Editing Edward III of England (section)

== Historiography ==
Edward III enjoyed unprecedented popularity in his own lifetime, and even the troubles of his later reign were never blamed directly on the King himself.{{Sfn|Ormrod|2000|pp=46, 88–89}} His contemporary [[Jean Froissart]] wrote in his ''[[Froissart's Chronicles|Chronicles]]'': "His like had not been seen since the days of King Arthur."{{Sfn|Ormrod|2000|p=45}} D. A. L. Morgan has drawn attention to the continuing popularity of Edward into the next century, observing that "by 1500 Edward III was well into his stride as the greatest King ever to have ruled England", quoting ''The Great Chronicle of London'' on [[Henry VII of England|Henry VII]], who if not for his [[avarice]], "mygth have been pereless of alle princis that regnyd ovyr England syne the tyme of Edwardthe thyrd".{{sfn|Morgan|1997|p=858}} This view persisted for a while but, with time, Edward's image changed. The [[Whig historians]] of a later age preferred constitutional reform to foreign conquest and accused Edward of ignoring his responsibilities to his own nation. [[Bishop Stubbs]], in his ''The Constitutional History of England'', states:

{{Blockquote|Edward III was not a statesman, though he possessed some qualifications which might have made him a successful one. He was a warrior; ambitious, unscrupulous, selfish, extravagant and ostentatious. His obligations as a king sat very lightly on him. He felt himself bound by no special duty, either to maintain the theory of royal supremacy or to follow a policy which would benefit his people. Like [[Richard I]], he valued England primarily as a source of supplies.{{Sfn|Stubbs|1887|pp=393–394}}}}

This view has been challenged through most of the 20th century, and Ormrod has observed that "no modern reader could seriously accept all these compliments at face value",{{Sfn|Ormrod|2000|p=10}} although also that in their efforts to counter the prevailing [[hagiography]], early 20th-century historians were more critical:

{{Blockquote|text=Edward III is now often seen as a rather second-rate ruler, stubborn and selfish in his foreign ambitions, weak and yielding in his domestic policies. He lacked the forcefulness of Henry II, the statesmanship of Edward I, the charisma of Henry V, or the application of Henry VII. He was prepared to accept short-term compromises and to ignore the wider implications Of his actions.{{Sfn|Ormrod|2000|p=10}}}}

Later scholarship, suggests Ormrod, "tended to be rather kinder".{{Sfn|Ormrod|2004a}} In a 1960 article, [[May McKisack]] points out the [[Teleology|teleological]] nature of Stubbs' judgement. A medieval king could not be expected to work towards some future ideal of a parliamentary monarchy as if it were good in itself; rather, his role was a pragmatic one – to maintain order and solve problems as they arose. At this, Edward excelled.{{Sfn|McKisack|1960|pp=4–5}} Edward had also been accused of endowing his younger sons too liberally and thereby promoting dynastic strife culminating in the [[Wars of the Roses]]. This claim was rejected by [[K. B. McFarlane]], who argued that this was not only the common policy of the age, but also the best.{{Sfn|McFarlane|1981|p=238}} Later biographers of Edward such as Mark Ormrod and [[Ian Mortimer (historian)|Ian Mortimer]] have followed this historiographical trend. The older negative view has not completely disappeared; Cantor has argued that Edward was a "destructive and merciless force".{{Sfn|Cantor|2002|p=33}} Ormrod argues that in overturning the Stubbsian paradigm, historians may have gone too far in the opposite direction, not taking into account the problems he had to solve and the number of different factions he had to accommodate to get things done.{{Sfn|Ormrod|2000|p=10}} [[Chris Given-Wilson]] and Michael Prestwich, in their introduction to the proceedings of the 1999 [[Centre for Medieval Studies]] conference at the [[University of York]], summarise modern consensus as being, effectively, that he was, overall, a strong king, a just king and a good warrior and strategist; basically a good king for the time. This, they argue, is the most important point regarding modern scholarship on Edward III: not necessarily to overturn previous consensus, but to look at all aspects of a multi-faceted King and examine how he achieved this success.{{Sfn|Given-Wilson|Prestwich|2001|p=1}} Modern historians are also more distant than contemporaries in their view of the King's fecundity being a sign of success; more often, it is seen as a liability as each mouth had to be paid for, draining limited resources. Further, it may have led to later partisanship between the Crown and its cadet branches.{{sfn|Ormrod|1987|p=398}}