Mirrors for Princes: Henry II and the Succession to the Angevin Empire
By Jacob Deacon
Henry II and his heirs are often referred to as `The Devil’s Brood` due to a legend about their ancestors. The tale goes that an ancient Count of Anjou had a beautiful wife who, although would come to church, would never remain for mass. Eventually her husband ordered his men to prevent her from leaving the chapel, and when this came to pass his wife leapt from the chapel window and flew away, never to be seen again[1]. Despite the fictitious origin, it is nonetheless a fitting term for history to remember them by, as both chroniclers and later historians have commented and concentrated on their supposedly cruel, cunning and violent nature; Gerald of Wales even commented that Richard I once said that his family `had come from the devil` and would one day return to their master[2]. Understandably, with so many “devilish” offspring, Henry II faced many difficulties when it came to bringing up his sons, including the problem of how to successfully integrate them into the rule of the Angevin Empire. Although the dynasty did survive the various troubles, his attempts have been labelled `positively disastrous` by historians due to the choices he made and the later consequences of his actions[3].
Perhaps the most well-known example of Henry’s failure at integrating his sons into the rule of the Angevin Empire (and perhaps also the most problematic) was the revolt led against him by his children in 1173. Whilst Henry was busy securing domains for Richard, Geoffrey, and John, he was ignoring the desires of his eldest son, Henry, also known as the Young King. Despite his coronation in 1170, this new title had not come with any new lands or powers, and somewhat understandably, this caused the Young King to feel jealous of his younger brothers. Richard, for example, had been appointed Duke of Aquitaine in 1172, and not long after John was given Chinon, Loudun, and Mirebeau; all castles which the Young King regarded as his inheritance[4]. This proved to be the last straw for the Young King, who felt that his brothers now possessed an unacceptable level of wealth and power than, far eclipsing his own resources and influence.
Although Henry eventually managed to quell the revolt and force his son’s surrender, he failed to address the main reasons behind the uprising. Instead of ensuring that another revolt would not take place, which could have happened by readdressing the balance of power between his sons, he chose to ignore the causes that had sparked the revolt, trusting that his military might would prevent the need for further action. The period after the revolt would have been the perfect time for Henry to begin integrating the Young King in to his government, but he instead refused to grant him the actual powers that his heir wanted, giving him a `casus belli` to rise up again in 1183[5]. One could argue that here Henry made the mistake here of attempting to make too many provisions for his younger sons. It was not very common for younger sons to inherit lands from their fathers, but Henry went out of his way to try and secure inheritance for both Geoffrey in Brittany and John in Ireland[6].
No such effort on this sort of scale was made by Henry to secure territory for his eldest son during his lifetime; it seems as if he expected him to be patient, as his eventual reward would be far greater than those which his brothers now possessed. However, the Young King did not share these views; hungry for power and glory he saw himself being deprived of the chance to shine, leading to further problems with his integration in to his father’s government.
Further failure of Henry’s efforts can be seen in the rule of his two eventual successors; Richard and John. Richard, despite being famed for his military successes, managed to effectively bankrupt England, and according to Clanchy, `took no interest in England other than as a source of revenue`[7]. He has further been described by Gerald of Wales as only being happy when he `marked his steps with blood`, continuing to propagate the idea that Richard had no interest in governing, only war[8].
John’s reputation for ruling is even more derogatory. Contemporary accounts describe him as “nature’s enemy” and a “pillager of his own people”, whilst the anonymous chronicler of Béthune describes him as having “too many bad qualities” to be considered a strong or even an acceptable ruler[9]. John is also known for losing Normandy to the French, a territory the English kings had kept for almost a hundred and fifty years. These two reigns which some historians today would characterise as failures clearly had their causes in events which occurred during the life of Henry II. Richard’s reign in Aquitaine was known for military action against rebellious barons, not economic and diplomatic breakthroughs, whilst John’s attempts to prepare for rule simply failed and his father did not make sure he learned from his experiences in Ireland (although it at least seems to be the only recorded instance of John pulling on the beards of his subjects so perhaps he learned something!).
However, there is evidence to suggest that Henry’s attempts to integrate his sons in to ruling the Angevin Empire were not a complete failure. At the age of 15, Henry appointed Richard Duke of Aquitaine, a duchy well known for being “a hotbed of lawlessness and civil discord”[10]. Nonetheless, the young Richard managed to deal with these practically independent lordships, quashing numerous rebellions and proving himself to be an apt ruler of the duchy, and even managing to defend it against his elder brother in 1182[11]. . This shows that when not involved with family troubles and ruling over a territory he was attached to and willing to fight for, Richard could actually be an effective ruler, something his father must have recognised to appoint him Duke. These skills would also serve Richard well during his tenure as King of England; no doubt some of the lessons he learned at the siege of Taillebourg would serve him well at Acre. However, it remains uncertain whether this successful period of rule for Richard as Duke of Aquitaine can be attributed to Henry. Although he made the decision to appoint Richard a duke, Asbridge comments that this was done “through the influence of his mother”, and once Duke, he followed policies influenced by Eleanor, not Henry[12].
There is also an argument to suggest that it is not Henry’s fault that he failed to integrate his sons in to the rule of the Angevin Empire, but that these failures are due to the political machinations of others. The first of these is Henry’s wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Although their marriage began well, it did not remain this way with Eleanor’s confinement to Aquitaine and eventual plots to undermine Henry’s authority by encouraging Richard and Geoffrey to join the Young King’s revolt[13]. Eleanor was not the only source of trouble for Henry when it came to managing his sons. His rival and feudal overlord, Louis VII, loathed the superior power of his vassal, and sought to destroy it[14]. One of the ways in which he attempted this was by befriending Henry’s sons, supporting their claims and making them doubt their father’s intensions[15]. By doing this Louis weakened the relationship between Henry and his heirs, making it harder for him to integrate them in to the rule of the Angevin Empire. The strongest example of this came towards the end of Henry’s reign, when Richard and Louis’ heir Phillip departed together after the signing of a peace treaty, clearly signalling their willingness to stand together against Henry[16].
Unfortunately, with earlier evidence in mind, it cannot be denied than Henry was unsuccessful in his attempt to integrate his sons in to the rule of the Angevin Empire. His failure to appoint his eldest son with any real power to govern after his coronation, when contrasted with the lengths he went to in order to provide that very same chance to his other children was what sparked not one but two revolts, as Henry failed to properly redress the balance of power between his children after the civil war of 1173-4. However, it is important to remember that not all the blame for these failures can be attributed to Henry. His wife Eleanor, the French monarchy, and the character of his sons themselves made what was already going to be a difficult balancing act given the size of his domains virtually impossible.
A final word worth bearing in mind however, is this. The matter of succession was rarely a smooth one under the Norman and Angevin monarchs. Henry II himself had only come to power after the eighteen year Anarchy, and his ancestor William the Conqueror only managed to take power after the bloody conflict at Hastings. Nonetheless, the fact that after Henry’s death there was no challenge to Richard for the throne before his coronation shows that the nobility trusted this heir to rule, a feat unachieved since the coronation of William II. This implies that although Henry had failed at preparing his sons to rule the Angevin Empire, he had at least ensured that his sons inherited a strong crown.
Notes
[1] Gerald of Wales: The Death of Henry II and Comments on the Angevin Family, from De Instructione Principis (On the Instruction of a Prince)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/geraldwales-dip1.asp, accessed 5th November 2013
[2] Ibid
[3] Jordan W.C., Europe in the High Middle Ages, London, 2002, p.155
[4] Roger of Hoveden: The Revolt of 1173-74, from The Chronicle
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1173hoveden.asp, accessed 5th November 2013
[5] Warren W.L., King John, Yale, 1997, p.29
[6] Gerald of Wales: On Henry II and his sons, from The Topography of Ireland, Chapters 49-50
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/geraldwales-ire1.asp, accessed 5th November 2013
[7] Clanchy M.T., England and its Rulers 1066-1307, Oxford ,2006, p.119
[8] Gerald of Wales: On Henry II and his sons, from The Topography of Ireland, Chapters 49-50
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/geraldwales-ire1.asp, accessed 5th November2013
[9] William of Newburgh, cited in McGlynn S., `King John and the French invasion of England`, BBC History, Vol. 11, No. 6, Bristol, 2010, p.24-29, p.25; The Barnwell Chronicler, , cited in McGlynn S., `King John and the French invasion of England`, BBC History, Vol. 11, No. 6, Bristol, 2010, p.24-29, p.25; Anonymous of Béthune, cited in McGlynn S., `King John and the French invasion of England`, BBC History, Vol. 11, No. 6, Bristol, 2010, p.24-29, p.25
[10] Asbridge T., The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land, London, 2012, p.376
[11] Clanchy M.T., England and its Rulers, p.117
[12] Asbridge T., The Crusades, p.376
[13] Warren W.L., King John, p.29
[14] Witton D., `The Society of Northern Europe in the High Middle Ages 900-1200`, The Oxford History of Medieval Europe, Oxford, 1992, p.109-164, p.160
[15] Ibid, p.159
[16] Asbridge T., The Crusades, p.378
Bibliography
Asbridge T., The Crusades: The war for the Holy Land, London, 2012
Barber M., The Two Cities: Medieval Europe 1050-1320, London, 2003
Carpenter D., A Legacy of the Lionheart, BBC History, Vol.13 No.6., 2012
Clanchy M.T., England and its Rulers 1066-1307, Oxford ,2006
Gerald of Wales: On Henry II and his sons, from The Topography of Ireland, Chapters 49-50
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/geraldwales-ire1.asp, accessed 5th November 2013
Gerald of Wales: The Death of Henry II and Comments on the Angevin Family, from De Instructione Principis (On the Instruction of a Prince)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/geraldwales-dip1.asp, accessed 5th November 2013
Jordan W.C., Europe in the High Middle Ages, London, 2002
McGlynn S., `King John and the French invasion of England`, BBC History, Vol. 11, No. 6.
Roger of Hoveden: The Revolt of 1173-74, from The Chronicle
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1173hoveden.asp, accessed 5th November 2013
Roger of Hoveden: The Revolt of 1173-74, from The Chronicle
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1183hovden.asp, accessed 5th November 2013
William Newburgh, The Barnwell Chronicler, and the Anonymous of Béthune cited in McGlynn S., `King John and the French invasion of England`, BBC History, Vol. 11, No. 6, Bristol, 2010, p.24-29
Warren W.L., King John, Yale, 1997
Witton D., `The Society of Northern Europe in the High Middle Ages 900-1200`, The Oxford History of Medieval Europe, Oxford, 1992, p.109-16
How you can Follow Us!