Pre-conquest England was a relatively well-governed and somewhat prosperous kingdom; the country was cleverly run. The division of land and the hierarchy as well as the coinage, trade, towns and frequent invasions all suggest that pre-conquest England was prosperous and well-governed. However, the possible threats from the Earls to the King, the Danegeld and the King not having an heir suggest, England was less prosperous and more unstable.

In the eleventh century England had developed into a sophisticated and highly organised state. The kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and East Anglia had become earldoms. Earldoms were territorial units that covered large areas each of which was controlled by an Earl. Each earldom was further divided into shires. The shire was the administrative state and the unit of local government of England, the means of which the kings enforced taxation and law. Each shire was divided into hundreds, an area covering a dozen or so villages. The smallest unit of land was a hide and this was the measurement of productive agricultural land that was taxable. Each level of this hierarchy had its own mini leader. For example, each shire was managed by a sheriff and each sheriff was controlled by an earl. All parts of the Earldoms were controlled by the monarch. This organised system demonstrates that there was a very clear hierarchy in pre-conquest England. This would have made the country easy to run, especially for the kings of different countries such as Cnut the Great who was also king of Denmark, Norway and parts of Sweden. This indicates that England was a well governed kingdom because the kingdom was divided and each piece of land would have a local aristocrat to manage it.

However, there was one main problem to the pre-conquest system that could have caused instability and chaos to the country and to the king. This problem was that the Earls had power that if combined would of easily eclipsed that of the king and so if they worked together they could effortlessly overthrow him. For example Edward the Confessor was seen to be lacking in authority and for not having the power to overthrow the Godwin family, as after they flied England, Godwin returned and was eventually reinstated as an Earl. This problem suggests that pre-conquest England was fractured. And therefore means that if the system was put under pressure, the whole system would snap and break up. This shows that the hierarchy in the Kingdom was flawed in the very core of its institution.

Edward the confessor didn’t have an heir and died childless. This shows that pre-conquest England was not governed well. The fact that he didn’t leave an heir brings many issues for England to the foreground. Who should be next in line? And why should it be you and not me? These questions might have been just some in the minds of the noble and aristocratic. Edward’s childless marriage changed the course of England’s history. The lack of an heir resulted in to dispute and contributed to one of the greatest catastrophes to which the English have ever succumbed. This catastrophe made England conflicted and unstable and therefore meant the kingdom was badly governed.

However, the reign of Edward the Confessor was a peaceful one. Edward’s prudent management gave England more than twenty years of peace and prosperity. There were no invasions like the ones that happened during his father’s reign and some historians say this only happened because Edward gave up some of his power to appease the Earls and to unite England. He could have used ‘divide and rule’ tactics towards the Earls but this would have divided the kingdom and made it more

towards the potential attacks by King Magnus of Norway. Taxation was comparatively light throughout Edwards reign. This is because he was not an extravagant king and lived off the revenues of his own lands, nor did he have to pay for expensive military campaigns. The king was also highly religious and he was responsible for building Westminster Abby, this making England more devoted with religion. The fact that England was relativity peaceful and became a much more religious kingdom throughout Edward ii’s Reign shows England to be a well-governed Kingdom before the Conquest of 1066.

England had an efficient system of taxation based upon a solid economy and currency. The minting of coins expanded under the West Saxon Kings so that by the 980s there were approximately 60 mints around the country. Every five years all coins in circulation creased to be legal and had to be handed in and exchanged. The King and local authorities would then take a percentage of this money in form of taxes. For this system to have worked the government must have been well governed and well planned. Additionally the country and economy must have been quite prosperous. This is shown through the complexity of the coinage system. If there was only a small amount trade than the complex system in which they used would have not have been needed. Likewise the fact that the Anglo-Saxon monetary system of pounds, shillings and pence remained in use until 1971 shows that pre-conquest England was both well-governed and quite prosperous.

The combination of a coinage system with the organisation of shires and hundreds enabled Anglo-Saxon kings to raise very large sums of money. This illustrates that England was a very prosperous country before the conquest in 1066. But during the reign of Ethelred the Unready, much of the money went to the Danish Vikings during their repeat attacks. These invasions suggest that England was a rather wealthy country as people don’t invade poor countries. England must have been a very valuable prize for it to be invaded so frequently. This of cause implies that pre-conquest England was very rich and prosperous. In reaction to the invasions the monarch would pay the Vikings huge amounts of money to go away. This payment way called the Danegeld. This shows that England could afford to pay such large amounts and not get bankrupt. They were able to regularly pay and still be stable.

However the Danegeld illustrates that England was not powerful enough to fight back and instead had to pay the Vikings off to get them to go away. This confirms the view that pre-conquest England was not well-governed and was in fact inefficient and unproductive. There was also the possibility that these payments had a knock-on effect on the economy is very feasible. The country would have been losing a lot of money each time the Danish invaded and even though England didn’t become bankrupt, it couldn’t have made a positive impact on the country’s economy. It must have been negative on trade and other businesses. This means that England was not as prosperous as it could have been.

The distribution of the population shows that the majority of the English were farmers who were uneducated. The idea of society was also put into three levels: those who fought, those who prayed and those who worked. This social system was closed for the majority of people and this meant that the chance of social mobility was non-existent. This indicates that the economy was underdeveloped and was not prosperous. The closed structured society stopped businesses from growing and stopped people moving to the small towns where potential trades could have been made. If these

things had happen then the economy would have been one of the most advanced economies of its time.
However, late Anglo-Saxon society was rather subtle and sophisticated. More towns had started to emerge and unlike the villages, people could support themselves through non-agricultural means. By 1066 England had twice as many towns as at height of Roman Britain. This helped the country as the King could sublet towns to landlords or churches and abbeys for a fixed holiday and all profits from rents, tolls and law courts went to the king. Increase in towns also gave a rise of merchants, craftsmen and sailors who didn’t fit into the three-level system. Prosperity was also rising in agriculture and in villages as the agricultural techniques improved. There was development of the open field system. The introduction of strip farming meant that each peasant family worked a strip of land in a field. This was an important development as it meant each family had fertile land to grow crops and animals which they needed to survive. Nucleated villages were becoming more increasingly common. This is a group of settlements clustered around a central point, such as a church. Churches were also a very important part of the pre-conquest community. It allowed the King and the government to control the peasants and other less important groups of society. The rise in temptation helped England grow more crops and all these different factors made the population rise to around one million. The population and culture was also diverse because of migrations and settlements of the Saxon, Danish and Celt. All of this illustrates the amazingly well-governed pre-conquest England and shows that England was relatively prosperous.

In conclusion, pre-conquest England was rather well governed. There was a clear and defined hierarchy and division of land and as well as the advanced systems of coinage, this illustrates that the pre-conquest government was well developed and therefore they knew what it was doing. Although power of the Earls could have undermined that of the Kings and lead to instability in the country, it is not too much of an issue when looking at the other accomplishments they achieved. However the issue of how prosperous the Kingdom was is not so clear and calculated. Although there are several points which argue that Pre-conquest England was prosperous nation such as the coinage system and the rise of the population throughout the country. There are also many points which show England to be a less prosperous Kingdom such as the Danegeld and the three-tier social system. Overall England was as prosperous as and some times more prosperous than other European countries, but England could have been much more prosperous than it was. It became much more prosperous after William the conqueror conquered England.