What do you think?
Rate this book
Henry III: The Son of Magna Carta
Henry III became King of England within days of his ninth birthday. His father, King John, had overseen a disastrous period in English history and the boy king inherited a country embroiled in a bitter, entrenched war with itself. With barons inviting a French prince to take the crown, the young Henry was forced to rely on others to maintain his position. As he grew into adulthood, Henry had to manage the transition to a personal rule, wrenching power from men who had held it almost unchecked for years. With a settled position at home, attention could turn to the recovery of lost territory abroad and the salvaging of Henry’s family reputation. All would not go according to plan. Failures abroad led to trouble back in England as restless barons became disillusioned. They found a figurehead in Simon de Montfort, a man who would transform himself from Henry’s favourite to a de facto king. Imprisoned and stripped of his power, Henry would again have to fight for his kingdom, now relying not on older mentors but on his immensely capable son. Henry was handed a monarchy in peril, a crown that was cracked and tarnished. He was given fifty-six years to mend the damage his father had done. It would spell over half a century of highs and lows in a country crying out for stability; the final measure of Henry’s achievement displayed in the crown that he left to his son, Edward I.
304 pages, Hardcover
Published October 15, 2016
About the author
Matthew Lewis
21 books109 followersMatthew Lewis is the author of histories and historical fiction novels about Richard III and the Wars of the Roses. The medieval period is a particular passion of Matthew’s, a passion he hopes to share through his blog. He is dedicated to teaching and discussing this period, operating two history podcasts and providing bite-sized facts to his Twitter and Facebook following.
Lewis has degree in Law and currently lives in Shropshire.
Lewis has degree in Law and currently lives in Shropshire.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 17, 2026
Well written if a bit revisionist. Lacks footnotes, which was really really aggravating - Lewis doesn't hold Montford in much esteem a but doesn't footnote any sources. Meanwhile the bibliography is like 10 books long, which is a bit scarce.
This Charter represented the reversal of 150 years of erosion of the rights of free men – and it is an important distinction that it was aimed only at free men, which was around half the population of England by this point. Access to pasture, food and fuel closed off for years was suddenly reopened, and the removal of the death penalty for poaching deer marked a rebalancing of the relationship between the king and his people – a promise to punish their transgressions less harshly. The Charter of the Forest was the longest-standing statute in English law, remaining in force until 1971, over 750 years after it was enacted.
Throughout July a fresh wave of foreigners arrived in England and they were showered with extravagant gifts by the king. Queen Eleanor’s family, known as the Savoyards, began to arrive and land prime offices and rich posts from Henry. Prominent amongst the new arrivals was Peter of Savoy, Eleanor’s uncle, who Henry would make Earl of Richmond in 1241 ...
The appeal to Henry perhaps lay in the loyalty he could expect from these men due to the ties of family and patronage, something he was continually unable to find in the English barons, but if he thought the answer was to replace the despised Poitevins with a Savoyard faction and that the barons would welcome such a turn of events he was very wrong.
The lack of a Pope to act as a restraining figure saw the swift disintegration of a quarter of a century of peace between England and France. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hugh de Lusignan was at the core of the troubles, along with Henry’s mother who, Matthew of Westminster wrote, ‘the French call the most impious Jezebel’.
Matthew Paris recorded a further complaint, ‘and it was no slight one’, that Henry had not employed the services of a Justiciar, a Chancellor or a Treasurer in years, ‘unlike his noble predecessors’, and instead surrounded himself with ‘only such persons as obeyed his pleasure in everything, provided that it was advantageous to himself, and such as did not seek the advancement of the common weal, but their own especial benefit, by collecting money and obtaining wardships and revenues for themselves’.
It is noteworthy that Henry Increased his son's role willingly and began to give him authority during his lifetime, in stark contrast to the problems that dogged Henry II for his unwillingness to relax his own grip on his sprawling empire. Henry III’s moves might reflect a lesson learned from that episode of history and might also be an acknowledgment by the king of the impact his own lack of experience had on him, at least in his early reign, if indeed he ever shook it off.
the Pope had induced Henry to agree to buy a kingdom that he then had to take an army to win, only to have to pay rent for the Crown to the Pope if he managed it. The Sicilian Affair has long dogged the reputation of Henry III, such as it is, because it is viewed as a frivolous whim, an utter waste of money that Henry did not have to disburse.
It is telling that no other mention of the Church is made and that this brief mention allows for the reform of the Church by a lay council which, although it included a few bishops, was essentially temporal. It represents an exertion of control by the State over the Church that marks another signal of a sea change and the perception that Roman interference was problematical.
The Provisions of Oxford represent another Magna Carta moment in English history. Reform was no longer a bargain but a weapon once more to be suspended above the head of a king viewed as unpopular and tyrannical.
In January 1263, Henry agreed to be bound by the Provisions of Oxford again. It is not recorded what persuaded him to sign back up to the restraining reforms but it may have been a combination of his son’s attitude, Simon’s increasing influence and power, and the unwillingness of the barons to back down from the continued brink. It might be seen as a mark of weakness that the king instead decided to step back, but it is to be noted that his father has been roundly condemned for centuries for failing to do precisely that.
The astonishing aspect was the tone of the judicial type of authority given to a Capetian king of France over the internal politics of the Angevin kingdom of England but it lays bare Henry’s willingness to submit to the authority of others he considered his peers or superiors. This may come as little surprise in a man who had, from the age of nine until his current age of fifty-six, been a king who owed feudal allegiance to a greater power. The issue of his odd, awkward position may have lain at the heart of many of Henry’s problems as he struggled to attain supremacy over a Church and kingdom that could always appeal to a power higher than him and having always to consider the rights and authority of the Pope when he tried to impose himself on his barons.
During this episode Prince Edward was to display the kind of political and military astuteness that would define his own reign and which seems completely lacking in his father.
The problem with high ideals and noble aims is all too frequently the involvement of mere mortals. Simon’s problems began when royal castles taken into custody were passed out between his own sons. The place of Simon de Montfort in English history was defined by the year that followed the Battle of Lewes and appeared unshakeable until fairly recently. Any Victorian scholar would have placed Simon high on a pedestal as the father of the English parliamentary system and of Western democracy. His bloodthirsty crusading lust and anti-Semitism were largely forgotten. There was nothing that Simon did meekly. He was a fierce soldier, a fierce crusader, a fiercely pious man and a fierce reformer. He combined with these traits a fierce hatred of Jews and heretics of any kind, a fierce conviction of the rightness of his cause and a fierce avarice that was fed by his new-found power. How much of what followed Lewes was genuine, far-sighted reform that places Simon centuries ahead of his peers and how much was desperate, enforced, short-term realism is possibly open to debate.
The distinction offered between Simon’s parliament and previous sessions with elected representatives is that others, including that of 1254, had sought approval for taxation from the representatives whereas Simon sought their opinion and approval on policy matters. It is from this distinction that the development of parliamentary representation, a House of Commons and even the notion of democracy in England has traditionally been traced.
The lands of Simon and his supporters were taken into the king’s hands along with anything any royalist had seized since the battle in an act of opportunism. This was a sound move since it took the idea of a scrabble for booty which would inevitably lead to ugly fighting and lengthy legal suits off the table, but inevitably Henry got it wrong. With a large new pot of patronage to distribute, Henry began to reach in and throw handfuls in random directions. There seemed to be no plan or measured approach to the rewarding of loyal favourites so that a few received far too much and many got far too little.
The disinherited had been offered their olive branch and route to salvation and those who refused it had been roundly crushed and embarrassed by Edward, who by now was surely the strong arm of his father’s regime if and when one was needed. The Second Barons’ War was over, bar the messy settlements that had to be concluded. The uprising had not been quite as serious in nature as that John had suffered and was led by one figurehead with only narrow baronial support, yet it had achieved the custody of the king and a year of rule by someone other than the monarch, secured by force that was a kind of template for Oliver Cromwell four hundred years later.
Prince Edward had won a very different, but complimentary, reputation as a general and soldier. Part of the reason barons had always been willing to rise against Henry was the king’s military incompetence which made it easy for them. Edward had shown that the Crown now had a strong sword arm ready to enforce its will if offers of peace were ignored. It was a powerful mix.
Louis was succeeded by his son Philip III of France. During Louis’ forty-four years on the throne a difficult and fractious relationship between the Angevin and Capetian kings had been reduced to a personal friendship cemented by mutual admiration between men who considered themselves brothers and whose sons were first cousins by virtue of their mothers. It was a golden age in Anglo-French relations during the medieval period that was not repeated. Within a century, Henry’s great-grandson Edward III would initiate the Hundred Years War with France.
[Conclusion]
However, the unforeseen and unavoidable consequence of Marshal’s unlikely and glittering successes, which deserve far more attention than they receive, was the long-term weakening of kingship in England.
A new tone was set, in the absence of a king in possession of his authority, for the relationship between the king and his barons. Cooperation was no longer wished for: it was demanded and expected. Once the path had been trodden, retracing steps would prove very difficult.
From the Conquest onward, England fell into a cycle, at roughly fifty-year intervals, of the most serious kinds of rebellions and civil wars that can be plotted.
The other major factor at play was Henry’s father’s decision to sell the country to the Pope. Henry was in the odd position of being a vassal-king. He was a crowned and anointed King of England, but he had a feudal master.
Henry’s failings were equally obvious. Although able to find cash for his building projects, Henry was perennially broke. It is true that the papacy was bleeding England and that the Church and the barons were not keen to give money to the Crown from their newly adopted positions of empowerment, but when Henry did have funds he was accused by his peers of wasting it and, to make matters worse, wasting it all too often on
part of Henry’s problem here was in the new bargain that Magna Carta represented between the king and his barons under which they expected complaints to be heard and corrected in return for grants of taxation. No king had been
) Military matters always evaded Henry, too, in a way grasped thoroughly by men like Marshal, Simon de Montfort and even his brother Richard,
Another reason Henry is forgotten is that he is easy to lose amidst the towering, monumental figures of his reign. Sir William Marshal, the greatest knight, Peter des Roches, the warrior-bishop, Hubert de Burgh, the last great Justiciar, Simon de Montfort, the supposed father of Parliament, and even Prince Edward would have been memorable in any time, and simply pushed Henry to the sidelines of his own kingship in terms of the historical memory.
Henry’s knack seems to have been to probe at the re-establishment of his powers without ever going too far. He wriggled under baronial demands where his father had kicked and marched to war. Henry was always able to bend in a way that evaded his father but perhaps saved the Crown.
As ties with the Norman and Angevin Continental lands faded, a national identity that was new, and decidedly English, was born. This was developed by Edward I and perhaps completed by Edward III, who finally grasped and enshrined a notion of English nationhood.
King John is remembered as the father of Magna Carta but it was during Henry’s reign that it was truly birthed. The Magna Carta of 1215 would have been forgotten as a failed attempt at peace if it weren’t for William Marshal’s clever reinvention of the sword as a shield. It was under Henry’s careful, if not necessarily intentional, management that it was to become the foundation of constitutions around the world.
This Charter represented the reversal of 150 years of erosion of the rights of free men – and it is an important distinction that it was aimed only at free men, which was around half the population of England by this point. Access to pasture, food and fuel closed off for years was suddenly reopened, and the removal of the death penalty for poaching deer marked a rebalancing of the relationship between the king and his people – a promise to punish their transgressions less harshly. The Charter of the Forest was the longest-standing statute in English law, remaining in force until 1971, over 750 years after it was enacted.
Throughout July a fresh wave of foreigners arrived in England and they were showered with extravagant gifts by the king. Queen Eleanor’s family, known as the Savoyards, began to arrive and land prime offices and rich posts from Henry. Prominent amongst the new arrivals was Peter of Savoy, Eleanor’s uncle, who Henry would make Earl of Richmond in 1241 ...
The appeal to Henry perhaps lay in the loyalty he could expect from these men due to the ties of family and patronage, something he was continually unable to find in the English barons, but if he thought the answer was to replace the despised Poitevins with a Savoyard faction and that the barons would welcome such a turn of events he was very wrong.
The lack of a Pope to act as a restraining figure saw the swift disintegration of a quarter of a century of peace between England and France. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hugh de Lusignan was at the core of the troubles, along with Henry’s mother who, Matthew of Westminster wrote, ‘the French call the most impious Jezebel’.
Matthew Paris recorded a further complaint, ‘and it was no slight one’, that Henry had not employed the services of a Justiciar, a Chancellor or a Treasurer in years, ‘unlike his noble predecessors’, and instead surrounded himself with ‘only such persons as obeyed his pleasure in everything, provided that it was advantageous to himself, and such as did not seek the advancement of the common weal, but their own especial benefit, by collecting money and obtaining wardships and revenues for themselves’.
It is noteworthy that Henry Increased his son's role willingly and began to give him authority during his lifetime, in stark contrast to the problems that dogged Henry II for his unwillingness to relax his own grip on his sprawling empire. Henry III’s moves might reflect a lesson learned from that episode of history and might also be an acknowledgment by the king of the impact his own lack of experience had on him, at least in his early reign, if indeed he ever shook it off.
the Pope had induced Henry to agree to buy a kingdom that he then had to take an army to win, only to have to pay rent for the Crown to the Pope if he managed it. The Sicilian Affair has long dogged the reputation of Henry III, such as it is, because it is viewed as a frivolous whim, an utter waste of money that Henry did not have to disburse.
It is telling that no other mention of the Church is made and that this brief mention allows for the reform of the Church by a lay council which, although it included a few bishops, was essentially temporal. It represents an exertion of control by the State over the Church that marks another signal of a sea change and the perception that Roman interference was problematical.
The Provisions of Oxford represent another Magna Carta moment in English history. Reform was no longer a bargain but a weapon once more to be suspended above the head of a king viewed as unpopular and tyrannical.
In January 1263, Henry agreed to be bound by the Provisions of Oxford again. It is not recorded what persuaded him to sign back up to the restraining reforms but it may have been a combination of his son’s attitude, Simon’s increasing influence and power, and the unwillingness of the barons to back down from the continued brink. It might be seen as a mark of weakness that the king instead decided to step back, but it is to be noted that his father has been roundly condemned for centuries for failing to do precisely that.
The astonishing aspect was the tone of the judicial type of authority given to a Capetian king of France over the internal politics of the Angevin kingdom of England but it lays bare Henry’s willingness to submit to the authority of others he considered his peers or superiors. This may come as little surprise in a man who had, from the age of nine until his current age of fifty-six, been a king who owed feudal allegiance to a greater power. The issue of his odd, awkward position may have lain at the heart of many of Henry’s problems as he struggled to attain supremacy over a Church and kingdom that could always appeal to a power higher than him and having always to consider the rights and authority of the Pope when he tried to impose himself on his barons.
During this episode Prince Edward was to display the kind of political and military astuteness that would define his own reign and which seems completely lacking in his father.
The problem with high ideals and noble aims is all too frequently the involvement of mere mortals. Simon’s problems began when royal castles taken into custody were passed out between his own sons. The place of Simon de Montfort in English history was defined by the year that followed the Battle of Lewes and appeared unshakeable until fairly recently. Any Victorian scholar would have placed Simon high on a pedestal as the father of the English parliamentary system and of Western democracy. His bloodthirsty crusading lust and anti-Semitism were largely forgotten. There was nothing that Simon did meekly. He was a fierce soldier, a fierce crusader, a fiercely pious man and a fierce reformer. He combined with these traits a fierce hatred of Jews and heretics of any kind, a fierce conviction of the rightness of his cause and a fierce avarice that was fed by his new-found power. How much of what followed Lewes was genuine, far-sighted reform that places Simon centuries ahead of his peers and how much was desperate, enforced, short-term realism is possibly open to debate.
The distinction offered between Simon’s parliament and previous sessions with elected representatives is that others, including that of 1254, had sought approval for taxation from the representatives whereas Simon sought their opinion and approval on policy matters. It is from this distinction that the development of parliamentary representation, a House of Commons and even the notion of democracy in England has traditionally been traced.
The lands of Simon and his supporters were taken into the king’s hands along with anything any royalist had seized since the battle in an act of opportunism. This was a sound move since it took the idea of a scrabble for booty which would inevitably lead to ugly fighting and lengthy legal suits off the table, but inevitably Henry got it wrong. With a large new pot of patronage to distribute, Henry began to reach in and throw handfuls in random directions. There seemed to be no plan or measured approach to the rewarding of loyal favourites so that a few received far too much and many got far too little.
The disinherited had been offered their olive branch and route to salvation and those who refused it had been roundly crushed and embarrassed by Edward, who by now was surely the strong arm of his father’s regime if and when one was needed. The Second Barons’ War was over, bar the messy settlements that had to be concluded. The uprising had not been quite as serious in nature as that John had suffered and was led by one figurehead with only narrow baronial support, yet it had achieved the custody of the king and a year of rule by someone other than the monarch, secured by force that was a kind of template for Oliver Cromwell four hundred years later.
Prince Edward had won a very different, but complimentary, reputation as a general and soldier. Part of the reason barons had always been willing to rise against Henry was the king’s military incompetence which made it easy for them. Edward had shown that the Crown now had a strong sword arm ready to enforce its will if offers of peace were ignored. It was a powerful mix.
Louis was succeeded by his son Philip III of France. During Louis’ forty-four years on the throne a difficult and fractious relationship between the Angevin and Capetian kings had been reduced to a personal friendship cemented by mutual admiration between men who considered themselves brothers and whose sons were first cousins by virtue of their mothers. It was a golden age in Anglo-French relations during the medieval period that was not repeated. Within a century, Henry’s great-grandson Edward III would initiate the Hundred Years War with France.
[Conclusion]
However, the unforeseen and unavoidable consequence of Marshal’s unlikely and glittering successes, which deserve far more attention than they receive, was the long-term weakening of kingship in England.
A new tone was set, in the absence of a king in possession of his authority, for the relationship between the king and his barons. Cooperation was no longer wished for: it was demanded and expected. Once the path had been trodden, retracing steps would prove very difficult.
From the Conquest onward, England fell into a cycle, at roughly fifty-year intervals, of the most serious kinds of rebellions and civil wars that can be plotted.
The other major factor at play was Henry’s father’s decision to sell the country to the Pope. Henry was in the odd position of being a vassal-king. He was a crowned and anointed King of England, but he had a feudal master.
Henry’s failings were equally obvious. Although able to find cash for his building projects, Henry was perennially broke. It is true that the papacy was bleeding England and that the Church and the barons were not keen to give money to the Crown from their newly adopted positions of empowerment, but when Henry did have funds he was accused by his peers of wasting it and, to make matters worse, wasting it all too often on
part of Henry’s problem here was in the new bargain that Magna Carta represented between the king and his barons under which they expected complaints to be heard and corrected in return for grants of taxation. No king had been
) Military matters always evaded Henry, too, in a way grasped thoroughly by men like Marshal, Simon de Montfort and even his brother Richard,
Another reason Henry is forgotten is that he is easy to lose amidst the towering, monumental figures of his reign. Sir William Marshal, the greatest knight, Peter des Roches, the warrior-bishop, Hubert de Burgh, the last great Justiciar, Simon de Montfort, the supposed father of Parliament, and even Prince Edward would have been memorable in any time, and simply pushed Henry to the sidelines of his own kingship in terms of the historical memory.
Henry’s knack seems to have been to probe at the re-establishment of his powers without ever going too far. He wriggled under baronial demands where his father had kicked and marched to war. Henry was always able to bend in a way that evaded his father but perhaps saved the Crown.
As ties with the Norman and Angevin Continental lands faded, a national identity that was new, and decidedly English, was born. This was developed by Edward I and perhaps completed by Edward III, who finally grasped and enshrined a notion of English nationhood.
King John is remembered as the father of Magna Carta but it was during Henry’s reign that it was truly birthed. The Magna Carta of 1215 would have been forgotten as a failed attempt at peace if it weren’t for William Marshal’s clever reinvention of the sword as a shield. It was under Henry’s careful, if not necessarily intentional, management that it was to become the foundation of constitutions around the world.
February 15, 2017
4.5* - Review to follow on my blog: https://wheretheresinktherespaper.wor...
June 5, 2023
This book brilliantly illustrates the interesting ruling of a forgotten English monarch from before its infancy until its end.
Deemed as boring by many when it comes to British history, and overshadowed by other famous contemporary historical names like his son, future King Edward I & and Simon Simon De Montfort, Historian Matthew Lewis presents one hell of a biography of Henry III, and the events that shaped him and his timing, revealing those that happened due to or as the result of his personality and his decision-making, and even due to the ambition and greed of others like Prince Louis of France, De Montfort, the Roman Catholic Church, and English barons.
What I loved the most about this book is that it’s very rich and informative without being inaccessible or boring, and it goes into details that I first couldn’t see why they are being tackled … but then later on I understood why: It’s because to tackle these would mean to point out and try to understand Henry’s influence & character.
The book does not only go into the British soil, but it also covers Henry’s reign under the political climate of European countries and empires during a period of time of great challenges when the Crusades were a main focus and importance to the Roman Catholic Church.
Reading into the final chapter, I loved the author’s interpretations and theories as to why Henry III was a forgotten king … but that’s not without kinda shaming and pitying history for overlooking such a great monarch.
Highly-recommended!
Deemed as boring by many when it comes to British history, and overshadowed by other famous contemporary historical names like his son, future King Edward I & and Simon Simon De Montfort, Historian Matthew Lewis presents one hell of a biography of Henry III, and the events that shaped him and his timing, revealing those that happened due to or as the result of his personality and his decision-making, and even due to the ambition and greed of others like Prince Louis of France, De Montfort, the Roman Catholic Church, and English barons.
What I loved the most about this book is that it’s very rich and informative without being inaccessible or boring, and it goes into details that I first couldn’t see why they are being tackled … but then later on I understood why: It’s because to tackle these would mean to point out and try to understand Henry’s influence & character.
The book does not only go into the British soil, but it also covers Henry’s reign under the political climate of European countries and empires during a period of time of great challenges when the Crusades were a main focus and importance to the Roman Catholic Church.
Reading into the final chapter, I loved the author’s interpretations and theories as to why Henry III was a forgotten king … but that’s not without kinda shaming and pitying history for overlooking such a great monarch.
Highly-recommended!
February 28, 2017
3.5 Stars
December 28, 2019
In respect of Henry III ( who reigned from 1217- 1272 ) , Darren Baker's hefty 'King Henry III-The Great King England Never Knew It Had', published a year later in 2017, could well be the defining work for some years to come.
Yet Mr Lewis' 2016 biography is heartily recommended . It is readable, source material is used constructively. He is critical of how 19th and even 20th century historians have praised Simon de Montfort , criticising their 'hindsight' approach, and arguing that de Montfort lost support from the barons fairly quickly in his a year or so as the de facto ruler of England between the battles of Lewes and Evesham. Therefore his drive for a wider based parliament was more pragmatic than idealistic.
The writer acknowledges the achievements of Henry III as a master builder, and highlights his failures as as military commander. He even suggests that Henry III may have been autistic.
Yet the crucial emphasis is on the use of the Magna Carta during this reign. During the minority of Henry III, in 1217 , William Marshal advised that Magna Carta was to be re-issued, and this course was followed. Instead of Magna Carta being an agreement that was forced upon King John for a few crucial weeks during 1215 by rebel barons. it was now being evoked by the Royalist side as it were. And Magna Carta was re-issued again in 1225, and again in 1237 by Henry III himself. There would be times when Henry III tried to back down from its terms. And of course- resentment and even civil war- still broke out : The Charter could not reconcile the interests of barons with royalty-particularly when the King was demanding money and service in overseas military campaigns. But Mr Lewis is adopting an interesting approach in dealing with the reign of Henry III which is welcome contribution to the study of 13th century England.
Yet Mr Lewis' 2016 biography is heartily recommended . It is readable, source material is used constructively. He is critical of how 19th and even 20th century historians have praised Simon de Montfort , criticising their 'hindsight' approach, and arguing that de Montfort lost support from the barons fairly quickly in his a year or so as the de facto ruler of England between the battles of Lewes and Evesham. Therefore his drive for a wider based parliament was more pragmatic than idealistic.
The writer acknowledges the achievements of Henry III as a master builder, and highlights his failures as as military commander. He even suggests that Henry III may have been autistic.
Yet the crucial emphasis is on the use of the Magna Carta during this reign. During the minority of Henry III, in 1217 , William Marshal advised that Magna Carta was to be re-issued, and this course was followed. Instead of Magna Carta being an agreement that was forced upon King John for a few crucial weeks during 1215 by rebel barons. it was now being evoked by the Royalist side as it were. And Magna Carta was re-issued again in 1225, and again in 1237 by Henry III himself. There would be times when Henry III tried to back down from its terms. And of course- resentment and even civil war- still broke out : The Charter could not reconcile the interests of barons with royalty-particularly when the King was demanding money and service in overseas military campaigns. But Mr Lewis is adopting an interesting approach in dealing with the reign of Henry III which is welcome contribution to the study of 13th century England.
April 11, 2025
An easy read but a jumbled mess. An attempt to raise the image of a King but left me thinking less of said monarch. A rather unusual book, the way the information is presented is straightforward and easily digestible, but the issue that Matthew Lewis faced with this particular book is that the reign of King Henry III is so incredibly long that the information could scarcely fit into a 400 page book, never mind the rather slim 254 pages that this one boasts (or doesn’t). The dates, events and names all become incredibly confusing between the years 1235-60.
I would recommend this to those who may have read a book that highlights the broad-strokes of Henry III’s reign already (I.e Dan Jones’ Plantagenets), but are not looking to take it to the truly academic levels of a Yale Monarchs book.
I would recommend this to those who may have read a book that highlights the broad-strokes of Henry III’s reign already (I.e Dan Jones’ Plantagenets), but are not looking to take it to the truly academic levels of a Yale Monarchs book.
October 20, 2022
This is a well written and consistently interesting book that holds you right up to the end.
Henry III isn't a particularly well known king, partly because his reign wasn't as momentous or explosive as those either side and also, possibly because it was so long. It gets overlooked a lot. Lewis brings out how precarious his grip on power was, even during the good years and how bad things appeared upon his accession. You come away from reading this with a real appreciation of just why Magna Carta came to be significant as more than what was intended.
The only fly in the ointment was Lewis having an imperfect understanding of the Anglo-Saxon Witan, seeing it as more than what it was, but that's a common error. This book encouraged me to see what else Lewis has written.
Henry III isn't a particularly well known king, partly because his reign wasn't as momentous or explosive as those either side and also, possibly because it was so long. It gets overlooked a lot. Lewis brings out how precarious his grip on power was, even during the good years and how bad things appeared upon his accession. You come away from reading this with a real appreciation of just why Magna Carta came to be significant as more than what was intended.
The only fly in the ointment was Lewis having an imperfect understanding of the Anglo-Saxon Witan, seeing it as more than what it was, but that's a common error. This book encouraged me to see what else Lewis has written.
September 20, 2020
To some extent a useful synopsis of Henry III's life with some interesting and valuable insights on his relationship with the Pope and his recalcitrant barons.
It suffers from some problems. One is that it is not well footnoted and there appear to be some errors. For example, the confrontation between William Brewer and Stephen Langton took place in January 1224 instead of 1223.
REad by all means but be alert if relying on it.
It suffers from some problems. One is that it is not well footnoted and there appear to be some errors. For example, the confrontation between William Brewer and Stephen Langton took place in January 1224 instead of 1223.
REad by all means but be alert if relying on it.
June 21, 2017
I know it looks like this book took me forever to read, but it really didn't. I initially received a Digital copy from the publisher, Amberley, but unfortunately had some issues with enlarging the text on my Kindle. I was not actually able to continue the book until my Library purchased it within the last month or so. Very well done, highly recommended. Full review to come.
September 28, 2018
A great read
October 23, 2022
A much needed book on Henry III. Very well written and interesting to boot.
December 30, 2023
Excellent biography of this forgotten King.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews