‘The rebellion of 1173-4 was caused by the Henry II’s treatment of his sons.’ Assess the validity of this view.

Between 1173 and 1174, a series of revolts commonly referred to as the Great Rebellion occurred across Henry II’s ‘empire’: Muhlberger illustrates that he faced “nearly simultaneous invasions in Northumbria and Normandy and risings in Anjou, the Aquitaine and Brittany” during this time. This chaos is also usually attributed to his decision to secure a marriage settlement for his four-year-old son John, in which Henry bequeathed him the castles of Chinon, Loudon and Mirebeau which in turn angered his oldest son Henry and incited him to revolt. However, despite the seemingly widespread nature of this discontent, as well as the familial dispute from which it is seen to originate, it can be argued that the Great Rebellion was not necessarily caused by Henry’s treatment of his sons, but by a range of other factors which took greater precedence. In fact, upon considering these other causes such as the roles of the barons, Eleanor and foreign kings like Louis VII and William of Scotland; as well as the fact that the narrative sources provided by chroniclers can be notoriously fantastical, it can be seen that in fact this rebellion was not so ‘Great’ at all. Instead, it was a series of crushable attempts to protest about injustices created as a result of Henry’s reforms rather than an attempt to challenge his position or authority overall. 

Firstly, the statement “Henry II’s treatment of his sons’ gives rise to assumptions about the nature of the relationship between the King and his children Young Henry, Richard, Geoffrey and John, (who ranged between the ages of 18 and 4 years old): it implies that Henry had treated his sons unjustly, possibly depriving them of power or acting neglectfully. However this in fact was not the case- ironically it appears that Young Henry was moved to revolt against his father as a result of having been promised too much power which was then left unfulfilled, rather than too little or none at all. The fact that in 1170 Young Henry had been crowned king, since his father believed it would be conclusive to a smooth succession, meant that he felt increasingly entitled to active governing powers despite the act of coronation having been symbolic, not a representation of the transfer of monarchial authority from father to son. As Jones articulates it, “despite his exalted position as his father’s heir, the Young King was also, paradoxically, denied the real fruits of kingship”. This certainly rings true with interpretations of Young Henry being significantly outraged at John’s being granted 3 castles in Anjou as a result of the marriage treaty with the count of Maurienne, since it recognised John’s royal authority more than the his ever had been, and rebelling as a result. However, again it seems the issue is more complex than this solely being the trigger to rebellion, as Purser notes that for the three years between Young Henry’s coronation and the incitement of rebellion in 1173 he had repeatedly requested that his father grant him the castles and greater authority which he lacked, yet neither of which were conceded. This presents Young Henry’s discontent as being a longer-term factor since resentment towards his father as a result of his refusal to allocate power, coupled with his heightened sense of entitlement after actually being crowned, led him to challenge the King’s authority by escaping to France in March 1173. The demand for castles and permission to govern at least part of his inheritance which arose after the 1173 marriage treaty, as Barlow notes, was the last in a string of requests Young Henry made to his father over these few years, not an impulsive decision.