Lois 's Reviews > The Two Eleanors of Henry III: The Lives of Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor de Montfort

I quite liked this. It was thoroughly researched, very readable/accessible for lay readers of history.
I felt that Baker took a somewhat royalist view of Eleanor & Simon de Montfort. I think that bias, not really bias, more attitude impacted how he views her. There's a time after which, after more than a decade of thoughtless treatment by Henry III, Eleanor de Montfort can hold up a Treaty with King Louis in exchange for her tardy dowry payments. The author implies this was wrong of Eleanor de Montfort, but I don't agree. It's not Eleanor de Montfort's fault that Henry was perpetually broke. Henry found lands & money for their de Lusignan siblings, Eleanor de Montfort was within her rights to demand the same. She'd already tried asking nicely repeatedly. Her efforts were valid.
It's weird because Baker seems to recognize that historical sexism has colored the public memory of Eleanor of Provence. So it was somewhat frustrating that he was unable to see Eleanor de Montfort's viewpoint given her biography made up half of this book. Perhaps this is just a view of biographers choosing a side, like modern biographers of Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn who weirdly feel like they need, in modern times, to take a side in the women's dispute. It's weird because the dispute was between Henry VIII & Catherine of Aragon and later between Henry VIII & Anne Boleyn. There was no formal conflict between Catherine of Aragon & Anne Boleyn, I digress.

I removed a star because of awkward phrasing surrounding antisemitism in Henry III & Eleanor of Provence's Court.

There's an incident at the very end of chapter 6 in which a child's body is found dead in a well. The child's mother claims that Jewish folks ritually sacrificed her Christian child. This is a very common antisemitic claim during this time period. There's been no evidence in historical studies that there ever existed a group of Jewish folks that ritually sacrificed christian's nor their kids. This is just how antisemitism operated in society at that time. No doubt the boy was murdered and given what we know in modern times and understand about crime, it was possibly someone in his own family, almost certainly someone in his own community. Violence like this tends to fall along intra-community lines. Often ostracized and deeply oppressed communities are blamed due to bias in the dominant community in situations like this. It still happens today, which is why immigration is such a hot-button political issue. Statistically, very little crime is committed by immigrants, but that's not how society chooses to look at these relationships.
Instead, the author chooses to act like, from this great distance, we can't possibly know what occurred. This is true but leaves the impression that Jewish folks might have ritually murdered christian children. I'm sure the author isn't himself antisemitic and I'm sure he meant no offense. Still, words matter, and it's incumbent on current historians to speak respectfully and carefully in regards to historically oppressed communities. Most of those communities are today still battling the long term impact of these oppressive policies. For me, that includes giving historical context to biased claims. With just a few simple sentences he could clear up that this practice wasn't a real concern which acts to bolster the modern communities claims of the same. Small changes can have large and far reaching impact.