How rich were medieval English kings ?

Well the King owned all land outright, and was the only absolute leaser of land.

This had been the case from the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy, to the united England post-Athelstan, and then from the Conquest to the Tudor period.

So he would have had his own assigned feudal properties, plus of course the taxes from his nobles and knights.

So as he would have got the monies ultimately from all holdings, yes, most medieval kings would have been very wealthy.

Wiregrass Willie said:

Reading a book published in 1852 describing days in feudal England I ran across this fact about William l. The Conqueror of England in 1066. When he died in 1087 -- this was his reported annual income:

"Historical sketches of feudalism" 1852

page 183 --

"..... before his death, probably the richest as well as the greatest man in the world. He held in England, as crown lands, one thousand four hundred and twenty-two manors, and many farms, etc. besides; his fixed annual income, exclusive of fines, escheats, relief, etc., was computed at 400,000 silver pounds weight;...."

"FIXED ANNUAL INCOME -- 400,000 lbs silver"

With 13 troy ounces per pound -- and selling at about $15 an ounce -- his annual income would be about $78 million in today's dollars.

Click to expand...

First there are 12 Troy Ounces to the Pound, not 13, so your rough-cut figure should be US$72 million or Pounds Sterling 48 million.The Saxon pound, otherwise Tower Pound was also not the same as the Troy Pound.
The currency of England was divided into 240 silver pennies ( we will ignore shillings for the moment as we will the Merchant's pound, the Hansa Pound and the London pound). William maintained the earlier Saxon currency and values which didn't change until the reign of Henry II in 1154, so the base is the Saxon Pound which was "fine silver" of 99.5% (probably, maybe, sometimes) equivalent to a modern 350g as opposed to the Troy pound of 373.241 grams, so again we must devalue William's stash to a modern US$67.3 million. This also means that an English silver penny was worth 1.458 grams of silver which at New York prices today would be worth US$ 0.7149 or GBP 0.46.
But that ignores the fact that in late Saxon/Early Saxon times, silver had a far higher relative value than today. So far better to explore comparative buying power.

I obtained some figures from the Angolurum Rex that predate the Norman Invasion, but are reasonably comparable. NB 1d= 1 silver penny. Modern prices in modern GBP

Item. Cost in 1066 Silver value modern price
today

15 live chickens 1d 0.46 209.85

Live sheep 10d 4.60 180.90

Peregrine Falcon 240d 110.40 1500.00

Wheat per lb 1d 0.46 0.08

hive of bees 24d 11.04 360.00

Soldier's pay* 120d/month 55.20 1727.75

Hide of Land ** 240d 11.40 2,950,000

Touching a woman's
......s 60d 27.6 200.00***


I don't even want to think about the fact that a fine Gascony wine cost 4d/gallon while a crummy Floc de Gascogne costs £15.90/bottle at the supermarket (£96.50/gallon).

It looks like inflation is around 1:1200 excluding land--but as land is actually the medieval measure of wealth one should work on William's "ownership" of half of all land in England was "owned" by William with the rest divided between his 170 "Tenants-in-chief" and the church (actually William still owned in, but the tenants were allowed the income in return for military service) so is we assume that, excluding modern developments such as towns and unproductive areas like mountains and marshes it was mainly farming land
and would amount to, according to Domesday, about 30 million acres--so a modern "going price" for agricultural land in England being £10,000/acre in 2014 suggests that William's ACTUAL wealth was 150 BILLION pounds £150,000,000,000--or US$225 BILLION.
Not shabby for a froggy parvenu gangster.


*Saxon Fyrdman Vs 2016 Private soldier.
** land in Sussex--a hide is 120 Acres
*** Modern fine for indecent assault

Regular royal annual income varied greatly per reign, but was almost always between twenty-five and eighty thousand pounds.

How is this wealth measured though? Does it count, if the Kings (which some of them were) were in debt?

However, that being said, I think one monarch in the Medieval Era who is held to probably have been the richest man in history or close to it (probably an exaggeration), is Mansa Musa. Accordingly, his net worth (in terms of 2015) is 400 billion.

I hardly think that William was greater or richer than some contemporary rulers like Emperor Henry IV, Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, The Great Seljuk Sultan, the Northern and Southern Chinese emperors, the Delhi Sultan, etc.

If you count tax revenues as part of a monarch's income then some of those rulers should have had much greater income than the king of England.

England was known for wealth among kingdoms, but can't be compared to continent-crossing empires.

How is this wealth measured though? Does it count, if the Kings (which some of them were) were in debt?

Click to expand...

In the Pipe Polls and Exchequer Rolls it's an (incomplete) account of their total income from nobles' payments, dues, tariffs, fines, rents, and taxes, as well as other sources. On top of this they had a lot of valuable stuff - gems, silks, scents, and the like. Outgoings aren't usually listed with the same thoroughness.

Domhnall Balloch said:

England was known for wealth among kingdoms, but can't be compared to continent-crossing empires.



In the Pipe Polls and Exchequer Rolls it's an (incomplete) account of their total income from nobles' payments, dues, tariffs, fines, rents, and taxes, as well as other sources. On top of this they had a lot of valuable stuff - gems, silks, scents, and the like. Outgoings aren't usually listed with the same thoroughness.

Click to expand...

Interesting, and yes, English Kings had valuable goods. Alot of it passed from King to King. And on a side note, it was Edward I, who set up ansystem for his wife so hernincoke wouldnt be derived from the English crown, which no doubt saved the crown much money as a Queens household was expensive. How rich this made Edward I'm not sure, since he engaged in alot of warfare.

Edit: sorry for including Mansa Musa, for some reason I though this thread was about how rich Medieval Kings were as oppossed to English Medieval Kings.

By the time Domesday Book was compiled in 1086 men of English blood ceased to control affairs and only two of the king's leading tenants were men of English descent. Some Englishmen had gone to Scotland to serve king Malcolm, others had fled to the services of the Eastern Emperor at Constantinople. William I was an autocrat who seized the opportunity of conquest to gain a power new and unprecedented among European kings. The theory that by right all land was the king's and that land was held by others only at his gift and in return for specified service was new to English thought. It gave a new unity to England when great men accepted as axiomatic that they held their land by service performed to the king, whether the land lay in the north, the center, or in the old West Saxon shires.

Bishop said:

By the time Domesday Book was compiled in 1086 men of English blood ceased to control affairs and only two of the king's leading tenants were men of English descent. Some Englishmen had gone to Scotland to serve king Malcolm, others had fled to the services of the Eastern Emperor at Constantinople. William I was an autocrat who seized the opportunity of conquest to gain a power new and unprecedented among European kings. The theory that by right all land was the king's and that land was held by others only at his gift and in return for specified service was new to English thought. It gave a new unity to England when great men accepted as axiomatic that they held their land by service performed to the king, whether the land lay in the north, the center, or in the old West Saxon shires.

Click to expand...

After all those interminable threads on here I have no idea what 'English blood' is.

People tell me I'm from the Beaker people, then I'm Celtic, then I'm Roman - or any nation who provided soldiers and servants thereto -, then I'm Saxon, or maybe Angle or Jute, then of course I'm Viking, then maybe Norman - though most people seem to manage to keep the pretentious 'De' if they are and are Catholic. Pretty sure I'm not part of any 20th or 21st century immigration, but millions of English people are.

Maybe I should have my DNA checked? Aaaaaaarrrrrrhhhhhhh

Wiregrass Willie said:

Reading a book published in 1852 describing days in feudal England I ran across this fact about William l. The Conqueror of England in 1066. When he died in 1087 -- this was his reported annual income:

"Historical sketches of feudalism" 1852

page 183 --

"..... before his death, probably the richest as well as the greatest man in the world. He held in England, as crown lands, one thousand four hundred and twenty-two manors, and many farms, etc. besides; his fixed annual income, exclusive of fines, escheats, relief, etc., was computed at 400,000 silver pounds weight;...."

"FIXED ANNUAL INCOME -- 400,000 lbs silver"

With 13 troy ounces per pound -- and selling at about $15 an ounce -- his annual income would be about $78 million in today's dollars.

Click to expand...

I think English kings (depending on medieval periods) were among the richest monarch in Europe. Only some high and early medieval Byzantine Emperors, high and early medieval H.R. Emperors, French monarchs and Hungarian kings were richer monarchs in medieval Europe.

johnincornwall said:

After all those interminable threads on here I have no idea what 'English blood' is.

People tell me I'm from the Beaker people, then I'm Celtic, then I'm Roman - or any nation who provided soldiers and servants thereto -, then I'm Saxon, or maybe Angle or Jute, then of course I'm Viking, then maybe Norman - though most people seem to manage to keep the pretentious 'De' if they are and are Catholic. Pretty sure I'm not part of any 20th or 21st century immigration, but millions of English people are.

Maybe I should have my DNA checked? Aaaaaaarrrrrrhhhhhhh

Click to expand...

Well, I could have probably used some more contemporary phrasing there. Still, I tend to be of the thought that the Norman invasion was not, like the Saxon or Danish invasions, a national migration. But instead an aristocratic conquest led by a man who won a kingdom for himself and distributed the estates among his followers. The new aristocracy replaced the English nobility who had formed the court of the Old English kings.

Still, I tend to be of the thought that the Norman invasion was not, like the Saxon or Danish invasions, a national migration. But instead an aristocratic conquest led by a man who won a kingdom for himself and distributed the estates among his followers

Click to expand...

There isn't much difference between the two (William's followers and the wider Norman gens). Norman identity was rather limited, tending to be reserved to Normandy's upper crust - i.e. those descended from Northmen.

Domhnall Balloch said:

There isn't much difference between the two (William's followers and the wider Norman gens). Norman identity was rather limited, tending to be reserved to Normandy's upper crust - i.e. those descended from Northmen.

Click to expand...

Interesting. The men that followed the duke to England (about 6,000 or so) expected land as their reward. The process of rewarding those services began at once and proceeded through the early months and years of Williams' reign. Unlike other rulers of the day, William had no immediate need for anxiety about the loyalty of his chief men. A mobilized army and court that often set up proceedings while on the move to maintain control over the conquered kingdom was William's first necessity.

Of course the Normans and English were complementary to each other in many senses. The English had an elaborate system of courts and justice, a highly-trained clerical staff, and the Anglo Saxon kings had also worked out a system of national taxation with the best currency in Western Europe. The king had a household force of picked men trained for war and he could supplement it by summoning all free men to fight in defense of the land.

Bishop said:

Interesting. The men that followed the duke to England (about 6,000 or so) expected land as their reward. The process of rewarding those services began at once and proceeded through the early months and years of Williams' reign. Unlike other rulers of the day, William had no immediate need for anxiety about the loyalty of his chief men. A mobilized army and court that often set up proceedings while on the move to maintain control over the conquered kingdom was William's first necessity.

Of course the Normans and English were complementary to each other in many senses. The English had an elaborate system of courts and justice, a highly-trained clerical staff, and the Anglo Saxon kings had also worked out a system of national taxation with the best currency in Western Europe. The king had a household force of picked men trained for war and he could supplement it by summoning all free men to fight in defense of the land.

Click to expand...

Medieval English currency was not among the best currencies of Europe.

Medieval English currency was not among the best currencies of Europe

Click to expand...

Later Anglo-Norman and Angevin kings had real issues with forgery, clipping, and debasement, but in late Anglo-Saxon days the currency was top-rate.

They were not as rich as we are (they were more powerful though).

fascinating said:

They were not as rich as we are (they were more powerful though).

Click to expand...

I imagine they were a lot richer than I am. I'll get an decent pension in 30 years though. William probably didn't have employer contributions helping him out.

Domhnall Balloch said:

Later Anglo-Norman and Angevin kings had real issues with forgery, clipping, and debasement, but in late Anglo-Saxon days the currency was top-rate.

Click to expand...

Yes they were top rated only in Ireland England and Scotland.

The most important coins were the Venetian and Hungarian gold florins.

MEdieval Hungary and Venice were the first countries in European history, where the gold coinage surpassed the amount of silver coinage.

Yes they were top rated only in Ireland England and Scotland

Click to expand...

And the former Carolingian Empire, i.e. virtually all of western and central Europe.

The most important coins were the Venetian and Hungarian gold florins.

MEdieval Hungary and Venice were the first countries in European history, where the gold coinage surpassed the amount of silver coinage

Click to expand...

A higher proportion of gold pales in comparison next to Edgar's comprehensive currency and coinage reforms.