Was King Henry II responsible for the eventual downfall of the Angevin throne in England and France?

It can be said that Henry II - father to three boys - was ultimately responsible for the eventual downfall of the throne and loss of lands in France through his lack of foresight and planning. Not delegating any of his lands to his sons before his death in 1189, Henry chose to remain in total power of his vast resources. While his eldest son, Henry the Younger, had preceded his father's death, Henry still had two sons remaining, Richard I and John. Richard did not like his father, preferring his mother,Eleanor of Aquitaine, who Henry had locked up in 1174. His lack of foresight in granting lands to his sons led to their rebellion from 1183 to 1189, with Henry himself dying, it is said, at the point of being told that his youngest and most favoured son, John, had decided to rebel against him.From this point onwards, Richard I, who succeeded his father, was more interested in the art of crusading than ruling domestically and subsequently bankrupted England. At the time of his death, the country had barely any offices or money in the royal accounts and as such King John, a troubled man at the best of times, was left with a thankless task. Such began what was a horrible reign for King John, who oversaw the loss of all of the Angevin French lands to Philip Augustus, while also relinquishing much of his domestic power to English barons. It can be said that should his father have had more foresight, then perhaps the situation would not have been so grave.