Editing Edward I of England (section)

== Legacy ==
{{See also|Cultural depictions of Edward I of England}}
[[File:Portrait of William Stubbs by Hubert von Herkomer.jpeg|thumb|upright|left|alt=An old man in half-figure on a chair, with his right arm over the back, facing the viewer. His hair and large muttonchops are white, his attire is black and simple.|Bishop [[William Stubbs]], in his ''Constitutional History'', emphasised Edward&nbsp;I's contribution to the English constitution.]]
The first histories of Edward in the 16th and 17th centuries drew primarily on the works of the [[chronicler]]s, and made little use of the official records of the period.<ref name="Templeman1618">{{Harvnb|Templeman|1950|pp=16–18}}.</ref> They limited themselves to general comments on Edward's significance as a monarch, and echoed the chroniclers' praise for his accomplishments.<ref>{{Harvnb|Templeman|1950|pp=16–18}}, {{Harvnb|Morris|2009|pp=364–365}}.</ref> In the 17th century, the lawyer [[Edward Coke]] wrote extensively about Edward's legislation, terming the King the "English Justinian" after the Byzantine lawmaker [[Justinian&nbsp;I]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Templeman|1950|p=17}}.</ref> Later in the century, historians used the available record as evidence to elucidate the roles of Parliament and kingship under Edward, drawing comparisons between his reign and the political strife of their own century.<ref>{{Harvnb|Templeman|1950|p=18}}.</ref> In the 18th century, historians depicted Edward as an able, if ruthless, monarch, conditioned by the circumstances of his time.<ref>{{Harvnb|Templeman|1950|pp=21–22}}.</ref>

The influential [[Victorian era|Victorian]] historian William Stubbs suggested that Edward had actively shaped national history, forming English laws and institutions, and helping England to develop a [[parliamentary]] and [[constitutional monarchy]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Stubbs|1880}}; {{Harvnb|Templeman|1950|p=22}}.</ref> His strengths and weaknesses as a ruler were considered to be emblematic of the English people as a whole.<ref>{{Harvnb|Burt|2013|p=2}}.</ref> Stubbs's student, [[Thomas Tout]], initially adopted the same perspective, but after extensive research into Edward's royal household, and backed by the research of his contemporaries into the early Parliaments of the period, he changed his mind.<ref>{{Harvnb|Templeman|1950|pp=25–26}}.</ref> Tout came to view Edward as a self-interested, conservative leader, using the parliamentary system as "the shrewd device of an autocrat, anxious to use the mass of the people as a check upon his hereditary foes among the greater baronage."<ref>{{Harvnb|Templeman|1950|p=25}}; {{Harvnb|Tout|1920|p=190}}.</ref>

Historians in the 20th and 21st centuries have conducted extensive research on Edward and his reign.<ref>{{Harvnb|Burt|2013|p=1}}.</ref> Most have concluded this was a highly significant period in English medieval history, some describing Edward as one of the great medieval kings,<ref name="Krieger1"/> although most agree that his final years were less successful than his early decades in power.<ref>{{Harnvb|Prestwich|1997|pp=38, 567}}, {{Harvnb|Templeman|1950|p=16}}; {{Harvnb|Cazel|1991|p=225}}; {{Harnvb|Spencer|2014|p=265}}; {{Harvnb|Burt|2013|pp=1–3}}, {{Harvnb|Gillingham|2008}}</ref> G. Templeman argued in his 1950 historiographical essay that "it is generally recognized that Edward I deserves a high place in the history of medieval England".<ref>{{Harvnb|Templeman|1950|p=16}}.</ref> Three major academic narratives of Edward have been produced during this period.<ref>{{Harvnb|Morris|2009|p=viii}}; {{Harvnb|Burt|2013|p=1}}; {{Harnvb|Spencer|2014|p=4}}.</ref> [[F. M. Powicke]]'s volumes, published in 1947 and 1953, forming the standard works on Edward for several decades, were largely positive in praising the achievements of his reign, and his focus on justice and the law.<ref>For Powicke's works and views, see {{Harvnb|Powicke|1947}} and {{Harvnb|Powicke|1962}}. For their reception, see {{Harvnb|Burt|2013|p=2}}; {{Harvnb|Cazel|1991|p=225}}.</ref> In 1988, Michael Prestwich produced an authoritative biography of the King, focusing on his political career, still portraying him in sympathetic terms, but highlighting some of the consequences of his failed policies.<ref>{{Harvnb|Prestwich|1997}}; {{Harvnb|Denton|1989|p=982}}; {{Harvnb|Cazel|1991|p=225}}; {{Harvnb|Carpenter|2004|p=566}}.</ref> [[Marc Morris (historian)|Marc Morris]]'s biography followed in 2008, drawing out more of the detail of Edward's personality, and generally taking a harsher view of his weaknesses and less pleasant characteristics, pointing out that modern analysts of Edward's reign denounce the King for his policies against the Jewish community in England.<ref>{{Harvnb|Morris|2009|p=371}}; {{Harvnb|Burt|2013|p=1}}; {{Harvnb|Goldsmith|2009}}.</ref> Considerable academic debate has taken place around the character of Edward's kingship, his political skills, and his management of his earls, and whether this was collaborative or repressive in nature.<ref>{{Harvnb|McFarlane|1981|p=267}}; {{Harvnb|Burt|2013|pp=7–8}}.</ref>

Historians have debated how Edward I's reign should be assessed: Michael Prestwich in 1988 attempted to judge him by the standards of his time.{{sfn|Prestwich|1997|pp=xi-xii}} Fred Cazel agrees with this approach, particularly regarding his lack of political "sensitivity" and uncompromising attitudes, arguing that anger was his political weapon.<ref> {{Harvnb|Cazel|1991|p=225, 226}}.</ref> Prestwich concludes that "Edward was a formidable king; his reign, with both its successes and its disappointments, a great one," and he was "without doubt one of the greatest rulers of his time".{{sfn|Prestwich|1997|pp=38, 567}} [[G. W. S. Barrow]] counters that Edward's contemporaries knew the "meaning of compassion, magnanimity, justice and generosity", that he rarely rose above minimum moral standards of his time, but rather showed a highly vindictive streak, and is among the "boldest opportunists of English political history".<ref>{{harvnb|Barrow|1989|p=|pp=207-208}}; quote at p. 208</ref> [[John Gillingham]] argues that Edward was an "effective bully", but "no king of England had a greater impact on the peoples of Britain than Edward I" and that "modern historians of the English state … have always recognized Edward I's reign as pivotal."{{sfn|Gillingham|2008}} In 2014, Andrew Spencer and Caroline Burt reassessed Edward's reign from an English constitutional perspective, asserting that he had a personal role in reform and a moral purpose in his leadership.{{sfn|Veach|2014|pp=13, 15}} Spencer concludes that Edward's reign "was indeed … a great one", and Burt claims that Edward was "innovative, … creative, focused and successful". She adds that he "played the part of a good king well … [and] with aplomb".<ref>{{Harnvb|Spencer|2014|p=265}}; Burt quoted in {{harvnb|Veach|2014|p=13}}. See also {{Harvnb|Burt|Partington|2024|pp=232-234, 266-269}}</ref> Colin Veach asks whether "the Welsh, Scots, Irish and Jews would have agreed".{{sfn|Veach|2014|p=13}}

There is a great difference between English and Scottish historiography on King Edward.<ref>{{Harvnb|Morris|2009|pp=375–377}}.</ref> G.{{nbsp}}W.{{nbsp}}S.{{nbsp}}Barrow saw Edward as ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain feudal superiority over the kingdom and reduce it to an English possession.<ref>{{Harvnb|Barrow|1965|p=44}}.</ref> In his view, Edward's insistence on war and misapprehension of Scottish capacity for resistance created a "bitter antagonism … which endured for centuries". [[Michael Brown (historian)|Michael Brown]] warns that Scottish independence should not be viewed as inevitable; Edward could have achieved his goals.{{sfn|Brown|2004|p=344}} Welsh historians see Edward's reign and conquest as a disaster for Welsh confidence and culture. [[Rees Davies|R.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;Davies]] views his methods in Wales as essentially colonialist,<ref>{{harvnb|Davies|2000|pp=346-347, 366, 383}}</ref> creating deep resentment and an "apartheid-like" social structure.<ref>{{harvnb|Davies|2000|p=384}}</ref> [[John Davies (historian)|John Davies]] noted the "anti-Welsh fanaticism" of the English colonists introduced by Edward's conquest.{{sfn|Davies|2007|pp=173–175, quote p. 174}} They acknowledge Edward's attempts to rebuild some kind of co-operation with native Welsh society, but state that this was insufficient to heal the trauma of conquest.<ref>{{harvnb|Davies|2000|p=|pp=384–385}}, {{harvnb|Davies|2007|pp=173-175}}</ref> Irish historian [[James Lydon (historian)|James Lydon]] regarded the 13th century and Edward's reign as a turning point for Ireland, as the Lordship extracted Irish resources for his wars, failed to maintain peace, and allowed a resurgence in the fortunes of Gaelic Ireland, leading to prolonged conflict.<ref>{{harvnb|Lydon|2008a|pp=185-186, 203}}, {{harvnb|Lydon|2008b|pp=272-273}}</ref> [[Simon Schama]], [[Norman Davies]], and historians from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, have tried to assess Edward's reign in the context of the development of Britain and Ireland.<ref>{{harvnb|Schama|2000|pp=168, 185, 203}}, {{harvnb|Davies|1999|pp=314, 325}}, {{harvnb|Frame|1990|pp=142-144}}, {{harvnb|Barrow|1983|p=|pp=306-309, 408-409}}, {{harvnb|Davies|1990|pp=22-30}}</ref> They emphasise the growing power of the law, centralised state and crown across Europe, and see Edward as asserting his rights within England and the other nations of Britain and Ireland.<ref>{{harvnb|Schama|2000|pp=168, 185, 203}}, {{harvnb|Davies|1999|pp=314, 325}}, {{harvnb|Frame|1990|pp=142-144}}, {{harvnb|Barrow|1983|p=|pp=306-309, 408-409}}</ref> Brown adds that Edward suffered from this as a subject of the French king in Gascony.{{sfn|Brown|2004|pp=288-290}} Centralisation tended to imply uniformity and increasing discrimination against peripheral identities and hostility to Irish and Welsh law.<ref>{{harvnb|Davies|1990|pp=118-119}}, {{harvnb|Frame|1998|p=172}}</ref> While this group of historians do not see Edward as having conducted a planned policy of expansionism,<ref>{{harvnb|Frame|1990|p=|pp=142-143}}, {{harvnb|Schama|2000|pp=185-186}}, {{harvnb|Davies|1999|pp=314-315}}</ref> they often see the tactics and results of his policies as often having caused unnecessary division and conflict.<ref>{{harvnb|Davies|1990|pp=62-63}}, {{harvnb|Barrow|1983|p=408}}, {{harvnb|Frame|1998|p=172}}</ref> 

[[Barrie Dobson]] says that Edward I's actions towards the Jewish minority often appear to be the most relevant part of his reign for a modern audience,<ref>Quoted in {{Harvnb|Richmond|1992|p=43}}, see note 2.</ref> while in 1992 [[Colin Richmond]] expressed dismay that Edward had not received a wider re-evaluation.<ref>{{harvnb|Richmond|1992|p=45}}, {{harvnb|Stacey|1990|p=303}}</ref> Paul Hyams sees his "sincere religious bigotry" as central to his actions against Jews,<ref>{{Harvnb|Hyams|1974|p=288}}</ref> Richmond sees him as a "pioneering antisemite", and Robert Stacey regards him as the first English monarch to operate a state policy of antisemitism.<ref>{{Harvnb|Richmond|1992|pp=44-47}}, quote at p. 44; {{harvnb|Stacey|2001|p=177}}</ref>{{efn|Richmond notes that Edward was first not only to permanently expel the Jews, but also to attempt forced conversions, and to vindictively choose symbolic dates for his actions (see note on the expulsion date).{{efn|name=expulsiondate}} Richmond observes that the Nazis later made the same practice in choosing Jewish Holy Days to commit atrocities against the Jews.<ref>{{Harvnb|Richmond|1992|p=44}}</ref>}} [[R. I. Moore|Robert Moore]] emphasises that antisemitism was developed by church leaders and acted on by figures including Edward, rather than being a facet of popular prejudice.<ref>{{harvnb|Moore|2006|pp=113-114, 179}}, also {{Harvnb|Richmond|1992|pp=55-56}}</ref> Studies of medieval antisemitism identify Henry III and Edward's reigns, along with the Expulsion, as developing a persistent English antisemitism, based on the idea of the English superseding the Jews as God's chosen people, and on England's uniqueness as a country free of Jews.<ref>{{harvnb|Shapiro|1996|p=42}}, {{harvnb|Tomasch|2002|pp=69–70}}, {{harvnb|Richmond|1992|pp=55-57}}, {{harvnb|Despres|1998|p=47}}, {{harvnb|Glassman|1975}} See chapters 1 and 2.</ref>