Entry taken from the book The Plantagenets
On May 14, 2014, the 750th anniversary of the Battle of Lewes (1264) was commemorated in England, considered by many as the milestone that constitutes the direct precedent of the current democracy English parliamentarian. To understand the importance of this battle and its historical consequences, we have to go back a few more years in time.
In 1199 Richard I of England, the famous "Lion Heart", died and his brother John I, known as John "Landless", succeeded him on the throne. Contrary to popular belief, John was a much more significant monarch than his older brother, who only spent eight months of his reign on English soil. In fact, all the occupants of the throne of England until the accession of the Tudor dynasty in 1485 were descendants of John "No Land".
The relevance of John I in the history of England comes from another historical event that took place (it is true that much to his regret) during his reign and that is directly connected to the battle cited in the title of this entry. This event was the signing in June 1215 of what is known as the "Magna Carta". In this document, Juan Sin Tierra was forced by the main lords of the kingdom to sign a series of provisions that radically limited royal powers and forced him to rely on his barons to make the fundamental political decisions of the kingdom (essentially the related to the wars maintained in the possessions of the Plantagenet monarch in France and with the necessary financing of the same).
Although John tried to disassociate himself from what was signed on several occasions, his death only a year later in 1216 meant that the problem was quickly transferred to his son Henry III who was forced to battle with his rowdy nobles throughout his reign. Henry was a weak monarch and already in 1258 there was a first attempt to limit the royal authority, through the appointment of a council of great lords who were the ones who actually exercised power, although this attempt failed after only two years as a result of the struggles of the members of the Council and their lack of vision of the global interests of the kingdom.
Henry III briefly regained power, but when he convened Parliament on several occasions to request funds for his expenses, he was again opposed by the great lords who understood that this money was used to meet the personal expenses of the King, his family and close friends and outside the interests of the Kingdom.
On this occasion, as early as 1263, the leader of the baronial opposition was the Earl of Leicester, Simon de Montfort (not to be confused with his father of the same name, who led the "Albigensian Crusade" against the Cathars). De Montfort, born in France, had left his native country to take over the family inheritance in England. (see the article dedicated to Simon de Montfort on the blog).
The rebels controlled part of the English territory (including the city of London), and when the armies of both sides met at Lewes, still outnumbered, the army of Simon de Montfort won. As a consequence, the King was confined to London and a Council of nine barons was appointed, led by de Montfort, who served as "de facto" king. In addition, the king's eldest son was held hostage in Dover Castle, to prevent any maneuver by his father against the new regents of the Kingdom. De Montfort did not make the mistake of the previous advice and personally and directly exercised power. He was in everything except his name the true king of England.
During de Montfort's "regency", he convened twice (1264 and 1265) the Parliament, which was made up of knights and men appointed by the counties and important cities of England.
However in 1265 King Henry's son, the future Edward I, escaped captivity and raised an army that met de Montfort's at Evesham on 4 August. De Montfort was defeated and killed in battle, and his remains were butchered.
It is still debated in England today whether De Montfort's fight at the Battle of Lewes and his subsequent government makes him a champion of democracy and a predecessor of the current British system of government, where the king reigns but does not rule, or if he acted for purely personal reasons.
The existence of some kind of council of notables had already existed in England since the Witenagemot of the Saxons, which met once or twice a year and was made up of the main nobles and bishops of the kingdom, and was also used by the Norman kings. Little by little, this council of nobles became aware of itself as a collegiate body, demanding that the kings not change the laws of the kingdom without their participation and approval.
A further step was taken in the reign of Juan sin Tierra, who in 1212 told the sheriffs that each one should come to the royal councils accompanied by five or six of the most prominent gentlemen of his county. It is true that Juan required his presence to "do what I tell them to do." With the progress that Magna Carta entailed, one of the new points was that no king could agree on the collection of extraordinary taxes without the consensus of the community of the kingdom. However, for the framers of the famous document "the kingdom" meant only the barons and the bishops.
Henry III was the first to use the term "parliament" (from the French "parler") for the meetings of this council in 1236, but initially they exclusively included nobles and bishops . Only in 1254, when the extraordinary financial needs for the conquest of Sicily required the consent of a larger number of taxpayers, did Henry require that the sheriffs be accompanied by two knights from the county and the presence of the lower clergy was also allowed.
When De Montfort took power in 1264, he required the presence in parliament of two representatives of the cities (bourgeois), although not to give a greater democratic content to his decisions, but for having greater support against the great barons of the kingdom who opposed him.
It seems clear that neither he nor the rest of the rebellious barons of Lewes had anything like the current British political system in mind, but it does not seem fair to think that they were only looking for personal gain, given that at least they always claimed to do so to recover the validity of the "good laws and customs of the kingdom." In the words of Simon Schama:
«Few charismatic leaders have undertaken a goal without an element of selfish ambition and vanity. And Simon was no exception. But there is also no doubt that he believed that what was good for the de Montforts was also good for England. And for a time, at least a good portion of the nobles and citizens of the realm believed it as well."
What is certain is that for more than a year there was a system in which parliaments were convened with diverse representation and without direct participation of the king in the government of the country. It is also true that the recognition of the participation of the gentlemen and the bourgeoisie in parliament marked the beginning of their inclusion in the social system, which caused both gentlemen and bourgeoisie to evolve in a progressive stratification and class differentiation between them.
And over time the opposing sides in the negotiations in Parliament would no longer be the monarch and his subjects, but the great lords (nobles and bishops) and the representatives of the bourgeoisie and the citizens, the "commons"... but that's another story.
For those who want to know more about this story, Sharon Kay Penman's book Falls the shadows It deals with the story of Henry III, Simon de Montfort and the battles of Lewes and Evesham in a fictionalized, detailed and very entertaining way. You can also consult the works that have served as a source for this entry and that we repeatedly quote in all British history blogs «The History of England» by Peter Ackroyd and «Story of Britain» by Roy Strong; Lastly, the BBC series “A History of Britain” by Simon Schama is highly recommended for those interested in British History.