‘To what extent was the absentee kingship of Richard I damaging for England?’
Level
A Level
Year Examined
2022
Topic
Richard I’s Reign
👑Complete Model Essay
‘To what extent was the absentee kingship of Richard I damaging for England?’
To what extent was the absentee kingship of Richard I damaging for England?
Richard I, the ‘Lionheart’, is a king shrouded in romanticism, a warrior king who spent much of his ten-year reign away from England. However, this essay will explore the extent to which this absentee kingship was actually damaging for England, examining the negative economic and social consequences alongside the positive aspects of strong administration and relative peace.
The Damaging Impact of Absentee Kingship
Undeniably, Richard's near-constant absence had significant downsides. England effectively bankrolled his ambitious ventures: the Third Crusade, his exorbitant ransom following capture, and the subsequent conflicts with France. These financial burdens, particularly the poorly planned financing of the Crusade, strained the English treasury. Richard’s decision to alienate royal lands, a key source of royal income, had long-term implications, forcing the Crown to resort to more extractive measures in the future. The complaints of Londoners recorded by fitzOsbert in 1196 highlight the burden of these financial demands on the populace.
Furthermore, the absence of the King, traditionally the protector of the Jews, coincided with a rise in anti-Semitism. The horrific York pogrom of 1190 serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerability of the ‘King’s Jews’ without his direct protection. This suggests that Richard’s physical presence, and the deterrent it presented, was crucial for maintaining order and protecting vulnerable groups.
Richard’s absence also had destabilizing political consequences. Prince John, fuelled by resentment over his perceived marginalization, exploited the situation, instigating unrest in 1191 and 1193-94. John’s actions highlight the inherent instability of absentee rule, as ambitious individuals could exploit the king's absence to challenge the established order. This period saw violence and upheaval at the heart of government, culminating in the replacement of William Longchamp as justiciar.
Additionally, Richard's choice of administrators, while arguably strong in the south, created a power vacuum in the north. Longchamp’s dominance effectively sidelined Hugh de Puiset, leaving a void in effective royal authority exacerbated by Richard’s continued ban on the Archbishop of York entering England. This lack of a strong royal presence in the north had the potential to encourage instability and discontent.
Positive Aspects of Richard's Reign
However, to focus solely on the negatives would be to present an incomplete picture. Richard, like his father Henry II, recognized the importance of capable administration. He appointed experienced figures like Hubert Walter, suggesting a continuation of established practices rather than a radical departure. Indeed, one could argue that Richard's reign, rather than being detrimental, actually facilitated the development of a more sophisticated and standardized system of government. The emergence of professional judges and the institution of the coroner's office point towards a period of administrative advancement, laying the groundwork for future developments in English governance.
On the international front, Richard’s planned Crusade, while financially burdensome, did lead to a securing of the northern border. The Quitclaim of Canterbury, signed with William of Scotland, neutralized a potential threat and even provided financial contributions towards Richard's ransom. This agreement ensured peace and stability in the north for the duration of Richard’s reign, a notable achievement considering the chronic instability of the Anglo-Scottish border.
Crucially, unlike the reigns of his father and brother, Richard faced no major baronial rebellions. This suggests that, despite his absence, Richard maintained an acceptable balance of royal authority. He ensured the smooth transition of vacant titles, promoted loyalty and competence (exemplified by William Marshal's rise), and acknowledged the interests of Anglo-Norman barons with continental holdings. These actions, taken together, contributed to a period of internal stability unusual for the Angevin period.
Finally, Richard’s relationship with the Church remained positive. His absence, arguably, prevented the type of interference that characterized his father and brother’s reigns. The appointment of Hubert Walter as both justiciar and Archbishop fostered cooperation between Church and Crown. Richard’s policy of not exploiting vacant bishoprics for profit further demonstrates a more restrained and collaborative approach compared to his predecessors.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while Richard's absentee kingship undeniably had negative consequences for England, primarily in terms of financial strain and the rise of social tensions, it is too simplistic to label it wholly 'damaging'. Richard’s selection of capable administrators, the advancements in government bureaucracy, the securing of the northern border, the absence of major baronial uprisings, and a less fraught relationship with the Church all point towards a more nuanced picture. Ultimately, the lives of most English people continued relatively unaffected, and the administrative developments of Richard's reign, arguably built upon Henry II's foundations, laid the groundwork for further advancements in governance. It is perhaps more accurate to view Richard’s reign not as inherently damaging, but rather as a period of significant change and adaptation, where both the challenges and opportunities presented by an absentee king shaped the trajectory of English history.
Note: History Study Pack Required
Score Big with Perfectly Structured History Essays!
Prepare effortlessly for your A/AS/O-Level exams with our comprehensive...
History Study Pack.
✅ 1200+ Model Essays: Master your essay writing with expertly crafted answers to past paper questions.
✅ Exam Boards Covered: Tailored materials for AQA, Cambridge, and OCR exams.
🍃 Free Essay Plan
To what extent was the absentee kingship of Richard I damaging for England?
Richard I, popularly known as Richard the Lionheart, was a King who spent the majority of his reign away from England, primarily focused on his crusades, wars in France, and his captivity. This essay aims to assess the extent to which Richard’s absence was detrimental to England. Arguments will be presented both supporting and challenging the claim that Richard’s absentee kingship was damaging to England.
Arguments Supporting a Damaging Impact
One of the most prominent arguments supporting the view that Richard’s absentee kingship was damaging relates to his financial policies. While he was away, Richard imposed heavy financial burdens on England, draining the country’s resources to fund his crusades, his ransom, and his wars in France. This excessive spending has been viewed by some historians as having almost bankrupted England.
Richard’s financial plans were often short-sighted, such as his alienation of large portions of the royal demesne to fund the Crusade. This action would have a lasting impact, diminishing the king’s ability to “live off his own” in the future and leading to more burdensome methods of raising money. This, in turn, would have harmed the population, evidenced by complaints from fitzOsbert in London in 1196 about financial exactions.
Richard’s reign also witnessed a significant escalation in anti-Semitic violence, culminating in the York pogrom of 1190. The Jewish community, relying heavily on the king’s protection as “the King’s Jews”, became more vulnerable due to Richard’s absence.
Richard’s absence also created power vacuums and instability within the kingdom. His brother, Prince John, exploited these situations, engaging in upheaval and disturbances in 1191 and 1193/94. John’s actions, fueled by resentment and a belief that Richard had not given him sufficient authority, led to violence in key areas and turmoil within the central government, culminating in the replacement of William Longchamp in 1191.
Richard’s appointment of William Longchamp and Hugh of Le Puiset as co-justiciars created a power vacuum in the north of England. By concentrating power in Longchamp’s hands, he effectively ousted Hugh, leaving the north without real royal representation. This situation was further exacerbated by Richard’s ban on the Archbishop of York entering the country.
Arguments Challenging a Damaging Impact
Despite the aforementioned criticisms, there are strong arguments against the view that Richard’s absentee kingship was damaging to England. Richard appointed capable individuals to govern England in his absence, such as Hubert Walter. This practice mirrored the system employed by Henry II, who also spent a significant portion of his reign abroad.
Richard’s absences actually contributed to the development of a more standardized and professionalized government in England. Key examples include the emergence of a team of professional judges to handle legal cases and the establishment of the coroner’s office to deal with suspicious deaths.
In anticipation of his crusade, Richard reached an agreement with William of Scotland, the Quit Claim of Canterbury, ensuring that Scotland posed no threat to the northern English border during his reign. William also contributed funds to Richard’s ransom, demonstrating the positive relationship between the two leaders.
Richard’s rule saw no major baronial uprisings, unlike the reigns of his father, Henry II, and his brother, John. This suggests that Richard maintained an appropriate level of royal authority. He filled vacant positions and titles promptly and ensured a broad base of support by promoting loyal and capable men, such as William Marshal. Barons with land across the Channel would also have expected Richard to safeguard their interests abroad.
Richard cultivated a positive relationship with the Church, likely benefiting from his absence. His absence allowed him to avoid the type of interference that had characterized Henry’s and John’s relations with the Church. The appointment of Hubert Walter as justiciar and Archbishop fostered cooperation and stability, as did Richard’s policy of not keeping bishoprics vacant for profit.
Conclusion
The extent to which Richard I’s absentee kingship was damaging to England is a complex question with arguments on both sides. While Richard’s financial policies, power vacuums, and anti-Semitism during his absence undoubtedly pose valid concerns, it’s important to acknowledge the positive aspects of his reign. His capable administrators, the progress made in government development, and his successful diplomacy with Scotland represent significant achievements. Ultimately, the impact of Richard's reign on England was a mixed bag, with both benefits and drawbacks.
Extracts from Mark Schemes
Arguments Supporting the View that Richard I's Absentee Kingship was Damaging for England
Arguments supporting the view that the absentee kingship of Richard I was damaging for England might include:
⭐Richard was almost constantly absent in person from England, but this did not mean that England was free from providing funds for his expensive projects. It was England which bankrolled his crusade, ransom and wars with France, and some historians have suggested that he virtually bankrupted the country as a result.
⭐Richard’s financial plans for the Crusade, in particular, seem to have been very myopic in their creation. Richard alienated large portions of the royal demesne, which would affect the king’s ability to ‘live of his own’ in the future – this, in turn, would lead to more extraordinary methods of raising money which would likely be harmful to the population (eg complaints from fitzOsbert in London in 1196 about the financial exactions).
⭐Richard’s reign saw an escalation in anti-Semitic violence (eg York pogrom 1190) – and his own absence from England made the Jews more vulnerable as they relied upon the King’s own protection as the ‘King’s Jews’.
⭐Prince John caused upheaval and disturbances in England in both 1191 and 1193/94. The reasons for this were Richard’s absences and John’s belief that Richard had undermined him by not leaving him with enough authority. This caused violence in certain key areas and upheaval in central government in 1191 when William Longchamp was replaced.
⭐Arguably, Richard caused a power vacuum in the north of the country when he appointed William Longchamp and Hugh of Le Puiset as co-justiciars. By putting so much power in the hands of Longchamp (thus effectively causing him to oust Hugh from power), there was no real royal representation in the north. This was exacerbated by Richard’s ban on the Archbishop of York entering the country.
Arguments Challenging the View that the Absentee Kingship of Richard I was Damaging for England
Arguments challenging the view that the absentee kingship of Richard I was damaging for England might include:
⭐As a rule, Richard seems to have appointed very capable men to take charge of the government and administration of England (eg Hubert Walter) – this was really no different to the system employed by Henry II who also spent much time out of England (two thirds of his reign).
⭐Richard’s absences actually allowed the government of England to become even more standardised and professionalised – eg the development of a team of professional judges to hear legal cases and the institution of the office of coroner to deal with cases of suspicious deaths.
⭐Richard’s planned absence on the crusade caused him to reach an agreement with William of Scotland (the Quit Claim of Canterbury) – this ensured that Scotland did not pose any threat to the northern English border for the rest of Richard’s reign. William also contributed money towards Richard’s ransom.
⭐There were no major baronial uprisings in Richard’s reign (unlike Henry II or John) and this suggests that Richard managed to strike an appropriate level of royal authority. He ensured that vacant jobs and titles were promptly filled and he ensured a wide base of support by promoting men for their loyalty and ability (eg William Marshal). Those barons with lands across the Channel would also have expected Richard to look after their interests overseas.
⭐Richard maintained a positive relationship with the Church – again, his absences were probably helpful as it meant that he did not interfere in the way that Henry or John had. The appointment of Hubert Walter as justiciar and Archbishop helped to achieve cooperation and stability, as did Richard’s policy of not keeping bishoprics vacant for profit.
Students can argue effectively for either proposition, and any supported judgement will be rewarded. Stronger answers will consider what ‘damaging for England’ might actually mean in practice (ie lives for the majority were able to continue relatively unimpeded), where weaker answers might focus more on describing key events. Coverage of the reign from 1189 to 1199 should be reasonably attempted in better answers.