne (now known as the Crown Estate), judicial fines, and regulation of
trade. The geld or property tax was also an important source of revenue.[13] People also owed the
king service in the form of the trinoda necessitas—fyrd service, burh building, and bridge building.[14]
 At the local level, royal power operated through shires, which were further divided into hundreds. The
biannual shire courts tried legal cases, kept the peace, levied taxes, raised troops, and collected
information on property rights and inheritance. Shire and hundred courts were presided over by royal
officials: the ealdorman for a shire and a reeve for a hundred.[15] Royal land grants frequently
included the privilege of infangthief and outfangthief, which allowed for seignorial justice, but the most
serious offenses (such as murder) could only be tried in the royal courts.[16]
 Edgar the Peaceful was succeeded by his son, Edward the Martyr (r. 975–978), who was then
murdered by his younger brother, Æthelred the Unready (r. 978–1016). The Danes began raiding
England in the 990s, and Æthelred resorted to buying them off with ever more expensive payments of
Danegeld. Æthelred's marriage to Emma of Normandy deprived the Danes of a place to shelter before
crossing the Channel but did not prevent Swein Forkbeard, king of Denmark, from conquering England
in 1013.[17]
 After Swein's death in 1014, the English invited Æthelred to return from exile if he agreed to address
complaints against his earlier rule, including high taxes, extortion and the enslavement of free men.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records this agreement, which historian David Starkey called "the first
constitutional settlement in English history".[18]
 Æthelred was succeeded by his son, Edmund Ironside (r. 1016). During his brief reign, Edmund
reinvigorated English resistance to the Danish invaders. But he died after less than a year as king and
was never able to consolidate his gains.[19]
 Cnut the Great and his sons[edit]
 Further information: House of Knýtlinga

 The North Sea Empire of Cnut the Great, c. 1030.
 After Ironside's death, the English acknowledged Swein's son, Cnut (r. 1016–1035) as king of England.
During Cnut's reign, England was united with the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway in what historians
call the North Sea Empire. Because Cnut was not in England for much of his reign, he divided England
into four parts (Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria) and appointed trusted earls to rule
each region. The creation of large earldoms covering multiple shires necessitated the office of sheriff
or "shire reeve". The sheriff was the earl's deputy as well as the king's direct representative in the
shire. Sheriffs oversaw the shire courts as well as the collection of taxes and royal estate dues.[20]
 The most powerful earl was Godwin, Cnut's chief minister. When Cnut died in 1035, rival sons
contended for the throne: Emma's son Harthacnut (who was in Denmark at the time) and Ælfgifu's son
Harold Harefoot (who was in England). Godwin supported Harthacnut, but Earl Leofric backed
Harefoot. As a compromise, the brothers were made co-rulers with Harefoot as regent. Harefoot's
support continued to grow the longer Harthacnut stayed in Denmark, and Harefoot was finally
acknowledged as king in 1037. Upon Harefoot's death in 1040, the witan gave the throne to
Harthacnut (r. 1035–1042).[21]
 Edward the Confessor[edit]
 Edward the Confessor
 Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066), son of Æthelred and Emma, had been living in exile. In 1041,
Harthacnut recalled his half-brother from Normandy, and when he died without heirs, the forty-year-old
Edward was the natural successor. He had spent most of his life in Normandy and culturally was
"probably more French than English".[22] Edward was the first English monarch to be attributed the
royal touch.[23]
 By this time, England had a sophisticated system of government.[24] Priests attached to the king's
chapel acted as royal secretaries—writing letters, charters, and other official documents. Edward
appointed the first chancellor, Regenbald, who kept the king's seal and oversaw the writing of charters
and writs. The treasury had developed into a permanent institution by this time as well. Supervision of
the treasury was one of the responsibilities of the king's burthegns or chamberlains.[25] London was
becoming the political as well as the commercial capital of England. Edward furthered this transition by
building Westminster Palace and Westminster Abbey.[26]
 Despite his government's sophistication, Edward had much less land and wealth than his most
powerful subjects, Earl Godwin and his sons. In 1066, the Godwinson estates were worth £7,000,
while the king's estates were worth £5,000.[27] To counter the power of the Godwinsons, Edward
created a French party loyal to him. He made his nephew, Ralph of Mantes, the earl of Hereford. He
overturned the election of a Godwin relative to be Archbishop of Canterbury and appointed Robert of
Jumièges instead. In 1051, Edward's brother-in-law, Count Eustace of Boulogne, visited England and
initiated a quarrel with Godwin. Ultimately, Edward had the entire Godwinson family outlawed and
forced into exile.[28]
 Around this time, Edward invited his relative William, duke of Normandy, to England. According to
Norman sources, the king nominated William as his heir. But Edward's favouritism towards the French
was unpopular with the English people. With popular support, Godwin returned to England in 1052,
and Edward had no choice but to restore the Godwinson's to their former lands. This time, Edward's
French supporters were outlawed.[29]
 In 1066, Edward died childless. Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, had the best hereditary
claim to the throne, but Harold Godwinson, earl of Wessex, claimed King Edward promised the throne
to him. Harold had greater support among the English people and was made king by the Witan.[30]
 House of Normandy (1066–1154)[edit]

 England and Normandy in 1087
 Further information: House of Normandy
 William the Conqueror[edit]
 William, Duke of Normandy, disputed Harold's succession. He claimed that Edward the Confessor
promised him the throne. He was also the great-nephew of Emma of Normandy, wife of Æthelred and
Cnut. In addition, his wife Matilda of Flanders was a direct descendant of Alfred the Great.[31] In 1066,
William invaded England, and Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings.[32] The English then elected
(but never crowned) Edgar the Ætheling, the Confessor's fifteen-year-old great-nephew. After English
resistance collapsed, Edgar submitted to William, who was crowned king on Christmas Day 1066 at
Westminster Abbey.[33]
 It took nearly five years of fighting before the Norman Conquest of England was secure. Across
England, the Normans built castles for defense as well as intimidation of the locals. In London, William
ordered construction of the White Tower, the central keep of the Tower of London. Once finished, the
White Tower "was the most imposing emblem of monarchy that the country had ever seen, dwarfing all
other buildings for miles around."[34]
 The Conquest was crucial in terms of both political and social change. Old English became the
language of the poor, while French (specifically the Anglo-Norman dialect) became the language of
government. The native Anglo-Saxon aristocracy was almost entirely replaced by a new Anglo-
Norman elite,[35] and most native English lost their land.[36]

 The White Tower, built by William the Conqueror, is a symbol of royal power.
 The Normans appreciated and preserved the sophisticated English government, which was more
centralised than ducal government in Normandy. The Witan's role of consultation and advice was
continued in the curia regis (Latin for "king's court").[36] Shire and hundred courts were retained, but
the king's court reserved for itself the right to hear pleas of the Crown[note 1] and appeals from lower
courts. William also continued the Anglo-Saxon practice of sending out specially appointed justices to
local courts to hear cases warranting royal intervention.[37] Likewise, the office of earl was preserved,
and William created new earldoms to protect the Welsh border (see Marcher lord).[38]
 English feudalism, which first appeared in the Anglo-Saxon period, continued to develop under
Norman influence. William I claimed ownership of all land in England.[note 2] While he gave land away
as rewards for his followers, Domesday Book records that he remained the single largest landholder in
England. The royal demesne included 10 to 30 percent of each county. Most of the king's income
came from the profits and rents of his estates; however, he did not manage these lands himself.
Following Anglo-Saxon tradition, the king delegated management of crown lands to his sheriffs. Each
year, the sheriff paid the king a fixed sum called the "county farm", but the sheriff kept any surplus
revenue. William and his successor also continued to levy the geld on a regular basis.[40]
 As a feudal lord, the king gave fiefs to his most important followers, his tenants-in-chief (the barons),
who in return owed the king fealty and military service (or scutage payments). The king was also
entitled to be paid feudal reliefs by his barons on certain occasions, such as the knighting of an eldest
son, marriage of an eldest daughter, or upon inheriting a fief. Likewise, barons owed feudal aids when
the king's eldest son was knighted or eldest daughter married.[41] At times, there was tension between
the monarch and his Norman vassals, who were used to French models of government in which royal
power was much weaker than in England. The 1075 Revolt of the Earls was defeated by the king, but
the monarchy continued to resist forces of feudal fragmentation.[42]

 Sherwood Forest, a royal forest in Nottinghamshire, is associated with the legend of Robin Hood
 The Norman kings designated nearly a third of England as royal forests (i.e. royal hunting preserves).
[43] The forest provided kings with food, timber, and money. People paid the king for rights to graze
cattle or cut down trees. A system of forest law developed to protect the royal forests. Forest law was
unpopular because it was arbitrary and infringed on the property rights of other landholders. A
landholder's right to hunt deer or farm his land was limited if it fell within the royal forest.[44]
 The church was critical to William's conquest of England. In 1066, it owned between 25 and 33 per
cent of all land,[45] and appointment to bishoprics and abbacies were important sources of royal
patronage. The Norman invasion received the blessing of Pope Alexander II, who wanted William to
oversee church reform and to remove unfit bishops. William forbade ecclesiastical cases (those
involving marriage, wills, and legitimacy) from being heard in secular courts; jurisdiction was handed
over to church courts. But William also tightened royal control over the church. Bishops were banned
from traveling to Rome, and royal permission was needed to enact new canon law or to
excommunicate a noble.[46][47]
 Henry I[edit]

 Westminster Hall during US President Barack Obama's address to Parliament on 25 May 2011
 The death of William I in 1087 illustrates the absence of any firm rules of succession. William gave
Normandy to his oldest son, Robert Curthose, while his second son, William II or "Rufus" (r. 1087–
1100), was given England.[48] Between 1098 and 1099, the Great Hall at Westminster Palace, the
king's main residence, was built. It was one of the largest secular buildings in Europe, and a
monument to the Anglo-Norman monarchy.[49]
 On 2 August 1100, Rufus was killed while hunting in the New Forest. His younger brother, Henry I (r.
1100–1135), was hastily elected king by the barons at Winchester on August 3 and crowned king at
Westminster Abbey on August 5, just three days after his brother's death. At the coronation, Henry not
only promised to rule well; he renounced the unpopular policies of his brother and promised to restore
the laws of Edward the Confessor. This oath was written down and distributed throughout England as
the Coronation Charter, which was reissued by all future 12th-century kings and was incorporated into
Magna Carta.[50][51]

 England's four Norman kings depicted in Matthew Paris' 13th century Historia Anglorum. Row 1:
William I and William II. Row 2: Henry I and Stephen of Blois.
 During Henry's reign, the royal household was formalised. It was divided into the chapel in charge of
royal documents (which evolved into the chancery), the chamber in charge of finances, and the
master-marshal in charge of travel (the court remained itinerant during this period). The household
also included several hundred mounted household troops. The king's closest advisers formed the curia
regis. During crown-wearings held three times a year, the king met with all his bishops and magnates
in the magnum concilium (Latin for "great council"). It is unknown whether these were truly deliberative
bodies, but these assemblies were generally dominated by the king.[52]
 The office of justiciar—effectively the king's chief minister—took shape at this time. The office
developed out of the need for a viceroy when the king was in Normandy and was mainly concerned
with royal finance and justice.[53] Under the first justiciar, Roger of Salisbury, the Exchequer was
established to manage royal finances.[54] The Exchequer produced an annual audit recorded in the
pipe rolls.[55] As the royal court was itinerant, it was convenient for people to appeal financial matters
directly to the Exchequer, giving rise to the Court of Exchequer.[56]
 Royal justice became more accessible with the appointment of local justices in each shire and itinerant
justices traveling judicial circuits of multiple shires.[57] This gave the monarch a greater role in local
government.[58] Historian Tracy Borman summarised the impact of Henry I's reforms as
"transform[ing] medieval government from an itinerant and often poorly organised household into a
highly sophisticated administrative kingship based on permanent, static departments."[59]
 Succession crisis[edit]
 Henry married Matilda of Scotland, the niece of Edgar the Ætheling. This marriage was widely seen as
uniting the House of Normandy with the House of Wessex and produced two children, Matilda (who
married Holy Roman Emperor Henry V in 1114) and William Adelin (a Norman-French variant of
Ætheling).[60] But in 1120, England was thrown into a succession crisis when William Adelin died in
the sinking of the White Ship.[61] In 1126, Henry I made a controversial decision to name his daughter
Empress Matilda (his only surviving legitimate child) his heir and forced the nobility to swear oaths of
allegiance to her. In 1128, the widowed Matilda married Geoffrey of Anjou, and the couple had three
sons in the years 1133–1136.[62]
 Despite the oaths sworn to her, Matilda was unpopular both for being a woman and because of her
marriage ties to Anjou, Normandy's traditional enemy.[63] Following Henry's death in 1135, his
nephew, Stephen of Blois (r. 1135–1154), laid claim to the throne and took power with the support of
most of the barons. Matilda challenged his reign; as a result, England descended into a period of civil
war known as the Anarchy (1138–1153). While Stephen maintained a precarious hold on power, he
was ultimately forced to compromise for the sake of peace. Both sides agreed to the Treaty of
Wallingford by which Stephen adopted Matilda's son, Henry FitzEmpress, as his son and heir.[64]
 Plantagenets (1154–1399)[edit]
 Further information: Angevin kings of England and Capetian–Plantagenet rivalry
 Henry II[edit]

 The Angevin Empire during the reign of Henry II
 On December 19, 1154, Henry II (r. 1154–1189) became the first king of a new dynasty, the House of
Plantagenet. He was also the first king crowned King of England rather than King of the English. Henry
founded the Angevin Empire, which controlled almost half of France including Normandy, Anjou,
Maine, Touraine, and the Duchy of Aquitaine.[65]
 Henry's first task was restoring royal authority in a kingdom fractured by years of civil war. In some
parts of the country, nobles were virtually independent of the Crown. In 1155, Henry expelled foreign
mercenaries and ordered the demolition of illegal castles. He also dealt quickly and effectively with
rebellious lords, such as Hugh de Mortimer.[66]
 Henry's legal reforms had a profound impact on English government for generations. In earlier times,
English law was largely based on custom. Henry's reign saw the first official legislation since the
Conquest in the form of Henry's various assizes and the growth of case law.[67][68] In 1166, the
Assize of Clarendon established the supremacy of royal courts over manorial and ecclesiastical courts.
[69] Henry's legal reforms also transformed the king's personal role in the judicial process into an
impersonal legal bureaucracy. The 1176 Assize of Northampton divided the kingdom into six judicial
circuits called eyres allowing itinerant royal judges to reach the whole kingdom.[70] In 1178, the king
ordered five members of his curia regis to remain at Westminster and hear legal cases full time,
creating the Court of King's Bench. Writs (standardised royal orders with the great seal attached) were
developed to deal with common legal problems. Any freeman could purchase a writ from the chancery
and receive royal justice without the king's personal intervention.[71] For example, a writ of novel
disseisin commanded a local jury to determine whether someone had been unjustly dispossessed of
land.[70]

 The Great Seal of Henry II. On one side, the king is seated as lawgiver and judge. On the reverse, he
is mounted and armed as a warrior-king.[71]
 Since William the Conqueror's separation of secular and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, church courts
claimed exclusive authority to try clergy, including monks and clerics in minor orders. The most
contentious issue was "criminous clerks" accused of theft, rape or murder. Church courts could not
impose the death penalty or bodily mutilation, and their punishments (penance and defrocking) were
lenient. In 1164, Henry issued the Constitutions of Clarendon, which required criminous clerks who
had been defrocked to be handed over to royal courts for punishment as laymen. It also forbade
appeals to the pope. Archbishop Thomas Becket opposed the Constitutions, and the Becket
controversy culminated in his murder in 1170. In 1172, Henry reached a settlement with the church in
the Compromise of Avranches. Appeals to Rome were allowed, and secular courts were given
jurisdiction over clerics accused of non-felony crimes.[72][73]
 Henry also extended his authority outside of England. In 1157, he invaded Wales and received the
submission of Owain of Gywnedd and Rhys ap Gruffydd of Deheubarth.[74] The Scottish king William
the Lion was forced to acknowledge the English king as feudal overlord[note 3] in the Treaty of
Falaise.[76] The 1175 Treaty of Windsor confirmed Henry as feudal overlord of most of Ireland.[77]
 Richard the Lionheart[edit]

 The lands inherited by Richard I in France (in shades of red)
 Upon Henry's death, his eldest surviving son Richard I (r. 1189–1199), nicknamed the Lionheart,
succeeded to the throne. As king, he spent a total of six months in England.[78] In 1190, the king left
England with a large army and fleet to join the Third Crusade to reconquer Jerusalem from Saladin.
Richard funded this campaign through taxation (such as the Saladin tithe) as well as selling offices,
titles, and land.[79] In his absence, England was governed by William de Longchamp, in whom was
consolidated both secular and ecclesiastical power as Bishop of Ely, papal legate, justiciar and
chancellor.[80]
 Concerned that John would usurp power while he was on Crusade, Richard made his brother swear to
leave England for three years. John broke his oath and was in England by April 1191 leading
opposition against Longchamp. From Sicily, Richard sent Archbishop Walter de Coutances to England
as his envoy to resolve the situation. In October, a group of barons and bishops led by the Archbishop
deposed Longchamp. John was appointed regent, but real power was exercised by Coutances as
justiciar.[81]
 While returning from Crusade, Richard was imprisoned by Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI for over a
year and was not released until England paid an enormous ransom.[82] In 1193, John defected to
Philip II of France, and the two plotted to take Richard's lands on the Continent.[83] After a four-year
absence, Richard returned to England in March 1194, but he soon left again to wage war against
Philip II, who had overrun the Vexin and parts of Normandy.[84] By 1198, Richard had reconquered
most of his territory. At the Battle of Gisors, Richard adopted the motto Dieu et mon droit (French for
"God and my Right"), which was later adopted as the royal motto.[85] In 1199, Richard died from
wounds received while besieging Châlus-Chabrol. Before his death, the king made peace with John,
naming him his successor.[86]
 After Richard's return from Crusade, the king created the office of coroner (from custos placitorum
coronae, Latin for "keeper of the pleas of the Crown"). The coroner, alongside the sheriff, was a royal
officer responsible for administering justice within a shire.[87]
 John[edit]

 Philip II and John making peace with a kiss
 At Westminster Abbey in May 1199, John (r. 1199–1216) was crowned Rex Angliae (Latin for "King of
England") rather than the older form of Rex Anglorum (Latin for "King of the English").[88] In 1204,
John lost Normandy and his other Continental possessions. The remainder of his reign was shaped by
attempts to rehabilitate his military reputation and fund wars of reconquest.[89] Traditionally, the king
was expected to fund his government out of his own income derived from the royal demesne, profits of
royal justice, and profits from the feudal system (such as feudal incidents, reliefs, and aids). In reality,
this was rarely possible, especially in time of war.[90] To fund his campaigns, John introduced a
thirteen percent tax on revenues and movable goods that would become the model for taxation
through the Tudor period. The king also raised money by charging high court fees and—in the opinion
of his barons—abusing his right to feudal incidents and reliefs.[91] Scutages were levied almost
annually, much more often than under earlier kings. In addition, John showed partiality and favouritsm
when dispensing justice. This and his paranoia caused his relationship with the barons to break down.
[92]
 After quarreling with the king over the election of a new Archbishop of Canterbury, Pope Innocent III
placed England under papal interdict in 1208. For the next six years, priests refused to say mass,
officiate marriages, or bury the dead. John responded by confiscating church property.[93] In 1209, the
pope excommunicated John, but he remained unrepentant. It was not until 1213 that John reconciled
with the pope, going so far as to convert the Kingdom of England into a papal fief with John as the
pope's vassal.[94]
 The Anglo-French War of 1213–1214 was fought to restore the Angevin Empire, but John was
defeated at the Battle of Bouvines. The military and financial losses of 1214 severely weakened the
king, and the barons demanded that he govern according to Henry I's Coronation Charter. On 5 May
1215, a group of barons renounced their fealty to John calling themselves the Army of God and the
Holy Church and chose Robert Fitzwalter to be their leader.[note 4] The rebels numbered about 40
barons together with their sons and vassals. The other barons—around a hundred—worked with
Archbishop Langton and the papal legate Guala Bicchieri to effect compromise between the two sides.
[96] Over a month of negotiations resulted in the Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter"), which was
formally agreed to by both sides at Runnymede on 15 June. This document defined and limited the
king's powers over his subjects. It would be reconfirmed throughout the 13th century and gain the
status of "inalienable custom and fundamental law".[97] Historian Dan Jones notes that:

 Magna Carta
 Whereas many of the clauses in the charter were formal terms pertaining to specific policies pursued
by John—whether with regard to raising armies, levying taxes, impeding merchants, or arguing with
the Church—the most famous clauses aimed at a deeper elaboration of the rights of subjects to set
out the limits of central government. Clause 39 reads: "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or
disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined ... except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the
law of the land." Clause 40 is more laconic: "To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay
right or justice." These clauses addressed the whole spirit of John's reign and by extension the spirit of
kingship itself. For the eleven years in which John had resided in England, his barons had tasted a
form of tyranny. John had used his powers in an arbitrary, partisan, and exploitative fashion and had
used the processes of law deliberately to weaken and menace his noble lords. He had broken the
spirit of kingship as presented by Henry II back in 1153, when he traveled the country offering unity
and legal process to all.[98]
 Unlike earlier charters of liberties, Magna Carta included an enforcement mechanism in the form of a
council of 25 barons who were permitted to wage "lawful rebellion" against the king if he violated the
charter. The king had no intention of adhering to the document and appealed to Pope Innocent who
annulled the agreement and excommunicated the rebel barons. This began the First Barons' War,
during which the rebels offered the crown to Philip II's son, the future Louis VIII of France.[note 5] By
June 1216, Louis had taken control of half of England, including London. While he had not been
crowned, he was proclaimed King Louis I at St Paul's Cathedral, and many English nobles along with
King Alexander II of Scotland gave him homage. In the midst of this collapse of royal authority, John
died abruptly at Newark Castle on 19 October.[100]
 Henry III[edit]
 Further information: Parliament of England § Early development (1188–1307)

 Since the Conquest, monarchs have been crowned at Westminster Abbey. Construction of the present
church began in 1245 on the orders of Henry III.

 Westminster Palace, showing St Stephen's Chapel in the centre with the White Chamber and Painted
Chamber on the left and Westminster Hall on the right.
 After John's death, loyal barons and bishops took his nine-year-old son to Gloucester Abbey where he
was crowned Henry III (r. 1216–1272) in a rushed coronation. This established the precedent that the
eldest son became king regardless of age.[101] Henry was the first child king since Æthelred the
Unready,[102] and William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, served as regent until his death in 1219.
Marshal led royal forces to victory against the rebel barons and French invaders at the Battles of
Lincoln and Sandwich in 1217.[103]
 During Henry's reign, the principle that kings were subject to the law gained acceptance.[104] To build
support for the new king, his government re-issued Magna Carta in 1216 and 1217 (along with the
Charter of the Forest).[105] In January 1225, the Magna Carta was re-issued at a Great Council in
return for approval of a tax to fund military campaigns in France. This established a new constitutional
precedent in which "military expeditions would be financed at the expense of detailed concessions of
political liberties".[106] In 1236, Henry began calling such meetings Parliament. By the 1240s, these
early Parliaments had not only assumed power to grant taxes but were also venues where nobles
could complain about government policy or corruption.[107]
 In 1227, Henry was eighteen years old, and the regency officially ended. Yet, throughout his personal
rule the king displayed a tendency to be dominated by foreign favourites. After the fall of the justiciar
Hubert de Burgh in 1230, Bishop Peter des Roches became the king's chief minister. While holding no
great office himself, the bishop showered his Poitevin relation Peter de Rivaux with a large number of
offices.[108] He was placed in charge of the treasury, the privy seal, and the royal wardrobe. At the
time, the wardrobe was a department that was at the centre of financial and political decisions in the
royal household. He was given financial control of the royal household for life, was keeper of the
forests and ports, and was, in addition, the sheriff of twenty-one counties. Rivaux used his immense
power to enact important administrative reforms.[109] Nevertheless, the accumulation of power by
foreigners led Richard Marshal to open rebellion. The bishops as a group threatened Henry with
excommunication, which finally made him strip the Poitevin party of power.[110]
 Henry then transferred his favouritism to his Lusignan half-brothers, William and Aymer de Valence. By
the 1250s, there was widespread resentment against the Lusignans. There was also opposition to
Henry's unrealistic plans to conquer the Kingdom of Sicily for his second son, Edmund Crouchback. In
1255, the king informed Parliament that as part of the Sicilian campaign he owed the pope the huge
sum of £100,000 (equal to £132,431,068 today) and that if he defaulted England would be placed
under an interdict. By 1257, there was a growing consensus that Henry was unfit to rule.[111][112]
[113]
 In 1258, the king was forced to submit to a radical reform programme promulgated at the Oxford
Parliament. The Provisions of Oxford transferred royal power to a council of fifteen barons. A
parliament would meet three times a year and appoint all royal officers (from justiciar and chancellor to
sheriffs and bailiffs). The new government's leader was Simon de Montfort, the king's brother-in-law
and former friend. By the terms of the 1295 Treaty of Paris, the English Crown gave up all claims to
Normandy and Anjou in return for keeping the Duchy of Aquitaine as a vassal of the French king.[114]
 When the king tried to overturn the Provisions of Oxford, Montfort led a rebellion, the Second Barons'
War. In 1265, Montfort called a Parliament to consolidate support for the rebellion. For the first time,
knights of the shire and burgesses from the important towns were summoned along with barons and
bishops. Simon de Montfort's Parliament was an important milestone in the evolution of Parliament.
Montfort was killed at the Battle of Evesham in 1265, and royal authority was restored.[115]
 Henry traveled less than past kings. As a consequence, he spent large amounts of money on royal
palaces. His most expensive projects were the rebuilding of Westminster Palace and Abbey, costing
£55,000 (equal to £44,130,706 today). He spent a further £9,000 (equal to £7,221,388 today) on the
Tower of London.[116][113] Westminster Abbey alone nearly bankrupted the king.[117]
 Henry III died in 1272, having been king for fifty-six years. His turbulent reign was the third longest of
any English monarch.[115]
 Edward I[edit]

 In 1296, Edward I took the Stone of Scone from Scotland and placed it in the Coronation Chair at
Westminster Abbey.[118] In 1996, the stone was returned to Scotland where it is kept with the Scottish
Crown Jewels.
 Edward I (r. 1272–1307), nicknamed Longshanks for his height, was in Italy when he learned that his
father had died. Previous monarchs were only legally recognised as king after coronation, but
Edward's reign officially began on 20 November, the same day his father was buried at Westminster
Abbey. Walter Giffard, archbishop of York; Roger Mortimer, a marcher lord; and Robert Burnell were
appointed regents. A proclamation issued on 23 November that stated:[119]
 The government of the realm has come to the king on the death of King Henry his father, by hereditary
succession and by the will of the magnates of the realm and by their fealty done to the king, wherefore
the magnates have caused the king's peace to be proclaimed in the king's name.
 Edward returned to England in August 1274 determined to restore royal authority. His first act was
ordering the Hundred Rolls survey, a detailed investigation into what rights and land the Crown had
lost since Henry III's reign. It was also intended to root out corruption by royal officials, and while few
people were prosecuted for wrongdoing, it sent a message that Edward was a reformer.[120]
 From his father's reign, Edward learned the importance of building national consensus for his policies
through Parliament, which he usually summoned twice a year at Easter and Michaelmas. Edward
effected his reform program through a series of parliamentary statutes: Statute of Westminster of
1275, Statute of Gloucester of 1278, Statute of Mortmain of 1279, Statute of Acton Burnell of 1283,
and Statute of Westminster of 1285. In 1297, he reissued Magna Carta.[121][122] In 1295, Edward
summoned the Model Parliament, which included knights and burgesses to represent the counties and
towns. These "middle earners" were the most important group of taxpayers, and Edward was eager to
gain their financial support for an invasion of Scotland.[123]
 Through effective management of Parliament, Edward was able to fund his military campaigns in
Wales and Scotland. He successfully and permanently conquered Wales, built impressive castles to
enforce English domination, and brought the country under English law with the Statute of Wales. In
1301, the king's eldest son, Edward of Caernarfon, was created Prince of Wales and given control of
the Principality of Wales. The title continues to be granted to the heirs of British monarchs.[124]
 The death of Alexander III of Scotland in 1286 and his granddaughter Margaret of Norway in 1290 left
the Scottish throne vacant. The Guardians of Scotland recognised Edward's feudal overlordship and
invited him to adjudicate the Scottish succession dispute. In 1292, John Balliol was chosen Scotland's
new king, but Edward's brutal treatment of his northern vassal led to the First War of Scottish
Independence. In 1307, Edward died on his way to invade Scotland.[125]
 Edward II[edit]
 At his coronation, Edward II (r. 1307–1327) promised not only to uphold the laws of Edward the
Confessor as was traditional but also "the laws and rightful customs which the community of the realm
shall have chosen".[126] Edward thus abandoned any claim to absolute power and recognised the
need to rule in cooperation with Parliament.[127] The new king inherited problems from his father: the
Crown was in debt and the war in Scotland was going badly. He compounded these problems by
alienating the nobility. The main cause of conflict was the influence wielded by royal favourites, first
Piers Gaveston and then Hugh Despenser the Younger.[128]
 The king's reliance on favourites proved a convenient scapegoat for the barons, who blamed
unpopular policies on them rather than directly oppose the king.[129] When Parliament met in April
1308, Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, and a delegation of nobles presented the Declaration of 1308,
which for the first time explicitly distinguished between the king as a person and the Crown as an
institution to which the people owed allegiance. This distinction was known as the doctrine of
capacities.[130]
 In 1310, Parliament complained that "the state of the king and the kingdom had much deteriorated
since the death of the elder King Edward ... and the whole kingdom had been not a little injured".[131]
Specifically, Edward was accused of being guided by evil counselors, impoverishing the Crown,
violating Magna Carta, and losing Scotland. The magnates elected twenty-one ordainers to reform the
government. The completed reforms were presented to Edward as the Ordinances in August 1311.
Like Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford, the Ordinances of 1311 were an attempt to limit the
powers of the monarch. It banned the practice of purveyance and going to war without consulting
Parliament. Government revenue was to be paid to the exchequer rather than to the royal household,
and Parliament was to meet at least once a year. Parliament was to create committees to investigate
royal abuses and to appoint royal ministers and officials (such as the chancellor and county sheriffs).
[132]
 The Ordinances also required the exile of the king's favourite, Gaveston. By January 1312, Edward
had publicly repudiated the ordinances, and Gaveston was back in England.[133] Earl Thomas of
Lancaster, the king's cousin, led a group of magnates that captured and executed Gaveston.[note 6]
This act nearly plunged England into civil war but negotiations restored an uneasy peace.[135]

 Edward II's wife Queen Isabella (third from the left) with her father, Philip IV of France (tallest)
 After Gaveston's death, the most influential men around the king were Hugh Despenser and his son,
Hugh Despenser the Younger. The king alienated moderate barons by dispensing royal patronage
without parliamentary approval as required by the Ordinances and allowing the Despensers to act with
impunity. In 1318, negotiations led to the Treaty of Leake in which the king agreed to abide by the
Ordinances of 1311. A permanent royal council was created with eight bishops, four earls, and four
barons as members.[136]
 Edward's favouritsm toward the Despensers continued to destabilize the kingdom. The Despensers
had become the gatekeepers to the king, and their enemies "were liable to be deprived of land or
possessions or else thrown into prison".[137] The Welsh Marches were particularly destabilized by
Hugh the Younger's accumulation of land. In 1321, a group of marcher lords invaded the Despenser
estates, beginning the Despenser War.[138] Edward defeated the baronial opposition in 1322 and
overturned the Ordinances.[139] For the next few years, Edward ruled as a tyrant. The author of the
Vita Edwardi Secundi wrote of this period,[140]
 parliaments, colloquies, and councils decide nothing these days. For the nobles of the realm, terrified
by threats and the penalties inflicted on others, let the king's will have free play. Thus today will
conquers reason. For whatever pleases the king, though lacking in reason, has the force of law.

 The execution of Hugh Despenser the Younger, from a manuscript of Jean Froissart
 In 1324, Edward's wife Isabella and their son, Prince Edward, traveled to France on a diplomatic
mission. While there, the Queen formed an alliance with Roger Mortimer, a marcher lord who had
fought against Edward in the Despenser War. At the head of a mercenary army, they invaded England
in 1326. Important noblemen defected to the Queen's cause, and London rose in revolt. Meanwhile,
the King and the Dispensers fled to Wales. On October 26, Isabella and Mortimer proclaimed that in
the King's absence power temporarily resided with the fourteen-year-old Prince Edward. Having been
abandoned by most of his household, the King was captured on 16 November.[141]
 By this point, it was clear that Edward II could not remain king, but this precipitated a constitutional
crisis as there was no legal process to remove a crowned and anointed king who in theory was the
source of all public authority.[142] At the Parliament of 1327, the Articles of Accusation were drawn up
accusing the King of violating his coronation oath and following the advice of evil councilors. On 20
January, Edward II was forced to abdicate. This marked the first time in English history that a monarch
was formally deposed from the throne. The former king died on 21 September, probably murdered on
the orders of his wife.[143][144]
 Edward III[edit]

 The wall of Nottingham Castle above with some cave entrances below. Tunnels beneath the castle
were used by Edward III's men in the 1330 coup.[145]
 Five days after his father's abdication, the fourteen-year-old Edward III (r. 1327–1377) was crowned
king, but it was Isabella and Mortimer who truly held power. Under their three-year rule, the monarchy
was weakened abroad and at home. They made a disadvantageous treaty with France and failed to
press Edward's claim to the French throne when his uncle, Charles IV, died without a male heir. They
also agreed to the Treaty of Edinburgh–Northampton, which forfeited England's claim to overlordship
of Scotland. At home, Mortimer used his new power to enrich himself even as the Crown faced
bankruptcy and the nation experienced a rise in crime and violence. In 1330, Mortimer had Edmund of
Woodstock, the King's uncle, arrested and executed for treason.[146]
 On 19 October 1330, the seventeen-year-old Edward staged a coup at Nottingham Castle with the
help of William Montagu and around 16 other young household companions. Mortimer was arrested,
tried before Parliament, and executed for treason.[147] The young King, now in full control of his
kingdom, realised that he could not afford to alienate the English nobility. He cultivated "an aristocratic
culture, which bound the king and nobles together."[148] In particular, royal-noble bonds were
strengthened through frequent tournaments in which Edward himself would take part.[149] Edward
was the first king since the Conquest to speak English, and during his reign Middle English began to
replace French as the language of the aristocracy.[150]
 In 1333, Edward invaded Scotland winning a major victory at the Battle of Halidon Hill due to the use
of the English longbow.[151] The victory allowed Edward to place Edward Balliol on the Scottish throne
with himself as overlord. With French help, the Scots loyal to David II continued to resist English
interference in the Second War of Scottish Independence.[152]

 Edward III added the French fleur-de-lis to the Royal Arms of England to symbolise his claim to the
French throne
 In March 1337, Edward created six new earldoms in order to gain military support for a war against
France. His eldest son, the six-year-old Edward of Woodstock, was made Duke of Cornwall, the first
duchy created in England. In May 1337, King Philip VI of France confiscated the Duchy of Aquitaine
and the County of Ponthieu from the English king. In 1340, Edward claimed the French throne on the
grounds that he was the last male descendent of his grandfather, Philip IV of France. To symbolise his
claim, the King added the fleur-de-lis to the royal arms of England.[153][154]
 In 1346, Edward invaded France in pursuit of his claim, setting off the Hundred Years' War which
would last until 1453. The English won the Battle of Crécy and after a siege took the town of Calais,
which would remain an English possession for the next two centuries. After a successful campaign in
France, Edward returned to England and founded the Order of the Garter at Windsor Castle in 1348.
[155] Between 1350 and 1377, Edward spent £50,000 (equal to £42,100,000 today)[113] transforming
Windsor from an ordinary castle into a "palatial castle of quite extraordinary splendour".[156]
 The King's eldest son Edward, known to history as the Black Prince, won the Battle of Poitiers in 1356
in which the French king John II was captured.[150] In the Treaty of Brétigny of 1360, Edward
renounced his claims to the French throne and was awarded outright sovereignty over Calais,
Ponthieu, and Aquitaine. Edward also negotiated a peace with Scotland that included the release of
David II in return for recognising the English king's overlordship of Scotland.[157]
 Edward worked with Parliament to build consensus and support for his wars and, in the process,
furthered Parliament's development as an essential institution of government. According to historian
David Starkey,[158]
 Edward was willing to do whatever was necessary to persuade members of Parliament to dig their
hands deep into their constituents' pockets. It meant doing deals, greasing palms, slapping backs.
Edward's victories were reported in detail; Parliament was consulted on war diplomacy and ratified the
peace treaties with France ... The length of Edward's wars also normalized taxation. Direct taxation, on
income and property, continued to be voted only for war. But indirect taxation on trade became
permanent, enhancing royal power and extending the scope of royal government.

 Windsor Castle, royal residence and headquarters of the Order of the Garter
 There were a number of setbacks in the last years of Edward's reign. The new French king Charles V
successfully drove the Black Prince out of Aquitaine. Prince Edward returned to England in 1371
bankrupt and in declining health possibly caused by dysentery. The infirmity of both the elderly King
and Prince Edward created a power vacuum that John of Gaunt tried to fill, but there were many
complaints of corruption and mismanagement in government. In the Good Parliament of 1376, the
House of Commons refused to finance the war with France until corrupt ministers and Alice Perrers,
the royal mistress, were removed. Having little choice, the King acquiesced and the accused ministers
were arrested and brought to trial before Parliament in the first impeachment proceedings. While the
Good Parliament was still in session, the Black Prince died at the age of 45.[159]
 Edward's new heir was his nine-year-old grandson Richard of Bordeaux. There were concerns that
Richard's uncles might usurp power. To strengthen the boy's position, he was recognised in
Parliament as heir apparent and given the titles of prince of Wales, duke of Cornwall, and earl of
Chester. Having secured the succession, Edward III died in 1377.[160]
 Richard II[edit]

 Richard II
 Richard II (r. 1377–1399) was ten years old when he became king. Despite the king's youth, no
regency was set up to govern during his minority since his uncle John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster (the
most likely candidate for regent) was unpopular. Instead, Richard theoretically ruled in his own right
with the advice of a 12-member advisory council. In reality, the government was dominated by the
king's uncles, especially Gaunt, and courtiers, such as Simon Burley, Guichard d'Angle, and Aubrey de
Vere.[161][162] In 1381, resentment over poll taxes led to the Peasants' Revolt. The fourteen-year-old
king's brave and decisive leadership in ending the revolt demonstrated he was ready to assume actual
power. But the revolt also left a deep impression on Richard, "convincing him that disobedience, no
matter how justified, constituted a threat to order and stability within his realm and must not be
tolerated."[163]
 After the revolt, Parliament appointed Michael de la Pole to advise the King. Pole proved himself a
loyal servant and was made chancellor in 1383 and earl of Suffolk in 1385. The King's most important
favourite, however, was Robert de Vere, the earl of Oxford. In 1385, de Vere was given the novel title
of marquess and placed above all earls and below only the royal dukes in rank. In 1386, de Vere was
made duke of Ireland, the first duke not of royal blood. This favouritism alienated other aristocrats,
including the King's uncles.[164][165]
 Another cause for complaint was the situation in France. The English retained only Calais and a small
part of Gascony while French ships harassed English traders in the Channel. Richard personally led
an invasion of Scotland in 1385 that achieved nothing. Meanwhile, he spent lavishly on palace
renovations and court entertainments.[166] One historian described Richard's government as "a high-
tax, high-spend, cliquey affair."[167]
 In 1386, Pole requested additional funds to defend England against a potential French invasion, but
under the leadership of Richard's uncle Thomas of Woodstock, the Wonderful Parliament refused to
act until Pole was removed as chancellor.[168] Richard refused at first but gave in after being
threatened with deposition. A council was set up to audit royal finances and exercise royal authority. At
19 years old, the King was once again reduced to a figurehead.[169] Defiant, Richard left London for a
"gyration" (tour) of the country to gather an army.[170]
 Richard returned to London in November 1387 and was approached by three nobles: his uncle
Thomas, duke of Gloucester; Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel; and Thomas Beauchamp, earl of
Warwick. These Lords Appellant (as they became known) appealed (or indicted) Pole, de Vere, and
other close associates of the King with treason.[171] The Lords Appellant defeated Richard's army at
the Battle of Radcot Bridge, and the King had no choice but to submit to their wishes. At the Merciless
Parliament of 1388, Richard's favourites were convicted of treason.[168]

 The Wilton Diptych, c. 1395 – c. 1399, was painted for Richard II and illustrates his high view of
kingship. The king is shown kneeling before Madonna and Child to receive St. George's Cross.
Standing behind the king are John the Baptist and two royal saints of England Edward the Confessor
and Edmund the Martyr.[172]
 After the royal favourites had been removed, the Lords Appellant were content. In 1389, Richard
resumed royal authority and reconciled with John of Gaunt, who used his influence on Richard's
behalf.[173] For a time, Richard ruled well. The King led a successful expedition to Ireland in 1394 and
negotiated a 28-year truce with France in 1396.[174] In July 1397, Richard was finally ready to move
against his enemies. The three Lords Appellant were arrested. When Parliament met at Westminster,
the presence of 300 of Richard's Cheshire archers made it clear that no dissent would be tolerated.
Chancellor Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, preached the opening sermon on Ezekiel 37:22, "There
shall be one king over them all".[175] The Lords Appellant were then tried and found guilty of treason.
[176]
 For the next two years, Richard ruled as a tyrant, using extortion to gain forced loans from his subjects.
[177] The twice-married king was childless and the succession was uncertain. The man with the
strongest claim was John of Gaunt, whose son and heir was Henry Bolingbroke.[176] In 1397, a
dispute between Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray led to the former's banishment from England for
10 years.[178] When John of Gaunt died in 1399, Richard confiscated the Duchy of Lancaster and
extended Bolingbroke's banishment for life.[179]
 In May 1399, Richard embarked on a second invasion of Ireland, taking most of his followers with him.
Bolingbroke returned to England in July with a small force of men but quickly gained the support of
powerful nobles, such as Henry Percy, the earl of Northumberland and most powerful man in northern
England.[180][181] Richard returned to England, but his army and supporters rapidly melted away. By
2 September, Richard was a prisoner in the Tower.[179]
 On 30 September, an assembly of the House of Lords and House of Commons met in Westminster
Hall (later referred to as a convention parliament, it technically was not a parliament because it met
without royal authority). Richard Scrope, archbishop of York, stated that Richard, who was not present,
had agreed to abdicate. When Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury, asked if the Lords and
Commons accepted this each lord agreed and the Commons shouted their agreement.[182] Thirty-
nine articles of deposition were read out in which Richard was charged with breaking his coronation
oath and violating "the rightful laws and customs of the realm".[183] After John Trevor, bishop of St.
Asaph, announced Richard's deposition, Bolingbroke gave a speech claiming the Crown. The
archbishops of Canterbury and York each took one of Bolingbroke's arms and seated him on the
empty throne to shouts of acclimation from the Lords and Commons.[184]
 Richard II was not the first English monarch to be deposed; that distinction belongs to Edward II.
Edward abdicated in favor of his son and heir. In Richard's case, the line of succession was
deliberately broken by Parliament. Historian Tracy Borman writes that this "created a dangerous
precedent and made the crown fundamentally unstable."[185]
 House of Lancaster (1399–1461)[edit]
 Henry IV[edit]

 Henry Bolingbroke claiming the throne
 Bolingbroke was crowned as Henry IV (r. 1399–1413) two weeks after Richard II's deposition. His
dynasty was known as the House of Lancaster, a reference to his father's title Duke of Lancaster. As
part of the coronation, Henry created Knights of the Bath, a tradition that was repeated at all later
coronations. He was also the first English monarch to be crowned on the Stone of Scone, which
Edward I had taken from Scotland.[186]
 In January 1400, the Epiphany Rising unsuccessfully tried to free Richard and restore him to the
throne. Henry realized he would have no security as long as Richard lived, so he ordered his death,
most likely by starvation.[187] Henry's reign was forever tarnished by the deposition and murder of an
anointed king, and he constantly had to fight off plots and rebellions. In 1400, the Welsh Revolt began,
and Henry Hotspur of the powerful Percy family joined the revolt in 1403. Hotspur was defeated at the
Battle of Shrewsbury, but King Henry continued to face challenges to his legitimacy.[188]
 When overthrowing Richard, Henry had promised to reduce taxation, and Parliament held him to that
promise, refusing to raise taxes even as the king went into debt fighting defensive wars. Financially,
Henry benefited from inheriting the vast Lancastrian estates of his father. He decided to administer
these lands separately from the crown lands.[189] The practice of holding the Duchy of Lancaster
separate from the crown estate was continued by later monarchs.
 Charles VI of France, Richard's father-in-law, refused to recognise Henry. The French revived their
claims to Aquitaine, attacked Calais, and aided the Welsh Revolt. But in 1407, the Armagnac–
Burgundian Civil War divided France, and the English were keen to take advantage of French disunity.
English policy vacillated toward the opposing sides as King Henry supported the Armagnac faction,
while his eldest son, Henry of Monmouth, supported the Burgundian faction. As the king's health
declined, Monmouth assumed a greater role in government, and there were suggestions that the king
should abdicate in favor of his son.[190]
 Henry V[edit]

 King Henry V
 Abdication became unnecessary when Henry IV died in 1413, and the prince became King Henry V (r.
1413–1422). He escaped the troubles of his father's reign by making conciliatory gestures toward his
father's enemies. He also removed the taint of usurpation by honoring the deceased Richard II and
giving him a royal re-burial at Westminster Abbey.[190]
 As a result of his unifying gestures, Henry V's reign was largely free from domestic strife, leaving the
king free to pursue the last phase of the Hundred Years' War with France. The war appealed to
English national pride,[191] and Parliament readily granted a double subsidy to finance the campaign,
which began in August 1415. In this first campaign, Henry won a legendary victory at the Battle of
Agincourt.[192] The triumphant king returned home to a jubilant nation eager to support further wars of
conquest. Parliament gave the king lifetime duties on wine imports and other tax grants. When he was
ready to return to France, Parliament granted another double subsidy.[193]
 In 1419, he conquered Normandy—the first time an English king ruled Normandy since King John lost
it in 1204.[194] In 1420, the Treaty of Troyes recognised Henry as heir and regent of the incapacitated
King Charles VI of France. The new peace was sealed by Henry's marriage to the French princess
Catherine of Valois. Charles's son, the Dauphin, was disinherited by the treaty; however, he continued
to assert his right to the French throne and remained in control of over half of France south of the Loire
river.[195]
 Henry V was a popular king who restored royal authority and lowered crime. Despite high taxes,
England prospered under Henry V. He kept his personal expenses low and managed royal finances
well.[196] But Henry's frequent absences from England did create difficulties. While in France, Henry
insisted on dealing with petitions from Parliament personally despite the long distances and delays
involved. By 1420, the House of Commons was complaining, and funds for further wars in France were
more difficult to secure. On 31 August 1422, the king fell ill and died while on another campaign in
France.[195]
 Henry VI[edit]

 France in 1435 during the Hundred Years War
 Only nine months old when his father died, Henry VI was the youngest person to ever inherit the
English crown. On 21 October 1422, Charles VI of France died. The infant Henry was now king of
England and France according to the terms of the Treaty of Troyes. The union of the two kingdoms
under the same ruler is called the dual monarchy.[197]
 In his will, Henry V placed his brother John, duke of Bedford, in charge of France. In England, his other
brother Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, was made lord protector[note 7] and head of a regency council
that exercised authority in the king's name (see Regency government, 1422–1437).[199]
 The accession of Henry V's infant son, Henry VI, to the throne gave the French an opportunity to
overthrow English rule.[200] The unpopularity of Henry VI's counsellors and his consort, Margaret of
Anjou, as well as his own ineffectual leadership, led to the weakening of the House of Lancaster. The
Lancastrians faced a challenge from the House of York, so-called because its head, a descendant of
Edward III, was Richard, Duke of York, who was at odds with the Queen.
 House of York (1461–1485)[edit]
 Although the Duke of York died in battle in 1460, his eldest son, Edward IV, led the Yorkists to victory
in 1461, overthrowing Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou. Edward IV was constantly at odds with the
Lancastrians and his own councillors after his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, with a brief return to
power for Henry VI. Edward IV prevailed, winning back the throne at Barnet and killing the Lancastrian
heir, Edward of Westminster, at Tewkesbury. Afterward he captured Margaret of Anjou, eventually
sending her into exile, but not before killing Henry VI while he was held prisoner in the Tower. The
Wars of the Roses, nevertheless, continued intermittently during his reign and those of his son Edward
V and brother Richard III. Edward V disappeared, presumably murdered by Richard. Ultimately, the
conflict culminated in success for the Lancastrian branch led by Henry Tudor, in 1485, when Richard III
was killed in the Battle of Bosworth Field.[201]
 Tudors (1485–1603)[edit]
 Further information: House of Tudor and Elizabethan government
 King Henry VII then neutralised the remaining Yorkist forces, partly by marrying Elizabeth of York, a
Yorkist heir. Through skill and ability, Henry re-established absolute supremacy in the realm, and the
conflicts with the nobility that had plagued previous monarchs came to an end.[202][203] The reign of
the second Tudor king, Henry VIII, was one of great political change. Religious upheaval and disputes
with the Pope, and the fact that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon produced only one surviving child,
a daughter, led the monarch to break from the Roman Catholic Church and to establish the Church of
England (the Anglican Church) and divorce his wife to marry Anne Boleyn.[204]
 Wales – which had been conquered centuries earlier, but had remained a separate dominion – was
annexed to England under the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542.[205] Henry VIII's son and
successor, the young Edward VI, continued with further religious reforms, but his early death in 1553
precipitated a succession crisis. He was wary of allowing his Catholic elder half-sister Mary I to
succeed, and therefore drew up a will designating Lady Jane Grey as his heiress. Jane's reign,
however, lasted only nine days; with tremendous popular support, Mary deposed her and declared
herself the lawful sovereign. Mary I married Philip of Spain, who was declared king and co-ruler. He
pursued disastrous wars in France and she attempted to return England to Roman Catholicism
(burning Protestants at the stake as heretics in the process). Upon her death in 1558, the pair were
succeeded by her Protestant half-sister Elizabeth I. England returned to Protestantism and continued
its growth into a major world power by building its navy and exploring the New World.[206][207]
 Scottish monarchy[edit]
 See also: List of Scottish monarchs and Government in medieval Scotland
 This section needs expansion with: content from History of Scotland. You can help by adding
to it. (June 2022)
 In Scotland, as in England, monarchies emerged after the withdrawal of the Roman empire from
Britain in the early fifth century. The three groups that lived in Scotland at this time were the Picts in
the north east, the Britons in the south, including the Kingdom of Strathclyde, and the Gaels or Scotti
(who would later give their name to Scotland), of the Irish petty kingdom of Dál Riata in the west.
Kenneth MacAlpin is traditionally viewed as the first king of a united Scotland (known as Scotia to
writers in Latin, or Alba to the Scots).[208] The expansion of Scottish dominions continued over the
next two centuries, as other territories such as Strathclyde were absorbed.
 Early Scottish monarchs did not inherit the Crown directly; instead, the custom of tanistry was followed,
where the monarchy alternated between different branches of the House of Alpin. As a result,
however, the rival dynastic lines clashed, often violently. From 942 to 1005, seven consecutive
monarchs were either murdered or killed in battle.[209] In 1005, Malcolm II ascended the throne
having killed many rivals. He continued to ruthlessly eliminate opposition, and when he died in 1034 he
was succeeded by his grandson, Duncan I, instead of a cousin, as had been usual. In 1040, Duncan
suffered defeat in battle at the hands of Macbeth, who was killed himself in 1057 by Duncan's son
Malcolm. The following year, after killing Macbeth's stepson Lulach, Malcolm ascended the throne as
Malcolm III.[210]
 With a further series of battles and deposings, five of Malcolm's sons as well as one of his brothers
successively became king. Eventually, the Crown came to his youngest son, David I. David was
succeeded by his grandsons Malcolm IV, and then by William the Lion, the longest-reigning King of
Scots before the Union of the Crowns.[211] William participated in a rebellion against King Henry II of
England but when the rebellion failed, William was captured by the English. In exchange for his
release, William was forced to acknowledge Henry as his feudal overlord. The English King Richard I
agreed to terminate the arrangement in 1189, in return for a large sum of money needed for the
Crusades.[212] William died in 1214, and was succeeded by his son Alexander II. Alexander II, as well
as his successor Alexander III, attempted to take over the Western Isles, which were still under the
overlordship of Norway. During the reign of Alexander III, Norway launched an unsuccessful invasion
of Scotland; the ensuing Treaty of Perth recognised Scottish control of the Western Isles and other
disputed areas.[213]

 In 1603, James VI and I became the first monarch to rule over England, Scotland, and Ireland
together.
 Alexander III's death in a riding accident in 1286 precipitated a major succession crisis. Scottish
leaders appealed to King Edward I of England for help in determining who was the rightful heir.
Edward chose Alexander's three-year-old Norwegian granddaughter, Margaret. On her way to
Scotland in 1290, however, Margaret died at sea, and Edward was again asked to adjudicate between
13 rival claimants to the throne. A court was set up and after two years of deliberation, it pronounced
John Balliol to be king. Edward proceeded to treat Balliol as a vassal, and tried to exert influence over
Scotland. In 1295, when Balliol renounced his allegiance to England, Edward I invaded. During the first
ten years of the ensuing Wars of Scottish Independence, Scotland had no monarch, until Robert the
Bruce declared himself king in 1306.[214]
 Robert's efforts to control Scotland culminated in success, and Scottish independence was
acknowledged in 1328. However, only one year later, Robert died and was succeeded by his five-year-
old son, David II. On the pretext of restoring John Balliol's rightful heir, Edward Balliol, the English
again invaded in 1332. During the next four years, Balliol was crowned, deposed, restored, deposed,
restored, and deposed until he eventually settled in England, and David remained king for the next 35
years.[215]
 David II died childless in 1371 and was succeeded by his nephew Robert II of the House of Stuart. The
reigns of both Robert II and his successor, Robert III, were marked by a general decline in royal
power. When Robert III died in 1406, regents had to rule the country; the monarch, Robert III's son
James I, had been taken captive by the English. Having paid a large ransom, James returned to
Scotland in 1424; to restore his authority, he used ruthless measures, including the execution of
several of his enemies. He was assassinated by a group of nobles. James II continued his father's
policies by subduing influential noblemen but he was killed in an accident at the age of thirty, and a
council of regents again assumed power. James III was defeated in a battle against rebellious Scottish
earls in 1488, leading to another boy-king: James IV.[216]
 In 1513 James IV launched an invasion of England, attempting to take advantage of the absence of
the English King Henry VIII. His forces met with disaster at Flodden Field; the King, many senior
noblemen, and hundreds of soldiers were killed. As his son and successor, James V, was an infant,
the government was again taken over by regents. James V led another disastrous war with the English
in 1542, and his death in the same year left the Crown in the hands of his six-day-old daughter, Mary.
Once again, a regency was established.
 Mary, a Roman Catholic, reigned during a period of great religious upheaval in Scotland. As a result of
the efforts of reformers such as John Knox, a Protestant ascendancy was established. Mary caused
alarm by marrying her Catholic cousin, Lord Darnley, in 1565. After Lord Darnley's assassination in
1567, Mary contracted an even more unpopular marriage with the Earl of Bothwell, who was widely
suspected of Darnley's murder. The nobility rebelled against the Queen, forcing her to abdicate. She
fled to England, and the Crown went to her infant son James VI, who was brought up as a Protestant.
Mary was imprisoned and later executed by the English queen Elizabeth I.[217]
 Irish monarchy[edit]
 Main article: Monarchy of Ireland
 Ireland was historically divided into petty principalities that sometimes acknowledged one of their rulers
as High King of Ireland. In 1155, the only English pope, Adrian IV, authorised Henry II of England to
conquer Ireland and reform the Irish church with the papal bull Laudabiliter. However, Henry took no
action until 1171. By that time, a number of English nobles, especially the Welsh Marcher Lords, had
invaded Ireland and established control over portions of the island. In 1171, Henry landed in Ireland
and the Anglo-Norman lords gave him homage and fealty. He also convinced the native Gaelic nobility
to become his vassals. In 1185, Henry gave his youngest son, the future King John of England, the
title Lord of Ireland.[note 8] John was then sent to Ireland to be crowned as that island's king, but his
behavior offended the Irish, who forced John to retreat without being crowned. Thereafter, future
English kings used the title Lord of Ireland but mostly ignored the island, preferring to rule through
lieutenants for Ireland.[75]
 By 1541, King Henry VIII of England had broken with the Church of Rome and declared himself
Supreme Head of the Church of England. The Pope's grant of Ireland to the English monarch became
invalid, so Henry summoned a meeting of the Irish Parliament to change his title from Lord of Ireland
to King of Ireland.[219] In 1800, as a result of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, the Act of Union merged the
kingdom of Great Britain and the kingdom of Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland.
 Union of the Crowns and republican phase[edit]
 See also: List of British monarchs
 This section needs expansion with: content from Union of the Crowns, Commonwealth of
England, Stuart Restoration, and Act of Settlement 1701. You can help by adding to it. (June 2022)
 Elizabeth I's death in 1603 ended Tudor rule in England. Since she had no children, she was
succeeded by the Scottish monarch James VI, who was the great-grandson of Henry VIII's older sister
and hence Elizabeth's first cousin twice removed. James VI ruled in England as James I after what
was known as the "Union of the Crowns". Although England and Scotland were in personal union
under one monarch – James I & VI became the first monarch to style himself "King of Great Britain" in
1604[220] – they remained two separate kingdoms. James I & VI's successor, Charles I, experienced
frequent conflicts with the English Parliament related to the issue of royal and parliamentary powers,
especially the power to impose taxes. He provoked opposition by ruling without Parliament from 1629
to 1640, unilaterally levying taxes and adopting controversial religious policies (many of which were
offensive to the Scottish Presbyterians and the English Puritans). His attempt to enforce Anglicanism
led to organised rebellion in Scotland (the "Bishops' Wars") and ignited the Wars of the Three
Kingdoms. In 1642, the conflict between the King and English Parliament reached its climax and the
English Civil War began.[221]
 The Civil War culminated in the execution of the king in 1649, the overthrow of the English monarchy,
and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England. Charles I's son, Charles II, was proclaimed
King of Great Britain in Scotland, but he was forced to flee abroad after he invaded England and was
defeated at the Battle of Worcester. In 1653, Oliver Cromwell, the most prominent military and political
leader in the nation, seized power and declared himself Lord Protector (effectively becoming a military
dictator, but refusing the title of king). Cromwell ruled until his death in 1658, when he was succeeded
by his son Richard. The new Lord Protector had little interest in governing; he soon resigned.[222] The
lack of clear leadership led to civil and military unrest, and to a popular desire to restore the monarchy.
In 1660, the monarchy was restored and Charles II returned to Britain.[223]

 England and Scotland were united as the Kingdom of Great Britain under Queen Anne in 1707.
 Charles II's reign was marked by the development of the first modern political parties in England.
Charles had no legitimate children, and was due to be succeeded by his Roman Catholic brother,
James, Duke of York. A parliamentary effort to exclude James from the line of succession arose; the
"Petitioners", who supported exclusion, became the Whig Party, whereas the "Abhorrers", who
opposed exclusion, became the Tory Party. The Exclusion Bill failed; on several occasions, Charles II
dissolved Parliament because he feared that the bill might pass. After the dissolution of the Parliament
of 1681, Charles ruled without a Parliament until his death in 1685. When James succeeded Charles,
he pursued a policy of offering religious tolerance to Roman Catholics, thereby drawing the ire of many
of his Protestant subjects. Many opposed James's decisions to maintain a large standing army, to
appoint Roman Catholics to high political and military offices, and to imprison Church of England
clerics who challenged his policies. As a result, a group of Protestants known as the Immortal Seven
invited James II & VII's daughter Mary and her husband William III of Orange to depose the king.
William obliged, arriving in England on 5 November 1688 to great public support. Faced with the
defection of many of his Protestant officials, James fled the realm and William and Mary (rather than
James II & VII's Catholic son) were declared joint Sovereigns of England, Scotland and Ireland.[224]
 James's overthrow, known as the Glorious Revolution, was one of the most important events in the
long evolution of parliamentary power. The Bill of Rights 1689 affirmed parliamentary supremacy, and
declared that the English people held certain rights, including the freedom from taxes imposed without
parliamentary consent. The Bill of Rights required future monarchs to be Protestants, and provided
that, after any children of William and Mary, Mary's sister Anne would inherit the Crown. Mary II died
childless in 1694, leaving William III & II as the sole monarch. By 1700, a political crisis arose, as all of
Anne's children had died, leaving her as the only individual left in the line of succession. Parliament
was afraid that the former James II or his supporters, known as Jacobites, might attempt to reclaim the
throne. Parliament passed the Act of Settlement 1701, which excluded James and his Catholic
relations from the succession and made William's nearest Protestant relations, the family of Sophia,
Electress of Hanover, next in line to the throne after his sister-in-law Anne.[225] Soon after the
passage of the Act, William III & II died, leaving the Crown to Anne.
 After Anne's accession, the problem of the succession re-emerged. The Scottish Parliament, infuriated
that the English Parliament did not consult them on the choice of Sophia's family as the next heirs,
passed the Act of Security 1704, threatening to end the personal union between England and
Scotland. The Parliament of England retaliated with the Alien Act 1705, threatening to devastate the
Scottish economy by restricting trade. The Scottish and English parliaments negotiated the Acts of
Union 1707, under which England and Scotland were united into a single Kingdom of Great Britain,
with succession under the rules prescribed by the Act of Settlement.[226]
 After the 1707 Acts of Union[edit]
 This section needs expansion with: content from American War of Independence, Kingdom of
Hanover, and British Raj. You can help by adding to it. (June 2022)
 In 1714, Queen Anne was succeeded by her second cousin, and Sophia's son, George I, Elector of
Hanover, who consolidated his position by defeating Jacobite rebellions in 1715 and 1719. The new
monarch was less active in government than many of his British predecessors, but retained control
over his German kingdoms, with which Britain was now in personal union.[227] Power shifted towards
George's ministers, especially to Sir Robert Walpole, who is often considered the first British prime
minister, although the title was not then in use.[228] The next monarch, George II, witnessed the final
end of the Jacobite threat in 1746, when the Catholic Stuarts were completely defeated. During the
long reign of his grandson, George III, Britain's American colonies were lost, the former colonies
having formed the United States of America, but British influence elsewhere in the world continued to
grow, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created by the Acts of Union 1800.
[229]
 From 1811 to 1820, George III suffered a severe bout of what is now believed to be porphyria, an
illness rendering him incapable of ruling. His son, the future George IV, ruled in his stead as Prince
Regent. During the Regency and his own reign, the power of the monarchy declined, and by the time
of his successor, William IV, the monarch was no longer able to effectively interfere with parliamentary
power. In 1834, William dismissed the Whig Prime Minister, William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne,
and appointed a Tory, Sir Robert Peel. In the ensuing elections, however, Peel lost. The king had no
choice but to recall Lord Melbourne. During William IV's reign, the Reform Act 1832, which reformed
parliamentary representation, was passed. Together with others passed later in the century, the Act
led to an expansion of the electoral franchise and the rise of the House of Commons as the most
important branch of Parliament.[230]
 The final transition to a constitutional monarchy was made during the long reign of William IV's
successor, Victoria. As a woman, Victoria could not rule Hanover, which only permitted succession in
the male line, so the personal union of the United Kingdom and Hanover came to an end. The
Victorian era was marked by great cultural change, technological progress, and the establishment of
the United Kingdom as one of the world's foremost powers. In recognition of British rule over India,
Victoria was declared Empress of India in 1876. However, her reign was also marked by increased
support for the republican movement, due in part to Victoria's permanent mourning and lengthy period
of seclusion following the death of her husband in 1861.[231]

 Map of the British Empire in 1921
 Victoria's son, Edward VII, became the first monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1901.
In 1917, the next monarch, George V, changed "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" to "Windsor" in response to
the anti-German sympathies aroused by the First World War. George V's reign was marked by the
separation of Ireland into Northern Ireland, which remained a part of the United Kingdom, and the Irish
Free State, an independent nation, in 1922.[232]
 Shared monarchy and modern status[edit]
 This section needs expansion with: content from Dominion, Statute of Westminster 1931,
Abdication of Edward VIII, Head of the Commonwealth, Commonwealth realm, Pillar Box War, Queen
of Rhodesia, Perth Agreement, and Succession to the Crown Act 2013. You can help by adding to it.
(June 2022)

 Current Commonwealth realms
 Territories, dependencies and associated states of current realms
 Former Commonwealth realms and Dominions that are now republics
 During the twentieth century, the Commonwealth of Nations evolved from the British Empire. Prior to
1926, the British Crown reigned over the British Empire collectively; the Dominions and Crown
Colonies were subordinate to the United Kingdom. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 gave complete
self-government to the Dominions, effectively creating a system whereby a single monarch operated
independently in each separate Dominion. The concept was solidified by the Statute of Westminster
1931,[233] which has been likened to "a treaty among the Commonwealth countries".[234]
 The monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution, although it is often still referred to as
"British" for legal and historical reasons and for convenience. The monarch became separately
monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so forth. The independent
states within the Commonwealth would share the same monarch in a relationship likened to a personal
union.[235][236][237][238]
 George V's death in 1936 was followed by the accession of Edward VIII, who caused a public scandal
by announcing his desire to marry the divorced American Wallis Simpson, even though the Church of
England opposed the remarriage of divorcees. Accordingly, Edward announced his intention to
abdicate; the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and of other Commonwealth countries granted his
request. Edward VIII and any children by his new wife were excluded from the line of succession, and
the Crown went to his brother, George VI.[239] George served as a rallying figure for the British people
during World War II, making morale-boosting visits to the troops as well as to munitions factories and
to areas bombed by Nazi Germany. In June 1948 George VI relinquished the title Emperor of India,
although remaining head of state of the Dominion of India.[240]
 At first, every member of the Commonwealth retained the same monarch as the United Kingdom, but
when the Dominion of India became a republic in 1950, it would no longer share in a common
monarchy. Instead, the British monarch was acknowledged as "Head of the Commonwealth" in all
Commonwealth member states, whether they were realms or republics. The position is purely
ceremonial, and is not inherited by the British monarch as of right but is vested in an individual chosen
by the Commonwealth heads of government.[241][242] Member states of the Commonwealth that
share the same person as monarch are informally known as Commonwealth realms.[241]
 In the 1990s, republicanism in the United Kingdom grew, partly on account of negative publicity
associated with the Royal Family (for instance, immediately following the death of Diana, Princess of
Wales).[243] However, polls from 2002 to 2007 showed that around 70–80% of the British public
supported the continuation of the monarchy.[244][245][246][247] This support has remained constant
since then—according to a 2018 survey, a majority of the British public across all age groups still
support the monarchy's continuation.[248]
 See also[edit]
 History of monarchy in Australia
 History of monarchy in Canada
 Family tree of British monarchs
 List of British royal residences
 List of English ministries
 Notes[edit]
 ^ Pleas of the Crown included major crimes such as murder, treason, arson, rape, and robbery. Cases
involving treasure trove, rights over shipwrecks, and destruction of the highway were also included.[37]
 ^ In the 21st century, all land in England and Wales continues to be legally owned by the Crown.
Individuals can only possess an estate in land or an interest in land.[39]
 ^ In the past, Scottish kings had given homage for their lands in England just as English kings gave
homage to French kings for their continental possessions. However, the Treaty of Falaise required
King William to give homage for Scotland as well.[75]
 ^ Other rebel barons included Eustace de Vesci, William de Mowbray, Richard de Percy, Roger de
Montbegon, Richard de Clare, Gilbert de Clare, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Robert de Vere, Henry de
Bohun, and William Marshall the Younger.[95]
 ^ Louis VIII's claim to the English throne came by his wife Blanche of Castile, Henry II's granddaughter
and John's niece.[99]
 ^ Besides the earls of Lancaster and Warwick, other members of the plot included Robert Winchelsey,
Archbishop of Canterbury; the earls of Warwick, Pembroke, Hereford, Arundel, Surrey, and
Gloucester; and the barons Henry Percy and Roger de Clifford.[134]
 ^ His full title was "Protector and Defender of the kingdom of England and the English church and
principal councillor of the lord king".[198]
 ^ Before 1272, uncrowned English kings used the title "Lord of the English" before their coronations.
Henry I's daughter Matilda used the title "Lady of the English" while unsuccessfully pressing her claim
against King Stephen during the Anarchy.[218]
 References[edit]
 .
 ^ Statute of Westminster 1931, Government of Nova Scotia, 11 October 2001, retrieved 20 April 2008
 ^ Justice Rouleau in O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003 CanLII 41404 (ON S.C.)
 ^ Zines, Leslie, The High Court and the Constitution, 5th ed. Annandale, NSW: Federation Press, 2008
ISBN 978-1-86287-691-0. p.314
 ^ Corbett, P.E. (1940), "The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law", The University
of Toronto Law Journal, 3 (2): 348–359, doi:10.2307/824318, JSTOR 824318
 ^ Scott, F.R. (January 1944), "The End of Dominion Status", The American Journal of International
Law, 38 (1): 34–49, doi:10.2307/2192530, JSTOR 2192530, S2CID 147122057
 ^ R v Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association (1982). QB 892 at 928; as referenced in High
Court of Australia: Sue v Hill HCA 30; 23 June 1999; S179/1998 and B49/1998
 ^ Matthew, H. C. G. (September 2004). "Edward VIII". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online
ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/31061. Retrieved 20 April 2008. (Subscription or
UK public library membership required.)
 ^ Matthew, H.C.G. (September 2004). "George VI". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online
ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/33370. Retrieved 20 April 2008. (Subscription or
UK public library membership required.)
 ^ a b Boyce, Peter John (2008). The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in Australia,
Canada and New Zealand. Federation Press. p. 41. ISBN 9781862877009. Retrieved 31 October
2018.
 ^ Head of the Commonwealth, Commonwealth Secretariat, archived from the original on 6 July 2010,
retrieved 26 September 2008
 ^ Seely, Robert (5 September 1997), Can the Windsors survive Diana's death?, Britannia Internet
Magazine, archived from the original on 10 April 2011, retrieved 20 April 2008
 ^ Grice, Andrew (9 April 2002), "Polls reveal big rise in support for monarchy", The Independent,
archived from the original on 12 June 2008, retrieved 20 April 2008
 ^ Monarchy poll, Ipsos MORI, April 2006, retrieved 6 August 2016
 ^ Monarchy Survey (PDF), Populus Ltd, 14–16 December 2007, p. 9, archived from the original (PDF)
on 11 May 2011, retrieved 30 November 2011
 ^ Poll respondents back UK monarchy, BBC News, 28 December 2007, retrieved 30 November 2011
 ^ "Support for the monarchy in Britain by age 2018 survey". Statista. Retrieved 7 January 2020.
 Bibliography[edit]
 Ashley, Mike (1998). The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens. London: Robinson. ISBN 1-
84119-096-9.
 Bartlett, Robert (2000). England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075–1225. New Oxford
History of England. Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780199251018.
 Borman, Tracy (2021). Crown & Sceptre: A New History of the British Monarchy, from William the
Conqueror to Elizabeth II. Grove Atlantic. ISBN 978-0802159113. OL 33944729M.
 Butt, Ronald (1989). A History of Parliament: The Middle Ages. London: Constable. ISBN 0094562202.
 Cannon, John; Griffiths, Ralph (1988). The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-822786-8.
 Cheetham, Anthony (1998). "The House of Lancaster". In Fraser, Antonia (ed.). The Lives of the Kings
and Queens of England (revised and updated ed.). Weidenfeld and Nicolson. pp. 113–138. ISBN
9781841880273.
 Fraser, Antonia, ed. (1975). The Lives of the Kings & Queens of England. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-76911-1.
 Gillingham, John (1998). "The Normans". In Fraser, Antonia (ed.). The Lives of the Kings and Queens
of England (revised and updated ed.). Weidenfeld and Nicolson. pp. 17–39. ISBN 9781841880273.
 Huscroft, Richard (2016). Ruling England, 1042–1217 (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1138786554.
 Jolliffe, J. E. A. (1961). The Constitutional History of Medieval England from the English Settlement to
1485 (4th ed.). Adams and Charles Black.
 Jones, Dan (2012). The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England (revised
ed.). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-1-101-60628-5.
 Jones, Dan (2014). The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors.
Penguin Books. ISBN 9780698170322.
 Lyon, Ann (2016). Constitutional History of the UK (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1317203988. OL
28819305M.
 Maddicott, John Robert (2010). The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-199-58550-2. OL 28474657M.
 Powell, J. Enoch; Wallis, Keith (1968). The House of Lords in the Middle Ages: A History of the English
House of Lords to 1540. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0297761056.
 Prestwich, Michael (2005). Plantagenet England, 1225–1360. New Oxford History of England.
Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198228449.
 Starkey, David (2010). Crown and Country: A History of England through the Monarchy. HarperCollins
Publishers. ISBN 978-0007307715.
 Weir, Alison (1996). Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy. London: Pimlico. ISBN 0-
7126-7448-9. OCLC 35042093.
 v
 t
 e
 Monarchy in the United Kingdom
 Categories:
 British monarchy
 This page was last edited on 19 June 2023, at 07:11 (UTC).
 Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms
may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Founda







The union of Great Britain and Ireland into the United Kingdom occurred in 1801 during the reign of King
George III.
Part of a series on the
History of the United Kingdom
Timeline
Topics
United Kingdom portal
 v
 t
 e
The history of the monarchy of the United Kingdom and its evolution into
a constitutional and ceremonial monarchy is a major theme in the historical
development of the British constitution.[1] The British monarchy traces its origins to
the petty kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England and early medieval Scotland, which
consolidated into the kingdoms of England and Scotland by the 10th century. Anglo-
Saxon England had an elective monarchy, but this was replaced by primogeniture after
England was conquered by the Normans in 1066.
The Norman and Plantagenet dynasties expanded their authority throughout the British
Isles, creating the Lordship of Ireland in 1177 and conquering Wales in 1283. In
1215, King John agreed to limit his own powers over his subjects according to the terms
of Magna Carta. To gain the consent of the political community, English kings began
summoning Parliaments to approve taxation and to enact statutes. Gradually,
Parliament's authority expanded at the expense of royal power.
From 1603, the English and Scottish kingdoms were ruled by a single sovereign in
the Union of the Crowns. From 1649 to 1660, the tradition of monarchy was broken by
the republican Commonwealth of England, which followed the Wars of the Three
Kingdoms. Following the installation of William and Mary as co-monarchs in
the Glorious Revolution, a constitutional monarchy was established with power shifting
to Parliament. The Bill of Rights 1689, and its Scottish counterpart the Claim of Right
Act 1689, further curtailed the power of the monarchy and excluded Roman
Catholics from succession to the throne.
In 1707, the kingdoms of England and Scotland were merged to create the Kingdom of
Great Britain, and in 1801, the Kingdom of Ireland joined to create the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland. The British monarch was the nominal head of the
vast British Empire, which covered a quarter of the world's land area at its greatest
extent in 1921.
The Balfour Declaration of 1926 recognised the evolution of the Dominions of the
Empire into separate, self-governing countries within a Commonwealth of Nations. In
the years after the Second World War, the vast majority of British colonies and
territories became independent, effectively bringing the Empire to an end. George
VI and his successors, Elizabeth II and Charles III, adopted the title Head of the
Commonwealth as a symbol of the free association of its independent member states.
The United Kingdom and fourteen other independent sovereign states that share the
same person as their monarch are called Commonwealth realms. Although the monarch
is shared, each country is sovereign and independent of the others, and the monarch
has a different, specific, and official national title and style for each realm.
English monarchy[edit]
Further information: List of English monarchs
Anglo-Saxon period (800s–1066)[edit]
Further information: History of Anglo-Saxon England
The origins of the English monarchy lie in the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms,
which in the 7th century consolidated into seven kingdoms known as the Heptarchy.[2] At
certain times, one of the Anglo-Saxon kings was strong enough to claim the
title bretwalda or overlord of England.[3]
House of Wessex[edit]
England in 878 during the reign of Alfred the Great
Frontispiece portraying King Æthelstan presenting St Cuthbert with Bede's Life of Saint Cuthbert[4]
Further information: House of Wessex

In the 9th century, most Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were conquered
by Viking invaders. Wessex survived due to the leadership of Alfred the Great (r. 871–
899) who secured Wessex, absorbed Kent and western Mercia, and assumed the title
"king of the Anglo-Saxons".[5][2] Alfred's son, Edward the Elder (r. 899–924), and
grandsons reconquered Anglo-Saxon lands and created a unitary Kingdom of England,
though its constituent parts retained strong regional identities.[6] Æthelstan (r. 924–939)
is often considered the founder of the English monarchy, mainly due to his own
propaganda in the form of coins and charters naming him "king of the English". [7]
In theory, all governing authority resided with the king. He alone could make Anglo-
Saxon law, raise geld (land tax), mint coins, raise the fyrd, or make foreign policy. In
reality, kings needed the support of the nobility and the English church to rule.[8] They
governed in consultation with the Witan, the council of bishops, ealdormen,
and thegns that advised the king.[9] The Witan also elected new kings from among male
members of the royal family (æthelings).The rule of primogeniture was not yet
established, so weak candidates could be replaced with stronger ones.[10]
A monarch's rule was not legitimate unless consecrated by the church in a coronation.
The coronation of Edgar the Peaceful (r. 959–975) in 973 served as a model for
future British coronations, including for Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953. Before the king
was anointed and crowned, he swore a threefold oath to protect the church, defend his
people, and administer justice.[11]
While the capital was at Winchester, the king traveled with his itinerant court from
one royal vill to another as they collected food rent and heard petitions.[12] The king's
income came from revenue generated from the royal demesne (now known as
the Crown Estate), judicial fines, and regulation of trade. The geld or property tax was
also an important source of revenue.[13] People also owed the king service in the form of
the trinoda necessitas—fyrd service, burh building, and bridge building.[14]
At the local level, royal power operated through shires, which were further divided
into hundreds. The biannual shire courts tried legal cases, kept the peace, levied taxes,
raised troops, and collected information on property rights and inheritance. Shire and
hundred courts were presided over by royal officials: the ealdorman for a shire and
a reeve for a hundred.[15] Royal land grants frequently included the privilege of infangthief
and outfangthief, which allowed for seignorial justice, but the most serious offenses
(such as murder) could only be tried in the royal courts.[16]
Edgar the Peaceful was succeeded by his son, Edward the Martyr (r. 975–978), who
was then murdered by his younger brother, Æthelred the Unready (r. 978–1016).
The Danes began raiding England in the 990s, and Æthelred resorted to buying them
off with ever more expensive payments of Danegeld. Æthelred's marriage to Emma of
Normandy deprived the Danes of a place to shelter before crossing the Channel but did
not prevent Swein Forkbeard, king of Denmark, from conquering England in 1013.[17]
After Swein's death in 1014, the English invited Æthelred to return from exile if he
agreed to address complaints against his earlier rule, including high taxes, extortion and
the enslavement of free men. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records this agreement,
which historian David Starkey called "the first constitutional settlement in English
history".[18]
Æthelred was succeeded by his son, Edmund Ironside (r. 1016). During his brief reign,
Edmund reinvigorated English resistance to the Danish invaders. But he died after less
than a year as king and was never able to consolidate his gains.[19]
Cnut the Great and his sons[edit]
Further information: House of Knýtlinga
The North Sea Empire of Cnut the Great, c. 1030.
After Ironside's death, the English acknowledged Swein's son, Cnut (r. 1016–1035) as
king of England. During Cnut's reign, England was united with the kingdoms of Denmark
and Norway in what historians call the North Sea Empire. Because Cnut was not in
England for much of his reign, he divided England into four parts (Wessex, East
Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria) and appointed trusted earls to rule each region. The
creation of large earldoms covering multiple shires necessitated the office of sheriff or
"shire reeve". The sheriff was the earl's deputy as well as the king's direct
representative in the shire. Sheriffs oversaw the shire courts as well as the collection of
taxes and royal estate dues.[20]
The most powerful earl was Godwin, Cnut's chief minister. When Cnut died in 1035,
rival sons contended for the throne: Emma's son Harthacnut (who was in Denmark at
the time) and Ælfgifu's son Harold Harefoot (who was in England). Godwin supported
Harthacnut, but Earl Leofric backed Harefoot. As a compromise, the brothers were
made co-rulers with Harefoot as regent. Harefoot's support continued to grow the longer
Harthacnut stayed in Denmark, and Harefoot was finally acknowledged as king in 1037.
Upon Harefoot's death in 1040, the witan gave the throne to Harthacnut (r. 1035–1042).
[21]
Edward the Confessor[edit]

Edward the Confessor
Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066), son of Æthelred and Emma, had been living in
exile. In 1041, Harthacnut recalled his half-brother from Normandy, and when he died
without heirs, the forty-year-old Edward was the natural successor. He had spent most
of his life in Normandy and culturally was "probably more French than English".
[22]
Edward was the first English monarch to be attributed the royal touch.[23]
By this time, England had a sophisticated system of government.[24] Priests attached to
the king's chapel acted as royal secretaries—writing letters, charters, and other official
documents. Edward appointed the first chancellor, Regenbald, who kept the king's
seal and oversaw the writing of charters and writs. The treasury had developed into a
permanent institution by this time as well. Supervision of the treasury was one of the
responsibilities of the king's burthegns or chamberlains.[25] London was becoming the
political as well as the commercial capital of England. Edward furthered this transition
by building Westminster Palace and Westminster Abbey.[26]
Despite his government's sophistication, Edward had much less land and wealth than
his most powerful subjects, Earl Godwin and his sons. In 1066, the Godwinson estates
were worth £7,000, while the king's estates were worth £5,000.[27] To counter the power
of the Godwinsons, Edward created a French party loyal to him. He made his
nephew, Ralph of Mantes, the earl of Hereford. He overturned the election of a Godwin
relative to be Archbishop of Canterbury and appointed Robert of Jumièges instead. In
1051, Edward's brother-in-law, Count Eustace of Boulogne, visited England and initiated
a quarrel with Godwin. Ultimately, Edward had the entire Godwinson
family outlawed and forced into exile.[28]
Around this time, Edward invited his relative William, duke of Normandy, to England.
According to Norman sources, the king nominated William as his heir. But Edward's
favouritism towards the French was unpopular with the English people. With popular
support, Godwin returned to England in 1052, and Edward had no choice but to restore
the Godwinson's to their former lands. This time, Edward's French supporters were
outlawed.[29]
In 1066, Edward died childless. Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, had the best
hereditary claim to the throne, but Harold Godwinson, earl of Wessex, claimed King
Edward promised the throne to him. Harold had greater support among the English
people and was made king by the Witan.[30]
House of Normandy (1066–1154)[edit]
England and Normandy in 1087
Further information: House of Normandy

William the Conqueror[edit]
William, Duke of Normandy, disputed Harold's succession. He claimed that Edward the
Confessor promised him the throne. He was also the great-nephew of Emma of
Normandy, wife of Æthelred and Cnut. In addition, his wife Matilda of Flanders was a
direct descendant of Alfred the Great.[31] In 1066, William invaded England, and Harold
was killed at the Battle of Hastings.[32] The English then elected (but never
crowned) Edgar the Ætheling, the Confessor's fifteen-year-old great-nephew. After
English resistance collapsed, Edgar submitted to William, who was crowned king on
Christmas Day 1066 at Westminster Abbey.[33]
It took nearly five years of fighting before the Norman Conquest of England was secure.
Across England, the Normans built castles for defense as well as intimidation of the
locals. In London, William ordered construction of the White Tower, the central keep of
the Tower of London. Once finished, the White Tower "was the most imposing emblem
of monarchy that the country had ever seen, dwarfing all other buildings for miles
around."[34]
The Conquest was crucial in terms of both political and social change. Old
English became the language of the poor, while French (specifically the Anglo-
Norman dialect) became the language of government. The native Anglo-Saxon
aristocracy was almost entirely replaced by a new Anglo-Norman elite,[35] and most
native English lost their land.[36]
The White Tower, built by William the Conqueror, is a symbol of royal power.
The Normans appreciated and preserved the sophisticated English government, which
was more centralised than ducal government in Normandy. The Witan's role of
consultation and advice was continued in the curia regis (Latin for "king's court").[36] Shire
and hundred courts were retained, but the king's court reserved for itself the right to
hear pleas of the Crown[note 1] and appeals from lower courts. William also continued the
Anglo-Saxon practice of sending out specially appointed justices to local courts to hear
cases warranting royal intervention.[37] Likewise, the office of earl was preserved, and
William created new earldoms to protect the Welsh border (see Marcher lord).[38]
English feudalism, which first appeared in the Anglo-Saxon period, continued to develop
under Norman influence. William I claimed ownership of all land in England.[note 2] While he
gave land away as rewards for his followers, Domesday Book records that he remained
the single largest landholder in England. The royal demesne included 10 to 30 percent
of each county. Most of the king's income came from the profits and rents of his estates;
however, he did not manage these lands himself. Following Anglo-Saxon tradition, the
king delegated management of crown lands to his sheriffs. Each year, the sheriff paid
the king a fixed sum called the "county farm", but the sheriff kept any surplus revenue.
William and his successor also continued to levy the geld on a regular basis.[40]
As a feudal lord, the king gave fiefs to his most important followers, his tenants-in-
chief (the barons), who in return owed the king fealty and military service
(or scutage payments). The king was also entitled to be paid feudal reliefs by his barons
on certain occasions, such as the knighting of an eldest son, marriage of an eldest
daughter, or upon inheriting a fief. Likewise, barons owed feudal aids when the king's
eldest son was knighted or eldest daughter married.[41] At times, there was tension
between the monarch and his Norman vassals, who were used to French models of
government in which royal power was much weaker than in England. The 1075 Revolt
of the Earls was defeated by the king, but the monarchy continued to resist forces of
feudal fragmentation.[42]
Sherwood Forest, a royal forest in Nottinghamshire, is associated with the legend of Robin Hood
The Norman kings designated nearly a third of England as royal forests (i.e. royal
hunting preserves).[43] The forest provided kings with food, timber, and money. People
paid the king for rights to graze cattle or cut down trees. A system of forest law
developed to protect the royal forests. Forest law was unpopular because it was
arbitrary and infringed on the property rights of other landholders. A landholder's right to
hunt deer or farm his land was limited if it fell within the royal forest.[44]
The church was critical to William's conquest of England. In 1066, it owned between 25
and 33 per cent of all land,[45] and appointment to bishoprics and abbacies were
important sources of royal patronage. The Norman invasion received the blessing
of Pope Alexander II, who wanted William to oversee church reform and to remove unfit
bishops. William forbade ecclesiastical cases (those involving marriage, wills,
and legitimacy) from being heard in secular courts; jurisdiction was handed over
to church courts. But William also tightened royal control over the church. Bishops were
banned from traveling to Rome, and royal permission was needed to enact new canon
law or to excommunicate a noble.[46][47]
Henry I[edit]
Westminster Hall during US President Barack Obama's address to Parliament on 25 May 2011
The death of William I in 1087 illustrates the absence of any firm rules of succession.
William gave Normandy to his oldest son, Robert Curthose, while his second
son, William II or "Rufus" (r. 1087–1100), was given England.[48] Between 1098 and
1099, the Great Hall at Westminster Palace, the king's main residence, was built. It was
one of the largest secular buildings in Europe, and a monument to the Anglo-Norman
monarchy.[49]
On 2 August 1100, Rufus was killed while hunting in the New Forest. His younger
brother, Henry I (r. 1100–1135), was hastily elected king by the barons at Winchester on
August 3 and crowned king at Westminster Abbey on August 5, just three days after his
brother's death. At the coronation, Henry not only promised to rule well; he renounced
the unpopular policies of his brother and promised to restore the laws of Edward the
Confessor. This oath was written down and distributed throughout England as
the Coronation Charter, which was reissued by all future 12th-century kings and was
incorporated into Magna Carta.[50][51]
England's four Norman kings depicted in Matthew Paris' 13th century Historia Anglorum. Row 1: William I and
William II. Row 2: Henry I and Stephen of Blois.
During Henry's reign, the royal household was formalised. It was divided into the chapel
in charge of royal documents (which evolved into the chancery), the chamber in charge
of finances, and the master-marshal in charge of travel (the court remained itinerant
during this period). The household also included several hundred mounted household
troops. The king's closest advisers formed the curia regis. During crown-wearings held
three times a year, the king met with all his bishops and magnates in the magnum
concilium (Latin for "great council"). It is unknown whether these were truly deliberative
bodies, but these assemblies were generally dominated by the king.[52]
The office of justiciar—effectively the king's chief minister—took shape at this time. The
office developed out of the need for a viceroy when the king was in Normandy and was
mainly concerned with royal finance and justice.[53] Under the first justiciar, Roger of
Salisbury, the Exchequer was established to manage royal finances.[54] The Exchequer
produced an annual audit recorded in the pipe rolls.[55] As the royal court was itinerant, it
was convenient for people to appeal financial matters directly to the Exchequer, giving
rise to the Court of Exchequer.[56]
Royal justice became more accessible with the appointment of local justices in each
shire and itinerant justices traveling judicial circuits of multiple shires.[57] This gave the
monarch a greater role in local government.[58] Historian Tracy Borman summarised the
impact of Henry I's reforms as "transform[ing] medieval government from an itinerant
and often poorly organised household into a highly sophisticated administrative kingship
based on permanent, static departments."[59]
Succession crisis[edit]
Henry married Matilda of Scotland, the niece of Edgar the Ætheling. This marriage was
widely seen as uniting the House of Normandy with the House of Wessex and produced
two children, Matilda (who married Holy Roman Emperor Henry V in 1114) and William
Adelin (a Norman-French variant of Ætheling).[60] But in 1120, England was thrown into a
succession crisis when William Adelin died in the sinking of the White Ship.[61] In 1126,
Henry I made a controversial decision to name his daughter Empress Matilda (his only
surviving legitimate child) his heir and forced the nobility to swear oaths of allegiance to
her. In 1128, the widowed Matilda married Geoffrey of Anjou, and the couple had three
sons in the years 1133–1136.[62]
Despite the oaths sworn to her, Matilda was unpopular both for being a woman and
because of her marriage ties to Anjou, Normandy's traditional enemy.[63] Following
Henry's death in 1135, his nephew, Stephen of Blois (r. 1135–1154), laid claim to the
throne and took power with the support of most of the barons. Matilda challenged his
reign; as a result, England descended into a period of civil war known as the
Anarchy (1138–1153). While Stephen maintained a precarious hold on power, he was
ultimately forced to compromise for the sake of peace. Both sides agreed to the Treaty
of Wallingford by which Stephen adopted Matilda's son, Henry FitzEmpress, as his son
and heir.[64]
Plantagenets (1154–1399)[edit]
Further information: Angevin kings of England and Capetian–Plantagenet rivalry
Henry II[edit]
The Angevin Empire during the reign of Henry II
On December 19, 1154, Henry II (r. 1154–1189) became the first king of a new dynasty,
the House of Plantagenet. He was also the first king crowned King of England rather
than King of the English. Henry founded the Angevin Empire, which controlled almost
half of France including Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Touraine, and the Duchy of Aquitaine.
[65]
Henry's first task was restoring royal authority in a kingdom fractured by years of civil
war. In some parts of the country, nobles were virtually independent of the Crown. In
1155, Henry expelled foreign mercenaries and ordered the demolition of illegal castles.
He also dealt quickly and effectively with rebellious lords, such as Hugh de Mortimer.[66]
Henry's legal reforms had a profound impact on English government for generations. In
earlier times, English law was largely based on custom. Henry's reign saw the first
official legislation since the Conquest in the form of Henry's various assizes and the
growth of case law.[67][68] In 1166, the Assize of Clarendon established the supremacy of
royal courts over manorial and ecclesiastical courts.[69] Henry's legal reforms also
transformed the king's personal role in the judicial process into an impersonal legal
bureaucracy. The 1176 Assize of Northampton divided the kingdom into six judicial
circuits called eyres allowing itinerant royal judges to reach the whole kingdom.[70] In
1178, the king ordered five members of his curia regis to remain at Westminster and
hear legal cases full time, creating the Court of King's Bench. Writs (standardised royal
orders with the great seal attached) were developed to deal with common legal
problems. Any freeman could purchase a writ from the chancery and receive royal
justice without the king's personal intervention.[71] For example, a writ of novel
disseisin commanded a local jury to determine whether someone had been unjustly
dispossessed of land.[70]
The Great Seal of Henry II. On one side, the king is seated as lawgiver and judge. On the reverse, he is
mounted and armed as a warrior-king.[71]
Since William the Conqueror's separation of secular and ecclesiastical jurisdiction,

church courts claimed exclusive authority to try clergy, including monks and clerics
in minor orders. The most contentious issue was "criminous clerks" accused of theft,
rape or murder. Church courts could not impose the death penalty or bodily mutilation,
and their punishments (penance and defrocking) were lenient. In 1164, Henry issued
the Constitutions of Clarendon, which required criminous clerks who had been
defrocked to be handed over to royal courts for punishment as laymen. It also forbade
appeals to the pope. Archbishop Thomas Becket opposed the Constitutions, and
the Becket controversy culminated in his murder in 1170. In 1172, Henry reached a
settlement with the church in the Compromise of Avranches. Appeals to Rome were
allowed, and secular courts were given jurisdiction over clerics accused of non-
felony crimes.[72][73]
Henry also extended his authority outside of England. In 1157, he invaded Wales and
received the submission of Owain of Gywnedd and Rhys ap Gruffydd of Deheubarth.
[74]
The Scottish king William the Lion was forced to acknowledge the English king as
feudal overlord[note 3] in the Treaty of Falaise.[76] The 1175 Treaty of Windsor confirmed
Henry as feudal overlord of most of Ireland.[77]
Richard the Lionheart[edit]
The lands inherited by Richard I in France (in shades of red)
Upon Henry's death, his eldest surviving son Richard I (r. 1189–1199), nicknamed the
Lionheart, succeeded to the throne. As king, he spent a total of six months in England.
In 1190, the king left England with a large army and fleet to join the Third Crusade to
[78]
reconquer Jerusalem from Saladin. Richard funded this campaign through taxation
(such as the Saladin tithe) as well as selling offices, titles, and land.[79] In his absence,
England was governed by William de Longchamp, in whom was consolidated both
secular and ecclesiastical power as Bishop of Ely, papal legate, justiciar and chancellor.
[80]
Concerned that John would usurp power while he was on Crusade, Richard made his
brother swear to leave England for three years. John broke his oath and was in England
by April 1191 leading opposition against Longchamp. From Sicily, Richard sent
Archbishop Walter de Coutances to England as his envoy to resolve the situation. In
October, a group of barons and bishops led by the Archbishop deposed Longchamp.
John was appointed regent, but real power was exercised by Coutances as justiciar.[81]
While returning from Crusade, Richard was imprisoned by Holy Roman Emperor Henry
VI for over a year and was not released until England paid an enormous ransom.[82] In
1193, John defected to Philip II of France, and the two plotted to take Richard's lands on
the Continent.[83] After a four-year absence, Richard returned to England in March 1194,
but he soon left again to wage war against Philip II, who had overrun the Vexin and
parts of Normandy.[84] By 1198, Richard had reconquered most of his territory. At
the Battle of Gisors, Richard adopted the motto Dieu et mon droit (French for "God and
my Right"), which was later adopted as the royal motto.[85] In 1199, Richard died from
wounds received while besieging Châlus-Chabrol. Before his death, the king made
peace with John, naming him his successor.[86]
After Richard's return from Crusade, the king created the office of coroner (from custos
placitorum coronae, Latin for "keeper of the pleas of the Crown"). The coroner,
alongside the sheriff, was a royal officer responsible for administering justice within a
shire.[87]
John[edit]
Philip II and John making peace with a kiss
At Westminster Abbey in May 1199, John (r. 1199–1216) was crowned Rex
Angliae (Latin for "King of England") rather than the older form of Rex Anglorum (Latin
for "King of the English").[88] In 1204, John lost Normandy and his other Continental
possessions. The remainder of his reign was shaped by attempts to rehabilitate his
military reputation and fund wars of reconquest.[89] Traditionally, the king was expected to
fund his government out of his own income derived from the royal demesne, profits of
royal justice, and profits from the feudal system (such as feudal incidents, reliefs, and
aids). In reality, this was rarely possible, especially in time of war.[90] To fund his
campaigns, John introduced a thirteen percent tax on revenues and movable goods that
would become the model for taxation through the Tudor period. The king also raised
money by charging high court fees and—in the opinion of his barons—abusing his right
to feudal incidents and reliefs.[91] Scutages were levied almost annually, much more often
than under earlier kings. In addition, John showed partiality and favouritsm when
dispensing justice. This and his paranoia caused his relationship with the barons to
break down.[92]
After quarreling with the king over the election of a new Archbishop of Canterbury, Pope
Innocent III placed England under papal interdict in 1208. For the next six years, priests
refused to say mass, officiate marriages, or bury the dead. John responded by
confiscating church property.[93] In 1209, the pope excommunicated John, but he
remained unrepentant. It was not until 1213 that John reconciled with the pope, going
so far as to convert the Kingdom of England into a papal fief with John as the pope's
vassal.[94]
The Anglo-French War of 1213–1214 was fought to restore the Angevin Empire, but
John was defeated at the Battle of Bouvines. The military and financial losses of 1214
severely weakened the king, and the barons demanded that he govern according to
Henry I's Coronation Charter. On 5 May 1215, a group of barons renounced their fealty
to John calling themselves the Army of God and the Holy Church and chose Robert
Fitzwalter to be their leader.[note 4] The rebels numbered about 40 barons together with
their sons and vassals. The other barons—around a hundred—worked with Archbishop
Langton and the papal legate Guala Bicchieri to effect compromise between the two
sides.[96] Over a month of negotiations resulted in the Magna Carta (Latin for "Great
Charter"), which was formally agreed to by both sides at Runnymede on 15 June. This
document defined and limited the king's powers over his subjects. It would be
reconfirmed throughout the 13th century and gain the status of "inalienable custom and
fundamental law".[97] Historian Dan Jones notes that:
Magna Carta
Whereas many of the clauses in the charter were formal terms pertaining to specific
policies pursued by John—whether with regard to raising armies, levying taxes,
impeding merchants, or arguing with the Church—the most famous clauses aimed at a
deeper elaboration of the rights of subjects to set out the limits of central government.
Clause 39 reads: "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or
exiled or in any way ruined ... except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the
land." Clause 40 is more laconic: "To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay
right or justice." These clauses addressed the whole spirit of John's reign and by
extension the spirit of kingship itself. For the eleven years in which John had resided in
England, his barons had tasted a form of tyranny. John had used his powers in an
arbitrary, partisan, and exploitative fashion and had used the processes of law
deliberately to weaken and menace his noble lords. He had broken the spirit of kingship
as presented by Henry II back in 1153, when he traveled the country offering unity and
legal process to all.[98]
Unlike earlier charters of liberties, Magna Carta included an enforcement mechanism in
the form of a council of 25 barons who were permitted to wage "lawful rebellion" against
the king if he violated the charter. The king had no intention of adhering to the document
and appealed to Pope Innocent who annulled the agreement and excommunicated the
rebel barons. This began the First Barons' War, during which the rebels offered the
crown to Philip II's son, the future Louis VIII of France.[note 5] By June 1216, Louis had
taken control of half of England, including London. While he had not been crowned, he
was proclaimed King Louis I at St Paul's Cathedral, and many English nobles along with
King Alexander II of Scotland gave him homage. In the midst of this collapse of royal
authority, John died abruptly at Newark Castle on 19 October.[100]
Henry III[edit]
Further information: Parliament of England § Early development (1188–1307)
Since the Conquest, monarchs have been crowned at Westminster Abbey. Construction of the present church
began in 1245 on the orders of Henry III.
Westminster Palace, showing St Stephen's Chapel in the centre with the White Chamber and Painted
Chamber on the left and Westminster Hall on the right.
After John's death, loyal barons and bishops took his nine-year-old son to Gloucester
Abbey where he was crowned Henry III (r. 1216–1272) in a rushed coronation. This
established the precedent that the eldest son became king regardless of age.[101] Henry
was the first child king since Æthelred the Unready,[102] and William Marshal, Earl of
Pembroke, served as regent until his death in 1219. Marshal led royal forces to victory
against the rebel barons and French invaders at the Battles of Lincoln and Sandwich in
1217.[103]
During Henry's reign, the principle that kings were subject to the law gained acceptance.
[104]
To build support for the new king, his government re-issued Magna Carta in 1216
and 1217 (along with the Charter of the Forest).[105] In January 1225, the Magna Carta
was re-issued at a Great Council in return for approval of a tax to fund military
campaigns in France. This established a new constitutional precedent in which "military
expeditions would be financed at the expense of detailed concessions of political
liberties".[106] In 1236, Henry began calling such meetings Parliament. By the 1240s,
these early Parliaments had not only assumed power to grant taxes but were also
venues where nobles could complain about government policy or corruption.[107]
In 1227, Henry was eighteen years old, and the regency officially ended. Yet,
throughout his personal rule the king displayed a tendency to be dominated by
foreign favourites. After the fall of the justiciar Hubert de Burgh in 1230, Bishop Peter
des Roches became the king's chief minister. While holding no great office himself, the
bishop showered his Poitevin relation Peter de Rivaux with a large number of offices.
[108]
He was placed in charge of the treasury, the privy seal, and the royal wardrobe. At
the time, the wardrobe was a department that was at the centre of financial and political
decisions in the royal household. He was given financial control of the royal household
for life, was keeper of the forests and ports, and was, in addition, the sheriff of twenty-
one counties. Rivaux used his immense power to enact important administrative
reforms.[109] Nevertheless, the accumulation of power by foreigners led Richard
Marshal to open rebellion. The bishops as a group threatened Henry with
excommunication, which finally made him strip the Poitevin party of power.[110]
Henry then transferred his favouritism to his Lusignan half-brothers, William and Aymer
de Valence. By the 1250s, there was widespread resentment against the Lusignans.
There was also opposition to Henry's unrealistic plans to conquer the Kingdom of
Sicily for his second son, Edmund Crouchback. In 1255, the king informed Parliament
that as part of the Sicilian campaign he owed the pope the huge sum of £100,000
(equal to £132,431,068 today) and that if he defaulted England would be placed under
an interdict. By 1257, there was a growing consensus that Henry was unfit to rule. [111][112][113]
In 1258, the king was forced to submit to a radical reform programme promulgated at
the Oxford Parliament. The Provisions of Oxford transferred royal power to a council of
fifteen barons. A parliament would meet three times a year and appoint all royal officers
(from justiciar and chancellor to sheriffs and bailiffs). The new government's leader
was Simon de Montfort, the king's brother-in-law and former friend. By the terms of
the 1295 Treaty of Paris, the English Crown gave up all claims to Normandy and Anjou
in return for keeping the Duchy of Aquitaine as a vassal of the French king. [114]
When the king tried to overturn the Provisions of Oxford, Montfort led a rebellion,
the Second Barons' War. In 1265, Montfort called a Parliament to consolidate support
for the rebellion. For the first time, knights of the shire and burgesses from the important
towns were summoned along with barons and bishops. Simon de Montfort's
Parliament was an important milestone in the evolution of Parliament. Montfort was
killed at the Battle of Evesham in 1265, and royal authority was restored.[115]
Henry traveled less than past kings. As a consequence, he spent large amounts of
money on royal palaces. His most expensive projects were the rebuilding of
Westminster Palace and Abbey, costing £55,000 (equal to £44,130,706 today). He
spent a further £9,000 (equal to £7,221,388 today) on the Tower of London. [116]
[113]
Westminster Abbey alone nearly bankrupted the king.[117]
Henry III died in 1272, having been king for fifty-six years. His turbulent reign was the
third longest of any English monarch.[115]
Edward I[edit]
In 1296, Edward I took the Stone of Scone from Scotland and placed it in the Coronation Chair at Westminster
Abbey.[118] In 1996, the stone was returned to Scotland where it is kept with the Scottish Crown Jewels.
Edward I (r. 1272–1307), nicknamed Longshanks for his height, was in Italy when he
learned that his father had died. Previous monarchs were only legally recognised as
king after coronation, but Edward's reign officially began on 20 November, the same day
his father was buried at Westminster Abbey. Walter Giffard, archbishop of York; Roger
Mortimer, a marcher lord; and Robert Burnell were appointed regents. A proclamation
issued on 23 November that stated:[119]
The government of the realm has come to the king on the death of King Henry his
father, by hereditary succession and by the will of the magnates of the realm and by
their fealty done to the king, wherefore the magnates have caused the king's peace to
be proclaimed in the king's name.
Edward returned to England in August 1274 determined to restore royal authority. His
first act was ordering the Hundred Rolls survey, a detailed investigation into what rights
and land the Crown had lost since Henry III's reign. It was also intended to root out
corruption by royal officials, and while few people were prosecuted for wrongdoing, it
sent a message that Edward was a reformer.[120]
From his father's reign, Edward learned the importance of building national consensus
for his policies through Parliament, which he usually summoned twice a year at Easter
and Michaelmas. Edward effected his reform program through a series of parliamentary
statutes: Statute of Westminster of 1275, Statute of Gloucester of 1278, Statute of
Mortmain of 1279, Statute of Acton Burnell of 1283, and Statute of Westminster of 1285.
In 1297, he reissued Magna Carta.[121][122] In 1295, Edward summoned the Model
Parliament, which included knights and burgesses to represent the counties and towns.
These "middle earners" were the most important group of taxpayers, and Edward was
eager to gain their financial support for an invasion of Scotland.[123]
Through effective management of Parliament, Edward was able to fund his military
campaigns in Wales and Scotland. He successfully and permanently conquered Wales,
built impressive castles to enforce English domination, and brought the country under
English law with the Statute of Wales. In 1301, the king's eldest son, Edward of
Caernarfon, was created Prince of Wales and given control of the Principality of Wales.
The title continues to be granted to the heirs of British monarchs.[124]
The death of Alexander III of Scotland in 1286 and his granddaughter Margaret of
Norway in 1290 left the Scottish throne vacant. The Guardians of Scotland recognised
Edward's feudal overlordship and invited him to adjudicate the Scottish succession
dispute. In 1292, John Balliol was chosen Scotland's new king, but Edward's brutal
treatment of his northern vassal led to the First War of Scottish Independence. In 1307,
Edward died on his way to invade Scotland.[125]
Edward II[edit]
At his coronation, Edward II (r. 1307–1327) promised not only to uphold the laws of
Edward the Confessor as was traditional but also "the laws and rightful customs which
the community of the realm shall have chosen".[126] Edward thus abandoned any claim to
absolute power and recognised the need to rule in cooperation with Parliament.[127] The
new king inherited problems from his father: the Crown was in debt and the war in
Scotland was going badly. He compounded these problems by alienating the nobility.
The main cause of conflict was the influence wielded by royal favourites, first Piers
Gaveston and then Hugh Despenser the Younger.[128]
The king's reliance on favourites proved a convenient scapegoat for the barons, who
blamed unpopular policies on them rather than directly oppose the king.[129] When
Parliament met in April 1308, Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, and a delegation of nobles
presented the Declaration of 1308, which for the first time explicitly distinguished
between the king as a person and the Crown as an institution to which the people owed
allegiance. This distinction was known as the doctrine of capacities.[130]
In 1310, Parliament complained that "the state of the king and the kingdom had much
deteriorated since the death of the elder King Edward ... and the whole kingdom had
been not a little injured".[131] Specifically, Edward was accused of being guided by evil
counselors, impoverishing the Crown, violating Magna Carta, and losing Scotland. The
magnates elected twenty-one ordainers to reform the government. The completed
reforms were presented to Edward as the Ordinances in August 1311. Like Magna
Carta and the Provisions of Oxford, the Ordinances of 1311 were an attempt to limit the
powers of the monarch. It banned the practice of purveyance and going to war without
consulting Parliament. Government revenue was to be paid to the exchequer rather
than to the royal household, and Parliament was to meet at least once a year.
Parliament was to create committees to investigate royal abuses and to appoint royal
ministers and officials (such as the chancellor and county sheriffs).[132]
The Ordinances also required the exile of the king's favourite, Gaveston. By January
1312, Edward had publicly repudiated the ordinances, and Gaveston was back in
England.[133] Earl Thomas of Lancaster, the king's cousin, led a group of magnates that
captured and executed Gaveston.[note 6] This act nearly plunged England into civil war but
negotiations restored an uneasy peace.[135]
Edward II's wife Queen Isabella (third from the left) with her father, Philip IV of France (tallest)
After Gaveston's death, the most influential men around the king were Hugh
Despenser and his son, Hugh Despenser the Younger. The king alienated moderate
barons by dispensing royal patronage without parliamentary approval as required by the
Ordinances and allowing the Despensers to act with impunity. In 1318, negotiations led
to the Treaty of Leake in which the king agreed to abide by the Ordinances of 1311. A
permanent royal council was created with eight bishops, four earls, and four barons as
members.[136]
Edward's favouritsm toward the Despensers continued to destabilize the kingdom. The
Despensers had become the gatekeepers to the king, and their enemies "were liable to
be deprived of land or possessions or else thrown into prison".[137] The Welsh Marches
were particularly destabilized by Hugh the Younger's accumulation of land. In 1321, a
group of marcher lords invaded the Despenser estates, beginning the Despenser War.
Edward defeated the baronial opposition in 1322 and overturned the Ordinances.
[138]
For the next few years, Edward ruled as a tyrant. The author of the Vita Edwardi
[139]
Secundi wrote of this period,[140]

parliaments, colloquies, and councils decide nothing these days. For the nobles of the
realm, terrified by threats and the penalties inflicted on others, let the king's will have
free play. Thus today will conquers reason. For whatever pleases the king, though
lacking in reason, has the force of law.
The execution of Hugh Despenser the Younger, from a manuscript of Jean Froissart
In 1324, Edward's wife Isabella and their son, Prince Edward, traveled to France on a
diplomatic mission. While there, the Queen formed an alliance with Roger Mortimer, a
marcher lord who had fought against Edward in the Despenser War. At the head of a
mercenary army, they invaded England in 1326. Important noblemen defected to the
Queen's cause, and London rose in revolt. Meanwhile, the King and the Dispensers fled
to Wales. On October 26, Isabella and Mortimer proclaimed that in the King's absence
power temporarily resided with the fourteen-year-old Prince Edward. Having been
abandoned by most of his household, the King was captured on 16 November.[141]
By this point, it was clear that Edward II could not remain king, but this precipitated
a constitutional crisis as there was no legal process to remove a crowned and anointed
king who in theory was the source of all public authority.[142] At the Parliament of 1327,
the Articles of Accusation were drawn up accusing the King of violating his coronation
oath and following the advice of evil councilors. On 20 January, Edward II was forced
to abdicate. This marked the first time in English history that a monarch was formally
deposed from the throne. The former king died on 21 September, probably murdered on
the orders of his wife.[143][144]
Edward III[edit]
The wall of Nottingham Castle above with some cave entrances below. Tunnels beneath the castle were used
by Edward III's men in the 1330 coup.[145]
Five days after his father's abdication, the fourteen-year-old Edward III (r. 1327–1377)
was crowned king, but it was Isabella and Mortimer who truly held power. Under their
three-year rule, the monarchy was weakened abroad and at home. They made a
disadvantageous treaty with France and failed to press Edward's claim to the French
throne when his uncle, Charles IV, died without a male heir. They also agreed to
the Treaty of Edinburgh–Northampton, which forfeited England's claim to overlordship of
Scotland. At home, Mortimer used his new power to enrich himself even as the Crown
faced bankruptcy and the nation experienced a rise in crime and violence. In 1330,
Mortimer had Edmund of Woodstock, the King's uncle, arrested and executed for
treason.[146]
On 19 October 1330, the seventeen-year-old Edward staged a coup at Nottingham
Castle with the help of William Montagu and around 16 other young household
companions. Mortimer was arrested, tried before Parliament, and executed for treason.
[147]
The young King, now in full control of his kingdom, realised that he could not afford to
alienate the English nobility. He cultivated "an aristocratic culture, which bound the king
and nobles together."[148] In particular, royal-noble bonds were strengthened through
frequent tournaments in which Edward himself would take part.[149] Edward was the first
king since the Conquest to speak English, and during his reign Middle English began to
replace French as the language of the aristocracy.[150]
In 1333, Edward invaded Scotland winning a major victory at the Battle of Halidon
Hill due to the use of the English longbow.[151] The victory allowed Edward to
place Edward Balliol on the Scottish throne with himself as overlord. With French help,
the Scots loyal to David II continued to resist English interference in the Second War of
Scottish Independence.[152]
Edward III added the French fleur-de-lis to the Royal Arms of England to symbolise his claim to the French
throne
In March 1337, Edward created six new earldoms in order to gain military support for a
war against France. His eldest son, the six-year-old Edward of Woodstock, was
made Duke of Cornwall, the first duchy created in England. In May 1337, King Philip VI
of France confiscated the Duchy of Aquitaine and the County of Ponthieu from the
English king. In 1340, Edward claimed the French throne on the grounds that he was
the last male descendent of his grandfather, Philip IV of France. To symbolise his claim,
the King added the fleur-de-lis to the royal arms of England.[153][154]
In 1346, Edward invaded France in pursuit of his claim, setting off the Hundred Years'
War which would last until 1453. The English won the Battle of Crécy and after a
siege took the town of Calais, which would remain an English possession for the next
two centuries. After a successful campaign in France, Edward returned to England and
founded the Order of the Garter at Windsor Castle in 1348.[155] Between 1350 and 1377,
Edward spent £50,000 (equal to £42,100,000 today)[113] transforming Windsor from an
ordinary castle into a "palatial castle of quite extraordinary splendour".[156]
The King's eldest son Edward, known to history as the Black Prince, won the Battle of
Poitiers in 1356 in which the French king John II was captured.[150] In the Treaty of
Brétigny of 1360, Edward renounced his claims to the French throne and was awarded
outright sovereignty over Calais, Ponthieu, and Aquitaine. Edward also negotiated a
peace with Scotland that included the release of David II in return for recognising the
English king's overlordship of Scotland.[157]
Edward worked with Parliament to build consensus and support for his wars and, in the
process, furthered Parliament's development as an essential institution of government.
According to historian David Starkey,[158]
Edward was willing to do whatever was necessary to persuade members of Parliament
to dig their hands deep into their constituents' pockets. It meant doing deals, greasing
palms, slapping backs. Edward's victories were reported in detail; Parliament was
consulted on war diplomacy and ratified the peace treaties with France ... The length of
Edward's wars also normalized taxation. Direct taxation, on income and property,
continued to be voted only for war. But indirect taxation on trade became permanent,
enhancing royal power and extending the scope of royal government.
Windsor Castle, royal residence and headquarters of the Order of the Garter
There were a number of setbacks in the last years of Edward's reign. The new French
king Charles V successfully drove the Black Prince out of Aquitaine. Prince Edward
returned to England in 1371 bankrupt and in declining health possibly caused
by dysentery. The infirmity of both the elderly King and Prince Edward created a power
vacuum that John of Gaunt tried to fill, but there were many complaints of corruption
and mismanagement in government. In the Good Parliament of 1376, the House of
Commons refused to finance the war with France until corrupt ministers and Alice
Perrers, the royal mistress, were removed. Having little choice, the King acquiesced and
the accused ministers were arrested and brought to trial before Parliament in the
first impeachment proceedings. While the Good Parliament was still in session, the
Black Prince died at the age of 45.[159]
Edward's new heir was his nine-year-old grandson Richard of Bordeaux. There were
concerns that Richard's uncles might usurp power. To strengthen the boy's position, he
was recognised in Parliament as heir apparent and given the titles of prince of Wales,
duke of Cornwall, and earl of Chester. Having secured the succession, Edward III died
in 1377.[160]
Richard II[edit]
Richard II
Richard II (r. 1377–1399) was ten years old when he became king. Despite the king's
youth, no regency was set up to govern during his minority since his uncle John of
Gaunt, duke of Lancaster (the most likely candidate for regent) was unpopular. Instead,
Richard theoretically ruled in his own right with the advice of a 12-member advisory
council. In reality, the government was dominated by the king's uncles, especially
Gaunt, and courtiers, such as Simon Burley, Guichard d'Angle, and Aubrey de Vere.[161]
[162]
In 1381, resentment over poll taxes led to the Peasants' Revolt. The fourteen-year-
old king's brave and decisive leadership in ending the revolt demonstrated he was ready
to assume actual power. But the revolt also left a deep impression on Richard,
"convincing him that disobedience, no matter how justified, constituted a threat to order
and stability within his realm and must not be tolerated."[163]
After the revolt, Parliament appointed Michael de la Pole to advise the King. Pole
proved himself a loyal servant and was made chancellor in 1383 and earl of Suffolk in
1385. The King's most important favourite, however, was Robert de Vere, the earl of
Oxford. In 1385, de Vere was given the novel title of marquess and placed above all
earls and below only the royal dukes in rank. In 1386, de Vere was made duke of
Ireland, the first duke not of royal blood. This favouritism alienated other aristocrats,
including the King's uncles.[164][165]
Another cause for complaint was the situation in France. The English retained only
Calais and a small part of Gascony while French ships harassed English traders in the
Channel. Richard personally led an invasion of Scotland in 1385 that achieved nothing.
Meanwhile, he spent lavishly on palace renovations and court entertainments.[166] One
historian described Richard's government as "a high-tax, high-spend, cliquey affair." [167]
In 1386, Pole requested additional funds to defend England against a potential French
invasion, but under the leadership of Richard's uncle Thomas of Woodstock,
the Wonderful Parliament refused to act until Pole was removed as chancellor.
[168]
Richard refused at first but gave in after being threatened with deposition. A council
was set up to audit royal finances and exercise royal authority. At 19 years old, the King
was once again reduced to a figurehead.[169] Defiant, Richard left London for a "gyration"
(tour) of the country to gather an army.[170]
Richard returned to London in November 1387 and was approached by three nobles:
his uncle Thomas, duke of Gloucester; Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel; and Thomas
Beauchamp, earl of Warwick. These Lords Appellant (as they became
known) appealed (or indicted) Pole, de Vere, and other close associates of the King
with treason.[171] The Lords Appellant defeated Richard's army at the Battle of Radcot
Bridge, and the King had no choice but to submit to their wishes. At the Merciless
Parliament of 1388, Richard's favourites were convicted of treason.[168]
The Wilton Diptych, c. 1395 – c. 1399, was painted for Richard II and illustrates his high view of kingship. The
king is shown kneeling before Madonna and Child to receive St. George's Cross. Standing behind the king
are John the Baptist and two royal saints of England Edward the Confessor and Edmund the Martyr.[172]
After the royal favourites had been removed, the Lords Appellant were content. In 1389,
Richard resumed royal authority and reconciled with John of Gaunt, who used his
influence on Richard's behalf.[173] For a time, Richard ruled well. The King led a
successful expedition to Ireland in 1394 and negotiated a 28-year truce with France in
1396.[174] In July 1397, Richard was finally ready to move against his enemies. The three
Lords Appellant were arrested. When Parliament met at Westminster, the presence of
300 of Richard's Cheshire archers made it clear that no dissent would be tolerated.
Chancellor Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, preached the opening sermon
on Ezekiel 37:22, "There shall be one king over them all".[175] The Lords Appellant were
then tried and found guilty of treason.[176]
For the next two years, Richard ruled as a tyrant, using extortion to gain forced loans
from his subjects.[177] The twice-married king was childless and the succession was
uncertain. The man with the strongest claim was John of Gaunt, whose son and heir
was Henry Bolingbroke.[176] In 1397, a dispute between Bolingbroke and Thomas
Mowbray led to the former's banishment from England for 10 years.[178] When John of
Gaunt died in 1399, Richard confiscated the Duchy of Lancaster and extended
Bolingbroke's banishment for life.[179]
In May 1399, Richard embarked on a second invasion of Ireland, taking most of his
followers with him. Bolingbroke returned to England in July with a small force of men but
quickly gained the support of powerful nobles, such as Henry Percy, the earl of
Northumberland and most powerful man in northern England.[180][181] Richard returned to
England, but his army and supporters rapidly melted away. By 2 September, Richard
was a prisoner in the Tower.[179]
On 30 September, an assembly of the House of Lords and House of Commons met in
Westminster Hall (later referred to as a convention parliament, it technically was not a
parliament because it met without royal authority). Richard Scrope, archbishop of York,
stated that Richard, who was not present, had agreed to abdicate. When Thomas
Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury, asked if the Lords and Commons accepted this
each lord agreed and the Commons shouted their agreement.[182] Thirty-nine articles of
deposition were read out in which Richard was charged with breaking his coronation
oath and violating "the rightful laws and customs of the realm".[183] After John Trevor,
bishop of St. Asaph, announced Richard's deposition, Bolingbroke gave a speech
claiming the Crown. The archbishops of Canterbury and York each took one of
Bolingbroke's arms and seated him on the empty throne to shouts of acclimation from
the Lords and Commons.[184]
Richard II was not the first English monarch to be deposed; that distinction belongs to
Edward II. Edward abdicated in favor of his son and heir. In Richard's case, the line of
succession was deliberately broken by Parliament. Historian Tracy Borman writes that
this "created a dangerous precedent and made the crown fundamentally unstable." [185]
House of Lancaster (1399–1461)[edit]
Henry IV[edit]
Henry Bolingbroke claiming the throne
Bolingbroke was crowned as Henry IV (r. 1399–1413) two weeks after Richard II's
deposition. His dynasty was known as the House of Lancaster, a reference to his
father's title Duke of Lancaster. As part of the coronation, Henry created Knights of the
Bath, a tradition that was repeated at all later coronations. He was also the first English
monarch to be crowned on the Stone of Scone, which Edward I had taken from
Scotland.[186]
In January 1400, the Epiphany Rising unsuccessfully tried to free Richard and restore
him to the throne. Henry realized he would have no security as long as Richard lived, so
he ordered his death, most likely by starvation.[187] Henry's reign was forever tarnished by
the deposition and murder of an anointed king, and he constantly had to fight off plots
and rebellions. In 1400, the Welsh Revolt began, and Henry Hotspur of the
powerful Percy family joined the revolt in 1403. Hotspur was defeated at the Battle of
Shrewsbury, but King Henry continued to face challenges to his legitimacy.[188]
When overthrowing Richard, Henry had promised to reduce taxation, and Parliament
held him to that promise, refusing to raise taxes even as the king went into debt fighting
defensive wars. Financially, Henry benefited from inheriting the vast Lancastrian estates
of his father. He decided to administer these lands separately from the crown lands.
[189]
The practice of holding the Duchy of Lancaster separate from the crown estate was
continued by later monarchs.
Charles VI of France, Richard's father-in-law, refused to recognise Henry. The French
revived their claims to Aquitaine, attacked Calais, and aided the Welsh Revolt. But in
1407, the Armagnac–Burgundian Civil War divided France, and the English were keen
to take advantage of French disunity. English policy vacillated toward the opposing
sides as King Henry supported the Armagnac faction, while his eldest son, Henry of
Monmouth, supported the Burgundian faction. As the king's health declined, Monmouth
assumed a greater role in government, and there were suggestions that the king should
abdicate in favor of his son.[190]
Henry V[edit]
King Henry V
Abdication became unnecessary when Henry IV died in 1413, and the prince became
King Henry V (r. 1413–1422). He escaped the troubles of his father's reign by making
conciliatory gestures toward his father's enemies. He also removed the taint of
usurpation by honoring the deceased Richard II and giving him a royal re-burial at
Westminster Abbey.[190]
As a result of his unifying gestures, Henry V's reign was largely free from domestic
strife, leaving the king free to pursue the last phase of the Hundred Years' War with
France. The war appealed to English national pride,[191] and Parliament readily granted a
double subsidy to finance the campaign, which began in August 1415. In this first
campaign, Henry won a legendary victory at the Battle of Agincourt.[192] The triumphant
king returned home to a jubilant nation eager to support further wars of conquest.
Parliament gave the king lifetime duties on wine imports and other tax grants. When he
was ready to return to France, Parliament granted another double subsidy.[193]
In 1419, he conquered Normandy—the first time an English king ruled Normandy since
King John lost it in 1204.[194] In 1420, the Treaty of Troyes recognised Henry as heir and
regent of the incapacitated King Charles VI of France. The new peace was sealed by
Henry's marriage to the French princess Catherine of Valois. Charles's son,
the Dauphin, was disinherited by the treaty; however, he continued to assert his right to
the French throne and remained in control of over half of France south of the Loire river.
[195]
Henry V was a popular king who restored royal authority and lowered crime. Despite
high taxes, England prospered under Henry V. He kept his personal expenses low and
managed royal finances well.[196] But Henry's frequent absences from England did create
difficulties. While in France, Henry insisted on dealing with petitions from Parliament
personally despite the long distances and delays involved. By 1420, the House of
Commons was complaining, and funds for further wars in France were more difficult to
secure. On 31 August 1422, the king fell ill and died while on another campaign in
France.[195]
Henry VI[edit]
France in 1435 during the Hundred Years War
Only nine months old when his father died, Henry VI was the youngest person to ever
inherit the English crown. On 21 October 1422, Charles VI of France died. The infant
Henry was now king of England and France according to the terms of the Treaty of
Troyes. The union of the two kingdoms under the same ruler is called the dual
monarchy.[197]
In his will, Henry V placed his brother John, duke of Bedford, in charge of France. In
England, his other brother Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, was made lord protector[note
7]
and head of a regency council that exercised authority in the king's name
(see Regency government, 1422–1437).[199]
The accession of Henry V's infant son, Henry VI, to the throne gave the French an
opportunity to overthrow English rule.[200] The unpopularity of Henry VI's counsellors and
his consort, Margaret of Anjou, as well as his own ineffectual leadership, led to the
weakening of the House of Lancaster. The Lancastrians faced a challenge from the
House of York, so-called because its head, a descendant of Edward III, was Richard,
Duke of York, who was at odds with the Queen.
House of York (1461–1485)[edit]
Although the Duke of York died in battle in 1460, his eldest son, Edward IV, led the
Yorkists to victory in 1461, overthrowing Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou. Edward IV
was constantly at odds with the Lancastrians and his own councillors after his marriage
to Elizabeth Woodville, with a brief return to power for Henry VI. Edward IV prevailed,
winning back the throne at Barnet and killing the Lancastrian heir, Edward of
Westminster, at Tewkesbury. Afterward he captured Margaret of Anjou, eventually
sending her into exile, but not before killing Henry VI while he was held prisoner in the
Tower. The Wars of the Roses, nevertheless, continued intermittently during his reign
and those of his son Edward V and brother Richard III. Edward V disappeared,
presumably murdered by Richard. Ultimately, the conflict culminated in success for the
Lancastrian branch led by Henry Tudor, in 1485, when Richard III was killed in
the Battle of Bosworth Field.[201]
Tudors (1485–1603)[edit]
Further information: House of Tudor and Elizabethan government
King Henry VII then neutralised the remaining Yorkist forces, partly by
marrying Elizabeth of York, a Yorkist heir. Through skill and ability, Henry re-established
absolute supremacy in the realm, and the conflicts with the nobility that had plagued
previous monarchs came to an end.[202][203] The reign of the second Tudor king, Henry VIII,
was one of great political change. Religious upheaval and disputes with the Pope, and
the fact that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon produced only one surviving child, a
daughter, led the monarch to break from the Roman Catholic Church and to establish
the Church of England (the Anglican Church) and divorce his wife to marry Anne
Boleyn.[204]
Wales – which had been conquered centuries earlier, but had remained a separate
dominion – was annexed to England under the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542.
[205]
Henry VIII's son and successor, the young Edward VI, continued with further religious
reforms, but his early death in 1553 precipitated a succession crisis. He was wary of
allowing his Catholic elder half-sister Mary I to succeed, and therefore drew up a will
designating Lady Jane Grey as his heiress. Jane's reign, however, lasted only nine
days; with tremendous popular support, Mary deposed her and declared herself the
lawful sovereign. Mary I married Philip of Spain, who was declared king and co-ruler. He
pursued disastrous wars in France and she attempted to return England to Roman
Catholicism (burning Protestants at the stake as heretics in the process). Upon her
death in 1558, the pair were succeeded by her Protestant half-sister Elizabeth I.
England returned to Protestantism and continued its growth into a major world power by
building its navy and exploring the New World.[206][207]
Scottish monarchy[edit]
See also: List of Scottish monarchs and Government in medieval Scotland
This section needs expansion with: content from History of Scotland. You can
help by adding to it. (June 2022)
In Scotland, as in England, monarchies emerged after the withdrawal of the Roman

empire from Britain in the early fifth century. The three groups that lived in Scotland at
this time were the Picts in the north east, the Britons in the south, including the Kingdom
of Strathclyde, and the Gaels or Scotti (who would later give their name to Scotland), of
the Irish petty kingdom of Dál Riata in the west. Kenneth MacAlpin is traditionally
viewed as the first king of a united Scotland (known as Scotia to writers in Latin,
or Alba to the Scots).[208] The expansion of Scottish dominions continued over the next
two centuries, as other territories such as Strathclyde were absorbed.
Early Scottish monarchs did not inherit the Crown directly; instead, the custom
of tanistry was followed, where the monarchy alternated between different branches of
the House of Alpin. As a result, however, the rival dynastic lines clashed, often violently.
From 942 to 1005, seven consecutive monarchs were either murdered or killed in battle.
[209]
In 1005, Malcolm II ascended the throne having killed many rivals. He continued to
ruthlessly eliminate opposition, and when he died in 1034 he was succeeded by his
grandson, Duncan I, instead of a cousin, as had been usual. In 1040, Duncan suffered
defeat in battle at the hands of Macbeth, who was killed himself in 1057 by Duncan's
son Malcolm. The following year, after killing Macbeth's stepson Lulach, Malcolm
ascended the throne as Malcolm III.[210]
With a further series of battles and deposings, five of Malcolm's sons as well as one of
his brothers successively became king. Eventually, the Crown came to his youngest
son, David I. David was succeeded by his grandsons Malcolm IV, and then by William
the Lion, the longest-reigning King of Scots before the Union of the Crowns.[211] William
participated in a rebellion against King Henry II of England but when the rebellion failed,
William was captured by the English. In exchange for his release, William was forced to
acknowledge Henry as his feudal overlord. The English King Richard I agreed to
terminate the arrangement in 1189, in return for a large sum of money needed for the
Crusades.[212] William died in 1214, and was succeeded by his son Alexander II.
Alexander II, as well as his successor Alexander III, attempted to take over the Western
Isles, which were still under the overlordship of Norway. During the reign of Alexander
III, Norway launched an unsuccessful invasion of Scotland; the ensuing Treaty of
Perth recognised Scottish control of the Western Isles and other disputed areas.[213]
In 1603, James VI and I became the first monarch to rule over England, Scotland, and Ireland together.
Alexander III's death in a riding accident in 1286 precipitated a major succession crisis.
Scottish leaders appealed to King Edward I of England for help in determining who was
the rightful heir. Edward chose Alexander's three-year-old Norwegian
granddaughter, Margaret. On her way to Scotland in 1290, however, Margaret died at
sea, and Edward was again asked to adjudicate between 13 rival claimants to the
throne. A court was set up and after two years of deliberation, it pronounced John
Balliol to be king. Edward proceeded to treat Balliol as a vassal, and tried to exert
influence over Scotland. In 1295, when Balliol renounced his allegiance to England,
Edward I invaded. During the first ten years of the ensuing Wars of Scottish
Independence, Scotland had no monarch, until Robert the Bruce declared himself king
in 1306.[214]
Robert's efforts to control Scotland culminated in success, and Scottish independence
was acknowledged in 1328. However, only one year later, Robert died and was
succeeded by his five-year-old son, David II. On the pretext of restoring John Balliol's
rightful heir, Edward Balliol, the English again invaded in 1332. During the next four
years, Balliol was crowned, deposed, restored, deposed, restored, and deposed until he
eventually settled in England, and David remained king for the next 35 years.[215]
David II died childless in 1371 and was succeeded by his nephew Robert II of
the House of Stuart. The reigns of both Robert II and his successor, Robert III, were
marked by a general decline in royal power. When Robert III died in 1406, regents had
to rule the country; the monarch, Robert III's son James I, had been taken captive by
the English. Having paid a large ransom, James returned to Scotland in 1424; to restore
his authority, he used ruthless measures, including the execution of several of his
enemies. He was assassinated by a group of nobles. James II continued his father's
policies by subduing influential noblemen but he was killed in an accident at the age of
thirty, and a council of regents again assumed power. James III was defeated in a battle
against rebellious Scottish earls in 1488, leading to another boy-king: James IV.[216]
In 1513 James IV launched an invasion of England, attempting to take advantage of the
absence of the English King Henry VIII. His forces met with disaster at Flodden Field;
the King, many senior noblemen, and hundreds of soldiers were killed. As his son and
successor, James V, was an infant, the government was again taken over by regents.
James V led another disastrous war with the English in 1542, and his death in the same
year left the Crown in the hands of his six-day-old daughter, Mary. Once again, a
regency was established.
Mary, a Roman Catholic, reigned during a period of great religious upheaval in
Scotland. As a result of the efforts of reformers such as John Knox, a Protestant
ascendancy was established. Mary caused alarm by marrying her Catholic cousin, Lord
Darnley, in 1565. After Lord Darnley's assassination in 1567, Mary contracted an even
more unpopular marriage with the Earl of Bothwell, who was widely suspected of
Darnley's murder. The nobility rebelled against the Queen, forcing her to abdicate. She
fled to England, and the Crown went to her infant son James VI, who was brought up as
a Protestant. Mary was imprisoned and later executed by the English queen Elizabeth I.
[217]
Irish monarchy[edit]
Main article: Monarchy of Ireland
Ireland was historically divided into petty principalities that sometimes acknowledged
one of their rulers as High King of Ireland. In 1155, the only English pope, Adrian IV,
authorised Henry II of England to conquer Ireland and reform the Irish church with the
papal bull Laudabiliter. However, Henry took no action until 1171. By that time, a
number of English nobles, especially the Welsh Marcher Lords, had invaded Ireland and
established control over portions of the island. In 1171, Henry landed in Ireland and the
Anglo-Norman lords gave him homage and fealty. He also convinced the native Gaelic
nobility to become his vassals. In 1185, Henry gave his youngest son, the future King
John of England, the title Lord of Ireland.[note 8] John was then sent to Ireland to be
crowned as that island's king, but his behavior offended the Irish, who forced John to
retreat without being crowned. Thereafter, future English kings used the title Lord of
Ireland but mostly ignored the island, preferring to rule through lieutenants for Ireland.[75]
By 1541, King Henry VIII of England had broken with the Church of Rome and declared
himself Supreme Head of the Church of England. The Pope's grant of Ireland to the
English monarch became invalid, so Henry summoned a meeting of the Irish
Parliament to change his title from Lord of Ireland to King of Ireland.[219] In 1800, as a
result of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, the Act of Union merged the kingdom of Great
Britain and the kingdom of Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Union of the Crowns and republican phase[edit]

See also: List of British monarchs
This section needs expansion with: content from Union of the
Crowns, Commonwealth of England, Stuart Restoration, and Act of Settlement
1701. You can help by adding to it. (June 2022)
Elizabeth I's death in 1603 ended Tudor rule in England. Since she had no children, she
was succeeded by the Scottish monarch James VI, who was the great-grandson
of Henry VIII's older sister and hence Elizabeth's first cousin twice removed. James VI
ruled in England as James I after what was known as the "Union of the Crowns".
Although England and Scotland were in personal union under one monarch – James I &
VI became the first monarch to style himself "King of Great Britain" in 1604 [220] – they
remained two separate kingdoms. James I & VI's successor, Charles I, experienced
frequent conflicts with the English Parliament related to the issue of royal and
parliamentary powers, especially the power to impose taxes. He provoked opposition by
ruling without Parliament from 1629 to 1640, unilaterally levying taxes and adopting
controversial religious policies (many of which were offensive to the
Scottish Presbyterians and the English Puritans). His attempt to
enforce Anglicanism led to organised rebellion in Scotland (the "Bishops' Wars") and
ignited the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. In 1642, the conflict between the King and
English Parliament reached its climax and the English Civil War began.[221]
The Civil War culminated in the execution of the king in 1649, the overthrow of the
English monarchy, and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England. Charles I's
son, Charles II, was proclaimed King of Great Britain in Scotland, but he was forced to
flee abroad after he invaded England and was defeated at the Battle of Worcester. In
1653, Oliver Cromwell, the most prominent military and political leader in the nation,
seized power and declared himself Lord Protector (effectively becoming a military
dictator, but refusing the title of king). Cromwell ruled until his death in 1658, when he
was succeeded by his son Richard. The new Lord Protector had little interest in
governing; he soon resigned.[222] The lack of clear leadership led to civil and military
unrest, and to a popular desire to restore the monarchy. In 1660, the monarchy was
restored and Charles II returned to Britain.[223]
England and Scotland were united as the Kingdom of Great Britain under Queen Anne in 1707.
Charles II's reign was marked by the development of the first modern political parties in
England. Charles had no legitimate children, and was due to be succeeded by his
Roman Catholic brother, James, Duke of York. A parliamentary effort to exclude James
from the line of succession arose; the "Petitioners", who supported exclusion, became
the Whig Party, whereas the "Abhorrers", who opposed exclusion, became the Tory
Party. The Exclusion Bill failed; on several occasions, Charles II dissolved Parliament
because he feared that the bill might pass. After the dissolution of the Parliament of
1681, Charles ruled without a Parliament until his death in 1685. When James
succeeded Charles, he pursued a policy of offering religious tolerance to Roman
Catholics, thereby drawing the ire of many of his Protestant subjects. Many opposed
James's decisions to maintain a large standing army, to appoint Roman Catholics to
high political and military offices, and to imprison Church of England clerics who
challenged his policies. As a result, a group of Protestants known as the Immortal
Seven invited James II & VII's daughter Mary and her husband William III of Orange to
depose the king. William obliged, arriving in England on 5 November 1688 to great
public support. Faced with the defection of many of his Protestant officials, James fled
the realm and William and Mary (rather than James II & VII's Catholic son) were
declared joint Sovereigns of England, Scotland and Ireland.[224]
James's overthrow, known as the Glorious Revolution, was one of the most important
events in the long evolution of parliamentary power. The Bill of Rights 1689 affirmed
parliamentary supremacy, and declared that the English people held certain rights,
including the freedom from taxes imposed without parliamentary consent. The Bill of
Rights required future monarchs to be Protestants, and provided that, after any children
of William and Mary, Mary's sister Anne would inherit the Crown. Mary II died childless
in 1694, leaving William III & II as the sole monarch. By 1700, a political crisis arose, as
all of Anne's children had died, leaving her as the only individual left in the line of
succession. Parliament was afraid that the former James II or his supporters, known
as Jacobites, might attempt to reclaim the throne. Parliament passed the Act of
Settlement 1701, which excluded James and his Catholic relations from the succession
and made William's nearest Protestant relations, the family of Sophia, Electress of
Hanover, next in line to the throne after his sister-in-law Anne.[225] Soon after the passage
of the Act, William III & II died, leaving the Crown to Anne.
After Anne's accession, the problem of the succession re-emerged. The Scottish
Parliament, infuriated that the English Parliament did not consult them on the choice of
Sophia's family as the next heirs, passed the Act of Security 1704, threatening to end
the personal union between England and Scotland. The Parliament of England
retaliated with the Alien Act 1705, threatening to devastate the Scottish economy by
restricting trade. The Scottish and English parliaments negotiated the Acts of Union
1707, under which England and Scotland were united into a single Kingdom of Great
Britain, with succession under the rules prescribed by the Act of Settlement.[226]
After the 1707 Acts of Union[edit]

This section needs expansion with: content from American War of
Independence, Kingdom of Hanover, and British Raj. You can help by adding to
it. (June 2022)
In 1714, Queen Anne was succeeded by her second cousin, and Sophia's son, George
I, Elector of Hanover, who consolidated his position by defeating Jacobite rebellions in
1715 and 1719. The new monarch was less active in government than many of his
British predecessors, but retained control over his German kingdoms, with which Britain
was now in personal union.[227] Power shifted towards George's ministers, especially to
Sir Robert Walpole, who is often considered the first British prime minister, although the
title was not then in use.[228] The next monarch, George II, witnessed the final end of the
Jacobite threat in 1746, when the Catholic Stuarts were completely defeated. During the
long reign of his grandson, George III, Britain's American colonies were lost, the former
colonies having formed the United States of America, but British influence elsewhere in
the world continued to grow, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was
created by the Acts of Union 1800.[229]
From 1811 to 1820, George III suffered a severe bout of what is now believed to
be porphyria, an illness rendering him incapable of ruling. His son, the future George IV,
ruled in his stead as Prince Regent. During the Regency and his own reign, the power
of the monarchy declined, and by the time of his successor, William IV, the monarch
was no longer able to effectively interfere with parliamentary power. In 1834, William
dismissed the Whig Prime Minister, William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, and
appointed a Tory, Sir Robert Peel. In the ensuing elections, however, Peel lost. The
king had no choice but to recall Lord Melbourne. During William IV's reign, the Reform
Act 1832, which reformed parliamentary representation, was passed. Together with
others passed later in the century, the Act led to an expansion of the electoral franchise
and the rise of the House of Commons as the most important branch of Parliament. [230]
The final transition to a constitutional monarchy was made during the long reign of
William IV's successor, Victoria. As a woman, Victoria could not rule Hanover, which
only permitted succession in the male line, so the personal union of the United Kingdom
and Hanover came to an end. The Victorian era was marked by great cultural change,
technological progress, and the establishment of the United Kingdom as one of the
world's foremost powers. In recognition of British rule over India, Victoria was
declared Empress of India in 1876. However, her reign was also marked by increased
support for the republican movement, due in part to Victoria's permanent mourning and
lengthy period of seclusion following the death of her husband in 1861.[231]
Map of the British Empire in 1921
Victoria's son, Edward VII, became the first monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and
Gotha in 1901. In 1917, the next monarch, George V, changed "Saxe-Coburg and
Gotha" to "Windsor" in response to the anti-German sympathies aroused by the First
World War. George V's reign was marked by the separation of Ireland into Northern
Ireland, which remained a part of the United Kingdom, and the Irish Free State, an
independent nation, in 1922.[232]
Shared monarchy and modern status[edit]
This section needs expansion with: content from Dominion, Statute of
Westminster 1931, Abdication of Edward VIII, Head of the
Commonwealth, Commonwealth realm, Pillar Box War, Queen of Rhodesia, Perth
Agreement, and Succession to the Crown Act 2013. You can help by adding to
it. (June 2022)
Current Commonwealth realms

Territories, dependencies and associated states of current realms
Former Commonwealth realms and Dominions that are now republics
During the twentieth century, the Commonwealth of Nations evolved from the British
Empire. Prior to 1926, the British Crown reigned over the British Empire collectively;
the Dominions and Crown Colonies were subordinate to the United Kingdom.
The Balfour Declaration of 1926 gave complete self-government to the Dominions,
effectively creating a system whereby a single monarch operated independently in each
separate Dominion. The concept was solidified by the Statute of Westminster 1931,
[233]
which has been likened to "a treaty among the Commonwealth countries".[234]
The monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution, although it is often
still referred to as "British" for legal and historical reasons and for convenience. The
monarch became separately monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and so forth. The independent states within the Commonwealth would share
the same monarch in a relationship likened to a personal union.[235][236][237][238]
George V's death in 1936 was followed by the accession of Edward VIII, who caused a
public scandal by announcing his desire to marry the divorced American Wallis
Simpson, even though the Church of England opposed the remarriage of divorcees.
Accordingly, Edward announced his intention to abdicate; the Parliaments of the United
Kingdom and of other Commonwealth countries granted his request. Edward VIII and
any children by his new wife were excluded from the line of succession, and the Crown
went to his brother, George VI.[239] George served as a rallying figure for the British
people during World War II, making morale-boosting visits to the troops as well as to
munitions factories and to areas bombed by Nazi Germany. In June 1948 George VI
relinquished the title Emperor of India, although remaining head of state of the Dominion
of India.[240]
At first, every member of the Commonwealth retained the same monarch as the United
Kingdom, but when the Dominion of India became a republic in 1950, it would no longer
share in a common monarchy. Instead, the British monarch was acknowledged as
"Head of the Commonwealth" in all Commonwealth member states, whether they were
realms or republics. The position is purely ceremonial, and is not inherited by the British
monarch as of right but is vested in an individual chosen by the Commonwealth heads
of government.[241][242] Member states of the Commonwealth that share the same person
as monarch are informally known as Commonwealth realms.[241]
In the 1990s, republicanism in the United Kingdom grew, partly on account of negative
publicity associated with the Royal Family (for instance, immediately following the death
of Diana, Princess of Wales).[243] However, polls from 2002 to 2007 showed that around
70–80% of the British public supported the continuation of the monarchy.[244][245][246][247] This
support has remained constant since then—according to a 2018 survey, a majority of
the British public across all age groups still support the monarchy's continuation. [248]
See also[edit]
 History of monarchy in Australia
 History of monarchy in Canada
 Family tree of British monarchs
 List of British royal residences
 List of English ministries
Notes[edit]
1. ^ Pleas of the Crown included major crimes such as murder, treason, arson, rape, and robbery.
Cases involving treasure trove, rights over shipwrecks, and destruction of the highway were also
included.[37]
2. ^ In the 21st century, all land in England and Wales continues to be legally owned by the Crown.
Individuals can only possess an estate in land or an interest in land.[39]
3. ^ In the past, Scottish kings had given homage for their lands in England just as English kings gave
homage to French kings for their continental possessions. However, the Treaty of Falaise required
King William to give homage for Scotland as well.[75]
4. ^ Other rebel barons included Eustace de Vesci, William de Mowbray, Richard de Percy, Roger de
Montbegon, Richard de Clare, Gilbert de Clare, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Robert de Vere, Henry de
Bohun, and William Marshall the Younger.[95]
5. ^ Louis VIII's claim to the English throne came by his wife Blanche of Castile, Henry II's
granddaughter and John's niece.[99]
6. ^ Besides the earls of Lancaster and Warwick, other members of the plot included Robert
Winchelsey, Archbishop of Canterbury; the earls of Warwick, Pembroke, Hereford, Arundel, Surrey,
and Gloucester; and the barons Henry Percy and Roger de Clifford.[134]
7. ^ His full title was "Protector and Defender of the kingdom of England and the English church and
principal councillor of the lord king".[198]
8. ^ Before 1272, uncrowned English kings used the title "Lord of the English" before their coronations.
Henry I's daughter Matilda used the title "Lady of the English" while unsuccessfully pressing her claim
against King Stephen during the Anarchy.[218]
References[edit]
1. ^ Lyon 2016, pp. 1–2.
2. ^ a b Borman 2021, p. 2.
3. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 28.
4. ^ Cannon & Griffiths 1988, p. 43.
6. ^ Cannon & Griffiths 1988, pp. 13–17.
7. ^ Borman 2021, p. 3.
8. ^ Huscroft 2016, pp. 19–20.
9. ^ Maddicott 2010, p. 28.
10. ^ Borman 2021, p. 4.
11. ^ Lyon 2016, pp. 17 & 19.
12. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 25.
13. ^ Huscroft 2016, pp. 29–30.
14. ^ Jolliffe 1961, p. 52.
15. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 47 & 50–51.
16. ^ Lyon 2016, pp. 21–22.
17. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 66–69.
18. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 70.
19. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 70–71.
20. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 71, 74 & 114.
21. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 74–77.
22. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 79.
23. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 19.
24. ^ Borman 2021, p. 9.
25. ^ Jolliffe 1961, pp. 130 & 133.
26. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 86–87.
27. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 23.
28. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 81–82.
29. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 83–85.
30. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 5 & 9.
31. ^ Borman 2021, p. 6.
32. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 95–96.
33. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 103–104.
34. ^ Borman 2021, p. 12.
35. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 96–98 & 114.
36. ^ a b Borman 2021, p. 16.
37. ^ a b Huscroft 2016, p. 109.
38. ^ Huscroft 2016, pp. 82–83.
39. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 30.
40. ^ Huscroft 2016, pp. 89 & 92.
41. ^ Lyon 2016, pp. 30–32.
42. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 113–115.
43. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 128–129.
44. ^ Huscroft 2016, pp. 91–92.
45. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 47.
46. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 183.
47. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 108.
48. ^ Bartlett 2000, p. 8.
49. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 126.
50. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 127–132.
51. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 22–24.
52. ^ Lyon 2016, pp. 38 & 66.
53. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 37.
54. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 142–143.
55. ^ Borman 2021, p. 27.
56. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 38.
58. ^ Jones 2012, p. 16.
59. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 27–28.
60. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 133.
61. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 28–29.
62. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 150–152.
63. ^ Bartlett 2000, pp. 9–10.
64. ^ Gillingham 1998, pp. 36–39.
65. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 33 & 45.
66. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 49–50.
68. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 45.
69. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 87–88.
70. ^ a b Jones 2012, pp. 88–89.
71. ^ a b Starkey 2010, p. 179.
72. ^ Butt 1989, pp. 31–38.
73. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 183 & 189.
74. ^ Jones 2012, p. 52.
75. ^ a b Lyon 2016, p. 48.
76. ^ Jones 2012, p. 84.
77. ^ Jones 2012, p. 85.
78. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 198.
79. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 102–103.
80. ^ Jones 2012, p. 112.
81. ^ Lyon 2016, pp. 54–55.
82. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 118–120.
83. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 197.
84. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 124–125.
85. ^ Borman 2021, p. 56.
86. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 131 & 133.
87. ^ Lyon 2016, pp. 55–56.
88. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 10.
89. ^ Jones 2012, p. 158.
90. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 32.
91. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 159–161.
92. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 58.
93. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 199–200.
94. ^ Jones 2012, p. 177.
95. ^ Jones 2012, p. 182.
96. ^ Lyon 2016, pp. 62–63.
98. ^ Jones 2012, p. 185.
100. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 62–63.
101. ^ Borman 2021, p. 66.
102. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 65.
103. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 189–192.
104. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 66.
105. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 203.
106. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 195–196.
107. ^ Jones 2012, p. 213.
108. ^ Powell & Wallis 1968, p. 154.
109. ^ Butt 1989, p. 75.
110. ^ Powell & Wallis 1968, pp. 155–157.
111. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 214–217.
112. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 206.
113. ^ a b c UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory
(2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New
Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved June 11, 2022.
114. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 220–222 & 378.
115. ^ a b Starkey 2010, pp. 211–212.
116. ^ Borman 2021, p. 70.
117. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 204.
118. ^ Borman 2021, p. 79.
119. ^ Powell & Wallis 1968, p. 201.
120. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 214–215.
121. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 252–253 & 266–267.
122. ^ Borman 2021, p. 77.
123. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 219.
124. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 76–77.
125. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 217–220.
126. ^ Jones 2012, p. 306.
127. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 221.
128. ^ Borman 2021, p. 83.
129. ^ Borman 2021, p. 84.
130. ^ Jones 2012, p. 307.
131. ^ Jones 2012, p. 310.
132. ^ Jones 2012, p. 313.
133. ^ Jones 2012, p. 314.
134. ^ Jones 2012, p. 315.
135. ^ Jones 2012, p. 321.
136. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 324, 326 & 330.
137. ^ Jones 2012, p. 332.
138. ^ Jones 2012, p. 333.
139. ^ Ashley 1998, pp. 595–597.
140. ^ Borman 2021, p. 87.
141. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 345–349.
142. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 350–351.
143. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 88–90.
144. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 225.
145. ^ Jones 2012, p. 363.
146. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 354, 356 & 358–360.
147. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 363–365.
148. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 227.
149. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 369–370.
150. ^ a b Starkey 2010, p. 232.
151. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 228–229.
152. ^ Jones 2012, p. 372–373.
153. ^ Borman 2021, p. 92.
154. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 229.
155. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 92–94.
156. ^ Prestwich 2005, p. 47.
157. ^ Borman 2021, p. 96.
158. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 230.
159. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 432–433 & 436–439.
160. ^ Borman 2021, p. 97–98.
161. ^ Jones 2012, p. 446.
162. ^ Borman 2021, p. 100.
163. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 100–102.
164. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 102–103.
165. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 457–458 & 460–461.
166. ^ Jones 2012, p. 456–460.
167. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 238.
168. ^ a b Borman 2021, p. 104.
169. ^ Jones 2012, p. 462.
170. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 238–239.
171. ^ Jones 2012, p. 465.
172. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 239.
173. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 240.
174. ^ Jones 2012, p. 476.
175. ^ Jones 2012, p. 476–479.
176. ^ a b Borman 2021, p. 107.
177. ^ Jones 2012, p. 485–486.
178. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 241.
179. ^ a b Borman 2021, p. 108.
180. ^ Jones 2012, p. 490.
181. ^ Starkey 2010, p. 244.
182. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 494–495.
183. ^ Rotuli Parliamentorum, vol. 3, p. 419 quoted in Borman (2021, p. 109).
184. ^ Jones 2012, p. 496.
185. ^ Borman 2021, p. 109.
186. ^ Borman 2021, p. 113.
187. ^ Borman 2021, pp. 114–115.
188. ^ Starkey 2010, pp. 244–245.
189. ^ Borman 2021, p. 114.
190. ^ a b Cheetham 1998, p. 122.
191. ^ Borman 2021, p. 121–122.
192. ^ Cheetham 1998, p. 123.
193. ^ Borman 2021, p. 122–123.
194. ^ Jones 2014, p. 20.
195. ^ a b Cheetham 1998, p. 126–127.
196. ^ Jones 2014, p. 23.
197. ^ Jones 2014, pp. 25 & 27.
198. ^ Jones 2014, p. 33.
199. ^ Jones 2014, pp. 31 & 33.
200. ^ Cheetham 1998.
201. ^ Fraser 1975, pp. 133–165.
203. ^ Fraser 1975, pp. 168–176.
204. ^ Fraser 1975, pp. 179–189.
205. ^ Cannon & Griffiths 1988, pp. 194, 265, 309.
206. ^ Ashley 1998, pp. 636–647.
207. ^ Fraser 1975, pp. 190–211.
208. ^ Cannon & Griffiths 1988, pp. 1–12, 35.
209. ^ Weir 1996, pp. 164–177.
210. ^ Ashley 1998, pp. 390–395.
211. ^ Ashley 1998, pp. 400–407; Weir 1996, pp. 185–198
213. ^ Ashley 1998, pp. 407–409; Cannon & Griffiths 1988, pp. 187, 196
214. ^ Ashley 1998, pp. 409–412.
215. ^ Ashley 1998, pp. 549–552.
216. ^ Ashley 1998, pp. 552–565.
217. ^ Ashley 1998, pp. 567–575.
218. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 39.
219. ^ Ives, E. W. (September 2004). "Henry VIII". Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12955. Retrieved 20
April 2008. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) (Subscription required)
220. ^ Royal Arms, Styles, and Titles of Great Britain: Westminster, 20 October 1604
221. ^ Fraser 1975, pp. 214–231.
223. ^ Fraser 1975, p. 232.
224. ^ Fraser 1975, pp. 242–245.
228. ^ Sir Robert Walpole, BBC, retrieved 14 October 2008
229. ^ Ashley 1998, pp. 677–680.
231. ^ Fraser 1975, pp. 305–306.
232. ^ Fraser 1975, pp. 314–333.
233. ^ Statute of Westminster 1931, Government of Nova Scotia, 11 October 2001, retrieved 20
April 2008
234. ^ Justice Rouleau in O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003 CanLII 41404 (ON S.C.)
235. ^ Zines, Leslie, The High Court and the Constitution, 5th ed. Annandale, NSW: Federation
Press, 2008 ISBN 978-1-86287-691-0. p.314
236. ^ Corbett, P.E. (1940), "The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law", The
University of Toronto Law Journal, 3 (2): 348–359, doi:10.2307/824318, JSTOR 824318
237. ^ Scott, F.R. (January 1944), "The End of Dominion Status", The American Journal of
International Law, 38 (1): 34–49, doi:10.2307/2192530, JSTOR 2192530, S2CID 147122057
238. ^ R v Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association (1982). QB 892 at 928; as referenced
in High Court of Australia: Sue v Hill HCA 30; 23 June 1999; S179/1998 and B49/1998
239. ^ Matthew, H. C. G. (September 2004). "Edward VIII". Oxford Dictionary of National
April 2008. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
240. ^ Matthew, H.C.G. (September 2004). "George VI". Oxford Dictionary of National
April 2008. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
241. ^ a b Boyce, Peter John (2008). The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in
Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Federation Press. p. 41. ISBN 9781862877009. Retrieved 31
October 2018.
242. ^ Head of the Commonwealth, Commonwealth Secretariat, archived from the original on 6
July 2010, retrieved 26 September 2008
243. ^ Seely, Robert (5 September 1997), Can the Windsors survive Diana's death?, Britannia
Internet Magazine, archived from the original on 10 April 2011, retrieved 20 April 2008
244. ^ Grice, Andrew (9 April 2002), "Polls reveal big rise in support for monarchy", The
Independent, archived from the original on 12 June 2008, retrieved 20 April 2008
245. ^ Monarchy poll, Ipsos MORI, April 2006, retrieved 6 August 2016
246. ^ Monarchy Survey (PDF), Populus Ltd, 14–16 December 2007, p. 9, archived from the
original (PDF) on 11 May 2011, retrieved 30 November 2011
247. ^ Poll respondents back UK monarchy, BBC News, 28 December 2007, retrieved 30
November 2011
248. ^ "Support for the monarchy in Britain by age 2018 survey". Statista. Retrieved 7
January 2020.
Bibliography[edit]
 Ashley, Mike (1998). The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens. London: Robinson. ISBN 1-
84119-096-9.
 Bartlett, Robert (2000). England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075–1225. New Oxford History
of England. Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780199251018.
 Borman, Tracy (2021). Crown & Sceptre: A New History of the British Monarchy, from William the
Conqueror to Elizabeth II. Grove Atlantic. ISBN 978-0802159113. OL 33944729M.
 Butt, Ronald (1989). A History of Parliament: The Middle Ages. London: Constable. ISBN 0094562202.
 Cannon, John; Griffiths, Ralph (1988). The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-822786-8.
 Cheetham, Anthony (1998). "The House of Lancaster". In Fraser, Antonia (ed.). The Lives of the Kings
and Queens of England (revised and updated ed.). Weidenfeld and Nicolson. pp. 113–
138. ISBN 9781841880273.
 Fraser, Antonia, ed. (1975). The Lives of the Kings & Queens of England. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-76911-1.
 Gillingham, John (1998). "The Normans". In Fraser, Antonia (ed.). The Lives of the Kings and Queens of
England (revised and updated ed.). Weidenfeld and Nicolson. pp. 17–39. ISBN 9781841880273.
 Huscroft, Richard (2016). Ruling England, 1042–1217 (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1138786554.
 Jolliffe, J. E. A. (1961). The Constitutional History of Medieval England from the English Settlement to
1485 (4th ed.). Adams and Charles Black.
 Jones, Dan (2012). The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England (revised ed.).
Penguin Books. ISBN 978-1-101-60628-5.
 Jones, Dan (2014). The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors.
Penguin Books. ISBN 9780698170322.
 Lyon, Ann (2016). Constitutional History of the UK (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-
1317203988. OL 28819305M.
 Maddicott, John Robert (2010). The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-199-58550-2. OL 28474657M.
 Powell, J. Enoch; Wallis, Keith (1968). The House of Lords in the Middle Ages: A History of the English
House of Lords to 1540. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0297761056.
 Prestwich, Michael (2005). Plantagenet England, 1225–1360. New Oxford History of England. Clarendon
Press. ISBN 0198228449.
 Starkey, David (2010). Crown and Country: A History of England through the Monarchy. HarperCollins
Publishers. ISBN 978-0007307715.
 Weir, Alison (1996). Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy. London: Pimlico. ISBN 0-7126-
7448-9. OCLC 35042093.
 v
 t
 e
Monarchy in the United Kingdom
Categories:
 British monarchy
 This page was last edited on 19 June 2023, at 07:11 (UTC).
 Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of
the Wikimedia Founda
Kingdom of England
81 languages
 Article
 Talk
 Read
 Edit
 View history
Tools











This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve
this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Kingdom of
England" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2023) (Learn how and
when to remove this template message)
Kingdom of England
927–1707
(1649–1660: Commonwealth)
Top: Flag of England

Bottom: Royal Banner
(1406–1603)
Royal Arms
(1399–1603)
Motto: "Dieu et mon droit" (French)

"God and my right"[1]
The Kingdom of England in 1190
Winchester (927–c. 1045)

Capital
London (c. 1045–1707)
∟ Westminster
(administrative)
∟ City of London
(commercial)
Common languages English[a]

Old Norse (until 11th century)
Welsh[b]
Cornish[c]
Cumbric (until 12th century)
Anglo-Norman
Law French (11th–15th century)
Medieval Latin (until 15th century)[d]
Religion Roman Catholicism (927–1534; 1553–
1558)
Church of England (1534–1553; 1558–
1646; 1660–1707)[2]
Puritanism (1646–1660)
Demonym(s) English
Government Elective monarchy (927–1066)

Hereditary absolute monarchy (1066–1215)
Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional
monarchy (1215–1649; 1660–1707)
Monarch
• 927–939 (first) Æthelstan
• 1702–1707 (last) Anne
Legislature Parliament
• Upper house House of Lords

• Lower house House of Commons
History
• Unification 12 July 927

• Battle of Hastings 14 October 1066
• Invasion of Ireland May 1169
• Magna Carta 15 June 1215
• Incorporated Wales 1535–1542
• Union of the Crowns 24 March 1603
• Glorious Revolution 11 December 1688
• Union with Scotland 1 May 1707
Currency Pound sterling
Preceded by Succeeded by
Wessex Great Britain
Sussex
Essex
Kent
Dumnonia
Mercia
East Anglia
Northumbria
Welsh Marches
Principality of
Wales
Today part of United Kingdom
o England
o Wales
o Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland
a. ^ Monarch of Wessex from 925.
b. ^ Continued as monarch of Great Britain until her death in 1714.
History of England
show
Timeline
show
Topics
show
Polities
show
By county
show
By city or town
England portal
 v
 t
 e
The Kingdom of England (Latin: Regnum Anglorum, lit. 'Kingdom of the English' or
'Kingdom of the Angles') existed on the island of Great Britain from 12 July 927, when it
unified from various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, until 1 May 1707, when it united
with Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain.[3]
In 927, the various Anglo-Saxon kings swore their allegiance
to Æthelstan of Wessex (r. 924–939), unifying most of modern England under a single
king.[4] In 1016, the kingdom became part of the North Sea Empire of Cnut the Great,
a personal union between England, Denmark and Norway. The Norman Conquest of
England in 1066 led to the transfer of the capital and chief royal residence from the
Anglo-Saxon one at Winchester to Westminster, and the City of London quickly
established itself as England's largest and principal commercial centre.[5]
Histories of the kingdom of England from the Norman Conquest conventionally
distinguish periods named after successive ruling dynasties: Norman (1066–
1154), Plantagenet (1154–1485), Tudor (1485–1603) and Stuart (1603–1707,
interrupted by the Interregnum of 1649–1660). Dynastically, all English monarchs after
1066 ultimately claim descent from the Normans; the distinction of the Plantagenets is
merely conventional, beginning with Henry II (r. 1154–1189) as from that time,
the Angevin kings became "more English in nature"; the houses
of Lancaster and York are both Plantagenet cadet branches, the Tudor dynasty claimed
descent from Edward III via John Beaufort, and James VI and I of the House of
Stuart claimed descent from Henry VII via Margaret Tudor.
Following the conquest, the Normans gradually sought to extend their conquests both to
the remainder of the British Isles and additional lands on the Continent, particularly
in modern-day France. This would evolve into a long-standing policy of expansionism
pursued intermittently with steadily increasing levels of aggression by successive, now-
styled "English", dynasties. Beginning in the 12th century, the Normans began making
serious incursions into Ireland. The completion of the conquest of Wales by Edward I in
1284 put Wales under the control of the English crown, though Edward's attempts to
completely subjugate Ireland met with very limited success, while the initial success of
his conquest of Scotland was undone by English military defeat under his son, Edward
II. Edward III (r. 1327–1377) transformed the Kingdom of England into one of the most
formidable military powers in Europe; his reign saw vital developments in legislation and
government—in particular the evolution of the English parliament. From the 1340s the
kings of England laid claim to the crown of France, but after the Hundred Years' War the
English lost all their land on the continent, except for Calais. The outbreak of the Wars
of the Roses in 1455 ensured the English were never again in a position to seriously
pursue their French claims.
After the turmoil of the Wars of the Roses, the Tudor dynasty ruled during the English
Renaissance and again extended English monarchical power beyond England proper,
in particular achieving the full union of England and the Principality of Wales in 1542.
The Tudors secured English control of Ireland, though it would continue to be ruled as
a separate kingdom in personal union with England for centuries. Henry VIII triggered
the English Reformation by breaking communion between the Church of England and
the Catholic Church, though the doctrinal aspects of the Reformation which established
the English Church as being recognizably Protestant would not be pursued in earnest
until the brief reign of his young son Edward VI. Following a return to Catholicism under
the similarly brief reign of Henry's eldest daughter Mary I, Mary's half-sister Elizabeth
I (r. 1558–1603) re-established Protestantism under the terms of the Elizabethan
Religious Settlement, meanwhile establishing England as a great power and laying the
foundations of the British Empire by claiming possessions in the New World. While
Henry pursued an aggressive foreign policy north of the border in an attempt to
subjugate Scotland, Elizabeth adopted a much more conciliatory position especially in
light of developments such as Scotland's own Reformation, and the eventual certainty
that the Scottish monarch would succeed Elizabeth.
From the accession of James VI and I in 1603, the Stuart dynasty ruled England and
Ireland in personal union with Scotland. Under the Stuarts, the kingdom plunged
into civil war, which culminated in the execution of Charles I in 1649. The monarchy
returned in 1660, but the Civil War had established the precedent that an English
monarch cannot govern without the consent of Parliament. This concept became legally
established as part of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. From this time the Kingdom of
England, and its successor states the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United
Kingdom, have functioned in effect as a constitutional monarchy.[e] On 1 May 1707,
under the terms of the Acts of Union 1707, the kingdoms of England and
Scotland united to form the aforementioned Kingdom of Great Britain.[6]
Name[edit]
Main article: Name of England
The Anglo-Saxons referred to themselves as the Engle or the Angelcynn, originally
names of the Angles. They called their land Engla land, meaning "land of the English",
by Æthelweard Latinized Anglia, from an original Anglia vetus, the purported homeland
of the Angles (called Angulus by Bede).[7] The name Engla
land became England by haplology during the Middle English period (Engle-
land, Engelond).[8] The Latin name was Anglia or Anglorum terra, the Old
French and Anglo-Norman one Engleterre.[9] By the 14th century, England was also
used in reference to the entire island of Great Britain.
The standard title for monarchs from Æthelstan until John was Rex Anglorum ("King of
the English"). Cnut, a Dane, was the first to call himself "King of England". In
the Norman period Rex Anglorum remained standard, with occasional use of Rex
Anglie ("King of England"). From John's reign onwards all other titles were eschewed in
favour of Rex or Regina Anglie. In 1604 James I, who had inherited the English throne
the previous year, adopted the title (now usually rendered in English rather than
Latin) King of Great Britain. The English and Scottish parliaments, however, did not
recognise this title until the Acts of Union of 1707.
History[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve
this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed. (May 2019) (Learn how and when to
remove this template message)
Further information: History of monarchy in the United Kingdom § English monarchy
Anglo-Saxon England[edit]
Main article: History of Anglo-Saxon England
The kingdom of England emerged from the gradual unification of the early
medieval Anglo-Saxon kingdoms known as the Heptarchy: East
Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. The Viking
invasions of the 9th century upset the balance of power between the English kingdoms,
and native Anglo-Saxon life in general. The English lands were unified in the 10th
century in a reconquest completed by King Æthelstan in 927.
During the Heptarchy, the most powerful king among the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms might
become acknowledged as Bretwalda, a high king over the other kings. The decline of
Mercia allowed Wessex to become more powerful, absorbing the kingdoms of Kent and
Sussex in 825. The kings of Wessex increasingly dominated the other kingdoms of
England during the 9th century. In 827, Northumbria submitted to Egbert of
Wessex at Dore, briefly making Egbert the first king to reign over a united England.
In 886, Alfred the Great retook London, which he apparently regarded as a turning point
in his reign. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that "all of the English people (all
Angelcyn) not subject to the Danes submitted themselves to King Alfred."[10] Asser added
that "Alfred, king of the Anglo-Saxons, restored the city of London splendidly ... and
made it habitable once more."[11] Alfred's restoration entailed reoccupying and
refurbishing the nearly deserted Roman walled city, building quays along the Thames,
and laying a new city street plan.[12] It is probably at this point that Alfred assumed the
new royal style 'King of the Anglo-Saxons.'
During the following years Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English
kings and the Norwegian invaders, but was definitively brought under English control
by Eadred in 954, completing the unification of England. At about this time, Lothian, a
portion of the northern half of Northumbria (Bernicia), was ceded to the Kingdom of
Scotland. On 12 July 927 the monarchs of Britain gathered at Eamont in Cumbria to
recognise Æthelstan as king of the English. This can be considered England's
'foundation date', although the process of unification had taken almost 100 years.
The dominions of Cnut (1014–1035)
England has remained in political unity ever since. During the reign of Æþelræd the
Unready (978–1016), a new wave of Danish invasions was orchestrated by Sweyn I of
Denmark, culminating after a quarter-century of warfare in the Danish conquest of
England in 1013. But Sweyn died on 2 February 1014, and Æþelræd was restored to
the throne. In 1015, Sweyn's son Cnut (commonly known as Canute) launched a new
invasion. The ensuing war ended with an agreement in 1016 between Canute and
Æþelræd's successor, Edmund Ironside, to divide England between them, but
Edmund's death on 30 November of that year left England united under Danish rule.
This continued for 26 years until the death of Harthacnut in June 1042. He was the son
of Canute and Emma of Normandy (the widow of Æþelræd the Unready) and had no
heirs of his own; he was succeeded by his half-brother, Æþelræd's son, Edward the
Confessor. The Kingdom of England was once again independent.
Norman conquest[edit]
Main article: Norman Conquest
The peace lasted until the death of the childless Edward in January 1066. His brother-
in-law was crowned King Harold, but his cousin William the Conqueror, Duke of
Normandy, immediately claimed the throne for himself. William launched an invasion of
England and landed in Sussex on 28 September 1066. Harold and his army were
in York following their victory against the Norwegians at the Battle of Stamford
Bridge (25 September 1066) when the news reached him. He decided to set out without
delay and confront the Norman army in Sussex so marched southwards at once,
despite the army not being properly rested following the battle with the Norwegians. The
armies of Harold and William faced each other at the Battle of Hastings (14 October
1066), in which the English army, or Fyrd, was defeated, Harold and his two brothers
were slain, and William emerged as victor. William was then able to conquer England
with little further opposition. He was not, however, planning to absorb the Kingdom into
the Duchy of Normandy. As a mere duke, William owed allegiance to Philip I of France,
whereas in the independent Kingdom of England he could rule without interference. He
was crowned on 25 December 1066 in Westminster Abbey, London.
High Middle Ages[edit]
Main article: England in the High Middle Ages
Further information: Angevin Empire, Norman invasion of Wales, and Conquest of
Wales by Edward I
In 1092, William II led an invasion of Strathclyde, a Celtic kingdom in what is now
southwest Scotland and Cumbria. In doing so, he annexed what is now the county
of Cumbria to England. In 1124, Henry I ceded what is now southeast Scotland
(called Lothian) to the Kingdom of Scotland, in return for the King of Scotland's loyalty.
This final cession established what would become the traditional borders of England
which have remained largely unchanged since then (except for occasional and
temporary changes). This area of land had previously been a part of the
Anglian Kingdom of Northumbria. Lothian contained what later became the Scottish
capital, Edinburgh. This arrangement was later finalized in 1237 by the Treaty of York.
King John signs Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215, surrounded by his baronage. Illustration from Cassell's
History of England, 1902.
The Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland took place during the late 12th century,
when Anglo-Normans gradually conquered and acquired large swathes of land from the
Irish, over which the Kingdom of England then claimed sovereignty, all allegedly
sanctioned by the Papal bull Laudabiliter.[13] At the time, Gaelic Ireland was made up of
several kingdoms, with a High King claiming lordship over most of the other kings. The
Norman invasion was a watershed in Ireland's history, marking the beginning of more
than 800 years of direct English and, later, British, involvement in Ireland.
The Duchy of Aquitaine came into personal union with the Kingdom of England upon
the accession of Henry II, who had married Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine. The
Kingdom of England and the Duchy of Normandy remained in personal union until John
Lackland, Henry II's son and fifth-generation descendant of William I, lost the
continental possessions of the Duchy to Philip II of France in 1204. A few remnants
of Normandy, including the Channel Islands, remained in John's possession, together
with most of the Duchy of Aquitaine.
Conquest of Wales[edit]
Up until the Norman conquest of England, Wales had remained for the most part
independent of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, although some Welsh kings did sometimes
acknowledge the Bretwalda. Soon after the Norman conquest of England, however,
some Norman lords began to attack Wales. They conquered and ruled parts of it,
acknowledging the overlordship of the Norman kings of England but with considerable
local independence. Over many years these "Marcher Lords" conquered more and
more of Wales, against considerable resistance led by various Welsh princes, who also
often acknowledged the overlordship of the Norman kings of England.
Edward I defeated Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, and so effectively conquered Wales, in 1282.
He created the title Prince of Wales for his heir, the future Edward II, in 1301. Edward I's
conquest was brutal and the subsequent repression considerable, as the magnificent
Welsh castles such as Conwy, Harlech, and Caernarfon attest; but this event re-united
under a single ruler the lands of Roman Britain for the first time since the establishment
of the Kingdom of the Jutes in Kent in the 5th century, some 700 years before.
Accordingly, this was a highly significant moment in the history of medieval England, as
it re-established links with the pre-Saxon past. These links were exploited for political
purposes to unite the peoples of the kingdom, including the Anglo-Normans, by
popularising Welsh legends.
The Welsh language—derived from the British language, continued to be spoken by the
majority of the population of Wales for at least another 500 years, and is still a majority
language in parts of the country.
Late Middle Ages[edit]
Main article: England in the Late Middle Ages
Further information: Wars of the Roses, Hundred Years' War, and Great Slump (15th
century)
Fifteenth-century miniature depicting the English victory over France at the Battle of Agincourt.
Edward III was the first English king to have a claim to the throne of France. His pursuit
of the claim resulted in the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453), which pitted five kings of
England of the House of Plantagenet against five kings of France of the Capetian
House of Valois. Extensive naval raiding was carried out by all sides during the war,
often involving privateers such as John Hawley of Dartmouth or the Castilian Pero Niño.
Though the English won numerous victories, they were unable to overcome the
numerical superiority of the French and their strategic use of gunpowder weapons.
England was defeated at the Battle of Formigny in 1450 and finally at the Battle of
Castillon in 1453, retaining only a single town in France, Calais.
During the Hundred Years' War an English identity began to develop in place of the
previous division between the Norman lords and their Anglo-Saxon subjects. This was a
consequence of sustained hostility to the increasingly nationalist French, whose kings
and other leaders (notably the charismatic Joan of Arc) used a developing sense of
French identity to help draw people to their cause. The Anglo-Normans became
separate from their cousins who held lands mainly in France and mocked the former for
their archaic and bastardised spoken French. English also became the language of the
law courts during this period.
The kingdom had little time to recover before entering the Wars of the Roses (1455–
1487), a series of civil wars over possession of the throne between the House of
Lancaster (whose heraldic symbol was the red rose) and the House of York (whose
symbol was the white rose), each led by different branches of the descendants of
Edward III. The end of these wars found the throne held by the descendant of an initially
illegitimate member of the House of Lancaster, married to the eldest daughter of the
House of York: Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. They were the founders of the Tudor
dynasty, which ruled the kingdom from 1485 to 1603.
Tudor period[edit]
Main articles: Tudor period, Elizabethan era, Stuart period, and English Renaissance
See also: Tudor conquest of Ireland
Wales retained a separate legal and administrative system, which had been established
by Edward I in the late 13th century. The country was divided between the Marcher
Lords, who gave feudal allegiance to the crown, and the Principality of Wales. Under the
Tudor monarchy, Henry VIII replaced the laws of Wales with those of England (under
the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542). Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of
England, and henceforth was represented in the Parliament of England.
Portrait of Elizabeth I made to commemorate the defeat of the Spanish Armada (1588), depicted in the
background. Elizabeth's international power is symbolised by the hand resting on the globe.
During the 1530s, Henry VIII overthrew the power of the Catholic Church within the
kingdom, replacing the pope as head of his own English Church and seizing the
Catholic Church's lands, thereby facilitating the creation of a variation of Catholicism
that became more Protestant over time. This had the effect of aligning England with
Scotland, which also gradually adopted a Protestant religion, whereas the most
important continental powers, France and Spain, remained Roman Catholic.
The "Tudor conquest" (or reconquest) of Ireland' took place under the Tudor dynasty.
Following a failed rebellion against the crown by Silken Thomas, the Earl of Kildare, in
the 1530s, Henry VIII was declared King of Ireland in 1542 by statute of the Parliament
of Ireland, with the aim of restoring such central authority as had been lost throughout
the country during the previous two centuries.
Calais, the last remaining continental possession of the Kingdom, was lost in 1558,
during the reign of Philip and Mary I. Their successor, Elizabeth I, consolidated the new
and increasingly Protestant Church of England. She also began to build up the
kingdom's naval strength, on the foundations Henry VIII had laid down. By 1588, her
new navy was strong enough to defeat the Spanish Armada, which had sought to
invade England to put a Catholic monarch on the throne in her place.[14][15][16]
Early modern history[edit]
Main articles: Early modern Britain and Stuart period
The House of Tudor ended with the death of Elizabeth I on 24 March 1603. James
I ascended the throne of England and brought it into personal union with the Kingdom of
Scotland. Despite the Union of the Crowns, the kingdoms remained separate and
independent states: a state of affairs which lasted for more than a century.
Civil War and Interregnum[edit]
Main articles: English Civil War, English Interregnum, English Commonwealth,
and English Protectorate
Cromwell at Dunbar. Oliver Cromwell united the whole of the British Isles by force and created
the Commonwealth of England.
The Stuart kings overestimated the power of the English monarchy, and were cast down
by Parliament in 1645 and 1688. In the first instance, Charles I's introduction of new
forms of taxation in defiance of Parliament led to the English Civil War (1641–45), in
which the king was defeated, and to the abolition of the monarchy under Oliver
Cromwell during the Interregnum of 1649–1660. Henceforth, the monarch could reign
only at the will of Parliament.
After the trial and execution of Charles I in January 1649, the Rump Parliament passed
an act declaring England to be a Commonwealth on 19 May 1649. The monarchy and
the House of Lords were abolished, and so the House of Commons became a unitary
legislative chamber with a new body, the Council of State becoming the executive.
However the Army remained the dominant institution in the new republic and the most
prominent general was Oliver Cromwell. The Commonwealth fought wars in
Ireland and Scotland which were subdued and placed under Commonwealth military
occupation.
In April 1653 Cromwell and the other Grandees of the New Model Army, frustrated with
the members of the Rump Parliament who would not pass legislation to dissolve the
Rump and to allow a new more representative parliament to be elected, stopped the
Rump's session by force of arms and declared the Rump dissolved.[citation needed]
After an experiment with a Nominated Assembly (Barebone's Parliament), the Grandees
in the Army, through the Council of State imposed a new constitutional arrangement
under a written constitution called the Instrument of Government. Under the Instrument
of Government executive power lay with a Lord Protector (an office to be held for the life
of the incumbent) and there were to be triennial Parliaments, with each sitting for at
least five months. Article 23 of the Instrument of Government stated that Oliver
Cromwell was to be the first Lord Protector. The Instrument of Government was
replaced by a second constitution (the Humble Petition and Advice) under which the
Lord Protector could nominate his successor. Cromwell nominated his son Richard who
became Lord Protector on the death of Oliver on 3 September 1658.
Restoration and Glorious Revolution[edit]
Main articles: Restoration (England) and Glorious Revolution
Richard proved to be ineffectual and was unable to maintain his rule. He resigned his
title and retired into obscurity. The Rump Parliament was recalled and there was a
second period where the executive power lay with the Council of state. But this
restoration of Commonwealth rule, similar to that before the Protectorate, proved to be
unstable, and the exiled claimant, Charles II, was restored to the throne in 1660.
Following the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, an attempt by James II to
reintroduce Roman Catholicism—a century after its suppression by the Tudors—led to
the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which he was deposed by Parliament. The Crown
was then offered by Parliament to James II's Protestant daughter and
son-in-law/nephew, William III and Mary II.
Union with Scotland[edit]
In the Scottish case, the attractions were partly financial and partly to do with removing
English trade sanctions put in place through the Alien Act 1705. The English were more
anxious about the royal succession. The death of William III in 1702 had led to the
accession of his sister-in-law Anne to the thrones of England and Scotland, but her only
surviving child had died in 1700, and the English Act of Settlement 1701 had given the
succession to the English crown to the Protestant House of Hanover. Securing the
same succession in Scotland became the primary object of English strategic thinking
towards Scotland. By 1704, the Union of the Crowns was in crisis, with the Scottish Act
of Security allowing for the Scottish Parliament to choose a different monarch, which
could in turn lead to an independent foreign policy during a major European war. The
English establishment did not wish to risk a Stuart on the Scottish throne, nor the
possibility of a Scottish military alliance with another power.
A Treaty of Union was agreed on 22 July 1706, and following the Acts of Union of 1707,
which created the Kingdom of Great Britain, the independence of the kingdoms of
England and Scotland came to an end on 1 May 1707. The Acts of Union created
a customs union and monetary union and provided that any "laws and statutes" that
were "contrary to or inconsistent with the terms" of the Acts would "cease and become
void".
The English and Scottish Parliaments were merged into the Parliament of Great Britain,
located in Westminster, London. At this point England ceased to exist as a separate
political entity, and since then has had no national government. The laws of England
were unaffected, with the legal jurisdiction continuing to be that of England and Wales,
while Scotland continued to have its own laws and law courts. This continued after
the 1801 union between the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, forming the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922 the Irish Free State seceded from the
United Kingdom, leading to the latter being renamed the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland.
Government[edit]
Territorial divisions[edit]
Further information: Historic counties of England, List of earldoms, Domesday
Book, County palatine, English county histories, and English feudal barony
The counties of England were established for administration by the Normans, in most
cases based on earlier shires established by the Anglo-Saxons. They ceased to be
used for administration only with the creation of the administrative counties in 1889.[17]
Unlike the partly self-governing boroughs that covered urban areas, the counties of
medieval England existed primarily as a means of enforcing central government power,
enabling monarchs to exercise control over local areas through their chosen
representatives – originally sheriffs and later the lord-lieutenants – and their
subordinate justices of the peace.[18] Counties were used initially for the administration of
justice, collection of taxes and organisation of the military, and later for local
government and electing parliamentary representation.[19] Some outlying counties were
from time to time accorded palatine status with some military and central government
functions vested in a local noble or bishop. The last such, the County Palatine of
Durham, did not lose this special status until the 19th century.
Although all of England was divided into shires by the time of the Norman conquest,
some counties were formed considerably later, up to the 16th century. Because of their
differing origins the counties varied considerably in size. The county boundaries were
fairly static between the 16th century Laws in Wales acts and the Local Government Act
1888.[20] Each shire was responsible for gathering taxes for the central government; for
local defence; and for justice, through assize courts.[21]
The power of the feudal barons to control their landholding was considerably weakened
in 1290 by the statute of Quia Emptores. Feudal baronies became perhaps obsolete
(but not extinct) on the abolition of feudal tenure during the Civil War, as confirmed by
the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 passed under the Restoration which took away knight-
service and other legal rights. Tenure by knight-service was abolished and discharged
and the lands covered by such tenures, including once-feudal baronies, were
henceforth held by socage (i.e., in exchange for monetary rents). The English Fitzwalter
Case in 1670 ruled that barony by tenure had been discontinued for many years and
any claims to a peerage on such basis, meaning a right to sit in the House of Lords,
were not to be revived, nor any right of succession based on them.
The Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 followed the conquest of Wales by Edward I of
England. It assumed the lands held by the Princes of Gwynedd under the title "Prince of
Wales" as legally part of the lands of England, and established shire counties on the
English model over those areas. The Marcher Lords were progressively tied to the
English kings by the grants of lands and lordships in England. The Council of Wales and
the Marches, administered from Ludlow Castle, was initially established in 1472
by Edward IV of England to govern the lands held under the Principality of Wales[22] and
the bordering English counties. It was abolished in 1689. Under the Laws in Wales Acts
1535–1542 introduced under Henry VIII, the jurisdiction of the marcher lords was
abolished in 1536. The Acts had the effect of annexing Wales to England and creating a
single state and legal jurisdiction, commonly referred to as England and Wales.
At the same time the Council of Wales was created in 1472, a Council of the North was
set up for the northern counties of England. After falling into disuse, it was re-
established in 1537 and abolished in 1641. A very short-lived Council of the West also
existed for the West Country between 1537 and 1540.
Taxation[edit]
In the Anglo-Saxon period, the geld or property tax was first levied in response to
Danish invasions but later became a regular tax. The majority of the king's income
derived from the royal demesne and the annual "farm" from each shire (the fixed sum
paid by sheriffs for the privilege of administering and profiting from royal lands). Kings
also made income from judicial fines and regulation of trade.[23] People owed the king
service in the form of the trinoda necessitas—fyrd service, burh building, and bridge
building.[24]
After the Conquest of 1066, the Normans continued collecting the geld regularly. They
also introduced new sources of revenue based on concepts of feudalism. The king was
entitled to collect a feudal aid when his eldest son was knighted, his eldest daughter
married, or if the king needed to pay his own ransom. The heir to a fief was also
required to pay the king a feudal relief before he could take possession of his
inheritance. The king was also entitled to his vassals military service, but vassals could
pay scutage instead.[25]
Military[edit]
Main articles: English Army and History of the Royal Navy (before 1707)
In the Anglo-Saxon period, England had no standing army. The king and magnates
retained professional household troops (see housecarl), and all free men were obligated
to perform military service in the fyrd. In addition, holders of bookland were obligated to
provide a certain number of men based on the number of hides they owned.[26]
After the Norman Conquest, the king's household troops remained central to any royal
army. The Anglo-Saxon fyrd also remained in use. But the Normans also introduced a
new feudal element to the English military. The king's tenants-in-chief (his feudal
barons) were obligated to provide mounted knights for service in the royal army or to
garrison royal castles. The total number of knights owed was called the servitium
debitum (Latin: "service owed"), and historian Richard Huscroft estimates this number
was around 5,000. In reality, the servitium debitum was greater than any king would
actually need in wartime. It's main purpose was for assessing how much scutage the
king was owed. Scutage was used to pay for mercenaries, which were an important part
of any Norman army.[27]
See also[edit]
 Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom – British royal regalia
 English overseas possessions – Territories ruled by Kingdom of England
 List of English monarchs – English monarchs until 1707
 Privy Council of England – Body of advisers to the sovereign of the Kingdom of
England
Notes[edit]
1. ^ Old English (until 1150), Middle English (1150–1550), Early Modern English (1550–1707)
2. ^ Old Welsh (until 12th century), Middle Welsh (12th–14th century), Modern Welsh (14th century–
1707)
3. ^ Old Cornish (until 12th century), Middle Cornish (12th–16th century), Late Cornish (16th century–
1707)
4. ^ Widely used for administrative and liturgical purposes.
5. ^ See Constitution of the United Kingdom, with the reservation that it is "uncodified".
References[edit]
1. ^ "The Royal Coat of Arms". The Royal Family. 15 January 2016. Retrieved 19 November 2018.
2. ^ Carey 2011, p. 41.
3. ^ "British Library". www.bl.uk. Retrieved 2 May 2023.
4. ^ Stenton, Frank (2001). Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
p. 340. ISBN 9780192801395.; Reuter, Timothy, ed. (1995). The New Cambridge Medieval History.
Vol. 3. Oxford University Press. p. 496. ISBN 9780521364478. His charters indicate that he was
regarded henceforth as rex Anglorum ('king of the English'); Fryde, E.B.; Greenway, D.E.; Porter, S.;
Roy, I., eds. (1996). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
p. 25. ISBN 9780521563505.
5. ^ Brooke, Christopher; Keir, Gillian (1975). London, 800–1216: The Shaping of a City. University of
California Press. ISBN 9780520026865. ...rivalry between City and government, between a
commercial capital in the City and the political capital of quite a different empire in Westminster.
6. ^ "Act of Union 1707". parliament.uk. 2021.; Making the Act of Union 1707 scottish.parliament.uk,
accessed 27 January 2011 Archived 11 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine
7. ^ Stephen Harris, Race and Ethnicity in Anglo-Saxon Literature, Studies in Medieval History and
Culture, Routledge, 2004, 139f.
8. ^ A. L. Mayhew and Walter W. Skeat, A Concise Dictionary of Middle English From A.D. 1150 To
1580 (1888)
9. ^ " Anglia " (par L. Favre, 1883–1887), dans du Cange, et al., Glossarium mediae et infimae
latinitatis Archived 6 February 2020 at the Wayback Machine, éd. augm., Niort : L. Favre, 1883-1887,
t. 1, col. 251c.
10. ^ The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Archived 1 July 2018 at the Wayback Machine Freely licensed version
at Gutenberg Project. Note: This electronic edition is a collation of material from nine diverse extant
versions of the Chronicle. It contains primarily the translation of Rev. James Ingram, as published in
the Everyman edition.
11. ^ Asser's Life of King Alfred, ch. 83, trans. Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge, Alfred the Great:
Asser's Life of King Alfred & Other Contemporary Sources (Penguin Classics) (1984), pp. 97–98.
12. ^ Vince, Alan, Saxon London: An Archaeological Investigation, The Archaeology of London series
(1990).
13. ^ Johnston, Elva. "The Irish Church, Its Reform and the English Invasion review". The Irish Times.
Retrieved 26 September 2021.
14. ^ Mattingly p. 401: "the defeat of the Spanish armada really was decisive"
15. ^ Parker & Martin p. 5: "an unmitigated disaster"
16. ^ Vego p. 148: "the decisive defeat of the Spanish armada"
17. ^ Vision of Britain Archived 16 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine – Type details for ancient county.
Retrieved 19 October 2006.; Youngs, Frederic A Jr. (1979). Guide to the Local Administrative Units of
England, Vol.I: Southern England. London: Royal Historical Society. pp. xii–xiii. ISBN 978-0-901050-
67-0. Ancient County: Counties are geographic entities whose origins reach back into the pre-
Conquest period. They were derived either from Anglo-Saxon kingdoms whose size made them
suitable administrative units when England was unified in the tenth century, or as artificial creations
formed from larger kingdoms. The number of 'shires' (the Anglo-Saxon term) or 'counties' (Norman
term) varied in the medieval period, particularly in the north of England.
18. ^ Chandler, J. A. (2007). "Local government before 1832". Explaining Local Government: Local
Government in Britain Since 1800. Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-
7190-6706-8.
19. ^ Hackwood, Frederick William (1920). The Story of the Shire, being the Lore, History and Evolution
of English County Institutions (PDF). London: Heath Cranton Limited.; Byrne, Tony (1994). Local
Government in Britain. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-017663-6.
20. ^ Vision of Britain Archived 16 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine – Census Geographies. Retrieved
19 October 2006.
21. ^ Winchester, Angus J L (1990). Discovering Parish Boundaries. Oxford: Shire
Publications. ISBN 978-0-7478-0060-6.
22. ^ William Searle Holdsworth, "A History of English Law," Little, Brown, and Company, 1912, p. 502
23. ^ Huscroft 2016, pp. 29–30.
24. ^ Jolliffe 1961, p. 52.
25. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 90.
26. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 31.
27. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 97.
Cited works[edit]
 Carey, Hilary M. (2011) [2010]. God's Empire: Religion and Colonialism in the
British World, c.1801–1908. Cambridge University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-139-
49409-0.
 Huscroft, Richard (2016). Ruling England, 1042–1217 (2nd ed.).
Routledge. ISBN 978-1138786554.
 Jolliffe, J. E. A. (1961). The Constitutional History of Medieval England from the
English Settlement to 1485 (4th ed.). Adams and Charles Black.
Further reading[edit]
 Bartlett, Robert (2002). England under the Norman and Angevin kings: 1075–1225. Oxford University Press.
 Black, J.B. (1936). The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558–1603.
 Borman, Tracy (2015). Thomas Cromwell: The Untold Story of Henry VIII's Most Faithful Servant.
 Elton, G. R. (1955). England under the Tudors. Methuen.
 Ellis, Steven G. (2014). Ireland in the age of the Tudors, 1447–1603: English expansion and the end of Gaelic
rule. Routledge.
 Guy, John (2013). The Tudors: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
 Harriss, G.L. (2005). Shaping the nation: England 1360–1461. Oxford University Press.
 Jacob, E.F. (1961). The Fifteenth Century, 1399–1485. Oxford History of England.
 Jenkins, Elizabeth (1964). Elizabeth the Great. Time Incorporated.
 Jones, J. Gwynfor (1989). Wales and the Tudor state: government, religious change and the social order,
1534–1603. University of Wales Press.
 Levin, Carole (2013). The heart and stomach of a king: Elizabeth I and the politics of sex and power. University
of Pennsylvania Press.
 Loades, David Michael (1999). Politics and nation: England 1450–1660. Wiley-Blackwell.
 Loades, David Michael (1997). Power in Tudor England.
 McCaffrey, Wallace. Elizabeth I.
 McKisack, May (1959). The Fourteenth Century, 1307–1399. Oxford History of England.
 Neale, J.E. (1957). Queen Elizabeth I: a biography.
 Penn, Thomas (2012). Winter king: Henry VII and the dawn of Tudor England.
 Powicke, Maurice (1962). The Thirteenth Century, 1216–1307. Oxford History of England.
 Ridley, Jasper G. (1985). Henry VIII.
 Clayton, F. David Roberts; Bisson, Douglas (2016). A History of England, Volume 1: Prehistory to 1714.
Routledge.
 Thomson, John A.F. (2014). The Transformation of Medieval England 1370–1529. Routledge.
 Williams, Penry (1995). The Later Tudors: England, 1547–1603. Oxford University Press.
Kingdom of England
The Heptarchy c. 927 – 1649 English Interregnum
c. 500 – c. 927 1649–1660
Succeeded by
Preceded by
Kingdom of England Kingdom of Great
English Interregnum 1660–1707 Britain
1649–1660
1707–1800
show
Kingdom of England
show
British Isles
show
Germanic peoples
Categories:
 Kingdom of England
 1707 disestablishments in Great Britain
 Former countries in the British Isles
 Former kingdoms
 Former monarchies of Europe
 10th-century establishments in England
 States and territories established in the 920s
 States and territories disestablished in 1649
 States and territories established in 1660
 927 establishments
 Christian states
Kingdom of England
81 languages
 Article
 Talk
 Read
 Edit
 View history
Tools











This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve
this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Kingdom of
England" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2023) (Learn how and
when to remove this template message)
Kingdom of England
927–1707
(1649–1660: Commonwealth)
Top: Flag of England

Bottom: Royal Banner
(1406–1603)
Royal Arms
(1399–1603)
Motto: "Dieu et mon droit" (French)

"God and my right"[1]
The Kingdom of England in 1190
Winchester (927–c. 1045)

Capital
London (c. 1045–1707)
∟ Westminster
(administrative)
∟ City of London
(commercial)
Common languages English[a]

Old Norse (until 11th century)
Welsh[b]
Cornish[c]
Cumbric (until 12th century)
Anglo-Norman
Law French (11th–15th century)
Medieval Latin (until 15th century)[d]
Religion Roman Catholicism (927–1534; 1553–

1558)
Church of England (1534–1553; 1558–
1646; 1660–1707)[2]
Puritanism (1646–1660)
Demonym(s) English
Government Elective monarchy (927–1066)

Hereditary absolute monarchy (1066–1215)
Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional
monarchy (1215–1649; 1660–1707)
Monarch
• 927–939 (first) Æthelstan
• 1702–1707 (last) Anne
Legislature Parliament
• Upper house House of Lords
• Lower house House of Commons
History
• Unification 12 July 927

• Battle of Hastings 14 October 1066
• Invasion of Ireland May 1169
• Magna Carta 15 June 1215
• Incorporated Wales 1535–1542
• Union of the Crowns 24 March 1603
• Glorious Revolution 11 December 1688
• Union with Scotland 1 May 1707
Currency Pound sterling
Wessex Great Britain
Sussex
Essex
Kent
Dumnonia
Mercia
East Anglia
Northumbria
Welsh Marches
Principality of
Wales
Today part of United Kingdom

o England
o Wales
o Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland
a. ^ Monarch of Wessex from 925.
b. ^ Continued as monarch of Great Britain until her death in 1714.
History of England
show
Timeline
show
Topics
show
Polities
show
By county
show
By city or town
England portal
 v
 t
 e
The Kingdom of England (Latin: Regnum Anglorum, lit. 'Kingdom of the English' or
'Kingdom of the Angles') existed on the island of Great Britain from 12 July 927, when it
unified from various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, until 1 May 1707, when it united
with Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain.[3]
In 927, the various Anglo-Saxon kings swore their allegiance
to Æthelstan of Wessex (r. 924–939), unifying most of modern England under a single
king.[4] In 1016, the kingdom became part of the North Sea Empire of Cnut the Great,
a personal union between England, Denmark and Norway. The Norman Conquest of
England in 1066 led to the transfer of the capital and chief royal residence from the
Anglo-Saxon one at Winchester to Westminster, and the City of London quickly
established itself as England's largest and principal commercial centre.[5]
Histories of the kingdom of England from the Norman Conquest conventionally
distinguish periods named after successive ruling dynasties: Norman (1066–
1154), Plantagenet (1154–1485), Tudor (1485–1603) and Stuart (1603–1707,
interrupted by the Interregnum of 1649–1660). Dynastically, all English monarchs after
1066 ultimately claim descent from the Normans; the distinction of the Plantagenets is
merely conventional, beginning with Henry II (r. 1154–1189) as from that time,
the Angevin kings became "more English in nature"; the houses
of Lancaster and York are both Plantagenet cadet branches, the Tudor dynasty claimed
descent from Edward III via John Beaufort, and James VI and I of the House of
Stuart claimed descent from Henry VII via Margaret Tudor.
Following the conquest, the Normans gradually sought to extend their conquests both to
the remainder of the British Isles and additional lands on the Continent, particularly
in modern-day France. This would evolve into a long-standing policy of expansionism
pursued intermittently with steadily increasing levels of aggression by successive, now-
styled "English", dynasties. Beginning in the 12th century, the Normans began making
serious incursions into Ireland. The completion of the conquest of Wales by Edward I in
1284 put Wales under the control of the English crown, though Edward's attempts to
completely subjugate Ireland met with very limited success, while the initial success of
his conquest of Scotland was undone by English military defeat under his son, Edward
II. Edward III (r. 1327–1377) transformed the Kingdom of England into one of the most
formidable military powers in Europe; his reign saw vital developments in legislation and
government—in particular the evolution of the English parliament. From the 1340s the
kings of England laid claim to the crown of France, but after the Hundred Years' War the
English lost all their land on the continent, except for Calais. The outbreak of the Wars
of the Roses in 1455 ensured the English were never again in a position to seriously
pursue their French claims.
After the turmoil of the Wars of the Roses, the Tudor dynasty ruled during the English
Renaissance and again extended English monarchical power beyond England proper,
in particular achieving the full union of England and the Principality of Wales in 1542.
The Tudors secured English control of Ireland, though it would continue to be ruled as
a separate kingdom in personal union with England for centuries. Henry VIII triggered
the English Reformation by breaking communion between the Church of England and
the Catholic Church, though the doctrinal aspects of the Reformation which established
the English Church as being recognizably Protestant would not be pursued in earnest
until the brief reign of his young son Edward VI. Following a return to Catholicism under
the similarly brief reign of Henry's eldest daughter Mary I, Mary's half-sister Elizabeth
I (r. 1558–1603) re-established Protestantism under the terms of the Elizabethan
Religious Settlement, meanwhile establishing England as a great power and laying the
foundations of the British Empire by claiming possessions in the New World. While
Henry pursued an aggressive foreign policy north of the border in an attempt to
subjugate Scotland, Elizabeth adopted a much more conciliatory position especially in
light of developments such as Scotland's own Reformation, and the eventual certainty
that the Scottish monarch would succeed Elizabeth.
From the accession of James VI and I in 1603, the Stuart dynasty ruled England and
Ireland in personal union with Scotland. Under the Stuarts, the kingdom plunged
into civil war, which culminated in the execution of Charles I in 1649. The monarchy
returned in 1660, but the Civil War had established the precedent that an English
monarch cannot govern without the consent of Parliament. This concept became legally
established as part of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. From this time the Kingdom of
England, and its successor states the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United
Kingdom, have functioned in effect as a constitutional monarchy.[e] On 1 May 1707,
under the terms of the Acts of Union 1707, the kingdoms of England and
Scotland united to form the aforementioned Kingdom of Great Britain.[6]
Name[edit]
Main article: Name of England
The Anglo-Saxons referred to themselves as the Engle or the Angelcynn, originally
names of the Angles. They called their land Engla land, meaning "land of the English",
by Æthelweard Latinized Anglia, from an original Anglia vetus, the purported homeland
of the Angles (called Angulus by Bede).[7] The name Engla
land became England by haplology during the Middle English period (Engle-
land, Engelond).[8] The Latin name was Anglia or Anglorum terra, the Old
French and Anglo-Norman one Engleterre.[9] By the 14th century, England was also
used in reference to the entire island of Great Britain.
The standard title for monarchs from Æthelstan until John was Rex Anglorum ("King of
the English"). Cnut, a Dane, was the first to call himself "King of England". In
the Norman period Rex Anglorum remained standard, with occasional use of Rex
Anglie ("King of England"). From John's reign onwards all other titles were eschewed in
favour of Rex or Regina Anglie. In 1604 James I, who had inherited the English throne
the previous year, adopted the title (now usually rendered in English rather than
Latin) King of Great Britain. The English and Scottish parliaments, however, did not
recognise this title until the Acts of Union of 1707.
History[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve
this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed. (May 2019) (Learn how and when to
remove this template message)
Further information: History of monarchy in the United Kingdom § English monarchy
Anglo-Saxon England[edit]
Main article: History of Anglo-Saxon England
The kingdom of England emerged from the gradual unification of the early
medieval Anglo-Saxon kingdoms known as the Heptarchy: East
Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. The Viking
invasions of the 9th century upset the balance of power between the English kingdoms,
and native Anglo-Saxon life in general. The English lands were unified in the 10th
century in a reconquest completed by King Æthelstan in 927.
During the Heptarchy, the most powerful king among the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms might
become acknowledged as Bretwalda, a high king over the other kings. The decline of
Mercia allowed Wessex to become more powerful, absorbing the kingdoms of Kent and
Sussex in 825. The kings of Wessex increasingly dominated the other kingdoms of
England during the 9th century. In 827, Northumbria submitted to Egbert of
Wessex at Dore, briefly making Egbert the first king to reign over a united England.
In 886, Alfred the Great retook London, which he apparently regarded as a turning point
in his reign. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that "all of the English people (all
Angelcyn) not subject to the Danes submitted themselves to King Alfred."[10] Asser added
that "Alfred, king of the Anglo-Saxons, restored the city of London splendidly ... and
made it habitable once more."[11] Alfred's restoration entailed reoccupying and
refurbishing the nearly deserted Roman walled city, building quays along the Thames,
and laying a new city street plan.[12] It is probably at this point that Alfred assumed the
new royal style 'King of the Anglo-Saxons.'
During the following years Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English
kings and the Norwegian invaders, but was definitively brought under English control
by Eadred in 954, completing the unification of England. At about this time, Lothian, a
portion of the northern half of Northumbria (Bernicia), was ceded to the Kingdom of
Scotland. On 12 July 927 the monarchs of Britain gathered at Eamont in Cumbria to
recognise Æthelstan as king of the English. This can be considered England's
'foundation date', although the process of unification had taken almost 100 years.
The dominions of Cnut (1014–1035)
England has remained in political unity ever since. During the reign of Æþelræd the
Unready (978–1016), a new wave of Danish invasions was orchestrated by Sweyn I of
Denmark, culminating after a quarter-century of warfare in the Danish conquest of
England in 1013. But Sweyn died on 2 February 1014, and Æþelræd was restored to
the throne. In 1015, Sweyn's son Cnut (commonly known as Canute) launched a new
invasion. The ensuing war ended with an agreement in 1016 between Canute and
Æþelræd's successor, Edmund Ironside, to divide England between them, but
Edmund's death on 30 November of that year left England united under Danish rule.
This continued for 26 years until the death of Harthacnut in June 1042. He was the son
of Canute and Emma of Normandy (the widow of Æþelræd the Unready) and had no
heirs of his own; he was succeeded by his half-brother, Æþelræd's son, Edward the
Confessor. The Kingdom of England was once again independent.
Norman conquest[edit]
Main article: Norman Conquest
The peace lasted until the death of the childless Edward in January 1066. His brother-
in-law was crowned King Harold, but his cousin William the Conqueror, Duke of
Normandy, immediately claimed the throne for himself. William launched an invasion of
England and landed in Sussex on 28 September 1066. Harold and his army were
in York following their victory against the Norwegians at the Battle of Stamford
Bridge (25 September 1066) when the news reached him. He decided to set out without
delay and confront the Norman army in Sussex so marched southwards at once,
despite the army not being properly rested following the battle with the Norwegians. The
armies of Harold and William faced each other at the Battle of Hastings (14 October
1066), in which the English army, or Fyrd, was defeated, Harold and his two brothers
were slain, and William emerged as victor. William was then able to conquer England
with little further opposition. He was not, however, planning to absorb the Kingdom into
the Duchy of Normandy. As a mere duke, William owed allegiance to Philip I of France,
whereas in the independent Kingdom of England he could rule without interference. He
was crowned on 25 December 1066 in Westminster Abbey, London.
High Middle Ages[edit]
Main article: England in the High Middle Ages
Further information: Angevin Empire, Norman invasion of Wales, and Conquest of
Wales by Edward I
In 1092, William II led an invasion of Strathclyde, a Celtic kingdom in what is now
southwest Scotland and Cumbria. In doing so, he annexed what is now the county
of Cumbria to England. In 1124, Henry I ceded what is now southeast Scotland
(called Lothian) to the Kingdom of Scotland, in return for the King of Scotland's loyalty.
This final cession established what would become the traditional borders of England
which have remained largely unchanged since then (except for occasional and
temporary changes). This area of land had previously been a part of the
Anglian Kingdom of Northumbria. Lothian contained what later became the Scottish
capital, Edinburgh. This arrangement was later finalized in 1237 by the Treaty of York.
King John signs Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215, surrounded by his baronage. Illustration from Cassell's
History of England, 1902.
The Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland took place during the late 12th century,
when Anglo-Normans gradually conquered and acquired large swathes of land from the
Irish, over which the Kingdom of England then claimed sovereignty, all allegedly
sanctioned by the Papal bull Laudabiliter.[13] At the time, Gaelic Ireland was made up of
several kingdoms, with a High King claiming lordship over most of the other kings. The
Norman invasion was a watershed in Ireland's history, marking the beginning of more
than 800 years of direct English and, later, British, involvement in Ireland.
The Duchy of Aquitaine came into personal union with the Kingdom of England upon
the accession of Henry II, who had married Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine. The
Kingdom of England and the Duchy of Normandy remained in personal union until John
Lackland, Henry II's son and fifth-generation descendant of William I, lost the
continental possessions of the Duchy to Philip II of France in 1204. A few remnants
of Normandy, including the Channel Islands, remained in John's possession, together
with most of the Duchy of Aquitaine.
Conquest of Wales[edit]
Up until the Norman conquest of England, Wales had remained for the most part
independent of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, although some Welsh kings did sometimes
acknowledge the Bretwalda. Soon after the Norman conquest of England, however,
some Norman lords began to attack Wales. They conquered and ruled parts of it,
acknowledging the overlordship of the Norman kings of England but with considerable
local independence. Over many years these "Marcher Lords" conquered more and
more of Wales, against considerable resistance led by various Welsh princes, who also
often acknowledged the overlordship of the Norman kings of England.
Edward I defeated Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, and so effectively conquered Wales, in 1282.
He created the title Prince of Wales for his heir, the future Edward II, in 1301. Edward I's
conquest was brutal and the subsequent repression considerable, as the magnificent
Welsh castles such as Conwy, Harlech, and Caernarfon attest; but this event re-united
under a single ruler the lands of Roman Britain for the first time since the establishment
of the Kingdom of the Jutes in Kent in the 5th century, some 700 years before.
Accordingly, this was a highly significant moment in the history of medieval England, as
it re-established links with the pre-Saxon past. These links were exploited for political
purposes to unite the peoples of the kingdom, including the Anglo-Normans, by
popularising Welsh legends.
The Welsh language—derived from the British language, continued to be spoken by the
majority of the population of Wales for at least another 500 years, and is still a majority
language in parts of the country.
Late Middle Ages[edit]
Main article: England in the Late Middle Ages
Further information: Wars of the Roses, Hundred Years' War, and Great Slump (15th
century)
Fifteenth-century miniature depicting the English victory over France at the Battle of Agincourt.
Edward III was the first English king to have a claim to the throne of France. His pursuit
of the claim resulted in the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453), which pitted five kings of
England of the House of Plantagenet against five kings of France of the Capetian
House of Valois. Extensive naval raiding was carried out by all sides during the war,
often involving privateers such as John Hawley of Dartmouth or the Castilian Pero Niño.
Though the English won numerous victories, they were unable to overcome the
numerical superiority of the French and their strategic use of gunpowder weapons.
England was defeated at the Battle of Formigny in 1450 and finally at the Battle of
Castillon in 1453, retaining only a single town in France, Calais.
During the Hundred Years' War an English identity began to develop in place of the
previous division between the Norman lords and their Anglo-Saxon subjects. This was a
consequence of sustained hostility to the increasingly nationalist French, whose kings
and other leaders (notably the charismatic Joan of Arc) used a developing sense of
French identity to help draw people to their cause. The Anglo-Normans became
separate from their cousins who held lands mainly in France and mocked the former for
their archaic and bastardised spoken French. English also became the language of the
law courts during this period.
The kingdom had little time to recover before entering the Wars of the Roses (1455–
1487), a series of civil wars over possession of the throne between the House of
Lancaster (whose heraldic symbol was the red rose) and the House of York (whose
symbol was the white rose), each led by different branches of the descendants of
Edward III. The end of these wars found the throne held by the descendant of an initially
illegitimate member of the House of Lancaster, married to the eldest daughter of the
House of York: Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. They were the founders of the Tudor
dynasty, which ruled the kingdom from 1485 to 1603.
Tudor period[edit]
Main articles: Tudor period, Elizabethan era, Stuart period, and English Renaissance
See also: Tudor conquest of Ireland
Wales retained a separate legal and administrative system, which had been established
by Edward I in the late 13th century. The country was divided between the Marcher
Lords, who gave feudal allegiance to the crown, and the Principality of Wales. Under the
Tudor monarchy, Henry VIII replaced the laws of Wales with those of England (under
the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542). Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of
England, and henceforth was represented in the Parliament of England.
Portrait of Elizabeth I made to commemorate the defeat of the Spanish Armada (1588), depicted in the
background. Elizabeth's international power is symbolised by the hand resting on the globe.
During the 1530s, Henry VIII overthrew the power of the Catholic Church within the
kingdom, replacing the pope as head of his own English Church and seizing the
Catholic Church's lands, thereby facilitating the creation of a variation of Catholicism
that became more Protestant over time. This had the effect of aligning England with
Scotland, which also gradually adopted a Protestant religion, whereas the most
important continental powers, France and Spain, remained Roman Catholic.
The "Tudor conquest" (or reconquest) of Ireland' took place under the Tudor dynasty.
Following a failed rebellion against the crown by Silken Thomas, the Earl of Kildare, in
the 1530s, Henry VIII was declared King of Ireland in 1542 by statute of the Parliament
of Ireland, with the aim of restoring such central authority as had been lost throughout
the country during the previous two centuries.
Calais, the last remaining continental possession of the Kingdom, was lost in 1558,
during the reign of Philip and Mary I. Their successor, Elizabeth I, consolidated the new
and increasingly Protestant Church of England. She also began to build up the
kingdom's naval strength, on the foundations Henry VIII had laid down. By 1588, her
new navy was strong enough to defeat the Spanish Armada, which had sought to
invade England to put a Catholic monarch on the throne in her place.[14][15][16]
Early modern history[edit]
Main articles: Early modern Britain and Stuart period
The House of Tudor ended with the death of Elizabeth I on 24 March 1603. James
I ascended the throne of England and brought it into personal union with the Kingdom of
Scotland. Despite the Union of the Crowns, the kingdoms remained separate and
independent states: a state of affairs which lasted for more than a century.
Civil War and Interregnum[edit]
Main articles: English Civil War, English Interregnum, English Commonwealth,
and English Protectorate
Cromwell at Dunbar. Oliver Cromwell united the whole of the British Isles by force and created
the Commonwealth of England.
The Stuart kings overestimated the power of the English monarchy, and were cast down
by Parliament in 1645 and 1688. In the first instance, Charles I's introduction of new
forms of taxation in defiance of Parliament led to the English Civil War (1641–45), in
which the king was defeated, and to the abolition of the monarchy under Oliver
Cromwell during the Interregnum of 1649–1660. Henceforth, the monarch could reign
only at the will of Parliament.
After the trial and execution of Charles I in January 1649, the Rump Parliament passed
an act declaring England to be a Commonwealth on 19 May 1649. The monarchy and
the House of Lords were abolished, and so the House of Commons became a unitary
legislative chamber with a new body, the Council of State becoming the executive.
However the Army remained the dominant institution in the new republic and the most
prominent general was Oliver Cromwell. The Commonwealth fought wars in
Ireland and Scotland which were subdued and placed under Commonwealth military
occupation.
In April 1653 Cromwell and the other Grandees of the New Model Army, frustrated with
the members of the Rump Parliament who would not pass legislation to dissolve the
Rump and to allow a new more representative parliament to be elected, stopped the
Rump's session by force of arms and declared the Rump dissolved.[citation needed]
After an experiment with a Nominated Assembly (Barebone's Parliament), the Grandees
in the Army, through the Council of State imposed a new constitutional arrangement
under a written constitution called the Instrument of Government. Under the Instrument
of Government executive power lay with a Lord Protector (an office to be held for the life
of the incumbent) and there were to be triennial Parliaments, with each sitting for at
least five months. Article 23 of the Instrument of Government stated that Oliver
Cromwell was to be the first Lord Protector. The Instrument of Government was
replaced by a second constitution (the Humble Petition and Advice) under which the
Lord Protector could nominate his successor. Cromwell nominated his son Richard who
became Lord Protector on the death of Oliver on 3 September 1658.
Restoration and Glorious Revolution[edit]
Main articles: Restoration (England) and Glorious Revolution
Richard proved to be ineffectual and was unable to maintain his rule. He resigned his
title and retired into obscurity. The Rump Parliament was recalled and there was a
second period where the executive power lay with the Council of state. But this
restoration of Commonwealth rule, similar to that before the Protectorate, proved to be
unstable, and the exiled claimant, Charles II, was restored to the throne in 1660.
Following the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, an attempt by James II to
reintroduce Roman Catholicism—a century after its suppression by the Tudors—led to
the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which he was deposed by Parliament. The Crown
was then offered by Parliament to James II's Protestant daughter and
son-in-law/nephew, William III and Mary II.
Union with Scotland[edit]
In the Scottish case, the attractions were partly financial and partly to do with removing
English trade sanctions put in place through the Alien Act 1705. The English were more
anxious about the royal succession. The death of William III in 1702 had led to the
accession of his sister-in-law Anne to the thrones of England and Scotland, but her only
surviving child had died in 1700, and the English Act of Settlement 1701 had given the
succession to the English crown to the Protestant House of Hanover. Securing the
same succession in Scotland became the primary object of English strategic thinking
towards Scotland. By 1704, the Union of the Crowns was in crisis, with the Scottish Act
of Security allowing for the Scottish Parliament to choose a different monarch, which
could in turn lead to an independent foreign policy during a major European war. The
English establishment did not wish to risk a Stuart on the Scottish throne, nor the
possibility of a Scottish military alliance with another power.
A Treaty of Union was agreed on 22 July 1706, and following the Acts of Union of 1707,
which created the Kingdom of Great Britain, the independence of the kingdoms of
England and Scotland came to an end on 1 May 1707. The Acts of Union created
a customs union and monetary union and provided that any "laws and statutes" that
were "contrary to or inconsistent with the terms" of the Acts would "cease and become
void".
The English and Scottish Parliaments were merged into the Parliament of Great Britain,
located in Westminster, London. At this point England ceased to exist as a separate
political entity, and since then has had no national government. The laws of England
were unaffected, with the legal jurisdiction continuing to be that of England and Wales,
while Scotland continued to have its own laws and law courts. This continued after
the 1801 union between the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, forming the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922 the Irish Free State seceded from the
United Kingdom, leading to the latter being renamed the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland.
Government[edit]
Territorial divisions[edit]
Further information: Historic counties of England, List of earldoms, Domesday
Book, County palatine, English county histories, and English feudal barony
The counties of England were established for administration by the Normans, in most
cases based on earlier shires established by the Anglo-Saxons. They ceased to be
used for administration only with the creation of the administrative counties in 1889.[17]
Unlike the partly self-governing boroughs that covered urban areas, the counties of
medieval England existed primarily as a means of enforcing central government power,
enabling monarchs to exercise control over local areas through their chosen
representatives – originally sheriffs and later the lord-lieutenants – and their
subordinate justices of the peace.[18] Counties were used initially for the administration of
justice, collection of taxes and organisation of the military, and later for local
government and electing parliamentary representation.[19] Some outlying counties were
from time to time accorded palatine status with some military and central government
functions vested in a local noble or bishop. The last such, the County Palatine of
Durham, did not lose this special status until the 19th century.
Although all of England was divided into shires by the time of the Norman conquest,
some counties were formed considerably later, up to the 16th century. Because of their
differing origins the counties varied considerably in size. The county boundaries were
fairly static between the 16th century Laws in Wales acts and the Local Government Act
1888.[20] Each shire was responsible for gathering taxes for the central government; for
local defence; and for justice, through assize courts.[21]
The power of the feudal barons to control their landholding was considerably weakened
in 1290 by the statute of Quia Emptores. Feudal baronies became perhaps obsolete
(but not extinct) on the abolition of feudal tenure during the Civil War, as confirmed by
the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 passed under the Restoration which took away knight-
service and other legal rights. Tenure by knight-service was abolished and discharged
and the lands covered by such tenures, including once-feudal baronies, were
henceforth held by socage (i.e., in exchange for monetary rents). The English Fitzwalter
Case in 1670 ruled that barony by tenure had been discontinued for many years and
any claims to a peerage on such basis, meaning a right to sit in the House of Lords,
were not to be revived, nor any right of succession based on them.
The Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 followed the conquest of Wales by Edward I of
England. It assumed the lands held by the Princes of Gwynedd under the title "Prince of
Wales" as legally part of the lands of England, and established shire counties on the
English model over those areas. The Marcher Lords were progressively tied to the
English kings by the grants of lands and lordships in England. The Council of Wales and
the Marches, administered from Ludlow Castle, was initially established in 1472
by Edward IV of England to govern the lands held under the Principality of Wales[22] and
the bordering English counties. It was abolished in 1689. Under the Laws in Wales Acts
1535–1542 introduced under Henry VIII, the jurisdiction of the marcher lords was
abolished in 1536. The Acts had the effect of annexing Wales to England and creating a
single state and legal jurisdiction, commonly referred to as England and Wales.
At the same time the Council of Wales was created in 1472, a Council of the North was
set up for the northern counties of England. After falling into disuse, it was re-
established in 1537 and abolished in 1641. A very short-lived Council of the West also
existed for the West Country between 1537 and 1540.
Taxation[edit]
In the Anglo-Saxon period, the geld or property tax was first levied in response to
Danish invasions but later became a regular tax. The majority of the king's income
derived from the royal demesne and the annual "farm" from each shire (the fixed sum
paid by sheriffs for the privilege of administering and profiting from royal lands). Kings
also made income from judicial fines and regulation of trade.[23] People owed the king
service in the form of the trinoda necessitas—fyrd service, burh building, and bridge
building.[24]
After the Conquest of 1066, the Normans continued collecting the geld regularly. They
also introduced new sources of revenue based on concepts of feudalism. The king was
entitled to collect a feudal aid when his eldest son was knighted, his eldest daughter
married, or if the king needed to pay his own ransom. The heir to a fief was also
required to pay the king a feudal relief before he could take possession of his
inheritance. The king was also entitled to his vassals military service, but vassals could
pay scutage instead.[25]
Military[edit]
Main articles: English Army and History of the Royal Navy (before 1707)
In the Anglo-Saxon period, England had no standing army. The king and magnates
retained professional household troops (see housecarl), and all free men were obligated
to perform military service in the fyrd. In addition, holders of bookland were obligated to
provide a certain number of men based on the number of hides they owned.[26]
After the Norman Conquest, the king's household troops remained central to any royal
army. The Anglo-Saxon fyrd also remained in use. But the Normans also introduced a
new feudal element to the English military. The king's tenants-in-chief (his feudal
barons) were obligated to provide mounted knights for service in the royal army or to
garrison royal castles. The total number of knights owed was called the servitium
debitum (Latin: "service owed"), and historian Richard Huscroft estimates this number
was around 5,000. In reality, the servitium debitum was greater than any king would
actually need in wartime. It's main purpose was for assessing how much scutage the
king was owed. Scutage was used to pay for mercenaries, which were an important part
of any Norman army.[27]
See also[edit]
 Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom – British royal regalia
 English overseas possessions – Territories ruled by Kingdom of England
 List of English monarchs – English monarchs until 1707
 Privy Council of England – Body of advisers to the sovereign of the Kingdom of
England
Notes[edit]
1. ^ Old English (until 1150), Middle English (1150–1550), Early Modern English (1550–1707)
2. ^ Old Welsh (until 12th century), Middle Welsh (12th–14th century), Modern Welsh (14th century–
1707)
3. ^ Old Cornish (until 12th century), Middle Cornish (12th–16th century), Late Cornish (16th century–
1707)
4. ^ Widely used for administrative and liturgical purposes.
5. ^ See Constitution of the United Kingdom, with the reservation that it is "uncodified".
References[edit]
1. ^ "The Royal Coat of Arms". The Royal Family. 15 January 2016. Retrieved 19 November 2018.
2. ^ Carey 2011, p. 41.
3. ^ "British Library". www.bl.uk. Retrieved 2 May 2023.
4. ^ Stenton, Frank (2001). Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
p. 340. ISBN 9780192801395.; Reuter, Timothy, ed. (1995). The New Cambridge Medieval History.
Vol. 3. Oxford University Press. p. 496. ISBN 9780521364478. His charters indicate that he was
regarded henceforth as rex Anglorum ('king of the English'); Fryde, E.B.; Greenway, D.E.; Porter, S.;
Roy, I., eds. (1996). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
p. 25. ISBN 9780521563505.
5. ^ Brooke, Christopher; Keir, Gillian (1975). London, 800–1216: The Shaping of a City. University of
California Press. ISBN 9780520026865. ...rivalry between City and government, between a
commercial capital in the City and the political capital of quite a different empire in Westminster.
6. ^ "Act of Union 1707". parliament.uk. 2021.; Making the Act of Union 1707 scottish.parliament.uk,
accessed 27 January 2011 Archived 11 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine
7. ^ Stephen Harris, Race and Ethnicity in Anglo-Saxon Literature, Studies in Medieval History and
Culture, Routledge, 2004, 139f.
8. ^ A. L. Mayhew and Walter W. Skeat, A Concise Dictionary of Middle English From A.D. 1150 To
1580 (1888)
9. ^ " Anglia " (par L. Favre, 1883–1887), dans du Cange, et al., Glossarium mediae et infimae
latinitatis Archived 6 February 2020 at the Wayback Machine, éd. augm., Niort : L. Favre, 1883-1887,
t. 1, col. 251c.
10. ^ The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Archived 1 July 2018 at the Wayback Machine Freely licensed version
at Gutenberg Project. Note: This electronic edition is a collation of material from nine diverse extant
versions of the Chronicle. It contains primarily the translation of Rev. James Ingram, as published in
the Everyman edition.
11. ^ Asser's Life of King Alfred, ch. 83, trans. Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge, Alfred the Great:
Asser's Life of King Alfred & Other Contemporary Sources (Penguin Classics) (1984), pp. 97–98.
12. ^ Vince, Alan, Saxon London: An Archaeological Investigation, The Archaeology of London series
(1990).
13. ^ Johnston, Elva. "The Irish Church, Its Reform and the English Invasion review". The Irish Times.
Retrieved 26 September 2021.
14. ^ Mattingly p. 401: "the defeat of the Spanish armada really was decisive"
15. ^ Parker & Martin p. 5: "an unmitigated disaster"
16. ^ Vego p. 148: "the decisive defeat of the Spanish armada"
17. ^ Vision of Britain Archived 16 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine – Type details for ancient county.
Retrieved 19 October 2006.; Youngs, Frederic A Jr. (1979). Guide to the Local Administrative Units of
England, Vol.I: Southern England. London: Royal Historical Society. pp. xii–xiii. ISBN 978-0-901050-
67-0. Ancient County: Counties are geographic entities whose origins reach back into the pre-
Conquest period. They were derived either from Anglo-Saxon kingdoms whose size made them
suitable administrative units when England was unified in the tenth century, or as artificial creations
formed from larger kingdoms. The number of 'shires' (the Anglo-Saxon term) or 'counties' (Norman
term) varied in the medieval period, particularly in the north of England.
18. ^ Chandler, J. A. (2007). "Local government before 1832". Explaining Local Government: Local
Government in Britain Since 1800. Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-
7190-6706-8.
19. ^ Hackwood, Frederick William (1920). The Story of the Shire, being the Lore, History and Evolution
of English County Institutions (PDF). London: Heath Cranton Limited.; Byrne, Tony (1994). Local
Government in Britain. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-017663-6.
20. ^ Vision of Britain Archived 16 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine – Census Geographies. Retrieved
19 October 2006.
21. ^ Winchester, Angus J L (1990). Discovering Parish Boundaries. Oxford: Shire
Publications. ISBN 978-0-7478-0060-6.
22. ^ William Searle Holdsworth, "A History of English Law," Little, Brown, and Company, 1912, p. 502
23. ^ Huscroft 2016, pp. 29–30.
24. ^ Jolliffe 1961, p. 52.
25. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 90.
26. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 31.
27. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 97.
Cited works[edit]
 Carey, Hilary M. (2011) [2010]. God's Empire: Religion and Colonialism in the
British World, c.1801–1908. Cambridge University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-139-
49409-0.
 Huscroft, Richard (2016). Ruling England, 1042–1217 (2nd ed.).
Routledge. ISBN 978-1138786554.
 Jolliffe, J. E. A. (1961). The Constitutional History of Medieval England from the
English Settlement to 1485 (4th ed.). Adams and Charles Black.
Further reading[edit]
 Bartlett, Robert (2002). England under the Norman and Angevin kings: 1075–1225. Oxford University Press.
 Black, J.B. (1936). The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558–1603.
 Borman, Tracy (2015). Thomas Cromwell: The Untold Story of Henry VIII's Most Faithful Servant.
 Elton, G. R. (1955). England under the Tudors. Methuen.
 Ellis, Steven G. (2014). Ireland in the age of the Tudors, 1447–1603: English expansion and the end of Gaelic
rule. Routledge.
 Guy, John (2013). The Tudors: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
 Harriss, G.L. (2005). Shaping the nation: England 1360–1461. Oxford University Press.
 Jacob, E.F. (1961). The Fifteenth Century, 1399–1485. Oxford History of England.
 Jenkins, Elizabeth (1964). Elizabeth the Great. Time Incorporated.
 Jones, J. Gwynfor (1989). Wales and the Tudor state: government, religious change and the social order,
1534–1603. University of Wales Press.
 Levin, Carole (2013). The heart and stomach of a king: Elizabeth I and the politics of sex and power. University
of Pennsylvania Press.
 Loades, David Michael (1999). Politics and nation: England 1450–1660. Wiley-Blackwell.
 Loades, David Michael (1997). Power in Tudor England.
 McCaffrey, Wallace. Elizabeth I.
 McKisack, May (1959). The Fourteenth Century, 1307–1399. Oxford History of England.
 Neale, J.E. (1957). Queen Elizabeth I: a biography.
 Penn, Thomas (2012). Winter king: Henry VII and the dawn of Tudor England.
 Powicke, Maurice (1962). The Thirteenth Century, 1216–1307. Oxford History of England.
 Ridley, Jasper G. (1985). Henry VIII.
 Clayton, F. David Roberts; Bisson, Douglas (2016). A History of England, Volume 1: Prehistory to 1714.
Routledge.
 Thomson, John A.F. (2014). The Transformation of Medieval England 1370–1529. Routledge.
 Williams, Penry (1995). The Later Tudors: England, 1547–1603. Oxford University Press.
Kingdom of England
The Heptarchy c. 927 – 1649 English Interregnum
c. 500 – c. 927 1649–1660
Succeeded by
Preceded by
Kingdom of England Kingdom of Great
English Interregnum 1660–1707 Britain
1649–1660
1707–1800
show
Kingdom of England
show
British Isles
show
Germanic peoples
Categories:
 Kingdom of England
 1707 disestablishments in Great Britain
 Former countries in the British Isles
 Former kingdoms
 Former monarchies of Europe
 10th-century establishments in England
 States and territories established in the 920s
 States and territories established in 1660
 927 establishments
 Christian states
Victoria was born at Kensington Palace, London, on 24 May 1819. She was the only
daughter of Edward, Duke of Kent, fourth son of George III. Her father died shortly
after her birth and she became heir to the throne because the three uncles who were
ahead of her in the succession - George IV, Frederick Duke of York, and William IV -
had no legitimate children who survived.
Warmhearted and lively, Victoria had a gift for drawing and painting; educated by a
governess at home, she was a natural diarist and kept a regular journal throughout her life.
On William IV's death in 1837, she became Queen at the age of 18.
Queen Victoria is associated with Britain's great age of industrial expansion, economic
progress and, especially, empire. At her death, it was said, Britain had a worldwide empire
on which the sun never set.
In the early part of her reign, she was influenced by two men: her first Prime Minister,
Lord Melbourne, and then her husband, Prince Albert , whom she married in 1840. Both
men taught her much about how to be a ruler in a 'constitutional monarchy', in which the
monarch had very few powers but could use much influence.
Albert took an active interest in the arts, science, trade and industry; the project for which
he is best remembered was the Great Exhibition of 1851, the profits from which helped to
establish the South Kensington museums complex in London.
victoria.pdf (178.38 KB)

Her marriage to Prince Albert produced nine children between 1840 and 1857. Most of her
children married into other Royal families of Europe.
Edward VII (born 1841), married Alexandra, daughter of Christian IX of Denmark. Alfred,
Duke of Edinburgh and of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (born 1844) married Marie of Russia.
Arthur, Duke of Connaught (born 1850) married Louise Margaret of Prussia. Leopold,
Duke of Albany (born 1853) married Helen of Waldeck-Pyrmont.
Victoria, Princess Royal (born 1840) married Friedrich III, German Emperor. Alice (born
1843) married Ludwig IV, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine. Helena (born 1846) married
Christian of Schleswig-Holstein. Louise (born 1848) married John Campbell, 9th Duke of
Argyll. Beatrice (born 1857) married Henry of Battenberg.
Victoria bought Osborne House (later presented to the nation by Edward VII) on the Isle of
Wight as a family home in 1845, and Albert bought Balmoral in 1852.
Victoria was deeply attached to her husband and she sank into depression after he died,
aged 42, in 1861. She had lost a devoted husband and her principal trusted adviser in
affairs of state. For the rest of her reign she wore black.
Until the late 1860s she rarely appeared in public; although she never neglected her official
Correspondence, and continued to give audiences to her ministers and official visitors, she
was reluctant to resume a full public life.
She was persuaded to open Parliament in person in 1866 and 1867, but she was widely
criticised for living in seclusion and quite a strong republican movement developed.
Seven attempts were made on Victoria's life, between 1840 and 1882 - her courageous
attitude towards these attacks greatly strengthened her popularity.
With time, the private urgings of her family and the flattering attention of Benjamin
Disraeli, Prime Minister in 1868 and from 1874 to 1880, the Queen gradually resumed her
public duties.
In foreign policy, the Queen's influence during the middle years of her reign was generally
used to support peace and reconciliation. In 1864, Victoria pressed her ministers not to
intervene in the Prussia-Denmark war, and her letter to the German Emperor (whose son
had married her daughter) in 1875 helped to avert a second Franco-German war.
On the Eastern Question in the 1870s - the issue of Britain's policy towards the declining
Turkish Empire in Europe - Victoria (unlike Gladstone) believed that Britain, while
pressing for necessary reforms, ought to uphold Turkish hegemony as a bulwark of stability
against Russia, and maintain bi-partisanship at a time when Britain could be involved in
war.
Victoria's popularity grew with the increasing imperial sentiment from the 1870s onwards.
After the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the government of India was transferred from the East
India Company to the Crown, with the position of Governor General upgraded to Viceroy,
and in 1877 Victoria became Empress of India under the Royal Titles Act passed by
Disraeli's government.
During Victoria's long reign, direct political power moved away from the sovereign. A
series of Acts broadened the social and economic base of the electorate.
These acts included the Second Reform Act of 1867; the introduction of the secret ballot in
1872, which made it impossible to pressurise voters by bribery or intimidation; and the
Representation of the Peoples Act of 1884 - all householders and lodgers in
accommodation worth at least £10 a year, and occupiers of land worth £10 a year, were
entitled to vote.
Despite this decline in the Sovereign's power, Victoria showed that a monarch who had a
high level of prestige and who was prepared to master the details of political life could
exert an important influence.
This was demonstrated by her mediation between the Commons and the Lords, during the
acrimonious passing of the Irish Church Disestablishment Act of 1869 and the 1884
Reform Act.
It was during Victoria's reign that the modern idea of the constitutional monarch, whose
role was to remain above political parties, began to evolve. But Victoria herself was not
always non-partisan and she took the opportunity to give her opinions, sometimes very
forcefully, in private.
After the Second Reform Act of 1867, and the growth of the two-party (Liberal and
Conservative) system, the Queen's room for manoeuvre decreased. Her freedom to choose
which individual should occupy the premiership was increasingly restricted.
In 1880, she tried, unsuccessfully, to stop William Gladstone - whom she disliked as much
as she admired Disraeli and whose policies she distrusted - from becoming Prime Minister.
She much preferred the Marquess of Hartington, another statesman from the Liberal party
which had just won the general election. She did not get her way.
She was a very strong supporter of Empire, which brought her closer both to Disraeli and to
the Marquess of Salisbury, her last Prime Minister.
Although conservative in some respects - like many at the time she opposed giving women
the vote - on social issues, she tended to favour measures to improve the lot of the poor,
such as the Royal Commission on housing. She also supported many charities involved in
education, hospitals and other areas.
Victoria and her family travelled and were seen on an unprecedented scale, thanks to
transport improvements and other technical changes such as the spread of newspapers and
the invention of photography. Victoria was the first reigning monarch to use trains - she
made her first train journey in 1842.
In her later years, she became the symbol of the British Empire. Both the Golden (1887)
and the Diamond (1897) Jubilees, held to celebrate the 50th and 60th anniversaries of the
Queen's accession, were marked with great displays and public ceremonies. On both
occasions, Colonial Conferences attended by the Prime Ministers of the self-governing
colonies were held.
Despite her advanced age, Victoria continued her duties to the end - including an official
visit to Dublin in 1900. The Boer War in South Africa overshadowed the end of her reign.
As in the Crimean War nearly half a century earlier, Victoria reviewed her troops and
visited hospitals; she remained undaunted by British reverses during the campaign: 'We are
not interested in the possibilities of defeat; they do not exist.'
Victoria died at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, on 22 January 1901 after a reign
which lasted almost 64 years, then the longest in British history. Her son, Edward
VII succeeded her.
She was buried at Windsor beside Prince Albert, in the Frogmore Royal Mausoleum, which
she had built for their final resting place. Above the Mausoleum door are inscribed
Victoria's words:
Farewell best beloved, here at last I shall rest with thee, with thee in Christ I shall
rise again
Share this article:

FacebookTwitter
Related content
FEATURE
Opening up the Royal Archives

FEATURE
Ten things you didn't know about George III

Encyclopedia
George IV (r. 1820-1830)

Encyclopedia
George III (r. 1760-1820)

Encyclopedia
George II (r. 1727-1760)

Encyclopedia
George I (r. 1714-1727)

Encyclopedia
The Hanoverians
Encyclopedia
A history of Jubilees
Main navigation
 The King
 The Queen
 The Coronation
 The Royal Fa
https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/victoria-r-1837-1901#:~:text=Victoria%20was%20born,The
%20Royal%20Family

Industrial Revolution Definition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Industrial Revolution Definition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industrial Revolution Definition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industrial Revolution Definition: History,

Pros, and Cons

Updated May 25, 2023

Reviewed by JULIUS MANSA

Government of the United Kingdom

His Majesty's Government

Welsh: Llywodraeth ei Fawrhydi

Irish: Rialtas a Shoilse

Scottish Gaelic: Riaghaltas a Mhòrachd

HM Government's logo and wordmark (top), and Royal Arms (bottom)

State United Kingdom

Leader Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)

Appointed by Monarch of the United Kingdom (Charles III)

Main organ Cabinet of the United Kingdom

Ministries 23 ministerial departments, 20 non-ministerial

Annual budget £882 billion

Headquarters 10 Downing Street, London

This article is part of a series on

Politics of the United Kingdom

Elections and referendums

United Kingdom portal

His Majesty's Government (abbreviated to HM Government, commonly known as

His Majesty's Government and the Crown[edit]

Ministers and departments[edit]

Foreign Office, London

The prime minister is based at 10 Downing Street in Westminster, London. Cabinet

Limits of government power[edit]

Refurbishment notice at Old Fire Station, Oxford, showing government support

 Constitutional reform in the United Kingdom

12.2 The Origins of Personality

Psychodynamic Theories of Personality: The Role of the Unconscious

Id, Ego, and Superego

Figure 12.8 Ego, Id, and Superego

Table 12.4 The Major Freudian Defence Mechanisms.

roommate, who is a safer target of her

A man with powerful unconscious sexual

A drama student convinces herself that

Jane is sexually attracted to friend Jake,

Retreating to an earlier, more A university student who is worried about

A person who witnesses his parents

A person participates in sports to

Table 12.5 Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development.

If prior stages have been properly reached, mature sexual orientation

Freud’s Followers: The Neo-Freudians

Strengths and Limitations of Freudian and Neo-Freudian Approaches

Focusing on the Self: Humanism and Self-Actualization

One of the most important humanists, Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), conceptualized

Figure 12.10 Maslow’s Hierarchy

Exercises and Critical Thinking

Baddeley, J. L., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). Expressive writing. In W. T. O’Donohue & J. E.

Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237(4821), 1445–1452.

Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2007). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An

Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to

Figure 12.9: Adapted from McGregor, et al., 1998.

Provocation Morality Salience Control condition

No 15 grams of hot sauce 17 grams of hot sauce

Yes 26 grams of hot sauce 11 grams of hot sauce

[Return to Figure 12.9]