1
William Marshal:
Perception and Past
David C. Harrell
2
Introduction
This thesis, as the title suggests, revolves around a facet of Sir William Marshal, the
relatively well-known medieval knight. Specifically, the topic with which this paper is concerned
is the perception of Marshal through time and why he is perceived in that way. Marshal is arguably
one of the major historical figures of the 12th and 13th century in Europe; a figure of great
significance, whose name still commands a level of respect as a cultural reference. 1 The reasons
behind that intersect directly with the circumstances of his fame, which shall be, if not definitively
proven, analyzed here as potential causes. Through an examination of William Marshal’s life as it
has been recorded - comparing and contrasting with works both contemporary to him and long
after his death, the interactions between the written events of the time and Marshal’s life can be
seen to denote the reasons behind his continued popularity.
Touted as the “Flower of Chivalry”2 during his lifetime, his legend as an English folk hero
has survived the centuries – even so far as to inspire popular historical novels based on his
adventures.. However, it is the legend which survives most noticeably in the general conception of
his life, not who he truly was. The image we have of him was already being formed during his life,
and is still being malleable adjusted today. Scholarly works which focus upon William Marshal are
also often shaded by this fact, as shall be delineated within this thesis. There is a tendency among
historians, in those situations where Marshal is presented in a comparatively more objective
fashion, to use Marshal as a tool to gauge the social or political landscape in which he lived rather
1
Crouch, David. 1990. William Marshal: court, career, and chivalry in the Angevin Empire, 1147-1219. London:
Longman. p.i -10
2
Duby, Georges. 1986. William Marshal: the flower of chivalry. New York: Pantheon Books. Title, p.1
3
than to focus on reinterpretations or explications about his life that could remove layers of both
cultural and literary distortion. It is this theme of interpretive gazes which shall be introduced first.
Duby and L’Histoire
The work of Georges Duby on the subject of Marshal – Guillaume Le Maréchal – is, as an
example of this theme, presented as being a reinterpretation of the famous biographical poem
L’Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal despite the fact that it is powerfully influenced by the legend.
The format of Duby's Flower of Chivalry is partially in the first person, and recounts the knight’s
life in an almost story-like form – something which would for the most part be unthinkable to any
objective historian. This is of course influenced by the times in which Duby wrote this particular
book; as it is with every scholarly work. The crux of the difference between this work and others
on the subject of Marshal is that similar recountings of famous historical figures – such as Lamb’s
Charlemagne – do not use either the first person or the story format.3
The adventure which is perceived within Marshal as a famous warrior and, to a lesser
extent, as a political figure has overridden the less idealized considerations which might otherwise
result from academic research. This could be perceived as a far-reaching assumption about the
influential power of the Marshal story, save for the example given in another compilation of
Duby’s work, Féodalité. In Duby’s Féodalité, wherein a first person narrative about Marshal is
contained, the previous and subsequent chapters are written in the third person; the narrative tone
is not used save in the specific chapter about Marshal.4 The chapter organization also can be seen
3
Lamb, Harold. 1954. Charlemagne: the legend and the man. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. p.1-247
4
Duby, Georges, and Jacques Dalarun. 1999. Féodalité. Paris: le Grand livre du mois.
4
as evidentiary of this influence, as it is the only chapter which focuses on a singular person, and
likewise it is the middle chapter of the book, subtly signifying the importance of its role.
Duby’s source text, L’Histoire de Guillaume Le Maréchal, was itself subject to
interpretation and perception during its creation due to the nature of that creation. There is a
noticeable use of exaggeration and the outright remodeling of the actual events within L'Histoire
that seems to have been intentional in its obfuscation of the truth. Its origins as a commission given
by his elder son William place a bias on the work which cannot be ignored, and yet this seems to
have occurred. That particular source is both a great aid and a significant burden to our
understanding of the man himself, as it has shaped our perceptions of him considerably. The work
gives a strong basis of what his life may have been like, but it also shows it through a somewhat
skewed perspective that revolves around the concept of Marshal as a champion or heroic figure –
not as a man living within the social and political confines of his time. There is a great deal of
knowledge which can be gleaned from the epic poem through the manner in which it derides those
who were not in favor at the time, as well as how it attempts to use the grand figure of Marshal to
accomplish the twin desires of cultural idealization and political orientation towards Marshal’s
sons’ needs at the period immediately after his father’s death. 5
Crouch makes a point which does further establish the importance of L’Histoire as a
document steeped in literary tradition, but it also indirectly aligns the history of Marshal as a
character within the context of the period. In his book on William Marshal, Crouch states that there
are strong parallels between L’Histoire and the relatively contemporary works of Chrétien de
Troyes, as well as an identifiable theme in keeping with the French epics prior to that time. Crouch
5
Crouch, p.113
5
also states that distortion of the facts must be expected from L’Histoire, approaching the distortion
from the conception of its fictional trappings. 6 However, there were distortive influences
throughout l'Histoire's creation as has been observed and later works were also skewed by
perception and belief.7
Marshal and Interpretation
The legend of William Marshal is subject to constant reinterpretation, but in each of the
most fundamental texts on the subject, a different sort of ‘legendary influence’ still remains. There
are also numerous texts, which can only be in the most ephemeral way be considered academic,
that deconstruct works such as those provided by Painter and L’Histoire itself which serve to
propagate the bias. In texts such as Crosland’s William Marshal, the fact that the King of France
lamented William Marshal’s death was used as a reference point to the respect given even to an
enemy seems directed towards communicating a feeling of the basis behind the legend,
intentionally or not.8 However, it is clearly understandable from an analysis of Marshal’s youth and
his time as a tournament champion on the continent that to assume there was a special barrier
broken in that admission is somewhat fallacious. Marshal was essentially, for all purposes
important to the king of France at least, a Norman and thus a French knight who he would have
had no problem in calling, as Crosland attributes to him, “ the most loyal man I have ever known,
the best knight, and the truest gentleman.”9. Not much farther into Crosland’s retelling of
6
Crouch, p.6
7
Holden, Anthony J, Stewart Gregory, and David Crouch. History of William Marshal. Volumes I & II London:
Anglo-Norman Text Society, 2004. Print.
8
Crosland, Jessie Raven. 1962. William the Marshal: the last great feudal baron. London: P. Owen. p.17
9
Crosland, p.17
6
Marshal’s childhood than the introduction is a specific turn of phrase in that he refers to Marshal as
‘our hero’. The use of that phrase to introduce a new paragraph immediately intimates the
following dialogue as a sort of tale of adventure; even in the context of a grammatical function
indicating a protagonist, it does exactly that – separating William Marshal as the protagonist, the
‘good guy’.
Despite having made inquiries into Painter’s William Marshal, which does in places
analyze the difference between contemporary mores and those of the time as they relate to
Marshal’s life, Crosland’s work remains a work of reinterpretive literature, not history – and
rightly so, as he states himself.10 That mere fact alone is worth considering; an academic in the
field of literature wrote (or perhaps recompiled) a book on William Marshal. Marshal was not a
figure of literary talent, nor was he particularly interested in that area of the scholastic arts
according to our knowledge of him. The sole interest that a literary academic might have in
Marshal would be L’Histoire, as an example of a unique work for that period. After all, it does
stand alone as the only non-royal biography of its time.11 However, the book Crosland writes is not
about the poem – he deconstructs the knowledge contained within the poem and then presents it in
the modern English tongue and tone.12 That would seem, in a most obvious fashion, directly in
contrast to any supposed literary interest in the work itself. Therefore, one can make the inference
that Crosland’s interest in Marshal was indicative of the phenomenon which this paper is
concerned with. Interest of that sort indicates simultaneously the mythic connotations and the nigh-
10
Crosland, p.i-iv
11
Mulhberger, Steven. “William Marshal as an Example of Twelfth-Century Chivalry” in the Online Reference
Book for Medieval Studies. http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/muhlberger/wm_marshall.html
12
Crosland, p.i-iv
7
fictional miasma of interpretation that has been heaped upon the centuries-old view of William
Marshal. Crosland must have recognized the draw of the fictional Marshal, which spurred him on
to ‘retell the tale’, so to speak.
This is not to say, despite appearances, that Painter’s work on Marshal is to be held as the
ultimate authority on the man. Quite the opposite in fact – that contrived nature is easily dispelled
simply by counting the page numbers devoted to the sections of Marshal’s life. Prior to his
introduction to Richard as the heir apparent upon the death of Henry II, the entirety of Marshal’s
life to that point is summed up in 73 pages. The remaining years of Marshal’s life are composed of
216 pages, a great deal of which cover the relationship between Richard and Marshal.13 This is a
clear demonstration of the main thrust of Painter’s work on Marshal, which is itself demonstrative
of an overall academic perspective; Marshal is seen here as a tool to understand his society and the
historical figures around him. The focus is not truly on Marshal the man, but on Marshal as a
character within the drama of the time.
Scholars such as Crouch and Painter have been known to use phraseology and deductions –
by no means as obvious or as obsequious as that of Crosland, but still present – that reveal
potential biases even within respected works such as his. For example, Crouch conjectures that
Marshal was not literate beyond the layman requirement for prayers, though he provides no direct
evidence of this.14 Rather, he indicates that Marshal strongly appreciated academics and employed
them regularly – and that this, tied with the supposed values of de Tancarville, indicates his
illiteracy. However, Crouch also makes the point that William’s father was well-known to be
literate and that his generation had garnered an appreciation for that art. Therefore, it seems to be
13
Painter, p.1-289
14
Crouch, p.3, 143
8
an unnecessary speculation to presume that Marshal could not read. He could have indicated the
possibility of such, but to directly suggest it indicates a sentiment behind the words not in keeping
with the tone of the rest of that chapter. This may be indicative of a subtle bias in the form of a
consideration of Marshal as a more primal ‘knightly’ figure, but there is no definitive way to tell.
Crouch was seemingly on good terms with the English translators of L’Histoire, so it is more than
reasonable to assume he was well-acquainted with the work. That acquaintance with the book
would presumably translate to a familiarity with any sort of bias that could be indicated either
within or without the book. However, it is interesting to note that in the foreword to the revised
edition of his book that he implies that as Marshal grew older, Crouch perceived him more
negatively.15 That is a strong indication of bias, but given the overall tone of the book the
objectivity employed is only besmirched in an indirect fashion at best so indications of this are
miniscule. An example of that minisculia is his statement, “We can like the Marshal for that”16, in
reference to Crouch’s interpretation of his actions as being that of a local man in recruiting local
monks and knights from Wiltshire. In context, that is a very subtle distinction of the author’s
general feelings about Marshal and his feelings about this specific case.
In addition to Crouch’s own evidence on literacy, Clanchy directly states in his book on
medieval records and literacy that there is no mention of Marshal's supposed illiteracy within
L’Histoire; a statement born out in the English translation.17 Painter’s William Marshal likewise
contains oddities that indicate his biases regarding Marshal, specifically regarding his historical
value. The preface of Painter’s William Marshal delineates the use of Marshal as an historical
15
Crouch, p.i-ix
16
Crouch, p.i-ix
17
Clanchy, Michael T. 1993. From memory to written record: England 1066-1307. Oxford [u.a.]: Blackwell. p.247
9
yardstick (as has been mentioned before); however, it is in his implicit consideration of Marshal as
a “typical feudal baron”18 that defies basic logic. No other feudal baron up until that time or after
has had an epic poem written about their life, nor did they serve under some of the most
controversial figures in English history. Painter’s work does later draw on L’Histoire to extract
exemplars of medieval behavior amid the chivalric ranks in their proper context, but this
preconception of William Marshal as a sort of two-dimensional character does continue throughout
the book in obscure ways. Though it does not overly impact the execution of the intention of the
book as stated above, for the purposes of this paper it is a necessary piece of evidence that
correlates with the presence of cultural influence surrounding Marshal.
Danziger and Gillingham make the interesting point, dissimilar yet complementary to the
main proposal of this paper, that each of the ‘primary’ writers on Marshal in their field have
influenced historians in their perception of L’Histoire de Guillaume Le Maréchal as a source text
in that they have set up expectations of information and interpretation which can unduly influence
future interpretation.19 This ties in with the overall thesis in that it allows us to correlate an
observed influence with what is posited here as the overall influence of the legend. The influence
which Painter et al have on writers today about Marshal would inevitably carry on if not directly
challenged, and it is the differences between these influential writers’ perceptions’ of Marshal
which show that they too were at least partially swayed by segments of the ‘story’ and not the
situation as an historical whole. Painter’s effect on Crosland give the indication that the potential
for miscommunication is exceptional – as writers from other fields tend to rely on experts in the
18
Painter, p/.viii
AN: This quotation was chosen prior to my discovery of Gillingham's paper; he chose the same quote, and
for good reason as it is the most direct statement Painter gives about how he views Marshal.
19
Danziger and Gillingham, p.96-120
10
historical vein to not only be accurate, but also to present their findings in the most objective way
possible. 20 Gillingham wrote a paper which focused on the under-utilization of l'Histoire as a
document which gives evidence of war during the late 1100's and early 1200's, after briefly
mentioning the distortion of Marshal in academic works. This indicates that Gillingham was well
aware of the premise of this paper, but that his use of Marshal was as a referent to L'Histoire yet
again – not on the formation of Marshal's reputation itself. 21
Questions about Marshal’s Fame
Marshal is not, of course, the only historical figure ever to have been held up as an example
of a particular virtue. In point of fact, he is not even the only knight to have ever come to represent
the characteristic of chivalrous virtue – knights such Geoffroi de Charny in the later 14th century
also hold that particular honor.22 The main question remains, then, of in what way is Marshal
particularly effective as an example of the association with one-dimensional features that looming
cultural figures are subject to. Why Marshal, rather than a later knight of similar stature? That
conundrum can, to a degree, be answered by the questions themselves – Marshal is widely
remembered eight hundred years after his death; even to some extent in this country, though not on
the same level as he was renown in his period or even in the modern Europe of this century. The
reason for this recognition, and thus the force behind his original reformation into a folk
hero/cultural yardstick, cannot be simplified as a single motive force or consideration. Rather, the
20
Crosland, p.1-5
21
Strickland, Matthew. 1992. “War and Chivalry in the History of William Marshal” by J. Gillingham Anglo-
Norman warfare: studies in late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman military organization and warfare. Woodbridge,
Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press. p.251
AN: Gillingham makes nearly the same point as myself, but without an evidentiary analysis save in the
case of Duby. I was unaware of this particular paper until after my thesis was already prepared.
22
Charny, Geoffroi de, Richard W. Kaeuper, and Elspeth Kennedy. 2005. A knight's own book of chivalry Geoffroi
De Charny. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. p.vii-viii
11
time period in which he lived and the events which surrounded his life can be said to have shaped
both his actual life and the perceptual life which was ascribed to him.
That particular period in Anglo-Norman history was one of great contestation, marking the
height of Plantagenet power. The Anarchy, the Third Crusade, the creation of the Magna Carta –
these events, which it is not too grandiose to say have shaped the history of Europe, all occurred
during and were part of Marshal’s life.23 As a key figure in most of these events, Marshal’s story
has been distorted more than his narrative predecessors and successors if only through the
inevitable political propaganda and intrigues which occurred during the period. The influence upon
research and the written record that Marshal’s reputation has made gives us a window not only into
the life of that Earl of Pembroke, but also into the changing (and in some cases, static) perceptions
of the Marshal over a long period.
John Marshal & Stephen of England
The correlation of Marshal’s origins to his later life stems within the conflict between his
father, John Marshal, and one of the heirs to the throne at the time, Stephen (later King Stephen) of
England. The now-proverbial tale which surrounds their interaction regarding the succession
speaks powerfully to influences of distortion, as well as distortion itself through the ‘time-honored’
method of rewriting history to suit the political agenda of the day. Within L’Histoire, Marshal’s
father is said to have joined Matilda early on in her bid for the throne – however, Crouch
accurately points out that there is sufficient evidence from other sources more contemporary to
John Marshal than L’Histoire that strongly suggest that his initial loyalty was to Stephen.24 The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded that there was a sense of great division at the time, and it’s
23
Clanchy, p.195
24
Crouch, p.9
12
implied that loyalties were shifting based on who appeared to be the most favored in their
contention – though of course, the Chronicle is itself rife with prejudices and propagandist
intonations that make any fixed discernment of the situation most difficult.25 At the least, it could
be said that the loyalty ascribed to Matilda and Stephen was not of the depth indicated by
L’Histoire.
Laying aside the conflicting accounts for the moment, the fact that there is already discord
between older records and L’Histoire demonstrate that the beginnings of Marshal’s journey even
prior to his manhood were being consciously reshaped in order to facilitate the creation of an
image of a man whose origins were more to the taste of the elite at the time. Given that the account
was commissioned by the Marshal family, this is probably more of an attempt to solidify their
apparent loyalty to the crown through an accounting of previous loyalties. Stephen’s attempt to use
William as an hostage purportedly led to John Marshal’s dismissal of his son in a rather dramatic
fashion, which is perhaps the most literarily striking feature of their recorded interaction.26
According to the poem, he likened himself to a blacksmith in regards to the ‘forging’ of
sons, implying that he could make better heirs. It makes for a superlative literary conceit, used in
order to foreshadow William’s later lack of an inheritance. The fact, however, remains that
William Marshal already had several brothers at the time who were all older than him – and thus
more likely to receive lands and titles from their father. In L’Histoire, they are briefly mentioned,
but not in the same context as is indicated. It was due to that arrangement of birth that William
would receive no support of that kind – his later provisioning under William de Tancarville was to
be his only ‘inheritance’. The reality of the conflict between John and Stephen does mirrors in a
25
Garmonsway, George Norman. 1953. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle. London: Dent. p.263-267
26
Holden et al, l. 1-2700
13
way the later conflict between William Marshal and his king Henry II, though of course the basis
of the conflict differs in many aspects. The primary similarity between the two, which is most
striking given the aforementioned omission by the poem, is that both John and William could be
perceived as having turned against kings they served in order to support pretenders to the throne.
This may explain, at least in part, the motivation behind the omission as a form of protection from
that particular accusation shifting onto William Marshal the younger and his family from his
forebears, though that is at best speculation.
Marshal’s Younger Years
William Marshal’s childhood is not emphasized in primary sources on his life. Secondary
works such as those by Crouch or Duby follow this focus on adulthood as well, though that can be
understood as a result of a lack of motivation on the part of the primary source writers. In
comparison to our sources for his childhood, L’Histoire focuses on his conquests as a knight and
jouster instead. That in and of itself shows the agenda behind the poem at the time was not on
autobiographical purity, but rather on the formation of an ideal character more in keeping with the
Vita of a saint or the Song of Roland than with any of the chronicling efforts made at the time, as
Crouch and Painter acknowledge.27 However, there are several facts which are relatively certain
regarding his formative years due to what is known of his father’s life and society at the time.
As a result of William’s status as the youngest child in addition and (to a lesser extent) his
father having gone out of favor at court, John Marshal did not end up raising William, at the least
during his teenage years; rather, that role fell to William de Tancarville. 28 A key bias was pointed
out by Crouch, in that L’Histoire denotes in an implicit fashion that the foster relationship was a
27
Crouch, p. 6
28
Crouch, p.67
14
result of familial bonds between John Marshal and de Tancarville, whereas the records that are
available indicate that relationship having been on William Marshal’s mother’s side.29 This is yet
another form of polishing applied to John Marshal, elevating his reputation and pedigree in order
to further aggrandize his son William. John’s political fortunes at the time are glossed over in this
instance once again, through the simple act of omission.
The time between William Marshal’s stay as King Stephen’s hostage and his leaving for
Normandy to live with de Tancarville could have been no less than two years, perhaps more.
However, this period of time – during which John Marshal’s fortunes declined and his courtly
favor diminished – is skipped over in a few short sentences. 30 The significance of manipulating the
audience’s perception through the use of de Tancarville in rearranging familial relationships in
order to satisfy the pervasive gender bias of 13th century Europe necessitates a brief consideration
of the reputation of William de Tancarville and his family in proportion to his influence on the
young Marshal. De Tancarville was at the time the chamberlain of Normandy; doubtless a strong
position to be in during the fall-out of the Anarchy – away from England, but within the Angevin
realm. He was known to hold large tracts of land in England, and was recognized informally as the
chamberlain of Normandy and England. 31 Though this is an unofficial title, it does indicate the
breadth of de Tancarville’s reputation and power. Likewise, it can be inferred that the motivation
to tie John Marshal to de Tancarville would be great given the ‘need’ to mitigate his past failures
so as not to ‘dilute’ the story of his son.
Eleanor of Aquitaine; The Plantagenet Connection
29
Crouch, p.19
30
Holden et al,1-2700
31
Cleveland, Duchess of. 1889. Battle Abbey Roll with some account of the Norman lineages, Vol.3. London: John
Murray. p.195
15
The relationship between Eleanor of Aquitaine and William Marshal is subject to a great
deal of emotionally-charged interpretation, based on the relationships between the nobles of the
time and the effect that would have on social circles. What is known about the situation amounts to
two things in relation to the Queen and Marshal during this period. The first piece of information is
that William Marshal was at one point ransomed back by Eleanor of Aquitaine from his captors the
Lusignans in France, and the subsequent relationship of Marshal with her family would at the least
seem to suggest that they were on amiable terms.32 Secondly, Eleanor of Aquitaine was a
prominent judge in the 'courts of love' at the time; a position which would have held significant
social power in terms of admission to or denial from the higher levels of society.33 Those courts
dealt with lovers' disputes, but also seem to have subtly influenced the constitution of the royal
court.34 Crouch, Pernoud, and Painter all point to his association with Eleanor of Aquitaine as the
start of his rise to prominence, as do contemporary sources. It is rather obvious to see that if
Eleanor of Aquitaine had at any point decided Marshal was unworthy of her attention, there would
have been no courtly access granted to the young knight – and certainly not to the extent which
occurred. The power which was opened up through this position spurred on his legend, in grandeur
as well as in its narrative simplification. Through her influence with the royal family, he became
the favored liegeman of the Plantagenet line until the end of his life.
Marshal the Champion: Effects and Basis
Prior to discussing the adult life of William Marshal, it is perhaps most appropriate to
explicate the origins of Marshal’s fame to understand his context and how that is shaded by
32
Pernoud, Régine. 1968. Eleanor of Aquitaine. New York: Coward-McCann. p.154
33
Kelly, Amy 1937. “Eleanor of Aquitaine and her Courts of Love” in Speculum , Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 3-19
34
Kelly, p. 5
16
different authors. Our current understanding of the late 12th and early 13th century gives us the
impression that the more military aspects of life at the time were considered to rank highly in both
prestige and social importance. This is evidenced in the tomb goods of the time, as well as the
architecture of the tombs themselves; literature from the time also denotes this type of focus.35 It is
readily apparent in the passages of L’Histoire de Guillaume Le Maréchal that his involvement in
tournaments was his primary and initial source of fame. For that reason, a great deal of import is
placed on Marshal as a tournament master. His record & reputation as an ‘unbeatable champion’
appears to take up a great deal of the character definition which forms the general ideation of
William Marshal. For that reason, a separate, brief consideration of his supposed prowess and how
it has been viewed by authors both contemporary and modern is necessary to understand that part
of his myth.
It is probably true, given the amount and the vociferousness of the verficatory evidence,
that Marshal was among the best – if not indeed the best – of the tournament champions of his
time. However, the acceptance with which authors will repeat the recollections of his more
incredulous deeds communicates the difference between the legend and its basis. A paraphrasing
of l'Histoire, for example, which is found in the book 1215 by Danziger and Gillingham is inserted
into a section on jousting terminology. The story which is added to the paragraph indicates that
Marshal once had his helmet reshaped on an anvil while his head was still in it.36 Whether or not
this happened is unimportant in comparison to the lack of hesitance to include this story alongside
what is otherwise a treatise on the contemporary setting of tournaments contained within a book
35
Goldiner, Sigrid 2001. "Art and Death in the Middle Ages", in Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The
Metropolitan Museum of Art. <http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/deth/hd_deth.htm> Feb 23, 2011
36
Danziger, Danny, and John Gillingham. 2004. 1215: the year of Magna Carta. New York: Simon & Schuster.
p.97
17
that is not about Marshal in any direct way. It would seem to indicate several different things about
the authors and the work.
This potential sign of differential treatment towards the legendary Marshal first indicates
that the authors seem to have a non-academic interest and/or fondness for William Marshal, which
lead to their inclusion of the brief ‘achievement’. Secondly, it could indicate that the authors
themselves included that particular story in the hopes of catching the intended reading audiences’
attention through the use of a larger-than-life, heroic figure – thereby demonstrating their
familiarity with the obscuring effect of Marshal’s fame on his life and on scholarship about his life,
simultaneously. This latter conclusion seems most likely given that the popular confusion which
surrounds the historical period in question is brought up directly in their work through the example
of Ivanhoe’s obscuring effect on the actual blend of Anglo-Norman and French culture.37 They
point out quite distinctly that the Norman vs. Angle spin put on that period, as epitomized in
legends such as those which surround King John and King Richard, is incorrect at a minimum.
Taken together – their colorful descriptors of William Marshal and their deconstruction of
Ivanhoe’s obscuration – there appears to be an ample amount of further evidence that there is a
motivating influence that surrounds William Marshal’s legend in such a way that it causes
objectivity to be at least somewhat affected.
Marshal under Henry II and the Young King
The reign of Henry II, in which Marshal was to solidify his prominence in the Angevin
court, could well be considered a controversial one when one considers the later tensions between
Henry II and his sons. This is especially true in Marshal’s case, as he was to become the favorite of
Henry II’s son Henry, just as he had become his own. Marshal had trained the young Henry to
37
Danziger and Gillingham, p.208-209
18
knighthood, and his time in the Young King’s court would prove at the least to be an unwelcome
reminder to the writer of L’Histoire of his less-than-spotless career. The connection to Eleanor of
Aquitaine no doubt opened doors in the royal household, but the influence of prior relations most
likely had some sway. After all, Henry II was the son of the Empress Matilda whom John Marshal
had eventually supported against King Stephen. The history between the two families doubtlessly
had some influence, but what that influence was is hard to say. What can be said is that Marshal
flourished under both Henry II and his son, despite eventually having a falling out with both the
royals at different times and to different degrees.
This period is one of several in Marshal’s life which baffles the conception of the William
Marshal, the ‘most loyal’ knight, on first glance. Painter’s relatively minute coverage of this
period, as well as the lack of pure information from L’Histoire, forces us to rely on Crouch’s work
on William Marshal in order to form the basis of our understanding on this period in Marshal’s
life. Crouch relies heavily on L’Histoire for the base information necessary to understand this
passage, but the secondary information which he makes use of in the form of charters gives lie to
the motivation and environment in which Marshal was working at the time. 38
Having been appointed by Henry II to young Henry’s service would appear to be an honor
– a knight appointed to the royal heir, famous already for his tournamental prowess, could not have
been in a better position under different circumstances. More to the point, he had been the favorite
of one king and had settled into the same position with the heir, even to the point of having been
the one to knight him and engage in tournaments with him as a “player-manager”.39 Given the
information from the charters and the later tensions within the royal family, a more logical
38
Crouch, p.65
39
Crouch, p.176
19
interpretation is that Marshal was placed into the young Henry’s circle (along with the king’s other
appointees) to mold and tame the young Henry. Painter does not make a great mention of this,
despite its importance to Marshal as his first true political conflict, which ties in with Painter’s
somewhat superficial use of Marshal.
Marshal, rather than ground the heir to the throne, sided with the Young King when he
revolted against his father and contested the throne. That revolt was an unmitigated failure, ending
with young Henry’s death. 40 Not long after the death of the Young King, L’Histoire goes almost
entirely silent on the next two years of Marshal’s life, during which time he traveled to Jerusalem
on pilgrimage.41 Prior to leaving, he appears to have at least partially reconciled with Henry II who
reportedly financed his journey there. The silence of L’Histoire may indicate that the recollections
that the larger part of the work was based around were not available, due to the length and distance
of his journey.42 A secondary explanation that might be more likely is given by Crouch, in that the
deeds which Marshal accomplished there could have been negligible enough that it was thought
best to exclude them. If that supposition is true, then it most certainly is another point in which
Marshal’s story is being reshaped to better fit the expectations of its intended audience. It may also
be due to the author of L’Histoire not being with Marshal during that time, and thus unable to
recount accurately what he had not witnessed first-hand.43
Marshal’s Dilemma: Richard the ‘Lionheart’ & John ‘Lackland’
40
McLetchie, Scott. 1998. “The Revolt and Death of the Young King, 1183”, from The Annals of Roger de Hoveden,
trans. by Henry T. Riley. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1183hovden.asp
41
Holden et al, l.8000-10031
42
Crouch, p.49-51
43
Crouch, p.49-51
20
Marshal was almost entirely alone among his contemporaries in the sense of having his
fame shape how he was viewed after his death, save for King Richard and King John. Richard the
Lion-Heart, the supposed story of whom is an integral feature of the ‘Robin Hood’ mythos, is yet
another strongly-distorted figure. His legend far outshines that of Marshal in the modern period, in
that he is peripherally remembered through the tales which have their origins with his brother King
John Lackland and ‘Robin Hood’ during the Crusades period. The obscuring features of the
Lionheart myth, though a grand example in the modern era for the shift in perception that
accompanies temporal distance and cultural change, also overshadow the subtle-yet-important
changes which stories like William Marshal’s undergo. That is to say, that which obscures the
kings under whom Marshal served also muddles our sense of his relationship with them. The polar
opposition which was engendered in the public perception of King John and King Richard makes
for perhaps the most powerful singular ambiguities regarding Marshal. As Grandsden points out in
her Legends, Traditions, and History in Medieval England, the contemporary records show a stark
contrast between the portrayal of the ‘forgiving’ Richard and the ‘lack of religious feeling’ which
was recorded of John in the Life of St. Hugh.44 It is, however, remarked upon by several of the
authors upon whose work this paper is based that the evidence suggests that Richard was little
concerned with England or religion qua religion, so much as he was besotted with war and the
tournament. John, despite his near-autocrat tendencies, was far more an ‘English’ king, having
been raised in the court of Henry II rather than in Normandy like his brother Richard. Marshal
came into political and factional tensions under both these men, despite Richard’s later favor and
John’s initial support..
44
Gransden, Antonia. 1992. Legends, traditions, and history in medieval England. London: Hambledon Press. p.190
21
It is indicated by both Crouch and Painter that l'Histoire's style changes rather distinctly
during the recounting of this period in Marshal’s life. Crouch suggests that this is due to the
parallel introduction of Marshal’s squire, who it is believed wrote or composed L’Histoire based
on what he was told and his own recollections. As he entered Marshal’s home at this time, it makes
sense that the story would become more uniform rather than a sort of cobbling-together of various
persons’ anecdotes.45 It also is evident that L’Histoire remained at least partially fictitious after this
change, as his return to court is aggrandized to an higher extent than was his actual position. It is
true that the fief of Cartmel in Lancashire was given to him outright, while the lands of the female
heir of William of Lancaster, Helwis, were put under his guardianship. 46
However, the position which Marshal held in court has been described by authors such as
Crouch as a comparatively junior one rather than anything which could be touted as significant or
influential.47 Henry II had received Marshal, but it seems that the former trust which he had in him
was diminished considerably. This makes sense, given that Henry II was wary at the time of revolt
from his other sons. Marshal soon was once more engaged in a rebellion against an English king,
but as a defender of the throne rather than its pretender. Richard, then Count of Anjou, had joined
with his brother Henry early on in his first revolts against King Henry II. Richard soon ‘mended’
his relationship with the king, and stepped back from action against him. Following the defeat and
death of young Henry, Richard continued his previously-discarded attempt for the throne. The
elder king was eventually removed from his throne after several engagements, and died soon
thereafter. 48 Marshal had not benefited from this procession of events in the least, as he had
45
Crouch, p.49-51
46
Painter, Sidney. 1933. William Marshal, knight-errant, baron, and regent of England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press. p.66
47
Crouch, p.51; Danzeiger and Gillingham, p.167
48
McLetchie, Scott. 1998. “The Revolt and Death of the Young King, 1183”, from The Annals of Roger de Hoveden,
trans. by Henry T. Riley. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1183hovden.asp
22
forgone promises of lesser lands in favor of the potential riches to be gained from a marriage to
Isabel de Clare, whom Henry II promised to him. With Henry II dead, Marshal was at the mercy of
King Richard, whom he had famously unhorsed during Henry II’s retreat at Le Mans.49 In order to
add context to the next sequence of events, the habits and appreciations of those involved must be
considered. Richard’s father Henry II had reportedly been a tournament enthusiast, and by
accounts it appears that Richard had inherited that particular fixation.50 Richard seems to have been
not at all reluctant to let his near-death at the hands of Marshal go, perhaps for that reason. The
reason why this anecdote is important to the overall scheme of this paper is that it indicates both
that William Marshal was in conflict with yet another king (albeit prior to his reign) and that the
reconstruction of history which surrounds figures such as Richard I also serves to change the way
they are presented to relate to others such as William Marshal.
Richard I is not primarily depicted in most modern literature as having been involved in
any negative conflict regarding inheritance, stemming from his position as the ‘good guy’ of the
Robin Hood legend. That particular aspect of his life is omitted, in order to present a more two-
dimensional and unflappably stalwart figure. This relates to Marshal in that the same modification
has occurred, through both omission and misinformation. Marshal went against Henry II once on
behalf of the Young King Henry and later on against King John due to his tenuous grip on
England, and was a powerful bulwark preventing Richard from subverting the throne. Like any
other knight, he followed his king (or his pretender) and did not always succeed. The question
remains as to why those kings felt him so able either to prevent or to uphold a revolt. It is intimated
by letters from that time that the reason for that ‘power’ came from what King John would later
49
Danziger and Gillingham, p.167
50
Danziger and Gillingham, p.101,
23
indirectly state was Marshal’s charisma and reputation.51 King John, in a letter of thanks to the
Marshal for support, indicated that his acceptance of John was enough to sway most of the nobles
in England one way or the other in situations such as those.
In any case, King Richard had seen fit to excuse those compatriots of his father, including
the Marshal, and made surety of their claims which his late father had awarded them.52 Richard,
according to the evidence, was more than happy to hand over lands in England, especially if he
could garner funds for them.53 His desire to go on the Third Crusade caused him to sell Marshal the
sheriffhood of Gloucester, which has been pointed out by Painter could have been – if intentional –
a savvy political move as it caused Marshal to be on an equal footing with the then-Count John
who could thus be neutralized as a threat.54 Crouch disagrees on this point as the lack of any real
contention, coupled with Count John’s overall earldom of Gloucester, indicates that William
Marshal was put more under the authority of John than anything else.55 This would seem to make
sense, as a prefigurement of his later service of John. However, the overall beneficial actions of
Richard I towards Marshal may or may not have been (as Crouch indicates) entirely altruistic.
This rise in status, coupled with his marriage to the heiress Isabel de Clare, was quite the
change from Marshal’s previous landless status. The prominence he gained from Richard, as well
as the status he received in the form of bearing the royal scepter at his coronation, strongly
indicates that the differences between Richard and Marshal were laid to rest quite quickly. The
contestation that would occur between Marshal and William de Longchamp over Gloucester Castle
– stemming from their amity at court – would end through King Richard’s favor being placed on
51
Crouch, p.116-119
52
Crouch, p.3, 143,
53
Painter, p.74
54
Painter,p.83
55
Crouch, p.116-119
24
Marshal in the form of the position as one of four ‘co-justiciars’ to monitor Longchamp’s ‘rule’
while Richard was on crusade.56 Clanchy notes that King Richard had William de Longchamp
replaced eventually, which L’Histoire indicates was part of the political maneuverings of
Marshal.57 It is here, however, that l'Histoire's veracity is once more challenged by established facts. Count
John, who had been in contestation with William de Longchamp, was portrayed by L’Histoire as
frustrated in his attempt to control England by Marshal’s successful attempt to replace Longchamp
with the archbishop of Rouen. However, it is patently obvious that John had been recognized at the
same time as the heir to Richard over Arthur of Brittany, as well as being declared the rector of
England by Richard in his absence. Therefore, it is only reasonable to presume as Crouch does that
between John and Longchamp, William was far more amiable to John. Once John and Phillip II of
France attempted to hasten his ascendancy to the throne prior to Richard’s return, the justiciars of
England were forced to besiege and repulse him. 58
Whether Marshal participated or not is uncertain, as he may have deferred using the same
excuse as Hugh Bardolf; that he was technically Count John’s man. However, that depends on the
already-uncertain status of his Irish lands as mentioned above. It was, though, to John that William
paid homage upon Richard’s return. 59 Conversely, this did not stop Marshal and the justiciars from
seizing John’s lands in Bristol during the same period. Therefore it is demonstrable that there are
multiple levels to Marshal’s alliances, and that his allegiance seems primarily focused on the best
benefit for himself – much like any other baron of his time, as Painter would allude. Likewise,
John’s machinations were apparently contained by and countered by Marshal during this period.
This suggests that Marshal at this time was far more the political creature than he was made out to
56
Danziger and Gillingham. p.237; Crouch, p.70
57
Clanchy, p.120
58
Crouch, p.69-70
59
Crouch, p.69-70
25
be later on. Crouch comes to this conclusion similarly, through the example of Marshal’s actions at
the death of his elder brother John. Marshal made the choice not to go to his funeral, though he
sent his knights along with the body; on his way to meet King Richard, he briefly paid his respects
and continued onwards. Crouch’s interpretation is that Marshal’s position as courtier had become
practically his entire life, and thus could not be swayed from it by any means. However, Crouch
goes on to suggest that John Marshal was “not so much a brother”60 that it would distract him; this
is most certainly a bit of his own bias shining through. It is clear to see, given the author’s own
admission that John and William witnessed several charters together with John as the senior even
though William had outpaced him politically, that the two brothers were at the least not hostile
enough towards each other that William’s actions could be construed as emotionally motivated.
Marshal’s influence at court grew under Richard exponentially.
Richard’s death marked the end of the Angevin empire; a fact which would later lend
credence to his position as a great king.61 In point of fact, it makes far more sense to consider that
Phillip of France decided to retake Normandy during the change-over from Richard for three
reasons. The first being that Phillip had supported Richard’s takeover of England in the first place
against Henry II, and the second being that the response of the English would be diminished while
authority – which had often been either in doubt or unstable – was being established by the heir to
the throne, King John. The third and most politically important reason is mentioned by Danziger
and Gillingham; that John might have been King of England, but he was also the Duke of
60
Crouch, p.69-70
61
Gransden, p.190
26
Normandy and Aquitaine. Therefore, the King of France still had a form of claim on those lands
when in contention. 62
Marshal, John, & the Magna Carta
The succession of John to the throne of England was, at least according to King John
himself, largely due to the support of Marshal with the barons of England. John was supported by
Marshal in his early decisions as a member of the council, including the expulsion of the royal
treasurer. Danziger and Gillingham closely follow l'Histoire's description of John’s reign, to the
point of including quotes regarding the ‘vile’ treatment of prisoners and his distrust of his barons.
The contemporary writings of the time do indicate that he was considered cowardly by the public,
most likely for not attempting to take back Normandy immediately. Whether or not he was is not
important to this thesis, but the perception that was lain upon him is as the on-again, off-again
conflicts between William and John have been shaded by the reputations of the respective
noblemen. During John’s falling out with William de Briouze (Braouse) and his family, Marshal
was the first to yield after sheltering them, crossing the channel from Ireland in order to make
peace and offer hostages.63 The division of his loyalty between his fellow barons and King John is
rather apparent here, and points towards the more realistic middle-ground Marshal that is often
overtaken by the image of the chivalrous, unyielding Marshal. This division is made more obvious
in terms of the Magna Carta, which Danziger and Gillingham describe as, to paraphrase, an act of
complaint against the king as much as it was a part of newly-formed law. That particular
perception holds significant weight, given that the Magna Carta was based on the Charter of
Liberties of Henry I’s, which outlined the rights of barons, general succesionary rights, and land
62
Danziger and Gillingham, p.143
63
Crouch, p.107
27
rights.64 That document had been the basis of Henry II’s reforms, and to refer back to it in such a
transparent manner would certainly seem to be an act of remonstration at the very least.65
John’s lack of success by the end of his life, having been put under the metaphorical yoke
of the Magna Carta as well as having been waylaid by the French, has been presented by Crouch as
the reason why his reputation suffered so. It is considered that the people of the time believed that
since King John’s reign ended poorly, he must have deserved the wrath of God, so to speak.66
Clanchy states this directly, citing Matthew Paris’ comment on the evil of John as it related to how
his rule ended poorly as a contemporary example of that train of thought.67 He goes farther, in that
he points out the actions of historians of the Victorian era in the perpetuation of this myth as a part
of a mixed cultural fantasy/social history. The Barnwell Chronicle compares him more favorably
to Marius, a fact which Clanchy used to express the mixed sentiments of the time regarding King
John.68 It was necessary to note the above, as it relates to Marshal in how his relationship with him
has been twisted from its origins. Marshal’s separate loyalties to the barons and to the king caused
him to ‘waffle’ in terms of whom to support, but he held no apparent special contempt for King
John despite appearances to the contrary; their working relationship was amiable, judging from
John’s letters. The combination of the ‘good’ Marshal image and the ‘bad’ King John image
64
Seyfield, Seth 1996. Charter of Liberties of Henry I, 1100. Internet History Sourcebooks Project.
<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/hcoronation.asp>
65
Richardson, H. G. 1954. “The Chamber under Henry II” in The English Historical Review Vol. 69, No. 273
(Oct.,), pp. 596-611 Oxford University Press <http://0-www.jstor.org.innopac.library.unr.edu/stable/557882>
66
Gransden, Antonia. p.109
67
Clanchy, M. T. 1998. England and its rulers, 1066-1272. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. p.187
68
Clanchy, p.189
28
simply has washed out their actual points of view in such a way that only a two-dimensional
caricature remains.69
Marshal, Regent of England
It is perhaps seen as a great accomplishment and compliment that Marshal was chosen as
the king’s son’s regent, despite the conflict between the two. However, it was more than likely
another example of William Marshal putting his best political foot forward in a tragic situation.
Opposite to when his brother died, Marshal made movements immediately to King John’s funeral;
providing it with brocade and cloth for the entombment. While the child Henry III was being
brought forward to the head noblemen of England, Marshal met him on the road there. Regardless
of whether or not his affections for the young child were as true as they have been purported to be,
he proceeded to ingratiate himself with the boy. It was he who knighted Henry III once they
arrived in Gloucester. Crouch lays more interpretation here, in that he depicts Marshal as having
staged the scene to ‘underline’ the necessity of his rectorship (regency); this is speculative,
however. What is certain is that Marshal’s seal would later appear on royal documents and
payments to the crown would be made directly to him – in point of fact, from 1216 to shortly
before his death when he would resign, he was practically king in all but name. 70
His political maneuvering, which already has been denoted, had achieved the highest rung
of power possible within his society short of an out-and-out kingship, and it would later be
recorded (especially in L’Histoire) as though he had absolutely nothing to do with it.71 Soon after,
Marshal removed the threat of Louis of France from Henry III’s throne in such a fashion that the
69
Gransden, p.189-191
70
Crouch, p.227-233
71
Holden et al, l.17000-19024
29
young king when older would dub it treachery; the terms were apparently more to the liking of
Louis than to his rebellious followers. There seems to be a thrust towards the main problem which
Marshal had lived under and around throughout his entire life – the relationship of the king to his
followers and they to him. By undercutting the rebels strongly, it may be that he was attempting to
prevent them from eagerly following another’s banner in a challenge on Henry III. That remains a
speculative prospect; what is certain about Marshal’s ‘reign’ as regent is that he restored the
monies lost on the Crusades and rejuvenated the government from its previous lethargic state under
King John. That would seem to indicate of itself that he was attempting to establish a stable
government, rather than merely enlarging his own holdings or aggrandizing himself. At this point,
he was of such reputation and wealth that he did not need either.
This period of his life is portrayed in a noticeably different fashion within L’Histoire, as
Crouch attests; the detail is far more exacting in terms of battles and political maneuvers, and
speaks to the greater level of veracity that times closer to the writing would most likely have given
– even to the point of being less mitigatory about Marshal’s actions.72 His death is recorded as
having been a moving affair, with great laudations for his eulogy. This is most likely true; after all,
the perception of Marshal had already become the apex of what it would continue to be – the
embodiment of knighthood.73
After Marshal’s Death: Continuation of The Legend
In considering William Marshal as a cultural object after his death, it is somewhat
necessary to briefly look over what the virtues of the time were in relation to his position as an
embodiment of chivalry. To paraphrase Geoffroi de Charny, a knight and author active during the
72
Crouch, p.227-233
73
Painter, p.289
30
14th century, the virtues of chivalry could essentially be boiled down to effort beyond the norm,
courtesy, generosity, strength, and faith. Tournaments by the 14th century were still prevalent, but
were on the downward arch into decline. The change of ideals and goals which came with the
Renaissance movement would essentially deconstruct the tournament as it was previously used,
and eventually remove it from currency altogether. However, the visible characteristics of Marshal
in L’Histoire match almost precisely those given by Geoffroi de Charny a century later, thereby
demonstrating the continuation of a recognized image of the ‘perfect knight’. 74
Similarly to that, one can also deduce that the image portrayed within L’Histoire was
modeled at the time on a similar ideal of the knight. Therefore, the view of Marshal throughout
time is not simply the transfigured view of a medieval knight, but a view of the superimposed
‘perfection’ which knights at the time and for some time later would reach for. Later works, such
as the folk ballad “Queen Eleanor’s Confession”, use Marshal as a character of romantic intent and
lust who breaks the bonds of chastity to couple with the queen.75 The time period in which this
ballad was transcripted gives us the impression that once more Marshal has merged with the
stereotypical knight. Rather than a perfect ideation of chivalry, he represents a more realistic
(though utterly unevidenced) view of the knight to whom bonds were not unbreakable and could be
transgressed on occasion. There is a complementary argument to be made here, though, in that the
origins of the story behind the ballad tell a supplementary tale to the popularity of the ballad in that
form at the time of its being recorded in a book long after Marshal’s death. The actual instigatory
event for this ballad was not of an accusation of adultery against Queen Eleanor, but against the
74
Charny, p.vii-viii
75
Child, Francis James. 1965. “Queen Eleanor’s Confession” in The English and Scottish popular ballads. New
York: Dover Publications. p.14
31
wife of Henry Plantagenet known also as the Young King Henry.76 This is recorded in L’Histoire
as an act of courtly intrigue against Marshal’s character – who is manifestly unable to have done
such a thing according to the poem – rather than an actual affair. As has been stated earlier in the
paper, Marshal most likely was not engaged in relations with the queen – but the combination of
the accusation with the longevity of this ballad, itself coupled with the transition of the offense
from a lesser Plantagenet member to a greater one, does lend credence to Crouch’s observation of
the narrative pattern of the ‘Lancelot’ figure; prowess on the field of battle, and the charm
necessary to enter the royal bedchambers.77 This is an example of how Marshal’s ‘story’ was
shaped during his own lifetime as well as after his death, following at this point the narrative
patterns which had been part of the culture. Later on, his story – influenced as it was by others
before it - would gain sufficient cache that it would in turn fuse with both the historical and the
cultural landscape.
Marshal in Film
Despite his primary popularity in sub-mainstream arenas, Marshal remains within the broad
scope of popular culture around the world to some extent in the form of Hollywood films and
historical novels. Whether he is portrayed as the one-dimensional, stereotypical ‘white knight’ or
as a more ‘gritty’ character, he seems to have assumed in the minds of writers today different
positions relative to the media which he is portrayed in. As an example, the English novelist
Hubbard’s Knight at Tancarville: Marshal, the landless years – published some fourteen years ago
76
Child, p.14
77
Crouch, p.45
32
– focuses on Marshal under the tutelage of William de Tancarville through the fictional literary
lens. The title itself is an indication of the genre to which the Marshal character is recast, if only
for two reasons. The first assumption made is that the name ‘Marshal’ will be recognized as no one
other than William Marshal – relying on a popular knowledge of the character to catch interest,
which makes sense given that this book was published in Sussex in the United Kingdom where
there are both cultural and political reasons for his introduction into the primary and secondary
educational curriculum. The second assumption has to do with how Marshal is perceived in
relation to previous attempts to encapsulate him; that is to say, the supposition is made that
William Marshal is not described often as a youth in favor of heaping laudes on his acts during his
adulthood and dotage. 78
The Marshal of modern films has become primarily a supporting character to the lives of
those famous kings and queens whom he served during his life; relegated to a sideline position
which gives the audience the impression that he is important, but not the context behind that
importance.79 Presumably, those who would care about Marshal’s deeper context already would
know about it – or at least this seems to be the conclusion drawn by filmmakers over the last fifty
years or so. In the realm of the historical novel such as those of Chadwick and Crosland, Marshal
more often plays a central role due to his status as both a cultural hero and as a literary
yardstick.80,81 The poem written about him plays its own role in this, as it allows for an easier
dramatic reinterpretation on the page than on the screen, if the amount of books regarding him in
78
Hubbard, Edward. 1997. Knight at Tancarville: William Marshal, the landless years. Sussex, England: Book Guild.
79
7
“William Marshal (Character)”, Internet Movie Database. Last modified 14 Nov 2011.
<http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0070176/>
80
Crosland, p.1
81
Chadwick, Elizabeth. 2006. The Greatest Knight. London: Time Warner.
33
comparison to his film ‘appearances’ is any indicator.82 The historical importance of Marshal’s use
as an artistic tool is both reflective and reflexive, in that it mirrors the type and the degree of the
degradation of his historical context as it is perceived by the general populace. This is an indicator
of the amount of contestation that revolves around that particular period in England between
written records, but also it functions to show the continuation of a trend over time to modify
historically significant characters both positively and negatively.
Conclusion
As has been elaborated upon within this thesis, the name William Marshal does in fact refer
to two different people; the historical Marshal and the cultural Marshal. These two often coincide,
even in scholarly works, to the point that they seem rather similar to each other. However, it is
important to understand that despite the sub-rosa nature of the influences which have acted upon
Marshal’s history to create his cultural iconography, they are still actively working upon our
perception of him. Earlier in this thesis, the question of who Marshal really was came to attention.
His status as a champion of the tournament, a baron for whom great respect was held – even
among those kings he fought against – is well-established. The roots of Marshal’s legend have
been carried on from L’Histoire and oral tradition to eventually grow into a far more simplistic
idea of the man through the modern cultural lens. However, it is also plainly visible where
chroniclers have shifted the history of his life in order to better fit their needs; propaganda has used
his image, as have commercial endeavors83. The various types of art and media that exist have been
82
“William Marshal (Character)”, Internet Movie Database. Last modified 14 Nov 2011.
<http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0070176/>
83
“A Grand Tournament from the Age of William The Marshal”. Last modified ?
2009.<http://threeriver.org/marshal/index.shtml>
34
used to express a conception of Marshal, each different in terms of role and character. The
representation of the man has taken on a life of its own, shadowing realistic observation of William
until little conflict over the truth remains; leaving it muddied with the opinions of others which
have covered the story over with time. Those who claim objectivity when writing about Marshal,
as has been discussed, still fall into the trap of imagining the man, rather than exploring what’s
there. The virtues which he lived by, and was acclaimed for, were covered over by each successive
generation even up to the present day with the new ‘ideal knight’.84
Marshal’s fame, in the end, is a construct of coincidence and culture. The combination of
the mythological ‘Lancelot’ figure and the ‘perfect knight’ ideal were placed upon Marshal in
response not only to his ability at the popular sport of his day, but his longevity and persistent
political relevance across a span of six generations of kings. If he had not been so able at the
tournament, it seems likely that he would never have achieved the notice of the Plantagenets;
likewise, had he never been noticed by Eleanor of Aquitaine, the position of royal favorite and
regent would most likely never have come to him. Marshal was – to use the cliché – the right man,
in the right place, at the right time to become a foundation for the people of the Angevin Empire to
base their Marshal upon.
84
Mulhberger
35
Bibliography
“A Grand Tournament from the Age of William The Marshal”. Last modified ?
2009.<http://threeriver.org/marshal/index.shtml>
Bracton, Henry de. 1878. De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliae : libri quinque in varios
tractatus distincti, ad diversorum et vetustissimorum codicum collationem typis vulgati. Vol. 1 / ed.
by Sir Travers Twiss.
Campbell, Gordon. 2006. The Grove encyclopedia of decorative arts. New York, N.Y.:
Oxford University Press.
Chadwick, Elizabeth. 2006. The Greatest Knight. London: Time Warner.
Charny, Geoffroi de, Richard W. Kaeuper, and Elspeth Kennedy. 2005. A knight's own
book of chivalry Geoffroi De Charny. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/58052307.html.
Child, Francis James. 1965. “Queen Eleanor’s Confession” in The English and Scottish
popular ballads. New York: Dover Publications.
Clanchy, M. T. 1998. England and its rulers, 1066-1272. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Clanchy, Michael T. 1993. From memory to written record: England 1066-1307. Oxford
[u.a.]: Blackwell.
36
Crosland, Jessie Raven. 1962. William the Marshal: the last great feudal baron. London: P.
Owen.
Crouch, David. 1990. William Marshal: court, career, and chivalry in the Angevin Empire,
1147-1219. London: Longman.
Duby, Georges. 1986. William Marshal: the flower of chivalry. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Duby, Georges, and Jacques Dalarun. 1999. Féodalité. Paris: le Grand livre du mois.
Encyclopædia Britannica Online. s.v. “William Marshal”. http://0-
www.britannica.com.innopac.library.unr.edu/EBchecked/topic/449508/William-Marshal-1st-earl-
of-Pembroke (accessed Feb 10, 2011)
Goldiner, Sigrid 2001. "Art and Death in the Middle Ages", in Heilbrunn Timeline of Art
History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
<http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/deth/hd_deth.htm> Feb 23, 2011
Gransden, Antonia. 1992. Legends, traditions, and history in medieval England. London:
Hambledon Press.
Holden, Anthony J., Stewart Gregory, and David Crouch. 2002. History of William
Marshal. Volume I, Text & translation (II. 1-10031). London: Anglo-Norman Text Society.
(Primary Source, on the subject)
Holden, Anthony J, Stewart Gregory, and David Crouch. History of William Marshal:
Volume II. London: Anglo-Norman Text Society, 2004. Print.
Luard, Henry Richards. 2009. Annales monastici. Burlington: TannerRitchie Publishing in
collaboration with the Library and Information Services of the University of St Andrews.
http://encompass.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/checkIP.cgi?access=gateway_standard
%26url=http://sources.tannerritchie.com/browser.php?bookid=705. (Primary Source, context &
subject)
Painter, Sidney. 1933. William Marshal, knight-errant, baron, and regent of England.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Pernoud, Régine. 1968. Eleanor of Aquitaine. New York: Coward-McCann.
37
McLetchie, Scott. 1998. “The Revolt and Death of the Young King, 1183”, from The
Annals of Roger de Hoveden, trans. by Henry T. Riley.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1183hovden.html
Mulhberger, Steven. “William Marshal as an Example of Twelfth-Century Chivalry” in the
Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies. http://www.the-
orb.net/textbooks/muhlberger/wm_marshall.html
Richardson, H. G. 1954. “The Chamber under Henry II” in The English Historical Review
Vol. 69, No. 273 (Oct.,), pp. 596-611 Oxford University Press <http://0-
www.jstor.org.innopac.library.unr.edu/stable/557882>
Seyfield, Seth. 1996 “Magna Carta 1215” in Albert Beebe White and Wallce Notestein,
eds., Source Problems in English History (1915). http://www.the-
orb.net/textbooks/muhlberger/wm_marshall.html
Seyfield, Seth 1996. Charter of Liberties of Henry I, 1100. Internet History Sourcebooks
Project. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/hcoronation.asp>
William, R. A. B. Mynors, Rodney M. Thomson, and Michael Winterbottom. 1998. Gesta
regum Anglorum = The history of the English kings. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
“William Marshal (Character)”, Internet Movie Database. Last modified 14 Nov 2011.
<http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0070176/>
David Harrell