Hello, and thanks for joining me for another Oak Academy history lesson.

My name is Mrs. Knox, and today, I'll be guiding you through the resources you need to be successful with this lesson.

So let's get started.

Today's lesson is part of a unit of work on Norman England.

We're asking how did the lives of ordinary people change after the Norman Conquest.

By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to describe the changes introduced by Forest law and the impact of Forest law on ordinary people.

The lesson today will cover two keywords.

The first word is successor, which is the person who is king or queen after the previous monarch.

We'll also use the word tenant.

A tenant is someone who uses land owned by someone else in return for rent or services.

Today's lesson will be in three parts, so we'll get started now on part one, which will focus on the introduction of Forest law.

Forest in Norman England meant an area that was reserved for hunting, and so could include open land, village land, even towns as well as woodland.

Anglo-Saxon kings and nobles had hunting grounds on their own states, but things changed under the Normans in two main ways.

William I and his successors greatly increased the area of land classed as forest.

The area of forest grew to its largest extent under Henry I.

During his reign, around one-third of England was royal forest, including the whole of Essex.

William I and his successors also introduced Forest law to protect hunting areas from other uses.

The biggest change here was that they extended these laws over areas of their tenants' lands as well as their own royal estates.

Let's have a quick check of your understanding so far.

William I and his successors decreased the area of land classed as forest.

Is that true or false? Press pause, and when you're ready for the answer, press play.

You should have said the correct answer was false.

But why is the answer false? Is it because A, the Normans increased the area of land classed as forest until a third of England was covered by Forest law.

Or B, the Normans increased the area of land classed as forest until half of England was covered by Forest law.

Press pause and then press play when you're ready to hear the correct answer.

You should have said the correct justification was A, the Normans increased the area of land classed as forest until a third of England was covered by Forest law.

Forest law protected the beasts of the forest, which were known collectively as venison, red deer, roe deer, fallow deer, which were introduced by the Normans to England, and wild boar.

The laws also protected the vert, which was the trees and undergrowth which the venison relied on for food and shelter.

Forest law set out who had the right to keep deer and to hunt deer, who had the right to appoint forest officials and hold forest courts, and the right to fine people for breaking Forest law.

Punishments in the forest courts were much more severe than in common law.

For example, you could face mutilation, that's blinding or the loss of a limb, or even death.

Fines though were perhaps more common punishments in practise.

The forests were patrolled by foresters and woodwards who also managed the woodlands to make them good for hunting, Verderers who attended the forest courts, Agisters who collected rents from people living in forest areas, and gardeners who made regular visits to inspect the forest areas.

The justices held forest courts every three years, and this is where trials were held of those accused of breaking the Forest laws.

Okay, time to check your understanding once more.

I'd like you to match these words associated with the Forest laws to their correct definition.

Press pause to complete the task, and then when you're ready for the answers, press play.

Welcome back.

Let's see how you got on.

You should have said for venison that it refers to the deer and the wild boar.

By vert, we are referring to the trees and the undergrowth.

Laws are the rules about who could hunt.

The courts were held to punish those who broke the rules.

And finally, punishments included fines, mutilation, and death.

Well done if you've got them all correct.

The king could grant his tenants rights to hunt small animals in his forests.

ordinary people were not ever likely to be granted these favours, but they were commonly granted to church tenants.

For example, a monastery in Chertsey had the right to hunt, foxes, hares, and cats in the forest land in Surrey, while the Abbot of Abingdon had the right to hunt roebuck, which is a male roe deer.

Tenants could be granted or sold the rights of free warren, which meant the right to hunt rabbits and hares and other small animals.

However, the largest and considered the best hunting animals, red deer, fallow deer, and wild boar, were always strictly reserved for the king and his foresters.

It's time to have another check of your understanding now.

I'd like you to answer this question.

What did the rights of free warren allow tenants to hunt? Was it A, birds, butterflies and other insects? B, rabbits, hares, and other small animals? Or C, deer and wild boar? Press pause and then press play to hear the right answer.

Well done if you said that the correct answer was B, the rights of free warren gave tenants the rights to hunt rabbits, hares, and other small animals.

Finally, in this section, I'd like you to attempt this question.

In your own words, I'd like you to make a list of the rules that were introduced to England by the Forest laws.

Try to think of three different rules.

Press pause now to complete the task and then press play to see what you might have written.

Welcome back.

Let's have a look at how you got on.

Your list could have included any three of the following.

Only the king and his foresters may keep and hunt the deer.

It is against the law to hunt the venison.

It is against the law to damage the vert.

The king could appoint forest officials.

The forest courts had the right to fine and punish people for breaking Forest law.

And the king could grant his tenants rights of free warren, which allowed them to hunt small animals like rabbits and hares.

We're ready to move on now to the second section of the lesson today.

This section will cover the impacts of Forest law.

Economically, living in an area covered by Forest law made life much harder for local peasant communities.

Villagers grew crops for food, but they also regularly hunted wild animals for meat and gathered wood for fuel and other resources from woodland areas.

Forest law banned these activities or heavily regulated how they could happen.

As a result, many families faced increased hardship and poverty.

Records of royal income show that large amounts of money came from fines paid by people caught cutting wood, keeping dogs that might be used for hunting, as well as for hunting itself.

In 1130, during Henry I's reign, the king earned more than 1,400 pounds.

That's a considerable amount in today's money from the Forest law fines.

Here's another check of your understanding now.

How much did the crown receive in Forest law fines in 1130? Was it A, 400 pounds? B, 1,000 pounds? Or C, 1,400 pounds? Press pause and then press play when you've got your answer.

That's right, you should have said the correct answer was C.

In 1130, the crown received 1,400 pounds in fines for breaking Forest law.

Early in his reign, William I either created or expanded the New Forest in Hampshire.

This area previously had at least 20 villages and probably a similar number of churches and was home to around 2,000 people, all of which were cleared away as a result of William's creation or extension of the forest.

The chronicler John of Worcester criticised this saying, "On King William's command, men were expelled, homes were cast down, and the land was made habitable only for wild beasts." Two of William's sons, Richard and William Rufus, William II, were later killed while hunting in the New Forest.

After William II died in 1100 from being shot through the chest with an arrow, the rumour spread that this was God's punishment for the suffering caused by his father's actions in Hampshire.

The destruction of settlements was rare, but Forest law certainly made it clear who was in charge of Norman England.

Forest law was designed to benefit the king and the nobility who hunted as a leisure activity.

The English population who depended on forest resources were excluded just so their lords could enjoy themselves.

The severe punishments for breaking Forest laws also show the harshness of Norman rule and criminalised activities that people thought of as their rights.

It is no wonder that Forest law was resented and became the subject of folk tales like Robin Hood.

Sherwood, where the tale was set, became a royal hunting forest after 1066, and Hood was regarded as a hero for breaking Forest law.

Here's another check of your understanding.

I'd like you to answer this true or false question.

Forest laws were supported by ordinary people in England.

Press pause and when you have your answer, press play.

Well done if you said the correct answer is false, but why is the answer false? Is it A, many people broke the law as they regarded hunting as a right; their heroes were forest law-breakers.

Or B, ordinary people got revenge by murdering two of William I sons while they hunted in the New Forest.

Press pause, and when you're ready to hear the answer, press play.

The correct answer was A, many people broke the law as they regarded hunting as a right; their heroes were forest law-breakers.

Finally, in this section of the lesson, let's now attempt this task.

I'd like you to provide two examples to support Andeep's statement.

Let's have a look at Andeep's statement now.

He says, "Life got harder for the English population with the introduction of Forest law." Press pause to think of your answer and then press play to see what you might have written.

Welcome back.

Let's see how you got on.

You could have mentioned there were severe penalties for breaking the Forest law, for example, death or mutilation as well as fines.

You could also have said that the laws prevented the local population from gathering the items like wood from the forest and from hunting animals for meat, which meant they increasingly faced hardship and poverty.

It's time to move on now to the final section of today's lesson.

The section will look at Forest law and the Norman Kings.

Forest law was not only resented by peasants whose lives were made much harder and riskier.

The Norman barons also objected to areas of their estates being classed as royal forests, and Forest laws were also criticised by the church.

The church did not think secular laws like the Forest laws should apply to the church, and excessive hunting was also viewed as sinful behaviour.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, written by monks, criticised William I on his death in 1087 by writing of him, "He made great protection for the game and imposed laws for the same.

That who so slew hart or hind should be made blind.

He preserved the hares and boars and loved the stags as much as if he were their father." Let's have a check again of your understanding.

Here's another true or false question.

The Norman barons supported the Forest law.

Is that true or false? Press pause and press play to hear the correct answer.

The correct answer is false, but why is the answer false? Is it because the barons were unhappy because they objected to their estates being classed as royal forest, or they were unhappy because they were concerned that the tenants on their estates were unable to hunt.

Press pause and then press play to hear the correct answer.

You should have said the correct justification was A, the barons were unhappy because they objected to their estates being classed as royal forest.

As well as increasing the area of land covered by Forest law, both William II and Henry I introduced additional regulations and penalties to protect forest areas.

These kings knew how unpopular Forest laws were with their subjects, however.

In 1088, William II needed support from the English against his brother Robert's rebellion.

To achieve this, he made promises about what he would do to make life better for his subjects, including the promise to restore free hunting.

When Williams' reign was secure again though, this promise was forgotten.

Tensions over Forest law continued after the end of Norman Rule.

One of the baron's demands in Magna Carta in 1215 was the reform of Forest law, which led to the Charter of the Forest in 1217.

This reestablished rights to access to royal forest for freemen.

Time for another quick question now.

Which of these kings broke his promise that he would restore free hunting? Was it A, William I? B, William II? Or C, William III? Press pause and then press play to hear the correct answer.

you should have said the correct answer was B, William II.

Time now for the final activity today.

I'd like you to complete this task.

Forest law created tensions between William I and his successors and the English population.

How far do you agree with this statement? You might want to consider the following groups in your answer: the nobility, the peasants, and the church.

Press pause now and when you're ready to hear what you might have written, press play.

Welcome back.

Let's have a look at what you might have said.

Your answer could have included the following.

I agree to a large extent that Forest law did create tensions between William and his successors and the English population.

For instance, nobles disliked their estates being classed as royal forest and reserved for the king's use.

There is even evidence of their complaints in Magna Carta.

It is true that some nobles would've been invited to hunt with the king and that the king was able to grant rights of free warren.

However, these rights often went to the king's church tenants rather than the nobles.

Furthermore, the way that William II tried to get support from barons was to promise to restore free hunting.

This suggests that Forest law did create significant tensions.

Another group within English society who experienced tension with William and his successors over Forest law were peasants.

This was because they were no longer able to gather essential resources like wood or fuel and food to support their way of life from land that came under Forest law.

Peasants further resented the Forest law as many were severely punished for breaking it.

They received harsh fines and physical punishments like mutilation or even death.

Norman Forest law meant that peasants had no rights to access resources that they had always relied on, which would've created significant tension between much of the English population and their Norman king.

Finally, Forest law also created tension between the church and William I and his successors.

This is because the church believed that they should not have to obey secular laws like the Forest law, only church laws.

Additionally, the church also lost some of their land as it was turned into royal forests as a result of Forest law.

This likely would have reduced their income.

Finally, tensions were also created as the church criticised those who hunted in the royal forest because they believed that excessive hunting was sinful.

Therefore, I agree to a large extent with the statement as Forest law created tensions between the majority of the English population and the Norman kings.

Well done if you included many of those points in your answer.

We've now reached the end of today's lesson, so let's have a summary of what you should have learned.

Forest law was a new set of laws introduced by William I and his successors.

The Normans increased the area of land known as forest until one-third of England was covered by Forest law.

Punishments for breaking forest law were extremely harsh.

Forest law made life harsher for the peasants because they were banned from using the resources they relied upon.

Finally, Forest law was resented by the peasants, but also Norman tenants like the church and barons as it affected their land.

Thanks very much for all of your hard work in our lesson today.

I hope that you feel confident that you've understood the material and I look forward to you joining me in a future history lesson.