The New Murrey and Blue blog

I can’t say that Henry III has ever fired me with enthusiasm. Come to that, I can’t wax lyrical about any of the Henrys, least of all numbers VII and VIII of course. The last pair set my teeth grinding.

David Carpenter has now written the second volume of his Henry III biography, which contrasts Henry with his “brilliant arch-enemy Simon de Montfort”. The new book is Henry III: Reform, Rebellion, Civil War, Settlement, 1258-1272, published by Yale, and the review The holy fool | The Spectator Australia is by Jonathan Sumption, with whose opinions I don’t always agree. As it happens, I don’t really know enough about Henry III to know whether to agree with Sumption or not. And is it sensible for me to write a review of a review of a subject about which I am not au fait?

Henry III came to the throne at the age of nine and ruled for fifty-seven years. According to Sumption “….[he] was not a tyrant. He was kind and pious, a generous, well-meaning spirit. But he was useless. He allowed himself to be dominated by favourites and, worse, foreign favourites. He took a back seat behind the engines of power. Dante, that shrewd commentator of the next generation, thought him a simple fellow, il re della semplice vita, and assigned him to a corner of Purgatory reserved for neglectful rulers….”

Oh dear. That’s pretty damning. Another dimwit Henry, like number VI.

The review is interesting, but because I don’t know a great deal about the king in question, I cannot say if it is or isn’t fair to Henry III. The same goes for David Carpenter, of course. Judgement is in the eye of the Henry III scholar…and eventually with the reader of the book.

Henry was criticised in his own time but seems to have some apologists now. Rather like the two kings for whom I do have a great deal of time, Richards II and III. Anyway, If Henry is of interest to you—or if you wish to have your interest stirred—then read this review. And then, maybe, acquire the book to make up your own mind.