#Counts and dukes of Anjou

[heather123fan-blog]

medieval women week day 2: Favorite non-Queen or Queen-adjacent royal woman: Jacquetta of Luxembourg Duchess of Bedford and Mother to Queen Elizabeth Woodville

Jacquetta of Luxembourg was the eldest child of the French Count of St Pol; her family descended from Charlemagne and were cousins to the Holy Roman Emperor. She grew up with war between France and England raging around her.

John, Duke of Bedford was the youngest son of King Henry IV. Having lost his wife to plague in 1432, he arranged to marry the seventeen-year-old Jacquetta, who was his social equal by her birth. Although married for two years they were childless when John died in September 1435. The King instructed Jacquetta to come to England and ordered Sir Richard Woodville, to arrange it.

However, Jacquetta and Richard fell in love, but Richard was a poor knight, far below Jacquetta in social status. Nonetheless, they married secretly thus thwarting any plans King Henry may have had to marry her off to a wealthy English lord. Theirs was a morganatic marriage, where one of the partners, most often the wife, was socially inferior. Henry was enraged and fined the couple £1000. He did however allow their heirs to inherit, which was unusual for morganatic marriages in England.

Being the widow of Henry V’s brother and aunt to the King, royal protocol gave Jacquetta the highest rank at court of any female except Henry’s wife, Margaret of Anjou, to whom Jacquetta was related by marriage. She even ‘outranked’ the King’s mother and was referred to as the ‘Duchess of Bedford,’ retaining the title from her first marriage. Richard and Jacquetta lived in their manor house at Grafton Regis near Northampton producing fourteen children, the eldest, Elizabeth being born in 1437.

In 1448 Richard was created Lord Rivers: his advancement ensured his family supported Henry VI in the dynastic feuding of the Wars of the Roses. The situation changed with the Yorkist victory at the Battle of Towton in 1461 and the seizure of the throne by Edward IV. By the spring of 1464, Jacquetta’s daughter Elizabeth was a widow, her Lancastrian husband having been killed in 1461. Within a few months, Elizabeth was married to the young King Edward IV.

Jacquetta died in 1472 aged 56 and was buried at Grafton, though no record of her tomb survives. Recently, one legacy has come to light. Research by gene specialists indicates that Jacquetta was a carrier of the rare Kell-Antigen-Mcleod syndrome causing impaired fertility and psychotic behavioural changes in the male descendants of the family.

Written by Michael Long. I have over 30 years experience teaching History in schools and examiner History to A level. My specialist area is England in the 15th and 16th centuries. I am now a freelance writer and historian.

[une-sanz-pluis]

How is the relationship between Margaret of Anjou and Jacqueta of Luxembourg? (Jacquetta was one of the three people who convinced her not to enter London, which made me fantasize about their relationship.)

We simply don't know a lot about their relationship. Jacquetta does seem to be prominent at court during Margaret's time as queen consort but we don't know if this indicates - or led to - any personal closeness between the women. We know the Woodvilles had a close affiliation with the House of Lancaster and Jacquetta was the widow of Henry VI's uncle, John, Duke of Bedford and the dowager Duchess of Bedford so that may well have been the reason for her prominence. Jacquetta could also claim a familial connection with Margaret herself: her sister, Isabel, had married Margaret's uncle, Charles of Anjou, Count of Maine. The idea that Jacquetta and Margaret were especially close seems to have been popularised by Philippa Gregory in her novel, The Lady of the Rivers, and her biography of Jacquetta in The Women of the Cousins' War but historians are more cautious.

Jacquetta and her husband were part of Margaret's escort to England in 1445. According to B. M. Cron, Jacquetta attended Margaret's coronation banquet and was seated on Margaret's right - this is far more likely to be due to her being the first lady in the land after Margaret than an indication of their closeness; Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester was seated on Margaret's left and the idea of Gloucester being a close friend of Margaret is not credible. Cron also claims that Richard Woodville was Margaret's champion in the jousting festivities that followed. Lynda J. Pidgeon claims it is "significant" that Richard Woodville was not created a baron until after Henry VI's marriage to Margaret, but credits it more to Henry's desire to "create a royal family around him" than to any relationship between Margaret and her escort.

Jacquetta's servants were regularly given gifts by Margaret in the New Years celebrations. In 1446, her servants received 53s. 4d. and in 1447, 1449 and 1452, Jacquetta's servants received 66s. 8d. This is on a par with other gifts to ducal servants - in 1446, this was the same amount given to the servants of the Duke of York and Duchesses of Buckingham and Exeter, while in 1447, the same amount was given to the servants of the Duke of Gloucester, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Duchess of Buckingham. Jacquetta herself was only given gifts by Margaret in 1447 and 1452 according to Pidgeon but I'm not sure what the source is for that and neither Helen Maurer nor A. R. Myers mention it when discussing Margaret's accounts. Not all of Margaret's accounts survive so we don't have the full picture.

Jacquetta attended Margaret's churching after the birth of Edward of Lancaster in 1453. Jacquetta and her husband were part of Margaret's court during her extended stay in the midlands beginning in 1456, though, according to Pidgeon, they are only rarely mentioned as being present. This is may have been due to the frequency of Jacquetta's pregnancies keeping her away from court.

And yes, Jacquetta was one of three women (the others being Lady Scales and Anne, the dowager Duchess of Buckingham) who accompanied a delegation of London aldermen who convinced Margaret to send her army away. As Helen Maurer says:

Both Jacquetta, the dowager duchess of Bedford, and Ismania, Lady Scales, had been among the women who had escorted Margaret from France, and Lady Scales had remained in her household as a personal attendant. All three ladies had been recipients of New Year's gifts at various times, and Anne, duchess of Buckingham had stood godmother to Prince Edward. Though the personal relationships that existed between Margaret and these women are difficult to assess, it is apparent that the mayor and aldermen believed that they would be received with trust and favor.

Jacquetta's prominence at the Lancastrian court may explain the tradition that her daughter, Elizabeth Woodville, was a lady-in-waiting to Margaret. There is, however, no evidence of that Elizabeth served Margaret and historians have generally poured doubt on the idea. One exception is Susan Higginbotham who suggested that it is still possible that Elizabeth was one of Margaret's damsels, saying if that Elizabeth did serve Margaret , it's "more likely that she did so in the late 1450s, a period for which Margaret's household records do not survive".

There is no evidence to tell us what Margaret thought of the marriage of Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV or the Woodvilles' defection to the House of York. There is no evidence Jacquetta and Elizabeth feared Margaret especially during the Readeption - it would be very, very surprising if they feared her more than Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (after all, it was in Warwick's attempt to depose Edward IV in favour of George, Duke of Clarence that had seen Jacquetta's husband and son executed, presumably without trial).

Nor do we know if, in the aftermath of the Lancastrian defeat at the Battle of Tewkesbury and Margaret's capture by Yorkist forces, whether Jacquetta met with or attempted to advocate for Margaret before her own death in 1472. We do not know if anyone advocated for Margaret's imprisonment to made more bearable, who decided her jailer would be Alice Chaucer, dowager Duchess of Suffolk and an old friend. If anyone did, I suspect it would be Jacquetta or Elizabeth Woodville (possibly in memory of her mother's friendship). It is tempting to speculate that Margaret's entry into the London Skinners’ Fraternity of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in c. 1475 came about due to Elizabeth's influence (Elizabeth had entered the fraternity in c. 1472) but there's simply no evidence of it. It makes for a nice story, though.

In contrast to Maurer, Pidgeon is fairly doubtful of the idea that Jacquetta and Margaret were friendly, citing first the lack of mention of their attendance on Margaret and the lack of New Year's years gifts given to Jacquetta, saying:

Margaret’s apparent lack of friendship for Jacquetta might also be explained by Jacquetta’s Burgundian connections. Jacquetta’s father had been responsible for the capture of Margaret’s father at the Battle of Bulgnéville in 1431, following which René had been held prisoner by the Duke of Burgundy for some years until his ransom was paid. Margaret was also concerned to promote French interests to Henry and any reminder of a previous Burgundian policy might have been frowned upon. It was widely believed that it was through Margaret’s prompting that Henry had agreed to surrender Maine to René of Anjou in 1445.

However, Pidgeon bases some of this on the claim that Margaret "probably detested" the English, which we don't know and seems to be drawn from Yorkist and Tudor stereotypes of Margaret. As for the claim that Margaret pushed for Henry VI to surrender Maine to her father, it is true that she was blamed for it but what role, if any, she actually played is unknown. It is more likely that the surrender of both Maine and Anjou was an unofficial promise made by the English delegation in the negotiations that resulted in the Treaty of Tours (1444). Given Margaret was a 14-year-old girl at the time, it is incredibly unlikely she was responsible for that promise. She was urged to intercede with Henry to ensure the fulfilment of that promise but we simply don't know if she did or even what she thought about it. As I say here, she was still in her teens when the handover occurred and we must be wary of the misogyny embedded in the narrative that a teenage girl was responsible for the actions of an adult man - who, after all, was surrounded by experienced and mature advisors.

In short, the answer is that we don't know what the relationship between Margaret and Jacquetta was like. We see Jacquetta given favour in keeping with her status as a duchess and in keeping with her family connections to both Margaret and Henry. If any special relationship grew up between Jacquetta and Margaret, if they became close friends, there is little evidence to show it.

The Woodvilles were loyal to the Lancastrians throughout the resumption of the Hundred Years War until the Lancastrian defeat at the Battle of Towton. How much of that can be credited to the Woodvilles' traditional loyalties or Jacquetta's personal ties to Henry VI (who, after all, was her nephew by marriage) versus a (hypothetical) close relationship between Margaret and Jacquetta is unknown.

Philippa Gregory made much of this limited evidence, while Maurer more cautiously suggests that Margaret looked on Jacquetta as someone she could trust. Pidgeon, on the other hand, argues that there was no friendship between the women. I have my suspicions about why Pidgeon argues that (I haven't read her whole book so I can't say for sure).

Personally, I've tended to imagine a connection that dimmed over time due to diverging lives - Jacquetta's frequent pregnancies kept her away from court, Margaret's life became absorbed by the political struggles of the Lancastrian court. The simple fact is that we don't know - there isn't anywhere enough evidence to judge - and you're free to imagine what you like.

Sources

B. M. Cron, Margaret of Anjou and the Men Around Her (History and Heritage Publishing 2021)

Philippa Gregory, David Baldwin and Michael Jones, The Women of the Cousins' War: The Duchess, the Queen, and the King's Mother (Atria Books 2011)

Susan Higginbotham, The Woodvilles (The History Press 2013)

Helen Maurer, Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England (Boydell Press 2003)

A. R. Myers, "The Jewels of Queen Margaret of Anjou", Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 42, no. 1 (1959)

Lynda J. Pigdeon, Brought Up Of Nought: A History of the Woodville Family (Fonthill 2019)

[palecleverdoll]

Ages of French Queens at First Marriage

I have only included women whose birth dates and dates of marriage are known within at least 1-2 years, therefore, this is not a comprehensive list.

This list is composed of Queens of France until the end of the House of Bourbon; it does not include Bourbon claimants or descendants after 1792.

The average age at first marriage among these women was 20.

Ermentrude of Orléans, first wife of Charles the Bald: age 19 when she married Charles in 842 CE

Richilde of Provence, second wife of Charles the Bald: age 25 when she married Charles in 870 CE

Richardis of Swabia, wife of Charles the Fat: age 22 when she married Charles in 862 CE

Théodrate of Troyes, wife of Odo: age 14 or 15 when she married Odo in 882 or 883 CE

Frederuna, wife of Charles III: age 20 when she married Charles in 907 CE

Beatrice of Vermandois, second wife of Robert I: age 10 when she married Robert in 990 CE

Emma of France, wife of Rudolph: age 27 when she married Rudolph in 921 CE

Gerberga of Saxony, wife of Gilbert, Duke of Lorraine, and later of Louis IV: age 16 when she married Gilbert in 929 CE

Emma of Italy, wife of Lothair: age 17 when she married Lothair in 965 CE

Adelaide-Blanche of Anjou, wife of Stephen, Viscount of Gévaudan, Raymond III, Count of Toulouse, and later Louis V: age 15 when she married Stephen in 955 CE

Bertha of Burgundy, wife of Odo I, Count of Blois, and later Robert II: age 19 when she married Odo in 984 CE

Constance of Arles, third wife of Robert II: age 17 when she married Robert in 1003 CE

Anne of Kiev, wife of Henry I: age 21 when she married Henry in 1051 CE

Bertha of Holland, first wife of Philip I: age 17 when she married Philip in 1072 CE

Bertrade of Montfort, wife of Fulk IV, Count of Anjou, and second wife of Philip I: age 19 when she married Fulk in 1089 CE

Adelaide of Maurienne, second wife of Louis VI: age 23 when she married Louis in 1115 CE

Eleanor of Aquitaine, first wife of Louis VII and later Henry II of England: age 15 when she married Louis in 1137 CE

Adela of Champagne, third wife of Louis VII: age 20 when she married Louis in `1160 CE

Isabella of Hainault, first wife of Philip II: age 10 when she married Philip in 1180 CE

Ingeborg of Denmark, second wife of Philip II: age 19 when she married Philip in 1193 CE

Agnes of Merania, third wife of Philip II: age 21 when she married Philip in 1195 CE

Blanche of Castile, wife of Louis VIII: age 12 when she married Louis in 1200 CE

Margaret of Provence, wife of Louis IX: age 13 when she married Louis in 1234 CE

Isabella of Aragon, first wife of Philip III: age 14 when she married Philip in 1262 CE

Marie of Brabant, second wife of Philip III: age 20 when she married Philip in 1274 CE

Joan I of Navarre, wife of Philip IV: age 11 when she married Philip in 1284 CE

Margaret of Burgundy, wife of Louis X; age 15 when she married Louis in 1305 CE

Clementia of Hungary, second wife of Louis X: age 22 when she married Louis in 1315 CE

Joan II, Countess of Burgundy, wife of Philip V: age 15 when she married Philip in 1307 CE

Blanche of Burgundy, first wife of Charles IV: age 12 when she married Charles in 1308 CE

Marie of Luxembourg, second wife of Charles IV: age 18 when she married Charles in 1322 CE

Joan of Évreux, third wife of Charles IV: age 14 when she married Charles in 1324 CE

Bonne of Luxembourg, first wife of John II: age 17 when she married John in 1332 CE

Joan I, Countess of Auvergne, wife of Philip of Burgundy, and later John II: age 12 when she married Philip in 1338 CE

Joanna of Bourbon, wife of Charles V: age 12 when she married Charles in 1350 CE

Isabeau of Bavaria, wife of Charles VI: age 15 when she married Charles in 1385 CE

Marie of Anjou, wife of Charles VII: age 18 when she married Charles in 1422 CE

Charlotte of Savoy, second wife of Louis XI: age 9 when she married Louis in 1451 CE

Anne of Brittany, wife of Maximilian I, HRE, Charles VIII and later Louis XII: age 13 when she married Maximilian in 1490 CE

Joan of France, first wife of Louis XII: age 12 when she married Louis in 1476 CE

Mary Tudor, third wife of Louis XII: age 18 when she married Louis in 1514 CE

Claude of France, first wife of Francis I: age 15 when she married Francis in 1514 CE

Eleanor of Austria, wife of Manuel I of Portugal and later second wife of Francis I: age 20 when she married Manuel in 1518 CE

Catherine de' Medici, wife of Henry II: age 14 when she married Henry in 1533 CE

Mary, Queen of Scots, wife of Francis II: age 16 when she married Francis in 1558 CE

Elisabeth of Austria, wife of Charles IX: age 16 when she married Charles in 1570 CE

Louise of Lorraine, wife of Henry III: age 22 when she married Henry in 1575 CE

Margaret of Valois, first wife of Henry IV: age 19 when she married Henry in 1572 CE

Marie de' Medici, second wife of Henry IV: age 25 when she married Henry in 1600 CE

Anne of Austria, wife of Louis XIII: age 14 when she married Louis in 1615 CE

Maria Theresa of Spain, wife of Louis XIV: age 22 when she married Louis in 1660 CE

Marie Leszczyńska, wife of Louis XV: age 22 when she married Louis in 1725 CE

Marie Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI: age 15 when she married Louis in 1770 CE

[racefortheironthrone]

Why did the English kings have to do homage to the French kings for Normandy etc? Why could they not just annex those territories into England? During Henry II's reign, at least, it seems like they had the ability to thwart France's efforts to keep them in the country.

That's a misreading of Henry II's reign - Henry did homage for various territories at various times.

The issue is that the English Kings held Normandy et al. through French titles of nobility - they were Dukes of Normandy, Counts of Anjou, etc. In order to hold these titles under French laws, they were supposed to do homage to the King of France in that capacity.

How much that homage was symbolic rather than practical depended a lot on the relative strength of the two kings at the time - so for example quite a few treaties between the English and the French had clauses regarding which provinces the English king had to do homage for and which they didn't, which were recognized as having English overlordship and which French, and so forth.

[andiatas]

Stephen and Matilda's Civil War: Cousins of Anarchy by Matthew Lewis (May 30, 2024)

The Anarchy was the first civil war in post-Conquest England, enduring throughout the reign of King Stephen between 1135 and 1154. It ultimately brought about the end of the Norman dynasty and the birth of the mighty Plantagenet kings.

When Henry I died having lost his only legitimate son in a shipwreck, he had caused all of his barons to swear to recognize his daughter Matilda, widow of the Holy Roman Emperor, as his heir and remarried her to Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. When she was slow to move to England on her father’s death, Henry’s favourite nephew Stephen of Blois rushed to have himself crowned, much as Henry himself had done on the death of his brother William Rufus. Supported by his brother Henry, Bishop of Winchester, Stephen made a promising start, but Matilda would not give up her birthright and tried to hold the English barons to their oaths. The result was more than a decade of civil war that saw England split apart.

Empress Matilda is often remembered as aloof and high-handed, Stephen as ineffective and indecisive. By following both sides of the dispute and seeking to understand their actions and motivations, Matthew Lewis aims to reach a more rounded understanding of this crucial period of English history and asks to what extent there really was anarchy.

Matthew Lewis trained in law and is now a full-time author of historical fiction and non-fiction. His main interest is medieval history and he has written several books on that topic, including Stephen & Matilda’s Civil War: Cousins of Anarchy, Richard, Duke of York: King by Right and Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me.

[heartofstanding]

What are the famous rumors about Margaret of Anjou? What's the attack on her? Is there a book that objectively describes her? As for her son Edward, is he really an arrogant and cruel person in the description?

Hello anon, I answered the first part of your question on my Lancastrian history sideblog here.

The book I always recommend on Margaret is Helen Maurer's Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power. This is less of a biography and more of an academic study of her queenship so that may not be what you want, but it's pretty much the standard text on her. Maurer writes in her preface that she thought Margaret was a "real bitch on wheels" before she began her research but found a much more complex and sympathetic woman throughout the course of her research so that might count as "objective" in the sense that this is where Maurer's research led her rather than a pre-conceived idea directing her research.

The other books on Margaret are:

Jacob Abbott, Margaret of Anjou. I don't recommend this because it was published in 1877 and is therefore superseded by well over a century of research.

Amy Licence, A Marriage of Unequals: Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou. Licence isn't the best with sources (often giving Victorian historians the same weight/authority as a medieval source) and from memory, she's a bit too forgiving of Margaret but it's fine.

B. M. Cron, Margaret of Anjou and the Men Around Her. I have a copy of this but haven't read it in full; Cron is sympathetic but sometimes judges Margaret harshly. I'm not fond of some of her summations but Cron is one of the leading scholars on Margaret and her stuff is always worth reading.

B. M. Cron and Helen Maurer, The Letters of Margaret of Anjou. This is collection of the surviving letters Margaret wrote, not a biography. Could be interesting for further reading, though.

Joanna Arman, Margaret of Anjou: She-Wolf of France, Twice Queen of England. I haven't read this and I don't have a copy yet so I can't comment fully on it; I believe it's a sympathetic take and I've enjoyed Arman's scholarship on Henry V so I'm cautiously hopeful.

As for Edward of Lancaster...

The truth is we know very, very little about Edward of Lancaster. He was only alive for eighteen years and spent most of his life in exile. The most famous description of him comes from Giovanni Pietro Panicharolla, a Milanese ambassador in France, who wrote:

As the king [Louis XI of France] persisted in his praise of the Earl of Warwick, the duke [of Calabria, Margaret's brother] said that as he was so fond of him he ought to try and restore his sister in that kingdom, when he would make sure of it as much as he was sure at present and even more so. The king asked what security they would give or if they would offer the queen’s son as a hostage. This boy, though only thirteen years of age, already talks of nothing but of cutting off heads or making war, as if he had everything in his hands or was the god of battle or the peaceful occupant of that throne

Panicharolla detested the Angevins (Margaret's birth family and on whom she and Edward were reliant while living in exile in France) so we should hesitate to put too much weight on his testimony. We also have to accept that Edward was living in and had lived in circumstances where this sort of attitude was entirely understandable. From a Lancastrian perspective, the Yorkists were traitors. They had deposed his father, attainted his entire family, disinherited him, and had spread rumours of his mother's adultery and declared him a bastard. They were the reason he had lived pretty much "on the run" since he was a small child and were the reason why he and his mother were living in reduced circumstances and in exile. He was also only twelve years old at the time so he does very much have the excuse of youth.

Chief Justice John Fortescue also gives us a few snapshots of Edward of Lancaster in De Laudibus Legum Angliae. This was a text that appears to be a legal treatise combined with a "mirror for princes" advice text, so whether or not the Edward Fortescue wrote about is the "real" Edward can probably be debated - he might represent an ideal Edward or a figurative Edward who plays the role of studen to Fortescue's teacher. Fortescue includes a wish that Edward would be as

devoted to the study of the laws with the same zeal as you are to that of arms, since, as battles are determined by arms, so judgements are by laws.

But it's impossible to tell if this is a real reflection of Edward's character or a construction of Edward as a student in need of Fortescue's legal knowledge. Here's another snippet:

The prince, as soon as he became grown up, gave himself over entirely to martial exercises; and, seated on fierce and half-tamed steeds urged on by his spurs, he often delighted in attacking and assaulting the young companions attending him, sometimes with a lance, sometimes with a sword, sometimes with other weapons, in a warlike manner and in accordance with the rules of military discipline.

This might sound alarming but it's important to remember that Fortescue seems to be viewing this positively - this is what Edward should be doing (note the reference to "in accordance to the rules of military discipline"). We could also look to the idea that this was something a medieval king or prince was supposed to be doing. Thomas Walsingham criticised the favourites of Richard II by saying:

they were the knights of Venus rather than knights of Bellona [Roman goddess of war], more valiant in the bedchamber than on the field, armed with words rather than weapons, prompt in speaking but slow in performing the acts of war.

We also find a similar comment about Henry V's wild youth, where the Vita Henrici Quinti records that, "although under the military service of Mars, he seethed youthfully with the flames of Venus too". In other words, if Fortescue's criticism of Edward of Lancaster was that he paying too much attention to warfare and not to his legal studies, he at least wasn't neglecting his studies and his military training to become "more valiant in the bedchamber".

Again, this is understandable from an emotional perspective. The only way Edward's family could return to the throne is through warfare so of course he's going to dedicate himself to readying himself for war.

We have very little evidence of anything else. Beyond Panicharolla's account (which, as I've said, is hardly an unbiased account), there is little to suggest that Edward was "arrogant and cruel". Yorkist efforts at denigrating him seemed to focus most on the question of birth and legitimacy. Yorkists (both contemporary and modern) have tended to want to demonise Edward as the head of the Lancastrian resistance, to undercut any support and loyalty he might claim and show him to be the inferior alternative to Yorkist rule. It's not uncommon to see a modern day Yorkist snark about how the Lancastrians were fully aware of their status as illegitimate kings and thus should have stepped down and bowed down to the Yorks. In other words, Edward's arrogance is his refusal to accept that his claim was inferior to the Yorkist claim.

The apparently obvious inferiority of the Lancastrian claim was not obvious at the time, either. There was considerable confusion around the succession throughout the late Middle Ages, no clear-cut answer as to who had the "rightful" claim. And even if there was, the simple fact is that had any Lancastrian king or prince willingly stepped down, they would still be a focal point for resistance to the new king and whether or not they were willing to play that role, they knew this would put them at serious risk. From Edward of Lancaster's perspective, he was the son of the anointed King and Queen of England, his father, grandfather and great-grandfather had all been anointed kings.

We also have to consider the impact of the Ricardian movement on Edward's reputation. Edward, after all, was Anne Neville's first husband and Richard her second. Ricardians generally accept the Yorkist image of Edward as arrogant and cruel, but react to the marriage in two ways, by downplaying the marriage or by insisting on its violence.

In the first option, it is argued that the marriage was never consummated because Margaret wanted to keep Edward free for a more advantageous marriage and intended to get the marriage annulled. Thus, the marriage was never a "true marriage" and Richard III was Anne's one and true husband (with all that entails). Usually, Edward and Margaret treat Anne like dirt - after all, she is not "worthy" of the marriage - to emphasise how horrible this marriage would be for Anne. In the second option, Edward is abusive and rapes Anne, who is generally assumed to be nothing but a tragic pawn forced to reluctantly marry her enemy and bear this abuse as best she can, allowing Richard III to soothe her trauma and show her what love, marriage and sex is really like.

There is absolutely no evidence for either option. It is possible that this is what happened but, imo, unlikely. It would be rather short-sighted, cruel and remarkably stupid to mistreat Warwick's daughter when they were still reliant on Warwick (they did not know of his death until their return to England in 1471) to gain back his throne. They could not risk antagonising him, even if they wanted to - and we don't know that they wanted to. They may have been justifiably angry at Warwick was his past wrongs but Anne was not her father, it doesn't follow that they automatically took their anger out on her as a stand-in for her father. They may have very logically understood that a 14 year old girl was not responsible for her father's actions, and endeavoured to have a positive relationship with her. Hell, they might have even liked her for herself. Edward and Anne could even have become friends or fallen in love! We just don't know because there's no evidence.

We know very little about Anne Neville herself. The fact that Edward was commemorated as her husband in the Beauchamp Pageant (probably commissioned by Anne Beauchamp, Anne Neville's mother, probably made over 10 years since Edward's death) suggests that Anne and her mother's feelings about him were more complex than historians and historical novelists have tended to allow her.

In conclusion: we have no idea but there's not a lot of evidence to support the idea that he was especially arrogant and cruel. This reputation seems to be the result of largely non-contemporary Yorkist and Ricardian narratives and is fairly unevidenced.

[richmond-rex]

Margaret of Anjou had the most intimate interest in the wedding in 1456 of her kinswoman, Marie, daughter of Charles, count of Maine, to Thomas Courtenay, the son and heir of the earl of Devon. That this was a court-contracted marriage is suggested by the fact that Marie's wedding gown was supplied by the king's Great Wardrobe [...] The second notable marriage of 1457 to be arranged at court was that between the king's cousin, Margaret Beaufort, countess of Richmond, and her third husband, Henry Stafford, second son of the duke of Buckingham. This additional bond among the king's blood relatives buttressed the Lancastrian regime and the royal family at a time when the survival of the dynasty rested on the young shoulders of Prince Edward, the only son and heir of King Henry VI and Queen Margaret.

— Ralph A. Griffiths, "The King's Court during the Wars of the Roses" | King and Country: England and Wales in the Fifteenth Century

It is, indeed, a striking fact that no aristocratic marriages of comparable significance took place outside the court circle in these crucial years before the onset of civil war. Most — if not all — of those that did take place were probably discussed at court among magnates — Staffords, Courtenays, Beauforts, Talbots, Berkeleys, Butlers, Greys and Percies — who were loyal to the house of Lancaster and prominent at King Henry's court.

[withinycu]

@2kyears

“You are a distraction I don’t need,” Geoffrey told the dark-eyed boy lying next to him. “As much as I love a good bit of sodomy I am trying to fight a war with my brother. And so far the bastard is winning."

He sat and began pulling on his breeches. He like all of Henry II's sons thought of himself more as a soldier than a prince. But he wasn't a butcher. Granted he'd raided his share of monasteries to pay his men and fill their bellies with the fat larders only men of god seemed to have. But the Barons of Brittany had never rebelled against their young Duke though they had ample reason too. His father had made Conan IV their duke and they had hated him. When they rebelled Henry II disposed of him and seized the lands for himself before giving them to Geoffrey. The Bretons were proud and with long memories. They hated the upstart Count of Anjou but had no reason yet to hate his son, he'd been tremendously careful not to give them one.

His brother Richard on the other hand seemed to him a mad dog. He'd assumed the reports from the Aquitaine nobles given to him and his brother also named Henry were exaggerated. Now he knew they were not.

He stood and reached toward Maurice. "Be a good boy and get up, you're on my shirt."

[nobility-art]

Richard I the Lionheart

Artist: Merry-Joseph Blondel (French, 1781–1853)

Date: 1841

Medium: Oil on Canvas

Collection: Palace of Versailles, Paris, France

Richard I of England

Richard I (8 September 1157 – 6 April 1199), known as Richard Cœur de Lion or Richard the Lionheart because of his reputation as a great military leader and warrior, was King of England from 1189 until his death in 1199. He also ruled as Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine, and Gascony; Lord of Cyprus; Count of Poitiers, Anjou, Maine, and Nantes; and was overlord of Brittany at various times during the same period. He was the third of five sons of Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine and was therefore not expected to become king, but his two elder brothers predeceased their father.

By the age of 16, Richard had taken command of his own army, putting down rebellions in Poitou against his father. Richard was an important Christian commander during the Third Crusade, leading the campaign after the departure of Philip II of France and achieving several victories against his Muslim counterpart, Saladin, although he finalised a peace treaty and ended the campaign without retaking Jerusalem.

Though regarded as a model king during the four centuries after his death, and seen as a pious hero by his subjects, from the 17th century onward he was gradually perceived by historians as a ruler who preferred to use his kingdom merely as a source of revenue to support his armies, rather than regarding England as a responsibility requiring his presence as ruler. This "Little England" view of Richard has come under increasing scrutiny by modern historians, who view it as anachronistic. Richard I remains one of the few kings of England remembered more commonly by his epithet than his regnal number, and is an enduring iconic figure both in England and in France

[baublecoded]

“The psychological investment of medieval English royalty in their children seems generally not to have been great. Yet the family life of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and their children had more than most royal families’ share of hostility. The stormy relationship between Henry II and his sons is almost a classic example of father-son relations in feudal society. They saw him preventing their attaining full manhood with lands and authority of their own, and their resentment pushed them into rebellion. Henry was a restless man with a violent temper, and his sons often bore the brunt of his impatience and anger. The estrangement between Henry and his queen by 1170 must have had an effect on their children’s feelings, and the couple’s hostility can account for some of the boys’ lack of affection for their father. Once they reached adolescence, they lacked any loyalty to him; and their rebellions gave a tragic quality to his last years. […]

William of Newburgh, a northern chronicler, wrote of Henry II’s ‘inordinate love for his sons’ and accused him of trampling on others’ rights ‘while he exerted himself unduly for their advancement’. Yet little concrete evidence survives for Henry’s feelings toward his children except his schemes for succession to his lands. It is difficult to know whether Henry II was applying any principle in his partition of his territories, whether he had any vision of the Angevin domains as a unity or viewed them simply as a block of family lands to be used to provide for his offspring. Henry gave his sons honourific titles in 1169 when they were adolescents, hinting at an ‘Angevin empire’ with at least a loose structure held together by family ties. His eldest son and namesake, crowned king of England in 1170 at age fifteen, was to have the Anglo-Norman realm together with greater Anjou (Anjou plus Maine and Touraine); his second son, Richard, was proclaimed duke of Aquitaine, when he was fourteen; and Geoffrey became count of Brittany through marriage at age eleven; along with his continental county went the English earldom of Richmond. Little John ‘Lackland’ had no place in this tripartite partition. Most scholars agree that Henry II followed feudal custom in rejecting strict primogeniture succession of Young Henry to all his domains; he had both Angevin and Anglo-Norman precedent in feudal law for his scheme. Probably Henry held the hope that as his sons grew up, he could share the governing of the Angevin domains with them, withdrawing from day-to day work into something like ‘the chairman of a family consortium’.[…]

The birth of John in 1166 exacerbated relations between Henry II and his older sons, for he did not want his lastborn to remain ‘John Lackland’. His periodic new schemes for partition of his empire angered Young Henry, Richard, and Geoffrey, feeding their jealousy of each other and of their youngest brother. Such schemes especially aroused Richard’s resentment once his elder brother’s death promoted him to senior rank among the sons. Any younger son had uncertain prospects; and since Richard and Geoffrey were ahead of John in any division of Henry II’s acquisitions, his prospects were even less certain. He must have known from literature and from his own family’s history that the youngest of several sons often got nothing. Twelfth-century vernacular poetry is filled with tales of younger sons forced to leave home to seek their fortunes as knights errant. Insecurity about his future, rivalry with his brothers and awareness of their resentment over his father’s schemes to find land for him must have influenced John’s character. No youth growing up in such an atmosphere of suspicion and treachery could fail to absorb some poisons.”

— Ralph V. Turner, King John: England’s Evil King?

[heather123fan-blog]

Day 7: Saturday, 13th July — free day! Another favorite medieval queen of mine: Eleanor of Aquantaine

The remarkable Eleanor of Aquitaine (1122-1204) was irrefutably one of the most powerful and brilliant women of the middle ages. A stunning and charming woman in her youth, she was adored as wife by French King Louis VII. His jealousy over her behavior while on the Second Crusade together caused him to annul his marriage to her in 1152, after 15 years as Queen of France, and after bearing two daughters. Feudal custom in this case worked to her advantage and she retained possession of the duchy of Aquitaine which was approximately one third of France at the time. She wasted little time in remarrying and within two months had wed the future King of England, who was at the time, count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy. In 1154 he became Henry II of England, thus uniting England, Normandy and the area of Western France (Aquitaine) under his rule. Eleanor and Henry had five sons and three daughters together. Her tireless diplomacy and the notable achievements of her children have given her the moniker the "grandmother of Europe." Indeed family feuds pitted her against her husband, and allied her with her sons who would serve as future kings of England.

Much is said about Eleanor's sons. William died at the age of three. Henry, Richard the Lionheart, Geoffrey Duke of Brittany; and John are memorialized, along with their formidable mother in the classic 1968 film A Lion in Winter (staring Peter O'Toole, Anthony Hopkins and Katharine Hepburn). But when Eleanor was not imprisoned by her second husband, or working to provide a ransom to free one of her sons, she was working as a patron of the arts-in particular the lyrical poetry of the troubadours. It was with her daughter Marie de Champagne that she helped to formalize the lyricism of troubadour poetry that originated in Languedoc, and she spread it to the North. Marie de Champagne commissioned the romance Lancelot from Chrétien de Troyes. In this way the "langue d'oc" culture of the Midi would influence aristocratic circles in the langue d'oïl. The songs of the troubadours became the basis of courtly love, wherein women are portrayed as idealized ladies worthy of gentlemanly pursuit rather than as sexual objects to bring male gratification. There is some evidence that, in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church, the romantic relationships espoused were rather modern in alluding to mutual sensual gratification (see the poetry of trobairitz Béatrice de Die and Tibors de Sarenom). While much of the poetry brings to mind notions of chivalry and honor, feminist scholars have pointed out that this may tell us more about men than women as it represented a shift in the popular notion of masculinity. In some ways this placing of women on a pedestal parallels the growing adoration of the Virgin Mary among Catholics. While flattering, it in many ways still confines women in a role defined and presented by men. Regardless of the society in which she lived, any examination of Eleanor herself will attest that she was a woman who prevailed over any and all attempts at confinement and she achieved some of her greatest feats in old age, after the death of her second husband literally released her back into the world.

[nebula-sims]

People of Anjou

Left to right: King Konstantin Albescu, Princess Elena Albescu, Princess Willa Albescu

Konstantin is the newly-crowned king of Anjou after the premature death of his parents at the hands of a vampire hunter from the south. As the last of his line, he must find his own queen while protecting himself and his two much younger sisters from potential danger.

Left to right: Duke Claude Lapointe, Lady Fleur Lapointe

Newly out of mourning for his wife who died in childbirth, Claude is now searching for a new wife to give him the son he desires.

Left to Right: Count Cristophe Dubois, Countess Rochelle Dubois, Lord Christophe Dubois, Lord Perrin Dubois, Lord Lucian Dubois, Lady Adeline Dubois, Lady Villette Dubois, Lady Julie Dubois

The Count of Dubois maintains one of many wineries in the Anjou kingdom. Recently, the count's only daughter, Villette, turned thirteen. Will they find her a suitable match?

Left to Right: Count Pascal St. Pierre, Countess Annette St. Pierre, Lady Yvonne St. Pierre, Lord Louis St. Pierre, Lord Marcel St. Pierre, Lady Marian St. Pierre, Lady Mathild St. Pierre, Lady Margot St. Pierre

The Count St. Pierre also maintains one of the many wineries in the Anjou kingdom. The new Count and Countess, Pascal and Annette, have taken over the business and the care of Pascal's younger sister, Margot, who has recently turned eighteen without being betrothed.

[myfavoritepeterotoole]

The Lion in Winter (1968) directed by Anthony Harvey

Peter O'Toole as Henry II, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and of Aquitaine, Count of Anjou

Katharine Hepburn as Eleanor of Aquitaine

Anthony Hopkins as Richard the Lionheart

John Castle as Geoffrey

Nigel Terry as John

Timothy Dalton as Philip II, King of France

Jane Merrow as Alais

[qqueenofhades]

hello friendly tumblr historian! i have a question that might be stupid haha i was wondering why england hasnt been invaded for such a long time? i have just started the first war & peace email and it has a footnote talking about napoleon invading his way around Europe, and im thinking abt the nazis invading people etc, and im wondering why england hasnt been invaded since (am i right in this?) the normans?

Several factors, namely luck, geographical position, and political circumstances. The last successful invasion of England was in 1066 under William the Conqueror, so yes, the Normans were the last ones to pull it off. After that, the kings of England were simultaneously the dukes/counts/lords of large parts of France, including eventually Normandy, Brittany, Maine, Anjou, Aquitaine, Gascony, and Poitiers. They were also, until about 1204 (when Philip II of France recaptured Normandy), generally far more powerful than the French kings, and were not shy in popping back over to France in attempts to win more chunks of it. As such, the Anglo-French skirmishes/wars took place in France, since that is where the disputed lands were located, and not in England.

Secondly, the UK is (obviously) an island, and it is a LOT harder to successfully invade it than it is to just march your troops over into your neighbor's kingdom on land. The English were wise to this fact early on, and had a functioning navy by the 11th century, when it was ruled by the Vikings for a while. In the late medieval and early modern era, the navy continued to develop, and by the Age of Sail (17th/18th centuries), British naval power considerably outstripped comparable European nations. However, before that, in 1588, the Spanish Armada famously tried to invade in order to remove Queen Elizabeth I from the throne, and was only defeated by an EXTREMELY fortunately timed storm. If said storm hadn't happened, things could have gone very differently. However, of such coincidences is history made.

By the late 18th/early 19th centuries, Britain was the unquestioned naval power in the world, was busily engaged in colonial and imperial expansion and thereby invading everywhere else instead. And in another much-mythologized victory, they defeated Napoleon's forces in the sea battle of Trafalgar in 1805, reducing the likelihood of any attempted direct attack. So yes, various armies HAVE tried to invade since 1066, but for one reason or another, they haven't been successful.

During the early days of WWII, Hitler was drawing up plans for a full-scale invasion of Britain, and the Blitz, which began in September 1940, was the prelude to this. Hitler's strategy was to pummel the UK into submission and weaken them up for the subsequent invasion, but that did not end up working and Hitler was, of course, never able to actually pull it off. So while it's possible to count both the Blitz and its predecessor in WWI, the German zeppelin raids, as invasions of a sort due to the territory of the country being physically attacked, it wasn't an actual large-scale occupying force, and it didn't end up succeeding in either case.

[anythingeverythingm]

Day 6: Yolande of Aragon

Yolande of Aragon (also known as Yolanda de Aragón and Violant d'Aragó.)

Born: 11 August 1381 Died: 14 November 1442

Parents: John I of Aragon and Violant of Bar Duchess of Anjou and Countess of Provence Children: Louis III, Duke of Anjou Marie, Queen of France René, King of Naples Yolande, Countess of Montfort l'Amaury Charles, Count of Maine

Yolande was born in Zaragoza, Aragon as the eldest daughter of John I of Aragon and his second wife Violant of Bar, granddaughter of John II of France.

In 1387 a marriage offer came through the mother of the King of Naples, Louis II. At 11 years old she signed a document that disallowed any marriage promises made by ambassadors. In 1395 another marriage offer came from Richard II of England. After her father’s death, her uncle was convinced to marry Yolande to Louis. She was forced to retract her protest to the marriage.

Yolande and Louis were married on December 2, 1400 in Arles. Despite her initial rejection and her husband’s illness, they had 5 children.

As a daughter of a king, she had a claim to the throne of Aragon after her uncle’s death without an heir. The laws at the time favored male heirs, thus after two years without a king they chose Ferdinand the son of Eleanor of Aragon and John I of Castile. Yolande’s son, Louis, was the Anjou claimant to the throne, although his claim was excluded by the Pact of Caspe..

In the second phase of the Hundred Years' War, Yolande supported the French, particularly the Armagnacs. After the attack on the Dauphin of France by the duke of Burgundy, she and her husband refused the marriage of their son Louis to the duke’s daughter. She met with the Queen of France to arrange the marriage of her daughter and the third son of the queen, Charles.

When Charles became the Dauphin and his mother worked against his claim, Yolande became a substitute mother for the teenager. She protected him against plots, funded and helped his cause. Yolande removed Charles from his parents' court and took him to her residence where he received Joan of Arc. After his marriage to her daughter Marie she became his mother-in-law and was heavily involved in the conflict of the House of Valois. She succeeded in having him crowned.

As her husband was often away fighting in Italy, Yolande preferred to hold court in Angers and Saumur..

After the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the Duchy of Anjou was threatened and Louis II had Yolande, their children and Charles moved to Provence.

On 29 April 1417, Louis II died leaving Yolande, aged 33, in control of the House of Anjou. Yolande acted as regent for her young son.

Yolande not only took care of the House of Anjou but also of Charles’s cause. Yolande supported Joan of Arc from the beginning and practiced political moves to ensure the success of Charles.

She retired to Angers and then to Saumur, where she continued to play a role in politics. From at least 1439 onwards Yolande took care and prepared her granddaughter Margaret of Anjou for marriage.

She died on 14 November 1442 at the town house of the Seigneur de Tucé in Saumur.

She is described as "the prettiest woman in the kingdom", a wise and beautiful woman and her grandson Louis XI of France described her as "a man's heart in a woman's body”.

[histoireettralala]

Capétiens vs Plantagenêts: a matter of suzerainty.

It was also his position as suzerain which gave Louis VII the chance of interfering in and inflaming the quarrels which raged in the Angevin family. This was an effective means of weakening his great antagonist. Henry II and Eleanor produced a large family, and reared four of their sons to the age at which custom demanded that they should be provided for. Their eldest son Henry was granted Normandy in October 1160 and was associated with his father on the throne of England in 1170. Richard was given Aquitaine in 1169 and Geoffrey Brittany in 1175. John, the youngest child of Henry and Eleanor, was not old enough to be entrusted with any estates until the very last years of his father's reign, and by the time he came of age all the available lands had been given away. As Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Count of Poitiers, the sons of Henry II came to perform homage to the King of France and became his men. It was in vain that Henry II sought to utilise the Norman procedure of pariage to maintain the unity of his continental territories in favour of his eldest son, the "Young King" Henry. (Under pariage the eldest son succeeded to all the heritable property and was alone answerable for it to the suzerain; each of his brothers received a share, but held it of him). This device could not be put into full operation in Aquitaine, which was not part of Henry's heritage but Eleanor's. And when she granted it to Richard, he owed homage not to his father or his eldest brother, but to the King of France. The Young King Henry had done homage as Duke of Normandy to Louis VII in October 1160. When he repeated his homage in 1170 it was made to embrace Anjou, Maine, and Brittany as well. At the same time Richard did homage to Louis for Aquitaine.

It is true that in 1174 Henry II compelled his sons to perform homage to him after their rebellion, but this new homage did not necessarily annul their homages to the King of France. Henry II himself had done homage to Louis VII in 1151 and again in 1169, and was to perform it yet again to Louis's successor, Philip Augustus, in 1180. Thus throughout the conflict between Louis VII and Henry II the French king's suzerainty was affirmed and recognised. This did not save Louis from defeats at his vassal's hands. Nevertheless, to judge from the Toulouse affair in 1159, Louis' suzerainty occasionally cramped Henry's style, and put him in the wrong in the eyes of contemporaries, including the barons of his continental fiefs. To play the rebel vassal was hardly prudent for a king when many of his own vassals were rebelliously inclined. It was not that the idea of rebellion itself shocked feudal society. On the contrary, it was one of the legitimate courses open to a vassal needing to safeguard his rights against the encroachments of his suzerain. But in the disputes between Louis VII and Henry II, Henry was the law-breaker as well as the vassal in revolt. For his rebelliousness against an impeccable suzerain there could be no justification.

It may be objected that Louis VII was constantly intriguing with Eleanor of Aquitaine and with Henry II's sons. But after all Eleanor, as Duchess of Aquitaine, was herself a royal vassal. Two of Henry's sons had done homage to Louis. Another, Geoffrey, by dint of his father's vassalage, was the French king's rear-vassal. And the king had, as suzerain, not merely the right but the duty to concern himself with the welfare and harmony of his great vassal's family, to ensure that a proper settlement was made on the sons. It would be unfair to accuse Louis of hypocrisy; nor did Henry ever complain that the French king was making trouble in his family. Louis' own grievances against Henry were many and varied, and Henry never made a serious effort to deny their validity.

Thus from 1154 to 1180 Henry II had the appearance of a vassal engaged in unjustifiable revolt against his suzerain. This line of conduct undermined his own position. It constantly reminded the baronage of the Angevin fiefs that the King of France was Henry's suzerain- if only because his suzerainty was so often invoked. And it helped to prevent the fusion of the individual elements of the Angevin empire on the continent. Provincial separation, already too strong for Angevin rule to subdue, was reinforced.

Robert Fawtier- The Capetian Kings of France