British Monarchs Who Ended Badly, Part 2: Henry II to Edward II

Henry II, the first Plantagenet monarch, was not only King of England, but lord of much of France as well. He inherited some regions and gained others through his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, as feisty a queen as ever lived. 

Historians generally rank Henry II highly for his legal and administrative reforms, but his reign was hardly trouble free. He conducted a long battle with the Church over the legal status of the clergy. The dispute led to the murder of his defiant Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, in 1172, possibly at Henry's instigation. 

Henry did penance for that and survived the uproar. His biggest long-term problem was his family. His sons and wife mounted several rebellions against him, and he died of a stomach ulcer while still at war with them in 1189. More trouble awaited the two sons who succeeded him. 

First came Richard I, the Lion-Hearted. He is notable as the only king to have a statue erected outside Parliament. Today, one has to wonder why. Romantic Victorians idolized him as a gallant knight. But he was a wretched monarch. He spent only six months of his ten-year reign in England and treated the country as a cash cow. The rest of the time he was crusading in the Holy Land or fighting to defend his lands in France. And he was cruel. After the capture of Acre in modern day Israel, he ordered the massacre of 2700 Muslim prisoners. 

Returning from the Crusade, Richard was imprisoned in Germany for about a year, and held for a huge ransom that the English people paid. During a campaign in France a crossbow bolt struck his shoulder. Gangrene set in, and that was his end. He treated his wife badly and had no children. His brother John succeeded him.  

John was the only King John of England, because he was the Evil King John. Before that, he was the Evil Prince John of the Robin Hood stories. That was mostly, if not entirely, mythical, although it rested in part on John's bad reputation. John did plot against his brother Richard to gain power and wealth. Once John was king, he continued to behave badly. He alienated his barons by taxing them without their consent and seducing their wives. I'm not sure which angered them more. It all ended in 1215 at Runneymede Meadow in Surrey. Rebellious barons cornered John and forced him to sign Magna Carta, The Great Charter. 

The Great Charter demanded that the king respect the liberties of his subjects. That mainly meant the nobles. But the Charter did throw in some clauses designed to protect the Church and the "freemen" of the realm. 

Magna Carta effectively declared the principle that the king is not above the law. It also laid the basis for the later development of Parliament by demanding the king consult "the community of the realm" before levying new taxes. 

John soon repudiated the Charter and resumed war with the barons. He died on campaign in 1216. Rumors circulated that he had been poisoned or had died of a "surfeit of peaches," which is better than a surfeit of lampreys. Dysentery, or the Bloody Flux, is another possibility.

John's successor was his nine-year old son. Henry III had the longest reign of any medieval monarch, 58 years. He spent huge sums on building projects and other schemes. He irritated the barons a lot and they mounted several revolts against him. At the Battle of Lewes in 1264, a baronial army led by he Earl of Leicester, Simon de Montfort, captured and imprisoned him for some months. His son Edward was captured as well, but he escaped, defeated the baronial army, killed de Montfort, and released his father. Edward was a man of action. 

Edward I, who succeeded Henry III in 1272, was a tall fellow. One of his nicknames was Longshanks. Edward initiated important legal and administrative reforms. English historians of the Victorian era idolized him as a great monarch, perhaps the greatest, of the medieval period. The Welsh and Scots had and have a different opinion. 

Edward completed the English conquest of Wales and built some amazing castles there, which did have the virtue of being a modern tourist attraction. He also tried to conquer Scotland. His Scottish campaigns earned Edward another nickname, the Hammer of Scots. It also led to the Scottish Wars of Independence and the meteoric rise of William Wallace, "Braveheart." Wallace's army won a stunning victory over an English army at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297.* Things went badly for Wallace after that, however. 

Scottish enemies betrayed him to the English. Edward had him executed for "treason" in 1305. Contrary to the film Braveheart, Edward I did not die while Wallace was being disembowelled, but two years later. 

Some historians have called his son and heir Edward II the worst king in English history. Perhaps, but there was lots of competition for that title. The fact that he was likely gay did not help his reputation, especially with the Victorian historians. Unlike his hyperactive father, he was considered lazy and incompetent. He lost a decisive battle to the Scots and Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn in 1314, which led to Scottish independence. 

His wife Isabella, a French princess, turned against him and took a noble lover. Along with barons disgruntled by Edward's behavior, they mounted a rebellion against him in 1327. They captured him and imprisoned him in Berkeley Castle. Not long after, they announced that he had died. 

Was Edward II murdered? Probably, but we will never know for sure. One highly unlikely tale claims he escaped, fled to the Continent, and became a hermit. A grislier story, more likely but hardly proved, is that his captors killed him by ramming a red-hot poker into his anus. In any case, he was no longer king.

The throne passed to his teenage son Edward III. He is best known for initiating a long series of wars with France, which historians obsessed with neatness labelled The Hundred Years War. 

*Mel Gibson Fake History Alert: Stirling Bridge was pivotal to the strategy and outcome of the Battle of Stirling Bridge. This seems pretty obvious from the name of the battle. In fact, no bridge, very likely, no Scots victory. In Braveheart, the bridge is missing in action, along with Mel's brain. 

American Exceptionalism Revisited

I originally wrote this piece a while back, while still under the illusion that the USA retained SOME potential as a force for good. Trump's reelection and the MUSK dictatorship have torn away the veil of that illusion for the time being, maybe forever. 

American Exceptionalism holds that the USA is fundamentally different from other countries, usually with the implication that it is also superior. The idea stems from the belief that through its revolution, America broke free from the chains and constraints of the “Old World.”  

The new country had a duty, a mission, to spread the benefits of its institutions to the rest of humanity, benefits like individual freedom, republicanism, democracy, equality before the law, a free market economy, and religious freedom.

None of these ideas or institutions originated in the United States. All can be traced to earlier history, from the Greco-Roman world and European history from the Middle Ages to the eighteenth century Enlightenment. 

The Patriots appealed to “Anglo-Saxon Liberty,” Magna Carta (1215), the English Revolutions and British philosophy, to justify claims to individual freedom and legal equality. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson drew heavily on the ideas of English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and The Irish Remonstrance (1317) contain similar arguments. 

There was nothing new about a republic. The Founding Fathers were influenced by the Roman Republic, founded five centuries before Christ. The Netherlands, Venice, Genoa, and the Swiss Confederation were or had been republics for hundreds of years by 1776. Even Britain had been a republic as well, though for only eleven years (1649-1660).

The US was not a democracy in its origins, and in some respects it still is not. The makers of the Constitution were generally opposed to democracy, which they equated with mob rule. They created the Electoral College to ensure that presidents were not elected by the popular vote.* Their distrust of democracy also partly explains why the Senate is a thoroughly undemocratic body, with two Senators from every state, regardless of population. State legislatures, not the voters, elected senators until 1913. 

Voting was restricted to white males before the Civil War, and some states enforced literacy tests and poll taxes. Women did not get the right to vote or hold public office until 1919, except in a couple of western states. After the end of slavery, many states denied blacks of civil rights, including voting rights.

As for free market economics, Scottish philosopher Adam Smith published the founding text in 1776, The Wealth of Nations. His concern, however, was with the good of consumers (everybody) not employers and traders, who he viewed as a conniving, dishonest bunch in general.  

Smith was more sympathetic to workers. He recognized that they were in a weak bargaining position vis a vis the merchants and employers. Not surprisingly, today's capitalists seldom dwell on that part of Smith’s work. Nor do they tend to highlight his robust condemnation of monopolies and government subsidies to companies, AKA socialism for the wealthy. 

Much is made of "pilgrims" coming to America to enjoy freedom of worship. Some colonists came for that reason, but once they got their freedom, they denied it to others, as Roger Williams and the Quakers found out. 

The idea of religious freedom in the West arose out of the deadly Wars of Religion that followed the Protestant Reformation. The Dutch introduced religious toleration in the late 16^th century, the British by the late 17th. Enlightenment thinkers in Europe advocated complete freedom of religious belief. People in America were part of that discussion. They did not invent it.

The view that the USA is morally superior to other nations is belied by its history of slavery and segregation, horrific treatment of Native Americans, and discrimination against immigrants of “inferior races," including the Irish, Asians, Jews, Southern and Eastern Europeans, and Hispanics.

Historically, the US has been all too exceptional in its insistence on other countries obeying international laws and moral standards while failing to observe them itself. It can't even obey or execute its own laws, as witnessed by the re-election of Donald Trump after inciting an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and being convicted of numerous crimes. 

The first month of Trump's, or Elon Musk's, administration reveals that the USA is not protected by a so-called perfect constitution. The cover is lifted off, the veil of illusion gone. 

The Great Experiment in liberty seems destined to end  in a fascist dictatorship, unless Americans rouse themselves from their lethargy and stop the current trajectory. There is still great value in the opening words of the Declaration of Independence. 

The USA is quite exceptional in other ways. It is one of the most violent countries on earth. The most coveted right in American culture is the right to possess firearms of the most potent type. With millions of people armed to the teeth with semi-automatic weapons, it is hardly surprising that mass shootings are an almost everyday occurrence. 

The USA is the only developed nation without a system of universal health care. Countries with considerably less wealth have some kind of system that covers the entire population. Not surprisingly, the USA also leads the world in medical bankruptcies. 

*Some Southern slaveholders argued that white male democracy was possible, but only with a large population of slaves to do most of the physical work, freeing the white elite to handle governance. 

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!