Hello, welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Newton, and we've reached the final lesson of this inquiry where we're going to look to summarise everything we've learned and make some kind of conclusion about Henry II.

As ever I'll be here to guide you right till the end, right.

Let's get started.

So our big inquiry question has been England under Henry II, how successfully did Henry reassert royal authority? And we have seen the highs and the lows of Henry II's reign.

We've seen that Henry became king after the Anarchy, a very chaotic period.

He began his reign trying to reassert control over the Angevin Empire and to reassert his authority over the law and the Church.

We've also seen his rather disastrous attempt to plan for succession, which led to revolts from his own family.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain how successful Henry II was as king.

Before we begin, there are a few words we need to understand, reasserted, royal authority, and interpretation.

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 an opinion of what something means.

Today's lesson is split into two parts.

First, we will look at what it takes to be a successful mediaeval king.

Then we will compare that with Henry's attempt to reassert the royal authority in the second part of the lesson.

So let's get started with what makes a successful mediaeval king.

A successful king has the ability to maintain control over the people.

This includes all the various groups in the land, such as the barons, the knights, the army, the Church, and the peasants.

If we look at the diagram on the left, it shows the feudal system.

Now this is a simplified diagram of mediaeval society, and we can see that the king is at the top of society.

We can also see the control arrow on the left, which is pointing down.

This shows how a successful king needs to control all the people below him in the feudal society.

Part of that control involved enforcing laws, upholding order, and ensuring that people obey the king's authority.

Success in battles and being skillful in warfare was extremely important for a mediaeval king.

Obviously, this is very different to what we expect from our monarchs today.

As we see from the image, in the mediaeval period, the king was expected to be a warrior.

He was expected to be on the battlefield.

This enabled a king to protect his land.

The mediaeval period was a violent period with lots of conflicts and a king needed to defend the kingdom.

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.

If people knew that their king was successful in war, the more likely they would respect him, feel safe and secure, and be loyal and follow him.

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

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

A king was expected to restore order and put an end to rebellions.

Have a look at the image.

It shows a king settling a disagreement.

What normally happens here is the king will listen to various complaints of injustice and then decide on a solution.

After all, it's no good having a strong king who is successful on the battlefield and can defend the kingdom if he can't create a safe environment for people to work and live.

A successful king also planned for succession.

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

This was essential to prevent multiple claimants fighting over the throne.

Claimants are the people who believe the throne belongs to them.

The image on the left shows a royal family tree.

It shows various kings and all their relatives in the circles.

We can see then that succession planning could get incredibly complicated, especially if there were many potential heirs.

Effective planning for succession would ensure that when the king died, there would be a smooth changeover to the next monarch.

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

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

They would also feel invincible on the battlefield.

Look at the image.

It's a mediaeval mosaic.

We can see King William II of Sicily in the bottom left.

He's receiving the crown from the hands of Jesus Christ.

This suggests that God has chosen William to be king.

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.

Okay, let's check your understanding.

Which of these is the quality that was important for a mediaeval king to have, but which is not important for kings today.

Is it A, success in battle? B, succession planning, C, support from the Church? Pause the video and have a think.

Okay, welcome back and well done if you knew it was A, success in battle.

Okay, let's move on to task A.

We can see a mediaeval king in the centre, and he's surrounded by the qualities he needs to be an effective ruler.

I want you to fill in the missing words.

Pause the video and have a go at the task.

Okay welcome back.

Well done if you knew these answers.

Control over the people, success in battles, peace and stability, succession planning, and support from God and the Church.

Okay, so we now know what it takes to be a successful mediaeval king.

We now have a way of judging whether Henry II was successful.

So let's move on to the second part of the lesson.

How successfully did Henry reassert royal authority? So before we focus our attention on Henry II, it's first important that we understand that historians disagree about this.

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

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

This is certainly the case of the Henry II.

Perhaps you see Henry as a success, but you can 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, written documents, and manuscripts which 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.

If they focus on positive sources, they're likely to have a positive interpretation, and if they focus on negative sources, they're likely to have a negative interpretation.

Let's check your understanding.

True or false, historians all agree about how successful Henry II was as a ruler? Pause the video and have a think.

Okay, welcome back and well done if you knew it was false.

So let's think about that a bit more deeply.

Why is it false? Is it because their interpretations depend on the sources they have focused on or because historians have to find a way to disagree with all previous interpretations.

Pause the video and have a think.

Okay, welcome back and well done.

If you knew yes, it's because their interpretations depend on the sources they have focused on.

Okay, let's continue.

Now, what I want you to be thinking about is what is your interpretation of Henry? How successfully did Henry reassert royal authority? Over the next few slides, we are going to look at four sources.

I want you to use these sources and everything you already know about Henry's reign to arrive at your interpretation of how well Henry reasserted his royal authority.

The first source is source A, which is from a monk writing about Henry and his Angevin Empire.

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 travelled between every corner of his empire, he never could force the dutchies 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.

We can also see the map on the right as a reminder of the Angevin Empire that Henry ruled over, and as the source states from Scotland to the Pyrenees, a truly powerful ruler.

So we can see here from source A, it's pointing out that Henry was not perfect, but it does give a generally positive view of Henry's rule over his empire.

Okay, let's check your understanding.

Why could Henry II's rule of the Angevin Empire be seen as a success? Was it A, he reasserted his authority by accepting 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? Pause the video and have a think.

Okay, welcome back and well done if you knew was B.

He reasserted his authority by taking back lands and expanding his empire.

Okay, let's move on to 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.

So I think we can show here source B is overwhelmingly positive on Henry's legal reforms, and we can see in the image of the map on the right, we can see how the assizes enabled Henry's justice to be everywhere spread across the whole country, and source B is justifying their interpretation by arguing Henry's importance of taking control after the Anarchy.

Okay, let's check your understanding.

What legal invention did Henry use to enforce his law even when he wasn't present? Was it A, the Anarchy, B, the Assizes, or C, the Magna Carta? Pause the video and have a think.

Okay, welcome back and yes, well done if you knew it was B, the Assizes.

Okay, let's move on to source C.

Now, source C is a chronicle describing Henry and his church reforms. I think you can see here we are moving through all the different areas of Henry's reign.

Okay, so let's see what source C has to say.

Henry's reforms of the Church were as detailed and targeted as his legal reforms. The constitutions of Clarendon were as 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.

Again, we can see how source C shows how Henry reasserted control over the Church.

And if you have a look at the image on the right, this shows Henry holding a church building, and this kind of matches up with how source C represents Henry as in control over the Church as if he has it in the palms of his hands.

But a little question I want to put to you to think about, was this a smooth process? Was the process of Henry taking control of the Church, were there any things or events that you could think of that may have got in the way of this process of him taking control of the Church? Is there an important event, perhaps, which happened at Canterbury Cathedral, which may give us a different interpretation? I will leave that with you to think about as we go through the lesson.

Okay, let's check your understanding.

How did the constitutions of Clarendon deal with criminal clergy? Was 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 ensured the clergy were excluded from punishment as everyday criminals? Pause the video and have a think.

Okay, welcome back and well done if you knew it was B, they ensured that criminal clergy were handed over to the king's courts.

Okay, let's look at our last source, source D.

Now this source is from a French manuscript on Henry's succession planning.

Henry's succession plan aims 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.

So I think we can see here that source D gives a very different interpretation of Henry and source.

D is focusing clearly on the succession planning and that Henry dies a failure when it came to succession planning.

If we look at the image on the right, it shows a king in the big circle in the centre of the image.

And all the smaller circles below him are his children and heirs.

And we know that Henry had many sons and heirs, and this caused him great problems when deciding on succession on who should have what land and titles.

So we can add this interpretation into the mix with all the other sources, and we can start to build a full and rounded picture of Henry's reign and how successful he was as a king.

Okay, let's check your understanding.

Why could Henry's succession planning be seen as a failure? Was 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? Pause the video and have a think.

Okay, welcome back and well done if you knew it was C.

Yes.

He drove his sons towards revolt.

His succession planning provoked anger in his family and they sought to revolt.

Okay, let's have a further check.

I want you to match Henry's success or failure to the correct event.

So you have success and failure on the left there, and you need to match them to the correct events on the right.

In other words, choose whether each event is a success or a failure.

Pause the video and have a go.

Okay, welcome back.

So well done if you knew the first event there is considered a success.

Henry took back lands and expanded his empire.

The second event, the murder of Thomas Beckett causing outrage is a failure, and the third event, the constitutions of Clarendon, which enforced the royal authority over the Church, again, seen as success.

And the last event was a failure, being slow to release power to his sons led to family revolts.

Okay, let's move on to task B.

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

You can see I've made a start for you.

The event was the Angevin Empire and I put that as a success because Henry took back lands and expanded his empire.

So I want you to do that for the other events.

You may choose to only complete a success box or a failure box, or you may even be able to complete both success and failure boxes for an event.

Pause the video and have a go at the task.

Okay, welcome back and well done if you knew these answers.

So like I said, you could have each event as a success or a failure.

You could even have both success and failure.

If we were to give the Angevin Empire as an event to be classed as a failure, we could have said the empire remained divided.

Let's move on to legal reforms. So legal reforms could be seen as a success because after the Anarchy, the Assizes reasserted his royal authority across the land.

We could also have seen legal reforms as a failure because these legal reforms angered some barons who would later revolt.

If you remember that the the legal reforms shifted power away from the baronial courts towards the king's courts.

Okay, let's move on to the Church reforms now, and if we look at the success column, we can see that the Church reforms could be considered success because the constitutions of Clarendon enforced a royal authority over the Church, and this could show Henry reasserting his control, reasserting his authority over his kingdom, over his church, through the constitutions of Clarendon.

However, if you remember I put that question to you was was there any events which took place, which may have caused to be a stumbling block of some kind to Henry reasserting his authority over the Church? And many of you will have remembered that there was the murder of Thomas Beckett, which caused outrage across Europe and led to his own family and to the Pope going up against him.

Okay, let's move on to succession planning.

Could have been seen as success because Henry's succession plan aimed to provide stability.

That's why he was naming his heir early.

He was trying to show to everyone that there was a clear, smooth pathway to his heir and that would provide stability, especially after the chaos of the Anarchy, which had been caused through a succession crisis.

But of course, it could be seen as a failure too.

Henry was slow to release power to his sons, and this led them to be impatient and to revolt against him.

Okay, let's move on to the second and third part of task B.

I want you to apply all the knowledge from the lesson and the unit in general to this task.

Choose a phrase from the following list, which best describes how successful you think Henry was in reasserting royal authority.

So the choices I'll give you here are he was completely successful, he was partly successful, or he failed completely.

So choose one of those which you think best describes how successful Henry was in reasserting royal authority.

Pause the video and have a think.

Okay, hopefully you've made a choice there.

Now for the next part of the task, I want you to write one or two paragraphs to justify your interpretation.

Tell me why you believe Henry was successful or not.

But most importantly, make sure you include details and examples which back up your answer, pause the video and have a go.

Okay, welcome back.

So I've chosen he was partly successful and I'm hoping there that you'll be able to compare some of my answer with yours, whether you chose that he was completely successful or failed completely.

So your answer may include the following.

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 is also boosted his legal authority across the land.

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

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

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

Firstly, the separate dutchies 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 Beckett caused 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.

Okay, let's summarise the lesson.

A successful mediaeval 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 Henry reasserted his royal authority in various ways.

Thank you for joining me for this epic and rather tragic story of Henry II in his quest to reassert authority over his empire and kingdom.

I really hope you've learned a lot and are perhaps curious to learn more about the trials and tribulations of mediaeval monarchy.

Hopefully I will see you in the next unit.