History Hub聽 permalink
Simon de Montfort
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
I have just finished reading 鈥淔alls The Shadow鈥 by Sharon Kay Penman, and enjoyed it as much as 鈥淭he Sunne in Splendour鈥 Sharon brings the story of Simon de Montfort to the readers attention, Simon is regarded as the father of English parliament, he fought for the ordinary person to be represented in the Kings decisions, in fact there is an image of him in the US house of representatives,
He died in the most horrible way, and people were starting to take a pilgrimage to his grave until the king had his body moved to an unsanctified burial place, he would have ended up a Saint otherwise. All in all a very good book.
Gran -
Message 2
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
There was no question of 'the ordinary person' being represented! Simon can be regarded as the 'father' of the Parliamentary system but only inasmuch as he insisted on elected representatives. No ordinary people were allowed to vote at that time, the voting was done by landowners. The idea was to curtail the absolute power of the king, and give the barons more of a say in decision-making. He would have been horrified at the thought that ordinary citizens should have such power, and in fact the vote was not given to all men until the end of the 19th century
-
Message 3
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
Dear Gran,
I think you should ask Andrew Spencer to answer this one! It's tricky. Sharon Penman is possibly unique, in my opinion. She does her research fully and well and then writes in an accesible way.
From my dealings with History those who do the most progesssive and brave things usually die young and in the most terrible ways. The evil geniuses die at a ripe old age in bed. Look at Mary Tudor's mentor, A.B. Stephen Gardner who sent all those people to the Smithfield Burnings. Henry VIII! Even Stalin! Cardinals Mazarin and Richlieau of France and so many Popes!
Sometimes I've really hated someone and have found that they have died of old age, when they have brought death and destruction to all those around them. Look at Mao! It happens over and over again. Sneaking in a bit here about Richard III, he was killed at 32, Henry VII lived a pampered life until he simply faded out, John Morton, Bishop of Ely, Richard III's main "enemy" died in bed as a Cardinal and AB of Canters. It isn't fair. But the Devil looks after his own. Imagine if someone put all their evil genius together and was able to take over the world! With no scruples?
The problem comes when the truth is not recognized and myth becomes fact! My problem with Richard....Good luck and happy thinking!
Cheers Minette.
P.S.
I really do admire you Gran. -
Message 4
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
Thank you Raundsgirl, for the explaination, I do actualy know about the parliamentary system, perhaps I should have made it clear that I meant the ordinary person as oposed to the King making all the decisions, the King would usualy make decisions which would suit himself.
Minette, its lovely to see you here again, although I know you must be a busy person. Brave, I dont know about that, more a case of "Fools Rush In!!!" LOL.
All the best
Gran -
Message 5
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
If I remember correctly, DeMontfort died even more cruelly- at Evesham in 1265- than his father (brains dashed out whilst besieging the Cathars) , and his victorious enemies amongst the Prince (Edward)'s party, severed his head, hands and feet, then his testes and hung them over his corpses nose?
-
Message 6
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
There was no question of 'the ordinary person' being represented! Simon can be regarded as the 'father' of the Parliamentary system but only inasmuch as he insisted on elected representatives. No ordinary people were allowed to vote at that time, the voting was done by landowners. The idea was to curtail the absolute power of the king, and give the barons more of a say in decision-making. He would have been horrified at the thought that ordinary citizens should have such power, and in fact the vote was not given to all men until the end of the 19th century聽 Actually, full Adult Male Suffrage didn't come in until the Representation of the Peoples Act of 1918.
-
Message 7
Posted by Simon de Montfort (U14278627) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Gran
Strangely enough I hve two Sharon Penman novels waiting to be read "The Reckoning " & "When Christ & the Angels slept" which I hope to read in the balmy days of Summer.(She packs so much info in between the covers!)
So glad you're a fan of Simon de Montfort. At least he made it to 57 before his gory end. But what a life! Son of the infamous scourge of the Cathars SDM senior and finally exterminated them., Married King John's daughter. Went on Crusade to the Holy Land. Godfather of Prince Edward son of Henry lll. Offered the throne of France in 1252. but declned. Took Henry & Edward prisoner after the Battle of Lewes. Founder of the English Parliament and ruler of England in 1264. The rest you know is buried under a stone at Evesham. Not to mention there is a University at Leicester named after him. -
Message 8
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Thanks for the correction, U-L, wasn't sure of the exact date.
I meant the ordinary person as oposed to the King making all the decisions聽
I'm sure you do understand the Parliamentary system, Gran, but I repeat that 'ordinary people' were not given any such rights, and Simon himself was more concerned with the retaining of power by the barons and upper classes -
Message 9
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Hi Simon,
I do hope you don鈥檛 suffer the same fate as your namesake!! Yes I read about his gory end in the book I mentioned, you might enjoy that one as well, I have read the books you mentioned, both very good, I like the fact that Sharon Penman does her homework, and when she has to make a slight adjustment of time she tells you about it. Now here is a sticky one for you, some pictures show Simon clean shaven, and some with a beard Sharon Penman says he was clean shaven, are there any pictures actually done in his lifetime, most of them seem to have been done using imagination years later.
Happy reading
Gran -
Message 10
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
Dear Gran
Great to hear you have discovered Sharon Penman, she is a very knowledgeable and engaging author of medieval fiction. Perversely perhaps, I always find myself routing against her heroes, particularly Richard III in Sunne in Splendour, Montfort in Falls the Shadow and Llywelyn in the Reckoning.
Historically Montfort is a fascinating paradox: a foreigner who became the embodiment of English liberty and the head of an aggressive streak of English xenophobia. He stuck solidly to his political principles at a time when virtually everyone else abandoned them but pursued his own interests with a calculating ruthless.
There are many parallels, both politically and personally between Montfort and his successor as both earl of Leicester and opponent to the king, Thomas of Lancaster under Edward II. There are important differences, such as the fact that Montfort was clearly a more engaging personality than Lancaster, but it is interesting to see how Montfort is revered in public imagination and respected by historians and Thomas of Lancaster is forgotten in the public imagination and reviled by historians.
Personally, I find Montfort a sanctimonious hypocritical so-and-so, but that鈥檚 probably me just be contrary!
All the best
Andrew
p.s. on the beard question, I am not sure but I think Montfort was beardless, a fashion he imported from France and in contrast to the English style of wearing beards. I may be wrong about Montfort being beardless but it was certainly English fashion at the time to have a beard. -
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
If I may take issue with raundsgirl, her vision of the Parliament would suggest that it was only necessary to have a House of Lords and not bother with a House of Commons at all..
In fact, as we know, the vital importance of the House of Commons was such that -like some cuckoo- it looks like pushing the House of Lords finally right out of the nest: And this has little to do with any extension of the suffrage- or rather the extension of the suffrage was the result of and not the cause of the power of the Commons.
Kings usually called Parliaments for a very simple reason- they needed money- and Lords right up until the situation was lampooned by P.G. Wodehouse- never had "spare cash".. To be a Lord was to be "credit worthy" and to run up debts: and much the same went for good Kings.
To be fair to the Medieval barons the estates that they had were meant to be commensurate with the expenses that bore upon them, and much the same was true of the Crown, which was expected to live off of the proceeds of the Crown Lands. These were handed over to be run by the national Government in the 1760's in return for a Civil List to help a limited monarchy to fulfill its responsibilities.
It is an interesting question I think as to the legality of any situation in which that contract might be scrapped. There would be a case in law for the Royal Family to then ask to have the Crown Lands returned. They include most of Regent Street, which one might expect to produce a greater rental value than the current Civil List.
As G.G. Coulton makes very clear in his 1938 "Medieval Panorama", the people who the Kings could turn to for money were the citizens of the towns that were flourishing during this period. And by definition anyone who lived in a town for a year and a day was a free man, whatever his previous status. Moreover, these towns, like the English villages that were largely run as economic units by the common people, also were run by the people themselves.
It was the market towns and the ports of England, where money was being made, and therefore where a King could hope to collect taxes. But towns could only afford to pay taxes if the towns were expanding and being profitable: so the "parleys" in Parliament, and the particular petitions that were made to the King in between the meetings of Parliament were all about the removal of checks to their prosperity and economic growth, and the need for Royal authority (for the appropriate fee) to embark upon some kind of initiative. Of course merchants also sought the protection of the King's flag as a protection and "passport" without which it was stupid to sail out on to the High Seas and into the domain of other cities and states.
Of course thriving market towns were an essential ingredient for the rural economy as well, hence the restriction that each charter giving the town the right to a market, for which many applied, must serve a radius of at least ten miles. These were local monopoly rights, and from what I heard of the TV version of "Pillars of the Earth", this was an important theme of that story set in what historians have called the "twelfth century industrial revolution".
Within the towns the leading figures were at the top of vertical structures of mutual interest, most famously and typically the great "Guilds", which bound all those of the same trade within one common interest. As ecomonic historians have explained it is a concept largely unintelligible in an age of workers and bosses, but essential in an age in which towns and their people stood or fell together as one unit. And it was as such that the borough MP's made their own town's case to the King.
Today the British Chambers of Commerce have made their own pre-budget input letting Mr Osborne know what they think they need to happen if he expects the private sector to "take up the slack" and pull the country out of the state that class warfare (amongst other things) has got us into.
It is generally accepted that part of the near genius of King Edward V, the most successful Yorkist King, who unfortunately also "blew it", came from his great association with the towns and the emerging money economy. The lessons were not lost of Henry VII, who broke the power of the barons and associated England's evolution with the mercantile, industrial interests- including treating land-use as part of the wider economic development- even bringing large areas of Church land into the developing world of land-ownership with all of the temporal costs and possibilities that involved-involves ( as recent speulators especially in the Irish real-estate boom have discovered)
Cass -
Message 12
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
Further to my last I think that people tend to look back at feudalism with modern ideas.. After all the whole idea of a "feudal system" was a nineteenth century rationalisation in an age of emerging Nation States- many of which were grafted on to the early modern period when the head of the "new model" Bourbon state could act on the principle "I am the state".
The people of the Middle Ages knew a world of marvels and mysteries, and the skilled trades called themselves "mysteries" revealing their secrets to only the carefully initiated.. In the same way travellers told tales that could uncrease the market value of their trade goods, while warning potential rivals of the manifold dangers that had to be faced, and making sure that they were not supplying "sat-nav" guides to the markets where they could get their supplies.
Hence there was mutual interdependence that thrived when everyone did a good job and one with growth potential.. This of course was very different from the modern Adam Smith model in which such interdependence might involve Pat and Mick spending their working life just interminably doing half of the work involved in producing a pin.. We have now progressed to being a market that the global economy depends upon to produce hardly anything, except suitable bases for global finance, while consuming ourselves to death in idle and non-productive lives that really leave us with useful democratic rights since the "common man" has been robbed of his capacity to shape the Future, as only those with a feel for the real pulse of life are equipped to do.
Last night's 麻豆约拍 Hard Talk was very interesting and featured a renowned British economist, who commented on how much more we understood now about how to run the economy. His previous poorer understanding had not prevented him from working for the Organisation for Economic Growth and Development for 17 years , nor for working for Leman Brothers- and failing to see its demise.
This chimed in with David Attenborough's programme revisiting Madagascar 50 years after his Zoo Quest trip. How much more we are now beginning to understand about the marvels and mysteries that the Medieval Common man saw all around, while Kings, courts and barons got on with their often very different lives.
Cass -
Message 13
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
I think the image of Simon de Montfort is overplayed sometimes....
Yes, his success against Henry III probably had a footnote in the development of parliament, in much the same way that the Magna Carta did, and the English Civil War. But in essence these were conflicts between the Big Grand Noble the king) and big grand nobles (de Montfort and friends), all of whom had their own axes to grind.
The 1260s seemed to have been a time of conflict in England, when civil war resulted in weakening the country. But Edward Longshanks' victory over deMontfort, and his subsequent accession to the throne, could arguably have heralded the rise of England as a force for unifying Britain, thus setting on track the chain of events that led to Britain's 'greatness'.
For those reasons, I tend to see Edward I as a more significant figure in English history than Simon de MOntfort.... -
Message 14
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
Thank you, Shivfan. Cass, I wasn't decrying the Commons, in fact I didn't mention them. What I was trying so hard to do was to take issue with the OP saying: he fought for the ordinary person to be represented in the Kings decisions聽 because I think that is a modern romanticisation of de Montfort, and that he had no interest whatsoever in acquiring any rights for what we think of as 'ordinary people'
Obviously I did not succeed so I will quote Shivfan who puts it much more succinctly:
But in essence these were conflicts between the Big Grand Noble the king) and big grand nobles (de Montfort and friends), all of whom had their own axes to grind聽 -
Message 15
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
raundsgirl
Thanks for that... I read the OP, especially in the light of other comments, as playing down the significance of beginning of the story of Parliament.. As I explained I believe its subsequent development came very largely from the way that the common people were able to turn the King's hour of need into an opportunity for them.. It meant that we did not need an IMF to restrain the excesses of state power.
Interestingly on De Montfort, for various reasons when my last school moved to new (second hand) premises there was some consideration of changing its name and De Montfort School was one of someone's suggestions- very quickly ruled out as meaning nothing really to prospective parents and pupils.
Cass -
Message 16
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
Cass - I hope they weren't twinned with a school in Carcassonne!
-
Message 17
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
Ur-Lugal
I am sure that must be a very witty remark.. But I am too ignorant to "get it".
Regards
Cass -
Message 18
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
I think that de Montfort persecuted the Cathars, whose 'stronghold' was Carcassone
I usually miss the point of quite a lot on this board, but I did understand that.
One day I may even understand a question on the Friday quiz! -
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
Thanks raundsgirl
I thought it had to be a Montfort French connection.. and Carcassone was very much associated with the Cathars. But I always think of the Cathars at the later period of their total destruction.
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
I think that de Montfort persecuted the Cathars, whose 'stronghold' was Carcassone
I usually miss the point of quite a lot on this board, but I did understand that.
One day I may even understand a question on the Friday quiz!聽
Thanks for setting that straight.
Best way of understanding the question is to ask it yourself, and, as I can't think of one & its my turn, please step in and ask one yourself vice me. -
Message 21
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
Andrew,
So nice to hear from you on this subject, There was the questionable way Simon married Henry鈥檚 sister as well, he was probably a social climber. Sharon seems to bring her characters to life in a very acceptable way, I have learned a lot about history from novels but one has to choose carefully and I keep thinking I am going to run out of medieval stories as I have been reading them for about 15 years now, I shall look for something about Thomas of Lancaster now you have mentioned him.
Raundsgirl
I am probably wrong on this but I thought the Cathars Simon de Montfort was Simon de Montfort senior, our Simon鈥檚 Father, in fact I think our Simon was his youngest son.
On a more current note we are going to have a visit from Prince William next Thursday for a Memorial Service for the people who died in Ch Ch I guess he will do the tour, then he will go over the hill to speak to the families who lost members in the Pike River Mine, after that he will go on to Aussie to see the flood devastation. I think he will be alone not really a trip for a fianc茅 to join in. But nice of him to come I guess
Gran -
Message 22
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
You may well be right about it being de Montfort senior, but at least I understood the allusion! Hope you catch a glimpse of PrinceW
-
Message 23
Posted by Simon de Montfort (U14278627) on Thursday, 10th March 2011
Gran
Yes. You are right. The infamous scourge of the Cathars, Simon de Montfort had three sons. Amaury, Guy and the more famous Simon de Montfort 6th Earl of Leicester. They were all born in France.
Simon de Montfort snr was killed at the seige of Toulouse in 1218. He also met a gory end but knew nothing about it. He was hit by a direct shot from a catapult fired by women of the town from the lower roof of the Basilica of St Sernin. It is a spectacular building the largest Romanesque building in the world today. Apparently he was originally buried in Carcassonne Cathedral with his helmet still on (they couldn't get it off ). I would think that both he and his sons wore beards due to the many seiges and skirmishes they were involved in- no time to shave!.
Guy was killed two years later at the Seige of Castelnaudry (midway between Toulouse & Carcassonne). Amaury & Simon then came to an arrangement whereby Amaury kept the French estates such as Seneschal of Carcassonne & Count of Beziers. Simon junior took control of the English estates presumably around Leicester which the family had inherited through an earlier marriage. Simon jnr then went on to marry King John's daughter who of course was John's successor King Henry's, sister. -
Message 24
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 10th March 2011
Gran:
... in fact there is an image of him in the US house of representatives ... 聽
Which Wiki also proudly displays:
-
Message 25
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Thursday, 10th March 2011
Hi Simon,
I love your name!! yes back then they had to fight for their rights, I did not know about Simon senior and how he died, most interesting, the women of Carcassonne were a tough breed, more so than was usual for that period they are usualy portrayed as sitting at home sewing, but of course it was a whole different story for poor women.
Gran -
Message 26
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 10th March 2011
Gran
But I believe that part of the Cathar Heresy was the idea that women could be "priests", so one would presume that there was a greater degree of equality.. In fact in the previous century it had been possible for Eleanor of Aquitaine - down their in the "Oc" region- to take over the Duchy of Aquitaine when her grandfather dropped dead on pilgrimage at Compostella. Later as Queen of France she insisted on going on Crusade with her husband, taking the cross and having suits of armour made for herself and her "ladies".
Perhaps this was all part of the influence of "Romance" culture.
Cass -
Message 27
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 10th March 2011
PS
Looking again I suppose that makes Eleanor of Aquitaine Simon de Montforte's wife's grandmother- just to keep the thread in the family.
Cass -
Message 28
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Thursday, 10th March 2011
Hi Cass,
You are up late today! oh yes Eleanor, I have always been an admirer of hers, the way she left the King of France and raced to marry the gentleman who was going to be Henry II, outwitting a couple of other suiters on the way, She deserves a thread on her own.
Gran -
Message 29
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 10th March 2011
Hi Gran
Yes.. I read a very entertaining account in a popular history book written I think in the Fifties entitled "The Devil's Brood" all about the Angevins, and 10 years ago someone loaned me a modern biography. Both good reads.
The bit about rushing to marry Henry II is interesting. His father was "in the frame" as it were, and Eleanor was not averse to older men.. It looks a lot like meeting her long-lost Uncle Baldwin who can gone of Crusade and stayed in Antioch, where he showed her the sights on the Second Crusade, put paid to her marriage to the King of France.. But after the annulment as a Duchess of Aquitaine she might be captured and forced into a marriage (with all my worldly goods etc) and she thought that Henry Plantagenet was up anc coming, which of course he was once Eleanor's wealth had helped him to win his mother's struggle against King Stephen.
As for Romance, were there not women "powers behind the throne" in Roman Antiquity.. And I remember a Muslim colleague from North Africa who was doing research on women in power in Muslim North Africa while it was still predominantly Arab.. It is interesting to consider that what we may be seeing at the moment is a revival finally of that kind of Arab Islam, after centuries of Turkish leadership which did to the "East" much the same as the Northern "Viking" influence did to the "West".
Cass -
Message 30
Posted by Simon de Montfort (U14278627) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Gran
If you want to know more about Simon de Montfort senior (5th Earl of Leicester- though as far as I know he never set foot in England!) then try and get hold of a copy of "The Perfect Heresy" by Stephen O'Shea. There is a pun in the title which Cass will appreciate.
Despite its awful subject matter it is an enjoyable read.
It tells the history of the Cathars and how the Pope invited northern barons like Simon de Montfort to invade the south west of "France" (which in those days were separate fiefdoms.
Years of brilliant brutal generalship by Simon de Montfort senior eventually led to the extermination of the Cathars who were seen by the Pope to be rivals to the domination in the West of the Roman Catholic Church.
Finally as a postscript to my earlier resume of the de Montfort brothers can I add that Amaury's life was no less spectacular.
He was Simon seniors eldest son. He was Lord of Languedoc (succeeding his father in 1218). Eventually he was forced to secede his territory to King Louis Vlll of France and this province has been incorporated into France ever since.There is still a great deal of bitterness about it 800 years later. The Spanish connection in Languedoc is still very prevalent.
Amaury later went on the Crusades. He was captured by the Muslims at Gaza in 1239 and kept captive in Babylon for two years. Sadly he died on his way back home in 1241. 麻豆约拍 is where is heart lies at Amaury Montfort just west of Paris. -
Message 31
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Simon
I can not remember now at what stage the Pope declared the campaign against the Cathars as a Holy Crusade and issued Indulgences to all those who took up the Cross, guaranteeing them God's forgiveness for whatever "war crimes" they committed.
My gut feeling is that this was after what I call the "mid-life crisis" of the Middle Ages- the Black -which was followed by a more widespread challenging of the Church establishment-- and a stiffening of that Church establishment, as the need to crush new thinking went could be added to the idea that the Back Death was either a punishment from God, or the consequence of the "good shepherds" allowing too much leniency so that their flock strayed from "the path".
Your comments about French unity put me in mind of what I was writing on another thread yesterday concerning the "solid" friendship between France and Germany. My wife is from modern Burgundy -the rump of Medieval Burgundy that was famous for conducting its foreign affairs independently of the King of France. My reading of the French State is that it is not solid, but probably a cohabitation or at best a marriage of convenience liable to periods of separation.
Cass -
Message 32
Posted by Simon de Montfort (U14278627) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Cass
Am a little bit confused by your first reference to "Black". Can' t just be to the Black Death of 1348 or can it?
Pope Innocent lll elected in 1198 became one of the most feared and admired of the mediaeval pontiffs. Aware of the rapid growth of the popularity of the Cathar movement in Languedoc at the time of his election ,he despatched a Cistercian monk, Peter of Castelnau as his legate to "persuade his lambs to return to the fold ".
The assassination of this man in 1208 was blamed on supporters of the titular head of the region Count Raymond of Toulouse. Raymond was a known Cathar sympathasier as also was Count Raymond Roger of Foix. In fact the latters sister Esclamonde and his wife, Phillippa became "Perfects" . These ladies of noble birth were very important in spreading the faith of Catharism. They helped all women to take up an honoured position in the community . This differed greatly with the ethos of the male dominated Roman Catholic world.
As a result of the murder of his legate. Innocent lll called for a crusade on March 10 1208 mainly to request for armed support to wipe out the "heretics". King Philip Augustus of France did not want to get too involved but encouraged his powerful Barons of the north to go south and act in the name of the established Church. Men such as Simon de Montfort senior and the Duke of Burgundy and the Count of Nevers responded eagerly to the challenge. They were escorted by thousands of footsoldiers and mounted knights.
The first major incident took place at Beziers on July 22 1209 when the whole population of the town of up to 20,000 were massacred. The famous quote by the then leader of the crusaders, the Archbishop of Narbonne, Arnold Amaury, was when asked how do we tell Catholics from Cathars said "Kill them all, God will sort them out! "Tuez -les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens!"
From then on Simon de Montfort snr. took over the leadership of the Crusade. For the next 9 years, until a possible act of God ended his life outside the walls of Toulouse, he wreaked mayhem in the region burning towns, villages and of course, Cathars wherever he could. -
Message 33
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Simon
Thank you for that..
It is many years since I was into general Medieval European History and I was not sure when that suppression occurred- as I suggested in an earlier post.
My reference was to the Black Death of 1348 and the following years which were I think a watershed: and the Cathar connection came because it was in the aftermath of that great plague that, according to G.G. Coulton's Medieval Panorama (1938) [that did try to give an overview of European life] that a warrior bishop who had famously enforced the Inquisition down in the Cathar region was appointed Bishop of Norwich.
With his arrival in England there were efforts to bring the Inquisition and burning for heresy into an England that had always largely resisted such things. Even John Wyclif's colleagues at Oxford seem to have colluded in his being allowed to retire quietly to his country parish. And this even though he poured forth the letters so graphically described in a way that must surprise those of us who had the chance to see and hear Dom David Knowles lecture. It was, he wrote in Saints and Scholars, the blueprint for the destruction of the Church at the Reformation.
Cass -
Message 34
Posted by Simon de Montfort (U14278627) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Cass
Glad to oblige for once!
Gran
I have just got to put "Falls the Shadow" on my (Summer) wish list of books. Is it another tome of 999 pages?
Anybody else
Can we have a new question for Friday's quiz. I'm getting fed up with Roman socks, underpants and sandals! -
Message 35
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 11th March 2011
We're waiting for someone to pose a question, you are always welcome to post one you know.
-
Message 36
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Simon
There seems to be a lesson of the History MB that when you go back to the Medievalists and Ancients you find more chivalrous conduct.
Cass -
Message 37
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Hi Simon and Cass
Yes we have had a polite conversation, and I have another book to read and a surprise that a de Montfort (Amaury) died of probably natural causes, they had to fight for everything back then, going on to the black death subject, there is a book with some very good descriptions of life during that time, this is right out of left field i'm afraid, it called "Doomsday Book" and its by Connie Willis, this where you are going to laugh, this one is about Time Travel. I came across it by accident, if you can work your way around all the gadgets etc. the descriptions of life in those times are worth it.
Gran -
Message 38
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Gran
"They had to fight for everything back then"..
Well Darwinism tells us that life is all about struggle..
Some years ago on a staff training day someone produced as food for thought the 'mot'- "It is not how smart you are, but how you are smart".. And perhaps something similar could be said about being a warrior/knight. The important thing was to "fight the good fight": and the English people, probably in the aftermath of the Crusades, adopted St. George as their patron saint- the itinerant knight who put himself at the service of good against evil.
I am afraid that I may have offended a poster a recently who refused to accept the concept of "Fighting a good fight", or the possibility that a Christian could ever go to war.. But a war is only just one form of conflict, and like many others is shaped by the challenge that opposes what you perceive to be the "good" way forward..Nelson Mandela "The struggle is my life" Adolf Hitler "My Struggle".
My "front line" was teaching in the inner city which was a challenge and a struggle. One of my rearly pupils became a renowned "dub-poet" for his record "Blood, blood, dread and blood. T'was war amongst the outcasts.." based upon Brixton and places like Railton Road "The Front Line".
As I pointed out this poster had spent her life as a nurse, a profession that very much reflected Florence Nightingale's work to create a informed disciplined "army" dedicated to the war of her age as she saw it..
It was, of course, war to save human life, according to the Hipocratic Oath. But it was still a vicious them and us war. Especially under the idea of "cleanliness is next to Godliness", the Nightingale ideal was to achieve a sterile environment- killing everything, probably mostly either good or innocuous in an equivalent of a holocaust at microscopic level. "What the eye don't see the heart don't grieve".
Would that hospitals still aspired to be so clean!
Would that people in 2011 generally had some clear idea of what goals for the common good are worth fighting for- apart from their own entitlement!
Cass -
Message 39
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Friday, 11th March 2011
You took me right back there Cass, in my younger days when I aspired to be a nurse I had to turn out every morning without fail and damp dust every single surface with Dettol, that was what you used to smell as soon as you went into a hospital, no superbugs ever dared to survive in our ward. They rely too much on antibiotics now I think.
Anyway back to the Medieval times just staying alive would have been a struggle particularly among the poor that is why some people say that we are all descended from the more well off people of those times.
Gran -
Message 40
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Gran
Charles Kingsley takes another view in the introduction to "Herewarde the Wake. The Last True Englishman"..
His thesis was that the prospeity of the fertile farming Lowland England had already started the rot by 1066. But the average person then was fitter than 800 years later when he was writing. Tough living back then meant that the less fit and healthy, and various categories of people, who could not fend for themselves, would have died before reaching breeding age.
By the mid-Victorian times Lowlanders like his own Parishioners in Hampshire were not up to the challenge of the age in the eyes of this pioneer Christian Socialist. The times called for "Highlanders" like the Scots who apparently were in all the top jobs. But it seems that Herewarde's Fens could be counted as a such a wild "Highland" envoronment.
The struggle of the English peasant , however, was not a lethal one , and the Lowland English regions had evolved a very successful way of combining everyone's work to give everyone a reasonable life chance. It was a way of life that evolved gradually over a thousand years, and the last of these great villages-Laxton- was turned into a living museum after the Second World War and it still running.
Later and other kinds of Socialists were fond of projecting back the class war and the idea that the masses had always been ground down and exploited and looked for historical material to "prove" their docrinaire theses.
Cass -
Message 41
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Saturday, 12th March 2011
There was no question of 'the ordinary person' being represented! Simon can be regarded as the 'father' of the Parliamentary system but only inasmuch as he insisted on elected representatives. No ordinary people were allowed to vote at that time, the voting was done by landowners. The idea was to curtail the absolute power of the king, and give the barons more of a say in decision-making. He would have been horrified at the thought that ordinary citizens should have such power, and in fact the vote was not given to all men until the end of the 19th century聽
The concept and evolution of parliament was a Europe-wide phenomenon and was not unique to England. It had its roots in a more ancient tribal dynamic of governance in which the king and his people were symbiotically engaged in promoting their common welfare. In Celtic and Anglo-Saxon societies kings ruled with their people, not over them. A 鈥榞ood鈥 king was one who exercised authority on behalf of his people for the good of his people and the mutual benefit of all; hard times were invariably considered the fault of a 鈥榖ad鈥 king. Kings had councilors, advisors, etc., with whom they consulted and upon whom they relied in order to govern. In Anglo-Saxon society assemblies of such as these were known as the 鈥榳itan鈥; in pre-Norman Ireland the tribal assembly was the 鈥榓onach鈥, a word based on the concept of unity, oneness or 鈥榓ll together鈥. The word 鈥榩arliament鈥 did not appear in pipe rolls before the 1240鈥檚 and Matthew Paris had to give an explanation of its meaning in his contemporary Chronica Majora.
In Europe collaborative 鈥榩arlements鈥 or diets between king and people went by various names: Cortes (Spain), States General (France), Reichstag (Holy Roman Empire), Landtag (Germany), Zemski Sobor (Russia), Stati (Piedmont), etc.. These local, provincial or national assemblies represented a cooperation between the king and the most politically active echelons of society that managed to impose restrictions on the exercise of royal rule. It is a mistake to think that England鈥檚 parliament was the first or only one to extract concessions based upon their bargaining power over taxation. All of Europe鈥檚 assemblies did so. It was only in the States General of France that this function was lost in 1440.
Parliaments in Europe grew out of the close relationship between Church and State at every level in society and their development is inextricably bound up with that inter-dependence. As feudalism declined government grew. Rulers required an alternative means of effective rule and the administration of power became more centralized, bureaucratic and collaborative. Secular forms of government reflected church forms of organisation and relied increasingly on church administrators. Much of Simon de Montfort鈥檚 ideas of government were already in evidence in the organisation of church affairs, e.g. diocesan synods, representative delegates, religious chapters, episcopal proctors, etc.. Both the Dominican and Franciscan Orders established models of church representation that predated similar civil models that found expression in local, provincial and national assemblies. De Montfort himself was associated with the Dominicans.
All secular assemblies evolved their own procedures and customs, and areas of state influence. They invariably engaged in a power struggle with their king and the balance swung both ways at different times. They wrung concessions that were enshrined in law which they administered and adjudicated upon themselves. In such a manner did they develop legal, executive and judicial powers. 鈥楶arliament鈥 became the means by which a medieval king鈥檚 increasingly centralized state government could deliver, and in some sense rediscover, the ancient concept of goodly rule for the welfare of all. -
Message 42
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 12th March 2011
Harpo
I think that we agree on most of that... Perhaps one might also mention re the Church the very successful organisation of the Cistercians, particularly associated with "the industrial revolution of the twelfth century"..
And I was interested to discover, while exploring Bugundian roots and the importance of Bernard of Clairvaux, that he "learned his business" under an Englishman who went to join the order in Burgundy and began the transformation of that monastic order that St. Bernard then built upon.
As an Englishman married into the Burgundian/French world since c1965 I was greatly encouraged by this early example of successful interaction.
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.