Namesakes, cousins and antagonists - check out the Women of the Anarchy!

Today, I welcome Sharon Bennett Connolly to my blog—a belated celebration of her recent publication, Women of the Anarchy. Some may already be familiar with Sharon’s blog, History – the interesting bits, some of you may have read one of her other books, which means you know this lady lives and breathes history—especially medieval history. She is also a wonderfully generous person, happy to share historical detail when asked and just as happy to shine the light on other authors.

Women of the Anarchy details the nineteen years when England was effectively torn apart by civil war. On the one side, the crowned king Stephen, on the other, the rightful heir, his cousin Matilda. But this was also a fight between two very determined women-the aforementioned Matilda and…taa-daa… a second Matilda, namely Matilda of Boulogne who was married to Stephen. Impressive ladies, those two cousins, who come down as very different in their demeanour: one a somewhat entitled woman, the other a supporting wife.

Before we leap ahead to my review, I have a couple of questions for Sharon, starting with if she believes Stephen regretted claiming the crown, thereby breaking his previous oath to support Matilda.

Sharon: It must have played on his mind – he did write to the pope justifying his position. But I think he always thought that Henry I had groomed him for the throne – and that he would do a better job than Empress Matilda. The fact that all-but-one of the senior barons – including the empress’s half-brothers – swore fealty to him in 1135 must have made him think that he was in the right, at least initially.

I can’t help but think that he must have questioned the wisdom of his actions after losing at Lincoln in February 1141 and spending the best part of 10 months chained up in Bristol Castle. If it hadn’t been for the tenacity of his wife, Queen Matilda, he could have been rotting in there for years.

And one does wonder if he would have made the same choice, had he known it would lead to 19 years of warfare, imprisonment and betrayal. It was a high price to pay for a crown.

Anna: Thanks Sharon. I always feel a bit bad for him when thinking about Bristol . . . Next question: It is evident Matilda of Boulogne was one of those peeps who hides steel under a soft approach, while her cousin was more of a bristly thistle. You also make the point that Queen Matilda always fought for her men, while Empress Matilda initially fought for her rights, not her son’s. Do you think things would have been different if she had immediately stepped aside in favour of little Henry?

Sharon: I think Henry I made a political mis-step by not passing the crown directly to his grandson and namesake, Henry. Hard as it is for me – as a woman – to admit that 3 year old Henry would have garnered more support and loyalty than the adult Empress Matilda – because she was a woman.

But then, maybe the barons would have feared Geoffrey of Anjou’s influence over England during Henry’s minority just as they feared his influence as Matilda’s husband? I do think the empress would have been more acceptable as a regent for Henry II than as queen in her own right. Especially with a council of barons appointed to advise her.

If only someone had thought of it!

But England didn’t – and never would – have a tradition of female regents. That was something they did in France.

I feel for Empress Matilda. She knew she could do the job, and it was hers by right – but there was too much prejudice against a female ruler.

Anna: Finally, which Matilda would you invite over for tea and cake?

Sharon: Who to invite to tea? Decisions, decisions! The Empress or the Queen? That is a hard one. Can I have one round on Saturday for cocktails and the other round for tea on Sunday?

If I was really, really forced to choose, I think I would have to go with Empress Matilda. I admire her so much. She could have just as easily said ‘let Stephen have the crown’ but she knew it was hers by right – and that it would be her son’s.

So she had to fight. What choice did she have?

She endured an unequal, unhappy marriage in order to produce an heir for Henry I. The least she could do was fight to see her son wear the crown.

I’d love to tell her that the fight was worth it, that she is still an inspiration to women 900 years later. That it does get better for women – and that Britain’s longest reigning ruler was a woman, Elizabeth II. And that Elizabeth II succeeded by right, uncontested – despite having male cousins.

Anna: Thank you, Sharon—and as of 2013, The Succession to the Crown Act in the UK ensures that the firstborn, no matter gender, inherits the crown. (About bloody time!)

And now, onto my review!

Review

Ms Bennett Connolly has been churning out books at a regular pace these last few years, and I am rather in awe of her, seeing as every single one of her books is based on extensive, detailed research that must have left her buried for months in ancient rolls and documents. Women of the Anarchy is no exception: yet again, Ms Bennett Connolly delivers insights into the distant historical past that comes alive due to all the little details she can insert, this based on her thorough research.

The Anarchy is a difficult period in English history—for those among us who are Cadfael fans, like me, we may already be familiar with the grave consequences nineteen years of civil unrest brought with it.

From the perspective of a modern woman, it seems as if Stephen was something of a cad when he rushed to claim the throne after his uncle, Henry I, died of a ‘surfeit of lampreys’ according to chronicler Henry of Huntingdon. (Not to be confused with Henry, Earl of Huntingdon and heir to the Scottish throne, who is one of the players during Stephen’s reign)
Why a cad? Because some years before, Stephen had sworn an oath recognising Henry I’s only surviving legitimate child, Empress Matilda, as the future ruler of England.

Ms Bennett Connolly offers several suggestions as to why Stephen—who has come down through the times as a basically decent man—chose to act as he did. She then goes on to present the Anarchy’s two very formidable female opponents: Empress Matilda and Matilda of Boulogne, married to Stephen.

I really enjoyed the colour Ms Bennett Connolly added to both these women. I have always felt that Empress Matilda never comes across as a particularly likeable woman—more of the entitled variety—but Ms Bennett Connolly fleshes out the caricature of the haughty, cool lady in such a way that I feel genuinely sorry for her, as well as admiring her courage and determination. Matilda of Boulogne is one of those admirable wives who is wise enough to keep one step behind hubby while, in fact, being a true powerbroker, as evidenced by how she managed to rally her troops after her husband was taken prisoner in 1141. Both Matildas were engaged mothers—Empress Matilda was somewhat more lucky in her eldest than Queen Matilda was—both were well-educated and extremely capable.

Ultimately, Empress Matilda “won”—if there is such a thing as winner after years and years of war, violence and destruction—ensuring Stephen named her son as his successor, not his own surviving son, William. I really enjoyed hearing more about William and can’t help but wonder what sort of a man he’d have become had he not died so young.

As always in Ms Bennett Connolly’s books, it is the mini-bios she offers for her huge cast of secondary characters that truly intrigue me. Because of Ms Bennett Connolly, I have now read up on poor Constance, French princess first wed to Stephen’s eldest, Eustace, then to the count of Toulouse; I have spent hours digging through the Scottish kings, the Beaumont twins—and their rather formidable mother. What amazes me is how Ms Bennett Connolly navigates her way through all the various kinships—seems to me everyone is related to everyone, to some degree—while casually dropping little info gems like there being no chance for an illegitimate child to claim the English throne (which actually did happen in other medieval kingdoms).

All in all, Women of the Anarchy is an excellent introduction to a complicated era and its main players. Not that I was surprised: Ms Bennett Connolly consistently delivers high-quality non-fiction!

Universal link

Sharon Bennett Connolly is the best-selling author of several non-fiction history books. A Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, Sharon has studied history academically and just for fun – and has even worked as a tour guide at a castle. She also writes the popular history blog, www.historytheinterestingbits.com and co-hosts the podcast A Slice of Medieval, alongside historical novelist Derek Birks. Sharon regularly gives talks on women’s history, for historical groups, festivals and in schools; her book Silk and the Sword: The Women of the Norman Conquest is a recommended text for teaching the Norman Conquest in the National Curriculum. She is a feature writer for All About History and Living Medieval magazines and her TV work includes Australian Television’s ‘Who Do You Think You Are?‘