I personally believe that pre- conquest England was a fairly well governed and a relatively prosperous kingdom. Things that suggest that England was well- governed and prosperous pre- conquest included the division of land, trade, the hierarch and currency. The frequent invasions and towns also suggest this. The possible threat to 6the Danegeld, the king of the Earls, and the countries underdeveloped economy all suggest that England was less prosperous and more unstable.
The land was split into several parts. The Kingdom was split into four earldoms, which included Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria and East Anglia. Each of these were controlled by Earls who were very powerful. Each of the earldoms is then divided into shires, hundreds and hides. With each level of this hierarchy had its own leader. For example the sheriffs managed the shires under the Earls. This system shows that there was a very clear peaking order in pre- conquest England; this would have made the country a lot easier to manage because each division of land had a local lord to manage it.
However, the power of the Earls was one of the issues that this system had. When the Earls combined their power it was enough to overpower the King, this meant that if they worked together they would be able to overcome him without an issue at all. This suggests that there were breaks in the system and if out under pressure it could bring it all down.
The country's system of 'writs' which were written orders with the authority of the King and was also unmatched by the rest of Europe. The orders were stamped with the Kings seal once they had been written up by the chancery on behalf of the King. This suggests that pre-conquest England was well governed because the King could easily send out exact orders to many different people very effectively, letting him be consistent across the realm.
The Kings opened 60 mints across the land and around every five to nine years they would call in all of the money and remint it...