Dan Snow's History Hit - Henry III vs. Simon de Montfort

Episode Date: May 17, 2023

After speaking to Gone Medieval in April 2022 about the first volume of his magisterial biography of Henry III, David Carpenter promised Matt Lewis that he would pay the podcast a return visit when the second volume came out. Henry III 1258-1272: Reform, Rebellion, Civil War, Settlement picks up the story when Henry is 51 years old. He's been monarch for 42 years and might have been looking forward to a quieter twilight to his reign. But he was in for the rudest of awakenings. This episode was edited by Joseph Knight and produced by Rob Weinberg. Listen to Henry III: England’s Longest Reigning King here: https://shows.acast.com/gone-medieval/episodes/henry-iii-englands-longest-reigning-kingIf you’re enjoying this podcast and are looking for more fascinating Medieval content then subscribe to our Medieval Monday newsletter here.If you'd like to learn even more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad-free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hit - subscribe today! To download, go to Android or Apple store

Welcome to this episode of Gone Medieval, I'm Matt Lewis. If you caught the previous episode we did on Henry III, you'll know that David Carpenter promised to come back when the second volume of his magisterial biography of this little-known but incredible king was out. And true to his word, he's back. This book picks up in 1258 when Henry III is 51 years old. He's been King of England for 42 years. He might have been looking forward to a quiet twilight to his reign, but he was in for the rudest of awakenings. This volume is subtitled Reform, Rebellion, Civil War and Settlement,

which in itself paints a picture. I'm delighted to welcome David back to explore the remainder of Henry III's incredible reign. So thank you very much for coming back to complete the story with us, David. Oh, thank you for asking me. So to start off with, could you just sum up for us what Henry's position was in 1258? I've sort of said, you know, he's around 50, he's been king for just over 40 years. What's the political situation he finds himself in at the outset of this book? Well, he didn't realise it, but it was extremely precarious. And the reason for that was that his open-handed gifts to his foreign relatives had set up tensions at court, which he lacked the political ability to

control, and also had divided him from the increasing Englishness of the political community. He'd also madly accepted papal offer of the throne of Sicily for his second son, and that completely alienated him from the church. You had to pay vast sums of money to the Pope for the privilege. And then also, there was widespread discontent with his rule in the localities. He'd failed to reform local government, and that meant that his own officials, the sheriffs, judges, but also the officials of great magnates, were becoming increasingly oppressive. So it's almost a perfect storm. On every side, there was discontent with his rule, at court, in the church, and in the counties.

And do you think Henry was in any way aware of that? How did he view his kingship, do you think? I don't think he was aware of it. And that takes us to one of his chief characteristics, which is again and again, people talked of his simplicity. And I think he was politically unaware. That was one reason why he failed to reform local government. He didn't realise what the political benefits would be. I think also his piety, which was one of his chief characteristics, played him false, in the sense that he felt that his arms, his piety, which was one of his chief characteristics, played him false in the sense that he felt that his arms, his masses, and above all, his devotion to Edward the Confessor, and building Westminster Abbey in the Confessor's honour, hoping the Confessor would be England's

national saint. I think he thought that would see him right spiritually, and indeed see him right in this world as well. So I think he thought, I've done enough. Unlike his brother-in-law, Louis IX of France, who had a deep sense of his own sinfulness, how he needed to reform the realm, really to save his soul, and deeply concerned about the malpractices of his officials. Henry thought, oh dear, you know, the sheriffs and bailiffs and my officials, I know they're impressive, but what can I do about it? He didn't feel a great sense, I must do it to save myself, to save my soul. You alluded to it there, that there was a growing baronial discontent around 1258, 1259. Was Henry at this point deeply unpopular, either personally or in his rule as king. I think it was a mixed picture there. And the great chronicler of the age who covered the

Revolution of 58-59 and wrote voluminously before that, Matthew Paris, monk of St Albans, on the one hand, he gives Henry his due. He writes of the great peace that Henry had established. rights of the great peace that Henry had established. He appreciated that this was a long years of peace. He also very much admired the king's piety and the way he was rebuilding Westminster Abbey, the way he was going to translate the body of the confessor to a new shrine. And yet, on the other hand, Matthew Paris again and again holds his head in his hands with despair at the king's profligate patronage to foreigners, at the king's simplicity in plunging into the Sicilian affair. And also, again, you know, the oppression of the king's sheriffs and judges. So I think Matthew Paris would have said, yes, peace, but peace with injustice. To be fair to Henry, his position was far more difficult than that of the 12th century kings.

In the minority, Magna Carta had been accepted, which stopped up a lot of traditional sources of revenue. At the same time, the great landed estate, which had come to kings of England with the conquest, had really been given away in the course of the 12th century. So Henry's the first king of England who essentially needs general taxation in order to be wealthy and successful in war. But of course, Magna Carta and general custom was that such taxation needed the consent of the kingdom, which by Henry's time means the consent of parliament. So Henry's the first king of England who faces parliamentary power and has to deal with that great lever of parliamentary power down the ages. That's to say,

the ability to refuse taxation. And Henry comes again and again to Parliament in the 1240s, 1250s, and he's always refused taxation. And of course, that's why he had to get money in other ways through his sheriffs and judges. Henry would have said fairly that his financial exactions were nowhere near as heavy as his father's. And equally, of course, he had none of his father's impiety, cruelty, anything like that. But of course, that didn't alter the fact that those sorts of perspectives are very difficult to maintain.

The king's financial exactions seemed heavy enough, even though they were nowhere near as bad as those of his father. And so how far do the barons go in 1258? We're still living almost in the shadow of Magna Carta here, where there was a big baronial uprising and an invasion from France even. How far do the barons go in 1258 in opposing Henry? The revolution of 1258 was absolutely extraordinary and was far more radical and revolutionary than I think any other revolution in England history until the time of Cromwell. So on the one hand, a baronial council simply stripped the king of power and took over the government of the country.

And that's far more radical than Magna Carta, which left King John in charge of central government, said he can't do this, can't do that. But King John could still appoint his ministers, could still appoint policies he wanted. All that stops in 1258 when a bar unprecedented really in english history because it's not merely a reform of the king's local government his own sheriffs judges bailiffs which was much the same as in magna carta but it's also a reform of the local government of the barons so that barony officials and the conduct the barons themselves are just as much subject to reform as are those of the king. Absolutely unique. I mean, there's no parallel of that in the 14th, 15th century or later on. How to explain that? It was partly from pressure from below. You know, the barons had taken over government. They were in a dangerous situation. They coerced the king,

however much they pretended otherwise. they needed support. But it also takes us, I think, to one of the really unique features of this period, which is its religiosity. I think, again, unparalleled until the time of Cromwell, in that the baronial leaders, and particularly Simon de Montfort, who I think is central to what happens in 1258-59, they do have that vision of Louis IX in France, that they're responsible for whatever the officials do in their name. And if they allow them to transgress, then that's going to affect their own salvation. And that was being said to them by great churchmen. This is the age of the friars. This is the age of the great scholar, Bishop Robert Grostes, Bishop of Lincoln. That's

what all these people were saying to these baronial leaders. If you sin by allowing your officials to act unjustly, or you do sin by allowing that, it'll affect your salvation. And so that's, in a way, what drove forward this great reform of the realm. And also its unique feature that the barons were as much being reformed as was the king. I think that was a striking thing about it. You often see these moments as either being reform pushed down by the crown and the government or reform pushed up mainly by the barons, whereas this seems much more kind of root and branch across the board. Everybody is being affected rather than just the people driving it. It's an extraordinary shaking of English politics and society, in which the idea that the provisions

of Oxford, which is what the reforms were called, they come to be seen as a sort of holy cause across society. And that's how Montfort seized control of the agenda in an extraordinary way, and they people believe this. And that this was reform, which goes from top to bottom of society. King, baron, knight and peasants too benefit from some of these reforms. And I guess almost parallel to this in 1259, at almost the same time, we get the Treaty of Paris being signed. Can you just tell us a little bit about what the Treaty of Paris was please? was a remarkable settlement in which King Henry III finally resigned his claims to the lost territories in France, which Kings of England had since 1066, Normandy, and from 1154, Anjou and Poitou. So Henry went to Paris in 1259, and he resigned his claims. And at the same time, he accepted that what remained of his continental possessions, essentially Gascony, he would hold that from the King of France as a thief held from

the King of France, for which he would do homage. So that was the settlement which was involved in the Treaty of Paris. In some ways, it was a great triumph for the King of France, King Louis IX, in some ways it was a great triumph for the King of France, King Louis IX, because it consolidated all the conquests of his predecessors, particularly his grandfather, Philip Augustus, and got the King of England finally to admit he was not going to recover them. And I guess history has a tendency to view those kinds of successions as big failures, giving up huge amounts of territory. Did contemporaries view it that way too? They did, in that the press in England, if you can read what the chronicler said about it, was very critical. They were very aware about the diminution of the power of the King of England, the way these territories had been resigned. And unfortunately, you couldn't get away from

what had happened because Henry had to alter his seal because on the seal made for him in 1218 he had described himself as King of England, Lord of Ireland but also Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine and Count of Anjou. So he now had to alter the seal and drop the title Duke of Normandy, dropped the title Count of Anjou. So it was absolutely clear what had happened. And he also altered the seal and he no longer held a sword on it. And people thought that meant I'd given up the ducal sword of Normandy. And so, you know, it was very visual. Although I think Henry actually, again, this shows how sometimes soft power, visual effects don't work

in a misinterpreted fascinating way Henry will replace the sword with a scepter with a dove on the top of it and I think the reason he did that was not because he'd lost Normandy but because this was the emblem of Edward the Confessor and so Henry is saying again you know I'm going to be a king like Edward the Confessor and of course the dove is a symbol of peace. And Henry's great claim was that I have brought peace to England for so many years. So it wasn't popular. On the other hand, I think we're entitled to perhaps look at it rather differently. I mean, I think one, the chances of actually recovering the lost empire under a king like Henry III, you know, if he'd been a Richard the Lionheart or Edward III or Henry V, perhaps different, chances of recovering it were virtually nil. And secondly, it was a

terrific success. It brought 34, 35 years of peace to England and France, from which, you know, both countries benefited hugely. Far better that than the constant warfare which would have been necessary to try and recover the lost continental possessions. So I think it fits into Henry's own claim. To be absolutely accurate, one can't say Henry started the negotiations for the peace of Paris with the idea that this would bring peace, or not exactly, because what he wanted to do was to clear the decks for a war, which might help him win Sicily. But I think in the end, and because he was so close to his brother-in-law, the King of France, Louis IX, who did have that vision of peace between peoples, I think in the end, Henry came to share it. And if you'd asked him in 1259, 1260, you know,

what are the benefits of this? He would have said, I have established peace between England and France, peace between peoples, but also peace between monarchies who are so closely connected, because of course, Henry and Louis IX had married sisters. It's such an odd thing that those moments that we tend to criticise from history are what we would like to see in the world today. We're living in a world where there's war in Eastern Europe at the moment. We would quite like it if the two heads of state got together and made a peace that they could both accept. And we don't want the war to be perpetuated. This is such a unique period in history in which the King of England, Henry III,

the King of France, Louis IX, they'd married sisters. And they were so close, they became almost brothers in Christ. And Louis IX says, you know, I want there to be peace between our families and between our countries because of this close relationship. And it's a very good example of how in international affairs, sometimes those kinds of personal relationships can be so important. If it hadn't have been for that personal relationship, the peace of Paris would not have been possible. And if it hadn't been a personal relationship, it wouldn't have then created peace for 34 years. Yeah, it's such a unique achievement at a time when we're generally at war with France. One figure who we have already mentioned and who dominates this period of Henry's

life, and to some extent overshadows Henry in the view of this history, I think, is Simon de Montfort. How does Simon go from being Henry's friend and his brother-in-law to being the leader of opposition against Henry? Well, that's an extraordinary question. And of course, he was not even an Englishman. He was a younger son of the great French nobleman, Simon de Montfort, who'd led the Albigensian Crusade. So how ironic then that he should lead a political movement of which one of the main strands was England for the English. Simon's enemies would say, this is a man driven by material grievances and a lust for power. And his material grievances were very considerable because although Henry might have said, look, I accepted you as Earl of Leicester. I didn't have

to do that. You were born in France. You're the son of a French nobleman. It's an entirely matter of grace. I then married you to my sister. What more can you expect? Montfort would have said, yeah, you married me to your sister, but you've never given me the landed endowment that ought to have gone with it. And she has never received her full dower as the widow of her first husband, William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke. Those material grievances were central to Montfort's career in the 40s and 50s. He also was felt badly let down, I think wrongly, by Henry sacking him as his lieutenant in Gascony.

And of course, there was also such a huge difference in terms of personality between the two of them. I mean, Montfort had a heart of steel. He was a hard-driving, hugely intelligent man with a silver tongue, but also extremely acerbic tongue. He had contempt for the king, attempt for the king's simplicity, attempt for the king's changeability. And of course, one famous occasion, which Henry never forgot, Montfort said to him, you're so stupid, which Henry never forgot, Montfort said to him, you're so stupid, you ought to be set apart,

shut away, like the Carolingian king Charles the Simple. In French, it sounds even worse, like the king Charles La Sautée. Henry never forgot him saying that. So those drove Montfort forward. But I think it's completely wrong to reduce his career to that. Why does he become the central figure in the revolution in 1258? Why, after that, does he in the end seize power, govern the country in the king's name? Because 1258 leads into a struggle for power. Montfort, in the end, doesn't accept the king's recovery of power in 1261, comes back in 1263, simply to put himself at the head of a new movement to reassert the provisions of Oxford that leads into the civil war, Montfort's great victory at Lewes and the way he rules England between the Battle of Lewes in 64, his death at Evesham in 65. So it's absolutely not just material grievances driving him forward,

it's absolutely not just material grievances driving him forward. It is religiosity. Because I think he more than anybody else was influenced by the friars, by the whole circle of bishops around now dead, Robert Grostest, Bishop of Lincoln. And he's searching for a righteous cause, a religious cause, like his father, hugely influenced by his father, for which he might fight and perhaps die. And I think he, more than anybody else, believes that reform of the realm is necessary to purge our souls and to establish a Christian community in England. And again, going back to reform a local government, we too have sinned. We too must purge and reform the activities of our local officials. too must purge and reform the activities of our local officials. Others believed that too,

but I think he was central in believing it. And that's why he's the only great nobleman who refused to accept the king's recovery of power in 1261. He said, I prefer to die without land than abandon the truth and be perjured. And that's partly because a great oath had been sworn to support reforms. And then he comes back in 1263, only comes back when he can put himself at the head of a movement, once again designed to reassert the provisions of Oxford. The parallels with Cromwell, I think, are very fair in that these are both men driven by a sense of religious purpose, which make them all the more dangerous, all the more compelling, but also all the more, to some people, offensive. I think he's one of the greatest people to have dignified, but also, I think, in a way, defiled English history.

Yeah, I always got the impression of Simon that he was very much looking for a crusade. So his dad and his brothers were heavily involved in the Albigensian Crusade. And he's almost looking to find that for himself, find his own fight. So he turns baronial reform into this almost crusade against bad governance to justify his own position in the de Montfort family. And that's why before,

when he thought there was going to be a battle outside London in December 1263, Lewis in 1264, he gets his side to don crosses in the manner of crusaders. I think it's important to realise that what was brilliant too, I think two other characteristics of Montfort was that he was firstly a brilliant politician and he does see the importance of issues and how to exploit them. And one of them was England for the English, so that when he comes back in 1263, he reaffirms the provisions of Oxford. But he also joined something new to them, which was a statute against aliens. And so it was a statute which expelled all foreigners from the country,

save those accepted by Parliament, essentially, and also said office in future can never be held by a foreigner. Ironic, in some ways, he was a foreigner himself. But that was gigantically popular. He saw this is a hugely resonant issue, and he seizes it and seizes the agenda. So if you ask people in England 1264-5, what does Montfort stand for? I think they would have said reform the realm, but they would also have said England for the English. He'd made this central to his movement. Politically, he'd managed to seize control of the agenda by persuading so many people this was a righteous cause. Again and again, the provisions of Oxford are cited. Why are we fighting for the provisions of Oxford? We're doing it for the

community of the realm, for the benefit of all of us, and for a zeal for justice, and because it is a crusading cause. And to be able to persuade people of this was a gigantic political achievement in itself. But sorry, it doesn't stop there, Because of course, also, he was a great general. And again, the parallel with Cromwell is extraordinary. He would never have got to the top if he hadn't known how to fight war. I think the time in Gascony was very important there, because in Gascony, he'd learnt about war as ravage. In other words, war was burning the property of your opponents. In Gascony, it's vineyards. In England, it's fields, barns, and so on. And when he comes back in 1263, how does he defeat the king?

It's simply by ravaging the estates of the king's supporters. And then, of course, the great victory at Lewes, amazing courage, which you march out of London on May the 6th, 1264, with no other aim but to bring the King's army to battle. Battles are normally avoided because they can be so devastating. And yet Montfort marches out of London to bring the King's army to battle and marches onto the top of the Downs above Lewis during the night so that he can crash down next day into Henry's forces.

So, you know, a great general to all these things, a most remarkable person. Even at Lewis, there's a little bit of trickery as well, isn't there? Because he's injured, so he makes it look like he's in an armoured carriage at the side of his army when actually he's not there. And that kind of lures part of the Royal Army to attack him there. This is a good example of Montfort's propaganda creating the agenda. It's not actually clear really whether that was intended beforehand. It's certainly the coach in which Montfort had been, because he'd broken his leg before the battle,

was attacked by the royalists, by Lord Edward, thinking that Montfort was there. Whether really that was the intention beforehand, I'm not sure. But the point is that people thought it was, and that shows how these wonderful myths gather about Montfort. I think the revolution of 1258 could very reasonably be justified by Henry's misrule, however personally good and pious he was. And insofar as Montfort played a central part in that, you could say that absolutely justified. I'm much more sceptical and critical of his return to England in 1263 to reimpose the provisions because that led to terrible destruction.

Part of Montfort's own religiosity was hostility to the Jews. There was a terrible massacre of the Jews in London. But between 1263 and 1267, we have a period of destruction, civil war, chaos. And I don't think it was in any way justified. If Henry had been allowed to continue in peace after his recovery of power in 1261, I think his rule might have been wayward, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad. He was already accepting some of the great legislative reforms of 1258-59. So I would have been happily marched into the King's Hall with the barons in 1258 to start off the revolution. I would have been on the King's side in 1263. I'm Matt Lewis.

And I'm Dr. Eleanor Janaga. And in Gone Medieval, we get into the greatest mysteries. The gobsmacking details and latest groundbreaking research. From the greatest millennium in human history. We're talking Vikings. Normans. Kings and popes. Who were rarely the best of friends, murder, rebellions, and crusades. Find out who we really were by subscribing to Gone Medieval from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm conscious that we're in danger of falling into the trap of history of allowing Simon de

Montfort to overshadow Henry here but just before we leave him we get this period then after the battle of lewis where Simon de Montfort is in charge for roughly a year. And during that short period, he develops this reputation as being the father of parliamentary democracy. Do you think he was? Would he have recognised that at all? I wouldn't quite put it like that. But I think as far as we can see, he was the first ruler of England, which is what it was, to summon both knights and burgesses to a parliament. And that was the parliament of January 1265. His June 64 parliament, he'd summoned knights from the counties. In January 65 parliament, he adds burgesses from the towns. As far as we can see, that was the first time that had happened. You could say the January 65 Parliament is the first time, as far as we can

see, anything like a House of Commons had actually met. Why did he do it? It was purely political. Again, goes back to his political antenna. He sensed he had wide support there. His baronial support was declining. So he reaches out to a wider political community. There might have been some ideology there too, because his episcopal supporters very strongly believe in consent in great measures is central in a way in the history of Parliament. I think probably it would have happened anyway. That's the sense in which the great barons alone can answer for the political community in granting taxation, which had been there in Magna Carta. Magna Carta envisages just the barons, probably at the early parliaments of Henry III, just the tenants-in-chief, baronial tenants-in-chief essentially, were able to consent to taxation. The sense that they can do that was probably

withering with changes in society. But I think Montfort's parliament probably accelerated the process so that the late parliaments of Henry III and the parliaments of Edward I, whenever taxation is an issue, knights and burgesses are summoned. And I don't think that would have happened as quickly if it hadn't been for Montfort and the more general conditions of reform and rebellion. Fascinating. And I'm in danger again of allowing Henry to be overshadowed here because I'm going to talk a little bit about his oldest son next. But how important was the man who was known as Lord Edward then, who would go on to become King Edward I? How important was he and his relationship with his father in restoring Henry's

rule? It was vital. And I thought one of the most extraordinary things actually in writing the book and tracing the narrative of events quite closely, in some ways it's been ever done before, quite closely. Some ways it's been ever done before was the moment Edward takes over the direction of royal policy. And it was in 1263 after Montfort's return. And it's quite extraordinary because Edward clearly realizes he has to defeat Montfort by battle. He calls the shots and they really are shots. And the contrast between royal policy from October, November, December 1263 onwards, and the contrast when Henry was in charge during his recovery of power in 1261 and previously is quite remarkable. It's like some sort of great electric shock had gone through the royal party and sparked them into action.

had gone through the royal party and sparked them into action. Edward decides towards the end of 1263 onwards to make war. And he does so very effectively in the early part of 64. In the end, of course, he's defeated the Battle of Lewes. But then, of course, he dramatically escapes in 1265 from Hereford, tiring out all the horses outside the town so there's only one he can gallop away on. How Montfort allowed him to do that, I think, is a terrible mistake. And then he wins the Battle of Evesham. I do think it's one of the best stories of medieval history, though, that his escape is one of the greatest tales. It is, yeah. I mean, Montfort, why he allowed that, because Montfort, remember in 1265, holds Edward in captivity after his capture at the Battle of Lewes. And so they're in Hereford.

Things are already going wrong for Montfort. And he allowed Edward to go outside the walls of Hereford with a series of horses. And so Edward, no doubt surrounded by guards, gallops away on each of them and tests them out and said, oh, let's try the next one until they're all exhausted, save one. And then he gallops away on it. And of course, that's the beginning of Montfort's downfall. Equally, of course, the victory of Evesham didn't end the war. It went on for another two years. And Edward, again, was central to winning the final war, too. So, you know, Henry survives, partly because of himself, his party, but I don't think he would have survived without Edward. Having said that... and latest groundbreaking research from the greatest millennium in human history. We're talking Vikings, Normans,

Kings and Popes, who were rarely the best of friends, murder, rebellions, and crusades. Find out who we really were by subscribing to Gone Medieval from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts.

Edward was also a troublemaker. And I blame him more than Henry for the disastrous policy after Evesham. Because after the end of Magna Carta Civil War in 1217, all the rebels got back their lands. Whereas after Evesham, all the rebels are disinherited. In a way, there was curious sort of failure there because they were disinherited, but many of them not going to work. It will create fresh strife. But I think they were so buoyed up by what seemed an utterly decisive victory. And also there was by this time so much bitterness and the king had been humiliated, Edward had been humiliated, that it was difficult to do, but the policy was disastrous. And I blame Edward for it as the one person who could have stopped it. I think actually he learned a lot from the period

and some of the wisdom he showed later in his career may be thanks to the buffets he'd sustained. I was only going to ask whether you feel in Edward's case that his personality drove events or events shaped his personality, because we know the kind of king he would become as Edward I. He was almost the opposite of his father. Was that somehow shaped by his experiences during those years in the 1260s? Yes and no. No, in that he was the opposite of Henry as a rex pacificus. I mean, Henry had wanted the rewards of successful war, but had no idea how to fight war, either strategically or personally. And there's no evidence he ever attended tournaments. Edward, from the word go, was quite different from

his father. Physically, he was very tall and strong. He loved tournaments. He loved the business of war. And you know, why there's that difference between them must be something innate. I'll always remember at school, there was a boy called Jones who wasn't terribly good at football, but we always liked him in the side because there was a devil in his play. There was no devil in Henry's play, and there was a great deal of devil in Edwards. And I think that was something innate. On the other hand, yes, I think he learnt profoundly from the period of former rebellion. Because all of a sudden in 1258, it's not just the king who's stripped of power.

The Boronial Council tried to strip Edward of power. He suddenly finds himself cabined and confined. And he has to work out how to recover his own authority, recover control of his lands. And on the one hand, he has to think, who are the great nobles who I can win over to my side? But also from the word go, he appreciates the importance of local society, the importance of knights, townsmen, and so on. And there's a key moment in 1259 when the group of knights at the Westminster Parliament complained that the barons have so far not done enough for the benefit of the whole community. And Edward says, I will support you.

It's a really striking indication of his political feel. And that continues in the 1263-457 period. So the huge reform of the realm that Edward introduced when he gets back to England at the start of his reign in 1274, that's very much influenced, as historian John Maddicott showed in detail, by what had happened between 1258 and 1259 by the great reforms. So I think he had learnt a very great deal. In that sense, he was a very wise king, which didn't mean he didn't make terrible miscalculations, obviously, over Scotland.

If you compare Henry and Edward, well, I mean, Edward is a famous king, Henry is not. But is that entirely fair? Think about what's best for Britain. Henry was a far better king, because there are wonderful relations with Scotland throughout the whole of Henry's reign. No wars, nothing like that. Henry's campaigns in Wales were very much last resorts and didn't last very long. In the end, Henry accepted Cluelin as Prince of Wales. Henry never intervened in Ireland. He made peaceful France. So who was the better king? Yeah, it's one of the big questions about Henry, why he's not considered a better king than history's remembered him as. So Henry's wife,

the Queen, Eleanor, Edward's mother, to some extent she might be seen as part of the problem, because it's her relatives coming over that have caused part of the problem and the backlash against foreigners that has seen Simon do the England for the English bit. What part does she play in all of this period of Henry's life? It is a fascinating part of the period because it sees a revival of queenship. No queen of England had actually played an important part in English government, really, since Eleanor of Aquitaine in the 1160s. I mean, she played a brief part as Henry II's widow in the 1190s. But you know, John's wife had played no part, despite being a very feisty woman, had just

played no part in politics, government, society. Now, all this changes under Henry III, and 1236, he marries Eleanor of Provence. She's only 12 at the time, very much Henry's to mould and shape. But in the end, she turns out to be a much stronger personality than Henry. And she was, first of all, a great faction fighter. I mean, what she does is to persuade Henry to establish in England her uncles, who all came from Savoy. Then they quarrel with the other group of foreigners, Henry's half-brothers from Poitou. So two groups of foreigners established in England. And Eleanor does all she can to promote the interests of the Savoyards and to do down the Lucinians. And then she changes her mind because Simon de Montfort has quarreled with Peter of Savoy, her uncle, and then is central to Henry's recovery of power in 1261. I mean, she was one of the main plotters of this. And then the high point of it all came when Henry's captured at the Battle of Lewis. And Eleanor now is abroad in Flanders and raises an army in Flanders to invade

England. In the end, it never invaded because she ran out of money. But what's interesting, actually, is the reaction of chroniclers to this. Because on the one hand, the chronicler says, thank God the invasion didn't take place. The English have been saved for an invasion. And yet, on the other hand, he says, and yet we should always remember this to the praise of the Queen, that like a sort of Amazonian woman, she sweated to raise this army. You know how impressive this was. It shows how there is scope for Queens to play an important part in politics. But clearly, she was a troublemaker. And if it hadn't been for promoting the interests of the Savoyards, Henry's court might have been a much more tranquil place.

It's interesting, in the end, she wasn't buried beside Henry in Westminster Abbey, although she'd earlier said she wanted to be. I think she must have changed her mind about that and wanted to be buried where she retired to, the nunnery of Amesbury in Wiltshire. But what's interesting is that I think Edward, her son, made no effort to try and persuade her to change her mind. And Edward didn't want to have this type of model of queenship commemorated in the Abbey. He far preferred to have the complacent model given by his own wife, Eleanor of Castile. So there's a lot of tension between Edward and his mother. And that too played a part actually in the king's loss of power in 1263. So a very remarkable queen. Henry's rule, his reign, is so

dominated by such huge characters that he almost shrinks into the background of it because of his own nature and his own character. But just to get back to Henry, he reigns for five more years once the dust settles. How would you characterise that period? Do you think Henry is changed at all by the experiences of the Second Baron's War, or does he feel a bit vindicated by the fact that ultimately he won? I wish he'd learnt wisdom. But actually, if you look at it in detail, which I've done for that period, you can see him making some of the same mistakes all over again.

There's the same profligacy. An extraordinary number of gifts are being given from the royal forests. Almost one a day in some years after 1267, there's 200 gifts during the whole course of the year of either deer or wood from the royal forests. When Edward comes back to England, they go down from a couple of hundred to 20. He still tries to be as profligate. He can sometimes act as unwisely. There's an extraordinary letter in which he apologises to his brother, Richard Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans, for not taking his advice and says, I realise I didn't

do very well in ignoring you on that occasion. But the damage he can do is so much less, because essentially nothing happens without Edward's consent. And after Edward leaves on his crusade, without the consent of Edward's council. So it's a far more tranquil period. And of course, Henry's much older. He'd never been a very energetic king. He loved the comfortable life, living in his palaces and palace castles, decorating them, wainscoting them, painting them, stained glassing them,

tiling them, making salubrious lavatories and all the rest of it. That's much more the case now from 1267 onwards, when he's not in the best of health, spends large amounts of time at Westminster. And of course, it's in this period that we have the consummation of Henry's greatest achievement. Because in 1269, Westminster Abbey is finally consecrated. The Confessor is translated to his sumptuous new shrine. I mean, Henry would have thought that was an apotheosis. That was the achievement of 25 years of work. And he's done it for the dynasty and for himself, but he's also done it for the kingdom. So Henry would have thought, in the end, that justifies me and justifies my reign. And I guess to conclude, Henry is so often overlooked. And hopefully, over the previous

episode that we did and over this one, we've tried to do a bit more justice to Henry and to bring him a little bit more into the light. And he reigns for 56 years, which is the longest reign of a medieval monarch. He's not beaten until I think we get George III in the Georgian period, yet he's so little known. I've kind of argued before that I think in that longer reign, some form of rebellion is almost inevitable in the grand scheme of rolling rebellions across particularly the medieval period. It was almost inevitable that he'd get wrapped up in one. But how do you think we should view Henry now? I mean, we've talked about the widespread peace, but how sometimes that's often viewed? I mean, we've talked about the widespread peace, but how sometimes that's often viewed as a failure.

We've talked about his building, which is still here 700 years, 800 years later. How do you think we should view Henry III? I think, first of all, we need to realise, of course, this is a pivotal reign in purely political constitutional terms. Magna Carta implanted into political life, development of Parliament, and then this extraordinary arrival of the friars, pastoral bishops, and that all feeding into the great revolution and religiosity of the period 58-65. So the context there, and also the context of the peace with France. And you're right, of course, this is a long period of

internal and domestic peace. I think you could argue that from the point of view of Britain and France, his reign was far happier one than that of his son, certainly. I do think we can actually get closer to Henry's fascinating personality than any other medieval king. And the reason for that are the extraordinary chancery roles. So the chancery is the office travelling with the king, which writes and seals all its letters. Henry's reign, they're recording all the output on these roles, which are all preserved now in the National Archives at Kew.

Now, there are thousands of letters every year. A lot of them are absolutely bog standard, but many others are deeply personal to the king and throw tremendous light on his proflicacy, his piety, his generosity, the way he's a connoisseur of art and architecture. And so I think we can get tremendously close to Henry, this warm-hearted, generous, angry sometimes, but easily appeased, easygoing, lazy. I suppose in the end, you know, they're different views as to what makes a good king. And Matthew Paris, at the start of his life of Edward the Confessor, poses two models of kingship, both equally good. On the one hand, there are the kings who are warlike and very brave, and obviously Arthur,

Edmund Ironside, he mentions. On the other hand, there are kings who are more peaceable, wise, moderate, Edward the Confessor. Now, Henry doesn't quite fit into the latter category, unfortunately, because people constantly said he was simplex and not wise, which I think meant naive more than anything else. But nonetheless, that in some ways he succeeded, I think was very much due to the huge respect for him as a Rex Christianissimus. But also he had created long, long period of foreign and domestic peace. It's been absolutely fascinating. I genuinely could sit here and

talk to you for hours about Henry III. So thank you so much for joining us to talk about this second part of his life. It's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you. There'll be another fascinating episode for you to listen to on Tuesday. Don't forget to subscribe or follow us wherever you get your podcasts from and to tell all of your friends and family that you've gone medieval. If you get a moment, please do drop us a review or rate us anywhere that you listen to your podcasts. It really does help new listeners to find their way to us. If you're enjoying this and looking for a bit more medieval goodness in your life, you can subscribe to our Medieval Mondays newsletter by following the links in the show notes below. Anyway, I'd better let you go.

I've been Matt Lewis and we've just gone medieval with History Hits. you