The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 07-08-2010, 05:49 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,065
I love these discussions! Not only because of the wealth of knowledge contained in all these posts but also gets this ol' lady to do a wee bit of studying and go fetchin' on the internet to make sure her facts aren't too way off base.

I think to put the Crusades into perspective, while I have been reading these posts for some reason I got the image of WWI and WWII in my head.

For the Crusade period of time, we also have to remember that it was the time of the Holy Roman Empire. We have kings, nobles and knights all banded together for a common purpose... claiming and protecting and then reclaiming the Holy Land. Sure there was a lot of invading and pillaging and such between feudal lords and territories back home but they also banded together for this one common cause. It was the nobles and the knights and a lot of the Kings that actually went into battle "For God and Country".

Just as with in recent memory we had the World Wars. Countries that have had problems with each other over history and perhaps even still had problems banded together to form the Allies against a common threat. Of course by the time the World Wars occurred it was the Kings, nobles and politicians that stayed behind the lines and it was the everyday man (peasant) that was armed and sent into the front lines.

The Crusades were a period in European history where they banded together.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-08-2010, 05:51 PM
EleanorOfAquitaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Trier, Germany
Posts: 37
[QUOTE=Iluvbertie;1108583]John was hated by his mother and brothers because he remained loyal to his father when the marriage between his parents collapsed and when his mother encouraged his brothers to lead a rebellion against their father. /QUOTE] John was loyal to his father? I read in a fact book, that john had left his moribund father to join Richard. And when the old king saw a list which man who betrayed him, his sohn John was the first man on this list and tat really hurtet him.
I really cant have any sympathy for a man who left his dying father, only because he had fear what could happend to him if the father is dead and the brother knew, that he has provides the father.
Poor King Henry, he really loved the false son.

Richard however was everytime loyal to his mother.

And i knew, that richard sometimes was ruthless, i knew what he had done in accon. And i never said, that he was a perfekt human. In the middle ages there were no kings who arent ruthless, they all believe, god gave them the right to rull all other people.
But John was more ruthless, i read a story where he was playing chess, when some of his barons begging him for help to save their city. John have sayed no, he were to busy at the moment. Then he contuinued his chess game and let the helpless barons go.
Richard would never done that, he would help his barons.

And Eleanor had made a rebellion against henry, because he was cheating her with richards fiancee alais. I read, that he even was planned to divorced frem eleanor to marry alais. So it is no wonder, that eleanor rebelled against him.

But you are right, in one point i have chosen the wrong words.
When parents hate their children, then is something wrong with tem, not with the child.
Richard couldnt nothing for the hate of his father, and so i must say this for john also.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-08-2010, 08:40 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
I think of Richard as a warrior king who revelled in physical activities and went on the crusades more for the adventure than to champion Christianity. He was his mother's favorite child but who knows what endears one to one's parent. Eleanor was a politically astute woman but she must have known that Richard was not cut out to be an administrator which all monarchs must be, or they must be able to appoint capable people to help them administer the country. Richard was unfit to rule, in my opinion, not because he was intellectually incapable, but because he did not want to sit on the throne and run the country.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-09-2010, 01:50 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,597
John was loyal to his father until such a time as to be loyal would mean probably death at the hands of his brother (and yes I do think that if John had stayed with his father at the end Richard would have had him executed). John had to leave to swear allegiance to Richard to keep his own life.

John wasn't perfect but at least he tried to do the job of ruling. Richard didn't.

Which was the better man isn't the same as which was the better king. Richard was by far the worst of the two as a monarch as he simply didn't do the job but ran away from his God given duty and responsibility to kill in the name of Christ.

John wasn't a great man but he did try to rule his country and get it out of mess Richard had left it in. Had Richard stayed and ruled John wouldn't have had to be as ruthless as he was to try to raise the funds to simply manage the place.

Richard might have helped the barons but only if he benefitted from it. You don't know that he would have done so - you believe so because of the propaganda that has been put out about the two men. The same as the story about John not helping them - more propaganda to blacken the man's name. Do you have a link to a source from the time period or one within a reasonably close period of time that this actually happened remembering that most of these stories were simply fantasy stories to blacken the name of one and make people dream of a better time - like the Robin Hood legend.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-09-2010, 06:42 AM
EleanorOfAquitaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Trier, Germany
Posts: 37
@ivluvbertie

I read to find on Wikipedia to find somethin about bad things King John had done...but i was surprised to find some good things:

As far as the administration of his kingdom went, John functioned as an efficient ruler, but he lost approval of the English barons by taxing them in ways outside those traditionally allowed by feudal overlords. The tax known as scutage, payment made instead of providing knights (as required by feudal law), became particularly unpopular. John was a very fair-minded and well informed king, however, often acting as a judge in the Royal Courts, and his justice was much sought after. Also, John's employment of an able Chancellor and certain clerks resulted in the first proper set of records, the Pipe Rolls. Tudor historiography was particularly interested in him, for his independence from the papacy (or lack of it) – this atmosphere produced not only Shakespeare's own King John but also its model The Troublesome Reign of King John and John Bale's Kynge Johan.


Well, i had seen him ever as the bad king john in the robin Hood movies...a man who let his knights burned churches and houses with innocent people in it. The bad king john in die Movies had coined my picture of him, and even i must say, that he wasnt as bad as a thought, i must say, that i still dont like him very much, but now i think, that he has do more for england than richard. I found it strange to read, that his justice was sough.
But i like richard more, because he is still in our time the ideal of an knight, and i blunder him for his courage.

@ Vasillisos

Sometimes i asking me, what would happend, if he didnt had die so early.
Maybe then he had managed to rule the land and make his adminstration.
If he didnt die, he would maybe have childen with berengaria, and then history would have been an other.
I think, that it is a pitty, that he had die so early.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-09-2010, 09:20 AM
Wisteria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maidenhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 632
What would have happened if he hadn´t died so early? You could ask what would have happened if he had stayed in England and left the crusades to others?
As far as having children with Berengaria, if you read a little more about King Richard you will see that it is said that this would have been highly unlikely.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-10-2010, 10:45 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by EleanorOfAquitaine View Post
@ivluvbertie

@ Vasillisos

Sometimes i asking me, what would happend, if he didnt had die so early.
Maybe then he had managed to rule the land and make his adminstration.
If he didnt die, he would maybe have childen with berengaria, and then history would have been an other.
I think, that it is a pitty, that he had die so early.
I agree with you that Richard was a troubador/knight, which undoubtedly endeared him to Eleanor whose grandfather was considered the first troubador. And maybe he would have become more of a reigning monarch instead of warrior king if he had lived long enought but that is one of the "what ifs" of history.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-11-2010, 11:27 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
To be accurate and fair regarding the reign of Richard I, England was only a small part of the much larger Angevin Empire that he inherited from his father. There is no guarantee that had he been an astute administrator and remained in his realm that he would have spent a great deal of time in England.

Most of the Angevin territories were on the continent, and would have required more of his attention.. and he was at heart, like his father and grandfather, a Frenchman. Both Henry II and Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, were decidedly French and not English, and the Plantagenet family at that time identified more with French interests.

Henry II spent his childhood in Anjou, and although he went to England when he was nine, he only spent two years there before moving on to Normandy. After his succession, he made himself Lord of Ireland- but only spent six months there, and never returned. He sporadically visited England during his reign, but could not live there permanently.. he was busy conquering new lands.. and keeping the ones he had under control.

Only three of Henry's children were born in England.. the rest were born in Normandy, France and Anjou.

England merely provided the Plantagenents with a kingly title, which gave them equal rank with the monarchs on the continent.. and by the time Richard inherited the throne in 1189, the Angevin Empire was vast.

Of course, King John spent much time in England because he lost most of his father's territories on the continent. After Richard died, the people of Anjou, Maine and Brittany, declared for Arthur of Brittany - they would not accept John as their ruler. Then the King of France declared all his French territories forfeit because he refused to pay homage to France as his overlord.

In the end, John had no choice but to rule England.. he had lost control over the major continental territories of his father and brother Richard.. and even he only spent eight months in Ireland before he was driven out. But perhaps it was good for England not to be a minor part of an empire.. it seems the English got more attention from their king that way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-11-2010, 12:32 PM
Wisteria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maidenhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 632
King John made a virtue from a necessity and thank goodness for England he did.
He had the cognome of Lackland because of this loss, but it is his descendants that ruled England after him.
For people brought up on Robin Hood, a person, who it must be said, has not been proven to even have existed and even in the stories about him was a felon living with other outlaws in a dense forest so they could avoid being arrested and could rob travellers. It has always been a wonderful story and many many generations of people have really enjoyed reading these adventures, but on the whole it just a lovely fairy story made up of wishful thinking.
The hardworking person who held England together ended up being called Bad, and the other who really couldn´t have cared less for England ended up being called Good.
Maybe it was destiny that John lost his lands and took the throne of England but it was definitely a good thing when one reads about the character of his brother, Richard.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-12-2010, 08:19 AM
EleanorOfAquitaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Trier, Germany
Posts: 37
@Vasillios

I read, that Richard had swear to never go on a crusade, when he made peace with Saladin. But after crusade and prisoning he had this war with the french King Philippe Auguste. And he had win the war against Philippe and sure the estates of the plantagenets.
I think if he didnt die, he maybe had could been even the king of france some day, if he had conquer Paris. But thats only one of the "what ifs" in history...

@All

There is one thing, i really dont understand. Richards nephew arthur of the bretagne was 12 or 13 when he died...old enough to be king(England had a lot of kings which were even some years younger)
and in the succecion to the throne arthur was bevore John, because his father was Johns older brother.
How was it possible, that a Richard could name a successor on his death bed, even if there was a fixed line of succession?
And in this line arthur had stand bevore John.
Or could the english kings of the middle ages choose a successor by themselves when they had no own children?

@ Queen Catherine

But hundred years later or so the english kings had again estates in france...and then it was a big war about the english land in france again...i think it was called "the hundred year war"
But what i dont understand...when king john loses all french estates...who did conquer them back for england? Was ist his son or grandson?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-12-2010, 10:23 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by EleanorOfAquitaine View Post

@All

There is one thing, i really dont understand. Richards nephew arthur of the bretagne was 12 or 13 when he died...old enough to be king(England had a lot of kings which were even some years younger)
and in the succecion to the throne arthur was bevore John, because his father was Johns older brother.
How was it possible, that a Richard could name a successor on his death bed, even if there was a fixed line of succession?
And in this line arthur had stand bevore John.
Or could the english kings of the middle ages choose a successor by themselves when they had no own children?
Do you mean Arthur I, Duke of Brittany who was the son of Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany?

He was 12 at the time his uncle died, and IMO that is way to young to be a good King for your country and that was also what Richard thought. He is the King he presumably could change the line of succesion as he wished. It had happened before.

This was the succesion when he died.
History of the British line of succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John I was actually third.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-12-2010, 12:50 PM
EleanorOfAquitaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Trier, Germany
Posts: 37
Thanks for the link.
What a pitty, that Richard didnt choose Henry V, because then maybe England would have a better king.
I think that Richard had made a big mistake, when he chosed John for the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-12-2010, 01:00 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,167
If someone else had been King other than John, england, and probably Europe would have been shaped very differently I imagine.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-12-2010, 01:05 PM
EleanorOfAquitaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Trier, Germany
Posts: 37
Well, i dont think, that john was so important for europe, that our presence be an other, if he wasnt king.
The only importand result of his reign is the magna charta, and this isnt his merit

Welll, i must say, that i disliked him, because of hanging innocent children and killing his nephew.

Does someone know, what had happend to Goeffreys daughter Eleanor?
Did he kill her to?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-12-2010, 01:11 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by EleanorOfAquitaine View Post
Well, i dont think, that john was so important for europe, that our presence be an other, if he wasnt king.
The only importand result of his reign is the magna charta, and this isnt his merit

Welll, i must say, that i disliked him, because of hanging innocent children and killing his nephew.

Does someone know, what had happend to Goeffreys daughter Eleanor?
Did he kill her to?
She died in 1241, still a prisoner in Corfe Castle. She was 58, so it could have been natural causes.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-13-2010, 01:50 PM
EleanorOfAquitaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Trier, Germany
Posts: 37
There is one thing i often think about....could it be possible, that John wasnt Eleanors bodily child?
Eleanor was almost 46, when he was born...and maternity in that age is very seldom, especially in the middle ages.
Maybe his mother could been one of King Henrys Misstresses....
And when Eleanor goes to the aquitaine, she had taken all children with her, and the only she didnt take with was the one year old John.
I mean, Eleanor had love all her children, but this one she never liked from the hour of his birth.
My explanation for that is, that john maybe wasnt her bodily child.
But tat are no historical fact, it is only my guess.
What are you think about?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-13-2010, 02:52 PM
Wisteria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maidenhead, United Kingdom
Posts: 632

Although I think you have an excellent theory, as 45 was quite old to have a child in those days, but remember this was her last child and she had had Eleanor in 1162, Joan in 1165 and John in 1167.
I have feeling it was to do with her age but that she probably had such a bad time giving birth to John that it made him her least favourite child, this is not unheard of and perhaps she turned him over to a wet nurse as soon as he was born and that made her less motherly to him than the others.
It was unusual to have a "first" child at 45 but then some women had many children so it would not be that unusual for the last one to be born at that age.
I have read recently of a noblewoman who was married and widowed with 5 children. She married a second time and had 15 more children. Even if she had had her first child at a very young age she would have to be 45 at least when the last child was born.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-13-2010, 04:15 PM
EleanorOfAquitaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Trier, Germany
Posts: 37
@Wisteria

20 Children? How horrible! What a poor Woman!
I wouldnt imagine, how hard it must be, to have 20 birth with the less medicine possibilitys of the middle ages.
So, if Eleanor was really 45, John could be her child.
But i have read, that it is possible, that sie was born in 1120 or 21.
1122 is the usuall guess, but not sure.
And if she really was born in 1120, he couldnt be her child.
But you are right, if she was 45, he could been her child.
I think it must be really hard for her to born so much children and see eight of them dieing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-13-2010, 04:34 PM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588


My great-grandmother was 47 when her second and last child was born in 1922 - of course that was 800 years later, but it was neither planned that way nor was there any special medical care during her pregnancy. It's very rare, but it happens and perhaps Eleonore was quite a strong and healthy woman? I mean, apparently she was 82 when she died which is very old for someone who lived in the middle ages.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-13-2010, 04:53 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
I have feeling it was to do with her age but that she probably had such a bad time giving birth to John that it made him her least favourite child, this is not unheard of and perhaps she turned him over to a wet nurse as soon as he was born and that made her less motherly to him than the others.
It was standard practice for noble and royal ladies to give their babies over to a wet-nurse immediately after birth.

It was the wife's duty to provide heirs at a time when infant mortality was high, and ladies of royal and noble birth were expected to recover from childbirth as quickly as possible, so that they could get on with producing the next.

Breast-feeding suppresses a woman's ability to get pregnant.. so it would have been physically improbable that Eleanor could have had children in successive years (1155, 1156, 1157, 1158) if she had nursed her children for any normal length of time.

As far as Eleanor's accepted year of birth (1122), there has been much debate on whether that year is correct. There are a few documents that allude to when she was born, but thus far, there is no definitive extant proof. As a female, it is unlikely that her birth was recorded with any accuracy.. her father most likely would expect a male heir to succeed him, and a daughter's birth date would not have been as important as that of a son.

In my opinion, it is very likely that Eleanor was born later than 1122, and would therefore have been younger than 30 when she married Henry. A 30 year old woman in Eleanor's time was middle aged. I do believe, however, that Eleanor enjoyed robust health throughout her life.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Miss Birgitte van Deurs: 8 July 1972 Scott Royal Weddings 15 11-20-2014 11:41 AM
Hello,i the Falko but a pair Member from me call me also Richard! chickin Member Introductions and Updates 1 06-21-2008 03:57 AM
Richard Horth Richard Horth Member Introductions and Updates 1 07-29-2007 09:35 PM




Popular Tags
birth brussels carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:11 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]