Part II: Age of Empire (1154-1204)

[Portia, Novice Mod]

Discuss Part II here

[Portia, Novice Mod]

What are your thoughts on Thomas Becket and his place in Henry II's life?

[Joy]

Henry wasn't thinking like a king when he plucked the charismatic Thomas out of the herd and gave him power because he was a friend. Thinking like a king, he would have detected a potential rival.

[RJay]

The one attribute Becket had in spades was ambition. He first found it through Henry II - working as his right hand. As he rose, he enjoyed the power he acquired. I haven't read any biographies of Becket but find his hair shirt and self-flagellation rather remarkable in a man who loved the glamor of living high. I also find it amazing that he ultimately stood up to Henry on behalf of the church - not sure what in his life caused him to feel deeply enough about the Church to take such a stance. Henry II was often blind to the dynamics swirling around him - with Becket and with his sons. We often post "what if" scenarios and of all the Plantagenets, the "what ifs" with H2 mount supreme.

[Joy]

"On behalf of the church" has to be defined here as "leader in the church reaches for church power". I don't think Becket could have fulfilled himself any other way - if Henry hadn't raised Becket in the church, Becket would have remained a frustrated small frog in Henry's pond. But he had to know he couldn't win the inevitable battle if he faced off against Henry, no matter how much of a driving force his ambition was in him.

[RJay]

Joy wrote: ""On behalf of the church" has to be defined here as "leader in the church reaches for church power". I don't think Becket could have fulfilled himself any other way - if Henry hadn't raised Becket ..."

You're quite right ... Becket wanted power above all.

[RJay]

OK, everyone who is participating in this group read - I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on this book so far. Henry II and Eleanor were legends - does this book shed new light on their lives/struggles/goals compared to what you knew before reading this book?
From my perspective, Jones has shed light on Henry's "diplomatic efforts". I wasn't aware of his conciliatory efforts to reunite the divided English. I knew about his efforts to maintain control of continental lands and his speed in responding to uprisings, his efficacy in putting down rebellions militarily. But his efforts to heal wounds caused by the civil war were not obvious to me previously. I have more respect for his political savvy through this book. I always thought of him as a "warrior" as opposed to a diplomat. Glad to know he wasn't all brawn and no brain.

[Portia, Novice Mod]

Excellent shake up of our slightly complacent group, RJay. Timely. We need a boot in the butt right about now.

I'll take the Becket angle til someone out thinks me (That will be soon:P). I agree that Becket was ambitious for high position in the. Church. Pope? Emmh. P'raps, but definitely power in the English and French churches. I think he used his friendship with H II but, I think there was something from their young days that lingered,even if it was only an imagined aspect to the friendship that made both of them try more than once to reconcile. I'd say they knew they were a team if only they could figure out how they could play for the same side.

[happy]

I recently read a newish biography of Becket, Thomas Becket: Warrior, Priest, Rebel. The author makes the point of the fact that Becket was a rising star in the Church before he was appointed Chancellor. He was an Archdeacon and principle trouble shooter/fix-it-man for the Archbishop. When Henry was looking for a new chancellor the Archbishop recommended him.The fact he was very ambitious is with out debate - in what sphere is open to debate.

[Portia, Novice Mod]

So, it sounds as though the theory that H II appointed him thinking Becket would be his man on the inside is close to true?

Okay, then, here is another question I have. How to phrase, how to phrase. Not to sound too much like an American watching to see who will be selected as Veep candidates but, should H II have vetted/known/been more wary of Becket? Was Henry too immature to get that Becket would stick with the church? Or did he hope that the power he offered Becket would mean more to Becket than that coming from the Pope? Or did Becket lead him to believe he was on his side?

[Joy]

I've read that Becket begged Henry not to choose him, knowing that it would put them on opposite sides.

[Portia, Novice Mod]

And I guess, "No" was a beheading offense back then.

But that still leaves me with the question of Henry's decision. Did he not realize that Becket would side with the church? Did he know and think he could change Becket's mind? Did he believe that, since he was the king, Becket would give in to him in the end?
Or can we really not know what was in his mind and heart?

[Taylor]

I'm fairly new to this topic but from what I have read so far Henry II strikes me as having been extremely vain and blinded by his arrogance. Just look at the mess that he made by the treatment of his sons. He dangled power and wealth before them but never really came through. No wonder they took to arms against him. The same with Beckett. It probably didn't cross his mind that Beckett would be nothing but loyal and subservient.

[Portia, Novice Mod]

That's my impression, too, Taylor.

Would someone with more experience with H II comment on this, please? I still have much to learn about The Plantagenets.

[Joy]

He thought Becket was a true friend and would continue to help him because of it.

[Portia, Novice Mod]

Thanks, Joy. The fact that H II didn't (want) to see the real Becket will continue to bother me, but that's my problem.

[RJay]

happy wrote: "I recently read a newish biography of Becket, Thomas Becket: Warrior, Priest, Rebel. The author makes the point of the fact that Becket was a rising star in the Church before he was..."

This book would be an interesting read if it shares more information on Becket's state of mind and ambitions prior to connecting with H2. Because once he did connect and was made chancellor, he seemed entirely Henry's "man". I don't think from what H2 knew of Becket, that Henry would have imagined Becket being inclined to defend the Church to the extend he did. So for me, I'd like to understand what motivated Becket - his defense of the Church seems out of character in many ways - he wasn't very religious, wasn't even a priest before being appointed to Canterbury, and had done all in his power to support H2 prior to the change in his position. So, what really made him changes sides?

[Portia, Novice Mod]

Do you think it would work as a group read? Would you like to nominate it for August? Single-minded, aren't I:)

[RJay]

Portia wrote: "That's my impression, too, Taylor.

Would someone with more experience with H II comment on this, please? I still have much to learn about The Plantagenets."

From what I know, it does seem out of character for Becket to so fully support the Church. Any more knowledgeable folks out there on why Becket took on the Church's position to such an extent? I don't think it was because he wanted to go to battle with H2 and he didn't have strong convictions towards the Church initially.

[happy]

RJay wrote: "happy wrote: "I recently read a newish biography of Becket, Thomas Becket: Warrior, Priest, Rebel. The author makes the point of the fact that Becket was a rising star in the Church..."


This is my opinion, but I think Becket was loyal to his paymaster. When was Chancellor, Henry had his total loyality. When it became "God", the church came first. The bio I read make the point the Becket was desperately trying to find a compromise that would work, and Henry would have none of it. He wanted to break Church power in England. My thoughts at the time I read teh bio, is that if Henry had succeeded, we would have had the Church of England 350 yrs early.

[RJay]

happy wrote: "RJay wrote: "happy wrote: "I recently read a newish biography of Becket, Thomas Becket: Warrior, Priest, Rebel. The author makes the point of the fact that Becket was a rising star ..."

Interesting, Happy. In H2's quarrel with the Church, he wanted to see those within its domain punished for crimes they committed rather than being whitewashed by the Church. I view this entirely differently than H8's breaking with the Church so he could divorce his wife. So, IMO, I don't think H2 would have dissolved the Church at all. I think he was right to want to see those of the Church punished for their crimes. Here we are centuries later witnessing abuses by those within the Catholic Church who have gotten away with their crimes for years. And the Catholic Church still protecting them while their victims suffer the consequences. IMHO, H2 was right.

[Charlene]

happy wrote: "I recently read a newish biography of Becket, Thomas Becket: Warrior, Priest, Rebel.

ooohhhh... must add this to be TBR list.

[RJay]

To all, time to move on and discuss others of the Plantagenets. H3, E1 & E2? I just completed reading the portions on E3 and found Jones' portrayal of the reign a bit biased, against E3. I've read several biographies of E3 and BP so believe I have a good perspective on both. In the early years, E3 did much to build good relations between the king and nobles, to work with them and parliament repairing what his father had destroyed. His claim to the French throne was real, even if he was using it as leverage to gain sovereignty over Gascony. Philip VI was deliberately interfering in Scotland which provoked E3 into taking an offensive stance vs. always being on the defense. IMHO, the 100 Years War could have been avoided entirely ... but once it started, neither king was going to back down. Geographically, it was unrealistic to think England could gain & keep major portions of France - ruling from afar doesn't really work as Great Britain has learned many times since then.
Reading the section on R2 is VERY hard; like reading about R3 before the battle of Bosworth and knowing how it turns out. What a train wreck R2 became...sad that the dynasty failed in this way in the end.