#geoffrey of anjou

[angevinyaoiz]

All the blossoms in my garden 🪴

An Angevin-Plantagenets family tree I made for my medieval art collection zine, “If All The World Were Mine!” The physical edition is now available, so check it out if you can :D

[wonder-worker]

The fact that Henry II had two parents who were willing to relinquish their titles and share their authority with him (with his father even writing that he hoped Henry would one day "surpass me and all my predecessors in power and dignity") only to become known as the guy who drove literally all his sons into open revolt against him because he refused to give them adequate power 🤡

[ginandoldlace]

Henry II (5 Mar 1133–6 Jul 1189) was the first Plantagenet King of England. Born to Geoffrey of Anjou and Empress Matilda, he inherited vast territories and created the Angevin Empire.

Crowned in 1154, he bolstered royal authority, modernized justice, and famously clashed with Thomas Becket. He forged a lasting legacy despite conflicts and rebellions, notably shaping English common law before dying at Chinon.

He expanded holdings in Ireland, faced familial strife from his sons, and left a robust administrative system.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

I have seen a post comparing Steven's adoption of Henry II in the anarchy with what the Velaryons did with the Strong boys wanting to justify that their claim is legitimate, but in my humble opinion it is not comparable at all. This situation could be extrapolated to Aegon II having adopted his nephew Aegon (that was the LEGITIMATE son of his political rival) having himself a living son, in addition everyone would know that he is not his son and well in this case it would not be applicable but the adopted heir retains his family name...This is not what happens with the Strong boys, It has nothing to do with the modern concept of adoption that they want to apply. I don't understand why it's so hard for them to accept that these guys had no real claim to the throne. They can continue enjoying their characters accepting that they are bastards in every sense of the word. Do you think they are comparable situations?

I haven't seen this argument myself but clearly those are two completely different situations. Stephen didn't adopt Henry II, he made him his heir as a compromise to end to the civil war. And yes, the clear parallel would Aegon II naming Aegon III his heir over Jaehaerys and Maelor, had they survived. Again, this was part of a peace treaty. Everyone knew who Henry II's parents were, and there was no question of his not being trueborn. Henry II was still Count of Anjou, the title he inherited through his father, and styled himself Henry FitzEmpress in honor of his mother.

To understand why this happened, we need to look at some context. Henry II was only 20 when he decided to re-take his mother's throne, and Stephen was past 60. At that point England had been at war off and on for the better part of 15 years and both the clergy and the lords were unenthusiastic about continuing and forced Henry and Stephen to the peace table after Henry made some early gains in his campaign. Stephen respected Henry, and Stephen's own sons were kind of uninspiring as future kings go. Eustace, the older son and main obstacle, died before Stephen did, and the younger son, William, agreed to renounce his claim. Stephen never really took the throne due to strong personal ambition in the first place, but because he was persuaded by people close to him that Matilda would be a poor choice for queen, both due to her being a woman and due to the influence of her husband, Geoffrey of Anjou, who was pretty well hated in England. Leaving the throne to his children did not seem to be a major consideration for him when all was said and done. Conceding heirship to Henry II meant that the fighting could come to an end, and the country would be in capable hands, but Stephen himself would not face the humiliation and possible consequences of being outright deposed. As it turned out, Stephen died not even a year later, so Henry II took the throne sooner than expected.

Rhaenyra's Strong children are bastards that she's trying to put into the line of succession while claiming they are trueborn. They were not "adopted" by the Velaryons. The medieval world did not have a concept of adoption like we do in the modern world (Rome did, but not medieval Europe). The reason why it is treason to call them bastards is because what Rhaenyra is doing is illegal, and Viserys, Corlys, and Laenor are shielding her from the consequences. I wrote a post here about the whole idea that Rhaenyra's children are not legally bastards, but I have to admit comparing them to Henry II becoming heir after Stephen is a new one!

[dreamconsumer]

Portrait of Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou (1113-1151). Unknown artist.

[palecleverdoll]

Ages of English 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. For this reason, women such as Philippa of Hainault and Anne Boleyn have been omitted.

This list is composed of Queens of England when it was a sovereign state, prior to the Acts of Union in 1707. Using the youngest possible age for each woman, the average age at first marriage was 17.

Eadgifu (Edgiva/Ediva) of Kent, third and final wife of Edward the Elder: age 17 when she married in 919 CE

Ælfthryth (Alfrida/Elfrida), second wife of Edgar the Peaceful: age 19/20 when she married in 964/965 CE

Emma of Normandy, second wife of Æthelred the Unready: age 18 when she married in 1002 CE

Ælfgifu of Northampton, first wife of Cnut the Great: age 23/24 when she married in 1013/1014 CE

Edith of Wessex, wife of Edward the Confessor: age 20 when she married in 1045 CE

Matilda of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror: age 20/21 when she married in 1031/1032 CE

Matilda of Scotland, first wife of Henry I: age 20 when she married in 1100 CE

Adeliza of Louvain, second wife of Henry I: age 18 when she married in 1121 CE

Matilda of Boulogne, wife of Stephen: age 20 when she married in 1125 CE

Empress Matilda, wife of Henry V, HRE, and later Geoffrey V of Anjou: age 12 when she married Henry in 1114 CE

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

Isabella of Gloucester, first wife of John Lackland: age 15/16 when she married John in 1189 CE

Isabella of Angoulême, second wife of John Lackland: between the ages of 12-14 when she married John in 1200 CE

Eleanor of Provence, wife of Henry III: age 13 when she married Henry in 1236 CE

Eleanor of Castile, first wife of Edward I: age 13 when she married Edward in 1254 CE

Margaret of France, second wife of Edward I: age 20 when she married Edward in 1299 CE

Isabella of France, wife of Edward II: age 13 when she married Edward in 1308 CE

Anne of Bohemia, first wife of Richard II: age 16 when she married Richard in 1382 CE

Isabella of Valois, second wife of Richard II: age 6 when she married Richard in 1396 CE

Joanna of Navarre, wife of John IV of Brittany, second wife of Henry IV: age 18 when she married John in 1386 CE

Catherine of Valois, wife of Henry V: age 19 when she married Henry in 1420 CE

Margaret of Anjou, wife of Henry VI: age 15 when she married Henry in 1445 CE

Elizabeth Woodville, wife of Sir John Grey and later Edward IV: age 15 when she married John in 1452 CE

Anne Neville, wife of Edward of Lancaster and later Richard III: age 14 when she married Edward in 1470 CE

Elizabeth of York, wife of Henry VII: age 20 when she married Henry in 1486 CE

Catherine of Aragon, wife of Arthur Tudor and later Henry VIII: age 15 when she married Arthur in 1501 CE

Jane Seymour, third wife of Henry VIII: age 24 when she married Henry in 1536 CE

Anne of Cleves, fourth wife of Henry VIII: age 25 when she married Henry in 1540 CE

Catherine Howard, fifth wife of Henry VIII: age 17 when she married Henry in 1540 CE

Jane Grey, wife of Guildford Dudley: age 16/17 when she married Guildford in 1553 CE

Mary I, wife of Philip II of Spain: age 38 when she married Philip in 1554 CE

Anne of Denmark, wife of James VI & I: age 15 when she married James in 1589 CE

Henrietta Maria of France, wife of Charles I: age 16 when she married Charles in 1625 CE

Catherine of Braganza, wife of Charles II: age 24 when she married Charles in 1662 CE

Anne Hyde, first wife of James II & VII: age 23 when she married James in 1660 CE

Mary of Modena, second wife of James II & VII: age 15 when she married James in 1673 CE

Mary II of England, wife of William III: age 15 when she married William in 1677 CE

[ardenrosegarden]

“Now, Bishop Gervais so cherished Hugh, whom he had held on the baptismal font, that he sought for him the hand of the noblest lady Bertha, formerly wife of Alan, Count of Brittany.” This Alain had died in the year 1040. He had had a son from Bertha, the brave Conan, who was poisoned under the walls of Château-Gontier. Bertha was the daughter of Odo II, Count of Blois. "This greatly displeased Count Geoffrey," adds the annalist, "as the event proved. Hugh went with his men-at-arms to Bertha; Geoffrey ran to the Château-du-Loir and set it on fire. "In a charter that we have already mentioned (1), we find some details about the siege of the Château-du-Loir. Geoffrey did not seize it, but he ravaged the streets of the square, the village that surrounded it, and even a church founded in honor of Saint Guingalois, where Gervais had recently established canons. The soldiers of the Count of Anjou dispersed them. These actions,” we read in our manuscript, "now rendered the count to the bishop and the bishop to the count odious to each other. Geoffrey, therefore, seeing that, by the advice of Gervais, who wanted to harm and lose him, Count Hugh had taken a very powerful woman, and carrying Judas in his heart, called the bishop near him, in order to treacherously surprise him. Having seized him, he had him thrown into prison and held him in irons for seven years, hoping to thus make himself master of the Château-du-Loir. But it was of no use to him, because the castle was well defended by the garrison. While these things were going on, Count Hugh died, the bishop Gervais being still a prisoner. This death greatly afflicted the bishop and greatly delighted the Count of Anjou.” Count Geoffrey ruled the province for ten years. Indeed, the inhabitants of Le Mans having driven out the grieving widow of Hugh with her children through one of the gates of the city, had Count Geoffrey enter their walls full of joy.

- Jean-Barthélemy Hauréau, Histoire Littéraire du Maine: Tome 5

[natequarter]

the anarchy is really the funniest english civil war because like. as with every other civil war lots of people died horribly... but none of the main belligerents died in battle. stephen didn't die. his wife didn't die either. matilda didn't die. henry ii didn't die (regrettably). geoffrey of anjou and eustace of blois both did die but it was of illness, not in battle! nobody died horribly whilst fighting. this is not the charles i experience, is all

[venicepearl]

Agnes of Burgundy (or Agnes de Macon; c. 995-10 November 1068) was Duchess of Aquitaine by marriage to Duke William V and Countess of Anjou by marriage to Count Geoffrey II. She served as regent of the Duchy of Aquitaine during the minority of her son from 1039 until 1044. She was a daughter of Otto-William, Count of Burgundy and Ermentrude de Roucy and a member of the House of Ivrea.

[angevinyaoiz]

Femboy Geoffrey le Bel I commissioned from hisaoni_art on Twitter! He turned out so beautifully hehehe

[wonder-worker]

"Any assessment of the emotional component of the reconciliation of [Empress Matilda and Geoffrey of Anjou] remains speculation: the chroniclers are silent on the issue of whether [they] grew to love, hate, or like each other. We do know, from their movements and actions, that Matilda and Geoffrey eventually arrived at a businesslike arrangement with a united viewpoint toward the dynastic, geopolitical goals that had dictated their marriage in the first place."

"Matilda and Geoffrey effectively transitioned from a Divide and Rule model to a Collaborative Union from 1144 onwards, in which they worked together throughout their marriage to ensure rulership over their territories and gained their rightful lands, as well as ensuring the inheritance for their children. Matilda and Geoffrey’s political partnership can effectively be argued as the most successful through applying different models of rulership. Ultimately the Plantagenets regained Matilda’s inheritance through Henry, conquered Normandy, and produced several male heirs."

— Charles Beem, The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History / Gabrielle Storey, Co-Rulership, Co-operation and Competition: Queenship in the Angevin Domains, 1135-1230

[edwardslovelyelizabeth]

I see a saying that Edward IV was very interested in Alchemists? (Elizabeth Woodwell's family also has magical rumors... hhhhh)

Hi! Yes, there is an interestng book called Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: the Kingship of Edward IV by Jonathan Hughes.

The author points out Edward's own interest in alchemy as well as how the symbolism during Edward's reign was used as a propaganda in favour ot the King.

" The justification for Edward’s seizure of the throne from Henry VI was also based upon his British ancestry, with specially-produced genealogies, accompanied by prophecies and other historiographical material proclaiming him to be the ‘second Arthur’, who would unite the kingdoms of Britain, thus fulfilling the prophecy made by the Angelic Voice to Cadwallader, last king of the Britons, at the end of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britannie."

"...the alchemical influences that shaped much of Edward’s propaganda at its point of origin. Symbols such as the ‘sun in splendour’ and the ‘three crowns’, by which Edward was known, had alchemical meanings, however else they came to be perceived by contemporaries. This raises questions about how such symbols were perceived by different sections of the community – they could be heraldic, natural, alchemical, astrological, mythological or simply be associated culturally with ideas such as ‘the sun of majesty’ (as with Richard II in Clement Maidstone’s account of Richard’s reception in London in 1392). Few people, as Sydney Anglo has pointed out, ever saw the king; but they ‘saw’ him in the symbols by which he was represented. The ‘perception history’ of such symbols is clearly important not only for this period, but for other reigns, and the alchemical origins and understanding of some of them has implications for the study of prophecy. Whilst it is not true that all images used in prophecy had their origins in alchemy, this set of meanings needs to be examined, and some prophecies, such as Adam Davy’s Dreams about Edward II, most certainly offer themselves for this type of explanation."

"...Edward IV’s own interest in alchemy, his close relationship with George Ripley and others with similar interests, and the influences which this had upon Edward’s own ideology and self-belief. Also really interesting is the connection between Ripley, Thomas Norton (alchemist and ‘prophet’) and George Neville, archbishop of York. Hughes’s knowledge of the nature of fifteenth-century alchemy enables him to offer interesting new perspectives on the motivations of this group, and the fluctuating nature of their relationship with their royal patron. Particularly striking is the revelation that to men such as Ripley, the rise and fall of kings was seen in the nature of an alchemical experiment."

The author also points out that the kings interest in alchemy is not something unique, the kings before him such as Henry V and Edward III also had astroligists/alchemists at their sides.

Here is a very good review of the book: https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/335

as to Elizabeth all the "witchcraft" accusations againt her and her mother were a smear campagn and totally unfounded. The only "magial" connection that her and a few other european royal houses claimed is the famous myth of Melusine (a figure from European folklore depicted as a mermaid, sometimes with two tails, as a serpent from the waist down, or as a dragon. She is associated with the ruling houses of Anjou, Lusignan, and Plantagenet and supposedly warned nobles of these houses of impending death or change.) Here is more on the myth: https://www.worldhistory.org/Melusine/

[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?

[cbk1000]

Hey Jenn!

I saw that you were reading about The Anarchy, and I was wondering what you thought what might have happened in English history if Stephen had also died in the shipwreck that took William Adelin.

Would Matilda have been made Queen of England while while still married to the Holy Roman Emperor?

Would the House of Plantagenet have ruled England?

The War of the Roses wouldn't have happened!

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Oooh, that's an interesting question. (And, yes, The Anarchy is one of my niche nerd interests.)

I'm not sure that Matilda still would have been made Queen of England if her first husband hadn't died. At the very least, Henry I wouldn't have been able to marry her off to Geoffrey of Anjou, and some of the most prominent figures in English history never would have been born. I wonder if Matilda's first husband hadn't died, and he wasn't able to bring her home and marry her off for a political alliance, if he would have applied to divorce Adeliza and tried for another marriage to a woman who would give him a son, since women were blamed for the lack of that. (Also, I've always wondered WHY they were childless; Henry I had bastards strewn all over the place, so he definitely wasn't infertile; but Adeliza, if I'm not misremembering, went on to have children with another husband, so she clearly wasn't either. He was in his 60s when he died, so obviously he was no longer a spring chicken and he probably had a lower sperm count, but men have fathered children well into their 70s, so I'm not sure his age was the issue. Did he have an old injury that made it more difficult for him to sire children? Was it the ol' Fisher King spear through the groin? I dunno; it's interesting to me that he desperately needed a legitimate heir, but despite clearly having no problem knocking up women, the marriage he made based solely on the need for a legitimate heir was unable to produce children, though both members of it certainly seemed to have been able to, separately.)

Henry I did elevate his eldest illegitimate sons to prominent positions (and provided them with extensive education), and the earldom of Gloucester was created specifically for Robert, so he was positioning his illegitimate children in key roles to try and preserve his dynasty. Obviously preserving his dynasty was a top concern for a guy whose only legitimate male heir just drowned. (I always find that sad, too, because William reportedly returned because he heard his sister crying out while she was drowning, and his boat was swamped and everyone aboard drowned, leaving that one, poor little traumatised butcher from Rouen the only survivor.)

Let's say Stephen died, Matilda is still married to the Holy Roman Emperor, and currently broke-dick Henry I doesn't get his alliance with Geoffrey of Anjou, and doesn't recall Matilda to England since she's still doing what women are supposed to do: be useful by being the wife of someone powerful. I think there's a good chance he would have died heirless, which would have left a big power vacuum, and, honestly, probably led to civil war even without Stephen to say, "J/K, your dad changed his mind at the last minute, I pinkie promise that's true, and actually he wants me to rule England." Typically, when the inheritance of a kingdom is in question, a bunch of people step up to yell, "Mine!!!" You've got loads of bastards, relatives, probably powerful barons who might want to have a go. It probably would have been even more of a shitshow. That transference of power is always kind of a shaky period of time, and without a clear-cut line of succession, it would have been nasty, I think, even without Stephen and Matilda bitch slapping one another about it.

And really, there WOULD have been no Plantagenet dynasty, technically, because Henry II was the first Plantagenet to actually take the throne, and he never would have been born if Matilda hadn't married Geoffrey. And the name itself was a nickname for Geoffrey, because, as one theory I usually see bandied about goes, he used to wear sprigs of common broom, called genista. So the Plantagenet dynasty as we think of it wouldn't have existed, though someone from Henry I's bloodline might have taken the throne. We also never would have got King John, or Richard the Lionheart, and then we wouldn't have the Disney movie with King John as a thumb-sucking, tantrum-pitching lion, and that would be a shame.

Also, as you said, no Wars of the Roses, so then would the Tudors have ever rose to the position they did? Would Henry VIII have kept cutting off his wives' heads, and would I have to see every second historical fiction novel be about him when I am begging authors to write about someone else?

[historyreimagined24]

The Plantagenets: A Dynasty that Shaped Medieval England

The Plantagenets were one of the most powerful and influential royal dynasties in medieval England. Spanning over three centuries (from the 12th to the 15th century), their reign left a lasting mark on the country's politics, society, and culture. From the rise of the English monarchy in the wake of the Norman Conquest to the Wars of the Roses, the Plantagenets played a central role in shaping the course of English history.

Origins of the Plantagenet Dynasty

The name "Plantagenet" is believed to be derived from a nickname used by Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou, who is often credited as the first Plantagenet monarch. The term "Plantagenet" comes from the Latin planta genista, which refers to a sprig of broom, a plant commonly worn in the hat of Geoffrey V. His son, Henry II, became the first English monarch of the Plantagenet line when he ascended the throne in 1154.

Geoffrey’s marriage to Matilda, the daughter of King Henry I of England, united the English and Norman royal bloodlines with the powerful Angevin territories in France. Their son, Henry II, inherited both the English crown and vast lands across France, establishing the Plantagenets as a dominant force in both kingdoms.

The Reign of Henry II and the Rise of the Plantagenet Power

Henry II (reigned 1154–1189) is often considered the first true Plantagenet king. His reign saw significant expansion of royal power and the strengthening of England's legal and administrative systems. He introduced a system of common law that would shape the English legal tradition for centuries to come. However, his reign was also marked by conflict, notably with his own sons, who rebelled against him in the famous "Rebellion of the Kings."

One of the most enduring legacies of Henry II’s reign was his involvement in the turbulent relationship with Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Becket’s murder in 1170, allegedly spurred by Henry’s frustrations with the Archbishop’s opposition to royal authority, made Becket a martyr and led to widespread religious and political ramifications for the Plantagenet dynasty.

The Plantagenets and the Hundred Years' War

As the centuries passed, the Plantagenet family expanded its control beyond England. The Hundred Years' War (1337–1453) between England and France was one of the most defining conflicts of the medieval period, largely defined by the Plantagenet claim to the French throne. The war, which spanned multiple generations, was a bitter struggle for control of French territories that had been held by the English monarchs through dynastic marriage and conquest.

The conflict began under Edward III, who claimed the French throne through his mother, Isabella of France, and sought to assert English dominance in France. The war was a series of intermittent conflicts and truces, marked by famous battles such as the Battle of Agincourt (1415), where Henry V secured a decisive victory against the French forces. The war ultimately ended in defeat for the English under Henry VI, when England lost most of its French territories, leading to a decline in Plantagenet power.

The Plantagenets' Demise: The Wars of the Roses

By the late 14th century, the Plantagenets faced increasing internal division. Rival branches of the family, notably the Houses of Lancaster and York, began to fight for control of the throne in what became known as the Wars of the Roses (1455–1487). This bloody civil war was sparked by the weak reign of Henry VI, whose mental instability and ineffectiveness left the throne vulnerable to competing claims.

The conflict saw the rise of famous figures such as Richard III, the last Plantagenet king, and Henry Tudor, the founder of the Tudor dynasty. After a series of battles, Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, ending the Plantagenet reign. Henry VII, who would later marry Elizabeth of York, uniting the warring factions, became the first monarch of the Tudor dynasty.

Legacy of the Plantagenets

The Plantagenet dynasty’s reign over England left a profound legacy that shaped the medieval world. Their long rule influenced nearly every aspect of English society, including the legal system, the economy, and the arts. The introduction of the common law system under Henry II laid the foundation for England’s modern legal framework. Their territorial ambitions and military engagements set the stage for centuries of conflict and expansion in Europe.

The Plantagenets also left an indelible mark on English culture, with their patronage of architecture, literature, and the arts. The Gothic style of architecture flourished under their reign, with iconic buildings such as Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London being built or expanded during this period.

While the Plantagenet dynasty came to an end in 1487, their impact on England and the wider world is still felt today. The tumultuous events of the Wars of the Roses, the central role of the Plantagenets in the Hundred Years' War, and their legacy as a royal family full of complex, larger-than-life figures continue to capture the imagination of historians and the public alike.

In essence, the Plantagenets were not just rulers of a kingdom but influential players in a turbulent medieval world, whose actions reverberated far beyond their reign.

Conclusion

The Plantagenet dynasty’s history is a rich tapestry of triumphs, tragedies, and power struggles. From the reign of Henry II to the fall of Richard III, the family played a pivotal role in shaping not only the English throne but also the history of Europe. Whether through military conquests, legal reforms, or their colorful personalities, the Plantagenets remain one of the most fascinating dynasties in world history.

[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."