Arthur: England’s Lost Prince

Arthur of Brittany

A Plantagenet prince, Arthur of Brittany‘s story is one of the most tragic of the Medieval period. The posthumous son of Geoffrey, 4th son of Henry II of England, and Constance of Brittany, he was Duke of Brittany from the moment of his birth.

Constance and Geoffrey had married in 1181; their daughter, Eleanor, was born in 1184. Whilst estranged from his father Geoffrey was trampled to death while competing at a tournament in Paris, in August 1186.

Arthur was born several months later, in March or April 1187. In 1190 the two-year-old Arthur was named as heir presumptive to his uncle Richard I, king of England; Richard even arranged a betrothal for young Arthur, to a daughter of Tancred of Sicily. However, the Emperor Henry VI conquered Sicily in 1194 and the betrothal came to nothing.

King John

Arthur was a valuable pawn for both the kings of France and England; when Richard tried to take him into his household, in 1196, his mother sent him to the French court, where he spent several months. On his return to Brittany, Constance started involving him in the government of the duchy.

The great William Marshal and Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury and Justiciar of England, were instrumental in persuading the English barons to accept John as King, reasoning that John knew more of England – and was more experienced – than young Arthur.

Arthur’s claim was revived in the early 1200s when the King of France, Philip II Augustus, confiscated John’s possessions in Northern France for failing to acknowledge the French King as his overlord. Philip recognised Arthur as the rightful heir to Normandy and Anjou.

Arthur  of Brittany paying homage to Philip II of France

War followed.

In July 1202 Arthur, and a force of knights, besieged his own grandmother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, at Mirebeau. John made a forced march to the rescue of his mother, surprising the besiegers on 31st July. One of John’s barons, William de Braose, captured Arthur on 1st August and handed him over to the King, who imprisoned him at Falaise.

His captivity was probably less than comfortable, despite his rank and familial relationship. According to William Marshal, John ‘kept his prisoners in such a horrible manner and such abject confinement that it seemed an indignity and disgrace to all those with him who witnessed his cruelty.’

Whilst imprisoned at Falaise, John ordered that Arthur should be blinded and castrated. However, Arthur’s jailer Hubert de Burgh, balked at mutilating a 15-year-old and John ordered Arthur removed to confinement in Rouen.


It was in Rouen, at Easter 1203, most likely on 3rd April, that Arthur was put to death. A chronicler of the Cistercian monastery of Margam, Glamorgan, described the murder:

‘After King John had captured Arthur and kept him alive in prison for some time, at length in the castle of Rouen after dinner on the Thursday before Easter when he was drunk and possessed by the Devil, he slew him with his own hand, and tying a heavy stone to the body cast it into the Seine. It was discovered by a fisherman in his net, and being dragged to the bank and recognised, was taken for secret burial….’

Whether John committed the deed himself, or merely ordered it done, will probably never be proved; of the fact he was present there seems to be little doubt. Whichever way, the act itself has been a black mark against John for centuries.

On Arthur’s death the duchy should have passed to his older sister, Eleanor; but she was also a prisoner of King John. So it passed to his two-year-old half-sister, Alix of Thouars, daughter of Constance and her 3rd husband, Guy of Thouars.


Sources: Dan Jones, The Plantagenets: The Kings Who Made England; Robert Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings 1075-1225; Maurice Ashley, The Life and Times of King John; H.G. Koenigsberger, Medieval Europe 400-1500; History Today Companion to British History; Charles Phillips, Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Kings & Queens of Britain; Oxford Companion to British History; Mike Ashley, The Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens; Douglas Boyd, Eleanor: April Queen of Aquitaine

Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia


Out Now!

Tracing the fortunes of the women who had a significant role to play in the momentous events of 1066, Silk and the Sword: the Women of the Norman Conquest is available from Amazon UK,  Amberley Publishing, Book Depository and Amazon US.


Also by Sharon Bennett Connolly:

Telling the stories of some of the most incredible women from Medieval history, Heroines of the Medieval World,  is now available in hardback in the UK from Amazon UK, and in the US from Amazon US. It is available now in paperback in the UK from from both Amberley Publishing and Amazon and worldwide from Book Depository.


You can be the first to read new articles by clicking the ‘Follow’ button, liking our Facebook page or joining me on Twitter.

©2015 Sharon Bennett Connolly

25 thoughts on “Arthur: England’s Lost Prince

  1. Rick Nuttall 20/01/2015 / 16:41

    Lol welcome to the family…….


  2. kristieleedean 21/01/2015 / 02:31

    Great post. Very informative.


  3. historicalragbag 21/01/2015 / 05:04

    Hi just a quick question, which source was your quote from Marshal about the conditions of John’s prisoners from? I haven’t seen it before and it seems out of character for him so I’d love to know where it came from. Great post too.


      • historicalragbag 21/01/2015 / 11:49

        Thanks, I’ll have to have a look. I don’t have a copy and I’d love to know where he got it I’ll have to find one in the library.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Gloria Darroch 21/01/2016 / 03:19

    Too bad they didn’t back Arthur instead of John esp since Marshall took on Henry III years later as a child. Might have seen a much better king!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sharon Bennett Connolly 21/01/2016 / 07:00

      Maybe Gloria. But I think the barons were thinking ‘better the devil you know’. They probably thought John would be more capable of holding off the French. As it was, it didn’t work out that way and it does get you wondering how England would have been under Arthur. His reign couldn’t have been much more disastrous than John’s, surely? But…if not for John, we wouldn’t have the Magna Carta. Interesting thought…


    • suzieduck 05/02/2016 / 22:54

      Yes, I have always wondered what would have been England’s future been if Arthur had been king, instead of John. Or, even if Richard had not died. Ah, Well, such is history and the ‘what if’s of life. That’s why we have Allison Weir and readers like us!


      • Sharon Bennett Connolly 06/02/2016 / 07:58

        Indeed Suzie. I find the ‘what could have been’ just as fascinating as what actually happened. Poor Arthur. Sharon 🙂


    • Sharon Bennett Connolly 21/01/2016 / 16:28

      Thanks Samantha. She is truly fascinating. I look forward to reading your novel on Maud – her story deserves to be told. Let me know when you’ve finished it – I’ll be more than happy to review it for you. 🙂


  5. Laura Gardiner 22/01/2016 / 02:37

    Very interesting post. It is hard to imagine the awful things that were done behind the glamour of living in a castle.


    • Sharon Bennett Connolly 22/01/2016 / 08:27

      Thank you Laura. Yes, it’s nice to read about history – but I’m not sure I’d want to live there, far to dangerous!


Leave a Reply to Sharon Bennett Connolly Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.