Hello and welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Merrett, and I'll be guiding you through today's lesson.

So let's get going.

Today's lesson is looking at Matilda's later life and how she supported Henry II.

And by the end of today's lesson, we'll be able to explain how a study of Matilda's later life can lead to a greater understanding of the political role of mediaeval women.

In order to do that, we need to use some key terms. And our key term for today is treaty.

And a treaty is a formal agreement between two countries.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles, and our first learning cycle is looking at the end of the Anarchy.

So let's get going with that.

Now, Stephen was unable to capitalise on the destruction of Matilda's troops during the Rout of Winchester or the loss of Oxford and her near capture during the Siege of Oxford in 1142.

Instead, Stephen himself was nearly captured once again during the Battle of Wilton on the 1st of July, 1143, which resulted in the loss of Dorset to Matilda's forces.

Wareham in Dorset was a really important port at this point in time.

So that's a really, really key capture of Matilda and her forces.

Numerous rebellions across the country also reduce his control over the north and the east of England as well.

Stephen's relationship with his barons deteriorated rapidly during the 1140s.

Stephen couldn't trust his barons not to rebel, so he took important castles from them, and the barons couldn't trust Stephen because he imprisoned them and threatened to execute them unless they gave him the castles.

So it was this vicious cycle.

And to round it all off, in 1144, Geoffrey of Anjou succeeding in taking Rouen and was recognised by the French king, Louis VII, as the new Duke of Normandy.

Rouen was the capital of the Duchy of Normandy and a really, really key area, and it was the last holdout for the Duchy of Normandy.

However, things weren't going much better for Matilda either.

In 1143, one of her most able barons, Miles of Gloucester, died in a tragic hunting accident.

And this is a terrible blow for Matilda, but worse was yet to come.

In 1147, her most important supporter, her half-brother, Robert of Gloucester, also died.

He actually died peacefully, which was somewhat unusual for important people during the Anarchy.

With a loss of two of her most trusted and capable barons, Matilda's strength in the civil war diminished quite considerably.

And in 1148, she made the decision to leave England and relocate to Normandy.

With Matilda out of England, tensions in the civil war reduced tremendously.

There were also other reasons though why the fighting wound down a little bit in the late 1140s.

Many of the barons had quite simply just grown tired of the constant fighting.

They were concerned about the damage being caused to their lands, both in England and in Normandy as well.

And as a result of this, many barons actually began making individual peace treaties between each other, either promising not to fight each other, or if fighting couldn't be avoided because they've been ordered to fights, then they would make deals to limit the number of troops that each side brought to the battlefield.

And also as well as this, 1147, the Pope called for a Second Crusade to defend the Holy Land, which drew many of the barons away from England and Normandy.

Many of them may have wanted to go on crusade, but I'm sure for some others, it was just a really, really good reason, a valid reason to leave the Anarchy behind and take yourself off elsewhere.

Okay, let's go for a quick check for understanding now.

So I would like you to identify two reasons why tensions reduced in the late 1140s.

Is it because some barons fled the country rather than fights? Was it because some of the Matilda's most important barons died? Was it because some barons left to fight in the Second Crusade, or was it because some of Stephen's barons were too young to fight? So choose two of those options now.

Okay, if you chose B and C, then very well done.

Those indeed are the correct answers.

One person who was unwilling to stop the war though was Matilda's eldest son, Henry.

In 1147, he travelled to England with a small band of mercenaries to make a campaign against Stephen.

However, it didn't come to much as he didn't actually have the funds to pay them.

Most surprising of all though is that it was Stephen himself who paid Henry's mercenaries and also gave Henry's safe passage back to Normandy.

So the guy who was supposed to be fighting with these mercenaries paid for the mercenaries and allowed Henry to go home safely as well.

It's possible that Stephen was thinking of a peaceful way to end the war and creating a positive relationship with the son of his enemy.

He could help with that.

It's also possible that this was just an aspect of Stephen's nature.

Stephen was a very chivalrous man.

He believed in the idea of what is right and what is wrong, and he may well have been the case that he thought that helping out a family member in their time of need was the right thing to do, regardless of the fact that he's actually currently at war with the other family member.

It just seemed very odd to us today but this is the situation at the time.

In any case, this didn't actually stop Henry who wanted to wage war against Stephen.

He travelled to England again in 1149 and this time he made an alliance with the powerful Ranulf of Chester.

And once he'd done that, he then returned home and was made Duke of Normandy.

And then in 1152, this energetic young leader married Eleanor of Aquitaine, which made him one of the most powerful men in France.

So by 1152, Henry controls a considerable portion of France, that obviously includes Normandy, but also includes all of Eleanor's lands as well.

It includes Anjou because he's inherited that through his father and a lot of the south and southwest, which Matilda had controlled.

Henry now gains control of that as well.

As well as that of course, Ranulf who controls a significant portion of the north and west of England, he's part of that alliance too.

So all of a sudden, Henry comes out of nowhere and is a ridiculously powerful contender for the throne.

Right, let's have a quick check for understanding now then.

So a true or false statements.

Henry and Matilda launched a joint military campaign in England against Stephen in 1147.

Is that true or is that false? Okay, if you chose false, then congratulations.

That's the correct answer.

But let's justify now why is it a false statement? Is it false because Henry launched a military campaign in Normandy against Stephen by himself in 1147? Or is it false because Henry launched a military campaign in England against Stephen by himself in 1147? So make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose B, then well done.

That's the correct answer.

Okay, so let's go for our first task for today then.

So I'd like you to place the reasons why the Anarchy wound down in the late 1140s into an order of significance, with the most important reason at the top, and then the second most important reason, all the way down to your least important reason.

And once you've done that, just explain why you've chosen your main reason.

So the reasons that we've got here is the fact that there was the death of Matilda's barons, there was Matilda's relocation to Normandy, the fact that barons are signing individual peace treaties with each other, the fact that Stephen and his barons were losing faith in each other.

And there's also the launch of the Second Crusade.

So create your order of significance.

Pause the video while you do that.

And I'll see you in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on okay with that task.

So let's have a look at what I've got on the screen here in front of us.

So I thought that the most significant reason was that barons was signing individual peace treaties with each other, followed by the death of Matilda's most able barons, and then Matilda relocating to Normandy.

And then they launch the Second Crusade.

And, finally, the least important reason in my opinion was Stephen and his barons losing faith in each other.

If you've got a different order, that's absolutely fine.

It's all about what you think, and most importantly, it's how you explain it.

So the reason why I chose my top reason was for what's on the screen here.

So let's read through that.

So I said I think the barons signing individual peace treaties with each other was the main reason why the fighting during the Anarchy wound down in the late 1140s because it shows that the main people doing all the fighting had grown tired of fighting each other.

Without people to fight on either side, then the civil war would have to scale back in its intensity.

Again, if you've got a different reason, that means it's absolutely fine.

The key thing though is that you've explained the reason behind your order of significance.

Right, let's go for our second learning cycle for today, which is the Treaty of Wallingford.

Now, Stephen had been trying for many years to have his son, Eustace, crown king of England alongside him in order to secure the succession.

This was repeatedly blocked by the church, which caused the relationship between Stephen and the church to deteriorate as well.

In 1153, Henry Fitzempress, which means son of the Empress, as Henry start himself, launched yet another campaign in England against Stephen.

This time alongside not only Ranulf of Chester, but also Robert of Leicester as well.

The combined territory of these three men gave them control of nearly half of England, which created an extremely dangerous problem for Stephen.

Remember, as well as controlling only half of England, Henry himself controls a significant portion of France as well.

So Henry is a major problem for Stephen now.

Stephen decided to confront the problem by besieging one of Matilda's most trusted barons, Brian Fitz Count, in his castle at Wallingford.

Wallingford was consistently on the front lines during the Anarchy.

It was one of the closest castles to London and Winchester and Brian Fitz Count successfully defended it for years and years.

So he's a really capable and a really trusted baron.

Henry and his troops came to Fitz Count's aid, which in turn motivated Stephen to march out from his stronghold at Oxford to force a battle with Henry.

And in the hot summer of 1153, the two faced off against each other on either side of the River Thames.

Although both Henry and Stephen were eager to battle, their barons were not.

With the help of the church, a truce was called.

And the two leaders spoke to each other about how to end the war.

During these discussions, it was agreed that Henry would accept Stephen as king, and in turn Stephen would make Henry his adopted son and heir.

Naturally, this enraged Stephen's son, Eustace, who returned to his home in Cambridge to raise funds to continue the war.

Just a month later though, in August, 1153, Eustace fell ill and died, which removed a major obstacle to the treaty drafted at Wallingford.

I should point out that there's no evidence of foul play here.

Obviously, it's incredibly good timing from the perspective of, well, both Henry, and to a lesser extent, Stephen, in trying to end the war.

But there's no suggestion that Henry actually tried to have Eustace killed or if it need of anybody else trying to poison Eustace or anything like that.

It's just people got ill and people died of what we consider to be fairly minor illnesses and injuries in this day and age.

It happened all the time from the mediaeval period, and this was just a fortunate coincidence from the perspective of Henry.

Right, let's have a quick check for understanding now then.

So where did Stephen and Henry agree to the truce that led to the end of the Anarchy? Was it in Gloucester, was it in Oxford, or was it in Wallingford? Okay, if you chose C, Wallingford, then very well done.

On the 6th of November, 1153, Henry and Stephen formalised the Treaty of Wallingford in Winchester Cathedral and the Anarchy was officially over.

Stephen died soon after, on the 25th of October, 1154.

And once again, there's no evidence to suggest this is foul play at all on Henry's parts.

It's just a fortunate coincidence that Stephen died soon after this.

In fact, quite the contrary, evidence suggests that Stephen actually wasn't really willing to end the civil war at all.

He was just really biding his time, with evidence suggests that he was actually planning to continue the civil war.

He was planning to assassinate Henry.

So just because his son died and they signed this truce, doesn't mean it was all over.

Fortunately though, he died soon afterwards.

And to the delight of the English people, a peaceful succession follows.

Henry II was crowned King of England in Westminster Abbey on the 9th of December, 1154.

Right, so another quick check for understanding now.

So true or false: After the death of Stephen, Henry and Eustace continued the civil war to decide who would be the next king.

Is that true or is that false? Okay, if you chose false, then congratulations.

That's the correct answer.

But let's justify that answer.

Why is it a false statement? Is it false because Stephen made his son Eustace his heir, but he was killed in battle by Henry? Or is it false because Stephen made Henry his heir and Eustace then died of illness, which led to a peaceful succession? Alright, if you chose B, then very well done.

That is the correct answer.

Right, let's go for our next task today then.

So I'd like you to read the interpretations below, and I want you to provide one piece of evidence to support each of the interpretations.

So Jun's interpretation says: "The Anarchy ended because Henry created a powerful alliance against Stephen that he wasn't strong enough to defeat." And Andeep's interpretation is that: "The Anarchy ended because Stephen did the noble thing and offered Henry a deal that was too good to refuse." So I want you to find one piece of evidence to support each interpretation.

Pause the video while you do that, and I'll see you in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you're fine with that task.

Let's think about what you could have said then.

So on the screen in front of you, I've said one piece of evidence to support Jun's interpretation is that Henry had allied himself with Ranulf of Chester and Robert of Leicester: together they controlled almost half of England and parts of Wales, which was a very large amount of territory and provided them with lots of resources to continue the war with Stephen.

One piece of evidence to support Andeep's interpretation is that Stephen was willing to overlook his own son's claim to be king in order to make peace with Henry, which shows that Stephen was willing to put peace above his own family interests.

If you've got different pieces of evidence to support those views, that's absolutely fine.

Well, let's go for our third and final learning cycle for today, which is Matilda's later years.

Now, after returning to Normandy in 1148, Matilda spent the rest of her life there.

She oversaw the running of the Duchy on behalf of her son, both before and after he became King Henry II.

And Henry relied upon her heavily.

She regularly gave him advice on how to run his lands, and Henry valued her input and reputation so much, that for many years, any decisions that he made was signed in both his and Matilda's name.

Ironically, Matilda also proved decisive in keeping the peace in England and Normandy on behalf of her son.

So for a person that was a considerable contributor to a civil war in England that lasted for many, many years, after that point, she then prevented more wars in England and Normandy from breaking out.

Matilda was able to prevent disagreements with both France and the Holy Roman Empire from getting out of hand, stopping England and Normandy from entering into wars that they were just, it was quite simply too weary to fight.

Towards the end of her life, Matilda became more and more interested in spiritual matters and her own personal faith.

There's also evidence that suggests that she was always a very, very spiritual person, but she quite simply, she was far more interested in it as she got older.

Commentators from the time say that she mellowed with age, although was still an incredibly fierce woman.

On the 10th of September, 1167, Matilda died peacefully in Rouen, and the epitaph, the statements on her tomb summarised her perfectly and suggested what she felt her proudest achievement was.

And it stated, "Great by birth, greater by marriage, greatest in her offspring: here lies Matilda, the daughter, wife, and mother of Henry." Right, let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So I'd like you to choose two ways in which Matilda spent her time during her later years in Normandy.

So was it by advising her son, King Henry II? Was it by making plans to invade France? Was it by running the Duchy of Normandy, or was it by writing a book about the Anarchy? So choose two of those options now.

Okay, if you chose A and C, then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

So one more quick check for understanding.

It's a discussion question.

I'd like you to think, what can historians learn about the political role played by mediaeval women from Matilda's later life? So pause the video now if you need to think about that, and I'll see you in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

So some of the things you might have said might have been that she was content to let her son rule instead of her as a means to keep the peace.

She was a well-respected provider of advice.

She's a capable administrator of a duchy.

She was able to resolve disputes and keep the peace between nations.

And we see this in Matilda's life, but we also see examples of this in the lives of other elite mediaeval women from this time as well.

Right, let's go on our next task now then.

So I'd like you to describe two ways that Matilda helped her son, King Henry II, rule England and Normandy in her later years.

So pause the video now while you do that task, and I'll see you in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on fine with that task.

Let's think about what you could have said then.

So I've got an answer on the screen here, and it states: One way in which Matilda helped her son run his kingdom was by taking control of the running of the Duchy of Normandy.

By successfully administering this part of his lands, it enabled Henry to focus on running England and restoring it after 15 years of civil war.

Another way that Matilda helped Henry was by preventing arguments with other countries, such as France and the Holy Roman Empire, get so out of control that war could have been declared.

This was vital as England was in no position to fight another war after such a long civil war.

If you've got different ways that Matilda helped Henry, that's absolutely fine as long as you fully explained it, and that's what we're looking for here.

Okay, let's summarise today's lesson now then.

So the civil war went badly for both King Stephen, who suffered rebellions, and Matilda, who lost some of the most loyal barons, in the late 1140s.

Matilda's son, Henry, began campaigning in England at this time.

Henry and Stephen agreed to a truce in the Anarchy known as the Treaty of Wallingford, which later brought an end to the civil war.

And Henry was made Stephen's heir and succeeded him in a peaceful transition in late 1154.

Matilda continued to hold influence, administering Normandy and advising her son, King Henry II.

Thank you very much for joining me today.

Hopefully you've enjoyed yourself.

Hopefully you learned something and hopefully I'll see you again next time.

Bye-bye.