Why was Henry III Always Short of Money?

 

In June 1239, a baby boy was born to Henry III and Eleanor of Provence. He would ,one day, become king Edward I. Congratulations were sent to the Royal couple from across England. Edward had been born at Westminster and across London the celebrations that took place were particularly joyful. Drums and tambourines were played with and people danced enthusiastically. Lanterns were lit so the celebrations could go on deep into the night. Messengers were sent across the land to spread the word of the birth of this new prince. Presents were sent to the king from nobles from every part of England but this did not completely satisfy the king. Presents that Henry deemed insufficient in either quantity or value, he had sent back and it would be made clear to the well intentioned sender that Henry expected more.

This type of behaviour would certainly have displeased a lot of people but it was far from the only instance where Henry failed to keep his nobles on his side. One of his most notorious failings was allowing the relatives of his Queen to come to England where they prospered a bit too much from an English perspective. And, to make things worse, some of Henry’s own relations, the Lusignans, also came to England to enrich themselves and have. The money wasted on these unwelcome guests would have gone down terribly with the nobility.

And it wasn’t just family members that Henry wasted money on. He made promises to go on crusade but, for one reason or another, such as problems in Gascony, the king failed to keep his promises to take the Cross. As a result, Henry found himself becoming heavily in debt to the Pope. In this instance, there may be a way out for the King. The Pope proposed an idea to Henry that would see Henry’s son, Edmund Crouchback, become king of Sicily. Henry hoped to make it happen but his dire financial situation put paid to what was a wildly fanciful idea. 

Henry was also noted for his building projects. The most notable of these is, of course, his work at Westminster Abbey where he now lies. Grand schemes such as these obviously cost vast sums of money and put further strains on Henry’s, and England’s, finances. If Henry could see the tourists that flock to Westminster Abbey today, he may well have considered his money well spent. But, in the 13th Century, his diabolical laxity when it came to finances almost, though not quite, put his father, King John, to shame.

How Did Henry V Die?

 During the difficult and bloody Siege of Meaux, which rumbled on for some months, the forces of Henry V of England were eventually successful. But it came at a price as the English army sustained heavy losses from injuries inflicted by their French enemies and also from diseases such as dysentery, Eventually, Henry V himself fell ill. Over the next weeks and months, the king of England gradually became incredibly weak as his illness worsened and eventually he was gripped by fever. Both Henry and his doctors realised that he had little time left and so the king began to prepare accordingly. He ordered that debts that he owed be paid from the sale of his personal possessions. As the end drew near, Henry took Holy Communion and made his peace with God after a life on the battlefield. He died on 31st August 1422, leaving his 9 month old son as the new king of England.

Thomas Walsingham claimed that the French mourned the death of Henry with “great lamentations”. And that Henry had been some saviour from the tyranny of the government of Charles VI. Whilst that is wishful thinking on Walsingham’s part, it is, nonetheless, interesting to ponder what would have happened had Henry avoided sickness. Just weeks after Henry’s death, his father in law, Charles VI, after years of mental health problems, also died. The Treaty of Troyes, signed in 1420, had not only married Henry to Charles' daughter, Catherine of Valois, but had also placed Henry as Charles’ designated heir. Had Henry lived, would his succession to the French crown have actually occurred? A smooth succession seems extremely unlikely. Resistance to Henry, a foreign invader, taking the crown would surely have been inevitable. 

But he was married to a French princess who had, in late 1421, given him a son and prospective heir. Henry had emphatically proved himself to the French in the art of warfare, such an important trait for any king in medieval Europe. Alas, Henry’s death gives us one of history’s great What Ifs? Would he have been able to unite the English and French crowns? Or would he have prioritised his new French kingdom had he succeeded? In my view, Henry, had his health allowed, would have had the stamina, vigour, energy and know how to manage both kingdoms. Unfortunately, his death put paid to any possibility of England and France united under one Crown, even though the two nations paths remained intertwined as they had done since William of Normandy conquered England. And, what was worse from an English perspective, was that Henry had not only left a child as his heir but a BABY! This meant a long minority government and minority governments often led to conflict as powerful nobles vied for position in the game of who ruled the country until the king came of age. Henry V’s death was the root course of the Wars of the Roses. Had he lived just a decade longer, not an unreasonable hope given he was only 35 when he died, English and European history may well have taken a very different course.

Henry VIII's Pride And Joy

 In October 1537, Henry VIII, at long last, had an heir with the birth of a boy who would succeed him as Edward VI. Henry’s joy would be tempered by two things. First, the death of Queen Jane, 12 days after giving birth. Writing to the king of France, Henry said, with great and genuine sorrow”, “Divine providence has mingled my joy with the bitterness of the death of her who has given me this happiness.” Henry also had to live with the terrible thought that some childhood illness could claim the life of the little baby as it had done to a boy born to the king during his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. That baby, named Henry, lived for just 7 weeks and Henry knew, in this day and age, history could well repeat itself. Nonetheless, despite these fears and sorrows, Henry rejoiced in the presence of his son. One day, when Edward was about 7 months old, the king spent a day at a hunting lodge with the little prince, holding him in his arms, playing with him and showing him off to crowds of people.

And it wasn’t just Henry who took joy in the Prince. One Lady described Edward as being “the goodliest babe that I ever set my eyes upon.” Edward was also described as being “so merry, so pleasant, so loving of countenance”. No doubt, such sentiments were designed to please the king but genuine delight at Edward’s birth wouldn’t have just been felt by Henry. On Edward’s birth, celebrations had been held in the streets of England with bonfires, drinking and feasting. People knew that a king without an heir could and almost certainly would prove extreme difficulties. Yes, before Edward’s birth, Henry had two living daughters. But the idea of female rule in Tudor England was still too alien a concept to comprehend for many. Henry also had an illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, who may have been a possible candidate to become king but had died the year before Edward’s birth.

So, Henry’s only option had been to have a legitimate son. And as time had marched on, with one wife divorced and another executed, and the king rapidly aging and with declining health, things began to look dire not only for Henry and his dynasty but also for the prospects of England in the not too distant future. Contested successions had brought troubled times in the past in English history; most notably on the deaths of Henry I and Edward IV. Henry not only needed a son but also to ensure that, if he survived the perils of Tudor childhood, his succession to the throne would be smooth. In an ideal world, Henry would go on to have a second son. And, in the brief period between Edward’s birth and Jane’s passing 12 days later, Henry’s thoughts may have briefly turned to that although, if it had, it would have been fleeting as Jane’s condition worsened. Despite Jane’s death and all the uncertainties of life in the 16th century, the birth of Edward remained a joyous thing for Henry VIII and proof that he could, in fact, produce a healthy son. In the years of failure with Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, Henry’s fragile ego had taken a heavy hit but the birth of Edward was a triumph and vindication, in his mind, that he had been right all along and all others, especially his treacherous wives, had been wrong.

Richard II's Revenge Against The Lords Appellant

In 1397, rumours began to spread that Richard II of England was to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. The rumours were entirely false but were enough to inflate Richard’s already overgrown ego. His behaviour became increasingly obnoxious, forcing wealthy members of the nobility to lend him large sums of money. And he came down hard on those who had sought to keep him in check in the past. A decade earlier, the Lords Appellant had sought to clean up Richard’s government by removing his favourite, and corrupt, ministers. A lot of water had passed under the bridge since then but Richard was a man who held grudges. His own uncle, Thomas, Duke of Gloucester was imprisoned and then murdered. The Earl of Warwick was lured into a trap. Warwick was invited to a banquet and then arrested. The Earl of Arundel, Richard Fitzalan, was arrested and then beheaded Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray both banished into exile. These men who had tried to spare England from Richard’s tyranny now fell victim to it themselves.

It wouldn’t be long before Richard had his comeuppance. Henry Bolingbroke returned in 1399 to claim the inheritance of his father, John of Gaunt, that Richard had stolen. On his arrival in England, Henry found that appetite for change was in the air. And, so, from simply coming to claim the Duchy of Lancaster, Henry turned his eyes to a far bigger prize; the Crown of England. Richard had gone on campaign in Ireland which was either remarkably arrogant or downright stupidity (or perhaps both) as he left his kingdom vulnerable to the many enemies that he had made. And so Henry took his chance. 

Richard, on hearing of Henry’s arrival, crossed the Irish Sea in hope of recovering the situation. But, by the time he arrived in Wales, it was too late and he was captured in pitiful fashion. He was forced to abdicate at the Tower of London in 1399 before he was moved Northwards to Pontefract Castle, the former powerbase of John of Gaunt. Henry was crowned king and Richard died a miserable, lonely and starving man in early 1400 after a plot to restore him to power had failed.

.

What Role Did Women Play During The Crusades?

 

Pregnant women and crusades seems to be a massive contradiction but it did happen. Motivated by sheer religious devotion or perhaps not wanting to be parted from their husbands, expectant women made the long and difficult journey to the Holy Land and elsewhere. The suffering in blistering summer heat in the East would have been terrible for women in this condition and Albert of Aachen spoke of pregnant women travelling alongside the First Crusade and being forced to give birth prematurely and with water supplies running desperately low. Albert, in almost accusing fashion, says that the women abandoned their child to die by the roadside but the likelihood of either mother or child surviving in this instance would have been doubtful at best. Surviving a medieval pregnancy was a minor miracle at the best of times. Giving birth on Crusade, depending on the circumstance, quite probably, horrendous.

It would be easy here to question why a woman, in circumstances such as these, would even think of going on Crusade. Indeed, to us today, it seems almost madness for anyone to go on Crusade, male or female. Often, for the male Crusaders, greed has often been levelled at them and that would have certainly been a factor for some. But, for both the men and women of the Crusading era, the true motivation was unquestionably driven by their religious convictions. Ultimately, the opportunity to travel to the Holy Land was something that simply could not be passed up. The dangers that such ventures posed to their physical and mental well being was clear. In his preaching for the First Crusade, Pope Urban had spoken in no uncertain terms as to what lay ahead for his Holy Army.

And stories of the First Crusade and the remarkable and often chilling deeds that were accomplished there would not only have inspired future generations of would-be warriors and pilgrims but would also have informed them of the immense sufferings that the likes of Godfrey of Bouillon had gone through during the First Crusade. So, ignorance cannot be used as a reason to explain why Crusaders and their female companions decided to make such a journey in the name of Christ.

Of course, with different classes taking part in the Crusades, it’s likely that women of less reputable backgrounds may have hoped to use their charms in order to gain some advantage with some European nobleman but that would be far from the norm. For the women like Adela of Normandy, wife of Count Stephen of Blois, a leader of the First Crusade, Crusades were to be fought with no half measures. When Stephen returned to the West before the task of Jerusalem being retaken had been achieved, Adela ordered him to return. He did, was captured by Muslim enemies and was beheaded. Adela would grieve at the news but, for her, comfort lay in the fact that her husband had died both a man and in the name of Christ. A Holy Warrior.

The Siege Of Calais 1346-1347, Edward III And The Mercy of Queen Philippa

Following on from the success at the battle of Crecy, Edward III then laid siege to Calais. The siege dragged on, with Edward growing increasingly impatient and angry. The conditions inside Calais’ walls grew increasingly grim as men and women, young and old alike, had grown so weak from hunger that many were unable to stand. It was eventually agreed that 6 of Calais’ prominent citizens would go to the English king, barefoot, halters around their neck and with the keys to Calais in their hands. Despite this gesture of surrender, Edward remained angry at the losses that he had sustained and he was certainly inclined to have the six men executed. It was here that Queen Philippa intervened and begged for the men’s lives, throwing herself to her knees and weeping. A woman known for her gentleness and kindness held a certain influence over Edward and he released the men.

But was this story true? Well, it certainly contains one inaccuracy. The chronicler who relayed the tale stated that Philippa was heavily pregnant, which was not the case. However, Philippa certainly had a penchant for mercy and it would certainly be understandable if Edward was in an unforgiving mood. Sieges were brutal for both the besiegers and the besieged and its doubtful leniency was Edward’s first inclination. That’s not to say Edward was going to sack the place or that Philippa’s interventions had prevented a total bloodbath but I am tended to believe that the story is true, taking into account the odd inaccuracy in the telling of it.

 

What Killed Edward IV?

 In 1483, Edward IV died. Various suggestions were given by medieval chroniclers as to what killed the king. One suggestion was that Edward, just 40, died of grief from unwelcome news that had been brought to him from the continent. To hide his sorrow, Edward had, in the months leading up to his death, put on numerous performances for his court to enjoy and presumably feasting. Given that Edward was very overweight by this point in his life, rumours that suggest he had had a stroke seem very plausible. Another possible reason was that Edward had fallen ill after a day of fishing and had never recovered. And one other possibility is syphilis. Edward liked women to say the least and it’s possible his sexual activities caught up with him. One way or another, Edward’s excessive lifestyle certainly took its toll on him and his premature death would have dramatic consequences.

Before he died, Edward, conventionally, made his peace with God before outlining his wishes for the succession. Edward died at Westminster on 9th April 1483. From there, his body was taken to Windsor Castle in a solemn procession where he was interred in St George’s Chapel. His controversial wife, Elizabeth Woodville, would join him here on her own death. So ended the life of Edward IV. A king who’d proved himself brilliantly capable militarily but was deeply flawed as king. As his first reign (1461-1470) had worn on, Edward found himself increasingly unpopular and this showed itself in the rebellions of Robin of Redesdale and Robin of Holderness. Shortly after those uprisings, Edward had been displaced as king by the unlikely union of Richard Neville and Margaret of Anjou, the queen of Henry VI.

Edward had pushed Neville into an alliance with his enemy Margaret after his secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville whilst Neville had been in France, negotiating for a more high profile marriage for the king. When Neville found out that Edward had married a commoner, he was irate and turned to Margaret. Ultimately Edward survived this fiasco and reclaimed the crown in early 1471. But he would fail to leave a meaningful legacy. More interested in wine, food and women then in long term stability for England. Had Edward’s premature death been avoided, which surely it could have been had Edward shown more restraint with his diet, then the tragic outcome that awaited Edward’s two sons, “The Princes In The Tower” may never have happened and we may have seen what type of king Edward V would have been.

How Did The Hundred Years War Start?

 In 1337, Edward III of England began what would become known as the Hundred Years War by laying claim to the crown of France. Edward’s mother, Isabella, was the daughter of the French king Philip IV. Philip had three sons who succeeded him but had all died after relatively brief reigns. The throne now passed to Philip VI. On hearing that Edward was now bearing the arms of both England and France, Philip VI was disparaging of Edward, referring to him as a “poor knight of ours” and of England as well, calling it a little island in comparison to the “great kingdom of France”. Despite this bravado, Philip was obviously unsettled and the fact that Edward was styling himself king of France would have put further doubts in his minds as to who had the better claim to the French crown.

And it wouldn’t be long before doubts in Philip’s minds increased. Defeats for the French at the Battle of Sluys, a naval engagement, in 1340 before later, more famous defeats at Crecy and Poitiers must have made France fully aware that they were up against a formidable opponent. Edward was no mere “poor knight”. To the contrary, he was one of the greatest warrior kings in European history and Philip’s dismissive words had been rammed right down his throat. Ultimately, Edward’s bid to become king of France failed but he had shown what he was capable of by confronting a European superpower and besting them numerous times. Edward had also shown he was capable of winning victories on both land and sea and can perhaps be considered as an early inspiration for later English naval supremacy.

The Survival of Edward II?

 In 1330, rumours began to circulate across England that the former king Edward II had not been killed in 13+27 following his deposition after all. Supposedly, these rumours had been not only encouraged by Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer, the people behind Edward’s downfall, but had, in fact, been started by them. The rumour went that Edward was in fact living, perfectly happily at Corfe Castle. After his deposition in 1327, Edward had indeed spent time at Corfe Castle before he was moved on to Berkeley Castle where, it’s generally believed, he met his end. Elaborate steps were taken to make the rumours seem believable ;entertainment, dancing and feasts were staged in the castle as though a king was truly staying there. The former king’s brother Edmund believed the rumours and would ultimately be executed for apparently conspiring to free Edward II; another victim of the tyranny of Mortimer and Isabella.

What the 17 year old Edward III thought of these rumours is an interesting matter to ponder but what is clear is that he had now had just about enough of Mortimer. Mortimer had, instead of being a regent acting in the best interests of the country, acted like he was the king and it was said that he would enter Parliament and received a louder ovation then Edward himself. Repeatedly, Mortimer would be in the presence of the king and would show a remarkable level of arrogance. Very often, he would, defying convention, walk in front of the king, instead of just behind or, at the least, to the side. Edward's mother Isabella was little better and she would be exiled in disgrace. When Edward's patience with the pair finally ran out, he cornered them, on one dramatic night at Nottingham Castle. Despite Isabella's pleas, Mortimer could expect no mercy. He was arrested and hanged. Thus, Edward III's reign truly began. As for his father, despite the rumours, there is no real plausible reason to believe Edward II was not murdered at Berkeley Castle in 1327. Mortimer and Isabella had shown how thirsty for power they were and, to keep hold of it, the old king had to be out of the way.

William The Conqueror's Speech Before The Battle of Hastings

 According to the chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, William The Conqueror gave this speech to his men before the battle of Hastings .”Ah! let any one of the English whom our predecessors, both Danes and Norwegians, have defeated in a hundred battles, come forth and show that the race of Rollo ever suffered a defeat from his time until now, and I will submit and retreat. Is it not shameful, then, that a people accustomed to be conquered, a people ignorant of the art of war, a people not even in possession of arrows, should make a show of being arrayed in order of battle against you, most valiant?”

 Did William actually speak these words? It seems unlikely. For one thing, the speech, if true, ran the risk of making the Normans TOO confident, such is the disparaging nature of William’s words about the English. He is almost making it seem that they were not fit to be on the same battlefield as the Normans. His references to the Normans Vikings origins and portraying the earlier Norse armies as being almost invincible would have been careless in the extreme and it seems likely that the men in William's ranks would not have believed his words given they would have been aware of recent event. The English had their fair share of success in the Viking wars in the centuries prior, not least at the Battle of Stamford Bridge just 3 weeks before Hastings where Harold II had defeated Harald Hardrada of Norway. Calling the English ignorant of war and being accustomed to being conquered could surely have been of very little benefit to William. 

Even if William did say and believe these words, he would find in the years to come, despite his triumph at Hastings, that the English would not simply roll over and would, in fact, resist his rule fiercely. And they would, at an incredibly heavy price, earn his respect. In 1087, as he lay dying, William referred to the English as “that fine race.”  He may have held them in contempt before his conquest of England but his attitude towards the natives would certainly change over the course of his reign.