Simon de Montfort and His “Great” Admirers

Dec 01, 2024

Over on his Substack, Letters from an Englishman, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg recently wrote a post about one of the most intriguing characters from broader English history and a figure who I have studied for a decade now. That figure is Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, the supposed founder of the English parliament.

Sir Jacob is not the first political figure to have found Montfort a positive or even heroic figure in history. Nor is he the first such individual to view the earl through the progressive, Whig lens of history (I will say more on the Whig Interpretation of History in a future post concerning Montfort). Two other ‘great’ men – one of whom I suspect Rees-Mogg is a fervent admirer of – have as well. This post looks at what those two men have said about Montfort and how their political careers compare with his.

The first “great” man was one Napoleon Boneparte. It is long known that Napoleon viewed Oliver Cromwell as one of the greatest figures to emerge from English history. However, he also held Montfort in a similar light. In his Notes on English History Made in the Eve of the French Revolution, Napoleon marked Montfort’s death at the Battle of Evesham in 1265 with the following marginal note: “Thus perishes one of England’s greatest men, and with him the hope which his country had held of seeing the Royal authority diminished.”[1] Given Napoleon’s own eventual career trajectory, it is less than surprising that he would take the side of figures like Montfort and Cromwell in English history. They were opponents of royal authority as he himself would prove to be during the French Revolution. Without knowing so, Napoleon anchored his view of English history on the Whig tradition. This tradition held Montfort as the heroic founder of parliament and proponent of parliamentary democracy. What English Whigs at the time would have made of this would be interesting to know; certainly, their Tory opponents consistently led governments which opposed the emperor at every turn.

The second “great” man in this tale is one who admired both Montfort and even more so Napoleon. His name is Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. When not holding political office, and even while doing so, Churchill was a writer and historian. Born in the Victorian Age, Churchill certainly kept its reverence for long form history content, writing massive, multi-part book series on topics such as the First World War and his ancestor hero, the duke of Marlborough. One of the most famous is his four-volume history on what we today would term the Anglosphere. Churchill titled it A History of the English Speaking-Peoples. It covers the history of England/Britain and its colonies from Julius Caesar’s invasion in 55 BC to the end of the Boer War in 1902 AD. It is in the first volume, The Birth of Britain, that Churchill analyzes Simon de Montfort’s career.

In The Birth of Britain, Churchill presents Montfort as the leader of the barons against Henry III from the very start of the movement in 1258 (which he certainly was not in reality).[2] He sees Montfort as the driving force behind the implementation of parliament in national life and that once the king was corralled in 1258-9, Montfort sought to use the process of reform to corral the unjust practices of his fellow barons on their estates.[3] He also commends Montfort for what he sees as the leniency he showed to the Plantagenet dynasty after he defeated and captured them at the Battle of Lewes in 1264. Yet it is this moment Churchill sees as definitive, for in victory Montfort alienated his fellow barons: “The combination of Simon’s genius and energy with the inherent powers of a Plantagenet monarchy and the support of the middle class, already so truculent, was a menace to their [the barons] class privileges far more intimate and searching than the misgovernment of John or the foreign encumbrances of Henry III.”[4] While a great deal of that sentence is full of the anachronism so common to the Victorian gentleman-statesman, there is little doubt that Montfort’s highhanded attitude to the baronage as well as his “autocratic position” in government eventually conspired to bring about his downfall. Interestingly, Churchill seeks this lack of political support as the rationale behind why Montfort summoned representatives from both the shires and the towns to the January 1265 parliament. This assembly is the one from which Montfort has derived credit as the founder of parliament. In reality, as Churchill elaborates, Montfort “fell back upon the support of the country gentry and burgesses” as baronial support for his regime diminished.[5] Further, while he says Montfort “died a hero” on the battlefield of Evesham, he also states that Montfort “suffered as a politician from over-confidence and impatience” and “needlessly created suspicion and distrust.” However, he lite “a fire never to be quenched in English history” and his influence in death upon the man who defeated him, the future Edward I, meant his movement of political reform survived his death. Edward I was the heir of “the great Earl,” though I am fairly certain Longshanks would have hated been called that to his face![6]

The three titanic personalities of history

It is not unexpected that Napoleon and Churchill had an admiration for Simon de Montfort. There were certain similarities between the three men. All three were adventurers. All three were soldiers and war leaders, even if the achievements in war of Napoleon and Churchill dwarf those of Montfort. All three were politicians blessed with a charisma that could motivate men to follow them. There were also differences: Montfort is notorious in modern historiography for his antisemitism, whereas Churchill and, to a lesser extent, Napoleon were both philosemitics. All three were what might be termed “great men” of history. However, it is here where there is the biggest difference. While Montfort and Napoleon nailed their colors to the mast of political revolution, both were more determined to achieve a legacy for themselves. Montfort wanted his dynasty to be one of the most powerful aristocratic houses in Western Europe. Napoleon wanted to join the Ancients in the estimation of future generations. Churchill no doubt wanted to be famous as well, but his quest for fame was also a quest to serve Britain and her empire. It was the latter quest which animated him during the struggle with the Axis from 1940 to 1945. Even today, despite the attacks on his reputation, some of which can be justified, Churchill’s defence of Britain in the dark days of 1940 still marks him out as a genuinely great man for the ages.

Yet even here, a question remains: why does the quest for greatness so often involve the blood of thousands. Maybe it is best to paraphrase the final word in the style of Lord Acton:

Are great men almost always bad men?[7]

The Musings of a Gentleman Historian

Discussion about this post