From: vader@emil.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg")
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Wm the Conqueror, Membership necessities
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:31:38 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Greetings from William the Co...er... de Corbie!

WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR:

In a somewhat mangled message on the Rialto, the exact origin
of which I am unable to determine, someone wrote:

>Didn't the king of France (well, proto-France) send William off
>with blessings and minor assistance because he expected William to
>conquer it for France?

William the Conqueror was actually a more powerful lord than the
king of France. Most writers even avoid talking of Normandy as a
part of France, since this tends to give the wrong impression.
William's army for the conquest consisted partly of his own vassals,
and partly of volunteers from various parts of the area known
as France in modern times. The king of France hardly stood
to gain anything from William's success. I would guess that he
probably saw William more as a threat.

I am unable to find any reference to any fealty from William to
the crown of France. This does not prove that such a fealty did
not exist, but it indicates that such a fealty would have been
a pure fiction. In fact, king Henry of France invaded Normandy
a number of times and his successor Philip also made war on
William at least on one occasion.

In effect, William the Duke of Normandy was a king even before
the conquest. Also, even if there may have been a feudal relation
between the French crown and Normandy, William undertook the
conquest under the flag and protection of the Pope, not of France.
Further, he ruled England as the successor by inheritance from
Edward the Confessor. Both of these facts speak against any French
feudal overlordship. It was probably a more difficult problem for
William to avoid such claims from the Pope!

>  I believe, though, that William divided his lands between his sons,
>leaving Normandy to one and England to another. Thus, the Plantagenet
>King of England no longer owed allegiance to France _for England._
>  Note that the emphasis is on _for England_ since he still owed
>allegiance as a Duke (of Aquataine?)  As far as I understand fealty,
>the mere fact that the ruler of England was in fealty to the ruler
>of France did not mean that England was part of France.

William the Conqueror was not a Plantagenet. The family known as the
Plantagenets came to the English throne with Henry II in 1154. He was
the son of Geoffrey of Anjou, with whom I think the Plantagenet name
originated. 

William the Conqueror was survived by three sons, two of whom became
kings of England (William II "Rufus" and Henry I "Beauclerk").

Aquitaine came into English hands through the marriage of Henry II
to Eleanor of Aquitaine.

MEMBERSHIP (the eternal battle goes on):

Arval writes:

>I believe you are assuming that the things the corporation does are
>necessary to the Society (which is different from the earlier question of
>whether the corporation itself is necessary to the Society). That is a big
>assumption.
>
(discussion of necessities deleted)

The question here seems to be how we define "necessary". It is perfectly
possible to argue that all forms of organization are _un_necessary. We
can go out and play the Middle Ages as much as we want to, without ever
having heard of the SCA. Strictly speaking, NOTHING is necessary.

Thus we come down to "desirable", which is what "necessary" usually
means. If you ask me whether the things that the Corporation does are
sufficiently desirable to warrant a required membership fee to pay for
them, regardless of whether they are done by the Corporation or someone
else, my answer is YES, not all but many of them are.

Eliminating those things which the Coprporation does, which do not fall
in the above cathegory, has little to do with the question of whether a
required membership fee is right or wrong, good or bad. It is a matter
of cost efficiency and keeping the administration from growing too fat.

William de Corbie