Henry III sat on the English throne for 57 years. Among English monarchs, only George III, Victoria and the late Queen reigned for longer. But they only reigned. Henry’s problem was that he was expected to rule. In medieval England, the role of the king was critical. Public order collapsed without a functioning court system founded on the impartial authority of an active ruler. The scramble for office and influence at the centre quickly turned to civil war when the monarch allowed his vast patronage to be monopolised by a cabal.
Contemporaries were satisfied that Henry III was a bad king. But what kind of bad king was he? Some kings were tyrants, who deserved to be deposed. Others were just useless, in which case their powers needed to be transferred to their wiser advisers. Henry was not a tyrant. He was kind and pious, a generous, well-meaning spirit. But he was useless. He allowed himself to be dominated by favourites and, worse, foreign favourites. He took a back seat behind the engines of power. Dante, that shrewd commentator of the next generation, thought him a simple fellow, il re della semplice vita, and assigned him to a corner of Purgatory reserved for neglectful rulers.
This is the second and concluding volume of David Carpenter’s magnificent biography of the forlorn king. His first volume recounted Henry’s difficult legacy. He came to the throne at the age of nine, without the long political apprenticeship that his predecessors had enjoyed. Like others in the same position (one thinks of Richard II and Henry VI), he lacked self-confidence and needed to surround himself with close friends and mentors. His early years were blighted by disastrous wars, in which most of the dynasty’s vast possession in France were lost.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in