Was Henry II of England a popular king?

Oct 2012
574
#12
I'm confused. On the wikipedia of Frederick I it says:

Historians have compared Frederick to Henry II of England. Both were considered the greatest and most charismatic leaders of their age. Each possessed a rare combination of qualities that made him appear superhuman to his contemporaries: longevity, boundless ambition, extraordinary organizing skill, and greatness on the battlefield. Both were handsome and proficient in courtly skills, without appearing effeminate or affected. Both came to the throne in the prime of manhood. Each had an element of learning, without being considered impractical intellectuals but rather more inclined to practicality. Each found himself in the possession of new legal institutions that were put to creative use in governing. Both Henry and Frederick were viewed to be sufficiently and formally devout to the teachings of the Church, without being moved to the extremes of spirituality seen in the great saints of the 12th century. In making final decisions, each relied solely upon his own judgment,[84] and both were interested in gathering as much power as they could.

But on his own wiki it says:

Henry was not a popular king and few expressed much grief on news of his death.[355] Writing in the 1190s, William of Newburgh commented that "in his own time he was hated by almost everyone"; he was widely criticised by his own contemporaries, even within his own court.

Which one is it?
Those two statements does`not condradict. (Think about Maggie Tatcher)
 
Likes: Olleus

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
2,944
Las Vegas, NV USA
#13
He almost instantly disregarded the Magna Carta and went on fighting, so I don't think it's accurate to say it limited his powers.
He did fight on and died 1216, so his power was under challenge. The charter was reissued in 1217 and 1225 under a regency for the child Henry III. It became the basis of English common law.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2016
919
Australia
#14
loosing


He did fight on and died 1216, so his power was under challenge. The charter was reissued in 1217 and 1225 under a regency for the child Henry III. It became the basis of English common law.
But my point was that it didn't limit his powers de facto, because he refused to acknowledge it as valid or binding. On paper it limited his powers, sure, but not in reality. Only if he had have lost before he died would that have been the case. Something isn't so just because some people say it is. It must be physically enforced, which in John's case it wasn't. Only with his successors would it be.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
2,944
Las Vegas, NV USA
#15
But my point was that it didn't limit his powers de facto, because he refused to acknowledge it as valid or binding. On paper it limited his powers, sure, but not in reality. Only if he had have lost before he died would that have been the case. Something isn't so just because some people say it is. It must be physically enforced, which in John's case it wasn't. Only with his successors would it be.
It seems it would be hard to say what his effective powers to govern actually were when his barons were in rebellion. He did sign the Charter after all so his legal position vis a vis the barons was about the same. He was rebelling against an agreement he made.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2012
3,716
Bulgaria
#16
Aethelstan was the first Rex Anglorvm, so was William the first Norman monarch of England. Henry II was a King of the English also. The first monarch to use Rex Angliae - King of England is John when he ascended to the throne ergo before the loss of Normandy and Anjou to Philip Augustus.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,110
Sydney
#17
Henry was above all an Angevin , then an Aquitaine lord
eventually a Normand and possibly an English

his interest were first to fight the nominal overlord of France ,
then his sons
England was very much a secondary consideration for him
he hardly spend any time there
 

Similar History Discussions