Editing Henry III of England (section)

=== Historiography ===
[[File:Magna Carta (1225 version).jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|alt=Photograph of the Great Charter|The [[Magna Carta#Great Charter of 1225|Great Charter of 1225]] in the [[National Archives, Kew]]]]

The first histories of Henry's reign emerged in the 16th and 17th centuries, relying primarily on the accounts of medieval chroniclers, in particular writings of [[Roger of Wendover]] and [[Matthew Paris]].<ref name=ODNB/> These early historians, including Archbishop [[Matthew Parker]], were influenced by contemporary concerns about the roles of the Church and state, and examined the changing nature of kingship under Henry, the emergence of English nationalism during the period, and what they perceived to be the malign influence of the Papacy.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ridgeway|2004}}; {{Harvnb|Davis|2013|p=261}}</ref> During the [[English Civil War]], historians also drew parallels between Henry's experiences and those of the deposed [[Charles I of England|Charles I]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Davis|2013|p=261}}</ref>

By the 19th century, Victorian scholars such as [[William Stubbs]], James Ramsay, and [[William Hunt (priest)|William Hunt]] sought to understand how the English political system had evolved under Henry.<ref name=ODNB/> They explored the emergence of Parliamentary institutions during his reign and sympathized with the concerns of the chroniclers over the role of the Poitevins in England.<ref name=ODNB/> This focus carried on into early 20th-century research into Henry, such as [[Kate Norgate]]'s 1913 volume, which continued to make heavy use of the chronicler accounts and focused primarily on constitutional issues, with a distinctive nationalistic bias.<ref>{{Harvnb|Carpenter|1990|pp=4–5}}; {{Harvnb|Ridgeway|2004}}</ref>

After 1900, the financial and official records from Henry's reign began to become accessible to historians, including the [[pipe rolls]], court records, correspondence, and records of administration of the royal forests.<ref>Carpenter 1990, p.5; {{Harvnb|Ridgeway|2004}}</ref> [[Thomas Frederick Tout]] made extensive use of these new sources in the 1920s, and post-war historians brought a particular focus on the finances of Henry's government, highlighting his fiscal difficulties.<ref>{{Harvnb|Carpenter|1990|p=5}}; {{Harvnb|Ridgeway|2004}}</ref> This wave of research culminated in Sir [[Maurice Powicke]]'s two major biographical works on Henry, published in 1948 and 1953, which formed the established history of the King for the next three decades.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ridgeway|2004}}; {{Harvnb|Davis|2013|p=12}}</ref>

Henry's reign did not receive much attention from general historians for many years after the 1950s: no substantial biographies of Henry were written after Powicke's, and the historian John Beeler observed in the 1970s that the coverage of Henry's reign by military historians remained particularly thin.<ref>{{Harvnb|Beeler|1972|p=50}}; {{Harvnb|Davis|2013|p=12}}; {{Harvnb|Ridgeway|2004}}</ref> At the end of the 20th century, there was a renewed interest in 13th century English history, resulting in the publication of various specialist works on aspects of Henry's reign, including government finance and the period of his minority.<ref name=ODNB/> Current historiography notes both Henry's positive and negative qualities: historian [[David Carpenter (historian)|David Carpenter]] judges him to have been a decent man, who failed as a ruler because of his naivety and inability to produce realistic plans for reform, a theme echoed by Huw Ridgeway, who also notes his unworldliness and inability to manage his court, but who considers him to have been "essentially a man of peace, kind and merciful".<ref>{{Harvnb|Carpenter|2004|pp=338–340}}; {{Harvnb|Ridgeway|2004}}</ref> The descriptions of his characteristics as devout, kind, and innocent king is also however under doubt. Despite his occasional generosities towards his innocent cousin [[Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany]] and order that she and her younger brother [[Arthur I of Brittany]] be commemorated along with all late kings and queens in 1268, during her lifetime he was resolved to maintain her confinement. Eleanor had already passed the reproductive age when he took power, and she would be highly unlikely to bring any risk to his regime. No longer simply depicted as an incompetent but innocent fool, it is believed by many historians that he possesses wisdom and determination in certain aspects.<ref>G. Seabourne. "Eleanor of Brittany and her Treatment by King John and Henry III", ''Nottingham Medieval Studies'', Vol. LI (2007), p. 110.</ref>

Henry III has received considerable attention from historians of [[Anglo-Jewish studies|Anglo-Jewish England]]. They note similar questions of lack of competence and credulity. His role in lending credibility to false charges against Jews of ritual sacrifice of Christian children is highlighted as especially damaging.<ref>{{harvnb|Huscroft|2006|p=102}}, {{harvnb|Langmuir|1972|pp=477–478}}</ref> [[Barrie Dobson]] and Robert Stacey judge his later reign as a "watershed" in the way Jews were seen and treated by Christians, through his over-taxation, and exploitation of the loans system to leverage lands from his subjects.{{sfn|Stacey|1988|pp=135-6, 145-6, 149-50}} They judge that he created the conditions for increasing [[antisemitism]], developing themes of supposed Jewish magic and conspiracy to explain measures taken against Jews, leading to the [[pogrom]]s of the de Montfort rebellions, and later, to the 1290 [[Edict of Expulsion]].{{sfn|Stacey|1988|pp=135-6, 145-6, 149-50}}