The Reign of Henry III

(1216 - 1272)
Focus points
• Relations with the aristocracy, foreigners, Simon de Montfort

• Reasons for and importance of the unrest of 1258–65: ‘the community

of the realm’; attempts to reform royal powers; consequences

• The nature of government and administration, finances, justice

• The importance of the Lord Edward and the last years of the reign
Historiography
F M Powicke, The Thirteenth Century (1965) Malevolent or misunderstood?
H Ridgeway (1980s)
R C Stacey, Politics, Policy and Finance
under Henry III, 1216–45 (1987) Benevolent and benign or fickle
D A Carpenter, The Reign of Henry III and foolhardy?
(1996)
D Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery
(2003)
A true tyrant or a ruler who sought
M Prestwich, Plantagenet England (2005)
harmony?
J Jobson, The First English Revolution,
(2012)
J R Maddicott, Simon de Montfort (2012)
Past questions
2010: How well did Henry III manage the English nobility?

2011: To what extent were the events of 1258–65 a response to Henry III’s failings as king?

2012: Assess the extent to which Henry III’s difficulties in England after 1258 arose from his favouring French advisers.

2013: What best explains the downfall of Simon de Montfort?

2014: ‘In the period from c.1240 Henry III’s government was destabilised by the failure of his continental policies.’
How valid is this claim?

2015: What best explains the problems Henry III faced in England after 1258?

2016: How far were the nobility to blame for the instability in the period 1232 – 1272?

2018: How effectively was England governed during the minority of Henry III?

2019: Why was the government of England so often in crisis in the years 1258 to 1265?
Minority 'Baronial Reform and Rebellion'
1216 Aged 9, succeeds King John 1258 Provisions of Oxford
1216-17 Civil war 1259 Provisions of Westminster; Treaty of Paris
1219-32 Hubert de Burgh, Justiciar, in power completed
1232-34 Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester (a 1261 Henry III recovers power (Treaty of Kingston), with
foreigner) in power support of Pope and King of France
1263 (early Summer) Second rebellion of Simon de
Montfort: temporarily victorious. (October) Henry III
Personal Rule
recovers power
1234 Henry III's personal rule begins
1264 Mise of Amiens: Louis IX condemns Provisions of
1236 Marries Eleanor of Provence. Last major Oxford. Second Barons’ War. Battle of Lewes (14
'Parliamentary' tax (1237) May): Simon de Montfort in power
1239 Birth of Henry's heir, 'The Lord Edward' (future 1265 Battle of Evesham (4 Aug): Henry III restored 1266
Edward I) Rebellion of earl of Derby & 'The Disinherited'
1242-3 Poitou campaign 1266 (October) The Dictum of Kenilworth
1244 'Paper Constitution' (some demands for elected 1267 Rebellion of earl of Gloucester
officials revived in 1248,1249 and 1255)
1247 Arrival of the Lusignans at Court
Aftermath
1252 'Alien' factions first quarrel
1269 Westminster Abbey completed
1253-4 Gascon Campaign
1270-74 Lord Edward sets off on Crusade
1257 New Councillors' Oath; Richard of Cornwall
becomes King of Germany; Welsh Campaign (Welsh 1272 Death of Henry III (and Richard of Cornwall earlier
revolt since 1256) in the year)
The Minority
• Carpenter: No King of England came to the throne in a more desperate situation than Henry III. He was
only nine and commanded less than half his kingdom’.
• Clanchy: At the time of William Marshal’s death in 1219 the beleaguered group who had improvised at the
coronation at Gloucester two and a half years earlier had succeeded.
• Asbridge: Marshal was no magician, but the progress made was remarkable. By 1219 he had done what he
could to consolidate Henry’s position, rebuilding the crown’s relationship with the aristocracy and
resurrecting the framework of government.
• Carpenter: Support did not depend exclusively on Marshal. First of all, John’s death deprived his opponents
of the personal cause of their rebellion. Secondly, Henry had the backing of the pope Also, Henry’s supports
lacked numbers but not prestige nor experience.
• Church: King John knew that he had left his son an uncertain future…The problem for Henry in these years
after 1219 was that he was a pawn in the hands of men who were pursuing their own aggrandisement, as
well as endeavouring to retain the favour of the boy who was being brought up under their control, so that,
when he came of age, he might confirm for them the riches they had acquired.
• Powicke: Hubert de Burgh became ‘isolated in his greatness’.
• Carpenter: ‘Bishop Peter des Roches’s regime had tested the most fundamental principle of Magna Carta
and proved its strength. The king was indeed now subject to the law, and could not arbitrarily deprive his
subjects of their rights and property.’
Judgements on Henry’s kingship
Carpenter: Henry, mindful of his father’s legacy and influenced by stories of his patron saint, sought
only to rule in concert and harmony with his political community. That Henry often failed to do so
should be seen as more a result of personal weaknesses rather than political theory.
Ridgeway: Henry’s peacefulness was both a strength and a weakness. He fostered peaceful conduct
amongst the magnates… However, peace was often achieved by appeasing his family, courtiers and
magnates. His government was on the whole lax and weak. It is sometimes argued that Henry’s
difficulties stemmed from his autocratic rule. However, this view is anachronistic.
Clanchy: Henry pursued a policy of sole royal authority. He deliberately sought to create an exalted
image of divinely inspired kingship.
Maddicott: Henry’s failure to consult, his exploitation of the church, his thriftlessness, his fiscal
harassment of the localities, his unwillingness or inability to discipline his local officials according to
the supposed terms of Magna Carta, and, more immediately and pressingly, by his excessive favour to
the Lusignans and his ill-judged pursuit of the Sicilian throne, had continued to accumulate…It was
the division of the court against the king that finally brought the regime to heel.
Jobson: Henry was a true tyrant due to his poor political judgment, failure to consult with magnates,
partiality for aliens, heavy financial exactions, oppressive officials, promotion of family interests.
Politically naïve. Could not foresee long-term consequences.
Continental policy (Poitou 1242-43; Gascony 1253-54)
• Poitou, 1242–1243: to recover the Angevin territory that had been lost by King John. An
ill-considered piece of opportunism, one that he threw himself into before he was ready.
• The failure was caused largely by inadequate finance. Henry castigated Poitevin
treachery. But his own inadequate generalship was also to blame: his indecision,
inactivity, and tendency to fall into traps meant that allies lost confidence, as they had in
1230. Poitou cost him a clear £80,000, leaving debts of £15,000.
• 1252 Henry was forced to recall de Montfort and put him on trial.
• His 1253 Gascon campaign was unpopular: the feudal summons was poorly supported,
and some of the magnates, notably the earl of Gloucester, arrived late; there were many
quarrels, even desertions.
• Henry brought about 300 knights. He also had his crusading treasure, approximately
£20,000, which partly explains why this was his only successful overseas campaign.
• Henry's strategy was cautious, he was generous with the aim of winning supporters; by
Christmas he was impoverished.
Aliens
It is uniformly accepted that the Lusignans created division.
Carpenter: He failed to get his Lusignans half-brothers accepted as he was too
indulgent and they were poorly behaved.

But debate surrounds Henry’s policy:

Carpenter: Henry did not have a policy of surrounding himself with foreign
relatives and low-born officials to the exclusion of English nobles. There never
existed an exclusive party of alien curiales. Baronial families were connected to
court though marriages into Savoyard and Lusignan houses. Henry arranged these
marriages partly to aid his foreign relatives, but also to boost relations with native
nobles; he wanted to bring them both together at court.
Jobson: Henry appeared to favour his foreign relatives over his native subjects.
Perception that the Lusignans were above the law and that it was virtually
Impact on the native magnates
Did not challenge the liberties of his magnates, nor foreclose their debts.
Ridgeway: Henry deliberately cultivated good relations with the baronage, to
whom he was lavish with hospitality and generous with patronage.

Debate on political role of native magnates:

Carpenter: There were many native magnates at Henry’s court and council, with
his brother, Richard earl of Cornwall a leading councillor, and Richard de Clare
earl of Gloucester a central court figure.
Maddicott: Magnates were represented on the king's council, but the majority
stood outside the charmed circle. Some of the most important political decisions of
his middle years were taken without baronial consent: the marriage of his sister
Eleanor to Simon de Montfort in 1238; the campaign in Poitou in 1242; the
acceptance of the throne of Sicily for his son Edmund in 1254.
Difficult parliamentary relations
1237: Henry III was granted a thirtieth on movables; the last major parliamentary tax for over thirty
years. MC reissued.
1243: Henry appealed in person for a major subsidy, foolishly emphasizing his need to settle debts
arising from Poitou. They suggested a mild concession: Henry should appoint a justiciar and a
chancellor. Henry refused.
1244: Paper Constitution proposed more drastic controls: the election both of the great officials
and, more radically, of four councillors, some of whom were always to be in attendance on the king;
and magnate consent to the selection of a wide range of other officials.
1248: He approached parliament for money, but failed to obtain a grant of taxation. Instead, there
were demands for the election of three great officers. After the Poitou fiasco, another major war
was probably rated a waste of money.
1252: Failure to obtain taxation from parliament for Gascony.
1255: His request for help in settling his debts was refused. There were demands for three great officials
responsible to parliament, perhaps signalling discontent in the localities, but Henry was still able
to refuse.
The Sicilian Business, 1255
Jobson: The papacy sought English men and money, totalling 135,000 marks
(£90,000), to oust the present incumbent and king of Sicily, Conrad IV. Back in
England, Henry’s barons were incensed that such a costly course of action should
have been decided without their involvement. They were particularly indignant
that those who had been consulted were foreigners. He hoped to restore the
Plantagenet’s flagging reputation and fulfil his life’s ambition. French power
would be contained. 1255 October parliament: Henry’s plea for funds refused.
Henry resorted to coercion: royal officials forced senior clergy to sign blank
charters.
Prestwich: venture not as flawed as supposed. In the 1260s Charles of Anjou was
able to take the kingdom. If Henry had been able to make the necessary diplomatic
preparations, it would have been possible to raise a mercenary army. Argues that
it was not a major cause of the 1258 crisis as the security of the realm was never
under threat. Issue was more to do with the barons not being consulted.
Feeling the pinch: Financial policy
• The refusal of Henry's magnates to grant him taxes - a parliamentary veto exercised more
consistently and successfully in these years than at any other time in the middle ages -
forced Henry to look elsewhere for money.
• The extra-parliamentary revenues which he was able to draw on led to opposition.
• Henry's needs drove him mainly to look to the counties, for it was there that he could find
sources of revenue which needed no corporate consent, which remained unregulated by
Magna Carta.
• Especially resented: the sheriff's farm, the sum rendered by the sheriff for his county, was
steadily increased between 1241 and 1257, at the cost of extortionately heavy pressure on
the sheriffs' constituents
• The profits of the eyre, the provincial visitation of the king's justices, rose rapidly in the
1240s-50s.
• A third resource, affecting local society more indirectly, was royal taxation of the Jews.
• Henry fell back on scutage and fines, drew on money from Jewish tallages, appropriated
The breakdown in relations with the localities
and knightly class
• In the 1240s criticism of his rule came only from those ranks of society which were excluded
from court: merchants, county knights, and lesser clergy. Henry's government did at times show
itself responsive to the grievances of these men. But as long as he kept the magnates on his side
any opposition could be controlled.
• His refusal to burden the magnates meant that the weight of his rule fell instead on his lesser
subjects. Judicial and forest eyres became more exacting, reafforestations, increments on the
shire farms that were sometimes treble or quadruple those imposed in the 1230s.
• This drove the sheriffs into introducing new obligations or reviving old ones, and imposing a
whole host of petty exactions.
• Merchants complained about the abuses of royal purveyance, goods taken for the king's
household but not paid for.
• High levels of corruption: the king sold hundreds of franchises in this period, many of them
involving exemption from the burdens of knighthood and local administration. These prolonged
the acceptability of his rule in some quarters but exacerbated social divisions in general.
• He tried to live of his own, further intensifying the pressure on the localities (which served to
increase the corruption of his officials) and resorting to occasional levies like tallages.
How successful was Henry’s personal rule?
Powicke (1953)
His impulsive welcome of new friends
and opportunities, his errors of
judgement – in a word his simplicity –
constantly provoked comment. Until
1258 the prelates and barons continued
to act together to resist taxation,
demand more independent ministers of
the old type, and ventilate particular
grievances.
Carpenter (2004)
After 1234 Henry could determine his own course.
During his personal rule he gave England peace
and at least for a while increased his revenues.
Overseas he eventually reached a statesmanlike
settlement of the old quarrel with the Capetian
kings of France. There was, however, another, less
satisfactory side to Henry’s rule. The settlement
with the Capetians meant accepting the final loss
of the Angevin Empire. But the crash of Henry’s
regime in 1258 should not obscure he fact that for
nearly a quarter of a century it had brought peace
to England and allowed the general economic
recovery after the civil war.
 Why did opposition emerge in 1258?
• Combination of the Sicilian Affair, use of Lusignans in Wales, and the case of John
fitzGeoffrey v Aymer de Lusignan.
• A rebel group emerged: Simon de Montfort (Leicester); Richard de Clare (Gloucester);
Roger Bigod (Norfolk); Hugh Bigod; Peter of Savoy (Queen’s uncle); John fit Geoffrey;
Peter de Montfort.
• Henry was in a weak position to respond: Richard of Cornwall in Germany; Henry poor after
Welsh campaign; drop in number of household knights; gaps in the wall at the Tower…!
• Petition to parliament: panel of 24 barons (12/12); no taxes to be imposed; Henry to hand
over the royal seal; panel of 24 to elect a council of 15; parliament to meet 3/year.

Maddicott: ‘With the reformers now in control, parliament ceased to be the forum for
confrontation between king and barons and instead became a positive instrument of
government.’
Howell: This was the first stage in a ‘major transfer of power from the king to a corporate
body’
How radical were the Provisions of Oxford?
Terms: Council of 15 (AB Canterbury; B of Worcs; 6 earls; 7 barons);
council to choose chief ministers; chancellor needed council permission to
seal writs; parliament 3/yr; oversee justiciar, chancellor, treasurer; justiciar
power to reform; hold office for 1 year; treasurer had to render accounts.
Henry’s Lusignan relatives should be expelled.

Impact: Although Henry continued to rule, it was in partnership with the

council, with the barons established as formal partners. The council’s
power continued to grow until 1261 and it emerged as the effective
governing body of the kingdom. It was the barons who negotiated for
peace in Wales and France, and tried to persuade the pope to abandon his
claim after the Sicilian affair. The barons pursued de Valence; Aymer, Guy,
The Provisions of Westminster, Oct 1259
‘The community of the bachelors of England’ protested that, whilst Henry had submitted, the
barons had as yet done nothing for ad utilitatem republicae.
Correct abuse of localities:
Financial: murdum fine re. accidental death, village amercement re. coroners’ inquest;
curtailed sheriff’s power re. amercement, beaupleder fines.
Judicial: limited lord’s right to exact a suit of court. Improved speed of legislation. Sheriffs
hold office for 1 year and receive a salary.
Provisions of the Barons also favoured tenants over lords and sheriffs, especially after the
Ordinances of the Magnates in 1259 which promised not to obstruct suits against themselves.
Extended benefits of freeholders to those below social level of knights.
• Opposed by men such as Richard of Gloucester as their local power was limited.
Carpenter: In stipulating that the sheriffs were to be local knights, introducing the querela
(verbal complaint), remedying lordly as well as royal abuse, and above all in taking control
at the centre, the measures of 1258-9 were far more radical and wide-ranging than those of
Magna Carta.
Friction over France: The Treaty of Paris
(Nov 1259 – April 1260)
• Nov 1259 Henry 6/council (Gloucester & de Montfort) left for France
and negotiated the Treaty of Paris. De Montfort opposed it as his wife
would lose land and Prince Edward opposed the limitation on royal
power. Henry to pay homage to Louis: one-sided and humiliating.
• The visit enabled Henry to evade the reformers’ sanctions.
• Henry refused to let parliament meet to discuss the welsh rebellion
until he returned, instead investing authority in the Council of 15.
• De Montfort opposed this as went against the Provisions, supported by
Edward.
• Friction with Gloucester over limitations to magnate authority led to
softening of restrictions.
Henry regains control by 1262
• Henry drew up grievances against the Council of 15: financial position
worse; impartial justice had collapsed; the council had met in his absence;
royal power had been eroded; low quality officials appointed.
• Hugh Bigod and Hugh Despenser removed and royalists appointed as
justiciar and chancellor.
• Royal sheriffs replaced baronial sheriffs.
• Henry aided by Cornwall, Eleanor, and the now loyal Gloucester.
• Papal Bull (1261) proclaimed the reform movement to be
unconstitutional and the Provisions had been overthrown.
• Parliament once again an instrument of the king’s purpose. (June tallage).
• Simon de Montfort returned to his native France.
How did Henry lose power by July 1263?
• Henry's departure for France: July 1262 to settle remaining disputes.
• Military failure in Wales: the success of Llywelyn’s revolt a clear indication of the
underlying weakness of Henry and his government, which was unable to maintain order.
• Death of Gloucester: death of a relative moderate/potential negotiator. Henry’s refusal
to grant the 19 year old heir, Gilbert de Clare, his inheritance lost him the support of the
most important marcher lord.
• Eleanor: previously encouraged 1258 coup, but now pushed Edward to confront
Lusignans, which drove them into de Montfort’s arms.
• De Montfort’s return: April 1263, offered proven military leadership. Claimed moral
leadership as stayed true to the provisions. Bound a diverse group of disenfranchised.
• Henry’s finances: income had fallen by £15,000.
• The creation of opposition: Seized the Channel ports; rallied to the cry of xenophobia;
attacked Henry’s supporters and Savoyards. July 1263 Henry surrendered and all
foreigners banished.
What motivated de Montfort?
Carpenter (2004)
Nowhere was the interaction between idealism
and self interest more blatant and more baffling
than in the case of Montfort. Montfort thought
that the baronial enterprise should do justice to
himself; it was easy, therefore, especially for
those on the inside, to think that he was driven
on by private grievances and ambitions. He had
been left as one of the poorest earls with little to
endow five sons. And there was one other factor
driving the steely Montfort on, namely his
contempt for the king. Henry had been too
craven to settle the question of the dower, too
indulgent to others to afford Eleanor a proper
settlement, and too fearful of the protests to back
Montfort to the hilt in Gascony.
Maddicott (1994)
It is hardly possible to see de Montfort’s career
from 1258 in uncomplicated terms as the heroic
and single-minded defence of reforming
principles. His commitment to the Provisions
was deep, informed by conscience and
safeguarded by reluctance to compromise. The
truth was that he did not fit entirely smoothly
into the English aristocracy – a cosmopolitan
figure set on the edge of an increasingly insular
native baronage, whose members lacked both
lands and ambition abroad. His refusal to
characterise was guided by his ability to leave
for the continent in 1261 and 1262. If his
English supporters were more inclined to
temporise, it was because such comings and
goings across the Channel were not an option
for them; they had to live in England with the
Why did de Montfort have to resort to civil
war to hold onto power?
• Lacked widespread noble support: Hugh Bigod and Roger Bigod
(Norfolk) now loyal to Henry.
• Power base limited: London and Midlands
• Actions against foreigners: consequences for those who held land
from alien lords. Land seizures led to a sense of disorder. Fear civil
war renewed. Attacks on Henry gave him the moral high ground.
• Lord Edward: He had flitted between both sides up until 1263, but he
now gave strong support to the royalists. He reconciled the marches
through the use of bribes.
• Mise of Amiens: January 1264 Louis IX condemned the Provisions
and restored Henry’s power. Only concession was the opposition to be
Civil War: Battle of Lewes, May 1264
• Victory for de Montfort with Henry and Cornwall captured. Montfort
turned the conflict into a crusade, wearing white crosses and claiming
God was on his side.
• Provisions of Oxford to be upheld.
• Baronial supporters pardoned.
• Foreigners to be removed from the royal council.
• Marcher lords to be set free.
• Lord Edward to be held hostage.
• Hope was to avert all out anarchy by giving Henry a degree of liberty.
BUT: stability achieved consent and legitimacy. It was now clear that
The Montfortian Parliaments: June 1264 &
January 1265
1264
• Four knights chosen in each county by county court.
• Used to consolidate Montfort’s power and sanction his authority: legitimation through consent
(but very little baronial presence).
• Knights consented to new constitution played a role in refusing entry to papal legate: significant
as a political role, not just tax-granting.
• Montfort made concessions with new sheriffs nominated.

1265
• Summoned burgesses from towns. Provisions of Oxford had not called for formal
representation.
• Only 23 magnates present.
• Post consolidation. Two themes: 1. maintain PoW; 2. establish terms for Edward’s release.
• Knights complain of defence costs. Montfort agrees concession of paying their expenses instead
Why did de Montfort lose power?
• Narrow conciliar government: de Montfort, Gloucester and the Bishop of Chichester would select a
permanent council of 9. Partisan, with de Montfort wielding great power. De Montfort relied on his own
family and a small group of supporters, so little had changed from Henry’s regime. Also rumours of an
alliance with Llywelyn.
• French threat: Papal legate excommunicated Montfort and his supporters. Louis IX and Eleanor raising
an army.
• Rapacity: Took the earldom of Chester and gave lands of Cornwall and Sussex to his sons.
• Support base: de Clare (Gloucester), his only supporting earl, defected to Edward in 1265. Dependent
upon summoning knights and burgesses to parliament. Lacked support of earls, so promoted minor barons
such as Ralph de Camoys. Their allegiances as much determined by local disputes as national politics. His
most loyal support came from rural villages and churchmen.
• Agenda: civil war meant no reforms were enacted as an eyre could not be sent out. The primary concern
was survival.
• No legitimacy: No royal participation. Jones: He was a private lord attempting to take control of a public
office. Although he controlled the King and the Great Seal, his mandate to govern came from defeating his
own lord in battle. He was by his very nature a divisive figure.
• Lord Edward: Lord Edward escaped in May 1265 and was joined by Gloucester and roger Mortimer.
They agreed to remove Montfort, restore old laws, abolish evil customs, expel aliens. A coalition of
The Aftermath
• The Dictum of Kenilworth, 31 October 1266: Individuals who wanted to
reclaim their lands could do so for a fine, the rate of which was determined
by the nature of their involvement in the ‘disturbance of the realm’. Clause
8 of the Dictum of Kenilworth threatened corporal punishment if anyone
considered Simon de Montfort ‘holy or just’.
• Statute of Marlborough, Nov 1267: essentially confirmed the Provisions of
Westminster, but deliberately not referred to as such. A face saving measure.
• A deliberate concession to win the support of the knights and freeholders
who had been targeted by de Montfort.
• Consultation with 27 city bailiffs and men of wealth in advance of 1268
tallage, a prerogative levy.
• Seven parliaments met Sept 1268 – April 1270, reviving the annual rhythm.
Was stability achieved after Evesham?
Clive Knowles: the bulk of important Montfortians made their
redemption agreements within two or three years of the end of hostilities.

Maddicott: The reissuing of Magna Carta, the tacit acknowledgement

and public re-enactment of a major part of the baronial programme, and
the invocation of consent as the justification for the government’s
actions, all suggested that the political rupture brought by Montfort’s
defeat was neither so deep nor so final as it may have first appeared to
have been.

Carpenter: the end of war did not represent peace. Gloucester and
Was stability achieved after Evesham?
Vincent (2011)
Henry continued to rule and to conduct his customary
religious devotions. The last few years were spent in
resolving the disputes of the civil war and in raising
funds to dispatch Edward on crusade. England
meanwhile remained in a state of disturbance and high
tension, its castles garrisoned, gangs of outlaws on the
loose. Virtually the last act of Henry’s life was to view
the ruins of Norwich Cathedral, burned when tensions
boiled over into riot and arson. Destroyed by a
resurgent England of burgesses and townsmen
convinced of their own rights and determined to guard
against the predations of either monks or kings. By 1272
no king of England could go against the terms of Magna
Carta without risking heavy and immediate retribution.
England was set on the path to constitutional monarchy
and the limitation of the king’s sovereign powers.
Prestwich (2005)
The prospects when the civil war ended were not good. At
the parliament held at Winchester, shortly following the
victory at Evesham, a policy of confiscation of rebel
property was formalised. Inquisitions taken subsequently
reveal an orgy of seizures of lands and goods, as royalists
took their revenge. However, the disturbed and divisive
years were followed by a period of remarkable
achievement lasting until the 1290s. The Statute of
Marlborough showed that the crown was not insensitive to
sensible demands for change. There was a great
programme of legislation. Parliament developed and
became increasingly central to the running of the English
state. Royal finances were placed on a new and more
secure footing. The recovery from the disasters of the civil
war was astonishing. This was an outstanding period of
positive development,.
Revision questions
Minority
1. How strong was Henry’s position in 1216?
2. Why did Louis’ invasion fail?
3. How important was William Marshal in the government of England?
4. Why was there unrest in the early 1220s?
5. What was the impact of Henry’s wars in France in the 1220s on English
politics?
6. How did the minority impact on the development of government in England?
7. Why was de Burgh replaced by des Roches?
8. What were the causes and results of unrest from 1232-34?
Revision questions
Personal rule
1. What was the significance of Henry’s marriage to Eleanor of
Provence?
2. How significant was Henry’s piety in the development of his image?
3. What was the impact of Henry’s view of kingship?
4. How influential was de Montfort in this period?
5. Why was the issue of consultation with the barons so controversial?
6. Why did the methods of local government create disquiet?
7. Why had the regime become increasingly unpopular by 1258?
Revision questions
Political crisis 1258-63
1. Why was there a coup in 1258?
2. How radical were the Provisions of Oxford?
3. What were the motives of the reformers?
4. Why were the Lusignans expelled?
5. Why was there a crisis in 1260?
6. Why and with what consequences did Henry regain authority?
7. Why was the restoration of royal power so short lived?
Revision questions
Civil War and reconstruction, 1263-72
1. Why was de Montfort’s seizure of power in 1263 so short lived?
2. Why was de Montfort victorious at Lewes?
3. Why was he unable to secure power after Lewes?
4. How important was Lord Edward in de Montfort’s defeat?
5. What were the immediate problems in achieving a settlement after
Evesham?
6. How successful was reconstruction and recovery after the civil war?