What do you think?
Rate this book
British Monarchy
The Saxon and Norman Kings
This classic exploration of the history of English kings and kingship from the sixth to the twelfth century has now been brought up-to-date for a new generation of readers.
212 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1963
5 people are currently reading
419 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Nugent Lawrence Brooke
47 books10 followersChristopher Nugent Lawrence Brooke CBE FBA FSA was a British medieval historian.
From 1974 to 1994 he was Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Cambridge. He was married to fellow medievalist, Rosalind B. Brooke.
Brooke was the son of medieval historian Zachary Nugent Brooke (1 December 1883 – 7 October 1946).
From 1974 to 1994 he was Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Cambridge. He was married to fellow medievalist, Rosalind B. Brooke.
Brooke was the son of medieval historian Zachary Nugent Brooke (1 December 1883 – 7 October 1946).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
Read
September 14, 2019Going back to my potentially never ending programme of deciding whether to read & retain or read & release books from my shelves I returned to Christopher Brooke's The Saxon and Norman Kings. The first few chapters are thematic, followed by some covering broader periods of time before the source material allows more of a focus on individual rulers (Alfred, Cnut and from Edward the Confessor onwards).
The lack of detailed information about these early rulers of England leads Brooke to discuss the nature of kingship and what rulership involved and he makes some limited but useful comparisons with their non-English contemporaries. He starts this by looking at three elements of king-making: inheritance, election, and designation.
However just as the sources become richer with the Norman kings and it becomes possible to move beyond speculation in questions of government he swerves into even more speculative areas: did William I love his wife? Was William II a devil worshipper? Can we accuse Henry I of involvement in his brother's death or was he just very, very, lucky? .
Some of Brooke's judgements stand out as weird particularly after From Memory to Written Record, which is to the credit of Clanchy's work, for example the stress on Alfred's late literacy. Leaving aside that literacy is, however enjoyable, purely a base mechanical skill, I feel he is taking Asser's Alfred the Great too much at face value. Asser is writing after Einhard, and Alfred is his Charlemagne . Asser would also have been influenced by the tradition of Saint's lives and his treatment of Alfred is a combination of those two traditions. His Alfred, like a saint, is marked out at an early age for greatness, has appropriate physical and spiritual difficulties to overcome, but Asser allows him to be better than Charlemagne precisely in the clerical skill of literacy. One suspects that much like, say, contemporary newspapers or magazines, Medieval historical writing was often intended to take the reader away from the or a 'real' person and present them with an appropriate image instead. And woe betide your long term historical image if your management of the media organisations of the day (largely monasteries) left you in the position of William II, red faced in fact and in reputation.
Interesting also when he considers contested kingship 'elections' he focuses on 1066 and the aftermath of the death of Henry I rather than Ethelred & Edward or Edgar & Eadwig. Firstly because this focuses on the Norman Kings - not necessarily typical of the Saxons, while one of the issues with the earlier contested Saxon successions was motherhood - the pre-Norman monarchs seem to have been effectively polygamous (although Christian) and early support for their sons came from the mother's native region. Here again I am indebted in this case to Stafford's Unification and Conquest. From this I conclude that contra Brooke reading doesn't make you clever but it does enable you to combine other peoples bits and pieces of cleverness - hopefully in a new way, and more importantly that Brooke's book, originally published in 1963, is showing its age. I doubt that it's insights and references to the contested kingship of Leon and the role played by El Cid really outweigh that it is now unsteady on its feet and inclined to reminisce about Bishop Stubb's Constitutional History and his pupils.
As much as I liked his discussion of the king lists of the West Saxons and of the Kingdom of Lindsey I'm led to read and release.
The lack of detailed information about these early rulers of England leads Brooke to discuss the nature of kingship and what rulership involved and he makes some limited but useful comparisons with their non-English contemporaries. He starts this by looking at three elements of king-making: inheritance, election, and designation.
However just as the sources become richer with the Norman kings and it becomes possible to move beyond speculation in questions of government he swerves into even more speculative areas: did William I love his wife? Was William II a devil worshipper? Can we accuse Henry I of involvement in his brother's death or was he just very, very, lucky? .
Some of Brooke's judgements stand out as weird particularly after From Memory to Written Record, which is to the credit of Clanchy's work, for example the stress on Alfred's late literacy. Leaving aside that literacy is, however enjoyable, purely a base mechanical skill, I feel he is taking Asser's Alfred the Great too much at face value. Asser is writing after Einhard, and Alfred is his Charlemagne . Asser would also have been influenced by the tradition of Saint's lives and his treatment of Alfred is a combination of those two traditions. His Alfred, like a saint, is marked out at an early age for greatness, has appropriate physical and spiritual difficulties to overcome, but Asser allows him to be better than Charlemagne precisely in the clerical skill of literacy. One suspects that much like, say, contemporary newspapers or magazines, Medieval historical writing was often intended to take the reader away from the or a 'real' person and present them with an appropriate image instead. And woe betide your long term historical image if your management of the media organisations of the day (largely monasteries) left you in the position of William II, red faced in fact and in reputation.
Interesting also when he considers contested kingship 'elections' he focuses on 1066 and the aftermath of the death of Henry I rather than Ethelred & Edward or Edgar & Eadwig. Firstly because this focuses on the Norman Kings - not necessarily typical of the Saxons, while one of the issues with the earlier contested Saxon successions was motherhood - the pre-Norman monarchs seem to have been effectively polygamous (although Christian) and early support for their sons came from the mother's native region. Here again I am indebted in this case to Stafford's Unification and Conquest. From this I conclude that contra Brooke reading doesn't make you clever but it does enable you to combine other peoples bits and pieces of cleverness - hopefully in a new way, and more importantly that Brooke's book, originally published in 1963, is showing its age. I doubt that it's insights and references to the contested kingship of Leon and the role played by El Cid really outweigh that it is now unsteady on its feet and inclined to reminisce about Bishop Stubb's Constitutional History and his pupils.
As much as I liked his discussion of the king lists of the West Saxons and of the Kingdom of Lindsey I'm led to read and release.
March 2, 2022
A little bit of storytelling here and there about the various Kings of England during a very tumultuous time in English History - before they became ruled by the French - back when England was more a part of the Scandinavian world than it was the mainland European one. It was also before they really figured out a standardized mechanism for succession. Got a sword? Got money? Got a bunch of other people with swords and money who are loyal to you? Well, then you could also probably be king, too. We'll make it all "god-granted" and "legal" afterwards...give the church enough of that money and we can make anything legal, really...
I honestly don't know how someone like Cnut can be king of England, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden at the same time during a time when there was no mass communication or reliable long-distance travel. I'm sure most people in the aforementioned countries had no idea who the king was, nor anyone really "in power" outside of the area that they could conceivably walk in a day or two.
I also honestly do not know how a 12-, 14-, or even a 20-year old, can rule anyone effectively in any way, shape, or form, or be consider a noble figure with an impressive battle record.
If anything, this book makes me want to read more in-depth histories about certain kings.
I honestly don't know how someone like Cnut can be king of England, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden at the same time during a time when there was no mass communication or reliable long-distance travel. I'm sure most people in the aforementioned countries had no idea who the king was, nor anyone really "in power" outside of the area that they could conceivably walk in a day or two.
I also honestly do not know how a 12-, 14-, or even a 20-year old, can rule anyone effectively in any way, shape, or form, or be consider a noble figure with an impressive battle record.
If anything, this book makes me want to read more in-depth histories about certain kings.
August 28, 2019
Fun book, well written. Interesting approach which made me read it again for my Dark Ages project. It starts out, not with biographies, but an overview of how kings were selected, what they did, the origin of kingship etc. It then turns to the more conventional chronological narrative.
Central in this book is the matter of succession. The question was not as formalised as in the later monarchies, and elements of inheritance, royal blood and election all played a part. As time went by, the royal bloodline became ever more important and even though the suggestion of election is always there, it is not likely that it played a big role.
Except of course in a few very controversial cases. The choices for Harold Godwinson in 1066 and Mathilda in 1135 clearly turn in a different direction with the backing of the most important barons in the land. But Brooke would argue that these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The book shows the close links between the Anglo-Saxon kings and the church, which did a lot for legitimacy and their historical record. Great sponsors of the church are still better documented and better received than those that looked upon the church as a necessary evil or useful tool rather than a holy institution in its own right.
Obviously, this book was written without a lot of the archeological evidence available today and its far from complete. Nevertheless, it gives a good introduction to the age from an interesting viewpoint.
Central in this book is the matter of succession. The question was not as formalised as in the later monarchies, and elements of inheritance, royal blood and election all played a part. As time went by, the royal bloodline became ever more important and even though the suggestion of election is always there, it is not likely that it played a big role.
Except of course in a few very controversial cases. The choices for Harold Godwinson in 1066 and Mathilda in 1135 clearly turn in a different direction with the backing of the most important barons in the land. But Brooke would argue that these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The book shows the close links between the Anglo-Saxon kings and the church, which did a lot for legitimacy and their historical record. Great sponsors of the church are still better documented and better received than those that looked upon the church as a necessary evil or useful tool rather than a holy institution in its own right.
Obviously, this book was written without a lot of the archeological evidence available today and its far from complete. Nevertheless, it gives a good introduction to the age from an interesting viewpoint.
August 18, 2019
As I noted in a previous post biographies of Saxon monarchs are thin on the ground. The same is true of surveys of them as a group; other than Humble’s book, the only modern study is Christopher Brooke’s overview of the subject. First published in 1963, it was the first book in a six-volume “British Monarchy” series originally published by Batsford which was subsequently issued in paperback by Fontana and reprinted frequently enough that copies can still be found on the shelves of many secondhand bookshops today.
For the rest of my review, click the link:
https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2019/...
For the rest of my review, click the link:
https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2019/...
June 13, 2020
Old fashioned and dated study of English kingship from c.450 to 1154 that is in part thematic and in part a collection of short studies of individual reigns, primarily those of Alfred, Athelstan, Cnut, and the four Norman kings, which is nevertheless an entertaining read and and a reasonable introduction to both the kings and kingship and earlier medieval England. However, some of the conclusions are no longer supported by modern research and should be treated with caution.
July 30, 2021
Palimpsest: you wouldn’t think a book about kings - and a few queens to boot - from the very mistiest mists of time could be so elegiac but Christopher Brooke brings to life the rulers who bridged the Dark Ages and the Mediæval world in a quietly dramatic fashion. A Bayeux tapestry of historical writing.
May 5, 2019
A good overview. Too short of a book to say anything good/bad about. Like markhams book on Napoleon, probably the first book you want to read on the Middle Ages to see if you like the time period.
May 25, 2021
this book reminded me why studying anglo-saxon england is a headache
April 20, 2024
Love history, especially English history, so loved this book.
February 12, 2020
This book was originally written in 1963 and was reprinted in 2001 with a new prologue addressing advances in understanding. It also has added footnotes here and there, but frankly this isn't enough. It is full of old scholarship, not much of which anyone would really agree with now and I suspect that a lot probably made people spill their tea back in 1963, too. The section on the origins is very badly dated, but Brooke's level of interest in 'Bretwalda' really takes the biscuit. Most authors will acknowledge the list exists and suggest that it may be a partisan list of kings who may have exercised a form of overlordship at certain times. They will run a mile from anything beyond that, but Brooke gives it a lot more emphasis than it deserves.
The first few chapters are arranged thematically, king-making, the occupation of a king and then queens. Here Brooke is oddly selective in the evidence and reigns he wants to discuss. Beowulf, Bede, Alfred, Edward the Confessor, Harold and the Normans get mentions whilst he talks of these themes, but not a lot in-between is brought into play. There is a lot left out. Brooke has his own definite areas of interest and doesn't stray far from them. Things get little better when Brooke gets to the linear history chapters, with the years 670-871 disposed of in a chapter called 'Interlude' which lasts for 4 whole pages. His part on genealogies is interesting. However, this is probably the highlight of it all.
Brooke is oddly reticent in places, too, such as saying that Aethelraed II's mother may have played a part in his accession, when others would have said something a lot more emphatic. In other places he is pretty vague, such as recording a resumption of Viking in attacks in the 890s, when he could just as easily been more specific. It's also very wordy and seldom have I seen someone spend so many words to say so little. This isn't helped by him including whole chunks of Asser. It's nice to see original sources quoted where they buttress an argument, but here we get whole paragraphs of it and little in the way of rationale for it. In contrast, his comments about the reigns of Edmund and Eadred are so short as to be of the length of this sentence.
This is a book that could have been great, but instead it isn't. I resent having spent a couple of days reading it.
The first few chapters are arranged thematically, king-making, the occupation of a king and then queens. Here Brooke is oddly selective in the evidence and reigns he wants to discuss. Beowulf, Bede, Alfred, Edward the Confessor, Harold and the Normans get mentions whilst he talks of these themes, but not a lot in-between is brought into play. There is a lot left out. Brooke has his own definite areas of interest and doesn't stray far from them. Things get little better when Brooke gets to the linear history chapters, with the years 670-871 disposed of in a chapter called 'Interlude' which lasts for 4 whole pages. His part on genealogies is interesting. However, this is probably the highlight of it all.
Brooke is oddly reticent in places, too, such as saying that Aethelraed II's mother may have played a part in his accession, when others would have said something a lot more emphatic. In other places he is pretty vague, such as recording a resumption of Viking in attacks in the 890s, when he could just as easily been more specific. It's also very wordy and seldom have I seen someone spend so many words to say so little. This isn't helped by him including whole chunks of Asser. It's nice to see original sources quoted where they buttress an argument, but here we get whole paragraphs of it and little in the way of rationale for it. In contrast, his comments about the reigns of Edmund and Eadred are so short as to be of the length of this sentence.
This is a book that could have been great, but instead it isn't. I resent having spent a couple of days reading it.
January 9, 2008
I possess the Barnes & Noble reprint.
The author starts with lofty goals of claiming to transcend bland history and consider deeper issues such as what it means to be a king in A-S England.
The first chapters explore these types of issues; but only because there is so little known about the early kings. By the later chapters on the Norman kings, Brooke has little more than summaries of the reigns.
In sum, the early chapters have some good observations and comments; but little else.
The author starts with lofty goals of claiming to transcend bland history and consider deeper issues such as what it means to be a king in A-S England.
The first chapters explore these types of issues; but only because there is so little known about the early kings. By the later chapters on the Norman kings, Brooke has little more than summaries of the reigns.
In sum, the early chapters have some good observations and comments; but little else.
Currently reading
June 17, 2012I'm on Page 95 of one of the most laborious reads ever. There is so much interesting and useful history packed into this book, but it's taking mental jackhammers to get to it. The writing and organization are extremely cumbersome. I really want to like this book more, but it will be lucky to get two stars from me by the time I'm finished.
September 19, 2011
Opening volume of the British Monarchy series, tracing kingship in England from the 5 c. German invasions to the 12 c. accession of Henry II. Presented as a narrative, escapes the dense atmosphere of the purely academic book. A good general survey.
Want to read
December 27, 2011backwell classic histories of england
March 5, 2015
Delightfully modern and old fashioned all at once while comprehensive...
November 19, 2015
This is a brief but well done coverage of the major Anglo-Saxon kings and the Norman Kings. I very much enjoyed this.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews