Here are just my musings on Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) and how it may relate to the Anarchy.

I began this on Friday, but on Saturday was seeing friends of mine, was busy with two essays for Tuesday and Wednesday, so here it is.

Geoffrey wrote his History about 1136, when Stephen I had claimed the kingship the year previously. However his claim was not certain. I will give a relatively short summary of the Anarchy then be on to Geoffrey.

Stephen’s uncle Henry I had been the previous monarch. Despite their 20-something bastards Henry did not have much legitimate issue with their wife, Matilda of Scotland. Henry’s legitimate son and heir William died when the White Ship sank.

Henry’s legitimate daughter Matilda was proclaimed heir in 1125, after the death of her husband Henry V, the Holy Roman Emperor. In 1127 she was betrothed to Geoffrey Plantagenet, the son of Fulk, Count of Anjou, and married him the following year. Her father had the barons swear to accept her as heir.

However on her father’s death in 1135 she was outside England and Stephen of Blois grabbed the throne with the support of the barons. Stephen was the third son of Adela of Normandy, the youngest daughter of William the Conqueror who had married Stephen, Count of Blois. Stephen had even been considered for succession. He had the support of the barons and took the throne. Matilda fought him for this over a number of years, showing that in the Middle Ages, a woman trying to assert power, especially in her own right, was a difficult task.

After Stephen’s son Eustace died in 1153, leaving Stephen’s youngest son William, a peace was negotiated by which Matilda’s son Henry would become Stephen’s heir. Stephen’s death the following year assisted this process, before his son could grow to an age where they might challenge their cousin. But William inherited the County of Boulogne from their brother, then died in 1159 leading to it passing to his sister. So we have had only one King Stephen…

This conflict, partially over the non-acceptance of a woman as ruler, has been quite inspirational in literature. George R. R. Martin based The Dance of the Dragons, a Targaryen civil war, on this, with Viserys I’s daughter from his first marriage Rhaenyra and son from his second marriage Aegon II disputing the crown… with other changes such as dragons and the fact both candidates are horrible tyrants. At least Matilda wasn’t obviously cuckolding her first husband and her second husband didn’t have her rival’s infant heir murdered in a cruel revenge attack. Though the good Queen Alysanne did do a post pointing out the similarities and variations which can be found here.

I am even writing a piece for my extensive Garnot Histories concerning the King’s brother Odcon I seizing the throne over the King’s daughter Harcor, though if you look at the family tree and how his grandfather took the throne it becomes a bit more complicated, as there is some Wars of the Roses mixed in there, with Odcon being part-historical Richard III.

But… on to Geoffrey’s adaptation of ‘History’. While Geoffrey’s work is not the best of sources for the history he is writing on, it is a history which is good for showing the time it was written. Similar ideas to the Anarchy, a dispute against a female ruling, treacherous nephews, and general civil strife appear numerous times throughout the History, inspired by Stephen’s seizure of the crown.

The Prophecies of Merlin may even contain allusions to the event.

The Lion’s cubs shall be transformed into salt-water fishes and the Eagle of Mount Aravia shall nest upon its summit… The island will lie sodden with the tears of the night-time, and everyone will be encouraged to try to do everything. Those who are born later shall strive to fly over even the most lofty things, but the favour given to newcomers will be loftier even than that… Albany will be angry; calling her near neighbours to her, she shall give herself entirely up to bloodshed. Between her jaws there will be found a bit which was forged in the Bay of Amorica. The Eagle of the Broken Covenant shall paint it with gold and will rejoice in her third nesting… Two Kings will fight each other at the Ford of the Staff for the sake of a Lioness.

The Lion is Henry I, and his cubs becoming fishes refers, of course, to their drowning. As for the eagle… well, the Holy Roman Emperor was oft associated with an eagle and Matilda married the Emperor. There were conflicts with Scotland (Albany), the bit may refer to Geoffrey calming his wife, the broken covenant is the barons breaking their oath to Matilda’s father to support her, and her third nesting refers to her third child with him. And the Two Kings? Obviously the Anarchy. There is more in the prophecies but I believe the point is clear. There are references to warfare, showing how the country is being broken apart.

Stephen dedicated his book to Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester and the most powerful of Henry I’s bastards, who might have been considered as heir but the illegitimacy was too strong a bar. There may be implied Pro-Robert ideas in the History, with the over-the-top heroic Eldol, Consul of Gloucester who fights his way out of the Treachery/Night of the Long Knives, Geoffrey’s equivalent of the Red Wedding where the Saxons slaughter much of the British nobility at a feast. Eldol later kills the Saxon Leader Hengist, who planned the treachery.

So how does the Anarchy appear in disguised form?

Cordelia springs to mind. In the (I might add superior) version by Shakespeare she and Lear die, but this was a twist ending. In the original her father is restored and leaves the throne to her. However, “when Cordelia had ruled the kingdom peacefully for a period of five years, Marganus and Cunedagius began to cause her trouble. These were the sons of her two sisters… When, after the deaths of their fathers, these two had succeeded them in their dukedoms, they became indignant at the fact that Britain was subjected to the rule of a woman.” And so they rebel against their aunt, imprison her, and she kills herself in prison. Marganus, duke of Albany, gets North of the Humber, Cunedagius, duke of Cornwall, gets South of the Humber.

Two years later Marganus fights with his cousin, thinking that as the elder he should rule the whole island, cue fighting, cue him getting killed and Cunedagius getting the whole island.

Note that Cornwall’s duke ends up winning the Kingship. Not sure why Geoffrey did this but it happens numerous times, with Dunvallo Molmutius and Constantine III of Britain, a character who oft gets left out of the Arthurian mythos despite his importance to them.

Cunedagius’ great-great-great-grandson Gorboduc is involved in a similar story of feuding families. His sons Ferrex and Porrex argue over who should succeed their eldery father. Porrex kills Ferrex, then their mother Judon gets upset over this and kills Porrex. End of the royal family and the Kingdom collapses into the Pentarchy. The Civil War of the Five Kings, not to be confused with the Westerosi conflict, rages on for many years until Dunvallo Molmutius, son of Cloten, King of Cornwall, defeats the other Kings and unites the land.

As an aside Gorboduc has the distinction of being adapted into the first English verse play, in 1561 by Thomas Norton and Thomas Sackville, in a piece performed before the unmarried Elizabeth I, showing the consequences of the lack of proper succession. In this version though we have a traditional dividing the Kingdom even though Gorboduc is still alive, more like King Lear.

In the spirit of such stories drawing contrasts to their times, during the Anarchy and Elizabethan era, I even summed up Gorboduc in my piece The Tragedy of Brexit, when a character confronts Gove after he has betrayed Boris in the hopes of becoming PM himself.

Reader: Truly Gove does it now seem the drama Of Gorboduc has played before us. Gove: (Aside) Know I not what he does speak of. Reader: Gorboduc was King of Ancient Britain. Did you wish to restore the days of his? Gove: (Aside) Must he have been a man of great note. Reader: Answer Gove! Know you what I do speak of? Gove: Of course I do! I know of Gorboduc I did wish to restore the days of his. Reader: Gorboduc did make decisions foolish When dividing betwixt his sons. Ferrex and Porrex fought over Britain. Neither ruled, in the end Britain wept. Divided was the land years many! Cameron was Britain’s foolish ruler Well-meaning was he but his plans were poor You and Boris, like his squabbling issue. Neither of you now rule Brutus’ land James did bring the great island under one But seek you to reverse that fortune fine.

But, on to Geoffrey’s more positive notes, showing what can happen with peace. On Dunvallo’s death his sons fight till Belinus, the elder, gets the great portion south of the Humber and Brennius gets the North. Then further conflict breaks out when Brennius plans to take the whole land, he is exiled, he comes back with an army after becoming ruler of the Allobroges by marrying the daughter of their Duk Segnius. However the brothers’ mother convinces the brothers to make peace. They then proceed to conquer Rome, the Gauls sacking the city being attributed to them. This is really stretching connections to the Anarchy but it shows that if peace was made between opposing sides Britain can beat any other power.

Forward to the invasion by Julius Caesar. In the true fashion of nationalistic propaganda, in a clear defeat our side loses through treachery, much like that iconic piece of Medieval poetry The Song of Roland, but thankfully this version isn’t so horribly offensive towards Islam you feel unsettled reading it… well unless you’re a Trump supporter.

Here the King is Cassibelanus, who succeeded after the death of his elder brother Lud, and gives shares to Luds’ sons, Androgeus gets Trinovantum and the duchy of Kent and Tenvantius gets the duchy of Cornwall. The British were originally beating the Romans, because Geoffrey does love to show the British as superior to the Romans… However during the celebration games, Cassibelanus’s nephew Hirelglas is killed by Androgeus’s nephew Cuelinus. Cassibelanus tells Androgeus their his nephew should be sent to him for trial, but Androgeus refuses, wanting them tried at his court of Trinovantum. Cassibelanus attacks him, and Androgeus asks for Caesar’s help. Thanks to the treachery of the King’s nephew Britain is defeated. So again, the motif of the treacherous nephew is brought up, forcing Britain to submit to Rome.

Move on to some centuries later, with Constantine the Great’s mother being elevated from concubine of Emperor to daughter of British King so the British can claim the great Christian Emperor was British. The throne is later seized by Octavius (apparently some accounts have him as Constantine’s half-brother but I could not find which one or see it in Geoffrey). Then as Octavius has no son dispute arises whether his daughter Helen or nephew Conanus Meridiadocus should succeed, with his daughter possibly married off to a Prince from another country. It is quite possible to see traces of the Anarchy present here, with a succession dispute between the King’s daughter and nephew. Not unlike Matilda marrying Geoffrey from Anjou… Octavius decides to marry Helen to Maximianus, son of Ioelinus, a great-uncle of Constantine as they are a brother of Coel, through the advice of Caradocus, duke of Cornwall.

However Conanus is “annoyed” at this and “strove with all his might and main to seize the kingship, and in trying to achieve this objective he upset the entire court.”

Conanus gets the support of the Emperor Maximianus and continues causing trouble as he tries to take the Kingdom. However after his uncle gives their daughter and the kingship to Maximianus, Conanus again tries to grab it by raising an army in Albany, but “finally, when each had done the other as much harm as he knew how, they made peace with each other, with the blessing of their friends.”

This feels so similar to the Anarchy and I wonder… is this Geoffrey hoping a peace might be reached between Stephen and Matilda?

Another usurpation happens with Vortigern, who may well have been a historical figure. Vortigern brings about the the death of the foolish Constans while Constans’ brothers Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther are too young to rule, enabling Vortigern to seize the throne. He then brings the Saxons in as mercenaries, thinking he can control them… he can’t, and the Kingdom is brought into trouble, before the rightful heirs return from Brittany and regain Britain.

Of course Vortigern the Usurper had already appeared in Histories, Geoffrey was drawing on other sources for his stories. But the development of many of these was codified by him.

Finally we have Mordred, one of the archetypal villains of the Matter of Britain. Though with a name like Mordred what do you expect?

Mordred is a more explicitly villainous character than Conanus, and I’d say they are the one of the most famous versions of the Evil Prince archetype, certainly the most famous from the Matter of Britain. However in the earliest versions he is not Arthur’s son, sired through incest, but merely Arthur’s nephew, being one of the most prominent Evil Nephews (fun fact, I’m actually the guy who started that TV Tropes page) in popular culture. Though in the later versions he is still Arthur’s nephew…

Mordred is described as the son of King Loth and apparently Gawain is his brother. The text, or mayhaps just the translation I’m using, describes in Part 7:9 that Loth “in the days of Aurelius Ambrosius had married that King’s own sister and had had two sons by her, Gawain and Mordred”. So was that Aurelius’ sister or Arthur’s sister, considering that Aurelius was Uther’s brother and died before Arthur was born? But nephew/cousin are more fluid terms in the Middle Ages so he might have been classed as Arthur’s nephew. Or mayhaps I’m misreading the text. Fun fact, if Mordred is Loth’s son, that apparently makes him part-Norwegian, as Loth was the nephew of Sichelm the King of Norway, who leaves the Kingdom to Loth.

While Arthur is beating Lucius, the Emperor of Rome, Mordred is left in charge of Britain. However just after the long military details and orientalist stereotypes being pushed into Romans (though admittedly to the Britons the Romans would be Easterners) Arthur hears “that his nephew Mordred, in whose care he had left Britain, had placed the crown upon his own head.”

Arthur of course goes straight back to defeat his treacherous nephew but is mortally wounded in killing Evil Stephen… Mordred.

And so the dreams of a British King being Roman Emperor die. The big successful moment of the greatest British King has to be set aside due to this analogue of Stephen. Geoffrey veers away from saying Arthur dies, he goes off to Avalon and you know the rest. I presume Mordred goes somewhere very cold…

Just like with Belinus and Brennius and Cassibelanus we see that a unified Britain can beat anyone, even Rome. But divisions… that is when the Kingdom suffers. Arthur has like previous Kings of Britain beaten Rome yet his nephew’s treachery has undone his work.

After that… well I get the feeling after Arthur the rest of the King seem rather anti-climatic, as Geoffrey just seems to rush through them.

Arthur’s ‘cousin’ Constantine III (Uther’s father was Constantine II), son of Cador and Duke of Cornwall, succeeds him. Apparently Cador is Arthur’s half-brother, born from Duke Gorlois of Corwall and Igraine who Uther conceived Arthur with. But Mordred’s two sons (you don’t see them mentioned much do you?) continue to cause him trouble and after killing them he only rules another four years. Now we get onto one of my fave minor villains in the Matter of Britain.

“Constantine’s nephew[1] succeeded him, a young man of extraordinary bravery called Aurelius Conanus. He ruled over the whole island and would indeed have been worthy of such a crown if he had not taken such delight in civil war. He gained the kingship only by attacking his own uncle (who ought to have reigned after Constantine), throwing him into prison and killing his two sons. Aurelius Conanus died in the third year of his reign.

Vortiporius came after Conanus…”[2]

That’s it for Conanus. First of, another villainous nephew called Conanus? Secondly, why hasn’t this been expanded? I thought as I saw there was no prominent work depicting Conanus that I’d have to write my own, which is on the numerous side-projects I have.

A reminder that these Post-Arthur Kings were first mentioned by Gildas in his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain), written in the 6th century. He refers to “Constantine the tyrannical whelp of the unclean lioness of Damnonia” and “thou lion’s whelp Aurelius Conanus”. Constantine appears to have been King of Dumnonia, which is basically Cornwall. Conanus may be Cynan Garwyn, King of Powys (in Wales) or his relative Cynin ap Millo. Geoffrey making Conanus nephew of the King he kills shows how he could be playing with the history he has to push his Anarchy themes. Doing so even invokes the fate of Arthur, Constantine coming across as a poor replacement to Arthur who also faces the treachery of a usurping nephew.

This dark Post-Arthur era is shown in the Vita Merlini (Life of Merlin), composed about 1150. Here the themes of civil disturbance are much stronger, with the impression of a drawn out war which is ruining the country. We hear “Constantine has died and his nephew Conan, through an evil fate and the murder of his uncle, has taken the crown and is king.”

Merlin goes on to recount “The nephews of the Boar of Cornwall cast everything into confusion, and setting snares for each other engage in a mutual slaughter with their wicked swords. They do not wish to wait to get possession of the kingdom lawfully, but seize the crown.” An idea of an Anarchy taking over this historical Britain is here also, with conflict between the various powerful figures, much like Stephen and Matilda.

The whole chain of events brought about since the death of the Good King, Arthur who is represented in a nostalgic manner, reminiscent of how Henry I may have been viewed.

“After it the king, mortally wounded, left his kingdom and, sailing across the water with you as you have related, came to the court of the maidens. Each of the two sons of Modred, desiring to conquer the kingdom for himself, began to wage war and each in turn slew those who were near of kin to him. Then Duke Constantine, nephew of the king, rose up fiercely against them and ravaged the people and the cities, and after having killed both of them by a cruel death ruled over the people and assumed the crown. But he did not continue in peace since Conan his relative waged dire war on him and ravaged everything and killed the king and seized for himself those lands which he now governs weakly and without a plan.”

Though Constantine was criticized by Geoffrey for murdering Mordred’s sons in holy places, now the general warfare is further emphasized. Meanwhile Conan has gone from being a brave and worthy character to a weak ruler without a plan.

As the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states on the Anarchy:

“When the traitors saw that Stephen was a good-humoured, kindly, and easy-going man who inflicted no punishment, then they committed all manner of horrible crimes…For every great man built him castles and held them against the king; and they filled the whole land with these castles. They sorely burdened the unhappy people of the country with forced labour on the castles; and when the castles were built, they filled them up with devils and wicked men. By night and by day they seized those whom they believed to have any wealth, whether they were men or women; and in order to get their gold and silver, they put them into prison and tortured them with unspeakable tortures.”

Of course Stephen did not act directly against their uncle, unlike both the Conanus’ and Mordred. His seizure of the throne happened after Henry’s death. But it is easy to see the treacherous nephews as some dig at Stephen, who has opened the door to civil strife.

Geoffrey’s later expansion of the Post-Arthur years of Britain is more cynical in tone, emphasizing the disturbed state of the Kingdom. Since the Anarchy the land is in turmoil, there isn’t a strong ruler in place, and things are generally going downhill.

So overall I think Geoffrey’s work is a commentary on the Anarchy. It is hard to tell his exact views but you can see how he may have been influenced. Thankfully things worked out more like Conanus Meridiadocus than Aurelius Conanus. But it shows how Geoffrey’s work may be considered a contemporary view on the Anarchy, demonstrating how it is effecting the literature. The terror of the time comes through in Geoffrey’s writing, a feeling that the country is falling apart due to this disputed rulership. The disputes over women ruling and the frequency of scheming nephews pushes this across. A united Britain is wonderful as Geoffrey frequently shows their achievements, but divisions over rule destroy this order.

[1] Though in Spenser’s account Conan is the son of Arthur’s other half-brother Artegal and the Lady Knight Britomart.

[2] Geoffrey doesn’t mention their relationship but in Holinshed’s work Vortiporus is Conan’s son and the King after this, Malgo, is Conan’s nephew.