#and that John VI was born before John V

[charlesoberonn]

List of Roman Emperors and how many future emperors were born during their reign

"?" is for emperors whose birthdate is unclear, they'd be listed under every possible option

Emperors with no known birthdate won't be counted towards any reign

A lot of the reigns overlap (especially after the Empire is divided between east and west) so some emperors are born during the reign of several previous emperors

Republican Era: 2. Augustus, Tiberius

Agustus (40 years): 5. Caligula, Claudius, Galba, Vitellius, Vespasian

Tiberius (22 years): 2. Otho, Nerva

Caligula (4 years): 2. Nero, Titus

Claudius (14 years): 2. Domitian, Trajan

Nero (14 years): 0.

Galba (7 months): 0.

Otho (3 months): 0.

Vitellius (8 months): 0.

Vespasian (10 years): 1. Hadrian

Titus (2 years): 0.

Domitian (15 years): 1. Antoninus Pius

Nerva (1 year): 0.

Trajan (20 years): 0.

Hadrian (21 years): 4. Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, Pertinax, Didius Julianus

Antoninus Pius (23 years): 2. Septimius Severus, Gordian I

Marcus Aurelius (19 years): 3-4. Commodus, Macrinus, Maximunus Thrax?, Pupienus

Lucius Verus (8 years): 2. Commodus, Macrinus

Commodus (13 years): 4-6. Caracalla, Geta, Maximinus Thrax?, Gordian II, Balbinus, Decius?

Pertinax (3 months): 0.

Didius Julianus (2 months): 0.

Septimius Severus (18 years): 6-8. Elagabalus, Severus Alexander, Philip the Arab, Decius?, Trebonianus Gallus, Aemilianus, Valerian, Tacitus?

Caracalla (6 years): 2. Claudius Gothicus, Aurelian

Geta (1 year): 0.

Macrinus (1 year): 0-1. Gallienus?

Elagabalus (4 years): 0-1. Gallienus?

Severus Alexander (13 years): 2-3. Gordian III, Probus, Carus?

Maximinus Thrax (3 years): 0.

Gordian I (1 month): 0.

Gordian II (1 month): 0.

Pupienus (3 months): 0.

Balbinus (3 months): 0.

Gordian III (5 years): 1. Diocletian

Philip the Arab (6 years): 0.

Decius (2 years): 0-3. Carinus?, Maximian?, Constantius I?

Trebonian Gallus (2 years): 0.

Aemilianus (2 months): 0.

Valerian (7 years): 2. Numerian, Galerius

Gallienus (15 years): 1. Licinius

Claudius Gothicus (2 years): 0.

Aurelian (5 years): 2. Maximinus II, Constantine I

Tacitus (7 months): 0.

Florianus (3 months): 0.

Probus (6 years): 0.

Carus (10 months): 0-1. Maxentius?

Carinus (2 years): 0-1. Maxentius?

Numerian (1 year): 0-1. Maxentius?

Diocletian (20 years): 0.

Maximian (21 years): 0.

Galerius (6 years): 0.

Constantius I (1 year): 0.

Severus II (8 months): 0.

Maxentius (6 years): 0.

Licinius (15 years): 4. Constantine II, Constans I, Constantius II, Valentinian I

Maximinus II (3 years): 0.

Constantine I (31 years): 7. Constantine II, Constans I, Constantius II, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian I, Valens

Constantine II (3 years): 0.

Constans I (12 years): 1. Theodosius I

Constantius II (24 years): 2. Gratian, Theodosius I

Julian (2 years): 0.

Jovian (8 months): 0.

Valentinian I (12 years): 1. Valentinian II

Valens (14 years): 2. Valentinian II, Arcadius

Gratian (8 years): 1. Arcadius

Valentinian II (4 years): 0.

Theodosius I (16 year): 2. Honorius, Marcian

Arcadius (13 years): 2. Theodosius II, Leo I

Honorius (29 years): 2. Theodosius II, Leo I

Theodosius II (42 years): 3-4. Valentinian III, Zeno, Anastasius I, Justin?

Constantius III (7 months): 0.

Valentinian III (29 years): 1-2. Zeno?, Anastasius I

Marcian (6 years): 0-1. Justin I?

Petronius Maximus (2 months): 0.

Avitus (1 year): 0.

Majorian (4 years): 0.

Leo I (17 years): 1. Leo II

Libius Severus (4 years): 0-1. Romulus Augustulus?

Anthemius (5 years): 1. Leo II

Olybrius (7 months): 0.

Glycerius (1 year): 0.

Leo II (10 months): 0.

Julius Nepos (6 years): 0.

Zeno (16 years): 1. Justinian I 

Basiliscus (2 years): 0.

Romulus Augustulus (10 months): 0.

Anastasius I (27 years): 0.

Justin I (9 years): 0.

Justinian I (39 years): 3. Tiberius II, Maurice, Phocas

Justin II (13 years): 1. Heraclius

Tiberius II (4 years): 0.

Maurice (20 years): 0.

Phocas (8 years): 0.

Heraclius (30 years): 3. Constantine III, Heraclonas, Constans II

Constantine III (3 months): 0.

Heraclonas (9 months): 0.

Constans II (27 years): 1. Constatine IV

Constantine IV (17 years): 1-2. Justinian II, Leo III?

Justinian II (16 years, non-consecutive): 0-1. Leo III?

Leontius (3 years): 0.

Tiberius III (7 years): 0.

Philippicus (2 years): 0.

Anastasius II (2 years): 0.

Theodosius III (2 years): 0.

Leo III (24 years): 1. Constantine V

Constantine V (34 years): 6-7. Leo IV, Constantine VI, Irene, Nikephoros I, Michael I, Leo V?, Michael II

Leo IV (5 years): 0-1. Leo V?

Constantine VI (17 years): 0-1. Staurakios?

Irene (5 years): 0-1. Staurakios?

Nikephoros I (9 years): 0-1. Basil I?

Staurakios (2 months): 0-1. Basil I?

Michael I (2 years): 0-2. Theophilos?, Basil I?

Leo V (7 years): 0-1. Theophilos?

Michael II (9 years): 0.

Theophilos (12 years): 1-2. Michael II, Basil I?

Michael III (26 years): 1. Leo VI

Basil I (19 years): 2. Alexander, Romanos I

Leo VI (26 years): 1-2. Constantine VII, Nikephoros II?

Alexander (1 year): 0-1. Nikephoros II?

Constantine VII (46 years): 3. Romanos II, John I, Basil II

Romanos I (24 years): 2. Romanos II, John I

Romanos II (3 years): 1. Constantine VIII

Nikephoros II (6 years): 1. Romanos III

John I (6 years): 0.

Basil II (50 years): 9. Michael IV, Michael V, Zeo, Theodora, Constantine IX, Michael VI, Isaac I, Constantine X, Nikephoros III

Constantine VIII (3 years): 0.

Romanos III (5 years): 1. Romanos IV

Michael IV (8 years): 0.

Michael V (4 months): 0.

Zoe (2 months): 0.

Theodora (2 years): 0.

Constantine IX (13 years): 1. Michael VII

Michael VI (1 year): 0-1. Alexios I?

Isaac I (2 years): 0-1. Alexios I?

Constantine X (7 years): 0.

Romanos IV (4 years): 0.

Michael VII (6 years): 0.

Nikephoros III (8 years): 0.

Alexios I (37 years): 1-2. John II, Andronikos I?

John II (25 years): 4-5. Manuel I, Andronikos I?, Isaac II, Alexios III, Alexios V

Manuel I (37 years): 2. Alexios II, Theodore I,

Alexios II (3 years): 1. Alexios IV

Andronikos I (2 years): 0.

Isaac II (10 years): 1. John III

Alexios III (8 years): 0.

Alexios IV (6 months): 0.

Alexios V (2 months): 0.

Theodore I (16 years): 0-1. Theodore II?

John III (33 years): 2-3. Theodore II?, John IV, Michael VIII

Theodore II (4 years): 0.

John IV (3 years): 0.

Michael VIII (24 years): 2. Andronikos II, Michael IX

Andronikos II (45 years): 2. Andronikos III, John VI

Michael IX (26 years): 1. Andronikos III

Andronikos III (13 years): 1. John V

John V (50 years): 3. Andronikos IV, John VII, Manuel II

John VI (8 years): 2. Andronikos IV, Manuel II

Andronikos IV (3 years): 0.

John VII (5 years): 0.

Manuel II (34 years): 2. John VIII, Constantine XI

John VIII (23 years): 0.

Constantine XI (4 years): 0.

#possibly the most autistic thing I've done #rome #roman history #you would notice that Alexios III and V were born before Alexios II and IV #and that John VI was born before John V #that's because history is dumb

[cannibalcaprine]

Pope Stephen VI

Head of the Catholic Church from 896 to 897

"Stephen VI" redirects here. For the Moldavian ruler, see Ştefan VI Rareş.

In sources prior to the 1960s, this pope is called Stephen VII and Pope Stephen V is called Stephen VI; see Pope-elect Stephen for a detailed explanation.

Pope Stephen VI (Latin: Stephanus VI; died August 897) was the bishop of Rome and ruler of the Papal States from 22 May 896 to his death. He is best known for instigating the Cadaver Synod, which ultimately led to his downfall and death.

Family and Career

Stephen was born in Rome. His father was a priest named John. Stephen was made bishop of Anagni by Pope Formosus, possibly against his will.

Pontificate

The circumstances of his election as pope are unclear, but he was sponsored by one of the powerful Roman families, the dukes of Spoleto, that contested the papacy at the time.

Stephen is chiefly remembered in connection with his conduct towards the remains of Pope Formosus. The rotting corpse of Formosus was exhumed and put on trial, before an unwilling synod of the Roman clergy, in the so-called Cadaver Synod in January 897. Pressure from the Spoleto contingent and Stephen's fury with Formosus probably precipitated this extraordinary event. With the corpse propped up on a throne, a deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff. During the trial, Formosus's corpse was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for accepting the papacy while he was the bishop of Porto, among other revived charges that had been levelled against him in the strife during the pontificate of John VIII. The corpse was found guilty, stripped of its sacred vestments, deprived of three fingers of its right hand (the blessing fingers), clad in the garb of a layman, and quickly buried; it was then re-exhumed and thrown in the Tiber. All ordinations performed by Formosus were annulled.

The trial excited a tumult. Though the instigators of the deed may actually have been Formosus' Spoletan enemies, notably Guy IV of Spoleto, who had recovered their authority in Rome at the beginning of 897 by renouncing their broader claims in central Italy, the scandal ended in Stephen's imprisonment and his death by strangulation that summer.

See also

List of popes who died violently

#wikipedia #pope #for later #*

[poor-boy-orpheus]

Been reading about popes, as one does. Here's a few things I've learned:

My boy St. Anterus was only pope for 43 days before he kicked it.

The last pope to be born in Africa (St. Gelasius I) was pope way back in 492 CE.

The practice of popes not using their real names when they become pontiff originated from one pope (St. John II) who didn't want to use his birth name (Mercurius) because of its association with a "false" god. The practice wouldn't become mainstream though until Pope Gregory V in 985.

Stephen/Stephanus/Stephen II was named pope and 3 days later he died. It was so short that he didn't even officially take office and most lists don't count him.

Formosus was on trial 7 months after he died. He was being tried for perjury and allegedly ascending to the papacy illegitimately by a later pope, Stephen VI. Formosus was found guilty and sentenced to execution (despite already being dead) and they annulled all of his acts as pope. They buried him in a cheap grave, then dug his body up and threw it in a river where it later washed up on shore. This pissed off everyone else so much that they later had to rebury him with Christian rites and Stephen then got sentenced to prison where he got strangled. The whole thing was so embarrassing that later, Pope Theodore II convened another synod that annulled the synod that annulled Formosus's papacy. Even later than that, Pope John IX held two different synods, both agreeing with Theodore and annulling Stephen's trial -then went further and prohibited all future trials of corpses. AND THEN Pope Sergius III held ANOTHER Synod and overturned the rulings of both Theodore and John, reaffirmed Formosus's conviction, and had a new epitaph inscribed on the tomb of Stephen praising him for his work.

All the stuff above was so embarrassing and so many new popes kept getting elected that nobody respected the papacy for almost a century. The popes became super corrupt and got rules by a small group of aristocrats paying them off. This era becomes known as the "Pornocracy" and "Rule of the Harlots" which just sounds sick as hell (but was actually very bad for everyone).

The first pope to canonize a saint didn't take office until 985 CE (this was Pope John XV and he canonized Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg in 993).

Adrian IV is the only pope to have been English (Anglo-Saxon specifically).

#catholicism #papcy #popes

[elipheleh]

James I (and VI) & George Villiers

Continuing my series of learning about things referenced in the book, I'm looking at things referenced in Alex & Henry's visit to the V&A Museum. These are all tagged #a series of learning about things that are referenced in the book, if you want to block the tag.

"Actually . . . you remember how I told you about the gay king, James I?” “The one with the dumb jock boyfriend?” “Yes, that one. Well, his most beloved favorite was a man named George Villiers. [...] He stood in front of the Privy Council and said, ‘Christ had John, and I have George.’" -Chapter 10, Red White & Royal Blue

-----

King James­­ I (in England, in Scotland he was James VI) ruled from 1567 (Scotland) and 1603 (England & Ireland) until his death in 1625. He was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and was crowned King of Scotland aged 13 months - after her forced abdication. He gained full control of government in 1583, and 6 years later married Anne of Denmark - they had seven children, but only three survived to adulthood, with one dying aged 18. Then-Queen of England, Elizabeth I, died childless in 1603 and James VI of Scotland was passed the crown of England without protest.

George Villiers, the 1st Duke of Buckingham, was born in 1592, to a minor gentleman, Sir George Villiers. Aged 21, he caught the eye of King James I and gained the King's patronage. He was described as "the handsomest-bodied in England", and also gained the support of the King's wife, Anna. Villiers was made a gentleman of the bedchamber - whose duties involved assisting the King as he dressed and ate, and also to provide companionship - in 1615, and in 1623 he was elevated to a dukedom, the first commoner in more than a century to be granted this.

Their relationship was the subject of rumours at the time, with many assuming they were sharing a bed. As Henry mentions in the same scene as the quote at the top, 17th century poet de Viau wrote "it is well known that the king of England / fucks the Duke of Buckingham." King James' nickname for Villiers was "Steenie", after Saint Stephen - who was described as having "the face of an angel".

The full quote preceding "Christ had John, and I have George" adds to the display of the depth of the king's feelings for Villiers. He said in 1617 before the Privy Council: "You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George."

Sources/Additional Reading: Wikipedia - James I & VI Wikipedia - George Villiers Wikipedia - Succession to Elizabeth I Wikipedia - Union of the Crowns BHO - The bedchamber: Gentlemen of the Bedchamber Wikipedia - Personal Relationships of James I & VI The History Vault - James I & VI and his male ‘favourites’

#rwrb #red white and royal blue #rwrb movie #alt text added #elio's #elio's meta #long post #a series of learning about things that are referenced in the book

[scotianostra]

On February 20th 1437 King James I was murdered in Perth.

As Kings go, James I and his immediate family had arguably the worst of bad luck, he was never meant to be King, his brother, David was first born but their uncle, Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany kidnapped him and he died in suspicious circumstances, apparently of starvation,Albany was cleared of all blame by a general council, which found that ‘by divine providence and not otherwise, it is discerned that he departed from this life.’

James was then about nine years old was dispatched to France by his father Robert III, en-route the young Prince was seasick and the ship was forced to land on the English coast where pirates captured it and delivered James to Henry IV of England. His father, who was of ill-health throughout his rein, died shortly afterwards.

And so James began his rein as King in captivity, albeit treated very well and afforded all the trappings a royal guest would expect, except he was guarded and unable to return to Scotland. He spent 18 years with the English Court seeing three Kings of England, by his release in 1424 Henry VI was ruler.

With that his return to Scotland did not go down well the ransom of £40,000 was raised through higher taxes and hostages from noble families were exchanged as part of the ransom added to that James was know to have accompanied Henry V to France and fought against Scots who were there as part of The Auld Alliance, despite this he was admired by some and was said to have excelled at sport and was appreciative of literature and music. Unlike his father and grandfather, he did not take mistresses but had many children by his wife, Queen Joan. The King had a strong desire to impose law and order on his subjects, but applied it selectively at times.

James exerted his authority with pre-emptive attacks on some of his nobles beginning in 1425 with his close kinsmen the Albany Stewarts resulting in the execution of Duke Murdoch and his sons. In 1428 James detained Alexander, Lord of the Isles, while attending a parliament in Inverness. Archibald, 5th Earl of Douglas, was arrested in 1431, followed by George, Earl of March, in 1434. The plight of the ransom hostages held in England was ignored and the repayment money was diverted into the construction of Linlithgow Palace and other grandiose schemes.

With all this the vultures were circling during the Royal Families extended Christmas holidays at Perth’s Blackfriars Friary and on the evening of February 20th James I was resting in his nightgown and furry slippers, playing chess with his wife, Queen Joan, and their friends, when the assassins arrived around midnight.

It is known that at least one of his inner circle, the chamberlain Sir Robert Stewart, was in on the plot and excused the guardsman and loosened the bolts on the abbey doors, as he got word of the mob’s approach. An account of the day, given by Queen Joan following the raid and transcribed from Latin by historian John Shirley, described the “great noise…and great clattering of harness and men armed, with great sight of torches.” Leading the pack was the “false and traitorous knight” Sir Robert Graham, who supported the Albany Stewarts over the King. James I fled for cover with his wife and friends running for the chamber doorway, where the King urged them to stay.

The King, according to the account, tried to smash windows to enable their escape but they were too strongly soldered with lead for them the break. James I was “ugly astonished” and grabbed iron tongs from the fire side before “mightily” bursting up a plank of the chamber floor and dipping down to conceal himself, James thought he could escape under tennis courts but found the way blocked, this was his own doing as he was annoyed at losing tennis balls and had the way barred. The assassins - armed with “swords, axes, glaves, bills” burst in as he was climbing from under the floorboards back into the room. Unarmed and still in his nightgown, the King fought back, holding two men by their throats and cutting his hands as he tried to grab their knives. He was eventually overpowered.

The King died in a pool of his own blood with 16 wounds in his chest and many more on other parts of his body, the account added. Sir Robert Graham, is said to have screamed after his death: “I have thus slayne and delivered yow of so crewel a tyrant, the grettest enemye that Scottes or Scotland might have.”

Some have cast doubt on the version of events as told by Queen Joan with claims she hyped the heroism of the King

James I was buried within the grounds of Perth Charterhouse, but the priory was destroyed in the reformation a century after his death and now no-one is exactly sure where his grave is.

A stone monument at the corner of Perth’s King Street and Hospital Street marks the fact he is buried somewhere in the area..

#scotland #scottish #history #murder #regicide #the stewars

[travllingbunny]

Hi! I love your posts and insights about the Wars of the Roses. Do you think you could talk a bit about Richard Duke of York? What do you think his character/life was like? Also re his and his sons appearance??

Hi! I'm sorry for taking so long to answer your ask, but I just couldn't find the time before. (I happen to currently have more free time than usual, due to particular circumstances.)

Thank you for asking about Richard, Duke of York, because I think he is a very interesting historical figure who gets usually overshadowed by his sons. If one day someone decides to make a new TV show or movie about the Wars of the Roses that doesn't just skip over the 1460s and start when Richard Duke of York, his life would make quite a compelling story.

As for historical books about him, I recommend Matthew Lewis' Richard, Duke of York: King by Right.(2016), which is a very detailed (but still very interesting, to me at least) account of his life. I read it a few years ago so I don't remember all the details, only the main points and overall impression I got from it.

My main impression is that, although he is often portrayed by pro-Lancaster writers as power-hungry, this is far from the truth. It seems unlikely that he ever wanted to challenge Henry VI and put himself forward as king, before the last year of his life - and this controversial act makes perfect sense when you look at the circumstances and the things that had happened to him and his family just before that. Besides, while Richard was for a long time - before Edward of Lancaster was born - Henry VI's heir, it seems more likely that he was hoping that his son would one day succeed Henry, rather than himself, since Henry was younger than him and in good physical health. Rather than the result of some evil overreaching lust for power, it seems to me that his conflict with the Lancaster/Beaufort faction was a result of the years of frustration over his treatment. As the conflict grew, staking his clai to the throne throne may have been an act of desperation (since, at that point, this must have seemed like the only way to protect himself and his family), but maybe he was also just really done with everything, and with Henry VI and unwilling to support him as King. Considering the context, I don't really think even pro-Henry VI people could really blame him.

But first I think we'd have to go back to the beginnings. I think that Richard's childhood and, most of all, what happened to his father, is what framed his whole life. Richard's mother, Anne Mortimer (great-granddaughter of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the second of the sons of king Edward III who survived childhood), died soon after giving birth to him, aged only 22. His father, Richard, Earl of Cambridge (himself the grandson of Edward III through his 4th surviving son Edmund, the Duke of York), was executed - when Richard wasn't even 4 years old - for his involvement in the Southampton Plot to depose Henry V in favor of his brother-in-law, Edmund Mortimer (but since Edmund had no children, really in favor of his own son Richard, who would be his heir).

After all, the Lancasters, i.e., Henry V's father Henry IV , himself the son of Edward III's third son John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, had deposed Richard II, skipping over the line of the elder son Lionel, so it could have been reasonably argued that the Mortimers's claim to the throne was stronger (sure, it was through the female line - but so was the English royals' claim to the throne of France - France had installed the Salic Law to bar the female lines from the throne of France - really to bar the English kings from it, but England did not). But Henry V was a crowned and annointed king, so trying to depose him would have been treason... (Even though he was only on the throne because his father had deposed, imprisoned and starved to death another annointed king. To quote one of my favorite TV shows, "Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder". But it's crucial whether you won or lost.)

Just a couple of months later, his uncle Edward, his father's elder brother, was killed without children, Richard became the heir to his lands and titles and became the Duke of York at the age of 4. Ten years later, after the death of his maternal uncle Edmund, he also became heir to the Mortimer estates.

So, young Richard grew up as an orphan but also one of the technically most powerful and richest people in England, and heir not just to titles and lands but also the claims to the throne from not just the 4th but also the 2nd son of Edward III (the latter being the senior line of succession after the deposition and death of Richard II) to rival the Lancaster dynasty. And at the same time, he lived in the shadow of the fact that his father had died as a traitor and rebel against the crown for pressing that same claim.

If I were to speculate about Richard's personality and how his upbringing shaped it, I think he was a person who tried hard to do everything right, to fulfil his duties in every way and be beyond reproach, exactly because he had so much responsibility and probably so much to prove. Something that really strikes me about Richard is that he seemed almost too perfect: competent, respected nobleman popular with the people, in a stable marriage, not known to have any mistresses or sexual transgressions, had seven children who suvvived childhood including four sons...What the contrast to Henry VI, a nice and pious man but notoriously disinterested in ruling (long before he started showing signs of mental ilness and became catatonic), prone to relying on favorites such as his extremely incompetent cousin Edmund Beaufort. and also, for a long time, unable to conceive a child with his wife Margaret of Anjou (and possibly uninterested in trying), before finally siring Edward.

And this is exactly why Richard must have come across both as such a threat in the eyes of Queen Margaret, Edmund Beaufort and other people around Henry VI. How could they not be wary of his powerful man, Henry's cousin and heir, who had all the qualities you'd want in a king, which Henry lacked? However, if he was really power hungry and eager to replace Henry as king, he certainly didn't show that for many years. I think he must have been especially eager to prove his loyalty with the "son of the traitor" thing hanging over his head since he was a child. But he was nevertheless constantly under suspicion and distrusted by the Queen and her faction. I remember reading the details of his career, which come across as Richard constantly having to prove himself while being denied positions or sent away - his appointment in Ireland was really meant a virtual exile, to get him away from court (but it resulted in him and by extension the York dynasty gaining long-term popularity and stronghold in Ireland). (One of the common myths is that Richard was warlike and that this got him in conflict with the supposedly more peaceful faction - in fact, if I remember correctly, it was Edmund Beaufort who acted belligerent in France but made a mess of things, which Richard then had to clean up.)

It all must have been really frustrating to Richard - he was doing everything right, but it was never enough, and he had to prove his loyalty over and over. Maybe the Queen and the Lancastrians really created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Theoretically, I suppose Richard could have been binding his time and playing some really long con to depose Henry, but that seems unlikely looking at the details.

Instead, I think the most likely reason for his decision to start claiming the throne for himself in 1460 is that the conflict had become too harsh and the situation too desperate after he had been proclaimed a traitor to the crown and had to flee to Ireland. The attainder meant he was to be killed if he set foot in England again, and his family was disinherited. He had to successfully invade (ironically, he was in a similar situation that the future Henry IV before he deposed Richard II) and then either make himself Lord Protector again or even Henry's heir, or to proclaim himself the true king.

But I thin the earlier loss at the castle of Ludlow, when the Yorkist troops were reluctant to fight the Lancastrian army when Henry VI himself was at its head (a puppet or not, ineffectual or disinterested, the annointed king was seen in an almost religious light and had enormous symbolic authority), and then the brutal sack of the castle, where Richard's wife Cecily Neville, his daughter Margaret and his two youngest children George and Richard (who was only 7) at the very least had to witness awful scenes of rape and pillage, by that same army with Henry as its nominal head... this may have been the straw that broke the camel's back and made Richard decide he was done with Henry VI. (Whether or not he had earlier really respected Henry or just respected his position as King.) And I really can't blame him.

I wonder how he felt when he finally made that decision, which would lead to his death less than a year later - followed by his eldest son's successful campaign and decisive victory over the Lancasters? Was it sheer desperation and survival, was he angry, did he decide he deserved the crown after all and was going to take it, did he feel any pride and relief that his decision would also basically mean an annoncement that his father was not really a traitor? I don't know, but I'm surprised there aren't more novels, movies and TV shows with him as the protagonist, delving into those questions.

Now, as for Richard's appearance and those of his sons.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of direct evidence of what he looked like (and the drawing that, for whatever reason, you'll find most often as a supposed portrait of him on Google definitely isn't reliable), but there are some indirect ones: Richard III was said to particularly look like his father. The phrase about Richard III looking like his father in face and figure has been often interpreted to mean that Richard, Duke of York was short, because Richard was a bit on the shorter side. However, there's no indication whatsoever that York was short, and we know that Richard III was shorter than he would've otherwise been due to his scoliosis (but still quite taller than some other men such as Niklas von Popplau, the German knight who was his guest and described him later). And to put things into context - Richard III was being praised for his similarity to his father and the mention of his figure seems more likely to be a reference to the late Edward IV becoming notoriously overweight in his 30s (while Richard was slim and lean), so I think it simply meant that their father Richard Duke of York was slim and in good shape when he was killed at the age of 49.

This miniature portrait of Richard Duke of York from the Talbot Shrewsbury book (around 1445, when he was 33/34, around the same age Richard III was when he died) shows a blond man with a strong chin - similar to that seen in the portraits of his sons Edward and Richard, an acquiline nose similar to Richard, and full lips (the one detail that doesn't match Richard that well and in fact seems more similar to Edward, going by their portraits).

There are a lot of myths about what the brothers looked like that were mostly created by historical fiction - including that Edward and George were tall and strong while Richard was small (in fact, I don't think we have any contemporary evidence of what George looked like), or that Edward or maybe George too were blond while Richard was dark (both Edward and Richard seemed to have medium brown hair) or that Edward and Richard looked nothing alike. I actually think there is quite a resemblance between the two brothers mostly in chin and face shape, which probably would've been obvious before Edward had gained weight and his face shape got much fuller.

#richard duke of york #wars of the roses #richard iii #edward iv #english history

[fideidefenswhore]

ok, so i misremembered this article somewhat...fitzroy had provincial appearances throughout both his stepmothers' (i guess coa was technically his stepmother by proxy of sorts, altho the title doesn't fit as well with the connotation of that word as it does when your father (re)marries someone in your lifetime, rather than before) reigns, but 1533 was the last year of players and minstrels performing:

"In records to date, appearances by Fitzroy’s entertainers cease in 1534, less than a year after the birth of Henry’s legitimate (for a time) Princess Elizabeth [...]" Advertising Status and Legitimacy: or, Why Did Henry VIII’s Queens and Children Patronize Travelling Performers?, James H. Forse

...thereafter it was only bearward performances. princess mary's, predictably, also ended by 1533, altho that might be more instructive of how they both reacted to their new stepmother and the religious supremacy (understandably...fitzroy only had to accept a continuation of status quo re his status, and mary was expected to accept a reversal, rather unrealistically, by her father).

princess elizabeth did not have troupes of entertainers (altho i wonder in counterfactual if she would have, perhaps by the age of six or seven, which is when princess mary began to have them) perform in her name (altho personally, i wonder if anne's players mentioned her in their acts), and the provincial performances in prince edward's name eclipse mary's and demonstrate how the importance of the legitimacy of princes tended to supersede that of princesses, these performances began basically right when he was born (whereas mary's did not start until 1525), and there were over seventy such performances, whereas mary had around twenty-five in her name, as princess.

"The scanty information we possess about the personnel of these other royal troupes suggests King Henry gave his support and prestige to his wives’ and children’s entertainment troupes. John Slye moved from Henry’s personal troupe to Princess Mary’s, to Anne Boleyn’s, to Jane Seymour’s; his brother William Slye moved from Henry’s troupe to Mary’s, to Anne Boleyn’s. John Young moved from Henry’s troupe to Jane Seymour’s, and then to Prince Edward’s troupe." Advertising Status and Legitimacy: or, Why Did Henry VIII’s Queens and Children Patronize Travelling Performers?, James H. Forse

comparably, there is also a chart of elizabeth woodville's provincial appearances ... predictably, a gap between 1464 and 1467, another betwen 1470 (coinciding with the birth of prince edward/edward v, also the gap attributed to when she took sanctuary) and 1473, her last being in 1482 (as edward iv died and richard iii took the throne in 1483).

edward plantagent's last was 1482, which makes sense, as richard iii wouldn't have wanted to promote him as heir above his own son...richard iii's son had a provincial performance in his name, indeed, in 1483, before his death.

arthur tudor had a comparable amount of performances in his name as compared to the future edward vi, as heir. henry, duke of york, however, was not forgotten, he had performances in his name, too, starting with the year he was invested as duke of york, with a brief pause from 1500-02 (the focus, doubtless, turning to arthur and his upcoming marriage alliance), picking up again in 1502 upon arthur's death, continuing until he succeeded the throne in 1509.

#henry fitzroy #henry viii

[poorshadowspaintedqueens]

Grrm made a comment about his deconstruction of tropes and how never in real life has a lady run off with the stable boy. Has there ever been in history where a princess or noblewomen fall in love or runs off with a non-nobleman? Particularly Any time in Western Europe? Or has it never happened?

“Never” is a very long time, so I definitely wouldn’t say never. There are a fair number of examples of noblewomen who married lower on the social ladder for any number of reasons. Queen Elizabeth Woodville, wife of Edward IV of England, was the product of one such alliance. Her mother, Jaquetta, had been previously married to John Duke of Bedford, uncle to King Henry VI, which--strictly speaking--made her the second lady in the land behind the dowager queen Catherine (more on her later). Less than a year after her first husband died, she married Sir Richard Woodville, a knight in Bedford’s service whose family was considered part of the gentry (his grandfather served several terms as Sheriff of Northamptonshire), and therefore significantly lower in status. He wasn’t a peasant or even a merchant, but the marriage was sufficiently scandalous that Jacquetta had to pay a fine of £1,000 to the crown and stay away from court for several years. But she was welcome back eventually and her husband and growing family benefited from her connections to both the English royal family and the royal house of Burgundy.

Around the same time, the aforementioned dowager Catherine de Valois, widow of King Henry V of England. The two had been married barely two years when Henry died unexpectedly of dysentery, leaving his wife and one-year-old son, along with his two remaining brothers, to rule England and--at least on paper--France. John of Bedford (see above) was put in charge of France and Humphrey of Gloucester in charge of England. Catherine was, for all intents and purposes, shuffled out of governance altogether. There were rumors of an inappropriate relationship with the new king’s cousin Edmund Beaufort, which led to a statute that royal widows were forbidden from marrying without the king’s permission (again, see above, re: the £1,000 fine). Ironically, they happened to send Catherine off to the country to wait out the scandal, where she met...Owen Tudor, a member of the Welsh aristocracy but not exactly her social equal by English standards. The two of them secretly married and had three children before the king and the duke of Gloucester figured it out. Catherine died in 1437, while all three of her children were very young, and Owen found himself dealing with the brunt of royal disfavour, at least until Catherine’s son Henry VI was old enough to take his half-siblings and stepfather under his protection.

There are two other examples I can think of from Italy, but neither can be conclusively proven to have happened. Both are rumors that appear in several sources, but both of the women involved were targets of negative propaganda, so the rumors may well have been created specifically to damage their reputations.

First is the case of Bona of Savoy, cousin to the king of France and wife to Galeazzo Maria Sforza, Duke of Milan. Supposedly, after the death of her husband, she started having an affair with the palace carver--as in a servant responsible for carving meat at the ducal table. But these rumors also coincide with the takeover of her brother-in-law as regent for her son, and her exile from power. So, take that as you will.

Similarly, the case of Lucrezia Borgia and a young stableboy named Perotto may be a rumor started by her recently divorced husband Giovanni Sforza (yes, distantly related to the above Sforzas) or it might have actually happened. We know that a Borgia baby was born around that time, and while Pope Alexander VI claimed the “Infans Romanus” as his, it was widely believed at the time that the child was in fact Lucrezia’s, but definitely not by Sforza. (Her divorce from him was on grounds of impotence.)

Which is all to say that GRRM is subverting what is actually more of a Victorian trope than any medieval ‘reality’. There absolutely were people of the working classes who had affairs with monarchs--or, perhaps more accurately, were coerced into relationships with monarchs due to the highly unbalanced power dynamics involved. But we don’t really hear about it until later, when we have access to more private sources than we do for medieval Europe.

[cruger2984]

THE DESCRIPTION OF SAINT ANDREW CORSINI The Carmelite Bishop Who Fight Against Civil Disorder and Riots Feast Day: February 4

"Virgin Mother, because I am thy servant. I will unceasingly serve thee."

Born on November 30, 1302, Andrew Corsini was one of twelve children and a member of the noble Corsini family. He was named after St. Andrew the Apostle as his birthday was on the saint's feast day and his parents dedicated him to God. Andrew spent his early years in youthful revolt against his parents until his parents rebuked him so strongly that he decided to spend the rest of his life trying to live a holy life. In particular, his mother had a dream before his birth that she told him at 17 - that she had given birth to a wolf that would eventually become a lamb when it walked into a Carmelite church.

Despite his friends begging him not to join, Andrew joined the Carmelite Monastery at the Santa Maria del Carmine church in 1318. For the next 10 years her strengthen his prayer and spiritual life and was ordained to the priesthood in 1328. At the time, it was customary to celebrate a priest's mass with family and friends - Andrew celebrated his first Mass in a hermitage so that he could avoid this tradition. He studied in Paris and then Avignon (where his uncle was serving as Cardinal) and was appointed the provincial of Tuscany in 1348.

Pope Clement VI appointed Andrew the bishop of Fiesole on October 13, 1349 and he immediately went into hiding, hoping to avoid being named bishop. On his tomb, an inscription retells this event: 'he was snatched from the Carmel to the church and the miter of Fiesole.'

As bishop, Andrew did not relax his austerity but rather doubled it. He strictly enforced discipline with the diocesan priests, slept on a bed of vine-branches and wore an itchy hair shirt. He became so well known in the area as a peacemaker that Pope Urban V sent him as papal legate to Bologna to help settle strife between the ordinary citizens and the nobility there.

As he celebrated Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, 1373, Andrew reported that he had a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary who told him he would be departing this world on Epiphany. The following day he became ill and as foretold, he died on January 6, 1373. He was buried on February 1374 and when his remains were exhumed in 1385, his remains were found to be incorrupt.

Andrew Corsini was beatified by Pope Eugene IV on April 21, 1440. Famously, prayers for his intercession were answered with the Florentine victory over the Milanese at the Battle of Anghiari in June of the same year. He was formally canonized by Pope Urban VIII on April 22, 1629. A relative much later in life, Pope Clement XII (born as Lorenzo Corsini) erected a chapel dedicated to Saint Corsini in the Basilica of Saint John Lateran.

He is honored as the patron saint of diplomats, against riots and civil disorders, and of Fiesole.

#random stuff #catholic #catholic saints #carmelites #andrew corsini #andres corsini #riots #civil disorder

[stirlingmoss]

XXX He said, “I am indeed the servant of God, who has given me scripture and made me a prophet,

XXIX Now she pointed to him. They said, “How can we talk to one who is an infant in the cradle?”

XXVIII “O sister of Aaron, your father was not a bad man, and your mother was not a whore.”

XXVII Finally she carried him to her people: they said, “Mary, you sure have done an unheard-of thing!

XXVI “Then eat and drink and be of good cheer: but if you see any man, say, ‘I have dedicated a fast to the Benevolent One, so I shall not talk to any human being today.’”

XXV “and shake the trunk of the palm toward you to let fresh ripe dates fall by you.

XXIV Then he called to her from below, saying, “Do not grieve; your Lord has put a stream beneath you,

XXIII Then labor pains impelled her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, “Would that I had died before this and been completely forgotten!”

XXII So she carried him, secluding herself with him in a far away place. 

XXI He said, “It will be so.” He said, “Your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me; and We intend to make him a sign for humankind, and a mercy from Us.’ So the matter is decided.”

XX ​She said, “How will I have a son, when no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?”

XIX He said, “I am only a messenger from your Lord, to give you a sinless son.”

XVIII She said, “I take refuge from you with the Benevolent One, if you are conscientious.”

XVII and secluded herself from them, We sent her Our spirit, which appeared to her just like a man. 

XVI And mention Mary in the Book: when she withdrew from her people to a place in the East,

II

XV So peace upon him the day he was born and the day he dies, and the day he will be resurrected, alive.

XIV and kind to his parents; and he was not insolent or defiant.

XIII ​and compassion from Us, and innocence. And he was conscientious,

XII “John, hold strongly to scripture.” And We gave him wisdom, even as a boy;

XI Then he came out from his prayer niche to his people and told them to praise God in the morning and the evening.

X “My Lord, give me a sign.” “Your sign shall be that you not speak to people for three nights in a row.”

IX “It will be so: your Lord says that is easy for Me, since I created you before, when you had been nothing.”

VIII He said, “My Lord, how will I have a son when my wife is barren and I have become decrepit with age?”

VII “O Zacharias: We bring you good news of a son, whose name will be John — Yahya, ‘He Lines’— We have not attributed it as a namesake before.”

VI “who will be my heir, and succeed to the lineage of Jacob. And, my Lord, make him acceptable.

V “Now I fear my relatives after me, as my wife is barren. So give me a son from You,

IV saying, “My Lord, my bones have become feeble, and my hair has turned white, but I have never been disappointed in praying to You.

III He called on his Lord with a secret cry,

II A recitation of the mercy of your Lord on the devotee Zacharias.

I Kaf Ha Ya ‘Ayn Sad

#19:1-30 #Mary

[noelmendozasblog]

Johanna Sombong v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 111876,

January 31, 1996

Facts:

Petitioner was the mother of Arabella O. Sombong who was born on April 23, 1987 in Taguig, Metro Manila. Sometime in November, 1987, Arabella, then only six months old, was brought to the Sir John Clinic, owned by Ty located at Caloocan City, for treatment. Petitioner did not have enough money to pay the hospital bill in the balance of P300.00. Arabella could not be discharged as a result.

Petitioner said that she paid 1,700 for the release even if the bill was only 300. The spouses Ty, who had custody of the daughter, would not give Arabella to her.

Petitioner filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus against the spouses Ty. She alleged that Arabella was being unlawfully detained and imprisoned at the Ty residence. The petition was denied due course and summarily dismissed, without prejudice, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction given that the detention was in Caloocan.

Ty claimed that Arabella was with them for some time, but given to someone who claimed to be their guardian.

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Kalookan City, on the basis of petitioner’s complaint, filed an information against the spouses Ty for Kidnapping and Illegal Detention of a Minor before the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City. Ty then revealed that the child may be found in quezon city. When Sombong reached the residence, a small girl named Christina Grace Neri was found. Sombong claimed the child to be hers even if she wasn’t entirely sure that it was Arabella.

On October 13, 1992, petitioner filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Regional Trial Court. The court ruled in Sombong’s favor and ordered the respondents to deliver the child.

The Appellate Court took cognizance of the following issues raised by respondent: (1) The propriety of the habeas corpus proceeding vis-a-vis the problem respecting the identity of the child subject of said proceeding; (2) If indeed petitioner be the mother of the child in question, what the effect would proof of abandonment be under the circumstances of the case; and (3) Will the question of the child’s welfare be the paramount consideration in this case which involves child custody.

The TC decision was reversed. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Is habeas corpus the proper remedy for taking back Arabella?

Held: Yes but requisites not met. Petition dismissed.

Ratio:

In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or not a particular person is legally held. A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, in fact, is an actual and effective, and not merely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty. “The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient.

To justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, the restraint of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. This is the basic requisite under the first part of Section 1, Rule 102, of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides that “except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty.”

In the second part of the same provision, however, Habeas Corpus may be resorted to in cases where “the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.” Thus, although the Writ of Habeas Corpus ought not to be issued if the restraint is voluntary, we have held time and again that the said writ is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of her own free will.

It may even be said that in custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy; rather, the writ of habeas corpus is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child.

The foregoing principles considered, the grant of the writ in the instant case will all depend on the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondent; and (3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondent.

1. The evidence adduced before the trial court does not warrant the conclusion that Arabella is the same person as Cristina. It will be remembered that, in habeas corpus proceedings, the question of identity is relevant and material, subject to the usual presumptions including those as to identity of person.

The ponente noticed that there was no show of emotion on the mother when she met her lost daughter.

Evidence must necessarily be adduced to prove that two persons, initially thought of to be distinct and separate from each other, are indeed one and the same. The process is both logical and analytical.

In the instant case, the testimonial and circumstantial proof establishes the individual and separate existence of petitioner’s child, Arabella, from that of private respondents’ foster child, Cristina. According to one witness, there were several babies left in the clinic and it wasn’t certain if Arabella was given to the petitioner.

2. Petitioner has not been established by evidence to be entitled to the custody of the minor Cristina on account of mistaken identity, it cannot be said that private respondents are unlawfully withholding from petitioner the rightful custody over Cristina. Moreover, the way the respondents obtained custody isn’t material to the habeas corpus issue.

3. Private respondents are financially, physically and spiritually in a better position to take care of the child, Cristina. They have the best interest of Cristina at heart. On the other hand, it is not to the best interest of the minor, Cristina, to be placed in the custody of petitioner due top her lack of a stable job and her separation from a married man.

[rollirr]

Halloween shakespeer

He put words together and used them in ways that hadn't been used before. His manipulation of English grammar allowed the poet to invent more than 1,700 words, including "addiction," "amazement," "courtship," and more. Shakespeare's influence has had an impressive impact on English grammar and language. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare.These were published in 1609 in Shakespeare's Sonnets. Shakespeare is also known for writing a collection of 154 sonnets. His later plays included tragedies such as Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Timon of Athens, and Macbeth. He also wrote several comedies during this early period, including Much Ado About Nothing, The Taming of the Shrew, and A Midsummer Night's Dream. His early works included histories such as Henry VI, Henry V, and Richard II. The Bard wrote 37 plays from the 1590s to 1612. Biography: William Shakespeare, 1564-1616.William Shakespeare: April 23, 1564, to April 23, 1616.William Shakespeare: The Life and Legacy of England's Bard.It is believed that the date of his death was April 23, but there is no record other than April 25, the date he was buried at Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon. In 1603, the company became the King's Men when King James I awarded them the royal patent, which allowed them to perform under royal patronage. Also during the 1590s, he became a partner in the acting company the Lord Chamberlain's Men. Little is known about his life during that time however, in 1592, Shakespeare was documented as a playwright and an actor in London. Following the birth of his twins, the last of his three children, he disappeared from records for roughly seven years. In 1582, he married the then-pregnant Anne Hathaway, with whom he would have three children. This lack of an educational record has since caused some to doubt whether Shakespeare actually had the skill to author the works with which he is credited. It is speculated that he attended King's New School, probably until the age of 15, where he learned not only the classics but also reading and writing. Little is known about his educational history, either. Researchers and scholars believe that his official date of birth was April 23 however, there is no record of the actual date. He was the third of eight children and a son of merchant and borough council member John Shakespeare and his wife Mary. In 1564 in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon, William Shakespeare was born. Learning the known and documented details regarding the playwright and his work will help to develop a better overall image of his life and successes. Despite his fame, Shakespeare is also very much a mystery, with gaps in his history that leave portions of his life incomplete or unknown. He has become such a well-known figure that one can even dress up as the Bard for a Halloween costume. While most people recognize his works courtesy of popular plays such as Romeo and Juliet, his accomplishments are many. William Shakespeare, known as the Bard of Avon or "the Bard," is one of the most influential and popular poets and playwrights of all time. Costumes, Prose, and More: All About William Shakespeare

#Halloween shakespeer

[minervacasterly]

~👑The Birth of a Conqueror👑~

Legend, hero, the epitome of Christian kingship, and the role model of many English kings that came after him. Henry of Montmouth/ Henry V was born on September 16, 1387. He was the eldest son of Henry IV and Mary de Bohun.

He became King of England on his father's death on 1413 until his death in 1422. His death left a huge power vacuum because although his son was crowned King of England (and years later King of France), he was just a baby and he had big shoes to fill. Henry VI never lived up to his courtiers' expectations and after his son's death at the battle of Tewskesbury in 1471, he died (many suspected that he was murdered).

As we are on a countdown to Agincourt or Azincourt; we stop to remember this day when he was still trying to bring the town of Harfleur down.

The town had refused to surrender and despite Henry trying to portray himself as the good king (using Deuteronomy to justify his actions) who’s giving many opportunities of surrender to his enemies, while also fighting to reclaim his rightful throne, the people of said town weren’t buying it and they begged the King of France (Charles VI who a little off his rocker) and the Dauphin to send reinforcements. We all know the story. The reinforcements never came and the town capitulated. But before that happened, on the 16th of September 1415, when Henry V was supposed to celebrate his twenty ninth birthday amidst his friends and glamour, he was still with his army, trying to find a better way to penetrate the town’s defenses. He had already lost many men, some to disease and others in the siege attempt.

On that day there was another attack led by John Holland [Earl of Huntingdon], Sir John Cornwaille, John Steward, Sir William Bouchier, Sir Gilbert Umfraville and Sir William Porter. By setting on the barbican on fire, they took it and the French defending it. It was at this point that the townsmen realized that help wasn’t going to come any time soon. Just as Henry suffered losses, you can imagine the kind of losses the town of Harfleur was suffering. People were sick, dying, hungry and some were beginning to lose hope in their king.

To the French crown’s defense. They were trying to raise an army but we must remember that France was split at this time. There were the groups of Armagnacs and the Burgundians. And these two made it almost impossible for things to get done. And not only that, at a local level it was even harder because of the bureaucracy and people were getting angry by all the taxes that were being imposed on them.

The town finally capitulated on the 22nd, a month later, Henry V and his army fought one of the greatest battles in late Western European medieval history. The battle became the stuff of legends with Shakespeare going on to make it even more famous by giving Henry one of the greatest lines (ever!) on that St. Crispin’s Day: “We few, we happy few ... Upon St. Crispin's Day!"

The reality is far more exciting than the fiction (and far more complex).

Recommended reading: Henry V: The Warrior King of 1415 by Ian Mortimer, Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors by Dan Jones, Henry V by John Matusiak, and The Hundred Years War by Desmond Seward.

(The former and the latter are very critical of Henry V. The latter a bit more, but they offer good insights nonetheless about the battle.)

Images are those of Henry V played by the great Sir Laurence Olivier in the film adaptation of Shakespeare's history play of the same name. Recreation of the iconic portrait of the real Henry V, golden noble issued during his reign, a painting depicting the marriage between him and Katherine of Valois.

#daily non tudors #henry v #history #england #france #hundred years war #15th century

[scotianostra]

On May 28th 1503 a Papal Bull was signed by Pope Alexander VI confirming the marriage of King James IV and Margaret Tudor and the "Treaty of Everlasting Peace" between Scotland and England.

From an early age, Margaret was part of Henry VII’s negotiations for important marriages for his children and her betrothal to James IV of Scotland was made official by a treaty in 1502 even though discussions had been underway since 1496. Part of the delay was the wait for a papal dispensation because James’ great-grandmother was Joan Beaufort, sister of John Beaufort, who was the great-grandfather of Margaret Tudor. That made James IV and Margaret Tudor fourth cousins, which was within the prohibited degree. Patrick Hepburn, the Earl of Bothwell, acted as a proxy for James IV of Scotland for his betrothal to Margaret Tudor at Richmond in January 1502 before the couple was married in person.

James was dashing, accomplished, highly intelligent and interested in everything, James IV of Scots enjoyed himself with mistresses while manoeuvring to secure a politically useful bride, so the marriage was not just an "English thing".

Our King was 30, his bride was what has been described as "a dumpy 13 year old".

I'll dip into the "newspaper" of the day in Grafton's chronicle the following was written....

"Thus this fair lady was conveyed with a great company of lords, ladies, knights, esquires and gentlemen until she came to Berwick and from there to a village called Lambton Kirk in Scotland where the king with the flower of Scotland was ready to receive her, to whom the earl of Northumberland according to his commission delivered her." he went on "Then this lady was taken to the town of Edinburgh, and there the day after King James IV in the presence of all his nobility married the said princess, and feasted the English lords, and showed them jousts and other pastimes, very honourably, after the fashion of this rude country. When all things were done and finished according to their commission the earl of Surrey with all the English lords and ladies returned to their country, giving more praise to the manhood than to the good manner and nature of Scotland."

Not exactly flattering words!

The wedding finally took place for real (after several proxy marriages) on 8 August, 1503 at Holyrood House in Edinburgh. Margaret was officially crowned Queen in March 1504. The Scottish poet William Dunbar wrote several poems to Margaret around this time, including “The Thistle and the Rose”, “To Princess Margaret on her Arrival at Holyrood”

Now fayre, fayrest of every fayre,

Princes most plesant and preclare,

The lustyest one alyve that byne,

Welcum of Scotlond to be Quene!

Margaret was apparently homesick and not happy in her early days in Scotland, but the couple settled down to married life, there first child, James was born four years later, he died within the year, their second, a daughter fared little better she never survived a day. In 1309 another son only lived to be nine months old, such was the difficulties of trying to produce and heir, it's a wonder the human race survived, what with mortality rates being so high in the nobility, one only wonders how high it would have been for the ordinary citizen of Scotland?

Meanwhile Margarets father passed away and Henry VIII took the throne.

Margaret’s next child was born on April 11, 1512 at Linlithgow and named James. He survived childhood and was to become King James V and father of Mary.

As for "Treaty of Everlasting Peace" it lasted around 10 years, in the first few years of Henry VIII’s reign, the relations with Scotland became strained, and it eventually erupt in 1513, when Henry VIII went to France to wage war, this invoked The Auld Alliance and James IV, Henry VIII's brother-in-law marched his army into England only to be disastrously cut down on September 9th at Flodden Field, with too many of our Scottish Knights to count. The Queen gave birth to another son, Alexander the following April, but things would turn sour for her.

Margaret, then regent, remarried into the powerful Douglas family, the Scottish Parliament then removed her as Regent a pregnant Margaret fled Scotland in 1515, her sons were taken from her before she left. She was given lodgings by her brother at Harbottle Castle, where she gave birth to daughter, Margaret Douglas, who herself played a big part in Scottish history, becoming mother to Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley.

That wasn't the last we had seen of Margaret Tudor though, she returned to Scotland with a promise of safe conduct in 1517 but her marriage to Douglas was a disaster, he had taken a mistress while she was in England.

In 1524 Margaret, in alliance with the Earl of Arran, overthrew Albany's regency and her son was invested with his full royal authority. James V was still only 12, so Margaret was finally able to guide her son's government, but only for a short time since her husband, Archibald Douglas, came back on the scene and took control of the King and the government from 1525 to 1528. This would all come back to bite the ambitious Douglas family in the bum

In March 1527, Margaret was finally able to attain an annulment of her marriage to Angus from Pope Clement VII and by the next April she had married Henry Stewart, who had previously been her treasurer. Margaret's second husband then arrested her third husband on the grounds that he had married the Queen without approval. The situation was improved when James V was able to proclaim his majority as king (he was 16 at the time) and remove Angus and his family from power. James created his new stepfather Lord Methven and the Scottish parliament proclaimed Angus and his followers traitors. However, Angus had escaped to England and remained there until after James V's death.

Margaret's relationship with her son was relatively good, although she pushed for closer relations with England, where James preferred an alliance with France. In this, James won out and was married to Princess Madeleine, daughter of the King of France, in January 1537. The marriage did not last long because Madeleine died in July and was buried at Holyrood Abbey. After his first wife's death, James sought another bride from France, this time taking Marie de Guise (eldest child of the Claude, Duc de Guise) as a bride. By this same time, Margaret's own marriage had followed a path similar to her second one when Methven took a mistress and lived off his wife's money.

On October 18th 1541, Margaret Tudor died in Methven Castl. probably from a stroke. Margaret was buried at the Carthusian Abbey of St. John’s in Perth. Although Margaret's heirs were left out of the succession by Henry VIII and Edward VI, ultimately it would be Margaret's great-grandson James VI who would become king after the death of Elizabeth.

#scotland #scottish #england #english #the stewarts #the tudors #the thistle and the rose #history #marriage #peace tr

[anne-the-quene]

Queen consorts of England and Britain | [31/50] | Elizabeth Woodville

Elizabeth was Queen consort of England from 1464 until 1470 and then again from 1471 until 1483 as the wife of Edward IV. She was born in 1437 as the daughter of Richard Woodville and Jacquetta of Luxembourg. She was the first Queen consort of England not born a royal or European noble—although her mother came from the European noble family of Luxembourg. In 1452, Elizabeth married John Grey. The couple had two sons named Thomas and Richard before John died in 1461 at the Second Battle of St. Albans fighting for the Lancastarians. In 1464, possibly on 1 May, Elizabeth secretly married King Edward IV with only her mother and two other ladies present at the ceremony. A year later, she was officially crowned Queen. The marriage was heavily criticized by the privy council and became a huge scandal. It was their marriage that caused Edward to fall out with Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick and, in turn, Warwick left England and began plotting to depose Edward and restore his rival, Henry VI. In 1470, Warwick was successful and Edward was deposed. During this period, Elizabeth who was heavily pregnant at the time, escaped to Westminster Abbey where she gave birth to her child, a son. Only six months later, Edward was restored as King. Edward unexpectedly died in 1483, after which Elizabeth prepared for her young son to become Edward V. Elizabeth’s family tried to take control of young Edward and, in response to this, Edward IV’s bother, Richard, seized power himself and had several members of the Woodville family (including Elizabeth’s son, Richard), arrested and executed. Elizabeth’s royal sons, Edward and Richard, were subsequently placed in the Tower. Elizabeth took her remaining children and sought sanctuary. After Richard, Duke of Gloucester became King Richard III, he claimed Elizabeth’s marriage to Edward was invalid and their children were illegitimate. Elizabeth was also accused of witchcraft but there seems to be no basis for these charges. Shortly after King Richard came to power and imprisoned Edward V and Prince Richard, the two boys were never seen or heard from again. Under Richard III, Elizabeth allied herself with her former Lancastarian enemy, Margaret Beaufort. The two hatched a plan to have Margaret’s son, Henry Tudor, seize the throne and have Henry marry Elizabeth’s daughter, Princess Elizabeth of York. In 1484, Elizabeth and her daughters came out of hiding after Richard swore an oath that her daughters would not be harmed. On 22 August 1485, Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth and subsequently became King Henry VII. A few months later, Henry married Elizabeth’s daughter and Elizabeth herself was given the honors of a Queen dowager. It’s unknown exactly why Elizabeth retired from court in 1487, however she continued to be granted the respect of a dowager Queen. She was present at the births of her grandchildren and her daughters would come visit her often. Apparently, at one point she was considered as a bride for James III of Scotland but nothing ever came of this. Elizabeth eventually died on 8 June 1492 and was buried near her second husband, Edward IV.

#queen consorts of england and scotland #elizabeth woodville

[thetudorslovers]

John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, also called (1342–62) earl of Richmond, or (from 1390) duc (duke) d’Aquitaine, (born March 1340, Ghent—died Feb. 3, 1399, London), English prince, fourth but third surviving son of the English king Edward III and Philippa of Hainaut; he exercised a moderating influence in the political and constitutional struggles of the reign of his nephew Richard II. He was the immediate ancestor of the three 15th-century Lancastrian monarchs, Henry IV, V, and VI. The term Gaunt, a corruption of the name of his birthplace, Ghent, was never employed after he was three years old; it became the popularly accepted form of his name through its use in Shakespeare’s play Richard II.

Through his first wife, John, in 1362, acquired the duchy of Lancaster and the vast Lancastrian estates in England and Wales. From 1367 to 1374 he served as a commander in the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) against France.

Meanwhile, in England, war had nearly broken out between the followers of King Richard II and the followers of Gloucester. John returned in 1389 and resumed his role as peacemaker.On his return he obtained the chief influence with his father, but he had serious opponents among a group of powerful prelates who aspired to hold state offices. He countered their hostility by forming a curious alliance with the religious reformer John Wycliffe. Despite John’s extreme unpopularity, he maintained his position after the accession of his ten-year-old nephew, Richard II, in 1377, and from 1381 to 1386 he mediated between the King’s party and the opposition group led by John’s younger brother, Thomas Woodstock, earl of Gloucester.

In 1386 John departed for Spain to pursue his claim to the kingship of Castile and Leon based upon his marriage to Constance of Castile in 1371. The expedition was a military failure. John renounced his claim in 1388, but he married his daughter, Catherine, to the young nobleman who eventually became King Henry III of Castile and Leon.

His wife Constance died in 1394, and two years later he married his mistress, Catherine Swynford. In 1397 he obtained legitimization of the four children born to her before their marriage. This family, the Beauforts, played an important part in 15th-century politics. When John died in 1399, Richard II confiscated the Lancastrian estates, thereby preventing them from passing to John’s son, Henry Bolingbroke. Henry then deposed Richard and in September 1399 ascended the throne as King Henry IV.

Source: britannica.com

#perioddramaedit #history #edit #history edit #john of gaunt #john of gaunt and katherine swynford #14th century #middle age #medieval history #english history #richard ii #historical figures #tom mison #fancast #katherine swynford #constance of castile #house of lancaster #lancaster #philippa of hainault #edward iii