Henri III Deserves Better Than His Reputation.

Henri III deserves better than his reputation.

@microcosme11​ who was interested in knowing more about Henri III.

                                                 ***

Henri III was the last Valois king of France (19/09/1551-02/08/1589) and certainly among the kings whose reputation was the most tarnished. You could say it was trashed by the black legend his enemies quickly wove around him: weak, effeminate, cowardly, treacherous, immoral… This is how he was depicted for centuries. For decades now, however, historians have worked to rediscover a misjudged king and rehabilitated a complex personality who was at odds, in many ways, with the expectations of his century. Henri III had above all a high idea of royal authority, and a modern conception of the state. In particularly difficult circumstances, he managed to avoid the wreck of the monarchy.

This post will try to be a quick summary of the circumstances of his reign, of his real qualities and personality, of the origin of the “black legend”, and of his legacy as a king.

When the future Henri III was born, he wasn’t destined for a crown. He was indeed the fourth son of Henri II and Catherine de Medici. Titled Duke of Anjou, he was given a thorough and refined education, as befitted a true prince of the Renaissance. His master Amyot, the most reputed of his time, was able to cultivate qualities that would make Henri a brilliant and eloquent prince “ one of the best speakers of his era.”

Henri was also Catherine’s favorite child. He was good looking, smart, fashionable, an excellent swordsman. Aged only 16, he became Lieutenant General of the Kingdom, and he would soon prove his valor in the battlefield in Jarnac and Moncontour. Elected King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lituania under the name Henryk Walezy, his reign wouldn’t last long - his brother Charles IX died without an heir and Henri immediately left Poland for France.

He was crowned on February 13, 1575, and two days later married the beautiful and smart Louise de Vaudémont, a princess of Lorraine, close to the famous and very influent House of Guise.

France was then in a very difficult situation. The Kingdom was divided and devastated by the wars of Religion. The warring parties were backed by foreign powers and France’s political and economical condition suffered.

In the late XVIth century, the great lords of the Kingdom still acted like sovereigns of their own in many ways - the feudal order hadn’t yet given way to the future absolutism (which would be the later creation of Richelieu and Louis XIII IMHO, in reaction precisely to the Great Lords’ excessive capacity for nuisance). Henri III couldn’t afford to overtly dismiss or displease them.

He had to stand up to three main parties: the Malcontents, the Protestants (leader: Henri, King of Navarre, his distant cousin), and the Catholics (led by the House of Guise). He knew that the restoration of peace and concord meant he had to get into everybody’s good graces- a perilous proposition in such times. His whole life, Henri would have to find a balance. Nobody would be grateful for that. Mindful of his duty and his role as a mediator in the kingdom, he worked to establish the royal authority as effectively sovereign.

He would find enemies everywhere.

He was well spoken, soft spoken, elegant and well mannered: he would be mocked as weak and effeminate. He was clever and always favored diplomacy over shows of brute force: he would be despised for it and depicted as an immoral, cowardly prince. He wasn’t as easily accessible as his predecessors: the Great lords didn’t like that. When he got closer to the Guise, to appease the most radical Catholics, the Protestants rebelled. When he leaned towards Henri de Navarre, the League reacted violently. The balancing act harmed his reputation.

With the help of his ever present mother Catherine, he initiated a rapprochement with Henri de Navarre while supporting his brother’s (François, Duke of Alençon) plans in the Spanish Netherlands: Protestants and Catholics coming together to face a common enemy (the Habsburgs) ? Excellent. That’s a lesson Henri IV would remember.

Henri III was, in spite of his rather frail health, a hard worker. In 1584, after seven years of relative peace, strenghtening of the royal authority, and an intense legislative work, he was still childless - and his brother and heir François d'Alençon died of tuberculosis.

This was a great upset in the game.

Because the new heir was Henri de Navarre - leader of the Protestant party. Which of course was unacceptable for the Catholic opinion. Paris, who chose the Ligue, was dangerously agitated.

What a stroke of luck for Henri de Guise!

What was named then “La Guerre des Trois Henri” opposed three parties, not two. Although he was apparently allied to the ultra Catholics Guise, Henri III took care not to burn his bridges with the Protestants. The Habsburg support of Henri de Guise wasn’t to his taste, and he didn’t like the ambitious Duke. And if Navarre (whom he esteemed) was to lose entirely, Guise would become too powerful.

Guise was the first to move; exasperated by the King’s caution, the Duke entered Paris in open defiance of the King, with the population cheering him on. Fearing a coup d'Etat, the King sent his own troops to Paris, and what happened was the famous “Journée des Barricades” (Barricade Day), on 13 May 1588.

What happened next ? Henri III took a terrible decision: for the peace of the Kingdom, for France to subsist as a State, for his authority to be maintained, Henri de Guise was to disappear. And there was a way to lure him: afraid that the King would sign peace with Navarre, Henri de Guise went to negotiate with Henri III in Blois. On December 23, Henri III had Henri de Guise assassinated by his own Guard, as well as his brother the Cardinal de Lorraine.

Was the King’s opinion and attitude unclear before ? That’s cleared now. But as for peace ? Never. The powerful Ligue lashed out in rage . The hatred was open. There were outloud calls of Death to the Tyrant.

Henri III would never see the Ligue destroyed: on the 1st August 1589, a fanatic monk by the name of Jacques Clément would stab him to death.

“This King was a good prince, if he’d met a better century”, would write the chronicler Pierre de l'Estoile upon his death. In spite of his peculiar personality and the outburst of hatred he aroused, Henri also showed his qualities.

He had been raised in a humanist background and would protect the world of literature (Montaigne, Du Perron, Desportes); he was rather to be found working in his office with his ministers rather than on the battlefield. Although, when he had to, he was steadfast and brave in battle.

He was smart and usually able of compassion towards his adversaries.

He had faith, and his misfortunes made him find a refuge there. We know he even went on a spiritual retreat into a monastery for a while.

His contemporaries described him as a man who loved women - which was overlooked because he never granted any of his lovers a title of official mistress. He had for Marie de Clèves, Princess of Condé, a platonic, but deep passion, and the depth of his mourning after she brutally passed away in 1574, stunned the Court.

He married Louise de Vaudémont for her charm and her wit rather than for politics.

But in spite of this, the image we’ve had of him for centuries is indissociable from his “mignons” - effeminate youths clad in excentric outfits and wasting their time in frivolous games. He was painted as homosexual (and therefore despicable) based on pamphlets written by radical leaguers, radical calvinists, Malcontents. The high nobility didn’t appreciate his “new ways”, the refining of clothes and manners, the new court practices. The Ligue used against him a virulent propaganda, along with calls to rebellion and real campaigns of calumnies. And when he died, the change of dynasty didn’t allow for a better, more impartial image to be offered. Queen Louise and the Duchess of Angoulême tried in vain to dispell this ambiguous image. The real culprits were'nt even be punished (Jacques Clément however perished).

And yet. He was the one who wanted concord and national unity in a country torn by wars of religion (he lived four of them). His long and unthanked political action allowed Henri IV to end half a century of cruel civil war.

Was he weak ? It is true he bowed to the many pressures of the Great lords. But he always took back control.

Cowardly ? He wasn’t vainglorious. And he proved his personal courage, in the battlefields of his youth as well as at the time of his death (he fought off his killer).

Frivolous and immoral ? He loved pleasures, arts, and feasts. But he also was anxious about his soul and salute.

In the difficulties he had to face, he managed to rule and to leave France a considerable legislative body of work (Code Henri III).

What are some positive aspects of his reign ?

He launched loans to stabilize finances, he reduced the taille (tax), ensured the protection of cities, created offices, taxed luxury, taxed the clergy, revived the textile industry, revised farm leases, created fines for fraudsters, created a body of health officers and an assistance service for the needy and the orphans; he undertook the administrative reorganization of the kingdom, maintained the unity of France by overcoming the worst of wars, both civil and religious, and retained royal legitimacy through a regular transmission of power to Henri IV.

He held on his principle of royal authority and modern conception of the State. He maintained.

I agree with Pierre de l’Estoile.

“Décrié”: condemned, castigated, reviled.

Sources:

Wikipedia

https///www.histoire-pour-tous.fr/histoire-de-france/1481-henri-iii-le-dernier-des-valois.html

Pierre Chevallier: Henri III, roi shakespearien, 1985

Michel Pernot : Henri III, le roi décrié, 2017

Jean-François Solnon: Henri III: un désir de majesté, 2001