The Battle of Lewes was fought on 14 May 1264 and pitted the King against Simon de Montfort
Posted on 12/29/2014 1:11:54 AM PST by SunkenCiv
Did the Battle of Lewes, which saw King Henry III defeated 750 years ago, lead to England's first tentative steps towards representative democracy?
As bloodied bodies littered the South Downs, the King hid in a priory.
His father, King John, had been forced to sign Magna Carta by England's rebellious barons, now Henry had suffered even greater humiliation at their hands.
His victor was Simon de Montfort, the French-born Earl of Leicester, who was fighting for the rights of England to be governed by the English.
After the battle, where de Montfort's forces were outnumbered by two to one, he forced the unpopular King to transfer nearly all of his powers.
What followed for a year and half -- before de Montfort was eventually killed and mutilated in the Battle of Evesham -- was an experiment in representative democracy.
Simon de Montfort was in his late 50s when he organised the rebellion against King Henry III.
The King had become unpopular with his subjects for installing many of his French relatives in positions of power...
De Montfort called two parliaments in 1264 and 1265, both consisting of knights and leading men who had been elected or chosen in the shires and major towns of England.
King Henry remained as head of state, but his powers were severely restricted.
David Carpenter, who is professor of medieval history at Kings College London, said: "No historian has ever been able to show a parliament which had both of these before. You could say it represented the House of Commons in its earliest form... In some ways he was the Nigel Farage of his day. His motto was England for the English."
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
The Battle of Lewes was fought on 14 May 1264 and pitted the King against Simon de Montfort
Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_de_Montfort,_6th_Earl_of_Leicester
The Barons’ War
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/medieval/barons-war.htm
england for the english...... /morrisey national front disco
Simon du Montfort?
I had no idea he had a rehabilitation club on Free Republic...lol
Montfort was French
He betrayed Henry who had taken him in and earled him..no small favor
He used the Barons to try to take the power of the throne for hisself
Mortimer impaled him...proper
His seed lived on in a big way eventuallythrough Liz Woodville...ultrahot and oh so fertile in her day wife of Edward IV and survived WOTR long enough to see her daughter Liz of York marry Henry VII and make Tudor a standard nouveau riche building style
If you are going try to kill the king then follow thru
Great post!
Thanks!
Righto.
This civil war was a classic medieval struggle between factions of nobles, not a precursor of democracy. LOL
Henry III was probably a pretty nice guy, but nice guys didn’t make good medieval kings.
The Mortimer you mention I believe was more associated with Henry III’s grandson Edward II, another ineffectual king. You’ll note nobody ever tried this kind of crap on with Henry III’s son Edward I or his great-grandson Edward III.
The King & Queen stuff still sucks to high heaven.
I thought we were finished with such nonsense after 1914. But some are still stupid enough to defend it here.
Headshake!
Will walk out my front door and smell the air of freedom. Yes, I live in rural America. In what is still Texas.
I had no idea we had a monarchy rehabilitation club on FR, either. ;’)
Historical revisionism. Simon De Montfort was a Gallo speaking Norman who would have looked down on the Angles he ruled. This was not a battle for democracy but rather for barons to rule as petty tyrants in their own lands rather than with a king above them.
Thanks!
Historical revisionism. Yes, it was. See, two can play that game.
Henry III clearly wasn’t a good monarch at all, because there are none.
Well said.
Meanwhile in America, the city of Cahokia was thriving with a population said to be 25,000 inhabitants.
There was no such city in England at the time
I’m not probably as anti-royalist as you. There have been good kings down thru the centuries. A constitutional monarchy is pretty much the same as out system.
An absolute monarch can be equally as good a governor of his people and protector of their rights. The problem is of course that such a system is utterly dependent on the character and abilities of the monarch. As such, it is the exact inverse of our system of checks and balances to limit the damage any one man or group can do.
In theory the most perfect form of government is a benevolent dictatorship or absolute monarchy. The best man in the country put in absolute control.
The problem of course is that the monarch is very rarely the best man in the country, and seldom even a good one. And even when he is, he inevitably dies and is succeeded by a man who is even less likely to be good.
Many Americans seem to have an odd hankering for monarchy. One of my favorite writers has produced several series in which monarchies are favorably portrayed. I don’t really get it.
But then one of my pet peeves is when Americans refer in this country refer to foreign nobility visiting here by their titles. I admire “Lord Black” and “Lord Monckton,” but as far as I’m concerned when in America they’re Conrad Black and Chris Monckton.
If I ever visit Britain I’ll try to follow their rules of etiquette, as a courtesy, but imo they should do the same when they come here.
In 1300 London’s population was around 80,000.
ping
No doubt their custom of (at least occasional) human sacrifice contributed to making them such a superior, enduring culture.*
Also, in 1100 AD the population of London was about 18,000, and by 1300 it was around 35,000, so when de Monfort was defeated in 1265 I'm confident it was at least 25,000. And, London still exists while Cahokia is long gone.
*(I'm not taking a shot at you personally. I'm making a point about the current vogue of ridiculous near fetishization of the false premise of the "noble, peaceful, living in harmony with nature and their fellow man, etc. ad nauseum" native Americans, who were so cruelly wiped out by the "White Man".)
The Cahokia culture was truly remarkable (despite their use of sacrifice) and generally peaceful and placid, but it and a few others at similar mound builder sites were the exception, and did not long endure amidst the general savagery practiced amongst the general population of native American peoples. They were long gone before the white man came.
Yes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
