While the king set policy, the prelates, peers, and gentry who executed it worried how his policies would affect their lordships, liberties, and wealth. The political problem facing any king was to get the elite to line up behind him. As G. L. Harriss has concluded, Edward Ill's great achievement was transforming his personal quarrel into a national enterprise.

What did a medieval king want to do? He had obligations to his people, as outlined in his coronation oath, but he also had his own interests. The line between personal and public, however, was indistinct, a matter for debate. Law enforcement is a straightforward example of public interest. Edward seems to have been genuinely concerned about curbing crime, but baffled about how to do it. The controversy which swirled around the justices of the peace shows another side of his domestic policy: his determination to keep his prerogative and instruments of rule intact. Whether it was a question of the power wielded by local officials, the appointment and dismissal of royal officers, or the control of ecclesiastical patronage, Edward would not tolerate any diminution of his authority. That determination offers a key to understanding Edward's ‘foreign’ policy as well. He would not suffer any loss of lordship over Scotland, Wales, or Ireland or any loss of territory in France. Reducing the threat from Scotland was certainly in the public interest, though it could have been achieved peacefully through diplomacy.