Everything You Were Taught About Medieval Monarchy Is Wrong

the medieval period in history is one of the most fascinating and thrilling eras to explore inspiring many of our favorite fantasy franchises who doesn't enjoy a good story about Mighty Kings Brave Knights trapped princesses and epic battles between good and evil despite its Allure the medieval period is also likely the most misunderstood and misrepresented era in history when people think of monarchy today they often picture the medieval period it's seen as a time of brutality where people were burned at a stake for their beliefs peasants were practically slaves their Lords in the feudal system and

kings sat on Golden Thrones wielding absolute power and changing laws at will beheading anyone who dared oppose them naturally we find these practices appalling and believe they have no place in our modern egalitarian society this perception of the medieval period is largely influenced by the United States particularly Thomas Jefferson Who reshaped The Narrative of the American Revolutionary War to be seen as a fight against Royal and feudal tyranny many of the founding fathers did not share this view of the war of independence but that's a topic for another time the point is according to Jeffersonian

Doctrine the United States is a Protestant country founded on anti-catholic and anti-m medieval ideas since Catholicism was a key part of the Medieval Era and monarchies were prevalent it was very easy to label the period as a backward time with no Liberty this perspective spread to Europe with the French Revolution and the enlightenment but from a more secular and egalitarian Viewpoint especially with the rise of the Bourgeois with the Industrial Revolution who did not look too fondly on the concept of aristocracy fortunately most medieval historians today do not support this View and act actively argue

against it but despite their efforts many people still believe a mix of half truths myths distortions exaggerations and lies about the middleages and monarchy the discussion is still influenced by Enlightenment ideas of an all powerful selfish King deciding everyone's fate and peasants working tirelessly for 12 hours a day under the feudal system it is crucial to differentiate between medieval kingship and the absolutist monarchies that emerged after the Renaissance many people confuse the two the stereotypical depictions of monarchy where the King has absolute power and can change the Law at will mostly come from the age

of absolutism not the medieval period the age of absolutism also has its fair share of misconceptions but I will discuss those another time in this video I will focus on medieval kingship when I say King I mean a medieval King and when I refer to Monarch I mean a ruler in the age of abs absolutism to avoid any confusion in this video I will be discussing various aspects of medieval kingship such as the role of a king how much power Kings really had and whether they could change the Law at will and be above it

my goal is to debunk the common misconceptions people have about monarchies in the Medieval ages before we begin I want to mention that all the information I gathered comes from the underrated book missing monarchy by Jeb Smith there are many more details about the medieval period that I didn't have time to discuss here so if you want to learn more please check out the book and support the author I highly recommend it every kind of ruler has a specific role to play in his or her Nation what is their main purpose a democratically elected Leader's

role is to serve the will of the people while a monarch is the head of the state representing the nation itself rather than a certain political party or a Democratic consensus as per Roman law the Monarch rules the geographical area and that area is his domain but since we differentiated monarchs from Kings what was the role of medieval kings kingship was a form of monarchy but not a kind from the age of absolutism while a monarch ruled over the people the King instead was a member of his Kindred you will notice that Kings always took

titles off the people people rather than a geographic area titles like King of the Franks King of the English and so forth the King was the head of the people not the head of the state the idea of kingship began as an extension of family leadership as families grew and spread out the eldest fathers became the leaders of their tribes these leaders or Patriarchs guided the extended families through marriages and other connections small communities formed kinship some members would leave and create new tribes over time these kinships created their own local Customs for governance leadership

was either passed down through Family Lines or chosen among the tribes wise Elders these Elders knowledgeable in the trib's Customs served as advisers to the leader the patriarch or King carried out duties based on the trib's Traditions he upheld their Customs families and way of life when a new King was crowned it was seen as the people accepting his authority the medieval King had an obligation to serve the people and could only use his power for the Kingdom's benefit as taught by Catholic saints like Thomas aquinus and that is the biggest difference between a monarch

and a king the king was a Community member with a duty to the people limited by their customs and laws he didn't control kinship families they governed themselves and he served their needs it was in the 14th century that the Roman ideal started reemerging and the notion of absolute monarchism started spreading as kings started seeing themselves as Supreme figures distinct from the community they were part of Professor Edward Peters wrote about the Resurgence of Roman law quote it brought a substantial revolution in legal thought and legal procedure throughout most of Western Europe the old and

localized laws and procedures were slowly being encroached upon by the centralizing legal capacities and specifically formul ated procedures of cities Lords Kings and popes now you can have your own opinions on whether it was a good thing that Monarch started centralizing more power but that is a discussion Sav for another time point being is that the role and expectations of kings and monarchs have been different and in the medieval period the King was far from being the person to put his authority over everything else and monarchs weren't the ones who were desperately trying to hold

on to the fudal system through absolute power quite the contrary they were its biggest opponents after I had done my reading and research I was actually pretty surprised to find out just how little actual power Kings had over their domain in fact many Prime Ministers of our time have more power than medieval kings ever did philosopher bertron the juvenile would even Echo the sentiment quote a man of our time cannot conceive the lack of real power which characterized the medieval King this was because of the inherent decentralized structure of the vassel system which divided power

among many local Lords and Nobles these local Lords or vassals controlled their own lands and had their own armies the king might have been the most important Noble but he often relied on his vassals to enforce his laws and provide troops for his Wars if a powerful vassel didn't want to follow the king's orders there wasn't much the king could do about it without risking a rebellion in essence he was a constitutional Monarch but instead of the parliament you had many local Noble vassals historian reine panod would also write something similar quote medieval kings possessed

none of the attributes recognized as those of a sovereign power he could neither decree general laws nor collect taxes on the whole of his kingdom nor Levy an Army in fact local Lords had become so autonomous of the crown that historian Frederick Austin a would write quote they had scarcely so much as a feudal bond to remind them of their theoretical allegiance to the Empire the one principle of action upon which they could agree was that the central monarchy should be kept permanently in the state of helplessness to which it had been reduced now sure

you could argue the vessals were pretty autonomous but the King was still their boss and they were expected to obey his orders because of the principle of fty where a lord SPS allegiance to his King and going against the king with thus anul the oath they had given this is how we normally understand falty but this concept was in reality much more complex and nuanced and in fact the condition that the Lord had to obey the king never existed German historian Fritz Canan wrote about fty in detail in his work kingship and law in the

Middle Ages where he would write quote fty as his things from obedience is reciprocal in character and contains the implicit condition that the one party owes it to the other only so long as the other keeps Faith this relationship as we have seen must not be designated simply as a contract the fundamental idea is rather that ruler and ruled alike are bound to the law the falty of both parties is in reality falty to the law the law is the point where the duties of both of them intersect if therefore the king breaks the law

he automatically forfeits any claim to The Obedience of his subjects a man must resist his King and his judge if he does wrong and must hinder him in every way even if he be his relative or feudal Lord and he does not thereby break his falty anyone who felt himself prejudiced in his rights by the King was authorized to take the law into his own hands and win back to rights which had been denied him this means that a Lord is required to serve the will of the king in so far as the King was

obeying the law of the land himself if the king started acting tyrannically Lords had a complete right to rebel against the king and their falty was not broken because the falty is in reality submission to the law the way medieval Society worked was a lot based on contracts on this idea of legality it may be true that the king's Powers were limited but in the instances where Kings did exercise their influence and power was true legality if the king took an action that action would only take effect if it was seen as legitimate for example

if a noble had to pay certain things in their vassalization contract to the king and he did not pay that the king could rally troops and other Nobles on his side and bring that noble man to heal since he was breaking his contract the king may have had limited power but the most effective way he could have exercised it is through these complex contractual obligations not only that but this position was even encouraged by the church as they saw rebellions against tyrants as a form of obedience to God because the most important part of a

rebellion is your ability to prove that the person you are rebelling against was acting without legality like breaking a contract both Christian Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas ruled that an unjust law is no law at all and that the Kings subjects therefore are required by law to resist him remove him from power and take his property when Baldwin the first was crowned as king of Jerusalem in Bethlehem the patriarch would announce during the ceremony quote a king is not elevated contrary to law he who takes up the authority that comes with a Golden Crown takes

up also The Honorable duty of delivering Justice he desires to do good who desires to Reign if he does not rule justly he is not a king and that is the truth about how medieval kingship operated the law of the realm was the true king Kings noblemen and peasants were all equal before it and expected to carry out its will in the feudal order the king thees his power from the law and the community it was the source of his authority the king could not abolish manipulate or alter the law since he derived his powers

from it historian Susan rolds would write quote every ruler from the Emperor or King down to the head of a household was supposed to rule justly and according to custom every unit of government was supposed to be a community with its own Customs there was no such thing as an active form of government molding and adapting to society it was reactionary in its purest form the law is unchanging like God's nature and the old was always better and purer there is no need for the ability to legislate or alter law because it is already perfect

again Fritz Canan would write on this topic quote law is old new law is a contradiction in terms according to Medieval ideas therefore the enactment of new law is not possible at all and all legislation and legal reform is conceived of as the restoration of the good old law which has been violated the middle-ages knew no genuine legislation by the state the ordinances or laws of the state aim only at the restoration and execution of valid folk or customary law the law pursues its own Sovereign Life the state does not encroach upon that it merely

protects his existence from outside when necessary whole centuries elapse without a smallest signs of legislative or ordaining activity in our sense obviously the king did have the ability to change law at his will but if he did that he would basically Crush any form of legitimacy he had and all his subjects from the wealthiest Lord to the poorest peasant were required to take up arms against him the King was Far From Above the Law the entire Community was responsible for maintaining it from peasants to Kings Bertrand the juvenile would compare the rights of an ordinary

Miller and a king and to this he would write quote as far as the Miller's right goes it is as good as the king's on his own ground the Miller is entitled to hold off the king indeed there was a deep seated feeling that all positive rights stood or fell together if the king disregarded The Miller's title to his land so might the king's title to his throne be disregarded but now the question is who decides whether a king or Lord has overstepped his boundaries and started acting contrary to law and custom the answer might

surprise you but this decision dependent on each individual member of the community medievals were surprisingly pretty individually minded whether it was education prayer relationship ship with God or politics they considered the individual rather than groups Fritz Canan would also acknowledge this on the question of who decided whether the king overstepped his boundaries he'd write quote the decision of this question rested with the conscience of every individual member of the community the government had to preserve every subjective right of every individual The Peasants quickly recognized when a lord behaved against tradition because it would be unfamiliar

and seen as new despite being illiterate peasants had a deep understanding of all their laws much more so than modern lawyers who specialize in specific areas of law to become experts today if you ask someone about the numerous laws and regulations they must follow they can only name a few in medieval times there were fewer laws and they were part of daily life Susan rolds would write quote medieval rulers had been supposed to rule all their subjects and not just their Noble subjects justly and with consent but nothing was so important as consent because the

law was personal and consent was crucial each person had the power to decide if their lord had gone too far since the law was created by the community as part of a noble tradition not by the rulers everyone in the community could challenge or reject any government action they felt infringed on their rights and even when the king made some adjustments that didn't warranty Rebellion like like for example imposing heavy taxes his subjects could just leave the land and settle elsewhere the sixth Century historian and Bishop Gregory of Tours documented just that when King schil

Peri I first increased taxes people just started moving out and shil peric was forced to revoke the taxes unless he wanted his realm to shrink no one forced him to stay and thus naturally people migrated to less suppressive kingdoms and joined Lords that granted them most Liberty even under sh who wielded much more power than other kings in Europe power was still pretty limited Edward Peters in his book about Europe in the Middle Ages wrote in regards to Charlamagne quote all the different people of the Empire continued to live according to their own native laws

Charlemagne had no intention of abolishing this diversity there was virtually no public Taxation and Charlemagne depended for revenue on the proceeds of his own land each realm each City and each Village had had its own laws courts customs and general culture and they all conducted their affairs with no control from the king's capital or a higher Lord's influence this kind of variety between one town and another gave a charming and attractive aspect of the country each Town possessed to a degree which is today almost unimaginable its own personality even the most decentralized systems of governance

in the past few hundred years did not have this level of radical decentralization the vast majority of feudal Realms had and many of our modern government systems have destroyed such diversity considering everything we have talked about here this stereotypical depiction of medieval kings as tyrants who wielded absolute power and can change the law of the will is pretty laughable the medieval period reveals a rich tapestry of Truth when examined closely medieval kings were not tyrants with absolute power but guardians of their people's customs and laws their Authority was intertwined with a community Bound by the

same laws that guided everyone from Nobles to peasants in embracing the true essence of medieval kingship we find not a relic of despotism but a reminder of the enduring human Spirit striving for justice community and the delicate Harmony of leadership and law thus the Middle Ages with all its complexity stands as a testament to the profound interplay of power Duty and Liberty a legacy woven into the anals of time