Cross and Scepter

by Bagge, Sverre

  The queen herself is less prominent in the sources than her husband, but, formally, her status increased with the introduction of legitimate succession. From the thirteenth century on, she was usually crowned. Whatever the relationship between her and her husband, there can be no doubt at this period of her formal rank, whereas there had earlier been only a vague distinction between her and the other women in the king’s life. Most Scandinavian queens who played an important political role were widows, the most prominent of whom was Queen Margrete, the founder of the Kalmar Union. As long as their husbands lived, queens normally acted behind the scenes, for good or for bad. As they were always foreigners, they were often blamed for their husbands’ bad acts. For example, King Birger’s wife Margareta was accused in the Erikskrönikan of urging her husband to murder his brothers and luring them to the fateful banquet in Nyköping by faking her longing for them. As in the rest of Europe, however, approaching the queen was also a means to obtain a favor from the king, as in the story from the Sturlunga Saga about how the Icelander Sturla Tordsson became reconciled with King Magnus. Sturla had been summoned to Norway by King Håkon, who accused him of working against his interests in Iceland. Sturla reached Norway in 1263, after king Håkon had left for Scotland, and got a cool reception from King Magnus. He was nevertheless allowed to travel on the king’s ship, where he began to tell stories to the king’s retainers. Eventually, Queen Ingeborg (recently married to King Magnus [pp. 236–38]) began to listen, received him in a friendly manner, served him wine, and finally reconciled him with her husband.

  The recruitment of the king’s servants from the aristocracy is a characteristic feature of Western courts in contrast to those of the Middle East, where most of the king’s servants were slaves or eunuchs and other people dependent on him. We can thus imagine a normal career for a noble in Scandinavia as starting with a period as page at court and a warrior in the king’s entourage, after which he would fill some position in the local administration, its exact nature dependent on his rank and the king’s impression of him. Having finished his permanent residence at court, such a man would probably make a regular appearance at royal Christmas parties and meet the king on various occasions during his travels around in the country.

  Evidently, such lengthy familiarity with the king did not prevent nobles from opposing him, nor was it without some risk for the king. He could only to a limited extent “hide behind his office,” for although his position accorded him respect and deference, his frequent interaction with his subordinates made it difficult for him to hide any personal weaknesses. A heroic or charismatic king could win much support under this system, but one who was clumsy, stupid, or cowardly ran a considerable risk. The kings’ sagas give ample evidence of this, celebrating the wit, charm, eloquence, and heroism of great kings, while hinting at myriad flaws in their less successful counterparts. The king had to develop a good relationship with his subordinates, settle conflicts between them, and strike just the right balance between generosity and friendliness on the one hand, and strictness and authority on the other. No small amount of diplomatic skill was called for. In 1256, the Icelanders Tord Kakali, Snorre’s nephew, and Gissur Torvaldson, who were bitter enemies, stayed at Håkon’s court. Tord urged the king to send Gissur away, declaring that it was likely that conflicts would arise if they both were in the same city. The king answered, “How can you expect me to send away my friend Gissur based on what you have said; would you rather not be in Heaven if Gissur was there?” “I would gladly be there, my Lord!” replied Tord, “but we would have to be far apart.”

  The personal links established between the king and members of the aristocracy at court may to some extent modify the image we have of aristocratic dominance and opposition to the king. Nevertheless, these ties did not eliminate conflicts, of which there were several in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.

  The Division of Power: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and the Church

  Conflicts between the monarchy on the one hand and the Church and aristocracy on the other have played a prominent part in Scandinavian historiography. The most obvious rival of the monarchy was the Church, which in the Middle Ages largely resembled a state, for its hierarchical organization and its involvement in jurisdiction, legislation, and taxation resembled the king’s administration.

  Whereas at least some scholars have depicted prelates like Eskil and Eystein as charismatic figures promoting high ideals, their successors in the late thirteenth century have met with less approval. By now the Church had become a wealthy and influential institution, and its struggles seem to have had more to do with financial privileges and legal detail than with fundamental issues of libertas ecclesiae. An example of this is the jurisdictional conflict that broke out in Norway in the 1270s. A series of negotiations led to an agreement in 1277 in which the king went far in the direction of recognizing ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical law, although with some reservations in reference to royal rights. After King Magnus’ death three years later, the regency for his son refused to recognize some of his privileges, notably real or alleged tax privileges, and tried to restrict ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The conflict took several dramatic turns. The archbishop excommunicated the regents, whereupon they outlawed the archbishop and the clerics, who refused to obey their decrees. The archbishop and two of the bishops went into exile; the regents took over the archbishop’s palace and one of them slept with his wife in the archbishop’s bed. When one of the regents died excommunicate, the others broke into the tower of the cathedral in Bergen to sound the bells at his funeral.

  The conflict grew into a major confrontation between the two powers, in which the regents used their legal learning to argue for the king’s sovereign power. They used the reservation clause in the settlement of 1277 (“with the king’s rights reserved in all cases where fines should be paid according to established custom and the law of the country”) to claim that the jurisdictional rights granted to the Church were concessions from the sovereign king and remained subject to his interpretation. The background and reason for the conflict are unclear because the lack of sources from the previous period makes it difficult to know how many of the concessions granted by the monarchy in 1277 were actually new. Nevertheless, we can at least see that there were significant differences from previous conflicts between the Church and the monarchy. First, this was strictly a conflict between two organizations; there was no doubt that Magnus and his sons were the lawful rulers of Norway. Second, the expansion of both in the previous period had made the rivalry into something like a zero-sum game: there was little room for one organization to expand without harming the other. This is particularly evident in the case of conflicts over jurisdiction, for both organizations received a large part of their revenues and authority from fines and the settlement of conflicts, so that a gain for one party would immediately translate into a loss for the other. The same principle applies to disputes over taxation, for the Church was now demanding exemption from taxation for all its tenants, not only for the estates run by the ecclesiastical institutions themselves, as had been the case previously.

  The conflict ended in 1290 in a relatively vague compromise that largely favored the monarchy. The Church lost several of the privileges it had gained in 1277, and its demand for extended tax exemption was rejected, whereas the question of jurisdiction remained unsolved. Nor were the royal counselors punished for their attacks on the clergy. Competition between royal and ecclesiastical courts of law continued, with the king and the Church unable to reach an agreement about a new Christian law. In their day-to-day dealings, however, the two organizations managed to cooperate reasonably well. There were no serious conflicts in the following period.

  Tension between the monarchy and the Church was most prolonged and dramatic in Denmark, where the archbishops Jacob Erlandsen (1252–1274), Jens Grand (1289–1302) and Esger Juul (1310–1325) all came into conflict with the king. Danish historians have held wid
ely different opinions on how to weight the impact of legal and ideological issues versus political interests in these struggles. Jurisdictional and legal arguments played an important role, and the legal positions of both parties can be examined in the detailed petitions that they brought before the papal court. Nor was the question of jurisdiction confined to a dispute over the respective competences of the two powers. The conflict between the king and Archbishop Jacob Erlandsen started as a disagreement between the archbishop and the inhabitants of his diocese, in which the archbishop demanded new legal procedures and more severe punishments for violence, murder, and homicide, whereas the people resisted any change in the law, demanding a return to the old law of the late twelfth century. There was also a conflict over appointments to clerical offices, as in Norway. The most important difference, however, was the feudal aspect of the conflict, which concerned the position of the archbishop as one of the king’s main vassals with extensive secular power within his diocese, above all in connection with the leding. The king complained that the archbishop did not perform his duties in this regard, while the archbishop demanded greater independence than the king was willing to allow him. To complicate matters, the struggle between the two tended to merge with the other conflicts at the time, whereas in Norway, the secular aristocracy was the main enemy of the Church, as is well illustrated by the aggressive policy of the regency government.

  The connection to other conflicts was particularly strong under Jens Grand, who was related to some of the magnates convicted of the murder of Erik Klipping. The conflict between the archbishop and the king was brought before the pope, who, after a long process (the acts of which have been preserved), decided in favor of the king and moved Jens Grand to Riga in 1302. According to the acts, Jens refused to believe that those accused of King Erik’s murder were guilty. He is also alleged to have said that it was a pity that Erik was not murdered earlier, as that would have prevented him from having offspring, and further that he would rather have the devil himself than the present Erik on the throne. Admittedly, the archbishop’s lawyer denied that Jens had said this, but he did not present any information to the effect that Jens was of a different opinion. It would therefore seem that there was a close connection between this conflict pitting the king against the archbishop and the struggles following on the murder of Erik Klipping. The series of conflicts resulted in a victory for the king, which turned out to be final; after Esger Juul, no archbishop again challenged a king. One reason for this was that the Church was never united behind the archbishop; usually, the majority of the bishops supported the king. Rather than opposing the king as representatives of the universal Church, late-medieval bishops became part of the aristocracy and individually participated in the various alliances and confederations for or against the king.

  The Swedish Church had received tax privileges and independent jurisdiction in the early thirteenth century, but there is little indication that these privileges were respected in the following period. The real breakthrough came in 1276, after King Magnus Birgersson (1275–1290) had received aid from the Church to replace his brother on the throne. The Church was now exempted from all taxes on the property that it possessed at the time and had as well the right to receive legal fines from its tenants. However, the regency for Magnus’ son Birger, led by the magnate Tyrgils Knutsson, reversed this policy, thus sparking conflict between the two powers. The conflict ended in 1305, when King Birger had reached majority and his relationship to his brothers had deteriorated. King Birger seems, at least initially, to have returned to his father’s policy, whereas his brothers continued that of Tyrgils Knutsson, but the lines of division are not consistent, nor was the Church united during the struggles. Whereas the archbishop supported the king, the bishops of Linköping and Skara—the two richest sees in the country—were on the side of the dukes. After 1319, the Church seems to have improved its position, both during the regency and after King Magnus reached majority. Thus, we find the same tendency as in Norway towards rivalry between the Church and the lay aristocracy, while the king might use the Church to counterbalance the latter, which was stronger in Sweden than in Norway. The relative wealth and power of the two churches is more difficult to assess. Ecclesiastical organization was slow to develop in Sweden but had reached an advanced stage around 1300, and the Swedish Church played an important political role during the later Middle Ages.

  Thus, open conflicts between the Church and the monarchy most often ended in victory for the latter, although this victory did not greatly reduce the power and wealth of the Church. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Church remained a parallel institution to the monarchy, with large estates, its own bureaucracy, the right to tax the population, and independent jurisdiction in a variety of cases. In so far as we are dealing with a zero-sum game, the Church had a substantial share of the profit. On the other hand, we are also dealing with interests common to both, and there was opportunity for the king to profit from the services of the prelates, employing them in his administration and using ecclesiastical offices to reward his servants. It was also an advantage for the king to deal with two aristocracies rather than one, for if the Church had not existed, he would probably have faced a stronger and wealthier secular aristocracy.

  An influential school of thought in Scandinavian historiography sees the conflict between monarchy and aristocracy as the main issue in the political history of the region from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century. The inner struggles in Denmark and Sweden in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century mark the beginning of this conflict. Unfortunately for the peace of the country, both King Valdemar II (d. 1241) and King Erik Klipping (d. 1286) of Denmark and King Magnus Birgersson of Sweden (d. 1290) left more than one son, which in all three cases led to rivalry and internecine struggles. Valdemar II of Denmark left three sons at his death in 1241, the eldest of whom, Erik IV Plovpenning (“Plow money”, named after a tax he imposed on the people), became king, whereas the two younger received len. Armed conflicts broke out between them almost immediately and continued after Erik died in 1250, probably murdered by his brother Abel. When Abel was killed on an expedition against the Frisians in 1252, his younger brother Christoffer became king, despite the fact that Abel had a son. This led to a rivalry over the throne that lasted for several generations, with Abel’s descendants, in their capacity as dukes of Southern Jutland, sometimes opposing the ruling kings. One of them even became king for a short time (1326–1330) as Valdemar III. However, Christoffer’s descendants held on to the throne; his widow Margrete Sambiria managed to secure the succession for her son Erik V Klipping, who was a minor at the time, and after his murder in 1286 the throne passed on to his son Erik VI Menved, also a minor. In addition to other problems, Erik during most of his reign had to fight his younger brother Christoffer, who succeeded him as Christoffer II in 1320.

  There is evidence of specifically aristocratic interests arising during these conflicts, notably under Erik Klipping. His mother Margrete Sambiria led an authoritarian royalist government, which continued unchanged after Erik reached majority. In 1282, however, Erik had to issue a charter promising to rule in the interests of the aristocracy on a number of specific points, and in the following years, until the king was murdered in 1286, members of the aristocracy played an important part in the government. The murder resulted in a return once again to a more royalist government. The leading men of the previous regime were accused of the murder and exiled, and the dowager Queen Agnes took control together with some her favorites, for a time including Duke Valdemar of Southern Jutland, Abel’s grandson. The government continued strongly royalist during most of Erik VI Menved’s reign, but changed after his death. In 1320, his successor Christoffer II had to issue the first real election charter with precise restrictions on royal power, including the provision that the monarchy was to be elective, not hereditary. In the following dynastic rivalries, the aristocracy was undoubtedly the driving force; Valdemar III, the king who replaced Christoffer
II in 1326, was only eleven years old. The following changes, Christoffer replacing Valdemar in 1330 and the interregnum after Christoffer’s death in 1332, were staged by the king’s German mortgagees, who now controlled most of the country.

  In Sweden, the struggle between King Birger and his brothers has also been understood as a conflict between monarchy and aristocracy, with Birger allied with the Church and his brothers with the lay aristocracy. In practice, however, it is difficult to find such a consistent pattern; both the Church and the lay aristocracy were divided. Only when Birger murdered his brothers did the aristocracy unite against him; hardly a single member supported him in the spring of 1318; only some foreigners, mostly German mercenaries, remained on his side. In the previous period, the dukes may have had greater aristocratic support than did their brother, because of their personal popularity, possibly combined with greater generosity because of their weaker legal claim, but the universal desertion of Birger must have been determined by moral outrage. The conflict ended in the victory of the dukes’ aristocratic adherents who declared Sweden an elective monarchy in 1319 and took over the regency for the infant King Magnus Eriksson until 1331.

  Were these essentially conflicts between monarchy and aristocracy, or was the issue the rivalry between the king and his younger brothers? The fact that the aristocracy strengthened its position as the result of the struggles might immediately seem to point in the former direction, but it is actually of little importance. Individually or collectively, the aristocracy may well have profited from the inner struggles without being the cause of them.

  The two alternative explanations may to some extent be tested by the example of Norway, which avoided internal conflicts in the period, except for a conflict with the Church in the 1280s. At his death in 1263, King Håkon IV Håkonsson left only one son, who succeeded him, Magnus VI the Lawmender (1263–80). Magnus was succeeded by two sons, both under age, Eirik (born 1268) and Håkon (born 1270). From 1284 to 1299 Håkon ruled one third of the country as duke, but then succeeded Eirik on the throne, which prevented any further division. The relationship between the two brothers seems to have been good, possibly because Eirik suffered ill health from an early age after a fall from his horse and was therefore not in a position to resist his more energetic brother. Håkon’s succession led to some replacements in the king’s inner circle, including even the execution of one of his brother’s main counselors, but it occasioned no internal unrest. The lack of inner conflict in Norway might possibly be explained by the weakness of the Norwegian aristocracy. However, weakness had not prevented the same aristocracy from backing various pretenders in a series of struggles over the course of a hundred years. It would therefore seem more likely that the presence or absence of internal struggles was determined by the number of pretenders to the throne rather than by an opposition between monarchy and aristocracy. As a matter of fact, all the conflicts, with the exception of the one in Denmark in the 1320s, took place in situations of dynastic conflict, as when younger brothers of the king wanted to increase their wealth and power.