ABSTRACT
Continuity is the m ain them e to be isolated in any exam ination of the Anglo-Norm an C hurch from the reign of William I to the reigns of his sons, William II (1087-1100) and H enry I (1100-35). A willingness to accept the best of Continental m oral reform, especially when to the newcomers’ advantage, was coupled with an awareness o f English peculiarities and a very positive attitude to the building and ornam entation of churches, some times on a massive scale. There were, however, differences, some o f which can be attributed direcdy to the personalities of the kings themselves. William I was harsh and unyielding in insisting on w hat he considered his regal rights, but his support o f m oral reform in the C hurch was unquestioned. This could be said of neither o f his sons who succeeded him, R obert in N orm andy nor William Rufus in England. William II in England quickly gained an evil reputation as a despoiler of the Church. H e supported, it is true, some good causes, the abbey at Battle, or the new Cluniac priory at Bermondsey, and he acquiesced in the appointm ent of Anselm, a truly great theologian and spiritual leader, to the archbishop’s see at C anterbury (see below). However, these acts were heavily outweighed in the minds and pens of the succeeding generation by scandals over his personal life and sexuality and over w hat am ounted to a systematic policy o f financial exac tions from the C hurch at large. His father had seen to it that the C hurch was integrated into the new N orm an world of military service and William II had close advisers, notably R anulf Flam bard (later bishop o f D urham , 1099-1128), who knew how to exploit to the full financial duties owed by the great churches for their ecclesiastical fiefs. A bishop-elect paid what am ounted to a relief on entering his see. V acant sees or abbeys were treated after the fashion of lay fiefs, and the king as their lord took the revenues of the church during the vacancies. T o zealous reformers all this looked very
like the sin o f simony. In 1100, at the time o f the king’s death, there were no fewer than eleven o f the wealthiest abbeys and three o f the bishoprics in the hands o f king’s officers, true exactores regis.1
