Devin asked Sharon Kay Penman:

I am knee deep in "Falls the Shadow" right now and I was wondering if you had any opinions on why Henry was such an ineffectual King. Was it a fluke of personality, poor advisors, or something else? Reading it, I just want to punch him in the face!

Sharon Kay Penman Hi, Devin. I apologize for taking so long to answer you, but I had a few rough months with a flare up of my chronic back pain. I would say it is all of the above, that you nailed it! Henry did not have the right temperament and he seems to have been insecure, easily influenced by others, never a good trait in a king. He definitely listened to the wrong people. He was not a bad or cruel man, not at all; he just was not suited to be a medieval king. Like the unfortunate Edward II and Richard II, Henry III would probably have been happier had he been the second son. He did leave a magnificent legacy in Westminster Abbey, but he did not have the confidence and steel in his soul that a medieval king needed to be successful. Another example of such a king was Stephen. The best verdict passed upon his reign came from a contemporary chronicler who said that "He was a mild man, gentle and good, and did no justice." Hereditary kingship was always a gamble and in Henry's case, England lost.

flag