Noble or Royal Houses and the House of Hauteville

This article introduces the concept of houses that embody a dynasty of influence and control, driven by feudal and familial responsibilities and agreements. It explores how houses worked during this period and examines the response by the Brigantian people to this increase in control by the Normans.

The Meaning of “house”

In historical terms, a “house” refers to a noble, royal, or dynastic family that exercises influence or authority, often over a specific territory, and is identified by a family name. The House of Hauteville, for example, was a Norman family of seigneurial rank from the Cotentin Peninsula, known for their significant role in the Norman conquest of southern Italy and Sicily during the 11th and 12th centuries. The term “house” in this context is derived from the concept of a lineage or a family that holds power, often associated with a physical estate or domain from which the family’s influence extends.

Origins of the term “house”

The origin of the term “house” in the English language can be traced back to the Old English word ‘hus’, which means ‘dwelling’ or ‘shelter’. This term is related to the verb ‘hide’ and through it to the noun ‘hut’, suggesting a place of residence or refuge. Over time, the meaning of ‘house’ expanded beyond the physical structure to encompass the family or lineage inhabiting it, especially when that family held social or political power. The concept of a noble house is deeply rooted in feudal systems where land ownership and hereditary titles were central to power structures, and the term has been used to describe influential families throughout history.

The introduction of the Norman feudal system

The Normans, led by William the Conqueror, established a hierarchical system where land was held in exchange for service, particularly military service. This system was not entirely new; elements of it were present in Anglo-Saxon England, but the Normans expanded and formalized it.

William distributed lands to his followers, who became tenants-in-chief, holding vast estates scattered across the country. These tenants-in-chief, in turn, parcelled out their land to lesser lords, who became their vassals. Each level of society owed allegiance and military service to the one above, creating a web of obligations that secured the king’s power and established a new aristocracy with vested interests in the land.

The introduction of the feudal system also brought about changes in governance. The king’s tenants-in-chief were often granted positions of power within the shires, such as sheriffs, which further entrenched their authority and loyalty to the crown. The feudal system made landholding less secure than it had been under the Anglo-Saxon kings, as it was now directly tied to the vassal’s service and loyalty. This insecurity ensured that the vassals remained loyal to their lords, and ultimately to the king, as their land could be taken away if they were found to be disloyal or if they failed to provide the agreed-upon service.

The feudal system also had implications for the peasantry. The majority of the population were serfs, who worked the land for their lord and were bound to the estate. Their status was hereditary, and they could not leave the land without their lord’s permission. While they were not slaves, their freedom was severely limited, and they were subject to the will of their lord.

The Norman feudal system was a means of consolidating control over England and ensuring the loyalty of a new ruling class. It was a complex network of relationships and obligations that reshaped the English landscape, both politically and physically, with the construction of castles and the reorganization of landholdings. The system persisted for centuries, influencing the development of English law and governance, and its legacy can still be seen in the United Kingdom’s modern land and legal systems.

The House of Hauteville

The House of Hauteville’s rise to prominence is a prime example of how a noble house could extend its influence. Originating from a modest background, the family’s fortunes changed with the arrival of Tancred of Hauteville’s sons in southern Italy, where they became involved in the complex political and military landscape of the region. Their military successes and strategic marriages allowed them to establish a dynasty that would rule over Sicily and parts of Italy for many years. The term “house” thus encapsulates not only the familial bonds, but also the legacy and power wielded by such a lineage.

The House of Hauteville’s history is a remarkable saga of ambition, warfare, and statecraft that spans over a century. It begins with Tancred of Hauteville, a minor Norman baron from the Cotentin Peninsula, who had numerous sons eager for land and glory. In the early 11th century, several of these sons ventured to Southern Italy, a region then marked by political fragmentation and conflict. The Hauteville’s, starting as mercenaries, capitalized on the turmoil, gradually acquiring territories and power. William and Drogo, Tancred’s eldest sons, were among the first to arrive and establish a foothold in the Mezzogiorno.

Their military prowess and strategic alliances allowed the Hauteville’s to rise rapidly through the ranks of the local nobility. Robert Guiscard, a younger son of Tancred, emerged as a particularly astute and ambitious leader. His conquests significantly diminished Byzantine and Muslim influence in Southern Italy and Sicily. By 1130, Roger II, a member of the Hauteville family, was crowned as the first King of Sicily, establishing a dynasty that would rule until 1194.

The Hauteville’s also played a role in the Crusades, with family members like Bohemond and Tancred distinguishing themselves as military leaders. Their participation in the First Crusade and the establishment of the Principality of Antioch further extended the family’s influence beyond Italy and Sicily.

The family’s legacy is not just one of conquest, but also of cultural and administrative sophistication. Under the Hauteville’s, Sicily became a vibrant centre of Mediterranean culture, where Norman, Arab, and Byzantine influences blended. Roger II’s court in Palermo was a hub of learning and the arts, attracting scholars, poets, and scientists from across the known world. The Kingdom of Sicily under the Hauteville’s was noted for its relative religious tolerance and advanced administrative system, which included a compilation of laws known as the “Assizes of Ariano”.

The decline of the House of Hauteville began towards the end of the 12th century, culminating with the death of Constance of Sicily in 1198. The family’s extinction marked the end of an era in Southern Italian and Sicilian history.

Other Houses

During the era of the House of Hauteville’s prominence in Southern Italy and Sicily, several other noble families played significant roles in the region’s complex political landscape. Among these were the Normans of the House of Drengot, who established themselves as the Counts of Aversa and later the Principality of Capua. The Drengot’s were instrumental in the Norman conquest of Southern Italy and were contemporaries and sometimes rivals of the Hauteville’s.

Another notable family was the House of Normandy, from which the Hauteville’s themselves originated. The dukes of Normandy, such as Robert Guiscard’s overlord Duke William, who later became William the Conqueror of England, were influential figures in Norman and European politics.

The Lombards, who had settled in Italy centuries earlier, also had established noble families such as the Dukes of Benevento and the Dukes of Spoleto. These Lombard duchies often interacted with the Norman adventurers, sometimes as enemies and other times as allies.

In Sicily, the Hauteville’s dealt with the local Muslim emirs who ruled various parts of the island before the Norman conquest. The Emirate of Sicily, though fragmented, was a significant power in the Mediterranean, and the Hauteville’s campaigns in Sicily were aimed at these Muslim rulers.

The Byzantine Empire, although declining, still had noble families with interests in Italy, such as the Doukas and Komnenos dynasties. These families were often engaged in the politics of the region, either directly or through alliances and marriages.

Additionally, the Papacy in Rome had its own temporal interests and noble allies in Italy. The Counts of Tusculum, for example, were closely linked to the papal fortunes and were at times at odds with the Normans, including the Hauteville’s.

The exercise of power and control

Noble families during the medieval and early modern periods maintained their power and influence through a combination of strategic marriages, military might, control over land, and alliances with other powerful entities, including the Church and the monarchy. Marriages were often arranged to secure political alliances and to aggrandize estates, which could also be achieved through favour from a sovereign or opportunities provided by war. Military prowess was another crucial factor, as demonstrated by the Hauteville’s rise to power in Southern Italy and Sicily through conquest and valour in battle.

Control over land was central to a noble family’s power, as landownership conferred not only wealth but also jurisdictional authority and the ability to collect taxes and raise armies. The nobility constructed their image and hierarchical representation through patronage of cultural and creative activities, which helped to solidify their social status and influence. They also participated in state bureaucracy and governmental military, which further entrenched their positions within the political framework of their time.

The nobility’s power was often expressed through their residences, which served as centres of power. These spaces were not only homes but also venues for intellectual and political discussion, where the nobility could exert their influence and display their wealth and status. The Spanish nobility, for example, maintained and strengthened their own provincial courts while building other, more reduced spaces near the royal court, ensuring their presence in the political landscape.

Furthermore, the nobility’s role in the Church was significant. Through social preeminence, they maintained—and sometimes even tightened—their hold on commanding positions within the Church hierarchy. This provided them with additional authority and influence, as the Church was a major political and social force during these periods.

In addition to these methods, noble families often acted as mediators, adaptors, or buffers against potential conflict at the royal court. Their ability to navigate the complex social and political networks of their time was essential to maintaining their power. They also had to adapt to changing circumstances, such as shifts in the monarchy’s policies or the rise of new economic and social forces.

The nobility’s power was not absolute, however, and they had to contend with various challenges, including peasant revolts, economic crises, and power struggles both within their families and with rival houses. Their ability to maintain power and influence was a testament to their adaptability and their skill in managing the various aspects of governance, warfare, and social relations that defined their era. The legacy of these noble families, including their contributions to the cultural and architectural heritage of their regions, continues to be recognized and studied for its impact on the history and development of Europe.

The most prominent noble houses at the time of the Norman Conquest

At the time, the most prominent noble houses were deeply rooted in the power structures of Anglo-Saxon England. These included the House of Godwin, which produced Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England. Other significant houses were the House of Wessex, once the ruling dynasty of the Anglo-Saxons, and the House of Mercia, which had a long-standing influence over the Midlands. The House of Northumbria also held considerable sway in the northern regions of England.

With the victory of William the Conqueror, the House of Normandy rose to prominence, establishing a new ruling dynasty in England. The Norman conquest led to the introduction of new noble families from the continent, such as the House of Montgomery, which played a significant role in the conquest and subsequent control of the Welsh Marches. The House of Warrenne received extensive lands in England and is known for building some of the earliest castles in the country. The House of Clare, with its vast estates, became one of the most powerful Anglo-Norman dynasties.

After the Norman Conquest, the landscape of English nobility underwent significant changes. The Anglo-Saxon nobility, which had held sway for centuries, was largely displaced by the new Norman rulers. Many of the noble houses that had been prominent before the conquest found their lands confiscated and their power diminished. The House of Godwin, for instance, lost its influence with the death of Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings. The House of Wessex, once the ruling dynasty, saw its members either exiled or assimilated into the new order, often through forced marriages or the taking of holy orders.

Those who survived the initial battles faced a stark choice: adapt to the new Norman rule, or resist and face further consequences. Some chose to collaborate with the Normans, retaining their lands and titles by pledging allegiance to William the Conqueror. This often involved accepting Norman customs, intermarrying with Norman families, and serving the new king in his administration or military campaigns.

However, many Anglo-Saxon nobles were unable to reconcile with the new regime and chose rebellion or exile. Rebellions were common in the years following the conquest, but they were typically quashed by the Normans, leading to further land confiscations and the strengthening of Norman control. For those who fled, life in exile varied; some found refuge in other countries, such as Scotland or the Byzantine Empire, where they could enter into the service of foreign rulers.

The church offered another avenue for survival. Some Anglo-Saxon nobles took holy orders, entering monasteries or convents, which sometimes allowed them to retain a degree of influence and protect their interests. The fate of the Anglo-Saxon saints and their cults also reflects the broader treatment of the Anglo-Saxon nobility. While some saints’ cults were suppressed or diminished, others were embraced by the Normans as a means of legitimizing their rule and integrating themselves into their new religious houses.

The House of Mercia and the House of Northumbria, which had been powerful in their respective regions, faced similar fates. Their lands were often granted to Norman barons, who built castles to secure their new territories and establish their authority. The House of Normandy, from which William the Conqueror hailed, became the new ruling dynasty, with vast estates across England. The Norman aristocracy, including families like the House of Montgomery, the House of Warrenne, the House of Clare, and the House of de Braose, were granted lands and titles, often at the expense of the previous Anglo-Saxon lords.

The House of Percy managed to retain some of its holdings and eventually rose to become one of the most powerful noble families in the north of England. The House of Beaumont also maintained a presence, though its power base shifted and evolved under the new Norman rule.

Political manoeuvres in Yorkshire and Durham

The politics between the noble houses following the Norman Conquest played a significant role in shaping the ownership of lands in Yorkshire and Durham. William the Conqueror’s strategy to secure his hold over England involved the redistribution of lands to his Norman followers, often at the expense of the existing Anglo-Saxon nobility. This led to the establishment of new power structures and the introduction of feudalism, where loyalty and military service were rewarded with land and titles.

In Yorkshire, the Normans faced staunch opposition from the local populace, which led to a series of rebellions. William’s response was brutal, as he sought to crush any resistance to his rule. The infamous Harrying of the North, a campaign of scorched earth tactics, resulted in widespread devastation and loss of life, effectively weakening the local Anglo-Saxon resistance and paving the way for Norman barons to establish control over the region. Castles were constructed to enforce Norman law and to defend against both internal rebellion and external threats from the Scots and Scandinavians.

The strategic importance of Yorkshire, with its proximity to potential invasion sites along the coast and its border with Scotland, made it a focal point for the Norman consolidation of power. The Norman barons who were granted lands in Yorkshire were tasked with managing their estates and securing the region. This often involved building castles and fortifications, which served as both defensive structures and symbols of Norman authority.

Durham, on the other hand, had its own unique political dynamics. The Prince-Bishops of Durham held temporal and ecclesiastical power, a legacy of Anglo-Saxon times that continued under Norman rule. The Bishops of Durham were granted extensive rights and privileges by the Norman kings, which allowed them to rule the area as virtually autonomous princes. This arrangement served the Normans well, as it provided a buffer zone against the Scots to the north. The Prince-Bishops were able to maintain a degree of continuity from the Anglo-Saxon period, even as the surrounding lands were being carved up by the Norman aristocracy.

The political movements between the noble houses in Yorkshire and Durham up to 1250 AD were marked by a complex interplay of power, land ownership, and shifting alliances. Following the Norman Conquest, the redistribution of lands led to the rise of a new Norman aristocracy in these regions. The Normans constructed castles and fortifications to assert their dominance and protect their holdings, often at the expense of the Anglo-Saxon nobility.

Throughout the 12th and early 13th centuries, the noble houses in these regions engaged in various political manoeuvres to maintain or expand their influence. Strategic marriages were common, serving to strengthen ties between houses and secure alliances. The noble families also played a significant role in the military campaigns of the period, providing knights and soldiers for the king’s expeditions, particularly during the conflicts with Scotland.

By the mid-13th century, the political landscape began to stabilize as the Norman aristocracy became more entrenched. The noble houses of Yorkshire and Durham had established themselves as the new ruling elite, with their power bases rooted in the lands and titles granted to them by the Norman kings. The intermarriage between Norman and Anglo-Saxon nobility had also led to a gradual integration of the two cultures, although the Normans retained their distinct identity and influence.

How the Norman Houses exercised control in Yorkshire and Durham

The control exerted by a Norman house in Yorkshire after the conquest of 1066 had profound and multifaceted impacts on the lives of individual peasants. The introduction of the feudal system by the Normans centralized power and land ownership in the hands of the king and his barons, fundamentally altering the social and economic landscape. Peasants, or villeins, found themselves at the bottom of this hierarchy, bound to the land and subject to the will of their lords.

Under Norman rule, peasants were required to provide various forms of labor to their lords, a system known as serfdom. This often included working the lord’s land, assisting with his enterprises, and providing military service when necessary. In return, peasants were allowed to live on and work a portion of the land for their own subsistence. However, this arrangement left them with little personal freedom and no land of their own.

The harshness of Norman control is exemplified by the Harrying of the North, a campaign of scorched earth ordered by William the Conqueror in response to rebellion, which led to widespread famine and the loss of life among the peasant population. The construction of castles and fortifications by the Normans, intended to secure their hold on the region, also signified the imposition of their authority and the subjugation of the local populace.

The economic burden on peasants increased as they faced higher taxes and rents, and the introduction of new laws and customs by the Norman aristocracy often favoured the interests of the lords over those of the peasants. The legal system became a tool for the Normans to enforce their control, with peasants having limited rights and recourse within this framework.

The cultural impact was also significant, as the Normans introduced their language, customs, and architectural styles, which gradually permeated into the daily lives of the peasants. Over time, this led to a blending of Norman and Anglo-Saxon traditions, but initially, it would have been another aspect of the foreign domination felt by the local population.

The tradition of resistance in the North

Following the Norman Conquest, the control exerted by Norman houses over regions like Yorkshire and Durham was met with fierce resistance by the local Anglo-Saxon populace, particularly the peasants. The imposition of Norman rule in Yorkshire, a region known for its rugged terrain and independent-minded inhabitants, led to a series of revolts. The most notable of these was the uprising in 1069, which saw the North rise in rebellion against the appointment of a Norman earl, resulting in the massacre of Robert de Commines and his men in Durham. This event was a clear demonstration of the local resistance to Norman authority and the unwillingness of the people of Northumbria to accept a Norman as their earl.

The resistance in Yorkshire was further exacerbated by the infamous Harrying of the North, a brutal campaign ordered by William the Conqueror that resulted in widespread famine and devastation. Contemporary chroniclers such as Orderic Vitalis and Symeon of Durham recorded the horrific consequences of this scorched earth policy, which stripped the region north of the Humber of all means of sustenance and led to the deaths of more than 100,000 people. The memory of this atrocity would have fuelled ongoing resentment and resistance among the survivors and their descendants.

In response to the rebellions and to enforce his rule, William and his barons constructed castles across the region, which served as a means of domination and control. These fortifications, while a symbol of Norman power, also became targets for local resistance efforts. The castles in Yorkshire, due to their strategic importance and the hostility of the local population, were more susceptible to attack than those in the south of England.

Other methods of resistance

Peasants in these areas resisted Norman control through various means. Aside from participating in armed rebellions, they engaged in passive resistance by working inefficiently on the lands of their Norman lords, hiding resources, or fleeing to less accessible areas. The Yorkshire Dales, with their isolated villages and challenging terrain, provided a natural refuge for those seeking to escape Norman oppression.

The legal system, though largely favouring the Normans, did offer some avenues for resistance. Peasants could bring grievances before the lord’s court, and while this was a system designed to reinforce Norman rule, it also allowed peasants a space to assert their rights, however limited. Over time, these small acts of defiance contributed to the gradual erosion of some of the more oppressive aspects of Norman control.

Culturally, the peasants maintained their Anglo-Saxon traditions, language, and practices as a form of passive resistance. By preserving their way of life, they resisted the cultural assimilation that the Normans sought to impose. This cultural resilience helped maintain a sense of identity and community among the English peasantry, which was crucial for enduring the hardships of Norman rule.

Aside from armed resistance, peasants employed subtler forms of defiance. These included working slowly or poorly on the lands of their Norman lords, hiding resources, or fleeing to areas outside Norman control. The forest, with its traditional status as a place outside the law, often served as a refuge for those seeking to escape Norman authority.

In summary, the control exerted by Norman houses in Yorkshire and Durham was met with significant resistance from the peasants. This resistance took many forms, from armed rebellion to subtle acts of defiance, and had lasting impacts on the social and political landscape of medieval England. The legacy of this resistance is evident in the enduring cultural distinctions and the development of English common law, which would later provide a foundation for asserting the rights of the common people against arbitrary rule.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4456
    George
    Keymaster

    This article introduces the concept of houses that embody a dynasty of influence and control, driven by feudal and familial responsibilities and agreements. It explores how houses worked during this period and examines the response by the Brigantian people to this increase in control by the Normans.

    [See the full post at: Noble or Royal Houses and the House of Hauteville]

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Contact Us
close slider

    What is 5 + 8 ?