In one of the strangest cases of wishful thinking, medieval historians often bemoan the birth order of King John’s two legitimate sons, Henry and Richard. Had there been a Richard II instead of a Henry III, England would’ve avoided the war that blighted the late part of Henry III’s reign. It’s as much nonsense as the term ‘Second Barons’ War’, which is still used to describe that turbulent period. The war covered barely a tenth of Henry’s reign and was started by Simon de Montfort, whose envious and vengeful nature outweighed the idealism for which he was later celebrated.

Since the moment he was martyred at Evesham in 1265, Simon has been the darling of most English historians. Here was a warrior for democracy sticking it to the royalists half a millennium before the French got around to their more famous revolution. In order to balance the equation, Henry III had to be portrayed as weak and incompetent, the people suffering because the man in the golden chair just wasn’t up to the task. All the peace and prosperity they enjoyed for much of his 56 years on the throne could be conveniently ignored in the interest of establishing England’s democratic credentials.

The knight on horseback bears the coat of arms of Simon de Montfort, named after his crusader father. (Richard of Cornwall, Amberley Publishing)

Henry was an easy target because he was the antipathy of a warrior king. He preferred to negotiate peaceful settlements rather than fight to restore his dynasty’s power and reputation abroad. As he didn’t mow down villages and slaughter their occupants, he’s deemed unworthy of a play by Shakespeare or a statue outside Parliament (which Henry, and not Simon, created). His priorities at home were feeding the poor, loving his family instead of imprisoning or killing them, and projecting the majesty of England in grand designs like Westminster Abbey. Apparently just too boring for the modern crowd.

Not wanting to seem inspired by the bloodlust of Simon and his cohorts, wishful-thinking historians tend to play it safe by lamenting if only things were otherwise, in this case if only Richard of Cornwall had been King John’s firstborn son. Only 15 months younger than Henry, Richard was very conscious of the fact that, like Simon, he owed everything to his brother. Craving independence and respect, he shrewdly built up a fortune that made him the most powerful baron in the land. But he wanted more and seized the chance to be crowned King of Germany in 1257. He only just missed being crowned Holy Roman Emperor as well.

This genealogical line shows the five legitimate children of King John. 1) The
oldest was born in 1207 and succeeded him as Henry III in 1216. His reign of
56 years was longest of any medieval English monarch. 2) Richard was born in
1209 and made earl of Cornwall by Henry in 1227. (Richard of Cornwall, Amberley Publishing)

In fact, English historians are generally dismissive of Richard’s ambitions here. Presuming to lord over the unruly Germans was a waste of time and money, but they admit that if anyone could make it work it was Richard of Cornwall. He was sharp, clever, a bit greedy and seedy too, but that only rounded out the fullness of his character, something which Henry lacked. Henry was married once, Richard three times, with each new wife younger and more beautiful than the previous one. All of Henry’s children were born in wedlock. There is no count to the number of mistresses Richard had, but he produced more than a few little Richards with them.

Thought to be the richest man in Europe, Richard paid staggering amounts to buy the votes of the German electors who handed him the crown, but he still had plenty left over to help or hurt his brother as he saw fit. With his imperial dreams dashed, Richard returned to England in 1263 just as Simon was about to launch his war against Henry. Historians like to assume that Richard maintained a neutral stance throughout the coming conflict. How could they possibly wish for a Good King Richard II if he betrayed his brother the way John had betrayed his own brother, Good King Richard I? These historians are only deceiving themselves, for the weight of evidence is clear: Richard threw in his lot with Simon. Henry knew it, but he had to deal with the menace that were the Montfortians and so he swallowed his pride and bribed his brother back to his side.

Henry and Richard. (Richard of Cornwall, Amberley Publishing)

Together the kings of England and Germany whipped Simon’s ass across England in the spring of 1264. It all came down to the battle of Lewes, but unfortunately Henry’s son and heir Edward squandered his initial success and ended up costing his father and uncle the victory. Henry had to endure a 15-month captive monarchy under Simon’s rule while Richard suffered the indignity of being locked away as a virtual nonentity. Neither man emerged after Simon’s death bitter or resentful, however. They carried on much as before, only this time Richard remained dutiful and loyal to Henry to the end.

As for that wishful reversal of birth order, Richard would have made an effective, if not good king, but the reality is Henry was a great king for the values he espoused, all of which have withstood the test of time. Their reigns would have certainly been different, it just depends on what kind of England you prefer to live in. Put a guy like Richard on the throne and he’s going to run the realm like a corporation, not like the do-gooder project that Henry put in place. But since we’re at it, we might as well reverse the birth order of Henry’s two sons. The history of the British Isles would look vastly different today had the younger Edmund, a very congenial sort like his father, been born before his older brother, the fiercely driven Edward I.

Darren Baker's book Richard of Cornwall is available for purchase now.