Edexcel GCSE History (1HI0) — Anglo-Saxon and Norman England
Every time you plan a major event, you usually need permission from someone in charge—but in 1075, three powerful lords actively defied their King to throw a forbidden celebration.
The uprising was orchestrated by three key figures: Ralph de Gael (Earl of East Anglia), Roger de Breteuil (Earl of Hereford), and Waltheof (the last remaining Anglo-Saxon earl). The plot was officially hatched at the wedding feast of Ralph and Roger's sister at Exning in 1075. King William I had strictly refused to sanction this marriage, making the ceremony itself an act of treasonous rebellion while he was away in Normandy.
The primary motivation for the Norman earls was a severe loss of wealth and territory. Both Ralph and Roger had inherited earldoms that William had deliberately made smaller and less profitable than those ruled by their fathers. Furthermore, William had actively reduced the privileges of the Marcher Earldom of Hereford, stripping away Roger's right to build castles or collect taxes without royal oversight.
This loss of power was worsened by the introduction of the royal sheriff. William used these officials to directly interfere in the earldoms, bypassing the traditional authority of the magnates to centralise his own power. Frustrated by this micromanagement, the conspirators planned to overthrow the King, capitalising on his absence by plotting against his regent, Archbishop Lanfranc. Their ultimate goal was to divide England into three independent territories, with each earl ruling a sovereign piece of the kingdom.
Describe two features of the causes of the Revolt of the Earls (4 marks)
Feature 1: The plot was triggered by an unsanctioned wedding feast at Exning (1). During this event, the conspirators took advantage of King William's absence in Normandy to secretly plan the division of the kingdom into three sections (1).
Feature 2: The earls were motivated by a loss of local power due to royal interference (1). Specifically, King William used royal sheriffs to monitor the earldoms, stripping the lords of their traditional legal and administrative independence (1).
Rebellions against William the Conqueror were almost always led by angry Anglo-Saxons, but this uprising was uniquely spearheaded by his own Norman lords.
The revolt collapsed rapidly due to a combination of internal betrayal and strong external leadership. Waltheof, who had been recruited for his Danish connections, experienced a change of heart and confessed the entire plot to Archbishop Lanfranc. Acting swiftly, Lanfranc dispatched scouts to assess the threat and wrote warning letters to Roger de Breteuil. When diplomacy failed, the Church intervened directly, issuing an excommunication against Roger to strip him of his moral authority.
Military coordination sealed the fate of the rebels before they could unite their forces. Lanfranc instructed loyalist leaders, including Bishop Wulfstan and Abbot Ethelwig, to deploy the local fyrd to block the River Severn. This successfully trapped Roger's forces in the west, while Odo of Bayeux led an eastern blockade that forced Ralph de Gael into a hasty retreat. Notably, the Anglo-Saxon population showed zero support for the rebellion, preferring Norman stability over renewed civil war.
The final blow was the failure of external support from Scandinavia. A massive fleet of 200 Danish ships led by Cnut arrived far too late to assist the crumbling rebellion. Realising the revolt was over and King William had returned, the Danes chose not to risk a battle; instead, they raided the east coast, sacked York Minster for treasure, and fled to Flanders.
Explain why the Revolt of the Earls failed (12 marks)
Paragraph 1: The internal betrayal by Waltheof was a critical factor. By confessing the plot to the regent, Archbishop Lanfranc, the element of surprise was lost. This allowed Lanfranc to gather intelligence and use religious punishments, such as excommunication, to undermine the rebel leaders.
Paragraph 2: Effective military coordination by loyalists prevented the rebel armies from combining. Leaders like Bishop Wulfstan successfully blocked the River Severn using the local militia, while eastern forces pushed Ralph de Gael back, dividing and conquering the threat.
Paragraph 3: The total failure of external Danish support doomed the uprising. The fleet of 200 ships arrived too late, and rather than fighting a fully prepared King William, the Danes simply sacked York Minster and retreated, leaving the earls entirely isolated.
Understanding the aftermath of 1075 explains exactly why the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy completely disappeared from England.
The punishments handed out by William were brutally calculated. Ralph fled to Brittany, but his abandoned followers were blinded or exiled. Roger de Breteuil, despite being a Norman, was stripped of his lands and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the harshest penalty was reserved for the Anglo-Saxon Waltheof. Despite his confession, he was executed in May 1076 and later venerated as a martyr at Crowland Abbey.
Waltheof's execution marked a turning point: the definitive end of the Anglo-Saxon earldoms. His territory of Northumbria was handed over to a Norman, Bishop Walcher, completing the total "Normanization" of the ruling class. William used the revolt's failure as justification to further break up large, dangerous earldoms and replace semi-independent lords with fiercely loyal sheriffs.
Finally, this rebellion highlighted the ongoing twin threats of treacherous nobles and Danish invasions. This lingering paranoia directly contributed to William's decision to commission the Domesday Book in 1085, allowing him to comprehensively map landholding and extract maximum taxes for national defence.
Students often assume the 1075 revolt was an Anglo-Saxon uprising, but it was uniquely led by powerful Norman earls rebelling against their own King.
In 12-mark 'Explain why' questions about the revolt's failure, examiners expect you to group your points into clear categories, such as internal factors (Waltheof's betrayal) and external factors (the delayed Danish fleet).
Always use the specific term 'interference of sheriffs' when discussing causes, as this clearly demonstrates your understanding of William's wider policy of centralising power.
Contrast the punishments given to Roger (life imprisonment) and Waltheof (execution) to show examiners you understand how William treated Anglo-Saxon figureheads far more harshly to prevent future resistance.
Marcher Earldom
A specialised border earldom (such as Hereford) granted extra autonomy and privileges by the King to defend against Welsh raids.
Sheriff
A royal official appointed by the King to manage a shire and collect taxes, used heavily by William to bypass the authority of the earls.
Magnates
High-ranking and highly influential nobles or powerful landowners within a kingdom.
Regent
A person appointed to govern a state in the monarch's absence, such as Archbishop Lanfranc during the 1075 revolt.
Excommunication
A formal decree by the Church expelling an individual, used to strip a person of their religious and moral authority.
Fyrd
The local militia which, during the 1075 revolt, consisted of both Anglo-Saxons and Normans fighting loyally for the King.
Put your knowledge into practice — try past paper questions for History
Marcher Earldom
A specialised border earldom (such as Hereford) granted extra autonomy and privileges by the King to defend against Welsh raids.
Sheriff
A royal official appointed by the King to manage a shire and collect taxes, used heavily by William to bypass the authority of the earls.
Magnates
High-ranking and highly influential nobles or powerful landowners within a kingdom.
Regent
A person appointed to govern a state in the monarch's absence, such as Archbishop Lanfranc during the 1075 revolt.
Excommunication
A formal decree by the Church expelling an individual, used to strip a person of their religious and moral authority.
Fyrd
The local militia which, during the 1075 revolt, consisted of both Anglo-Saxons and Normans fighting loyally for the King.
