The Authority of a Queen Regnant: The Importance of Gendered Performance for the Claim of Empress Matilda
Isabella Uva
“When the citizens [of London] expressed themselves in this way [Empress Matilda], with a grim look, her forehead wrinkled into a frown, every trace of a woman’s gentleness removed from her face, blazed into unbearable fury.” This description from the Gesta Stephani is just one of the many unflattering characterizations given to the Empress Matilda (1102-1167) by her contemporaries. Born around the seventh of February 1102 to King Henry I (1068-1135) of England and his popular wife Queen Matilda II (1080-1118), no one could have imagined that this princess would later become the first female heir to the Anglo-Norman throne. Only after the death of her mother in 1118, the death of her brother William Adelin (1103-1120) in 1120, and the death of her husband, the German emperor Henry V (1086-1125), in 1125 was Matilda seen as Henry’s best option in preserving dynastic control over the lands his father, William the Conqueror (1028-1087), had fought so hard to command.
After being brought back from Germany, Matilda was officially named as the heir to the Anglo-Norman crown and in 1127 Henry I had “all the other bishops of England, together with his chief men, [swear] fealty to [his] daughter, promising, if she survived her father, to defend the English realm on her behalf against all unless a son, born from a legitimate union before Henry’s death, should succeed him.” Every nobleman and church prelate swore this first oath to Matilda and then reaffirmed their position by swearing a second oath in 1131. This second oath followed her marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou (1113-1151) in 1128. It’s goal was to ensure “the magnates could not claim, […], that on the first occasion they had given their allegiance only on the understanding that Matilda was not to be married outside the kingdom without their consent.” And yet, by 1135, almost every single one had broken this oath and abandoned the woman who should have been their king. Directly after the death of Henry I in 1135, Count Stephen of Blois (1096-1154) rode to London and had himself crowed and anointed as the king of England. Not only was Stephen Matilda’s cousin, being the child of Henry’s sister Adela (1067-1137), but in 1127 he had fought with Robert of Gloucester (1100-1147) to be the first layman to swear the oath to protect and respect her succession to the throne. This betrayal started a civil war in England known as the Anarchy which lasted from 1135 until 1154 when Matilda’s eldest son, Henry II (1133-1189), was crowned following the death of King Stephen.
It makes no sense that over the course of three years, going from the second oath until Henry I’s death, that almost every person went back on their word with no solid evidence to justify the action. Current scholarship, for the most part, does not address the oath-breaking issue in full. The first modern historians examining this period took biased primary sources at face value, attributing Matilda’s downfall to her being “headstrong, overbearing, and unbelievably tactless” without addressing the original authors' intentions. These historical judgments of the empress were not even in works focused specifically on her, but rather biographies of Henry I, Stephen I, and Henry II. Her story was told as a part of the lives of her male family members rather than standing alone, addressing her own, unique experience. It was not until 1992 that the first substantial biography was done on Matilda. That year English social historian Marjorie Chibnall published The Empress Matilda: Queen Consort. Queen Mother, and Lady of the English, introducing the world to this fascinating medieval figure. The book was groundbreaking but still lacks specific analysis of the reasoning for Matilda losing her promised position. Chibnall, being a social historian, focused mostly on the documentary evidence which has survived from the twelfth century. The book discusses charters, chronologies, annuls, and histories for their content, looking at the movements and actions of the empress rather than the addressing the language of these sources and what they can tell us about the opinion of Matilda in her own time.
As Chibnall concludes in her book, “when all things are considered, it remains clear that the real difficulty preventing [Matilda’s] final triumph was that in twelfth-century England there was virtually no place for female succession” as would be seen centuries later with Mary I and Elizabeth I of England. The gender of the empress was a large factor in the backlash and betrayal she faced, but the sole fact that she was a woman cannot fully explain how the war played out. By looking at Matilda’s experiences as a reflection of gender expectations for her time this paper will attempt to explain why Matilda was unable to claim her rightful position as the female king of England. The primary sources in the past have been analyzed only in their content, discussing what Matilda was doing rather than how she was doing it. The goal of this gender studies framework is to focus on the gendered language surrounding the empress and the implications her acting “outside” of her gender had on creating the period of the Anarchy in English history.
This paper will begin by more fully introducing the events which led up to the civil war and going over the expectations placed on the wife of a king in twelfth-century England. This will be done by looking at the reigns of the empress’ grandmother, Matilda I (1031-1083), and the empress’s mother, Matilda II. These two Matildas were, for the most part, beloved and respected during their tenures as queens of England. The performances of these respected former queens will be compared with those of Empress Matilda, examining how the empress differed from the precedents set before her. Matilda’s own personal actions, along with the responses to them, will then be broken down to show how exactly she went against the model of the two Anglo-Norman queens who came before her. The analysis of Matilda’s actions will start by covering the empress’s portrayal of herself in her charters, letters, and seals. Her self-representation will be used to prove that her intention was to be the female king of the Anglo-Norman kingdom, and that this decision is what truly prevented her from acceding to her father’s throne. Her own description will be followed by looking at Geoffery of Anjou’s conflict with Henry I and Matilda’s delay in arriving to England after the death of her father. The reasoning for and the implications of waiting until 1139 to make a serious play for the throne will be explored. Moving forward to 1141 Matilda’s capture of King Stephen I and her being named the “Lady of the English” will be discussed. This victory was short-lived, but the language used by opposing sources to describe her rule highlights the real reason for her claim being denied.
After examining the actions of Empress Matilda and how they were received this paper will look at the actions of and responses to her rivals, King Stephen I and Queen Matilda III (1103-1152). Both Matildas were acting in typically male roles, but only one of them was treated harshly for it. The reasoning for this difference is why Empress Matilda’s claim was so heavily rejected in her own time. The empress and Stephen, on the other hand, show the double standard that female kings faced when compared to their male counterparts. Her actions were treated horribly by opposing authors, while Stephen was given excuses and leniency for almost the exact same choices. By taking the role of women, the way Matilda portrayed herself, the views of Matilda from those of her own time, and the reactions to her female opponent, this paper will show that the main reason for Stephen's successful usurpation of Matilda’s throne was that she was acting like a king rather than acting like a queen. By fighting for her own right instead of the right of her husband or her son Matilda went against the expected gender roles of her time and attracted the distrust of almost every notable person in her kingdom. The empress was betrayed because she was a woman acting like a man of her time rather than serving as the dutiful wife and mother everyone expected her to be.
A Young Empress
When the empress was born, it is doubtful anyone imagined she would become her father’s heir, so her education would not have prepared her for this position. After her birth in 1102, Matilda would most likely have stayed in her mother’s court “to be taught [her] letters and prepared for the practical royal duties that lay ahead.” Sometime between 1106 and 1107, Emperor Henry V of Germany approached King Henry I with a proposal of marriage to the five-year-old girl, which was accepted along with a dowry of 10,000 marks in silver. She was sent to Germany in 1110, where, under the tutelage of Bishop Bruno of Trier from 1110-1114, she was “carefully educated, until the appropriate time for the marriage [age twelve], and [was to] learn the language and to behave according to the customs of the Germans.” Her early education then gave Matilda the tools she needed for her later role as regent for Henry V in Italy and, unknowingly, provided her with helpful experience for her later position.
From 1116 to 1119, the royal pair stayed in Italy to take control of Countess Matilda of Tuscany’s imperial lands, which she entrusted to Henry V upon her death in 1115. The secondary goal of this trip was to have the queen finally be crowned empress by the pope. In 1118, Matilda was left as Henry’s regent in Italy, “where she presided [at court] and gave judgment in favor of the abbot and convent of S Maria,” as one example of her judicial powers during this time. Here, the empress was not representing her own values but rather those of Henry V as she was serving as his representative. That being said, this position still gave her governing experience, which would be of use when it came time for her to fight the Civil War. She may not have been raised, educated, and trained to be the king of England, but her position as regent for her first husband gave her the ruling background needed to justify her claim.
At this point in her life Empress Matilda was serving in a similar position to the two Anglo-Norman queens who came before her. Matilda I and Matilda II were not campaigning to take the thrones for themselves but rather serving in an authoritative position for the purpose of assisting their husbands. Both queens served as regents for their husbands while the kings were off fighting wars and both were asked to intercede with their husbands on behalf of powerful clergymen. Matilda I was the wife of William the Conqueror and the first Norman queen of the English. In 1066, when William was invading England, she served as his regent in Normandy with her son Robert Curthose (c. 1051/1052-1134) and Roger of Montgomery, overseeing the judicial systems of the duchy in the absence of the duke. The duality of this kingdom after the Norman Conquest made it so Anglo-Norman kings “naturally relied on their wives to represent them on one side or the other of the [English] Channel.” In this letter from William to Matilda I, written between 1051 and 1083, it is clear that William trusted his wife to represent him well while he was ruling the other half of their extensive lands:
William, by the grace of God king of the English, to queen Matilda, his dear spouse, perpetual health/greeting. I want you to know that I grant to St. Martin at Marmontier the church of Ste. Marie des Pieux and the lands that depend on it, free of all rents, as priest Hugh held them on the day of his death. Furthermore, I charge you to render, as is just, all the land in Normandy belonging to St. Martin, free and secure from all those who would wish to burden it, as well as from the demands of the foresters; above all forbid Hugolin de Cherbourg to meddle further with the affairs of this house.
Matilda I’s power here came from her ability to work alongside her husband, taking what he decided and then carrying out his orders. She was someone he loved and trusted to properly fulfill his wishes when he could not do so himself. Matilda II also helped keep the monarchy running while her husband delt with rebellions and constant family conflicts. Primary sources show that “[s]he had superb diplomatic talents: she smoothed out the hostilities between Henry and his [brother] and rival, Robert Curthose, the Duke of Normandy, and negotiated Emperor Henry V’s marriage to her daughter, [the Empress] Matilda.” This kind of intercession highlights the role of a queen in Matilda II’s time, “to support and promote the royal family at the center of monarchy.” By serving as regents Matilda I and Matilda II both set the standard for the role of an Anglo-Norman queen, a women who served at the behest of and for the benefit of her husband, the king.
In relation to the church, both Matilda I and Matilda II had close relationships with powerful members of the clergy. Matilda I as a mediator between William I and Pope Gregory VII and Matilda II in the same role between Henry I and Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury. The noblewomen of Matilda I’s time “operated within the rhetorical tradition as eloquent, powerful agents of persuasion in society and culture.” Letters from the eleventh and twelfth centuries show that “[w]omen were frequently asked to influence and persuade their husbands,” meaning that those making the request saw women as a valuable asset in gaining their desired outcomes. In the May of 1080 Pope Gregory VII wrote to the queen asking her to ensure that William I also carried her good qualities. His letter stated, quote: “We pray your nobility that we shall obtain these and similar gifts from you, that you love simply and wholely, that you obtain what you love and never lose what you have. With these and similar weapons arm your husband, when God gives you the opportunity, and do not cease to do so.” Pope Gregory VII clearly respected Matilda I and believed she had the ability to influence the royal family she was a member of. Her position in this political relationship between the king and the pope came from her connection to William I. His trust in her led to men like Pope Gregory VII seeking her assistance in interceding on their behalf.
In a similar way, Matilda II was extremely close to Anselm, the archbishop of Canterbury, both learning from his piety and mediating the conflict between him and Henry I. In August 1103, Anselm wrote a letter to Matilda II, which stated, “‘The wisdom of the flesh is at enmity with God, since it is not subject to the law of God.’ Reflect on these things, tell them to our lord the King in private and in public and repeat them often, and as far as they concern you consider them carefully again.” Anselm understood the position Matilda II held as Henry I’s consort and the respect she held in the royal court. The archbishop was trying to prevent increasing tensions between him and the king, so through reaching out to Matilda II he shows that people of her time saw her as someone who could get things done and would work to calm the political conflicts in her kingdom. The root of both Matilda I’s and Matilda II’s power was their husbands. Their closeness to the king made it possible for them to serve as regents and mediators without facing scrutiny for being a woman in power. This shows queens serving in leadership roles in the twelfth-century Anglo-Norman kingdom, meaning that Empress Matilda could not have been betrayed for the sole reason of being a woman. With Matilda I and Matilda II both exercising their power in close proximity to their royal husbands, it is clear that the problem for Empress Matilda was her intention to be a female king rather than a queen consort.
In 1118 Queen Matilda II passed away in England, but there was no concern for the line of succession. Prince William Adelin, Henry I’s only legitimate son and heir, was in perfect health and would be married to Matilda of Anjou (1107-1154) in 1119. The expectation would have been for this royal couple to have children, therefore ensuring Henry I’s bloodline would carry on ruling over England and Normandy, but that is not how things ended up playing out. On the twenty-fifth of November 1120 William Adelin boarded the White Ship on his journey back to England from Normandy. The crew of the vessel had been drinking prior to setting off, leading to “the port side of the White Ship[striking] violently against a huge rock” which caused “the ship [to capsize] without warning” and “all alike perished”. By losing his only legitimate son Henry I had very few choices if he wanted his direct bloodline to keep control of his inherited lands. His first decision was to marry Adeliza of Louvain (1103-1151) in January of 1121, who “was a daughter of about Matilda’s own age” meaning that she would have been around eighteen at her wedding. The age difference could explain why, by the time Emperor Henry V died in 1125, Henry I remained legitimately childless besides his imperial daughter.
On 23 May 1125, Emperor Henry V died in Utrecht of cancer, leaving his kingdom with no successor. Following this loss, according to Robert of Torigni (1106-1186):
The most powerful king of the English, Henry, sent his magnates to escort his daughter the empress back to England with great honor, though the eminent princes of the Roman court, well aware of her prudence and charming character, had expressed their wish, while her husband, the emperor, was still alive, that she should rule over them in every way and for this reason followed her to her father’s court making this petition. The king, however, was strongly opposed to their wish, for he wanted her to succeed him in the kingdom of England after his death according to hereditary right.
It is suspected that Robert of Torigni had Empress Matilda herself as a source for this anecdote. He was at her bedside at the Notre Dame-de-Pre priory in 1134 when she almost died giving birth to her second son Geoffrey. The closeness between the two has led some scholars to suggest that his interpolations in The Gesta Normannorum Ducum “included Matilda’s reminiscences about her early life in the empire.” If this story is true it gives legitimacy to Matilda’s abilities as a ruler and the strength of her character, giving her a good resume when it came to being named heir. With Matilda no longer married and Adeliza still childless, to continue his legacy Henry I decided to name his daughter as heir to the Anglo-Norman throne. Henry I did not come to this decision lightly. Only after “deliberating long and deeply on this matter” did he name Matilda his successor and announce the swearing of the first oath. No source outright says that Henry I thought about having someone else named, but this comment on deliberation leaves room for the possibility that Henry I and his advisors discussed other options to be the heir. C. Warren Hollister in his 2001 biography of Henry I lays out three other strong contenders. First was Henry I’s beloved illegitimate son, Earl Robert of Gloucester, but Robert’s illegitimate background barred him from the position, so his candidacy was dismissed. Next was William Clito (1102-1128), the only surviving child of Henry I’s eldest brother, Duke Robert Curthose of Normandy (d. 1132). There was fear that William would usurp the throne from Henry I the second he was named heir considering the constant struggle between the two for control over Normandy, so he also was taken off the table. Finally there was Stephen of Blois, count of Mortain and Boulogne, and Henry’s favorite nephew. There is a possibility that putting Stephen in these two roles might have been an indication of Henry I wanting him to be heir prior to Matilda’s widowing, but Stephen was not a strong statesman, so it is just as plausible that these titles were to give Stephen power without having to give him the throne. These other avenues show that Henry I did not hastily make his decision about Matilda being his heir. He very well could have had different routes, which in the cases of Robert and William had strong support, but did not take them, meaning that at least her original election was intentional.
By the time she returned to Normandy in 1125 Matilda had not seen her homeland or her family in fifteen years, and now she was next in line to rule it all. The sources vary on whether there were two or three oaths Henry I had his magnates swear to Matilda. John of Worcester has the first oath sworn during Christmas of 1127 and the second in January of 1128 on the occasion of the consecration of the new bishop of London. William of Malmesbury on the other hand has the first oath sworn in the January of 1127 and the second sworn in the late summer of 1131. Whatever the case, at least two times every nobleman and clergyman in England swore an oath to defend and ensure the succession of Empress Matilda to the Anglo-Norman throne. On 17 June 1128 Matilda was married to Geoffrey of Anjou, the son and heir to Count Falk of Anjou, a significant step down from her previous title. Henry I had to big goals when proposing this marriage. The first was to hopefully secure an heir for his daughter that could either succeed her or succeed Henry I himself if the boy was old enough. The second was to secure an alliance with Anjou to protect his kingdom from attacks by the French king and William Clito, who was named the count of Flanders in 1127. This marriage may not have been the best way to achieve these goals though considering the twelve-year age gap, the title difference, and that the couple hated one another. The mutual dislike led to Matilda, some point between the June of 1128 and the June of 1131, leaving her husband in Anjou and returning to England with her father.
Henry I took this estrangement as an opportunity to try and prepare his daughter for the role she would most likely end up filling. In 1129 “the king was already associating her with grants made out of farms paid to the exchequer in England” with the possible goal of making her comfortable with the financial and political systems he had put in place. It was not until the eighth of September 1131 that Henry I decided to send Matilda back to Anjou, so depending on when the father-daughter pair met in Normandy the two could have had over a year together where Matilda could have learned from watching her father rule, adding serious doubts to the claim Henry I suddenly changed his mind about her on his death bed. In the March of 1133 Matilda gave birth to her first child, Henry who would grow up to be King Henry II of England and in May 1134 she had the couple’s second child, Geoffrey. This was the last time Matilda, and her father would be together before his death in 1135
There are many differing stories about what Henry I said on his deathbed so to try and figure out what was truly said the authors of these claims need to be introduced, and their biases need to be acknowledged. First there is William of Malmesbury (1090-1143) who was a strong supporter of Empress Matilda. He was a monk at the monastery of Malmesbury and wrote two books at the request of Matilda’s family members. Matilda II commissioned the earliest version of the De Gestis Regum Anglorum and Robert of Gloucester commissioned the Historia Novella which focuses on the English conflict from 1125 until 1142, just prior to the author’s death. With this background in mind his report that Henry I “assigned all his lands on both sides of the sea to his daughter in lawful and lasting succession” seems more like an appeasement to Robert and Matilda rather than an accurate depiction of what happened. Supporting the other side of this war was the anonymous author of Gesta Stephani. This text discusses Stephen I’s time as the king of England, starting with the death of Henry I in 1135 and continuing until the crowning of Henry II in 1154. This title literally translates to The Deeds of Stephen and the portrayal of the king in this work shows a clear bias in his favor. To validate Stephen I’s usurping of his cousin’s throne the Gesta Stephani described how, with his last breath, the king “very plainly showed repentance for the forcible imposition of the oath on his barons” and “did not wish what he had approved for a certain reason in his lifetime to remain unalterable after his death.”
There are two sources though that indicate Henry I did not say anything about succession at all as he lay dying in 1135. Orderic Vitalis (1075-1142) with his Ecclesiastical History “gave no opinion on the possibility of female succession, and once Stephen was crowned and anointed, accepted him as king without reference to what his previous rights might have been.” Orderic wrote in a neutral tone, focusing on getting the history across rather than pushing some kind of agenda. In his version of Henry I’s death, the king said nothing about who he wanted to rule, only making decisions that would hopefully cleanse his soul before he died. The only person who was known to have been with Henry I at this time and wrote something about it was Hugh, archbishop of Rouen. Similar to Orderic Vitalis, Hugh gave no indication in his letter to Pope Innocent II that Henry I made any kind of statement about his succession plan. With the two least biased sources not including Henry I’s succession plans in his final moments and the two most biased sources saying Henry I elected the person they supported, the most likely conclusion is that the king neglected to mention who he wanted to take the throne after him. This would be a disastrous mistake, especially if he still intended for Matilda to sit the throne after he was gone. Partly due to this confusion, on 22 December 1135 Stephen was anointed king in Winchester and the Anarchy began. Throughout the civil war Matilda took action to gain her throne back for herself, not for her son and definitely not for her husband. As will be discussed, this kind of sole ruling was not the expectation of a queen in Matilda’s time. She tried to set a precedent as a female king, but her subjects were not open to this new idea and betrayed her over it.
The Actions of Empress Matilda
In her charters, seals, and coins the Empress Matilda portrayed herself as a female king. Upon her arrival in England after the death of Henry V in 1125 Matilda always referred to herself in charters and letters as Mathildias (or Matildis) imperatrix, or Empress Matilda. The interesting part about this though is that, technically, Matilda was not crowned empress of the Romans. After the death of Pope Pascal II in 1118 Henry V “having bribed the Romans, elected Mauritius of Braga, as Pope Gregory VIII, designated as an anti-pope by later judgement.” It was in 1117 at Whitsun that Mauritius of Braga, serving only as the Pope’s papal legate at the time, crowned Henry V and Matilda. This confusion puts her standing as “imperatrix” on weak ground. Moreover, during her marriage to Henry V, before and after being “anointed” empress, “[i]n none of the charters of her husband or herself is she anything other than the queen of the Romans” meaning that no one in the empire saw her as their empress. That does not mean she was disliked or seen as incapable, but from a legal standpoint she was not truly crowned under that title. The for her using this name upon returning to England, as interpreted by historian Elisabeth van Houts, is that “in the Anglo-Norman world, as the widow of the German emperor, Matilda used the highest title of empress, a custom entirely in line with that of other elite married widows.” Considering Matilda’s intentions of being a female king rather than a queen consort, “[t]his representational strategy identified Matilda as an autonomous female lord seemingly outside the formal bonds of her coverture as Geoffrey’s wife; rather, she emphasized her kinship relationships to the sources of imperial and royal power.”
Alongside her title of empress, in her coins and seals Matilda really pushed her position as the rightful female king. In continuing her connection to imperial power, the seal of Empress Matilda reflected those of other empresses rather than queens of the Anglo-Norman kingdom. Her seal was a circle with the image depicting her sitting on the throne, holding a scepter and an orb, the traditional iconography of a monarch. Empresses and kings had circular seals while Anglo-Norman queens “usually opted for a seal that was oval in shape with points on the top and bottom.” Matilda II’s seal for instance was this oval shape, depicting the queen standing rather than seated, another typical characteristic for the seals of Anglo-Norman women. Henry I’s seal on the other hand was circular and “depicts him seated in majesty,” an almost identical structure to the seal of Matilda. The title she used on her seal again reflected her authoritative position as the former queen of the Holy Roman Empire, MATHILDIS ROMANORUM REGINA (Matilda Queen of the Romans). With all of these traits being unique when compared to the seals of Anglo-Norman queens, Matilda’s seal “reflected [her] wish to set herself apart and perhaps to maintain association with the Holy Roman Empire” and “strongly suggest[s] that Matilda chose a seal that would visibly associate her with kingship.” Even more compelling in the argument for Matilda wanting to portray herself as a female king is two coins discovered in 1994 in Box, Wilshire. The partial inscription reads “I M REX: AN [which] [s]cholars have interpreted this as I[mperatrix] M[atilda]REX: AN[glorum],” translating to “Empress Matilda, king of the English.” Here she does not call herself queen of the Romans or queen of the English or lady of the English, she uses the actual title of king. Considering the heightened political tensions of the time “it is unlikely that the title rex was the result of a die-cutter error (for regina),” meaning that this depiction of Matilda was a conscious choice. Her use of language and the decision to emulate kings through her portraits indicates that Matilda was intentionally acting like and king, which is what this paper argues led to her downfall.
Looking at Empress Matilda’s charters, she was very careful about the terminology she used to describe herself. As previously stated, she went by the title of “empress” rather than “queen” or “countess” most likely because it gave her the most royal authority. It also separated Matilda from her husband, him being a count, reflecting her intention to be the sole ruler of the Anglo-Norman kingdom. For the most part, in her charters, Matilda either used the mocker “Empress Matilda, daughter of King Henry and lady of the English” or “Empress Matilda, daughter of King Henry.” There are only two surviving examples of Matilda referring to herself as the queen of the English in charters. One was addressed to Henry, bishop of Winchester and the other was for Reading Abbey for the purpose of confirming “Geoffrey Purcell’s gift of the land of Windsor and Catshill.” This Reading charter was written sometime between the second of February 1141 and the twenty-fifth of July 1141, the period in which Matilda was considered the ruler of England. The title used in this case was “M(athildis) imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Anglorum regina” (Empress Matilda, daughter of King Henry and queen of the English). Considering the limited use of this identification and the fact that Matilda was never officially crowned queen it is supposed that “Matilda may have been led to understand that the use of the title regina Anglorum prior to consecration broke with tradition and would lessen her legitimacy,” explaining why it was only used twice in the surviving charters. The seals, coinage, and charters of Empress Matilda all point in the direction of her positing herself as the sole ruler and female king of the English. She drew upon kingly and imperial power to depict herself rather than using traditional portrayals of Anglo-Norman queens. As this paper moves into looking at the actions of Empress Matilda, combined with her own words, it is clear how this female king stance prevented her from fully grasping the claim intended for her.
In 1135 a conflict arose between Geoffrey of Anjou and Henry I. In her marriage to the count, Matilda’s dowry included three castles on the border of Anjou and Normandy: Argentan, Exmes, and Domfront. When these castles had still not been granted to him years after the marriage, Geoffrey “demanded [the] castles in Normandy, asserting that the king had covenanted with him to hand them over when he married [Matilda].” There was also an issue concerning one of Geoffrey’s friends, William Talvas, who requested that some of his father’s castles in Maine be returned to him. William Talvas was the son of Robert of Belleme who at one point in time rebelled against Henry I, so the king was not keen on doing anything to help the man. Henry I “was not prepared to set anyone above himself as long as he lived, or even to suffer any equal in his house or in his kingdom,” so a border war broke out between Geoffrey of Anjou and his father-in-law. The conflict here was between the two men with Matilda stuck between supporting her father and standing by her husband, yet she takes a large amount of the blame for the situation and for her father’s death which followed shortly after. Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon (c.1088-1156) who was a strong supporter of King Stephen I, and Robert of Torigni who in his Chronography who used “interpolations drawn mainly from the annals of Rouen, William of Jumièges, and Henry of Huntingdon” outright blamed Matilda for Henry I’s death. In their opinions, the conflict started “due to the machinations of none other than the king’s daughter” and “[t]he king was provoked by these irritations to anger and bitter ill-feeling, which were said by some to have been the origin of the chill in his bowels and later the cause of his death.”
Other sources suggest though that this conflict truly started because “the king felt that the count was behaving as if he planned to share the throne with Matilda after her father’s passing” which was not Henry I’s plan at all. When the count burned down the castle of Roscelin of Beaumont-sur-Sarthe, one of Henry I’s sons-in-law married to an illegitimate daughter, Geoffrey “recklessly roused [Henry I] to such fury that he would have taken his daughter away from [Geoffrey] and escorted her back to England with him if God had so decreed,” showing how Herny I divorced Matilda from the issues he had with her husband. Another indication that Henry I did not blame Matilda for this skirmish was him “trying to ease the way for her, by ensuring Dover was in the custody of her brother, for example, and possibly making concessions to the citizens of London.” This interpretation of the 1135 conflict then raises significant questions as to why Matilda was put in such a position of fault in the primary sources. Them thinking of her as “haughty and domineering” does not fully explain being blamed for her father’s death. This begs the question, was she criticized because she was not involved enough in the conflict. Looking back at Matilda I and Matilda II these queens both served as mediators between their husbands and opposing forces. They worked with political figures and clergymen to ensure amicable ends to heightened tensions. At the time of the 1135 incident Matilda had recently almost died giving birth to her second son and might not have had the health required to serve in this queenly role. None of the primary or secondary sources which mention the border war, besides the ones who say Matilda orchestrated the whole thing, give any indication that Matilda was active at all. There is no decisive proof to this theory, but it is possible that between her fragile health and not wanting to anger her father because of her intentions to become king after him the empress stayed out of the conflict entirely. Her absence then gave opposing authors room to accuse her of being the one pulling all the strings in this fight. Henry of Huntingdon was writing his Historia Anglorum from 1123 to some point after 1153, meaning that he was able to discuss the events he was covering with hindsight and the same goes for Robert of Torigni with his Chronography who used Huntingdon as a source. Both these men who criticized Matilda knew what she would later do, there comments then reflecting a woman acting like a king rather than acting like a queen, serving as evidence to the fact that this was the issue the Anglo-Norman kingdom had with Empress Matilda.
When Henry I died on 1 December 1135 there are conflicting timelines when it comes to Matilda and Geoffrey taking action to reclaim her inheritance. It is universally agreed that Stephen I made his way to England the moment he learned of his uncle’s death and was anointed king within the month, but Matilda’s course of action is not as clear. The one historical misconception is that Matilda did not do anything after her father died. This partially comes from William of Malmesbury, who is the only author who makes a comment about the amount of time it took Matilda to move forward with the resistance. It is not made clear why, but “[f]or certain reasons the empress, and also her brother Robert, earl of Gloucester, together with almost all the nobles, delayed their return to the kingdom.” As a reminder, she was in Anjou when her father died, meaning she would have had to make her way through Normandy in order to get across the channel into England to claim her crown. Orderic Vitalis states that “[i]n the first week of December […], on learning of King Henry’s death, [Geoffrey] immediately sent his wife Matilda into Normandy” where Norman nobles “put under her rule Argentan and Exmes and Domfront and other fortified towns.” A similar report is given by Robert de Torigni where “the count of Anjou and his wife Matilda, […], secured castles of Normandy without difficulty” again showing how immediate action was taken.
There were setbacks though which prevented Matilda from getting to England until 1139. Once she gained control of her dowery castles in Normandy she had to wait for Geoffrey to arrive. In Normandy she had “no fiefs or vassals and nothing in England” whatsoever, so the only thing she could do was wait for military support. Either because Matilda was a woman or because she was married to the count of Anjou “the Norman barons ignored [her] rights and, after debating whether to offer the crown to Stephen’s elder brother Theobald, heard of Stephen’s coup and accepted it.” It was not until September of 1136 that Geoffery was able to return Normandy after getting involved in some local conflicts with the Normans, but even while he was in Anjou, Matilda “immediately advanced as far as she could into Normandy” to fight against the usurpation of her throne. This was not her following the orders of someone else but rather using smart military sense to best achieve her goals. There was also the fact that “at the time she heard of Henry’s death Matilda was somewhere between eight and twelve weeks pregnant, a peak time for sickness” which would have made it impossible for her to travel all the way to the coast without military reinforcements. With William being born on the twenty-second of July 1136 the timeline matches for her pregnancy to have deterred her from immediately moving in on England on top of the lack of supporters surrounding her.
Once William was born and Geoffrey returned though, Matilda reignited her strong push towards England. There is another misconception that features heavily over this period of the empress’s life, and that is the idea of women knowing nothing about the military. Education for noble girls did not include “training in martial skills” or being “sent to other courts for training until they were old enough for knighthood.” In Germany “[s]he was well trained to be a queen consort; she was not trained to be anything more or less” but that does not mean she had no concept of how to lead an army. There were other women outside of England who showed female military leadership where historians tended to claim it could not exist. In the early 1060s Judith of Évreux was married to Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily. Shortly after her marriage the count went on his conquest of Sicily, fighting the Muslims who inhabited the island, bringing his new wife along. At some point Count Roger had to return to Calabria for supplies, leaving Judith in Troina. With her being the lady of this castle:
the countess was so vigorous in her concern about maintaining the watch around the fortress that she circled it daily and wherever she saw that it could be made batter, she assiduously saw to it that a new watch was established. Speaking softly and anxiously to everyone whom her absent lord had left behind with her, she urged them to consider what needed to be protected, promising that they would be rewarded upon the count’s return.
There was also Matilda of Canossa (Tuscany) who in 1077 “suggested [Pope Gregory VII] retreat to the safety of her foremost castle [and it] was she as well who escorted the pope to Canossa and took control of the garrison; her solders were the ones who barred the inner doors to [Henry IV].” Empress Matilda then was not an outlier when “she led a force of about two hundred men to help her husband at the siege of La Sap during his unsuccessful invasion” but the goal of this militant force is what prevented her from being accepted as Henry I’s true heir. Both Judith and Matilda of Canossa where supporting the positions of powerful men, a husband and a pope. If these countesses received the military education necessary to participate in these two events, then it could be presumed that the empress of the Holy Roman Empire would have been educated in that way as well. Empress Matilda was actively fighting for her own rights with the support of her husband up until 1138. At that time “Matilda and Geoffrey divided the pursuit of her inheritance into two distinct and autonomous zones of action, England and Normandy” making it so her kingly intentions were unclear to no one.
Following the 1139 arrival “[f]or more than fifteen months the opposing forces fought a war of sieges and attrition, with no more than local gains for either side.” In 1140 there was some kind of agreement made between representatives of both camps, but “the king put off a decision from day to day, and finally made the whole plan of no avail.” It was not until a battle fought at Lincoln that the whole trajectory of the war shifted. On 2 February 1141 King Stephen I was captured by Earl Robert of Gloucester and his son-in-law Earl Ranulf of Chester, later being brought to Matilda at Gloucester. Matilda’s time as “Lady of the English” is the most valuable section in the chronicles when attempting to fully understand how her portrayal of herself as a female king led to her claim being rejected. Even though Matilda was only in power for less than a year, the dislike of her rule is vividly apparent in the works of her opposers. Both William of Malmesbury and the author of the Gesta Stephani agreed on one thing, for a kingdom to run successfully “[t]he king had to adhere to certain rules (especially in regard to the Church), barons and bishops had to give him sound advice that was not self-serving, and the king should listen to them, even if he sometimes used good judgment to reject that advice.” Those who stood against her rule seemed to specifically comment on her not listening to those around her, her arrogance leading to her downfall. In The Chronicle of John of Worcester the people of London ask Matilda to change the laws they live under and in response “[s]he did not listen to good advice but harshly rejected their petition” which caused the people of that city to force her out. Her response to the releasing of Stephen I and her brother Robert, who had been captured during the escape from Oxford in September 1141, was that she:
repudiated all that had been agreed, and utterly rejected all terms of peace and accord with the king. Thus it happened that the negotiators left without coming to terms, and for a whole year all over the kingdom and country the poor were pillaged, men were slaughtered, and churches cruelly violated.
Henry of Huntingdon depicts Matilda in a similar way, using her femininity to invalidate her time as Lady of the English.
Once she was welcomed into London the empress “was lifted up to an insufferable arrogance, […], and she alienated the hearts of almost everyone.” After London removed her from the city she was “[p]rovoked […] into a womanly rage, [ordering] the king, the Lord’s anointed, to be put in irons.” Matilda’s entire personality was boiled down to her “expecting devotion as her due instead of trying to earn it” but the exact same thing could be said about her opponent. He took the Anglo-Norman throne with no indication that he was ever intended to do so which caused almost his entire kingdom to go into revolt. Stephen I did nothing to prove that he was the right man for the job, but because he was a man and “[t]here was no precedent known to the Normans for the rule of a woman” his actions were not as heavily critiqued as those of his cousin. The only people they had to compare the empress to were her grandmother, mother, and Matilda III who all served as regents and mediators rather than propping themselves up at the female king. The problem here was not that Matilda thought too highly of herself, the issue was that “[she] displayed to her subjects her ability to be as ruthless and forceful as her father, [leading to her] contemporaries sourly [noting] her shocking deviation from properly womanly behavior.” She did what a king would have done, but she was not a king and this fact had not been thought through properly before December 1135.
The Views of Stephen I and Matilda III v. the Views of Empress Matilda
Now there is one other Matilda in this story who was beloved by everyone, and that was Queen Matilda III, wife of King Stephen I. Following Stephen I’s capture, Kent was the only part of the kingdom which supported him, mostly because this was “where the queen and William of Ypres opposed [Empress Matilda] with all their might.” Matilda III brought not only the lands of Boulogne into her marriage, but also her tremendous political and military acumen, energy, and determination.” Even though Matilda III was not in direct contact with her husband, because he was in jail, her actions to get him out still reflected her devotion to him and their son. She was not rallying troops so she could become the sole ruler of England, rather fighting for the dignity of her family, which earned her the respect of all. The worst decision Empress Matilda made was to refuse to give Eustace, the son of Matilda III and Stephen I, the lands promised to him by his uncle Henry, bishop of Winchester and “even promised them to others.” This decision is what led to her losing her title of Lady of the English.
Matilda III sent envoys to the empress with the request of freeing Stephen I and returning the promised lands, but, according to the Gesta Stephani, “[Matilda III] was abused in harsh and insulting language” so she “brought a magnificent body of troops across in front of London from the other side of the river and gave orders that they should rage most furiously around the city with plunder and arson, violence and the sword, in sight of the [Empress Matilda] and her men.” This instruction by Matilda III is what persuaded the Londoners to rise up against the Lady of the English and expel her from the city. Thinking back to Empress Matilda’s time in Normandy when she was advancing troops with the goal of invading England it is interesting that none of the sources which called the empress arrogant and rageful said the same about Matilda III. Both women took control of an army with the intention of replacing the figure ruling over the Anglo-Norman kingdom, but while Empress Matilda was doing so to place herself on the throne, Matilda III was fighting to reinstate her husband. Two women being treated completely different for doing more or less the same thing “[indicates] that a woman could get away with unwomanly behavior as long as she did it for her lord and master.” William of Malmesbury did not say anything unkind about Matilda III or her actions, even though she was the one who orchestrated the riots in London and Winchester which destroyed Matilda’s chance of ever properly serving in the role her father intended her to. Matilda III served her role as queen-consort perfectly. She “was a partner, official or unofficial, with the king. She worked with or competed with chancellors, exchequers and bishops to govern the realm when the king was absent or ill.” While Empress Matilda fought for herself, for her own place on the throne, independent from her husband and her sons, Matilda III did everything with the hope of reclaiming the positions of the two men she loved most dearly. Like Matilda I and Matilda II, Matilda III’s power came from her role as a consort to the king, which allowed for her contemporaries to rationalize her actions as those which attempted to uphold the status quo. Even if both of these women were going against every expectation for women in their time, the end goal is what truly mattered, explaining why the opposition to Empress Matilda was so strong.
The double standard here also applied to the reign of King Stephen I himself. Where Matilda was called arrogant and demanding when she did not listen to good advice, those insults were saved when Stephen I did the exact same thing. After taking control of Exeter in 1136 the king “[took] the very worst advice, and he did not execute punishment on those who had betrayed him. For if he had done so at the time, there would not have been so many castles held against him later.” The empress took no advice while the king took bad advice, allowing the blame for his mistakes to fall on others while Matilda is the sole person responsible for her downfall. The result of him not following good advice is not treated as harshly as Matilda’s actions in London. The phrasing of this quote makes it sound like Henry of Huntingdon is saying “if he had not followed bad advice things could have worked out better for him, but it is not the end of the world.” When Matilda acts in a kingly role she is the bringer of death and chaos to her entire kingdom, but Stephen is not treated with the same severity.
Another example of this double standard is the arrest of Roger, bishop of Salisbury. In 1139 King Stephen I arrested Roger and his two nephews, who were also bishops (Alexander, bishop of Lincoln and Nigel, bishop of Ely). This move was “highly questionable because Stephen sidestepped canon law, sentencing Roger on the basis of his status as a magnate of the king,” but it does not evoke the same anger that Matilda placing Stephen in chains does. The fault yet again is placed on the people surrounding Stephen rather than him being held accountable for his own actions. After Nigel of Ely escaped the king “believed in the truth of the disingenuous and spiteful statements that had been made to him before, and thereby inflamed with more furious anger against the bishops and he bent all his efforts into gaining possession of their castles.” The bishops were then so scared of what Stephen would do that they gave everything they had over to him, but instead of criticizing the king for abusing his subjects this is depicted as natural and good. This was not an example of him acting like a bad ruler, but rather an example of his “surprising good fortune that was the king’s lot, inasmuch as, after he had drained his own treasuries almost to exhaustion to protect the kingdom, he so suddenly came to enjoy the fruit of others’ toils.” When a male king arrests his subjects and demands all of their land be handed over it is considered the role of a king, but when a female king does a pretty similar thing she is the worst ruler to ever sit the throne and must be revolted against.
It is extremely clear through looking at the actions of King Stephen I and Queen Matilda III that they were held to a significantly lesser standard that Empress Matilda was. Both Matilda’s used miliary tactics to invade cities for the purpose of placing a different king on the throne. Where Empress Matilda’s role was minimized and ignored, Matilda III was honored and celebrated for her intelligence and manly fortitude. When it comes to King Stephen I, he made plenty of mistakes, as did the empress. Neither were perfect rulers, but one was held to that perfect standard while the other was not. Matilda was entirely responsible for her own actions upon reaching London, not listening to those around her and making rash decisions which led to further destruction and death. Stephen on the other hand was very minimally responsible for his own actions with the sources placing the blame on those around him who gave bad advice. There seems to be this proximity to manhood when it comes to these three that allows for actions to be celebrated or spun in a positive manner. Stephen was a male king himself, and Matilda III was serving as his queen consort. Their connection resembled that of William I and Matilda I as well as Henry I and Matilda II. The position of Stephen and Matilda III was the precedent while Empress Matilda was creating a whole new role in this kingdom. When it came to the Empress, who was fighting for her own position, making decisions that would directly benefit her outside of her husband or children, people only saw her as a haughty woman who could not be the king. Matilda’s position as the female king prevented her claim from being taken seriously and her efforts from being respected in her own time.
Conclusion
Empress Matilda was not set up for success by those around her. Henry I believed that “because he still [had] the power to manipulate inheritance within a vassal family through carefully chosen marriages, he could settle the kingdom in the same way. Matilda’s experience showed that he [had] taken too much for granted and left too many questions unanswered.” In the history of living memory there was no example of a sole female ruler for the Anglo-Norman kingdom. Every woman ruler was either just simply a queen consort or was serving as regent for a male relative. All of the women before Matilda took power from the men they married, staying within the bounds of what was available to them. The only cases of veering away from spouses was to support male sons, still showing women using power only with the approval of men. To go from that system to a female king with very little preparation was not the ideal way of setting a new precedent, not even mentioning the fact that the heir spent most of her life in another country and then was married off to a different man outside of her kingdom. Matilda tried to come into power in a world that did not have the tools to accept a female king. They only understood a woman serving as a queen, so to see their intended ruler standing alone, no husband or son really backing her for the important years of the Anarchy, the people could not accept this drastic change. There is no indication that she begged Geoffrey to join her in 1139, and it was not until the end of 1142 that the future Henry II first stepped foot on English soil. This civil war was fought over Matilda’s place in the monarchy, not anyone else’s.
Matilda was doing many of the same things her male predecessors and contemporaries were, but her gender is what set her apart. Her authority came from herself, not from anyone else, which went against the contemporary understanding of female leadership. By 1142 “Matilda had evidently accepted that she would never wear the crown herself and must work for [Henry II]” and all her efforts paid off. In 1153 King Stephen I adopted Henry II, making him the heir to the English throne after Stephen died. On 25 October 1154 Stephen I died and in the December of that year Henry II was crowned as the Anglo-Norman king at the age of twenty-one. In the end Henry I’s direct bloodline continued to rule the kingdom, so it could be said that this story had a happy ending for the legacy of William the Conqueror. In the context of her time and the expectations of royal women Empress Matilda was given no chance to become the first queen regnant of England and Normandy. The nobles and the clergy could not accept a woman ruling over them because her actions reflected those of a king, but she was not one. The gender roles of the Anglo-Norman kingdom of the twelfth century were too strict to allow this significant of a deviation, leading to Matilda forever being known as “the queen who never was.”
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Gesta Stephani. Edited and translated by K. R. Potter. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1955.
Henry of Huntingdon. Historia Anglorum: The History of the English People. Edited and translated by Diana Greenway. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
John of Salisbury. Historia Pontificalis. Edited and translated by Marjorie Chibnall. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1986.
John of Salisbury. Policraticus. Edited and translated by Cary J. Nederman. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Malaterra, Geoffrey. The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of his Brother Duke Robert Guiscard. Translated by Kenneth Baxter Wolf. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2005.
The Chronical of John of Worcester, Volume III. Edited and translated by P. McGurk. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1998.
The Chronography of Robert of Torigni, Volumes I & II. Edited and translated by Thomas N. Bisson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis. Volume VI. Edited and translated by Marjorie Chibnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni, Volume II. Edited and translated by Elisabeth M. C. van Houts. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1995.
William of Malmesbury. Historia Novella: The Contemporary History. Edited by Edmund King and translated by K.R. Potter. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1998.
Secondary Sources.
Balfour, David. “The War of the Two Matildas: A Queen and an Empress at Odds.” Medieval Warfare 6, no. 2 (2016): 39–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48578555.
Bandel, Betty. “The English Chroniclers’ Attitude Toward Women.” Journal of the History of Ideas 16, no. 1 (1955): 113–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/2707530.
Bartlett, Robert. Blood Royal: Dynastic Politics in Medieval Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
Beem, Charles. “’Greater by Marriage’: The Matrimonial Career of the Empress Matilda.” In Queens and Power in Medieval and Early Modern England, edited by Carole Levin and Robert Bucholz, 1-15. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/saintanselm-ebooks/reader.action?docID=452123&ppg=36&c=UERG.
Cooper, Mariah. “A Female King or a Good Wife and a Great Mother? Seals, Coins, and the Epitaphic Legacy of the Empress Matilda.” The Haskins Society Journal: Studies in Medieval History 32, (2020):149–162. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/haskins-society-journal-32-2020-studies-in-medieval-history/female-king-or-a-good-wife-and-a-great-mother-seals-coins-and-the-epitaphic-legacy-of-the-empress-matilda/7D937163D4A96A17072B24B9E6414B76.
Chibnall, Marjorie. The Empress Matilda: Queen Consort, Queen Mother, and Lady of the English. Malden: Blackwell Publishers Inc, 1992.
— “Anglo-French Relations in the Work of Orderic Vitalis.” In Piety, Power and History in Medieval England and Normandy, 5-19. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000.
— “’Clio’s Legal Cosmetics’: law and Custom in the Work of Medieval Historians.” In Piety, Power and History in Medieval England and Normandy, 31-43. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000.
— “Forgery in Narrative Charters.” In Piety, Power and History in Medieval England and Normandy, 331-346. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000.
— “John of Salisbury as Historian.” In Piety, Power and History in Medieval England and Normandy, 169-177. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000.
— “Robert of Belleme and the Castle of Tickhill.” In Piety, Power and History in Medieval England and Normandy, 151-156. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000.
— “The Charters of the Empress Matilda.” In Piety, Power and History in Medieval England and Normandy, 276-298. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000.
— “The Empress Matilda and Bec-Hellouin.” In Piety, Power and History in Medieval England and Normandy, 35-48. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000.
— “The Empress Matilda and Church Reform.” In Piety, Power and History in Medieval England and Normandy, 107-130. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000.
— “The Empress Matilda and Her Sons.” In Medieval Mothering, edited by John Carmi Parsons and Bonnie Wheeler, 279-294. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1996.
— “Woman in Orderic Vitalis.” In Piety, Power and History in Medieval England and Normandy, 105-121. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000.
Earenfight, Theresa. Queenship and Power: Queenship in Medieval Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
Gathagan, Laura L. The Queenship of Mathilda of Flanders c. 1031-1083: Embodying Conquest. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2025.
Green, Judith A. Henry I: King of England and Duke of Normandy. New York; Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Ferrante Joan. “’Licet longinquis regionibus corpore separati’: Letters as a Link in and to the Middle Ages.” Speculum 76, no. 4 (2001): 877-895. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41722453.
Hanley, Catherine Matilda: Empress. Queen. Warrior. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020.
Hay, David J. The Military Leadership of Matilda of Canossa: 1046-1115. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008.
Hilton, Lisa. Queens Consort: England’s Medieval Queens from Eleanor of Aquitaine to Elizabeth of York. New York: Pegasus Books LLC, 2010.
Hollister, C. Warren. Henry I. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.
Houts, Elisabeth van. “Matilda in the Empire, 1110–25.” Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies 45, (2022): 95–120. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/anglonorman-studies-xlv/matilda-in-the-empire-111025/27AB42D966711412DDDD436B14AC265E.
— “The Gesta Normannorum Ducum: A History Without an End.” Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies 3, (1980): 106-115.
King, Edmund. King Stephen. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.
Morey, Adrian and C.N.L. Brooke. Gilbert Foliot and his Letters. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Plassmann, Alheydis. “William of Malmesbury, the Gesta Stephani, and the Idea of Successful and Good Rule in the Twelfth Century.” Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies 45, (2022): 1–18. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/anglonorman-studies-xlv/william-of-malmesbury-the-gesta-stephani-and-the-idea-of-successful-and-good-rule-in-the-twelfth-century/FDC155AEFDB6F0FA2A249D4507A7DD13.
Ramsey, Shawn D. “The Voices of Counsel: Women and Civic Rhetoric in the Middle Ages.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 42, no. 5 (2012): 472–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41722453.
Tolhurst, Fiona. Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Translation of Female Kingship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
Vincent, Nicholas. “New Charters of the Empress Matilda, with Particular Reference to Her Reception at Gloucester in 1139.” In Lives, Identities and Histories in the Central Middle Ages, edited by Julie Barrau and David Bates, 107–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Warren, W. L. Henry II. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973.