#Joan is probably one of the first plantagenet figures I fell in love with as a child

[katybirdy95]

JOAN OF ENGLAND, QUEEN OF SCOTLAND - (THE JILTED PRINCESS) -  (21 June 1221 – 4 March 1238) FAVOURITE HISTORICAL FIGURES

Joan Plantagenet was married to the King of Scots while very young. Due to the vagaries of politics between Scotland and England and conflicts between her husband and her brother, her position remained tenuous. She would be overshadowed by her mother-in-law and never had any children.

Joan was born on July 22, 1210. She was the third child of King John of England and his second wife Isabella of Angoulême. In 1212, Alexander, son of William the Lion, King of Scots was in England and was knighted by King John. Alexander insisted from that point on that King John had promised him his eldest daughter as a wife and that Northumberland would be part of her dowry. In 1214, King William died and Alexander became king. It is most doubtful John would have parted with Northumberland but Alexander persisted with negotiations for Joan’s hand. King John had other plans. His intention was to use the marriage of Joan as an enticement to mend his relations with old enemies on the continent.

King Philip II of France was looking to marry Joan to his son but John spurned this offer and in 1214, she was betrothed to Hugh, future lord of Lusignan and Count of La Marche, as compensation for him being jilted by her mother Isabella. At the age of four Joan was sent to France to be brought up in her future spouse’s court, with the promise of Saintes, Saintonge and the Isle of Oléron as a dowry. Hugh X tried to obtain these same properties by absolute grant prior to their marriage but was unsuccessful. His failed attempt to obtain Joan’s dowry lessened his eagerness to have Joan as a bride at that point. 

On the death of John of England in 1216, the queen dowager Isabella decided she should marry Hugh X herself. The government of Joan’s brother, King Henry III, was in serious negotiations for a marriage with Alexander and in May of 1220 asked for Joan to be surrendered at La Rochelle. But Hugh kept her as a hostage in an effort to gain the properties he was promised as Joan’s dowry as well as Isabella’s dower which was being withheld from her by the English. On June 15th, Alexander agreed to marry Joan’s sister Isabella if Joan was not available but upon the intervention of the Pope and assurance of Isabella’s dower, Hugh finally returned Joan to England in the fall.

On June 18, 1221, Alexander officially settled on Joan lands in Jedburgh, Hassendean, Kinghorn and Crail which were worth one thousand pounds. Kinghorn and Crail at that point belonged to Alexander’s mother, Queen Ermengarde so Joan was to receive properties in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire until the other two properties became available. The marriage ceremony was performed on June 19 at York Minster. Joan was nearly eleven and Alexander was just past twenty-two.

There is a suggestion that Joan was not enamoured with Scotland and its society. She was hampered by her youth and had little political influence. Alexander’s mother, Queen Ermengarde was a forceful personality and had more authority at court than Joan. Joan remained childless throughout her marriage (that is not to say that she may or may not have suffered miscarriages or stillbirths in the whole of her marriage as no accounts have survived) and this lack of an heir was a serious issue for Alexander. However, an annulment of the marriage might have caused war with England as both her husband and brother were not on the best of terms and were hindered by strong tensions.

 Although, this worked in Joan’s favour as she seemed to have found a purpose and would mediate between the two monarchs. Alexander would often use Joan’s personal letters to her brother as a way of communicating with Henry, while bypassing the formality of official correspondence between kings.  One such letter is a warning, possibly on behalf of Alexander’s constable, Alan of Galloway, of intelligence that Haakon IV of Norway was intending to aid Hugh de Lacy in Ireland. In the same letter she assured Henry that no one from Scotland would be going to Ireland to fight against Henry’s interests. Another letter, this time from Henry, was of a more personal nature, written in February 1235 it informed Joan of the marriage of their “beloved sister” Isabella to the holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, news at which he knew Joan “would greatly rejoice”.

In December 1235 Alexander and Joan were summoned to London, possibly for the coronation of Henry’s new queen, Eleanor of Provence. This would have been a long and arduous journey for the Scots monarchs, especially in the deepest part of winter.

Henry’s use of Joan as an intermediary suggests she did have some influence over her husband, this theory is supported by the fact that Joan would accompany Alexander to England for negotiations with her brother King Henry over disputed northern territories in September of 1236 at Newcastle and in September of 1237 at York.

After the York summit, Alexander agreed by treaty to drop his claims and returned to Scotland. Joan and her sister-in-law Eleanor of Provence agreed to go on pilgrimage to Canterbury together to visit Thomas Becket’s shrine. Given that Joan was now 27 and Eleanor already married for 2 years, it is possible both women were praying for children, and an heir. 

The chronicler Matthew Paris suggests that Joan and Alexander may have become estranged at this point as Joan wished to spend more time in England at her brother’s court. In 1236, Henry did provide her with manors in Driffield, Yorkshire and Fen Stanton in Huntingdonshire where she could take refuge if needed. Joan may have known she was gravely ill when she began travelling to Canterbury. 

Joan died at the age of twenty-seven at Havering in Essex on March 4, 1238 in the arms of her brothers King Henry and Richard of Cornwall. 

According to Matthew Paris ‘her death was grievous, however she merited less mourning, because she refused to return [to Scotland] although often summoned back by her husband’. And even in death Joan elected to stay in England. her will requested that she be buried at the Cistercian nunnery of Tarrant in Dorset.

Henry would be generous in giving alms to the nunnery after his sister’s death suggesting he loved her dearly. He arranged for a tomb to be erected over her body and later had a marble effigy carved and placed beside the tomb. The last mention of the church where she was buried is from the Reformation and there is no trace of this tomb or the church left. 

Talking of her wedding day, the Chronicle of Lanercost had described Joan as ‘a girl still of a young age, but when she was an adult of comely beauty.’ After her death, Alexander would marry Marie de Coucy who finally provided him with a male heir.

[minervacasterly]

Revenge of the Mary Sue (s)! Female Protagonists in Historical Dramas: “… women can hardly be blamed for not being feminists in advance of the concept, for not stepping outside their time frame or not possessing an anachronistic sense of their own worth.” ~Red Roses: Blanche of Gaunt to Margaret Beaufort by Amy Licence ^This is something that should be taken into account by every history buff and especially feminist history fans who are easy to jump on the bandwagon of the endless Mary-Suefication of countless historical dramas where women are showing unusual behavior from what was expected of them (according to their station). This is a common trend in Hollywood. We have it in science fiction, fantasy, drama as well. Producers think they are doing us (women) a favor but in reality they are downplaying on the other women who might not have shared these ‘larger-than-life’ qualities. Take the White Queen for example. It was a good production. I enjoyed it, same as I enjoyed all of Philippa Greggory’s books, but was it accurate? Of course not. Elizabeth Woodville was presented as a quasi-feminist Mary Sue character and her second husband, Edward IV, was the Gary Stu of all Gary Stus. They were perfect, magical, loving. Sure, they had their problems, but even when the audience was tempted to sympathize with their rivals, they still felt more sympathetic towards the Yorkist couple because why not? She was fierce, loud and was not afraid to “be a match for any man.” These words are taken from secondary sources which reputedly came from Elizabeth’s contemporaries who believed she did say these things when Edward IV tried to take advantage of her. Some of you might take this as ‘proof’ that Elizabeth was a strong woman and not the typical submissive girl the Neville women were, but was she? Or is that what the White Queen really gave us? Because I just don’t see it. Let met break it down to you: Women DID wield power over their husband’s subjects and their tenants. But this power was ultimately dependent on their personality. As Amy Licence stresses out in the next paragraph, using Joan, second wife of Henry IV of England as an example: “There had been times in Joan’s life when she was able to exert her will, to shape her destiny, when the letters she wrote to Henry IV before their marriage briefly forced the female narrative to the fore, and her actions helped direct the course of national history. Nevertheless, she was powerless to speak in her own defence as an imprisoned widow, pointing towards the conclusion that any power exercised by women was something of an illusion, which they enjoyed because their men gave them permission to do so.” She also adds that whenever women acted out of the ordinary they were demonized. Those that weren’t was because they cited precedent or biblical law. Astoundingly, there are many heroines in the bible that women could take as their role models to justify their ‘rebellious’ behavior. Deborah was used as a tool of Elizabethan propaganda in the sixteenth century. The last Tudor monarch was often painted next to female saints, classical and biblical figures whose acts validated Elizabeth I’s claim and her uniqueness as an unwed female monarch. Elizabeth Woodville’s actions, if she really did say all of those things, must be viewed in the same context. She didn’t stand up to Edward IV because she thought ‘I am going to set an example to all male rogues who think of taking advantage of defenseless women’. No! She thought of her gender in the same terms as her peers did. Those words to Edward were her faith talking, nothing else. Formerly, the Earl of March, the eldest surviving son of the slain Richard Plantagenet Duke of York and Cecily Neville, had a reputation as a lady’s man. As such, Elizabeth Woodville would have been careful with how she carried herself with him. After all, she was a widow and she was dependent on the new regime’s mercy if she wanted to keep her children’s fortunes intact. After her first husband, John Grey of Grosby died, she was almost penniless. When she became untouchable -and thus, desirable- to Edward IV, she saw an opportunity to turn the tables around, back in her family’s favor. Her behavior was typical of any fifteenth century courtier, especially a widow who previously belonged to the losing party. Ironically though, the same behavior that many fans championed Elizabeth for having is condemned as her rivals. This is not strange. The White Queen acts as a Victorian retelling of the wars of the roses or as it is now popularly called “the cousins’ war”. It is a story where Elizabeth and her mother are magical women who capture the attention of a dashing royal rogue called Edward IV who deposed an evil dynasty who was corrupt and crazy (to paraphrase Margaret Beaufort’s second husband in the series). As such, every other woman who is not part of the Woodville clan, has to be by definition ‘ugly’, ‘greedy’ or simply ‘less than’. But is it fair? In entertainment you can say it is fair. It is fiction and they can do whatever they want in the name of ratings; but when it comes to history it becomes a problem. These women were not saints, neither were they power-hungry villains. They were raised to be the perfect consorts, to do anything that was in the best interest of their families. Nothing more, nothing less. They often switched sides for that same purpose and whenever they broke conventional norms, they justified by citing religious or historical precedence. And let's not get started over the Hollywood Mary Sue-fication of other historical figures like Elizabeth I of England and Mary, Queen of Scots. People love their larger-than-life characters. It gives us something to aspire to, something to look forward to. If they could do it, then so can we, right? But after you read about their true stories, you realize that their lives were anything but pleasant. Elizabeth I navigated through murky waters to keep her throne. Even when she defeated all of her enemies, she wasn't happy. This page, Tudor Brasil: Dinastia Tudor, Renascimento e Outros Períodos da História, The Anne Boleyn Files,Queen to History, Tudor Nerds with Glasses,Tudors: Fact vs Fiction, and many other historical pages have done many articles on how complicated her reign was. Even when she saw herself as an exception to the rule of 'women can't be good rulers' that Protestant John Knox about, she still believed that women were inferior to men because that is how she was raised to think. If she were to spouse any view that challenged this notion, she would have been deposed in her first year as Queen. This isn't to say she wasn't exceptional. She was, but not for the reasons that feminists and Hollywood portray her as. When she delivered her famous speech at Tilbury in 1588, she didn't wear full armor -as depicted in the sequel to Kapur's Elizabeth, Elizabeth: The Golden Age. She wore simple breastplate and female dress. Some historians like John Guy in his latest biography on Elizabeth, doubt the veracity of her words, citing that Elizabeth's speeches were often written by her councilors and sometimes they put words to her mouth to make her seem as greater than she actually was. Reign's take on Mary, Queen of Scots is probably one of the best examples of Mary-Suefication with Mary, Queen of Scots being depicted as ahead of her times, self-righteous and a victim as opposed to her mother-in-law and cousin-from-hell, Catherine Medici and Elizabeth I of England respectively. And last but not least, we have Isabel in the Spanish series Isabel. And I know what you are going to say 'the series did her justice'. It did in some ways, but it also fell into the same trap that other historical dramas with a female protagonist fell into. The series gave us a nuance portrayal of the Catholic Kings, but it also gave us instances where Isabel was too perfect, showing she was ahead of her times in her line of thinking. Once again, she wasn't. Even when she did spouse progressive ideas in regards to women, she still held the same beliefs regarding gender as her husband and the rest of her peers. Even the women who took up arms against their spouses or went to court suing them (and there are various cases on the latter), still held the same convictions that they did when they were young and taught that women were inferior to men, or in some cases, a deformed version of man. For more info on this subject, I recommend the following books: 1. Elizabeth: The Forgotten Years by John Guy 2. Elizabeth: The Struggle for the throne by David Starkey 3. Tudor by Leanda de Lisle 4. Tudors vs Stewarts by Linda Porter 5. Anne Boleyn Collection by Claire Ridgway 6. Red Roses: Blanche of Gaunt to Margaret Beaufort by Amy Licence/ In Bed With the Tudors & Six Wives and the Many Mistresses of Henry VIII by Amy Licence 7. Jezebel by Kyra Cornelius Kramer 8. Isabella: Warrior Queen by Kirstin Downey 9. Isabel La Catolica by Cristina Hernando 10. Mary, Queen of Scots by Antonia Fraser 11. The Woodvilles by Susan Higginbotham