Henry III's legacy

Model answer

Henry gave lands, offices and rich marriages to foreign favourites such as his Lusignan half-brothers. He also involved England in the Sicilian Business, promising the pope about 135,000 marks to win the crown of Sicily for his son Edmund.

Model answer

The Provisions of Oxford, drawn up at the parliament in June 1258, were important first because they were the first real attempt to place the king's power under the control of his barons. Magna Carta had set limits on what the king could do; the Provisions went further and created machinery to supervise him. A Council of Fifteen was to advise and control Henry III, the great officers - the justiciar, Hugh Bigod, the chancellor and the treasurer - were to answer to it, and royal castles were put in new hands. Henry's Lusignan half-brothers, whose favour had caused so much anger, were driven out of England in July 1258.

Secondly, the Provisions changed ideas about how the realm should be governed. Parliament was to meet three times a year, with twelve barons chosen to speak for 'the community', and four knights in each county were to investigate complaints against sheriffs and other officials. This idea that the 'community of the realm' had a right to be consulted and to see abuses corrected outlasted the reformers. Edward himself ordered a nationwide inquiry into officials - the Hundred Rolls - as soon as he returned in 1274, and he held parliaments regularly.

However, the Provisions also poisoned the relationship between the king and his barons in the short term. Henry never accepted them: he obtained papal absolution from his oath in 1261, and Louis IX's Mise of Amiens annulled them in January 1264. The barons themselves divided, with Simon de Montfort quarrelling with Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, over how far reform should go. The result was civil war, Montfort's victory at Lewes in 1264 and his defeat at Evesham in 1265.

Overall, the Provisions were most important because they established the principle that the king should govern with the consent of his barons through parliament - a principle that led first to war, but which Edward learned to respect.

Model answer

Interpretation A is convincing about Edward's temper and his ruthlessness towards his enemies. He was very tall - about 6 feet 2 inches when his tomb was opened in 1774, hence 'Longshanks' - and his rages were famous. In 1294 the Dean of St Paul's is said to have collapsed and died in his presence while presenting the clergy's objections to taxation; his household accounts record the repair of his daughter Elizabeth's coronet after he threw it into the fire; and a chronicler says he tore out handfuls of his son's hair in 1307. A is right that he showed no mercy to those he saw as rebels. His army sacked Berwick in 1296, killing a large number of townspeople; William Wallace was executed in London as a traitor in 1305; and in 1306 Robert Bruce's sister Mary and the Countess of Buchan were kept in cages. In Wales Dafydd ap Gruffudd was executed as a traitor in 1283.

However, A is unconvincing when it claims Edward 'simply loved power'. His piety was real: he went on crusade in 1270-72 and founded Vale Royal Abbey after a vow. He was a devoted husband, and when Eleanor of Castile died in 1290 he built twelve crosses to mark the places where her body rested on the way to London. He was loyal to friends and servants such as Robert Burnell. His concern for justice was also genuine: the Hundred Rolls inquiry and the great statutes tackled corrupt officials and legal abuses that harmed ordinary people. He could be merciful, pardoning Adam Gurdon in 1266 and giving fairly generous terms to John Comyn and the Scots who submitted in 1304. His harshest acts were the normal punishments for treason as he saw it. A, written by a historian of Scotland's wars, focuses on Edward's dealings with his enemies.

Overall, A is convincing about Edward's temper and his ruthlessness towards rebels, but it is unconvincing as a full judgement, because it ignores his piety, loyalty and genuine concern for justice.

Model answer

I largely agree that Simon de Montfort lost the Barons' War mainly because he lost the support of other barons, especially Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, and never won over the Marcher lords. However, Edward's leadership turned that weakness into defeat, and Montfort's own mistakes help to explain why he lost support.

After his victory at Lewes in May 1264 Montfort governed in the king's name, but his regime rested on a narrow base. Power lay with a council chosen by Montfort, Gilbert de Clare and the Bishop of Chichester, and Henry III was kept as a figurehead. When Montfort called his famous parliament in January 1265, he summoned two knights from each shire and burgesses from the towns, but only a small number of earls and barons - a sign of how few great lords supported him. Many barons resented the way his sons, Henry and Simon, gained castles and offices, and Montfort himself took the earldom of Chester from Edward in 1265, which looked like self-enrichment. The decisive blow came when Gilbert de Clare quarrelled with Montfort over his dominance and the spoils of Lewes. Gloucester left court, joined the Marcher lords, who had never been defeated, and helped Edward escape - his brother Thomas de Clare was among Edward's guards. Without Gloucester and the Marchers, Edward would have had no army in 1265.

However, the loss of baronial support would not have destroyed Montfort without Edward's leadership. After escaping at Hereford on 28 May 1265, Edward agreed at Ludlow to uphold the good old laws, which made it easier for moderate barons to join him. He then took Worcester and Gloucester and broke the bridges over the Severn, trapping Montfort in the west. He surprised the younger Simon's army at Kenilworth on 1-2 August and trapped Montfort himself at Evesham on 4 August. Speed and planning, not just numbers, won the campaign.

Montfort's own mistakes also contributed. In June 1265, by the Treaty of Pipton, he recognised Llywelyn ap Gruffudd as Prince of Wales in return for Welsh support, which many English landholders saw as a betrayal of English interests. His campaign was slow, and his son's carelessness at Kenilworth meant Montfort's army at Evesham received no reinforcements. His government also depended on holding the anointed king captive: Henry's legitimacy, the support of the pope, whose legate excommunicated Montfort's supporters, and the forces Queen Eleanor gathered abroad all meant that his regime was always seen by many as illegal.

It should be remembered that Montfort did have support - from many knights, the Londoners, some bishops and the students of Oxford - but these groups could not match the military power of the earls and Marcher lords.

Overall, losing the support of the barons was the main reason Montfort lost. Gloucester's defection and the hostility of the Marchers gave Edward the army and the opportunity he needed; Edward's leadership then made the most of it. Montfort's arrogance and the Treaty of Pipton help to explain why he lost that support, which shows how closely the factors were linked, but without the barons' desertion Edward could not have won at Evesham.