Lesson video

Hi, I'm Miss Mia.

Thank you so much for joining me in this lesson today.

In this lesson, you'll be able to explain how successful Henry II was as king.

Your keywords are on the screen now, and I'd like you to write them down or repeat them after me.

So we've got reasserted, royal authority, interpretation.

Now let's find out what these keywords mean.

Reasserted means doing something to show that you still have power.

Royal authority is the power or ability of a monarch to control or demand obedience from the people.

Interpretation is an explanation or opinion of what something means.

So this lesson is all about how successful Henry II was as a king.

We've got two lesson cycles today, and our first lesson cycle is to do with what makes a successful medieval king.

And then secondly, we'll be having a look at how successfully Henry reasserted royal authority.

I'm excited about this lesson.

I hope you are too.

Let's begin.

So here's a diagram showing a ruler's control over their people.

At the top, we've got the king, then the barons, followed by the knights and the peasants.

For us to consider how successful Henry was at reasserting his royal authority, we first need to understand that a successful medieval king needed to have certain qualities to enable them to effectively rule.

There are many reasons for the success or failure of a medieval ruler.

However, the following key areas would've been considered important.

Let's have a look.

On the left here, we have an illustration of a king in battle.

Success in battles.

Being skillful in warfare was important.

This enabled a king to protect his land.

The medieval period was a violent period with lots of conflicts.

Success in battle was the best way for a king to become powerful.

This enabled him to expand an empire and achieve a greater reputation.

On the left here, we have an illustration of King Henry II settling a disagreement.

Let's look into peace and stability.

A successful king established and maintained peace and stability within the land.

People believed that it was the king's duty to uphold a peaceful land.

The king was expected to restore order, settle disagreements, put an end to rebellions, and create a safe environment for people to work and live.

On the left here, we have a photo of the Genealogical Chronicle of the Kings of England.

Let's look into succession planning.

A wise king made plans to secure a suitable heir or successor.

Effective planning for succession was essential to prevent multiple claimants, people who believe the throne belongs to them, fighting over the throne.

This would ensure that when the king died, there would be a smooth changeover to the next monarch.

On the left here, we have an illustration of a king praying at the altar.

Let's look into support from God and the Church.

Medieval kings often desired the support of God, the Pope, and the Church.

A king that believed they had the backing of God would feel they were the rightful ruler of the land.

They would also feel invincible on the battlefield.

If everyone else believed that the king had the blessing of God and the Church, this would confirm that they were the rightful ruler.

This encouraged people to be loyal and fight for the king because they would believe that it was part of God's plan for them to do this.

Over to you.

Which of these is a quality that was important for a medieval king to have, but which is not important for kings today?

Is it, A, success in battle, B, succession planning, or C, support from the Church?

What do you think?

You could pause the video here and click play once you've got the answer.

So what did you get?

If you got A, you are correct.

Success in battle is not important for kings today.

Task A: read Sophia's view about what was necessary to be a successful medieval king.

Do you agree with her?

Explain your answer.

Sophia says, "To be a successful medieval king, the only thing that really mattered was being successful in warfare.

" What do you think?

You can pause the video here and click play when you're ready to continue.

So how did that go?

Your answer may have Included something like this.

Although being successful in warfare was an important quality for a successful medieval king, it was not the only thing that was important.

A king had important responsibilities during times of peace.

For example, they needed to enforce laws, uphold order, and ensure that people obeyed their authority.

Kings also needed to be able to settle disagreements and keep peace in their lands.

Finally, medieval kings had to plan for their succession and ensure they had a suitable heir.

Therefore, Sofia's statement is incorrect.

Well done for completing that task.

Let's move on.

Here's the second lesson cycle.

How successfully did Henry reassert royal authority?

Illustration of an argument between a king and queen can be seen here on the screen.

This is because kings will often have both success and failure over their reign.

This is certainly the case with Henry II.

Perhaps you see Henry as a success, but can you also see why some saw him as a failure?

Or maybe you see Henry as a failure who had some small success?

If a historian examines many sources that show the negative side of Henry, then they are likely to interpret Henry as a failure.

On the other hand, a historian may interpret Henry as a glorious success if they focus only on positive sources.

Therefore, the reason why historians often disagree is because their interpretation is dependent on which sources they focus on.

What is your interpretation of Henry?

How successfully did Henry reassert royal authority?

Hmm.

Back to you.

Historians all agree about how successful Henry II was as a ruler.

Is this true or is this false?

You could pause the video here.

So what did you get?

If you got false, well done.

I'd like you to justify your answer.

Is it because, A, because their interpretations depend on the sources they have focused on?

Or B, because historians have to find a way to disagree with all previous interpretations?

You can pause the video here and click play once you've got the answer.

So what did you get?

If you got A, you are correct.

Historians all agree about how successful Henry II was as a ruler because their interpretations depend on the sources they have focused on.

Let's move on.

Source A, a monk writing about Henry and his Angevin Empire.

Let's read this together.

So Henry was aware of the different traditions and customs in each of the separate lands within the Angevin Empire.

He knew that during the anarchy, some of his lands had joined with rival kings.

Henry quickly reasserted his authority, took back lands, and expanded his empire.

He was known from Scotland to the Pyrenees as a truly powerful ruler.

However, no matter how far Henry traveled between every corner of his empire, he never could force the duchies to unite.

The bigger Henry's empire grew, the more difficult it was to keep the separate territories together.

They gave him allegiance but the empire remained divided.

Back to you.

Why could Henry II's rule of the Angevin Empire be seen as a success?

Is it, A, he reasserted his authority by accepting that his lands belong to the French king, B, he reasserted his authority by taking back lands and expanding his empire, or C, he reasserted his authority by swearing allegiance to the rulers of his duchies.

What do you think?

You can pause the video here.

So what did you get?

If you got B, you are correct.

Let's move on.

Source B, a chronicle describing Henry and his legal reforms.

Henry was serious about justice.

He had a great legal mind.

This became important because the anarchy had led to a breakdown in law and order.

Henry was inventive when it came to legal matters.

The Assizes enabled him to enforce his law even when he wasn't there in person.

This reasserted his royal authority across the land and shifted power away from the barons.

Some barons would later revolt, but Henry's law and order was everywhere and for everyone.

Back to you.

What legal invention did Henry use to enforce his law even when he wasn't present?

Is it, A, the anarchy, B, the Assizes, or C, the Magna Carta?

What do you think?

You could pause the video here and click play once you've got the answer.

So what did you get?

If you got the Assizes, well done.

Let's move on.

Source C, a chronicle describing Henry and his Church reforms.

Let's read this together.

So Henry's reforms of the Church were as detailed and targeted as his legal reforms.

The Constitutions of Clarendon was important as his creation of the Assizes.

They detailed Henry's vision of a Church which must ask permission from the crown.

They enforced royal authority over the Church.

They ensured that the criminal clergy were handed over to the king's courts, where they could be punished as everyday criminals.

Back to you.

How did the Constitutions of Clarendon deal with criminal clergy?

Is it, A, they allowed the clergy to have their own legal system, B, they ensured that criminal clergy were handed over to the king's courts, or C, they ensure the clergy were excluded from punishment as everyday criminals.

What do you think?

You can pause the video here and click play once you're ready to continue.

So what did you get?

If you got B, you are correct.

The Constitutions of Clarendon dealt with criminal clergy by ensuring that criminal clergy were handed over to the king's courts.

Well done.

Let's move on.

Source D, French manuscript On Henry's succession planning.

Henry's succession plan aimed to provide stability.

However, he did not trust his sons.

He reluctantly gave them power and then snatched it away.

This humiliated his sons, who then plotted with their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, to revolt against the king.

Henry had grown used to being a powerful ruler in Europe and found it difficult to release his authority.

For a man who had achieved so much as king, he died a failure when it came to his family and planning for succession.

Back to you.

Why could Henry's succession planning be seen as failure?

Is it, A, he was too quick to let go of authority, B, he was too quick to please his family, or C, he drove his sons towards revolt.

What do you think?

You could pause the video here and click play once you've got the answer.

So what did you get?

If you got C, you are correct.

Henry drove his sons towards revolt.

Let's move on.

Back to you again.

Match Henry's success or failure to the correct event.

So we've got success and failure on the left and the events on the right.

So Henry took back lands and expanded his empire.

The murder of Thomas Becket caused outrage.

The Constitutions of Clarendon enforced authority over the Church.

Being slow to release power to his sons led to family revolts.

You could pause the video here and click play once you completed this task.

So how did that go?

Well, let's have a look.

Success: Henry took back lands and expanded his empire.

Failure: The murder of Thomas Becket caused outrage.

Success again: The Constitutions of Clarendon enforced royal authority over the Church.

And another of Henry's failure was that he was being slow to release power to his sons, which led to the family revolt.

Well done for completing this check for understanding.

Task B, 1.

Complete the table, giving a reason for the success or failure of each event.

A start has been made for you.

So on the left, we've got the events: Angevin Empire, legal reforms, Church reforms, succession planning.

And on the right, we have success or failure.

So let's have a look at the Angevin Empire and the success of that.

So success: Henry took back lands and expanded his empire.

Hmm, I wonder what failure could be of the Angevin Empire.

You could pause the video here and click play once you've completed this table.

So how did you do?

Let's have a look.

This is what you should have got.

Let's start with the Angevin Empire.

So a failure was that the empire remained divided.

Now let's have a look at the legal reforms.

So a success of this was that after the anarchy, the Assizes, reasserted his royal authority across the land.

This was great, but a failure was that this angered some barons who later revolted.

Church reforms, success: The constitutions enforced royal authority over the Church.

A failure was that the murder of Thomas Becket caused outrage.

Succession planning.

A success of this was that Henry's succession plan aimed to provide stability.

A failure that followed, that Henry's being slow to release power to his sons led to family revolts.

Well done for completing this table.

Lets move on.

2, choose a phrase from the following list, which best describes how successful you think Henry was in reasserting royal authority: He was completely successful, he was partly successful, he failed completely.

3, Write one or two paragraphs to justify your interpretation.

You can pause the video here and click play once you've completed those two tasks.

So how did that go?

Well, let's have a look.

Henry was partly successful.

3, your answer may have looked something like this.

Let's read this paragraph together.

So Henry was successful in reasserting his royal authority.

After the anarchy, there had been a lack of authority leading to a breakdown in law and order.

Henry reasserted royal authority by taking back royal lands and expanding his empire.

The Assizes also boosted his legal authority across the land.

Despite the murder of Thomas Becket, Henry's Church reforms asserted royal authority over the Church.

Henry proved he was a successful medieval king who held great power across his royal lands.

However, Henry's attempt to reassert royal authority was only partly successful.

Firstly, the separate duchies gave Henry allegiance, but the Angevin Empire remained divided.

Secondly, Henry's legal reforms angered the barons who later revolted.

Thirdly, the murder of Thomas Becket caused the outrage, uniting enemies, including the Pope, against Henry.

Finally, Henry's poor succession planning led to family revolts.

Overall, no matter how assertive Henry was, he faced great challenges to his authority.

Well done for completing this task.

We've now reached the end of this lesson.

Let's summarize our learning.

So in this lesson, we looked at how successful Henry II was as a king.

You now understand that a successful medieval king needed to have certain qualities to enable them to effectively rule.

Henry's reign demonstrated success by reasserting royal authority over the law, the Church and the Angevin Empire.

Henry's reign also demonstrated failure through poor succession planning, which led to family revolts.

Historians often disagree whether a king can be seen as a successful ruler.

And lastly, you understand that Henry reasserted his royal authority in various ways.

Thank you for joining me in this lesson.