Shakespeare did not write about Henry III
( son of King John.) We are having a very brief note about him here, just for following the succession of rulers.
Henry III, was by the side of his father King John when he passed away, due to poisoning by a monk.
He was very young boy then and was worried about his own safety, as he thought that the French Dauphin was winning his invasion war. But just that night, the Dauphin had left the shores of England for two reasons.
The leading English Lords had returned to their King John and secondly, the expected soldiers and arms from France did not arrive in time due to a ship wreck.
It is surprising to see how much the notion of Royalty and Religion, carried weight in the Middle ages, from the powerful and rich barons, knights , rich commoners and
poor people.
Henry III was very vulnerable at that young age and the barons could have probably assumed the kingship but they could not have done that for it would have been opposed by the Church, Pope, commoners and people who could easily sway public opinion in those days unless the rules of succession were strictly followed. The Barons were thus held in check though they had power of arms and bravery in warfare .to kill and quell opposition. But, unless the lords themselves were able to arrive at a consensus, it was not possible. Famously, the lords were at odds against themselves.
( Does it remind us of the goings on ,in the major political parties today in Tamilnadu? The days of plundering, and poisoning are not unlike the middle ages, for an observant eye.!)
As the boy King Henry III, was born in
1207 , he was just 9 years old when the loyal barons made him the King. Cynics may think, that they chose him thus for their own profit but that may not be correct.
It was an age of loyalty to customs behind which stood the Divine authority of the Religion. ( in this case, the authority of Pope).
( It was no different in either Islamic countries or in Hindu India).
It was not as if any brutal warrior can be accepted as a ruler by the clergy , commoners and people. Unless the clergy gave approval, the usurper cannot rule for much time. How easy indeed to finish off any individual..but that is not the way , that history unfolds itself! unless, they were alien rulers!
True, that the branches of Royalty themselves fought against each other with the support of foreign kings and native nobles, but it was still a fight between the royals!
It could not have been a case of Charisma . It was believed then and even now, that the Royal house has a glow sharing the glory and power with the Clergy.
In the case of England, it was just a three way fight among the Royal house, the Barons and the Clergy.
The middle class of merchants, the toiling class of peasants and poor had absolutely no role. Later ,the bourgeois historians hailed the curtailment of the divine rights of kings and barons, and that of the clergy as a great victory of the 'People' but their definition of the people just meant the bourgeois themselves.
The cleverly concealed cunning of the Bourgeois historians and today's champions of 'Democracy', is revealed without any attempted concealment even, if we carefully follow the happenings in almost all the countries.
So much bloodshed and misery , just for this mega deceit.
-------------------------------------------------------
Shakespeare was a royalist. He was against Popish authority. So were so many kings of England.
We may remember the conflict between Henry II and Thomas Becket ( murder in the cathedral). And the angry outburst of King John against the Pope when the Pope's emissary Cardinal, had excommunicated him at the fort of Angiers.
Again and again, the Kings' authority was flouted by the barons and the clergy.
Apparently, the Clergy should have the final say, for they were the voice of God. But were they so really? Their power simply rested on the religious faith of the poor people and not always because of their character and scholarship. That is not to say that all the clergy were corrupt, There is no ideal system.
We had noble rulers and criminals in kings' robes. We had brave and kind barons and mere hooligans and tyrants. We had enterprising commoners, the bourgeois . They had little power but the enterprising among them, could amass much wealth, though always at the mercy of kings, clergy and nobles!.
Shakespeare was not against the Church as such. He was a Nationalist above all else.
And a Royalist. He did not like either the Barons or the Papal authority but perhaps would obey a National Church ( anti-pope) if the churchmen were of real character and concern for the poor. Nor did he have much respect for the Mob. His choice was for a strong monarch, a supreme warrior ably leading other warriors of valour, a monarch
who ruled by the wise counsel of the learned and humanist clergy ( a national clergy), and the commoners who knew their place below the Royalty, Clergy, Nobility , in that order. He blamed the working people themselves for their misery .
Is it not true in our own times?
------------------------------------------------------------
So, also, the Barons. Some were indeed very brave and benevolent , and we do need valorous people to defend our territory and our values.
--------------
Ultimately, the real wealth-creators were the peasants and merchants. Though the peasants had no say, despite frequent uprisings, the merchant class gradually grew richer than the robber barons and even the Kings had to grant them some place in framing the laws of the land.
---------------
Surprising though, even when the Commons became the leading force, they still thought it necessary to have Royalty, Religious rites and sanctions and ornate lords. England of even 2019 is one such country which has retained the same old structure.
It looks as if the combination of Regal splendour, lords of castles which they could not even afford to maintain and the hold of the Church in popular minds, is useful to the Commons of the bourgeois who rule in the name of the three forces.
For all their talk of democracy, ' The Englishman loves his Lords' as quipped by Jawaharlal Nehru.
Do we realize that modern India is the largest and only democracy in the entire world? ( USA has less population and more territory. China is huge but it is a one party dictatorship)
-------------------------------------------------
Now about Henry-III ( from wiki)
=============================
(edited for brevity)
==============================
Henry III ( 1207 – 1272), also known as Henry of Winchester, was King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Aquitaine from 1216 until his death. in 1272 ( ruled for 56 years!)
The son of King John and Isabella of Angoulême, Henry assumed the throne when he was only nine in the middle of the First Barons' War.
Cardinal Guala declared the war against the rebel barons to be a religious crusade and Henry's forces, led by William Marshal, defeated the rebels at the battles of Lincoln and Sandwich in 1217.
Henry promised to abide by the Great Charter of 1225, which limited royal power and protected the rights of the major barons.
His early rule was dominated first by Hubert de Burgh and then Peter des Roches, who re-established royal authority after the war.
Following the revolt, Henry ruled England personally, rather than governing through senior ministers. He traveled less than previous monarchs, investing heavily in a handful of his favourite palaces and castles.
He married Eleanor of Provence, with whom he had five children.
-------------------------------
Henry and Eleanor had five children:
Edward I (1239 – 1307)
Margaret ( 1240 – 1275)[
Beatrice ( 1242 – 1275)
Edmund (1245 – 1296)
Katherine ( 1253 – 1257)
Henry was known for his piety, holding lavish religious ceremonies and giving generously to charities;
the King was particularly devoted to the figure of Edward the Confessor, whom he adopted as his patron saint.
Henry and the baronial government enacted a peace with France in 1259, under which Henry gave up his rights to his other lands in France in return for King Louis IX recognizing him as the rightful ruler of Gascony. The baronial regime collapsed but Henry was unable to reform a stable government and instability across England continued.
In 1263, one of the more radical barons, Simon de Montfort, seized power, resulting in the Second Barons' War. Henry persuaded Louis to support his cause and mobilised an army. The Battle of Lewes occurred in 1264, where Henry was defeated and taken prisoner.
Henry's eldest son, Edward, escaped from captivity to defeat de Montfort at the Battle of Evesham the following year and freed his father
. Henry died in 1272, leaving Edward as his successor.
That was Edward-I
continued in
========================================