Hello, welcome to history here at Oak National Academy.

My name's Mr. Newton, and I will be your teacher today guiding you through the entire lesson.

Right, let's get started.

Over the next few lessons, we'll be thinking about our big inquiry question: how far did Norman government change England? This is the question we will use to investigate the nature of Norman England and what life was like under Norman rule.

After the Normans had successfully conquered England, it still remained uncertain how the defeated Anglo-Saxons under Norman conquerors would coexist in the same nation or state.

How would William rule England? What would he change? What would he keep the same? What was life like for ordinary people under Norman rule? By the end of the lesson, you'll be able to evaluate the extent to which justice and the legal system changed under the Normans.

Before we begin, there are a few keywords that we need to understand.

Justice are the principles behind laws, including who benefits from the legal system.

A justice was also another name for a judge.

Hundred court is a lower court that dealt with local disputes and minor criminal cases.

A shire court was a court at the shire level, which dealt with more serious criminal cases and land disputes.

A sheriff was the king's officer at the shire level.

Today's lesson is split up into two parts.

We'll first look at the changes made to the courts before looking at changes to crimes and punishments.

Right, let's start today's lesson with changes to the courts.

The legal system is the framework by which laws are made and enforced.

Justice is about the principles behind those laws, including who benefits from them.

Norman England generally saw only small changes to the legal system, but there was a change in whom the law benefited, from the English to the Normans.

If you have a look at the illustration on the right, this is the royal seal of King William I.

The seal was a wax mould attached to documents that proved the order was from the king.

And we can see on the front of the seal, William is seated like a judge with his sword of justice.

But was there justice in the Norman legal system? The Anglo-Saxon legal system was both sophisticated and complicated.

Different regions had different laws, especially the Danelaw, but Mercia also had some of its own laws, as did Wessex.

There were private courts run by large landholders with the right to make judgments about land ownership and to punish thieves.

But at the centre of the complex Anglo-Saxon legal system was a strong court system, the hundred courts and the shire courts.

Each shire was divided into hundreds.

The hundred courts met monthly and dealt with local disputes, minor criminal cases, and local administrative issues, for example, issues such as tax collection.

One of the sheriff's deputies was in charge.

The shire courts dealt with more serious criminal cases and land disputes, and also appeals from the hundred courts.

If you have a look at the right, you can see an illustration of a shire court.

The officials here were aeldermen.

This was a local noble.

And a shire-reeve or a sheriff, and this was the king's official.

The shire court met twice a year, at Easter and at Michaelmas, this is in October, and the shire's important landholders usually attended.

King William did not change this court system, but he did over time change who the officials were.

In Anglo-Saxon England, the sheriffs were often local thanes.

On the left-hand side of the slide, you can see an illustration of a shire-reeve or a sheriff.

While William worked with some of these Anglo-Saxon sheriffs early in his reign, such as Tovi of Somerset, from 1070, he replaced them with men from the Norman elites, influential landholders who would make sure justice favoured Norman interests.

William gave them more power than any Anglo-Saxon sheriff ever had.

They were often also the castellan, the governor of the local castle, built often in the shire town.

Some of these Norman sheriffs abused their position, using their powers to make themselves richer.

And if you have a look at the illustration on the right, it imagines how a greedy sheriff could abuse his powers.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

What I want you to do here is match the terms to their correct descriptions.

So you can see on the left-hand column I've giving you a list of terms, and on the right are purple boxes with their descriptions.

So you need to match the correct terms on the left with the purple boxes on the right.

Pause the video, have a go, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's check those answers.

So for the first one, hundred court, the correct description was hundred court met monthly, dealt with local disputes, and the sheriff's deputy was in charge.

And the sheriff was the king's official, responsible for law and order, tax collection, and overseeing the king's estates in the shire.

Shire was an administrative unit split into hundreds.

And finally, the shire court met twice-yearly, dealt with more serious cases, and the sheriff was in charge with an ealdorman.

True or false, William made significant changes to the English court system.

Is that true or false? Pause the video, have a think, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew that was false.

But why is that false? I want you to justify your answer.

Is it false because A, William kept the shire courts but replaced the hundred courts with sheriffs, or B, William kept the shire courts and hundred courts, but replaced Anglo-Saxon sheriffs with Normans? Pause the video, have a think, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew William kept the shire courts and hundred courts, but replaced Anglo-Saxon sheriffs with Normans.

Okay, let's continue.

So William also appointed royal justices who travelled around the country hearing cases in the king's name.

This was important as it reinforced people's understanding of William as a legitimate monarch who would dispense justice.

It also reduced the differences between regions, because these royal justices followed the same legal principles wherever they went.

The royal justices also sometimes acted to rein in greedy sheriffs who were causing too much unrest.

On occasion, William also chose men to carry out legal inquiries, usually about land disputes.

These inquiries sometimes involve juries.

These did not decide guilt or innocence, like modern juries.

Instead, the juries gave evidence about the case.

The Normans did make more changes to the Church courts.

These courts dealt with religious and moral issues, mostly about Church property.

A separate kind of law called canon law was used to judge these Church cases.

Separating Church legal matters in this way was part of Archbishop Lanfranc's reform of the English Church.

Manorial courts were at the bottom of the court system.

They were local courts for a manor.

Have a look at the illustration of a manorial court on the right.

We can see the lord of the manor hearing the case and making a judgement.

Most of the cases had to do with arguments over land use, such as people grazing their livestock on other people's land.

Other common cases were to do with theft.

We can also see a priest here in the illustration, and they would help with the estate records, determining who held what land, for example.

We can also see a reeve collecting a fine.

Often the lord of the manor would send his reeve to oversee his manorial courts to hear the cases and make judgments.

These manorial courts became more important in Norman England than they had been in Anglo-Saxon England.

This is mostly due to the growing importance of the feudal system.

Vassals took their disputes to their overlord for his judgement rather than to the hundred courts.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

True or false, Norman England had more central control over the legal system than had been the case in Anglo-Saxon England.

Is that true or false? Pause the video, have a think, and come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew that was true.

But why is that true? I want you to justify your answer.

Is it true because A, William appointed royal justices who travelled around England hearing cases in the king's name, or B, manorial courts gradually replaced the hundred courts as vassals took disputes to their overlord to judge? Pause the video, have a think, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew it was A, William appointed royal justices who travelled around England hearing cases in the king's name.

Okay, let's move on to Task A.

I want you to discuss with a partner the following question: in what ways did the Normans make changes to courts in England? Pause the video, have a quick discussion, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

So your discussion may have included the following.

The Normans replaced Anglo-Saxon sheriffs with Normans, and they made the role of sheriff more powerful.

William had more control over justice from the centre.

He centralised his control.

Royal justices travelled around the country.

There were inquiries set up by William that involved juries.

Church courts separated Church cases from ordinary cases.

And manorial courts grew more important as part of the feudal system.

Okay, let's move on to the second part of Task A.

What I want you to do here is read Jacob's interpretation about changes to the courts in Norman England.

How convincing is it? Then I want you to write your answer as one paragraph.

So let's read Jacob's interpretation.

"The Normans made almost no changes to the Anglo-Saxon court system.

Hundred courts and shire courts remained the same.

The sheriff stayed as the king's representative in the court system.

Clearly, the English court system helped the Normans govern England so they saw no need to change it." So have a think to yourself whether you agree with Jacob or not.

Did you find his interpretation convincing? Then write one paragraph explaining why you agree with Jacob.

Alternatively, if you don't find Jacob's interpretation very convincing, you can write a paragraph explaining why you disagree with him.

Pause the video, have a go at the task, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back.

So there's many ways you could have tackled this task, but compare your answer with what I have here.

So if you agreed with Jacob, your answer may look like this.

I agree with Jacob that the Normans made few changes to the Anglo-Saxon court system.

The shire courts and the hundred courts remained, controlled by the sheriff just as in Anglo-Saxon times.

One change after 1070 was that William replaced Anglo-Saxon sheriffs with Normans and gave them more power over their shire.

More power from Norman sheriffs meant more control from the centre for William, since the sheriff was the king's representative in the shire.

I think it was this change in who ran the courts which explains why the Normans were able to make the Anglo-Saxon system work so well for them.

Alternatively, if you didn't find Jacob's interpretation convincing, your answer may include the following.

I do not agree with Jacob that the Normans made almost no changes to the Anglo-Saxon court system.

It is true that the shire courts and hundred courts remained, with the sheriff as the royal official in charge of them.

However, Church courts changed under the Normans, following Lanfranc's reforms that separated Church affairs from ordinary life.

Manorial courts gradually became more important as vassals took their disputes to their overlord, rather than the hundred courts.

Most importantly, Normans took over the role of sheriffs and their interest was more about making sure Norman rule was obeyed.

Okay, great.

Let's move on to the second part of the lesson, changes to crimes and punishments.

Generally, there were very few changes to Anglo-Saxon criminal laws in Norman England.

This was partly because William wanted to be seen as the legitimate heir of Edward the Confessor and therefore the guardian of the law of Edward.

However, one new Norman law was the murdrum fine.

If a Norman was found dead and whoever killed him escaped, then the hundred where the body was found had to pay a large fine.

If you have a look at the image on the right, it's an illustration of a murder.

This illustration was found within a mediaeval manuscript.

The murdrum fine began as an emergency law brought in to deal with resistance to Norman colonisation.

Generally, the number and value of fines paid to the king increased in Norman England.

In Anglo-Saxon England, punishments more often involved the payment of compensation to the families as opposed to the king.

Forest law was introduced to protect royal forests for hunting.

These laws covered who had the right to hunt deer and other animals and what activities were prohibited in royal forests.

It included laws on the appointments of forest officials, who enforced these laws, and forest courts to hear cases and decide on punishments.

These punishments were more severe than punishments in the hundred courts or shire courts.

Poachers faced a death sentence or mutilation.

William's royal forests covered one third of the land in England and became much resented by the population.

If you have a look at the map, it shows William's forest lands around the year 1200, and we can see these forests covered vast areas of land.

Forest laws were greatly resented because they criminalised hunting and gathering resources in royal forests.

This made life very difficult for peasants who depended on royal forests for food and fuel.

There were gradual changes in inheritance too.

Anglo-Saxon inheritance usually involved land being split up among heirs after the death of a landholder.

Norman's had a strong tradition of primogeniture, which meant that the eldest son inherited land and titles from their father.

This kept manors and earldoms together rather than splitting them up.

As a result, Norman daughters and younger sons did not inherit from their fathers.

Many nights were younger sons.

When guilt or innocence could not be established by a regular trial, both Anglo-Saxon and Norman courts often used trial by ordeal, by fire or by water, as a way of proving guilt or innocence.

The accused would hold a heated iron and then have their hands bandaged and then inspected after three days to see if the wounds were healing.

If they were, then this was taken as God indicating that they were innocent.

The Normans also added a new method, trial by combat, trial by battle.

The mediaeval illustration on the right shows a trial by combat.

Here, God would indicate who was guilty by making them lose the duel.

This often favoured skilled Norman knights over their Anglo-Saxon tenants.

These were methods of establishing guilt or innocence, but they also involved punishment for the guilty.

Okay, let's have a check for understanding.

Which of these involved the murdrum fine? A, breaking Forest law, B, land disputes involving the Church, C, the eldest son inheriting property, primogeniture, D, unsolved murder of a Norman.

Pause the video, have a think, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew it was D, the unsolved murder of a Norman.

Although Forest laws and the murdrum fine were resented by the English population, Norman England was judged to be a place of law and order.

We know this by looking at an extract from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1087.

This was the year in which William died, and the Chronicle lists his good points and bad points from an English perspective.

"We must not forget the good order that William kept in England, so that a man carrying a bosom full of gold could travel anywhere in the country without being robbed.

No man dared to kill another man, no matter what evil the other might have done to him.

If a man lay with a woman against her will, he was sentenced to have cut off the part of his body he had used to commit this crime." Okay, so I'll leave that to your fertile imagination to determine which body part was chopped off.

However, the point here is that despite our conceptions of what it might have been like during mediaeval times, Norman England was judged to be a place of law and order.

In other words, as the Chronicle states, you could travel unmolested throughout the country with a bosom full of gold, meaning that someone carrying a lot of gold would not have its stolen no matter where in England they were travelling.

Okay, true or false, tougher law enforcements in Norman England only benefited Normans.

Is that true or false? Pause the video, have a think, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew that was false.

But why is that false? I want you to justify your answer.

Is it false because A, the murdrum fine and the Forest laws only protected Normans and Norman property, or B, while new laws were designed to benefit only Normans, stricter law enforcement made England safer for everyone? Pause the video, have a think, and then come right back.

Okay, welcome back, and well done if you knew it was B.

While new laws were designed to benefit only Normans, stricter law enforcement made England safer for everyone.

Okay, let's move on to the final task, Task B, and I've got a statement here for you.

The Normans made very few changes to crime and punishment in England.

How far do you agree? Write at least the paragraph explaining your answer.

Your answer could refer to continuity in laws, the law of Edward, for example, new criminal laws and punishments, how guilt and innocent were decided, and law enforcements.

So have another read of the statement and decide whether you agree that there was little change in Norman England, and then explain why, referring to those aspects in the bullet points.

Pause the video, have a go at the task, and then come right back.

Okay, well done for having a go at that task, and obviously there's many ways that you could have written your answer, so compare what you have with the example answers I have here.

Generally, the Normans did not make big changes to crime and punishment.

That was mainly because William wanted to be seen as Edward the Confessor's legitimate heir, and part of this was being able to say that as king he had kept the law of Edward.

However, the Normans did bring in a new law which had severe punishments for any unsolved murders of Normans, a very heavy fine called the murdrum fine, that everyone in the hundred where the body was found had to pay.

Another change was Forest law.

This made it a criminal offence to damage the forests and animals that were used for the king's hunting.

The punishments for breaking these laws were very severe, including death penalties for poaching.

Both these changes, the murdrum fine and Forest law, were clearly designed to benefit Normans, protecting them from violence and theft.

A third change to mention is the introduction of trial by combat, which was a way of asking for God's judgement.

Trial by combat was similar to the Anglo-Saxon trials by ordeal, but there is also evidence of a change in Norman England away from punishments involving mutilations, such as trial by fire, or compensations paid to families.

Instead, there were more fines paid to governments, which benefited the Norman leadership.

However, although most crimes stayed the same, law enforcement in Norman England was stricter.

This does seem to have made the country safer for everyone, not just Normans.

Okay, great.

Let's summarise today's lesson, justice and the legal system in Norman England.

The legal system is the framework by which laws are made and enforced.

Justice is about the principles behind those laws, including who benefits from them.

Norman government made few changes to the court system, but William gained control over it by appointing loyal Normans to the key position of sheriff in each shire.

Some new laws were introduced that criminalised threats to Norman control of England and benefited Normans over the English.

However, stricter law and order in Norman England did make the country safer for everyone.

Okay, well done on a brilliant lesson, and I hope you've learnt a lot about the legal system in Norman England.

I'll see you next time when we continue our inquiry.

See you in the next lesson.