ABSTRACT
Stephen has been most condemned by generations of historians for the damage his reign did to the 'state' of England. Since Stubbs, historians have seen the reign of Henry I as a time when the centralising apparatus focused on the English king grew more defined, noticeable and resented. This belief could perhaps be disputed, but if so discussion would centre on the degree to which such developing royal control was effective, rather than on whether it actually occurred. 1 Since Stubbs also, Stephen has been seen as a king who imperilled or even reversed this move towards the effective government of England as a stable political unit. Indeed, contemporaries said as much, as did Gilbert Foliot with heavy irony in around 1144:
Who was it that has made a fool of England? My answer is that it is that wretched ruler (whoever he might be!) in whom abound so many perjuries, murders, arsons, crimes, sorrows and treacheries. How is it that he who has debased the kingdom, dishonoured the episcopate and laid deep shame not just on us but on those who come after us may keep himself unaffected? Believe me, the inheritance into which he rushed at the beginning, will be anything but blessed at the end! 2
This is itself ironic, as we have seen, because it was Stephen's initial desire very much to be seen as a king in the mould of his uncle: offering strong rule and ensuring civil tranquillity. That indeed was his manifesto for election to kingship. Stephen's good intentions foundered on his own inability to carry through his policy and to find trustworthy advisers who could have done it for him. But despite that, England survived as a nation with a distinct identity. Much of what Henry had achieved in the administration of royal, as opposed to communal, justice survived into the reign of Henry II. Stephen's local administration was undoubtedly battered and undermined by the warfare and dislocation of his reign, yet not uniformly throughout the kingdom, and again it proved possible to restore the structure once circumstances allowed. It will be the argument of this chapter that King Henry survived as king long enough for what he established to become deeply embedded in people's consciousness of how kingship should be exercised. As a king he was so successful that he extinguished any other pattern of kingship, not least because the ramshackle Capetian kingdom of France was so woeful in comparison in everything but dignity. No-one could look at the embattled palace at Paris under Louis VI and see there anything resembling the authority and wealth of Westminster under Henry. That was both King Stephen's good fortune and his misfortune.