Henry III - Useless or Unfortunate?

EPOCH
2 days ago
8 min read

Fraser Wilmot | Lancaster University

The Tewkesbury annals describe a rather bizarre occurrence at the 1258 Westminster Parliament. On his way into Parliament, King Henry III was met by the intimidating sight of his barons in full armour. At this sight, the King became fearful and asked whether they were taking him prisoner. The barons refuted this suggestion, stating that they were only assembled to demand that ’all aliens be driven away’ from his court. This sequence unveils the modern misconception that medieval kings ruled alone with absolute authority over their subjects. Medieval kings were expected to listen to advice from those around them and to rule with the counsel of their leading nobles and bishops. Henry III, however, did not live up to this expectation of kingship. Was he useless, or just unfortunate?

In his Chronica Majora, the monastic historian Matthew Paris referred to Henry III as a ‘simple man.’ The poet Dante, writing in the early fourteenth century, echoed this sentiment when he assigned Henry to a corner of purgatory for the useless rulers. This idea that Henry’s removal from power was not due to tyranny, as was the case for his father, but rather due to his sheer incompetence and presence as a ‘useless king’, has long been a topic of historical debate. The term ‘useless king’ is not simply a modern classification of Henry’s kingship. The term held precedence in canon law, regulations set by the Church, with the Papal declaration of Sancho II of Portugal as a rex inutilis (literally translating to useless king) in 1245. The Papal Bull deposing Sancho accused him of having neglected the Church, failing to militarily defend his lands from the Muslims, and not following the advice of his vassals. Henry’s rule would consist of many similar failings, making him suitable to be considered a useless king by contemporary standards.

One reason driving this perception was his military failures. Expansion gave the King access to more resources and land, which aided both his finances and his ability to provide patronage. More importantly, bravery and military skill were key chivalric virtues of the period, by which kings were heavily judged: for example, Richard I was a popular King amongst his contemporaries due to his reputation for bravery.

In 1216, at the age of nine, Henry was crowned King of England. His predecessors had acquired vast lands in France through marital ties, called the Angevin Empire by historians, yet by Henry’s ascension to the throne, these lands had been lost to the Kingdom of France. Henry’s reign would be marked by several unsuccessful efforts to reclaim these lands, which King John had lost; this ended with the disastrous campaign of 1242, where Henry went over with a large force, only to be betrayed by a local count and suffer a decisive defeat at Taillebourg.

The image consists of two maps. On the left is a map displaying the ownership of territories in 1180 and on the right a map showing the change in ownership by 1223. The map features a key at the bottom to use for establishing the meaning of the map’s colours. — Map showing the loss of the English holdings in France prior to the end of Henry III’s regency in 1227. Despite his best efforts, Henry would fail to recover these lost territories. (Creative Commons License BY-SA 3.0, Edited, Wikimedia Commons).

More significant than his failures in France were his defeats in Britain. Henry oversaw a set of major drawbacks in the attempts to establish English power in Wales. His campaign against the Welsh in 1245 would see his army run out of food and be forced to shamefully return home before any serious ground was made. At the 1258 Westminster Parliament, the King was ‘greatly vexed by the Welsh’ due to his failure to cement English rule in the region.

In the same year, he also angered his barons through his refusal to heed their counsel and his promotion of foreigners at court, resulting in their turning up in armour at Parliament to demand their removal, though this was not simply xenophobia. They especially targeted their hatred of foreigners at the Lusignans, French half-brothers of Henry III who had come to England at the King’s invitation, due to their arrogance towards the native nobility. The barons even wrote a letter to Pope Alexander IV complaining about the way the King allowed Aymer de Valence, a Lusignan who had been made Bishop of Winchester despite being unqualified, to flaunt the rule of law. Magna Carta had explicitly guaranteed the right to legal redress, so by protecting Aymer, Henry was breaking the Charter which he had promised to uphold. By the second parliament of 1258, the barons’ tolerance for Lusignan arrogance had worn out. Emboldened by the accomplishment of their armed demonstration at Westminster, the reformers had the Lusignans declared traitors, further weakening Henry III’s authority in his own country.

In 1263, in the hope of averting the outbreak of conflict, Henry and his barons consulted the King of France, Louis IX, to arbitrate their disagreement. Louis, interested in upholding royal prerogative and the divine right of kings, favoured Henry by annulling the Provisions of Oxford, a set of constitutional reforms agreed between the King and his barons in 1258. This judgement was far too one sided for the barons to accept and they would open armed hostilities against Henry in 1264.

This conflict saw Henry suffer his most shocking military defeat at the Battle of Lewes. This marred perceptions of him for two reasons. The first was that Henry had a far larger, ‘swelled’ force than his opponent, Simon de Montfort, the leader of the barons’ revolt against Henry. Therefore, this defeat was more significant as Henry had lost despite a clear numerical advantage. What made Lewes especially shameful was not simply Henry’s tactical advantage, but that he lost to his own subject. This was not the only problem, however, leading to the second reason for his damaged reputation: not only did Henry prove himself an ineffective leader, but he broke chivalric norms during the battle. Henry sought to end Simon's life at the start of the battle, which violated the belief that aristocrats should be captured alive for ransom.

At the focus of the drawing is the King on his horse. He has his hand outstretched to grab a sword. He is surrounded by other footmen in armour and in the background are the tips of pikes. — Depiction of Henry at the Battle of Lewes from Cassell's *Illustrated History of England, Volume 1*. (Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons).

Shortly before Henry’s death, he would sign the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267, which was a peace treaty between Henry and Llewellyn II, the leader of Welsh resistance. This cemented his military failure in Wales with the ceding of certain lands to Llewellyn and recognising his right to rule as Prince of Wales. This would be especially significant to political figures of the time because Wales was considered under the overlordship of the English king, so Henry was conceding territories to a man who was his de jure subordinate.

The next failure of Henry’s reign was his exploitation of the churches. This may not seem significant to modern audiences but protecting and upholding the Church’s rights and properties was a key expectation of medieval kings. At his coronation, Henry’s oath likely included promises to preserve the English Church. Nevertheless, Henry repeatedly broke his obligation in favour of abusing the Church for his personal gain.

In 1253, Henry demanded a ‘great sum’ from the bishops. The year following, Henry was again able to extract more from the clergy as Pope Innocent IV granted him the right to take a tenth of their moveable property from them. These efforts amounted to a ‘campaign for intensified taxation of the clergy’, which combined the concerns of secular barons and bishops into a common resistance against the demands of both Henry and the Pope. Henry’s extractions in 1253 and onward coincide with the beginnings of clerical opposition to the King, revealing that his oppression of the Church was considered a key grievance by his contemporaries.

In the focus of the picture is King Henry III, sitting on his throne and in full regalia. To his left and right are Bishops with their hands near the King’s crown as if to symbolize the conferment of authority on him. — Late thirteenth century depiction of Henry III’s coronation from the *Effigies ad Regem Angliae*. (Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons).

These extractions from the Church contributed significantly to the negative perception of Henry, as abuses against the clergy are also listed as the reason for the Pope’s declaration of Sancho as rex inutilis. This raises a significant issue: why was Henry not also declared to be an ineffective king if he shared many of Sancho’s failings? A possible reason for this difference could be a motive behind the founding of the Portuguese Kingdom: to crusade against the Moors in Iberia. Consequently, the title of Portuguese King lacked the same sacrality of the King of England, demonstrated by the fact that Sancho II had not been anointed. This lower legitimacy meant that the Pope was better positioned to strip Sancho of his power as opposed to Henry, whose authority rested on more than crusading success. Furthermore, Matthew Paris wrote that Pope Alexander IV aided Henry’s ‘tyranny’ in England with his support for Henry’s fundraising for his Sicily scheme. If this claim is correct, then the Pope may have had an incentive to not declare Henry rex inutilis in hopes of profiting off his incompetence. Henry’s abuse of the Church certainly served to promote opposition amongst the clergy, and the importance of protecting the realm’s churches in the Provisions of Oxford suggests they were a crucial grievance to the reformers.

Another of Henry’s weaknesses was his subpar financial management. His predecessor, King John, had invited public ire through his use of unorthodox money-raising methods. Henry would also invite criticism due to financial moves through his wasteful and extravagant spending. Aiming to enhance his authority and public image, Henry dedicated significant sums to vast building projects, such as his grand redesign of Westminster Abbey, and using royal revenues to build a grand hall in Dublin Castle.

Such projects certainly did help to construct Henry’s image as a pious King, strengthening his divine authority. However, his prior wasteful spending on expensive military campaigns thus put pressure on the royal finances, forcing Henry to adopt unpopular measures such as ordering a scutage to be collected from England in 1257. Although the scutage originally came about as a fee paid by knights to opt out of their military service obligation, by the time of King John’s reign, the scutage had begun to be used without the excuse of war. John’s repeated levying of the scutage had been a key grievance of his barons and, consequently, collecting scutage had been prohibited unless by ‘common counsel’ of the realm under the terms of Magna Carta. Henry’s similar raising of scutage was unpopular with contemporaries for the same reason; by increasing it, he was violating the terms of Magna Carta. Whilst his building projects did help to reinforce the sacredness of his kingship, they forced him to raise more sums to the detriment of his subjects, possibly overshadowing the positives these projects brought.

In the focus of the Picture is a statue of Henry III showing his head while crowned. The statue is lay on his back as if laying in rest. — Photo of the tomb effigy of Henry III in St. Edward's Chapel, Westminster Abbey. (Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons).

The most contentious of Henry’s spending plans was undoubtedly his Sicily expedition. Henry had agreed a deal with Pope Alexander IV to pay £90,000 for the title of King of Sicily – no small sum by any means. This deal was deemed outrageous, as he was only buying the de jure title and would still have to fund an army to conquer the island and usurp the current King.

At the Westminster Parliament of 1258, Henry made a final, desperate bid for the granting of a tax to fund his Sicily purchase. However, upon hearing the vast sum demanded, the ‘nobility of the kingdom grieved at being reduced to such ruin by the supine simplicity of one man’. Lacking baronial support, Henry would be unable to raise the funds for his Sicily plan, and the Pope would offer the deal elsewhere. The Sicily expedition displayed Henry’s simplicity and typified his consistent failure to listen to counsel, as he had conducted the deal without seeking his vassal's consent.

The image is a map showing the borders of the Kingdom of Sicily with Spoleto at its border in the North. Surrounding the pink coloured Kingdom are the Tyrrhenian and Ionian seas. — Map of the Kingdom of Sicily C. 1250. (Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons).

In conclusion, Henry was indeed a useless king by contemporary standards. The most significant of his failings was his treatment towards his barons. Not only did he allow foreigners to dominate his patronage to the detriment of the native lords, but more importantly, he allowed the Lusignans to flaunt the law. His military record is nothing but a litany of failures and is made more shameful as many of these were against Lewellyn and Simon, men who were magnates of Henry and therefore deemed his inferiors. He woefully managed the royal finances by taking on expensive building projects at a time when he lacked sufficient funds to do so. This was all to the detriment of his subjects and his image.