Richard I "The Lionheart" (1157-1199)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
@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.
 
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.
 
If someone else had been King other than John, england, and probably Europe would have been shaped very differently I imagine.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
:previous:
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.
 
@Wisteria

20 Children?:ohmy: 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.
 
:previous:

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.
 
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.
 
@Dierna

Wow...47 years...I had ever thought, that a pregnancy in this age is impossible. 1922 was much more modern than the middle ages, but for pregnant woman there was really no much care. When this was possible in 1922, it would have been possibly in the middle ages too.
And I think, in te 1920 the medicin was still at the stand of the middle ages...no antibotika and so....so your grand grandmother had luck to ´survive the birth.

@Catherine

Maybe you were right, and Eleanor was really some years younger.
IN the middle ages it was usually to marrie young woman at the age of 11 or 12..with 15 a young woman already count as spinster.
So it is really possible, that Eleanor was 11 or 12, when shes getting married to LOuis.
Her father died then, maybe they made Eleanor a little bit older, that she can inherit the aquitaine without a guradian.
In the middle ages the age for majority was 14...so i guess, maybe they made Eleanor older becaue of that.
And it lasts 8 years, until she geht her first child marie....
 
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?

The fact that John inherited Aquitaine when Eleanor died indicates pretty conclusively that he was her son, even though his relationship with his mother was a troubled one.

A woman such as Eleanor would never leave her duchy and its wealth to a usurper, especially when her daughter, the Queen of Castile, was still living and was the elder of her two surviving children.

The precedent of a female ruler in Aquitaine had already been established by Eleanor herself, so there is no reason to think she would not have left everything to her daughter if John were not her son. I personally do not believe that Eleanor would have left Aquitaine to any but her own blood.
 
@Catherine

I read, that Otto, the grandchild of Eleanor gets the aquitaine in 1197, when Richard still lives. Otto was the new dutch of the aquitaine, so John couldnt geht the aquitaine from his mother.
 
Everything that I have read has John getting Aquitaine from his mother and passing the title Duke of Aquitaine to his son Henry III. I can find no reference to Otto getting that title while Richard was alive. My understanding it that she gave the lands to the control of Richard early on but then changed her mind and gave them to John, which triggered a dispute between Richard and John but in the end John inherited the titles and lands from Richard and his mother when first Richard and finally Eleanor died. She strongly supported John's claims once he became King in a number of areas and he made a special trip to see her when she was very ill towards the end of her life.

All the kings of England down to the Black Prince held the title Duke of Aquitaine in French nobility. The title merged with the Crown during the time of the Hundred Years War over 100 years after John's death. Had the title passed to a grandson through a female line - Otto - the kings wouldn't have held the title. There is also a difference to how that title is claimed compared to the title of King of France - which all lists say is a 'claimed' title not a held title.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did Richard have any children,so descendants?
 
Did Richard have any children,so descendants?

He did not have any legitimate children, but he did acknowledge an illegitimate son, Philip of Cognac (also known as Philippe de Falconbridge).

Philip's mother is unknown, but he was born sometime in the early 1180s and had reached adulthood by the later 1190s. His married his father's ward, Amelia, the heiress of Cognac in Charente. It appears their marriage was short-lived because she died without issue, and the last mention of Philip was in 1204, when he sells the tariffs on the domains of Cognac, Merpins and Jarnac to his uncle, King John of England. He is believed to have died in the early 13th century.

As far as can be known, Philip had no subsequent marriage and no children.. so Richard I has no known descendants.
 
Last edited:
And it is rumored that Richard was homosexual which may or may not be true but if true, could possibly explain only one illegitimate child.
 
April 6th marked the anniversary of Richard's death in 1199 at the castle of Chalus-Chabrol.

Tomb Effigy at Fontevraud Abbey.


800px-Church_of_Fontevraud_Abbey_Richard_I_effigy.jpg
 
Author, Sharon Kay Penman, has done an excellent series on the Plantagenants, the last 2 books in the series focus pretty much entirely on Richard. The final book comes out end of this year or first of next year.

On the author's FB page there's a clip that was posted several months ago that shows the 'restored' (on film) images of the effigies of Henry, Eleanor and Richard. It was really neat...probably could find that online.


LaRae
 
Author, Sharon Kay Penman, has done an excellent series on the Plantagenants, the last 2 books in the series focus pretty much entirely on Richard. The final book comes out end of this year or first of next year.

On the author's FB page there's a clip that was posted several months ago that shows the 'restored' (on film) images of the effigies of Henry, Eleanor and Richard. It was really neat...probably could find that online.


LaRae

Do you mean this one?

The Face of Richard I (Photoshop Reconstruction) - YouTube
 
Yes! Isn't that the coolest thing!


LaRae
 
Great clip, and if the photoshopping is true to form Richard was such a handsome man. When the effigy opened its eyes, that really gave me a start! And I just loved the music.

I can't wait for "A King's Ransom," the sequel to "Lionheart" to come out. I hope SKP finds another dynasty or subject to turn her skills to.
 
Great clip, and if the photoshopping is true to form Richard was such a handsome man. When the effigy opened its eyes, that really gave me a start! And I just loved the music.

I can't wait for "A King's Ransom," the sequel to "Lionheart" to come out. I hope SKP finds another dynasty or subject to turn her skills to.


Have you read the Welsh series she did? It does tie in since John has a part in it.



LaRae
 
Yes, I did, I think I got my hands on every single book she's written, even her mystery series. I just don't want to see her go away!
 
I asked her on FB recently if she was going to start a new series after Ransom and so far no reply!

Elizabeth Chadwick and Allison Weir are worth reading also. Another couple of series along a different type of story....Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon and the Wilderness series by Sara Donati. If you are looking for something to read in the meantime.




LaRae
 
Isn't it a dreadful shame that the tombs at Fontevraud Abbey are empty having being pundered and desecrated twice,first by the Huguenots and then during the French Revolution.

We're lucky that the tombs of Henri,Eleanor,Richard and Isabella survived,the joint tomb of Richard's sister and nephew,Joan of England and Raymond Count of Toulouse were destroyed during the Revolution.
 
Yes very much so. It's amazing anything survived ...and no telling what we lost we don't even know about.

LaRae
 
I asked her on FB recently if she was going to start a new series after Ransom and so far no reply!

Elizabeth Chadwick and Allison Weir are worth reading also. Another couple of series along a different type of story....Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon and the Wilderness series by Sara Donati. If you are looking for something to read in the meantime.


LaRae

Diana Gabaldon lost a lot of her fans after her last Outlander book in the series, which I read avidly. A great disappointment to a fantastic series. She hasn't written anything more except for maybe some Lord John Grey novels. I also read Allison Weir, both her bios and her fiction; quite excellent. And, of course, there's the indomitable Philippa Gregory with her novels of the later Plantagenets and the Wars of the Roses.
 
Last edited:
The final (as far as I know) book in the Outlander series is due out next year I think.

Not a fan of the LJG series really. I did read one of them, the one that came out a year or so ago featuring Jamie and LJG but that's it.

I've read all the Gregory books too.


LaRae
 
Richard I 'The Lionheart' (1157-1199)

I have seen on this board that some posters have a low opinion of the first King Richard and I wonder why. The only thing I know about Richard is crusades, he was his mothers favorite, and Robin Hood. Was Richard a good king or nay? Was John better or just as bad?
 
Back
Top Bottom