John FitzGilbert, Marshal of the Horses
Is this a case of misjudgment in the pages of history, based on one well-quoted phrase?
When John FitzGilbert broke faith with King Stephen, he knew full well what could happen. The king threatened to hang his 5-year-old son, who he was holding as a hostage, John is reported to have said “Hang him, I still have the hammers and the anvils with which to forge still more and better sons”
Was John FitzGilbert simply a man of his times, pragmatic and brutal? Was he a heartless and uncaring father, or was he instead a very clever and perceptive man who took a chance and played his cards right?
I am writing this blog because I have to admit to having a natural tendency to believe in the best of people. Generally speaking my favourite characters in films, books and stories are normally the ones that everybody else chooses not to like, ie in Star Wars it is Darth Vader, and in the Marvel Universe, it is Loki. The first historical novel I read was Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman, which is the story of Richard III, and we all know how history has painted him, well from the very beginning I felt like he was treated far too harshly. That is exactly how I feel about John Fitzgilbert, I think history has seen him as ruthless, ambitious, and uncaring, instead of the astute and discerning man that I think he was.
John Fitzgilbert, also known as John Fitzgilbert the Marshal, was a prominent figure in the court of Henry I during the 12th century. In his role as Marshal, he would have been responsible for the horses, hawks, hounds, and even the whores, in fact, everything associated with the general keeping of the royal court/household. Even though the role of Marshal was an inherited one, John and his father were forced to secure their right to the marshalcy in a trial by combat with William de Hastings and Robert de Voiz. After his fathers death in 1129, this victory, along with his administrative and military skills cemented his reputation as a formidable figure within the court environment, and meant that he quickly became one of the king's most trusted advisors.
When Henry died in 1135, there ensued a period of civil war which has come to be known as The Anarchy. Henry had forced his barons to take an oath of allegiance to support his only legitimate offspring, his daughter Matilda (known as the Empress). Unfortunately at that time, the thought of a woman taking the throne was unheard of, so when Matilda’s cousin Stephen of Blois swiftly took control of both the throne and the treasury he had a lot of support from the nobility. John continued to serve Stephen in the same way he had served Henry, after all the position of Marshall meant serving the king regardless of who it happened to be at the time. He was rewarded with the castles of Marlborough and Ludgershall, and as castellan, he swiftly proceeded to strengthen both of these, with it becoming obvious that the battle ahead was going to be long and brutal. In the early years of the conflict he supposedly used his position to raid the lands of those who opposed Stephen but some chronicles of the time state he was not too particular about who he attacked. Was he just being brutal and violent and taking advantage of everybody for his own personal gain, or was he even then watching both sides and trying to determine if and when the tides would turn?
In February 1141, King Stephen was captured at the Battle of Lincoln by Robert of Gloucester, half-brother to the Empress Matilda. It was at this point that John switched sides, maybe at that point he did indeed see the tides turning, and from that time on he was a faithful and loyal supporter of both the Empress and later her son Henry. Many have condemned John for this change of allegiance, but in the big scheme of things, when you consider that during the Anarchy there were many high-ranking nobles and clergy who switched sides, often each time the political winds would change - at least John only did it once. This loyalty even extended to a willingness to give his life for her, which happened at the siege of Winchester in August 1141. When it was decided that for her safety, the Empress should flee to John’s castle at Ludgershall, he escorted her while Gloucester protected her rear and continued the battle. When they got as far as Wherwell, John sent the Empress on ahead to Ludgershall with Brian FitzCount, while he stayed with a small number of men to defend her retreat. At the end of the skirmish, only John and one of his men remained alive, retreating into the relative safety of Wherwell Abbey. Unfortunately, they were trapped when the enemy then fired on the building, concluding that none could possibly survive the inferno. The two men did however make it out alive and made it on foot to Marlborough, a journey of considerable miles. Considering John had sustained a severe injury when a molten ball of lead fell from the roof during the blaze, resulting in the loss of an eye, for him to make this journey whilst obviously in excruciating pain, was no mean feat. This is not in my opinion the actions of a man who is only interested in self-preservation and gain, but a man of honour and integrity.
John has also received much criticism for putting aside his first wife Aline, in order to marry Sibylla, the sister of Patrick, constable of Salisbury. Obviously, John would have gained substantially from this political move, but I feel there is probably a lot more to it than that. From the time Stephen presented Ludgershall to John, there had been much hostility between himself and the Salisbury family, owing to the latter’s belief that the castle belonged to them. Following John’s change of allegiance, this conflict only intensified as Patrick was aligned with Stephen. As 1141 drew on, it became obvious that the constant raiding and skirmishing had to cease for the benefit of both parties, so a compromise was reached. John would put aside Aline and marry Patrick’s sister, and Patrick would come over to the Empress’s side. This was a win-win as peace between the two families meant both John and Patrick would alleviate the threat of constant conflict from their neighbour, as well as allowing them to put their resources to better use. John would increase his social standing by marrying into one of the great feudal families of England, and Patrick would gain the later title and lands of the Earldom of Salisbury. From the beginning, Aline was anxious and scared of being the wife of a man of such importance as the king's marshal, particularly when it involved so much danger, owing to the political unrest of the time. As John’s wealth and influence grew so did her unease, in truth had she not been heiress to the Pippard lands she would probably have been more suited to a life in the church. The annulment on the grounds of consanguinity, was done in such a way as to leave absolutely no stain on her honour, and to ensure the legitimacy of their two sons Gilbert and Walter. John was not unsympathetic to her needs or his son’s, in fact, his decision, as with most men of high standing in the royal court, was made to secure a worthy inheritance for his heirs.
Now we come to the last and most condemning incident, that of the siege of Newbury Castle in 1153. In order to gain time, John handed his 5-year-old son William over to King Stephen as surety for his good faith, while he supposedly sent word to the Empress requesting permission to hand over the castle. Instead, he used the time to send for supplies to reinforce the castle. As John had broken faith with the king, Stephen threatened to hang William or as some records say, catapult him over the walls. It was then that John uttered those well-recognised words, “Hang him, I still have the hammers and the anvils with which to forge still more and better sons”. Stephen did eventually relent and send the boy home, his nature would not condone the harming of an innocent child. I guess there are a couple of different ways to look at this episode, one being of course the fact that John handed over William in the first place. If we look at this period in time, it was common practice among the nobility to provide hostages as a guarantee of commitment, and it was often the reigning monarch demanding said hostages. 5 year-old William, would grow to manhood and himself in turn provide his own son (also named William) as a hostage to King John as surety for his loyalty.
The other damning aspect of this whole incident was the fact that John actually broke faith with the king knowing full well that the life of his son was at stake… or was it? Stephen is well known in history for his amiable and good-natured personality, as well as his willingness to be lenient, unfortunately, these traits are not normally associated with successful kingship. He was weak and indecisive, and therefore often took advice from the wrong people, most of them with a personal agenda. To make matters worse, even when those decisions were made, he often reneged and changed his mind, this is possibly why the whole period of the Anarchy was such a roller coaster ride. John had served under King Stephen for seven years before changing his allegiance to the Empress, and in his role as marshal would have witnessed firsthand all of those strengths and weaknesses. When he made that decision to break faith, was it a clever and well-planned move that John took, in order to strengthen his position, confident in the knowledge that Stephen was highly unlikely to harm the boy, I believe it was. When faced with the threat of actually losing his son, did he then have no choice but to continue with the bluff, and astutely play the part of the callous, uncaring father whose son’s life held no value, and therefore proclaiming those infamous words?
The young William would grow up to become one of the most powerful knights and statesmen of his time, serving loyally and faithfully four successive kings and one king in waiting. To rise to the position he did, he also needed to possess political acumen and insight, with the royal court being constantly full of changing allegiances and betrayals. Where did he acquire these skills, if not from his father, I do believe the example that John set for his son cannot be understated.
In summing up I see John Fitzgilbert as a pragmatic man who successfully navigated the seas of the Anarchy in a very small boat, while the waves of war and political uncertainty crashed around him. While he was certainly an ambitious man, I wonder if he could have possibly foreseen the fact that his bloodline would still flow through the veins of the English royal family almost 900 years later.
Max
William Marshal Effigy photo © Plantagenet Discoveries
