King Henry II & the restoration of royal authority: Absentee government

King Henry II & the restoration of royal authority: Absentee government King Henry came to power in 1154, inheriting the throne from his mother’s cousin Stephen of Blois. On taking the throne and becoming king of England, as well as ruler over a vast amount of other lands, Henry began to put into place many changes that transformed England over his reign. Due to his many roles as leader over many provinces, it was difficult for Henry to be in England all the time to oversee the affairs of the kingdom. His other lands; Maine, Touraine, Anjou, Aquitaine, Normandy etc. Needed him too. Knowing this after first restoring the government that had failed and disappeared in Stephen’s rule he then subsequently set up an “absentee government” that would semi-rule and direct the country when he was out of it. These absentee governments were independent to each country but ultimately under his command.  England was placed under one of the strictest governments out of all his lands, the country was split up into shires with each shire controlled by a sheriff whose job was to enforce the common law and collect taxes. A “justiciar” was also appointed each time Henry left to see to the overall administration of England’s affairs. In 1160, a period when Henry was absent from England, his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine became temporary head of the government. She was the most important person in the country, and she was the person who men appealed to and from whom writs were issued in the king’s absence. Other men were appointed to guide her and help with the role, Robert Earl of Leicester and Richard de Lucy who informally held the offices of “justiciars”. During periods of time when both Henry and Eleanor were absent however, the “justiciars” Robert and Richard stepped up to act as informal regents, ruling temporarily in the absence of any monarch. They commanded the whole of England and were responsible for overseeing other major offices such as the exchequer and treasurer. A lot of historians parrot and perpetuate the view that Henry was a bad King because he spent more time attending to his foreign commitments in France than governing England. However I think we need to consider the facts that 1) Henry was French, he was from Anjou, 2) He had possession of the French lands before he became ruler of England, and 3) Henry owned more lands in France and therefore had more individual governments there that he had to oversee. So of course the majority of his time would be spent abroad. Yet with this evidence, we see that it is not because he was a bad king that he was absent from England, but because he had so many responsibilities that divided his attention. He did not leave England in a mess every time he left, he made sure support systems were up that could cope with and guide England in the absence of their monarch, and therefore I would suggest that he was a good king.

New Page