You Did What__ Mad Plans and Great Historical Disasters - Bill Fawcett [8]
Henry II approached his empire as a business. He reformed feudalism to centralize his own power base, razed unauthorized manors and fortresses that might house sites of future rebellion, reformed the courts and revitalized the exchequer by replacing the lower noble appointees with government clerks and bureaucrats, whose sole responsibility was in seeing that his (Henry II’s) instructions were followed and that the Crown was given its due from every transaction. Henry II further undercut the noble appointees by centralizing and standardizing laws and the courts, replacing disparate traditions such as trial by ordeal with the right to a jury trial, thus dissipating the barons’ and lords’ ability to rule by whim.
Thus in matters of state and diplomacy, Henry II had proven himself a master, partly due to his willingness to make hard and daring choices and his shrewdness in judging the character of subordinates, thus enabling him to succeed in picking the right and most trustworthy person for a given position.
Unfortunately it cannot be said that he showed similar mastery in matters of hearth and family.
His marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, though at the time politically and financially rewarding, was nonetheless a match made for the divorce courts. Whether or not she rode bare-breasted into the Holy Land during the Crusades, as alleged by some, she was no doubt brazen and rebellious and used to being the mistress of her own fate. In many ways she considered herself more than Henry II’s equal (she was indeed a queen before he was a king, after all), and as a result was frequently at odds with the decisions that her husband made, particularly those that would strengthen England’s hand over France’s.
The unrest caused by the queen’s opposition to the king and her obvious divided loyalties to the empire eventually led to her exile - in - state / imprisonment, which though it contained her influence did little to quell the long-term difficulties to Henry II’s reign. She had already instilled her views and opinions on their offspring, who would eventually succeed Henry II to the throne and were actively engaged in accelerating that succession to a date prior to their father’s actual passing from the mortal realm.
There was of course the usual amount of sibling rivalry, which was cut in two by the early demises of sons Henry and Geoffrey, who might have indeed been the smartest of the brood, and had they survived might have indeed preserved their father’s legacy…but they didn’t, and Henry II was left to contend with their brothers (his sons).
Richard (the so-called Lionhearted) had all of the outward appearances of a strong leader and was rumored to be his mother’s favorite because of his ties to France, but he was more interested in the Crusades and being “at wars” than attending to matters of state or indeed even learning such matters from his father, who had proven himself a master. Whether it was because he saw the role of king differently than his father or whether it was just that he was in his mother’s thrall, Richard soon evolved into one of Henry II’s principal rivals for the throne.
John, on the other hand, was Henry II’s favorite of the surviving sons, but he too resisted learning the lessons of state at his father’s knee. For the most part John was lazy and reminiscent of the anarchic nobles that his father had managed to wrestle out of power during his ascendancy to the throne. By supporting Richard in his rebellion against Henry II, John saw that he had secured for himself the best of both worlds — the unseating of Henry in favor of Richard, who would then spend most of his time waging war somewhere, thus allowing himself all of the benefits of the crown without any of the responsibilities.
As a result, Richard attacked and unseated Henry II on July 4, 1189, with the help of his brother, John, and Phillip II of France. He became king and Henry II died two days later, and immediately