The focus of Karn's Kings, Lords, and Courts in Anglo‐Norman England is the transformation of the legal landscape of England, whereby the dominance of hundred and shire courts was replaced in the twelfth century by a more complex picture, caused by a proliferation of lords’ courts, alongside the hundred and the shire. The developments which led to the creation of these private courts have yet to be adequately explained. Karn aims to fill this gap in the historiography and he has approached this task with considered scholarly perception and great clarity of expression.

The opening four chapters form the central workings and argument of Karn's model of change in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, with lords creating their own courts either through subtracting business predominantly from the hundred or even by taking control of the hundred itself. The agency in the creation of these courts appears to have rested firmly with the lords themselves, with the establishment of lords’ courts based upon the horizontal competition between lords as opposed to a vertical clash with kings (p. 77). This argument is one of the most important aspects of Karn's book, since it challenges previous readings of private courts as threats to royal power and as a result of the struggle between lords and kings. The competition that existed between lords was largely rooted in their desire to monopolise control over those whom they saw as their dependants and against the interference of others, resulting in peasants becoming increasingly tied to a single lord.

The introduction outlines the central arguments of the book, and the opening two chapters provide the background to the creation of private courts, discussing how lordship worked in England prior to 1066 and the aims and priorities of lords in relation to their dependants and courts. These three sections draw on the existing historiography, providing pithy summaries of several significant and related historiographical debates, which, thanks to Karn's lucid style, make them perfect introductions to the field for undergraduate students. An interesting parallel is drawn in chapter 2 between the creation of lords’ courts and the proliferation of parish churches (pp. 55–9). In chapter 3 Karn builds upon this initial work, outlining how a lord might have gained influence within or even control of a hundred. Chapter 4 then addresses how lords created courts for their own men and subtracted business from the hundred, placing particular emphasis on the development of the idea that a court could be ‘owned’ by an individual (p. 163). These two chapters form the heart of Karn's work, outlining how lords established their own courts, with the resulting creations having a significant impact upon lords’ relationships with their dependants.

With the preceding discussion predominantly focusing upon lords, it is with chapter 5 that the king is first properly introduced into the picture, when the analysis turns to how the spread of different courts led to jurisdictional debate, with royal authority often being sought as a means of resolving these disputes. Karn views the power of the king as being extended via these requests, though not as a result of the king actively seeking to increase his power, but rather as a response to the appeals of others (p. 151). Chapter 6 then outlines the royal response to the creation of private courts and the weakening of the hundred, arguing that a series of decrees from 1108 were designed to mark out a specific role for the king in the new legal landscape, possibly as a consequence of a bargain with his elites (p. 165). Karn argues that Henry was the first king to state, at least explicitly, the idea that the hundred belonged to him (pp. 152–3), and in doing so Henry made a distinction between curia, having a court, and placitum, holding a plea (p. 173), which allowed him oversight of issues such as theft and murder without interfering in lords’ courts (p. 206).

Chapter 7 is arguably the finest of this impressive book, with Karn seeking to demonstrate how and when royal justices appeared for the first time early in Henry's reign. These officials resided in the localities and were tasked with pursuing the king's claims, with the evidence for these justices being set out in a useful appendix. The primary purpose of the book is to account for the proliferation of lords’ courts, but what Karn has to say about kings is equally as thought‐provoking, having implications for our understanding of the nature of kingship and the priorities of the king.

The main weakness of Karn's book is the place of the shire court within his argument. It rather drifts in and out, with little comment being made upon the effect of lords’ courts upon the shire. The justification for this is that the impact upon the hundred was far greater, though it would have been advantageous for this to have been spelled out in more detail. Chapter 5 may also have benefited from further discussion of the shire court, as the shire's existence at least raises the possibility that there might have been some jurisdictional debate prior to the twelfth century.

Overall, this work deserves considerable praise and ought to be widely read. The findings have implications for our understanding of lordship, peasant status, royal authority, and the development of the manor, with these changes having a significant impact upon later medieval England. It is hoped that this erudite consideration of the ‘subtle’ and ‘deep’ changes which reshaped the legal landscape of England will be a catalyst for further study (p. 207), building upon Karn's work to enhance our understanding of the wider effects of the transformations he has identified and explained. Karn's findings now ought to be integrated with the socio‐economic developments that occurred during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

英格兰诺曼帝国的卡恩国王，上议院和法院的重心是英格兰法律格局的转变，在十二世纪，百姓法院和郡法院的统治地位被更为复杂的情况所取代，这是由领主法院，与百和郡并列。导致成立这些私人法院的事态发展尚待充分解释。卡恩（Karn）旨在填补史学领域的这一空白，他以深思熟虑的学术见识和清晰的表达方式完成了这一任务。

开头的四章构成了卡恩在十一，十二世纪改变模式的核心工作和论点，领主们通过主要从百家中减去商户，甚至控制百家本身来创建自己的法院。建立这些法院的机构似乎与君主本身息息相关，建立君主法院的依据是君主之间的横向竞争，而不是与国王的纵向冲突（第77页）。该论点是卡恩著作中最重要的方面之一，因为它挑战了以前对私人法院的解读，这是对王权的威胁，也是君主与国王之间的斗争的结果。

导言概述了本书的主要论点，前两章为创建私人法院提供了背景，讨论了在1066年之前，领主在英国的工作方式，以及领主相对于其家属和法院的目的和优先领域。这三个部分借鉴了现有的史学，提供了一些重要的和相关的史学辩论的精要摘要，这归功于卡恩（Karn）的清醒风格，使他们成为了该领域本科生的完美入门。在第2章中，在建立君主的法庭与教区教堂的激增之间有一个有趣的相似之处（第55-9页）。在第3章中，卡恩（Karn）在此最初工作的基础上，概述了领主如何在一百人的控制甚至控制范围内获得影响。然后，第4章讨论了领主如何为自己的男人建立法院并从百家中减去生意，特别强调了法院可以由个人“拥有”的观念的发展（第163页）。这两章构成了卡恩工作的核心，概述了领主如何建立自己的法院，由此产生的成果对领主与亲属的关系产生了重大影响。

在前面的讨论主要集中于君主的情况下，是在第5章中才首先将国王适当地引入到图片中，当分析转向不同法院的扩散如何导致司法管辖权辩论时，通常会寻求皇家权威作为手段解决这些纠纷。卡恩认为国王的权力是通过这些要求得到扩展的，尽管这不是国王积极寻求增加权力的结果，而是对他人呼吁的回应（第151页）。然后，第6章概述了王室对建立私人法院和削弱百姓的反应，认为1108年以来的一系列法令旨在在新的法律环境中标明国王的特定作用，这可能是由于与他的精英们讨价还价（第165页）。拥有法院和居安思危的库里亚（cuia）举行辩护（第173页），这使他能够监督诸如盗窃和谋杀之类的问题，而不会影响上级法院（第206页）。

第七章可以说是这部令人印象深刻的书中最好的书，而卡恩（Karn）试图证明皇室大法官在亨利（Henry）统治初期首次出现的方式和时间。这些官员居住在当地，负责执行国王的要求，并在有用的附录中列出了这些大法官的证据。这本书的主要目的是要解释君主法院的激增，但是卡恩对国王的看法同样令人发指，对我们对国王的性质和国王的优先次序的理解有影响。

卡恩的书的主要弱点是郡法院在他的论点中所处的位置。它宁可进进出出，也很少对领主法院对郡的影响发表评论。这样做的理由是对百元的影响要大得多，尽管对此进行更详细的说明将是有利的。第五章也可能会从郡法院的进一步讨论中受益，因为郡的存在至少增加了在十二世纪之前可能进行过一些管辖权辩论的可能性。

总的来说，这项工作值得赞扬，应该被广泛阅读。这些发现对我们对领主，农民地位，王权和庄园发展的理解具有启示意义，这些变化对后来的中世纪英格兰产生了重大影响。希望这种对英国法律格局重塑的“微妙”和“深刻”变化的博学考虑将在卡恩所做的工作的基础上，促进进一步研究（第207页），以加深我们对法治的广泛影响的认识。他已经确定并解释的转变。卡恩的发现现在应该与11世纪和12世纪发生的社会经济发展相结合。