The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England

The English monarchs are the primary focus of The Plantagenets: The Kings Who Made England, represented in the title. Jones uses Henry I and the Anarchy (the civil wars between Matilda and Stephen) as an introductory period setting the stage for the first Plantagenet king, Henry II (son of Matilda, and her husband Geoffrey Plantagenet). He ends his narrative just after the deposition of Richard II by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, then Henry IV. He says he selected this chain of kings because “they were the longest-reigning English royal dynasty, and during their times were founded some of the most basic elements of what we today know as England” (XXVII), creating the foundation for a compelling story with meaning to a modern reader.

Jones follows these monarchs’ fortunes, connecting them as individuals to the significant historical events of their reigns. He compares and contrasts their personalities and political rules, stating in the Preface, for example, that Edward I was “undoubtedly one of the great […] Plantagenets. His son, Edward II, was the worst on them on every score” (XXXII).

Jones highlights the imperial success of Henry II; the military might of Richard I, Edward I, and Edward III; the tyranny of John; the material culture and piety of Henry III; and the weaknesses, despotism, and elevating of favorites by Edward II and Richard II. Telling this narrative in chronological order allows him to show how these kings’ reigns influenced each other. Jones charts how they each contributed to The Changing Structures of Governance and English Cultural Development. For example, after the chaos of his father’s reign, Edward III used political reforms to form relationships with the magnates; in the wake of John’s unpopularity, Henry III’s veneration of Edward the Confessor created a narrative of pious kingship going back beyond his Plantagenet predecessors to the Anglo-Saxon kings.

In this period, women in important positions exercised soft power through their familial and marital connections, reflecting The Role of the Personal in History. However, some also exercised hard power in their own right, particularly women at the start of this period (when structures of inheritance and regulations around power were less formalized).

Jones notes that Henry II’s status came through his mother, the Empress Matilda; her role in the civil war of the Anarchy set him up for his inheritance of the English crown. She established a court in her territories, ruling as Queen.

Jones also notes the enduring power of Eleanor of Aquitaine, not just as the wife of two consecutive kings and the mother of two more but also in her own right as Duchy of Aquitaine. She acted as an adviser, diplomat, and deputy to her kingly relations; in her seventies, she was considered an asset to capture in the continental war of succession between John and Arthur. However, she was also a proactive political player in her own right, arranging her tactical marriage to Henry II and leading her sons in rebellion against him when she felt the rights of her duchy were eroded.

Similarly, Isabella acted as a mediator in Edward II’s troublesome reign. She performed the role of the loyal wife through much of their marriage despite being side-lined and treated poorly by him. Then, sent to France on a diplomatic mission, she used her status as sister of the French kings to assert her agency, refusing to return to England. She formed a focal point for dissent against Edward, eventually invading with her lover, Mortimer, and seizing power. She remained diplomatically important even once their rule was overthrown by her son, Edward III, and treated as a dowager Queen.

Jones also offers an example of women exercising soft power through their cultural and social roles. He describes a duel over a noblewoman named Joan at one of Edward III’s famous tournaments: ladies like her played an important part in Edward III’s nurturing of a chivalric, courtly culture recalling Arthurian legend. After her initial controversial marriage, she married his son, Prince Edward, despite being of little tactical value, illustrating the soft power she wielded.

Other examples of prominent women in Jones’s narrative include Philippa of Hainault (Edward III’s queen and mother of a large brood), Anne (Richard II’s beloved wife and partner), and Constance, the Duchess of Brittany who was regent for her son Arthur.

Magnates and barons were higher territorial and titled landowners, representing the upper layer of society beneath the overarching governance of a king, who was their overlord in a feudal system. They were powerful individuals and their families, who formed the political community of England and exercised social and military power. They had interests in the country as a whole but often governed their territories with varying degrees of independence.

Jones charts how their role shifted throughout this period as they negotiated politically with the Plantagenet kings to formalize or extend their rights, often causing civil strife. He explores their internal jostling for power and capacity to form a cohesive cultural group (for example, in Edward III’s chivalric court or their concord as they joined to reassert stability and oust Gaveston under Edward II). By the end of this period, political structures formally reflected their influence and the duty of the king to govern in their interests, as parliament became an established vehicle.

Important examples include the Appellants, a dissenting group who seized power from Richard II until he brutally moved against them years later; Simon de Montfort, leader of the baronial dissent against Henry III that reasserted Magna Carta and other important charters; Thomas of Lancaster, a decisive figurehead in the opposition to Edward II; Mortimer, who after escaping from imprisonment joined Isabella to overthrow Edward II; and John of Gaunt, who after an initial absence acted as a leader and mediator in Richard II’s reign, ultimately supporting his nephew.

The bishops formed part of the political community in England alongside the magnates. They belonged to both the church hierarchy and the political and social hierarchy; their office embodied The Relationship between Religion and Politics. Tensions between secular and church jurisdiction often played out through them; for example, kings argued with the papacy over the right of appointment, and they headed the ecclesiastical courts which Henry II objected to as infringing on the authority of royal courts. Like the magnates, they frequently jostled to assert their rights against monarchical power.

The Archbishops were the most powerful bishopric; they were important ecclesiastical and courtly figures. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in particular, was integral in formal political ceremonies, such as the crowning of a new king or the confirmation of the heir’s status as king designate. The archbishop’s status represented a thorn in several kings’ sides. For example, John’s refusal to allow the pope’s appointment, Langford, into the country exacerbated his rupture with the Church and contributed to the circumstances of the Magna Carta. Edward III was forced to concede in his dispute with Stratford, as the country and the papacy backed their archbishop. The most famous example is Henry II’s fallout with Thomas Beckett. The escalation of events reflects the interdependency of the Church, the secular powers on each other (Henry requiring an archbishop for his succession, for example), and the constant struggle for dominance.

Jones quotes from a range of primary sources in The Plantagenets: The Kings Who Made England, using medieval chroniclers who wrote in the historiographical tradition of their era, creating accounts for posterity. Examples include Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, and Orderic Vitalis. Jones occasionally nods to the potential biases of these sources, but he does not examine them in detail and does not provide footnotes. Rather, he uses them to enrich his depiction of the medieval world and add to the book’s entertainment value as a piece of popular history. Most chroniclers were writing about events they had not themselves witnessed and were likely influenced by contemporary popular opinion or political expediency. For example, Jones provides a dramatic, personal account of William Marshal’s role in defeating the occupying French army in Henry III’s minority, likely drawing on the famous, detailed account of his life commissioned by Marshal’s son.

The papacy was the formal seat of the Church’s power, with the pope as its overlord. The pope was a political and religious leader, engaging in war and diplomacy. He headed the network of clerics who held offices throughout all Christian territories and benefitted from church revenue streams, including taxing Christian populations. Papal legates (ambassadors from the pope) played diplomatic roles and sometimes arbitrated in domestic politics. Events such as John’s agreement to recognize the pope as a feudal overlord, not just a spiritual leader demonstrate the political nature of the papacy.

The French monarchs embodied a near-constant oppositional threat to the English monarch during this period. France and England were neighbors and the two biggest power blocs in the region, making their rivalry intense. Both were monarchies, with kings who claimed various continental territories as vassal states; their borders and areas of control shifted frequently throughout the period. War or the threat of war with France was a constant financial drain on the English and a source of military pride or humiliation for different kings; Edward III enjoyed significant, lucrative successes, while John was forced to flee to England in disgrace having relinquished his father’s territories. Moments of peace, such as Richard I’s accord with Philip, often revolved around joint crusading ventures. Even in a truce, the relationship retained its martial element.

Edward II and Richard II were seen to have “favorites,” who they elevated unfairly and lavished with wealth and power at the expense of magnates’ entitlement by precedent, law, or familial connection. Gaveston was Edward II’s favorite at the start of his reign and a focal point for constant dispute as he was exiled and recalled. Hostility escalated, and his eventual summary execution by Thomas of Lancaster represented a vicious cycle of revenge to the detriment of the rule of law. Later in Edward’s reign, the power he gave the two Despensers, a father and son, became similarly inflammatory. Richard II had various circles of favorites at different points in his reign, which similarly alienated his magnates. He became obsessed with Edward II, seeking to have him canonized, suggesting he saw parallels between himself and his unpopular great-grandfather.