Book Review: "Edward III: A Heroic Failure" by Jonathan Sumption

As you probably know, I have been reading one book about every single king and queen of England from Edward the Confessor all the way through to Queen Elizabeth II. So far, I have read one book about each of the following: Edward the Confessor, William teh Conqueror, William Rufus (William II), Henry I, King Stephen, Empress Matilda, Henry II, Richard I, King John, Henry III, Edward I and Edward II. Today, I move on to the next king in English history, the woeful and tragic Edward III who just about - like Henry I - lost everything. This book is entitled Edward III: A Heroic Failure and it's by Jonathan Sumption.

The opening of the book goes through why Edward III was regarded as a great king by even his enemies and starts with a character assessment, which seems to be something good in comparison to say, the character assessment of his grandfather. It goes on to state his achievement and goes back on itself to cover where he was born and grew up under the reign of his father: the misunderstood and misrepresented Edward II. I think that possibly the best line that sums up the Medieval Age of England is from this particular book:

It is one of the paradoxes of England's medieval history that in spite of its strong central institutions it was known mainly for its chronic political instability. (p.4)

This is definitely true of the beginning of the reign of Edward III when his mother and step-father had basically just committed the act of regicide and the earls had one of their own (Gaveston) killed. Though, I would have to argue with the claim that this book makes that Edward I was 'masterful' rather than simply tyrannical. When the writer of this book brings in Dante Alighieri, I think this is more a matter of style than actually a placement of critique upon the reigns of Edward I and Edward II. It seems slightly misplaced and would have been far clearer explained at the end of the reign of Richard II, rather than the beginning of the reign of his grandfather. However, the quotation from Petrarch in the beginnings of the second chapter is perfectly placed.

In the third chapter, we learn of Edward III's failings - money and finance. The king is described as having little understanding of how finance worked and I think this is an important point about many kings and queens which is somewhat overlooked. As these people already have mounds of wealth, their amount of understanding of money and finance is therefore limited to the amount that they have an budgeting, taxation etc. becomes a huge issue that is normally ascribed to other people to solve. This is something that the book explains very well.

Though he takes over France, the book goes through admitting that Edward III never really understood its political situations as they were far more complex than England - split up into regions and dialects, different forms of governing bodies etc. But, nonetheless he tried to take over - this is something that makes a connection to his grandfather, but the book doesn't tell us that. I think the book does a good job of leaving out other family members in order to tell Edward III's story, but we cannot ignore the fact that he did live in the dangerous shadow of his grandfather.

It also goes through the partial life of Edward, The Black Prince - who was to succeed his father with his young son, Richard, after himself. As we all know, Edward the Black Prince never actually becomes king and dies shortly before his father, leaving Richard heir apparent. But to put focus on the fact that the Black Prince had the most to gain and the most to lose is often not wondered about in any text about Edward III - it is a great addition here.

All in all, I thought this book explained the failures and insecurities of Edward III well though some amount of the text was either misplaced or missed out. The descriptors used for Medieval England are well done, but the relation of Edward III to his elders could have been covered in more depth.