ABSTRACT
In the case of ideological power associated with kingship (Chapter 4), you may think that we have been too impressed by the apparent continuities in the ideas underpinning that institution, and by the continuity of at least the underlying features of kingship back to the Roman period and even beyond. But you need to ask whether change was more important than continuity. Was the influence of Christianity on kingship so radical that what emerged was a quite different institution than had existed previously? Did the introduction of anointing kings with holy oil, for example, mark a real turning-point in the ideological basis of power? And was kingship radically different not only in different parts of our period, but also in different parts of Western Europe? Were the Irish kings, for example, who ruled over tiny areas and tiny populations, the same sort of rulers, as we have treated them, as a king of the Franks like Charlemagne, ruling over a very large part of Western Europe? Questions such as these are particularly exciting because on the one hand kingship really does appear consistent across long periods and wide areas, while on the other we need to be aware that the images of kingship we are receiving from the past may be very different from the reality. Widening your perspective, both chronologically and geographically, may provide you with some of the keys, and very helpful for this is a recent, wide-ranging,
and thought-provoking discussion of kingship during and beyond our period and our geographical area by Francis Oakley (2006).
