Thomas Becket. Father John S. Hogan

problems for himself and for those around him. He tended to see relationships in terms of loyalty to him and his reign, showering his favor on those he saw as being devoted to him and coming to hate those he perceived to have betrayed him. Once he had formed an opinion of an individual, he rarely changed it. He could joust, reach agreements with, and form alliances with his enemies and those who challenged him — his relationship with Louis VII of France being a case in point. With those under his authority, he was not so generous. He was irrational and ungovernable when he fell into a fit of rage, but he could also be lovable, gentle, and friendly. In company he enjoyed, he was affable, witty, and polite. He was very accessible, even to the lowliest of his subjects. Though he is often compared with Henry VIII, the two men in fact had little in common. Both were men of great ability and could inspire admiration and loyalty, and both could be ruthless. However, Henry Angevin lacked the nihilistic qualities of Henry Tudor. He certainly lost control when he was angry and was bitter toward those he felt had offended him, but Henry VIII was more calculated and savage. While both men could be imperious, Henry VIII, a man possessed by power and lust, was so because of willfulness and perhaps even wickedness; Henry Angevin was simply a man controlled by his passions and flawed personality. For all his faults, he was admired not only by barons and lords but by bishops and even saints. Saint Ælred of Rievaulx¹² and Saint Gilbert of Sempringham,¹³ for example, both contemporaries of Henry and Thomas, held him in high regard.

      There seems to have been an emotional deficit in Henry that skewed how he saw those around him. This defect can be seen in his marriage with Eleanor and his relationships with his children and, of course, Thomas. There was an irrational persistence in Henry, a rage and childishness that drove him demented at times as he reacted unreasonably to various challenging situations; as Guy notes, Henry’s greatest weakness was his temper.¹⁴ He often found it difficult to forgive when he came to hate someone, as he did Thomas in time. In his eyes, nothing could redeem the one he hated.¹⁵ Not even his wife and children escaped this bent of Henry’s. It must be noted, however, that the king was not entirely to blame for the family strife that lay ahead. If he had been married to a saint, such a wife might have quelled the unruliness in him; but he was married to a woman who was as calculating and as ruthless as he was. It is no wonder that the children resembled the parents.

      As king of England and Duke of Normandy, and married to the Duchess of Aquitaine, Henry was as powerful as the king of France. After Louis and Eleanor’s annulment, he had wooed one of the most powerful women in Christendom and won her. The couple would have eight children to add to a son Henry had had with a mistress in about 1152. That son, Geoffrey, was destined to become archbishop of York in 1189, succeeding Roger de Pont L’Évêque. A second illegitimate son would be born to another mistress in about 1176, possibly Ida of Tosny, wife of the Earl of Norfolk; that son would become William, Earl of Salisbury.¹⁶ Of his legitimate children with Eleanor, three sons would be kings: Henry the Young King, Richard I (“the Lionheart”), and John. Another son, Geoffrey, became Duke of Brittany, while their three daughters married nobles: Matilda became Duchess of Savoy; young Eleanor, queen of Castile; and Joan, queen of Sicily.

      Once Henry took the throne, his reign (his dispute with Thomas aside) was positive for England. While he wanted to restore the many laws, customs, and arrangements that existed under his grandfather, he initiated many new laws and customs that were to the benefit of the kingdom and the people.¹⁷ He sought to increase the power of the English royal courts, producing a more coherent system of laws and the means to implement them by appointing good administrators and making wider use of juries. He challenged not only Church courts but also the role of the barons in dispensing justice. Inheriting an abysmal financial system, Henry made it one of his first priorities to stabilize the currency and rejuvenate a poor economy while establishing financial institutions to undertake reforms and improve accounting. His reforms not only achieved these aims, but also led to a significant increase in royal revenues, assisted by new taxes and new sources of income from fines and amercements.¹⁸

      Politically, he consolidated his English territories against the Scots, fortifying the north, and gradually brought Wales into submission to England. He also secured his realm on the continent, and after going to war to secure his wife’s duchy, he governed to various degrees territory stretching from the English Channel to the Mediterranean, controlling more of France that any ruler after the Carolingians. Historians often refer to his realm as the Angevin Empire. In 1171, he invaded Ireland with the assistance of the king of Leinster, and though he would have to appoint and recognize Rory O’Connor as high king of Ireland in 1175, in reality Henry was lord of Ireland. He would intervene more directly in Irish affairs from 1177 onward; though ultimately, according to Warren, his policy in Ireland was a failure — his one major failure.¹⁹ However, the troublesome Irish to one side, Henry was an emperor in all but title.

      In January 1155, much of this lay in the future, mere ambition in the heart of a young king. To begin his work, Henry needed solid support and experienced, faithful servants to help him achieve his aims. In their meeting, Henry did not mince words with Thomas as he laid his plans before him. A new age was dawning for England, and he wanted the archdeacon to assume the office of royal chancellor and serve both this new and ambitious project and its master.