The Norman Church and Monasticism

To judge what the Normans changed, you first need to know what the Anglo-Saxon Church was like before the Conquest. It was wealthy, powerful and woven into everyday life, but reformers criticised it for serious abuses.

Abuse	What it meant
Simony	Buying or selling Church positions or spiritual services
Pluralism	One clergyman holding several Church posts at once
Nepotism	Giving Church jobs to relatives rather than the best candidates
Clerical marriage	Priests marrying and having families, against reformers' wishes

The most notorious figure was Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, who held both Canterbury and Winchester at the same time (pluralism) and was not recognised by the Pope. This gave William, who invaded with papal support (a banner blessed by Pope Alexander II), a powerful justification: he could present the Conquest partly as a mission to reform a corrupt English Church.

The Anglo-Saxon Church's abuses are the essential background: they explain why the Normans reformed it and how William used the Church to legitimise his rule.

The key reformer was Lanfranc, an Italian scholar and abbot whom William made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1070, replacing the disgraced Stigand. Lanfranc set about reorganising the English Church along stricter, more European lines.

His main reforms were:

• Replacing bishops: Anglo-Saxon bishops were gradually replaced with hard-working Norman ones. By the 1080s almost every senior English churchman was Norman.
• Reorganising dioceses: cathedral seats were moved from villages to major towns (for example, to Lincoln), making the Church easier to control.
• Reforming councils: Lanfranc held regular Church councils to impose reform and stamp out abuses like simony and clerical marriage.
• Primacy of Canterbury: he insisted Canterbury held authority over York, giving the English Church a single clear head under the king.

Lanfranc also worked closely with William I, so that Church reform and royal control reinforced each other. A reformed, Norman-led Church helped William secure his hold on England.

Two of Lanfranc's changes had lasting effects: the creation of separate Church courts and a wave of great building.

Separate Church courts. Lanfranc separated Church courts from the ordinary royal and shire courts. From now on, cases involving the clergy or moral and religious offences were tried in Church courts under canon (Church) law, rather than the king's courts. This increased the Church's power and independence — but it also planted the seeds of future clashes between king and Church over who could try churchmen.

Cathedral building. The Normans rebuilt England's cathedrals and major churches on a grand scale in the Romanesque style — round arches, massive pillars and thick walls. This was partly religious devotion and partly a display of Norman power.

Cathedral	Note
Durham	Begun 1093; the outstanding Norman Romanesque cathedral, famous for its stone-vaulted roof
Canterbury	Rebuilt by Lanfranc after a fire
Winchester, Ely, Lincoln	Major Norman rebuilding on a huge scale

By c1100, almost every great English church had been or was being rebuilt in stone — a permanent, visible sign of the Conquest.

The Church was enormously wealthy. It held around a quarter of England's land (recorded in the Domesday Book), collected tithes (a tenth of people's produce), and drew income from its estates, courts and fees.

That wealth made the Church central to Church–state relations. In theory the Church answered to the Pope in Rome; in practice, kings expected control over the rich and powerful bishops in their own kingdoms.

Under William I, this balance mostly worked. William:

• accepted the Pope's spiritual authority but insisted the king controlled the Church in England;
• refused to let papal letters enter England or to swear loyalty (fealty) to Pope Gregory VII, while still backing Lanfranc's reforms;
• appointed bishops himself, keeping the Church tied to royal power.

This co-operation between a strong king and a reforming archbishop is why William I's reign is usually seen as a high point of Church–state harmony — a contrast that sets up the trouble under his son.

Relations with the Church worsened sharply under William II (Rufus), who ruled from 1087 to 1100. Where his father had worked with the Church, Rufus was widely accused of exploiting it.

His conduct included:

• Leaving bishoprics and abbeys vacant so that the Crown could seize their income for as long as the post stayed empty.
• Treating Church wealth as a source of royal cash, which contemporaries (mostly churchmen) condemned as greedy and irreligious.

The great clash came with Anselm, whom Rufus reluctantly made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093 after falling seriously ill. Anselm insisted on obeying the Pope and resisted the king's control, leading to a bitter dispute (including the Council of Rockingham in 1095) over whether the king or the Pope had ultimate authority. The quarrel went unresolved and Anselm went into exile.

Historians rely heavily on hostile, churchman-written sources for Rufus, so judgements about his "greed" and "impiety" should be treated with care rather than as simple fact.

The Anselm dispute was part of a much bigger European quarrel: the Investiture Controversy.

The Investiture Controversy was the argument over whether kings or the Pope had the right to invest (appoint) bishops and give them the symbols of their office. Reforming popes such as Gregory VII argued that only the Church should appoint churchmen; kings insisted they must control the wealthy, powerful bishops in their lands. This is the background to the tension between Rufus and Anselm.

(Extra context — not required by the 8145 spec, but useful: the wider Investiture Controversy centred on the German Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII from the 1070s; the English version came to a head under Henry I after 1100.)

Alongside this, monasticism was reformed and revived:

• Monastic life was made stricter and more disciplined, reinforcing the Rule of St Benedict (a life of poverty, chastity and obedience), so that English monasteries caught up with European standards.
• New reformed orders spread, above all the Cluniacs. William de Warenne persuaded Cluniac monks to found a priory near his castle at Lewes between 1078 and 1082 — the first Cluniac house in England; the order continued to grow over the following century.
• Great abbeys (such as Battle Abbey, built on the site of Hastings) were founded or rebuilt, and monasteries remained the main centres of learning and education, copying manuscripts and running schools, with Latin the language of the Church, learning and record-keeping while ordinary people spoke English (the vernacular).

Some monks resisted these stricter reforms — resistance is recorded at houses such as Durham and Glastonbury — but the changes were enforced.

1. Saying the Normans invented the English Church

The Church existed and was powerful long before 1066. The Normans reformed and reorganised it — replacing bishops, separating courts, rebuilding cathedrals — they did not create it. Frame this as change within an existing institution.

2. Getting Lanfranc's date wrong

Lanfranc became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1070, four years after the Conquest, replacing Stigand. A wrong date undermines an otherwise strong answer, so learn it precisely.

3. Confusing William I's and William II's relations with the Church

William I worked with Lanfranc and is seen as co-operative; William II (Rufus) exploited Church wealth and clashed with Anselm. Mixing these up loses the key contrast the topic is built on.

4. Explaining the Investiture Controversy as an English event

The Investiture Controversy was a wider European dispute (kings versus the Pope over appointing bishops). In England it surfaces as the Rufus–Anselm quarrel. Show you know it as the bigger context, not just an English row.

5. Treating hostile sources on Rufus as plain fact

Most surviving accounts of William II were written by churchmen he had angered. Strong answers note that his reputation for greed and impiety comes from biased sources, rather than stating it as settled truth.