‘King Henry II was personally responsible for the Great rebellion of 1173-1174.’

How far do you agree with this view?

Known also as the “Great War”[1] of 1173 to 1174, the Great rebellion affected both King and country as Henry II was in the midst of restoring the reign of his grandfather Henry I after the disastrous reign that was ruled by his cousin King Stephen I. To be personally responsible for a huge event that changed the course of history quite permanently is quite astounding, Henry II was of course responsible for it, but the question is to what extent was the whole of it brought about by one man; the then current king. To be sure some of Henry II’s actions and decisions perhaps ill made did lead the coming about of rifts and struggles but although he may be called responsible for initiating the ideas that forwarded the rebellion there are others far more responsible for the Great rebellion than him. Greedy and power-hungry friends, relatives and subjects all joined forces to dethrone the king for often nothing more than the chance of reduced taxes or a financial bonus when it was all over. The wider circumstances and issues they helped to develop the rebellion were not in Henry’s control and many people jumped on the band wagon as it rolled by full of revilers for something to do. As a king Henry made decisions that he felt were best for the country and its people in the long term, unfortunately for him these measures and rulings were disliked and deemed unnecessary, interfering and restrictive. Yet these measures only had to have been taken due to Stephen the previous king who died leaving Henry with a country in turmoil and in dire need of help.

King Stephen began his rule in 1135 and spent most of it trying to protect his claim to the throne. Right from his appointment he was continually protecting his northern lands from the Scottish kings who made multiple invasions. In 1135 David I of Scotland “invaded...and occupied Cumberland and Northumberland”[2], surprisingly though this was to help support his niece’s to the English throne, the Empress Matilda, rather than an attempt to take England for his own. As such it seemed that Stephen’s enemies were all uniting against him and he faced serious difficulty in his attempts to keep his lands together. Truces were made but following uprisings in the “Welsh marches” and “fighting...in Normandy” meant that Stephen was stretched to all sides of his realm. By the time his rule finished in 1154, he had faced several attacks from Scotland, uprisings across all areas of his extended rule that feared his weak leadership and multiple dethroning attempts plotted by Matilda and her husband. Some have described this period of time as “’Anarchy’”[3], an accurate term, during Stephen’s reign the government nearly disappeared he lost support of key Earls such as Earl Robert who went on to support Matilda’s claim to the throne. Lack of support from Bishops also meant bad news for Stephen, losing backing from important men like Waleran who had ties to other rival kingdoms “cousin of Louis VI of France”[4]. His reign saw a six year civil war (1141-47) proleptic of the rebellion in Henry’s reign. Despite this he was still regarded as “rex piissimus”[5] and so it seems that he would have been more suited to the church. He had no skill at siege warfare simply letting prisoners go or avoiding attacking strategic places for fear of spiritual retribution “avoided besieging Ludlow”[6]. He was a different kind of king to his predecessors and as such the people were unsure of him and were quite sure that they preferred the traditional qualities possessed by Henry I. His rule was a failure due to poor judgment, is court was run by self-serving fools and thus comparisons were drawn between him and the great Henry I. With government weakened and half-working the English kingdom was passed over to Henry II in a poor state, its people were scared and divided and the nobleman prayed that Henry would be as successful and as good a king as was Henry I. Having received his weakened kingdom and as a man who was raised to be a king, he knew exactly what needed to be done in the kingdom to ensure peace and a steady reign and so he began rebuilding what had fallen down. Unfortunately for Henry II his reforms although for the better made him many enemies and his decisions and actions were also perceived very unfavourably, not least by his own immediate family.

Henry II ruled England amongst his other provinces, counties and duchies from 1154 to 1189. And within two years it had seemed that “peace was established...government functioned smoothly”[7], a tremendous achievement and one that earned him favour in the eyes of his nobles and lesser subjects. Yet factions arose and friends divided, perhaps we can pin point it to the moment Henry II covertly married Eleanor of Aquitaine after Louis VII of France decided he wanted another divorce. This created great political arguments and divisions, as by marrying Eleanor of Aquitaine Henry II came into possession of a vast expanse of land; Aquitaine which was previously under feudal partnership to the king of France. Eleanor made this move to protect her lands and her heritage, and to retain a certain degree of independence as much as she could have from her husband. Similar feelings were within Henry II’s son also called Henry the ‘young king’ at 18 in 1170 he was crowned but he still had none of the lands promised to him and when he was crowned again in 1172 with his queen he felt quite strongly that he was denied the chance to practice being a king or feudal overlord or even simply denied a place for him and his new wife to live, and as such he resented his father. As Jordan Fantosome remarked “a king without a realm is at loss for something to do”[8] and so it was therefore no surprise that when in 1172 Henry II decided to allot his youngest son Prince John, who was at the time six years old, three castles located in Mirebeau, Chinon and Loudon, Henry the ‘young king’ felt angry and betrayed. Though not old enough to take part in the Great rebellion, “six year-old John became the pretext for a mighty struggle between the two Henrys”[9] and he was the catalyst and the young king without a realm that was once at loss for something to do, was at a loss no more. He threw himself into the plan to remove his father from the throne and be crowned officially in his stead.

Destined to be by law the next king, the young Henry became distant from his father and soon began plotting with his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine. Yet Jones argues that Eleanor and her sons rebelled against their husband, father and kings because they were “politically disenchanted”[10]. He goes on to suggest that the reason Eleanor became involved is because she found her “political role undermined”[11] and her “independent control over her duchy...eroded”[12]. Having married Henry under the pretext of being able to keep and control her lands Jones aptly describes her feelings in that she felt her power was like the young Henry’s “hollow”[13]. Both the young Henry and Eleanor had lands assigned to and designated for them, but both were unable to fully use and develop their lands or exercise their power due to the control measure Henry II placed down. As such I find I totally agree with Jones where he writes “it was not an entirely selfish rebellion”[14], yes they obviously would like the independence and power and resources that Henry II had, but at least on Eleanor’s part it was also about preserving the kingdom for all her sons and ensuring that they all had a taste of running and being an overlord of an area of land no matter how small. Politically disenchanted? Or wise to what was going on around her, with four sons all growing up and knowing that only one will be the king Eleanor recognised that in order for Henry II to keep his throne and crown their children needed something else to occupy them with and satisfy them until their turn came to succeed. Yet unfortunately for Henry II he neither recognised this nor wished to, he was more concerned with keeping his people pacified after the slaughter of Thomas Becket in 1170. Through this neglect to his family, especially his sons it is true what Carpenter says, that there was “an explosion within the royal family”[15] and this “provided an opportunity for...internal and external foes”, Henry’s enemies and ill-wishers a chance to step in and influence the new events and happenings. This idea was even recorded by chroniclers of the time, Peter of Blois wrote that the young king had acted “unadvisedly, by the counsel and suggestions of a treacherous faction”[16]. It therefore seems that there were two sides to the rebellions. The Royal side including Eleanor, young Henry, Richard, Geoffrey and more extensively Louis VII and the public side which including revolting barons, sheriffs, other noblemen and general subjects. And it is this public side which is being labelled as the “treacherous faction”[17].

We know the Royal side rebelled to try and win back rights and to show Henry that he needed to share his power with his sons and allow Eleanor to rule her duchy as it suited her. The agenda of the public side however was quite different. Under the pretext of proclaiming Henry a bad and immoral king after the murder of Thomas Becket in 1170, revilers saw this wickedness as a means to deprive Henry of his rule, he was no longer deemed a suitable and magnificent king as his grandfather Henry I was or a pious and religious man as Stephen was, but instead a murderer who had no respect for the church or indeed his own family. General public opinion was that the rebellion was a punishment from God upon Henry because of his involvement with Becket’s death, killing an Archbishop in the eyes of the public as well as the eyes of the church was a serious crime and he was indeed excommunicated for it pardoned only two years later in 1172, but his people did not pardon him and as the cult of St Thomas a Becket (as he was later known) grew, favourable opinions of Henry II diminished.

Ralph Diceto a dean of St Paul’s, believed that the barons joined the young Henry’s cause “not because they regarded his as the juster cause, but because the father...trampling...necks of the proud and haughty”[18] and because he was “overthrowing...castles”[19] that they had built during the disorganized reign of king Stephen. In short the viewed Henry II as to demanding, too interfering, too heavy handed and saw that if they backed this young and inexperienced potential ruler they would be able to heavily influence the way the country was run. Henry did interfere a lot with the way his nobility and lesser nobility operated. In 1166 eleven years into Henry II’s reign he issued the Cartae Baronum, a royal survey of the Barons commissioned by the treasury[20] with this Henry “demanded that all his barons send him in writing the names of their tenants and how much knight service each of them owed”[21]. This measure although perhaps necessary in order for Henry to understand how much was in his kingdom and how much he could tax, similar to William I’s doomsday book, was not regarded as such by his barons. Rather they saw it as invasive to their privacy and harsh. Suddenly the king might discover the some of them had been underpaying tax, or should be providing more knight service, for the barons it meant being told how to run their lands and control their people and they did not like that. Henry II was not careful, he was quick and to the point. Similar to the Cartae Baronum Henry also issued the Inquest of the Sheriffs in 1170 which was a follow up after the dismissal of “large numbers of his sheriffs in 1155 and 1162”[22] was to enquire into and evaluate “malpractice in local government”[23]. Henry planned as before to remove sheriffs who were not effectively doing their job, clearly this enquiry was needed as twenty-two of his twenty-nine sheriffs were removed from office, yet despite this being a perfectly natural royal decision one that had been used before and was to be used by John in 1213 and later, the sheriffs who were dismissed joined the public rebellion side along with the barons and backed the young king to the throne. Along with these two public displays of Henry’s kingly power there was the Constitution in 1164 and the Assize in 1166 of Clarendon. These set out rules and guidelines that were later to become the new principles for parliament and government. It can also be seen as an attempt to lay down records of English law. Reforms meant new rules and laws and Henry’s subjects rebelled at the idea that they would potentially have to change how they worked and looked after their land to fit new rules that were not beneficial to them, extra knight service etc. Was Henry greedy and interfering? Certainly he was imposing laws and regulations upon people who were his subjects and that were for the benefit of the country, perhaps it was all about personal gain, how much money can he pour into the treasury and therefore have to spend on his entourage and parties. However I would argue, that all that he did falls under the role of being a king. Henry interfered, so he knew his people, he knew how much land they owned, how many animals they had, how much money they owed. His greed can perhaps be put down to care. If he taxes his people gently across the years if a war occurs there is already money in the coffers to pay for it else wise it would include a huge immediate tax which results to the effect of ‘we cannot afford that’. Henry II did his job to the best of his ability. Having received the kingdom in a pretty poor condition form Stephen he implemented reforms and restitutions that were for the long term benefit of Britannia and her people. If the reason the rebellion came about is because the king cared about his people and country then yes Henry is totally responsible. And perhaps a more ruthless king may have avoided such a response simply by glaring at any usurpers.

Maybe the fair Eleanor is to blame. Having first been married to Louis VII and produced no sons, which then became the reason of divorce

[1] T. Purser, Medieval England 1042-1228, Heinemann 2004, p150

[2] R. Huscroft, Ruling England 1042-1217, Pearson Education Limited 2005, p72

[3] R. Huscroft, Ruling England 1042-1217, Pearson Education Limited 2005, p74

[4] T. Purser, Medieval England 1042-1228, Heinemann 2004, p125

[5] T. Purser, Medieval England 1042-1228, Heinemann 2004, p132

[6] T. Purser, Medieval England 1042-1228, Heinemann 2004, p132

[7] T. Purser, Medieval England 1042-1228, Heinemann 2004, p134

[8] Jordan Fantosome, contemporary poet

[9] F. McLynn, Lionheart and Lackland King Richard King John and the Wars of Conquest, Cape 2006, pp38-52

[10] D. Jones, The Plantagenets The kings who made England, Harper Collins 2012, p1165

[11] D. Jones, The Plantagenets The kings who made England, Harper Collins 2012, p1165

[12] D. Jones, The Plantagenets The kings who made England, Harper Collins 2012, p1165

[13] D. Jones, The Plantagenets The kings who made England, Harper Collins 2012, p1166

[14] D. Jones, The Plantagenets The kings who made England, Harper Collins 2012, p1166

[15] D. Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery, Penguin 2003, p224

[16] Peter of Blois, Chronicler

[17] Peter of Blois, Chronicler

[18] Ralph de Diceto, W. L. Warren, King John, 1978, p175

[19] Ralph de Diceto, W. L. Warren, King John, 1978, p175

[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_feudal_barony#Cartae_Baronum

[21] D. Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery, Penguin 2003, p201

[22] R. Huscroft, Ruling England 1042-1217, Pearson Education Limited 2005, p163

[23] R. Huscroft, Ruling England 1042-1217, Pearson Education Limited 2005, p163

	Created by marialidd almost 10 years ago

BA Hons Medieval History (The Angevin Kings of England 1154-1216) Note on ‘King Henry II was personally responsible for the Great rebellion of 1173-1174.’ How far do you agree with this view?, created by marialidd on 16/05/2014.

‘King Henry II was personally responsible for the Great rebellion of 1173-1174.’ How far do you agree with this view?