History HubΒ permalink
King of England (and France?)
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by miss elizabeth (U10895934) on Monday, 2nd May 2011
Can you help? I am reading about Henry VI and the various claims that the English king was also King of France (despite their having a king!)
Why did we think we had a claim? -
Message 2
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 2nd May 2011
miss elizabeth
For a start "we" had little or nothing to do with it..if you mean the English people.
.King John found that even the barons- initially the Anglo-Norman barony created by William the Conqueror- most completely not after 1066, but after the subsequent widespread revolt in the North and West- took up the English line that an Englishman's military duty was to help the King to defend England, not to fight expansionist wars to increase the amount of work that the King would have to do.
But Henry II, the first Angevin King, was ruler of an Empire that included only one Kingdom- England- but many valuable positions as tenants in chief under the loose overlordship of the King of France- these included Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, and Aquitaine.
And- not least with the powerful support at times of the Duke of Burgundy- the Kings of England were able to defend their regional powers in France against the efforts of the French court in Paris to establish effecrtive central power.
As French nobles as well as English Kings they came to claim a superior right to the French throne than the ruling royal family, much as happened within the top families within England.
But during the Hundred Years War the brilliant victories of King Henry V (Agincourt) resulted in the Treaty of Troyes in 1420, and almost the start of the new "marriage game" of the next 100+ years of European history.
Henry V married the daughter of the French King Charles VI and became Charles' heir. The marriage produced a son Henry, who was perhaps destined to unite England and France. But when the baby was eight months old Henry V died.
The baby was crowned King Henry VI of England and Henry II of France.. But infant Kings tended not to "rule" very long. Joan of Arc was led by God to encourage France to throw off the English and Burgundian influence, and crown a truly French King.
Nevertheless the title of King of France was retained by the monarchs of England for some time to come.
Cass -
Message 3
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 2nd May 2011
The throne of France became vacant when the Capetian dynasty ended and Edward III of England not only happened to be the nephew of Charles IV of France but also his closest living relative. So Edward, who declared himself the rightful heir to the French throne in 1338 did have a legitimate claim, but the French aristocracy balked at the idea of having an English king. Thus began what became known as The Hundred Years' War.
-
Message 4
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 2nd May 2011
For a start "we" had little or nothing to do with it..if you mean the English people.Β
Good point.
The use of the first person plural is normally a bad idea when discussing historical issues. -
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 2nd May 2011
ID
Thanks for filling that in.
Cass -
Message 6
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 2nd May 2011
Well it is a fairly basic explanation Cass, but, alas, all that I can remember! Not quite sure if it is the correct answer though, I'm sure someone will be along soon who will have a more comprehensive answer.
-
Message 7
Posted by miss elizabeth (U10895934) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
Thanks. I understood the part of being Charles' heir (through marriage to Eleanor). Just wondered why when France had a king, we continued to fight for a 'claim'.
And yes, I apologise for using the word 'we'. I meant, of course, the Royals. -
Message 8
Posted by miss elizabeth (U10895934) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
Sorry, I meant marriage to Catherine. Eleanor was Humphrey's wife.
I think.... -
Message 9
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
miss elizabeth
Back when the "marriage game" really got going, Philip of Spain claimed the right to be King of England- on the strength of his marriage to Mary Tudor, and presumably some consanginuity within the Royal Line from Catherine of Aragon, once the Pope had pronounced his Papal Bull condemning Elizabeth I as a heretic.
That seems to me to be the same principle
Cass -
Message 10
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
As for the business of continuing to fight.. Though it was no business of the English people- at the same time England was built up with rights and duties; and any monarch who was prepared to just be negligent about the pursuit of his personal rights- and just give them up- was likely to lose credibility among both the common people, and those who hitched their stars to the monarch. People who neglect their own rights may well neglect the rights of others. And once you start being negligent, what about duties?
For the common people those who do not bother about their own rights are too often thought quite capable of being negligent of the rights of others.. Hence often Socialists and Communists profess to eschew materialism, property and the pursuit of wealth. But they so often find the possession of wealth by others so useful- as they prefer public ownership to private ownership and "reap where they have not sown".
Moreover those people who decide to actively throw their lot in with a chosen leader may well be very upset when that leader neglects to seize opportunities that are rightfully his to contest..
The present disarray in the Lib-Dems perhaps illustrates this dichotomy. The part-time, hobby, amateur members at grass roots feel disserted. But- apparently- most of those, who have decided to make politics their career realise that the once in more than half a century opportunity to have "Liberalism" of some sort in power could not be passed over.
Cass -
Message 11
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
The Plantagenets' claim to the French throne was popular with the English people while the war went well. Successful wars generally *are* popular, and the 'Hundred Years War' featured a number of stunning victories in the field. The style of warfare, in which the taking of towns and grand 'chevauchees' (sweeping plundering raids) featured prominently, made soldiering a very profitable enterprise for several generations of martial Englishmen. Many made their fortunes, with some going on to serve as mercenaries in Italy during times of Anglo-French peace. Particularly profitable was the taking of noble prisoners for ransom. At home, in the north, at least, the Franco-Scottish alliance and Scottish advance back to the Tweed-Solway frontier (re-established in the 1380s) gave the war a more defensive character, with the English being involved whether they liked it or not...
-
Message 12
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
Catigern
In some ways surely foreign adventures were like "Grand Tours" -except that in those much poorer times people of all ranks were expected to "work their passage" and hope to make, rather than spend, a fortune.
Perhaps you know whether any research has been done on the wider functions of the Crusades..
I always think that one reason why Richard the Lion Heart had such a cherished reputation is because the heavy presence of both Henry II and King John within England highlighted the advantages of the absent King (heart grows fonder etc) who reigned between them...
Of course an absent King might make his kingdom an obvious target for other King's to "try it on"- but perhaps less so when the absent King is the most redoubtable warrior in the whole of Europe, and is away serving God.
At the lower end of the social scale, the circumstances under which a peasant could get permission to leave the manor on which he was born were so limited- and subject to a "fine"- that approaching your Lord with a request to be allowed to "take the Cross"- to the benefit of the Lord's immortal soul- was seized upon by many. It is moreover rather presumptious- I think- to assume that all who "perished" on things like the People's Crusade, actually did so..
Both Captain Cook and Captain Bligh had problems with sailors who would have prefered to "die" to their former life, and stay in paradise islands.
More Cass speculation about the way that ordinary people have lived by their wits and intelligence- prior to this "brutish" age.
Cass -
Message 13
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 3rd May 2011
And re the defensive functions of the English -
The increased threat from the North, of course, increased the value of the military service of the Border English..
I was looking a few weeks ago at a petition to the Tudor Crown asking that the petitioner should be allowed to retain his lands by the same conditions as had become traditional: that is merely by the duty of possessing a horse and weapons and a willingness to fight to defend the border when it was attacked.
Compared with the lowland peasant who was contributing in service something like 40% of his GDP to his Lord, plus 10% to the Church, the economic imperatives in the North were very different- with a definite advantage accruing to the pursuit of mere subsistence and the kind of conditions that made raids across the Border scarcely worthwhile. (Apart from all the clandestine-Black Economy stuff that for example the Border Reivers north of the border prided themselves upon).
Cass -
Message 14
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
miss elizabeth
Back when the "marriage game" really got going, Philip of Spain claimed the right to be King of England- on the strength of his marriage to Mary Tudor, and presumably some consanginuity within the Royal Line from Catherine of Aragon, once the Pope had pronounced his Papal Bull condemning Elizabeth I as a heretic.
That seems to me to be the same principle
Cass Β
Philip of Spain could indeed claim descent from Edward III, something that was uneasily noted by the crowds who gathered to welcome the royal newly-weds, Philip and Mary, when they first entered the City of London in 1554. One of the customary pageants during the welcoming ceremonials was a genealogical display that made pointed reference to the ancestry the new king shared with Queen Mary:
Edward III
|
John of Gaunt
|
Philippa of Lancaster
|
John, Infante and Constable of Portugal
|
Isabella of Portugal
|
Isabella of Castile
|
Juana the Mad (sister of Catherine of Aragon)
|
Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor)
|
Philip II of Spain
English worries about this had appeared some months before the wedding. John Christopherson, a chaplain to Queen Mary, had published the genealogy in order to show - he claimed - that "Philip was no stranger to the realm, but descended from royal English blood." This led to many rumours that Philip was intending to claim the English throne as his own, by descent as well as de jure uxoris.
Parliament was concerned enough to confirm in the marriage treaty that although Philip could be *styled* King of England, his role was "not to rule, but to advise". The English were very keen to make Philip's subordinate status very clear and this was done right from the beginning of the union. At the wedding feast, to the "baffled fury" of Philip's Spanish entourage, the pre-eminence of the queen over her husband was emphasised: his food was served on silver plates, hers on gold. Thereafter, when they were in royal residence, the queen used the rooms known as the *king's* quarters, Philip was relegated to the apartments reserved for the *queen*!
Pius V's Regnans in Excelsis of 1570 caused all sorts of problems - in England and in Ireland. It gave Philip the excuse to back the plot to depose Elizabeth, marry Mary Queen of Scots to the Duke of Norfolk and then make her Queen of England. In Ireland the Bull became another excellent excuse - this time for Holy War. James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald, appointed captain-general of the Desmond Geraldines, sought - in the name of the Catholic faith of course - the aid of the Pope *and* of the King of Spain to launch an attack on the heretic English and their infuriating queen.
Sixtus V renewed the Bull in 1588. Goodness knows what Philip would have done had the Armada succeeded and he had become King of England. The prospect of trying to govern a rainy and rebellious island that was full of barbarous, drunken heretics and where even good Catholics hated foreigners, must have appalled him. -
Message 15
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
Temperance
Thank you for those joyous details
Cass -
Message 16
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
Any excuse to witter joyously on about the Tudors - or folk connected with them.
-
Message 17
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
Temperance
Your in depth knowledge of the period is one of the delights of the MB.
Cass -
Message 18
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
Temp,
Do you have access to a library or other institution that subscribes to 'State Papers Online'? You should try and wangle it, if not , then you'll be able to get at all the Foreign, Domestic, Diplomatic etc papers from 1509-1603.
Cass,
Perhaps you know whether any research has been done on the wider functions of the Crusades.Β
A great deal, I suspect, but I don't know much about it except for crusading fervour's impact on anti-Semitism. The place to enquire would probably be the Institutefor Historical Research at Senate House in Bloomsbury, which anyone can join. One of their long-running weekly seminars is on 'The Crusades and the Latin East', and the conveners are bound to be up-to-date on all things crusading
I always think that one reason why Richard the Lion Heart had such a cherished reputation is because the heavy presence of both Henry II and King John within England highlighted the advantages of the absent King (heart grows fonder etc) who reigned between them...Β
Here I think you confuse chicken and egg: Richard was able to spend so much time away because other factors, including his good royal officers, meant that the realm was enjoying peace and security during his reign.
I was looking a few weeks ago at a petition to the Tudor Crown asking that the petitioner should be allowed to retain his lands by the same conditions as had become traditional: that is merely by the duty of possessing a horse and weapons and a willingness to fight to defend the border when it was attacked.
Compared with the lowland peasant who was contributing in service something like 40% of his GDP to his Lord, plus 10% to the Church, the economic imperatives in the North were very different- with a definite advantage accruing to the pursuit of mere subsistence and the kind of conditions that made raids across the Border scarcely worthwhile. (Apart from all the clandestine-Black Economy stuff that for example the Border Reivers north of the border prided themselves upon).Β
Interestingly, 'Tenant-Right' tenures continued in Cumberland after 1603, due to their popularity with locals, but had already begun to be replaced in Northumberland prior to the Union of 1603. I put Tenant-Right's popularity with tenants down to the fact that borderers would have wanted horse and harness anyway, as subsistence tools (apart from the armour) in some cases as well as for personal defence, and so would benefit greatly from having such preparations as they were bound to make anyway counted towards their rent/feudal dues.
The wealth of English borderers fluctuated quite considerably over the period 1387-1603, and, interestingly, Scottish borderers tended to be richer than their English counterparts. I realise I've already made several bibliographic recommendations recently, but I do think you might find the following combination interesting: Ralph Robson's 'Rise and Fall of the English Highland Clans' and Angus Winchester's 'Harvest of the Hills'. The former examines the relationship between the Tudor state and England's wildest reivers, the men of Tynedale and Redesdale, while the latter explores communal management of natural resources in the northern uplands. Each is a very worthy work in its own right, but together they tell a particularly interesting tale of a situation in which savage bandit-soldiering co-existed with a highly communitarian agricultural society.
-
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
Catigern
(a) Chicken and egg are part of one life force..
But I suppose my insight owes much to a teaching experience in the early Seventies when a carossel system had made it possible to create schemes of work that really after a couple of weeks meant that the class could just get on with it without me..
I found recently a paper that I wrote in 1967 for a PGCE Seminar in which I praised the virtues of cooperative education rather than the highly individualistic one which was normal..
And in the work-schemes that I created it was very obvious that pupils who had already tackled work, and been assisted by me when necessary, were then only too happy to be able to point their classmates- stuck on the same problem- in the right direction using the clues that they remembered from me.. Teaching is such a great way of learning.
But this left me as a "big beast" with nothing much to do at the front of the class at times.. And this was not very good. Idleness and inactivity can be contagious. And there is always that temptation to just go and interfere when it is not necessary.
What I discovered- as the staff room was just two doors away- was that the classes worked better when I was out of the room than when I was in it.. Obviously a point that I verified by observation.
When present I was either a volatile loose cannon, or perhaps an idle volcano, who could be observed for warning signs by those who wished to slack.
But when I was out of the room, there was a realisation that I might re-appear at any moment, and that I would then "do a Henry II" going round to find out what people had been up to and handing out summary justice.
For those who were anxious and able to get on with their work the situation was ideal. For those who knew very well the arts of misbehaving at the back of the classroom the situation was frought with danger..
The whole received Robin Hood legend is full of "we'll tell teacher when he comes back, then you will be for it" stuff.
(b) Are you familiar with G.M.Trevelyan's writings about the NE borders- very much his beloved home turf- and he wrote about what the traditional border ballads could add to his understanding of "Marches" that he had marched over?
Also a couple of years ago we had a "Glen" something on the MB who was a native of Thomas Carlyle's birthplace and had returned there. He was very proud of his heritage as a border "Reiver" and not really a Scot- a dweller inthe interface.
For the advantages of being on the Scots side of the Northern border, were probably much the same as the advantage enjoyed by the men of Kent and of Cornwall and Devon-- viz the advantages of smuggling into a poorer country the goods of a more prosperous one.
(c) re popular tenant-rights.. A touchy subject for many, but E.L. Woodward in his OHE asserts that during the 1820's the Irish labouring tenants of commercial farmers violently fought against any attempts to replace the allocation of potato plots as "wages in kind" so that the whole Labour force and the Land would be devoted to exploiting the commercial possibilities of the Union.. But the possession of a potato plot made it possible for much Irish Labour to go to earn better money- and build up "non - Irish Protestant" wealth on the British mainland.
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
Further to my last..
I think that Temperance's post about the nifty-footwork that kept Philip of Spain to the status of "Prince Consort" (for which much thanks- Prince Albert.. Prince Philip-- monarchs ? No thanks)- brings out clearly that the English genius has not been knowing how to govern but how to be governed.
Just as there are pupils who pride themselves on being unteachable, there are places and people that pride themselves on being ungovernable.
Cass -
Message 21
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
Catigern
I would recomend anyone interested in the whole question of power and authority over populations that are predominantly rooted in the land to read George Orwell's short piece "The Shooting of an Elephant" based upon his personal experience as Eric Blair in the Malay Police Force during the British Raj..
I know that it had a revelatory impact upon my own early years as a kind of alien "teaching missionary" in Lambeth.
Cass -
Message 22
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 5th May 2011
Do you have access to a library or other institution that subscribes to 'State Papers Online' ... then you'll be able to get at all the Foreign, Domestic, Diplomatic etc papers from 1509 - 1603. Β
Catigern, thank you so much for that information. I've just been in touch with the University of Exeter library: they do have the necessary subscription and, what is more, they'll let me have access to the site, even though I am not a member of the University! I was also delighted to discover that all those essays on the State Papers site - linked to the original documents - are available free and can be accessed on my *home* computer! Oh joy!
Thanks again.
SST. -
Message 23
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 5th May 2011
Temperance
Oh the joys of spring!.. It seems that you are born again.
Kind regards
Cass -
Message 24
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 5th May 2011
miss elizabeth
Back when the "marriage game" really got going, Philip of Spain claimed the right to be King of England- on the strength of his marriage to Mary Tudor, and presumably some consanginuity within the Royal Line from Catherine of Aragon, once the Pope had pronounced his Papal Bull condemning Elizabeth I as a heretic.
That seems to me to be the same principle
Cass Β
We've all heard of a bequest *to* the nation, but a bequest *of* the nation is an interesting idea. Leaving England to a friend in your will - surely only Mary, Queen of Scots, could think of that one!
Philip II did believe - or at least *pretended* to believe - that in attempting to invade England in 1588 he was in fact merely claiming his rightful inheritance. This was an inheritance that had come to him, not through his marriage to Mary Tudor, or because of his Platagenet genes, but - yes - thanks to the amazing generosity of Mary, Queen of Scots. Philip claimed that Mary had quite simply "left" England to him!
MQS wrote some very unwise letters during her imprisonment in England, and in 1586, despairing of her son James's continued Protestantism and his acceptance of a pension of Β£4,000 a year from Elizabeth, Mary penned an absolute corker to Mendoza, Philip's discredited ambassador, who was now the Spanish king's representative in Paris. The letter contained this extraordinary offer:
"I have resolved that, in case my son should not submit before my death to the Catholic religion...I will cede and make over, by will, to the King your master, my right to the succession to this (i.e. the English) crown, and beg him consequently to take me in future entirely under his protection, and also the afffairs of this country...I again beg you most urgently that this should be kept secret, as if it becomes known it will cause the loss of my dowry in France, and bring about an entire breach with my son in Scotland, and my total ruin and destruction in England."
It seems that Philip conveniently allowed himself to credit the story that Mary, on the eve of her execution, really had disinherited her son and had consequently ceded to him directly her claim to the English throne! In fact her *last* will - made at Fotheringhay - contained no such clause and no other will has ever been found to support his claims. Although her letter to Mendoza (and also one to the Pope which I can't track down) stood, she requested Melville - just before she died - to assure James VI that " I have done nothing which may be prejudicial to the Kingdom of Scotland."
Didn't stop Philip of course and a year later he took the momentous decision "to pursue his supposed English inheritance with the great force of the Spanish Armada".
SST. -
Message 25
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 5th May 2011
Temperance
Thanks.. But presumably once the Pope had taken the view that once it became obvious that Elizabeth could not be wooed back to Catholicism (and/or to the arms of Philip of Spain ?) and had thereby lost her right to be treated as the Queen, MQS had no real alternative to accepting that her son could not in good conscience be treated as a King in the eyes of her Church.. though he was already King of Scotland.
One of the interesting things that I was thinking about recently is the grass-roots influence of the time units that we employ, and the way that they seem to do very deeply into the mass psychi. Thus the time of the Armada -the late eighties- seems to coincide with a repeated theme of this period just before the last decade of a century being seen as a moment when people are prepared to make a real effort to "turn the page of history"..
And "Englishmen, your Majesty!" resonated down the next few centuries of European and world history.
Then the hopes of the new century having been frustrated and unfilfilled when a decade has elapsed there is another deep surge from the depths.
Cass -
Message 26
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 5th May 2011
I was also delighted to discover that all those essays on the State Papers site - linked to the original documents - are available free and can be accessed on my *home* computer! Oh joy!Β
I guess this means you'll be away with the Tudors and won't be gracing us with your presence and interesting contributions for a bit Temp?
Our loss, of course, but do have fun. I'll await (impatiently) to hear what new and fascinating snippets you find! -
Message 27
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
... away with the Tudors... Β
But hopefully not at the bottom of the garden, ID! Your comment made me laugh, although I have to admit my continuing obsession with the 16th Century is causing a few problems in my life at the moment. I was quite relieved to discover that I am not alone in this: the historian, Robert Hutchinson, in the acknowledgements at the beginning of his new book 'Young Henry' (which really should be subtitled 'Anything David Starkey Can Do I Can Do Better - Almost'), thanks his wife for her help and support, but also admits that she 'like me, has come to lead an almost double existence, immersed in the conspiracies and intrigues of Tudor life.' I know that feeling very well. Reading and talking about history seems to be annoyingly (to other people) addictive - odd that it should be so - but I stoutly maintain it's healthier and cheaper (well, perhaps not so - the cost of books and subscriptions does mount up alarmingly) than other distractions. And history doesn't make you fat.
... MQS had no real alternative to accepting that her son could not in good conscience be treated as a King in the eyes of her Church... though he was already King of Scotland. Β
I'm not so sure about that, Cass. I'm still trying to work out what I think about Mary Stuart and her 'conscience'. At one time (during her imprisonment at Bolton Castle) she herself flirted with Protestantism: perhaps some years before Henry IV's famous conclusion that Paris was worth a Mass, MQS was considering that London could just possibly be worth a Lord's Supper. But then again perhaps she was sincere - misguided sincerity and too lively a religious sensibility can after all give folk the excuse for acting badly - or extremely foolishly.
And what is staggering is just *how* foolish this woman was: her lack of political sense at times was beyond belief. That letter I quoted above for example - what *was* she doing committing such thoughts to paper and then sending them to *France* of all places and to Mendoza of all people? She was clearly aware that what she was suggesting would cause outrage in London, Edinburgh and Paris! Did she really believe that Walsingham would not monitor all her correspondence with the Spanish diplomat who, only two years before, in 1584, had been expelled from England because of his alleged involvement in the Throckmorton Plot, a Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Elizabeth?
The more I read about Mary, the more I am convinced that she would have been an enthusiastic member of the Secret Seven. I was delighted yesterday to read her advice about Invisible Ink - sent to Castelnau, the French ambassador:
'The best recipe for secret ink,' she informed the Frenchman (did she suppose that he didn't already know?), 'is alum dissolved in a little clear water twenty-four hours before it is required to write with. In order to read it, the paper must be dipped in a basin of water, and then held to the fire; the secret writing then appears white and may be easily read until the paper dries.'
Walsingham's mole of course sent a copy of this straight to Elizabeth's much amused spy-master (Walsingham rarely smiled, but I fancy he did when he read this) in whose papers it still remains.
But back to being King of England and France. Philip II's list of titles after his marriage to Mary Tudor was pretty impressive: this little lot was proclaimed at the wedding; the list was then read out in every English parish church:
'Philip and Mary by the grace of God King and Queen of England, France, Naples, Jerusalem and Ireland; Defenders of the faith; Princes of Spain and Sicily; Archdukes of Austria; Dukes of Milan, Burgundy and Brabant; Counts of Hapsburg, Flanders and Tyrol.'
So Philip got a real bargain with Mary Tudor - she made him King of England *and* King of France. Sort of marry one, get one free.
SST. -
Message 28
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
Temperance
But surely one of the whole themes of the Tudor period- and Europe at this time- was to know just how to do things "in good conscience".. Machiavelli after all had made his own contribution to the beginnings of modern political thought with "The Prince", and such Italian ideas had come into France. Was her childhood at the French court in part at least during the Catherine de Medicis period?
The educational film that I used to have access to that used key moments from the Schofield fim version of "A Man for All Seasons"- was clearly aimed at the Cold War scenario. It started with images of those who stood up to arbitrary uses of power for higher ideals-- ending with things like the Prague spring- before going back to Sir Thomas More. The film was called "A Matter of Conscience".
And I think that one reason why the Tudors are so engrossing for this present age is that we are in a similarly confused and "tide-changing" period, with a great awareness of some kind of equilibrium between our sins of commission and our sins of omission.
Enjoy your Exeter links.
Regards
Cass -
Message 29
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
But surely one of the whole themes of the Tudor period - and Europe at this time - was to know just how to do things "in good conscience"... Machiavelli after all had made his own contribution to the beginnings of modern political thought with "The Prince", and such Italian ideas had come to France. Was her childhood at the French court in part at least during the Catherine de Medici period? Β
The whole of it was. Catherine was responsible for Mary's welfare during the young queen's time as Dauphine, and she was her actual mother-in-law from April 1558 until Francis II's death in December 1560. It was perhaps unwise to have referred to the formidable Italian woman (although Catherine only revealed her terrifying 'Madame Serpent' nature fully after the death of Henri II) as 'the shopkeeper's daughter', which Mary was reputed to have done.
Your comments about Machiavelli, 'good conscience' and MQS have confused me. Could you explain further? -
Message 30
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
Temperance
I believe that an important part of Machiavelli's argument was that considerations of personal morality were irrelevant for a Prince.. Hence there are people posting at present over the killing of Bin Laden who seem to equate that killing with the famous example that Machiavelli gave of his hero inviting an enemy to a meeting under a flag of truce, and having him assassinated.
Such an action, he argued, was not only expedient but also for the "greater good".
I think that this kind of rationale- which after all extended to the Papal equivalent of an Islamic "fatwah"- so that killing Queen Elizabeth by any means would have been a "righteous act" sending the perpetrator direct to Heaven at his/her death- presented special difficulties for MQS.
To go back to a theme from earlier in this thread- MQS was always on the horns of a dilemma.. Should her conscience be that of a woman or of a Queen?.. Right from that childhood at the court of Catherine de Medici she was already expected to be a Queen- of Scotland, not just a Princess. Then she became a Queen of France, quite briefly, before she became a "dowager Queen" ( is that the correct terminology?)
Eventually she was sent to Scotland. But there too was she more than a titular Queen? Was she a "Queen regnant" with real power to do things "for the greater good" or just a "figure head"?
For the sake of her conscience it probably did not help that her father-confessors were probably more concerned with her potential role in their Counter-Reformation, and urged her into Machiavellian policies "for the greater good". She had the rights, duties and responsibilities of a Queen that it would be sinful not to use.
And yet she had never really held her own life- let alone that of other people- in her own hands, as Queen Elizabeth I had been forced to do.
What is perhaps all the more remarkable is that Queen Elizabeth, who had faced the struggle for survival as just a lone and more or less isolated individual- had learned by experience the value of intelligent and clever advisors.. That betokens a strength of mind and personality that MQS just did not have..
In the end- like parallel lines that meet at infinity- it looks as if everything came together when the only thing that she had left under her control was how to die. The axeman killed the woman and the Queen.
Cass -
Message 31
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
like parallel lines that meet at infinityΒ
Sorry, sorry, I'm really enjoying this thread but Cass, the definition of parallel lines is - lines that, if extended infinitely, will never meet.
Nit picking over for today! -
Message 32
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
ferval
Sorry.. As I was in Renaissance mode.. I was referring to the laws of perspective that became so important at that time.. as a way to show depth in pictures.
Straight lines parallel or not only seem to exist in the human imagination or invention. In this case it seemed to be the kind of image that seemed appropriate .. and especially in this post Freudian age that has shattered human individuality much as it has shattered the atom and created an unstable Big Bang universe.. Oneness and peace are even more cherished personal goals.
Cass -
Message 33
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
ferval
Perhaps I could also point out that there is no such place as infinity outside of the human imagination.. And there is probably no such thing as Death either.. Just the end of Life.
Cass -
Message 34
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
An interesting reply, Cass - thank you.
What is perhaps all the more remarkable is that Queen Elizabeth, who had faced the struggle for survival as just a lone and more or less isolated individual - had learned by experience the value of intelligent and clever advisors. That betokens a strength of mind and personality that MQS just did not have. Β
Elizabeth indeed always showed much 'judgement'': she had certainly learned her lessons well. While still a teenager she had come to understand that the first rule of politics is: trust absolutely no one, not even your friends. And yes, of course she fully understood the necessity of listening to 'good counsel'; but perhaps, Cass, she was fortunate in that the survival of the 'intelligent and clever advisors' whose job it was* to* counsel her depended absolutely on *her* survival. She knew that, and so did they. It was a situation hugely advantageous to her.
MQS, on the other hand, found herself dealing with men who had everything to gain by their mistress's demise, and ironically in doing her womanly duty and producing the useful baby James so quickly, Mary played right into their hands. Poor passionate Mary - not a bad woman at all, but one of life's natural victims. For all her ability - or should that be need? - to love and to inspire love, her genuine religous convictions and her absolutely *undoubted* physical courage, she was a disaster as a ruler. But not all women are gifted (and Elizabeth, like her mother, was) with the political killer instinct that is needed to succeed as a 'boss'. I often marvel at those confident, ruthless girls who dominate 'The Apprentice' and shudder! Would I last five minutes with that lot? Would I want to last five minutes with them? I actually don't believe you *learn* how to be Machiavellian - you are simply born that way - or not.
A couple of years ago I observed (humbly and timidly, sorry Minette ) to a professional historian that Mary had surely faced a 'difficult' situation when she returned to rule Scotland. 'No,' he replied, 'it was not a difficult situation; it was an impossible one.' Would you agree?
I wonder how even Elizabeth would have coped, if , at just eighteen, she had had to deal with those intelligent, astute, but utterly self-seeking men who greeted Mary Stuart when she arrived in Edinburgh in 1561. Elizabeth would easily have won over Maitland of Lethington (so did Mary), but what of the rest - the cunning Lords of the Congregation, brutal men such as Morton, and that absolute b*stard of a half-brother - literally and metaphorically - the devious, resentful and ambitious Moray? And lest we forget, trumpeting his particular brand of abuse from the pulpit, every thinking woman's nightmare - John Knox? -
Message 35
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
Temperance
I ended a post yesterday by commenting that there are some classes that pride themselves as being unteachable, and that some countries seem to pride themselves on being ungovernable.
Perhaps- as ferval has intimated- the Scottish vote for the SNP last thursday was just to remind the Labour Party that the "Scot" is a proud and independant person, and Mr Salmond is probably going to find much the same..
[Incidentally do the SNP envisage trying to give a referendum vote to the huge Scottish diaspora that it claims as part of the "Nation"? Or will the vote just be anyone who fulfills residency qualification within Scotland?]
Cass -
Message 36
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
Cass, as to the electorate for any referendum, who knows but Salmond, being a canny operator, is well aware that there is no majority in favour of independence here, at most preferring just an even more devolved government, so don't hold your breath!
I suspect that the English regions would favour something along the same lines in order to respond more sensitively to local conditions and issues. -
Message 37
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
ferval
I think that the argument for regional developments in England tends to founder on any suggestions that the comparative advantage offered by lower costs might be reflected in an undermining of wages and wage-differentials.
This kind of suspicion goes back at least to the attitude of the Chartists to the Anti-Corn Law League .. Working people suspected that the cheaper corn and therefore cheaper bread would lead to lower wages- an accordance with Ricardo's Subsistence Theory of Wages.
There is also- I would argue- still that great apathy with politics- or Futurism
I wrote a piece last year "Can labour Go Back to a Future?" , which was partly prompted by an essay written c 1961 by a Harvard Professor who foresaw one party democracy in Britain, because all the great issues had been solved- and all that remained was just managing problems as they arose.
Being "sensitive to local conditions and issues" assumes that this is still what politics should be about, and that there is no great challenge left to forge a future for the generations to come. The great strength of the Human Species has been its ability to adapt to prevalent conditions and react according to need.. Using our powers to shape those conditions to spare ourselves the effort of doing what should come naturally is the beginning of the end.
Cass -
Message 38
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
I think that the argument for regional developments in England tends to founder on any suggestions that the comparative advantage offered by lower costs might be reflected in an undermining of wages and wage-differentials Β
I thought we were talking about MQS and *16th* Century politics? We could even discuss Henry VI and his claim to the French throne, if you like, but *please* no more SNP or 'regional developments in England' stuff!!
-
Message 39
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
Abject apologies Temperance, deviation's contagious, it seems.
-
Message 40
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 7th May 2011
Apologies Temperance
But you did ask whether the task of governing the Scots was an impossible one. though I suppose you had a specific period and situation in mind.
And ferval's comment about the rather tactical voting element in the SNP vote seemed to be a confirmation that getting the vote of the Scots people indicates no long term commitment to the cause espoused by the party leadership.. It would appear to me to be "using" and refusing to be "used".
Cass -
Message 41
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 8th May 2011
The English can be a cantankerous and thoroughly unreasonable lot.They often do and say the most outrageous things, but get very upset if others do likewise.
English monarchs happily styled themselves Kings and Queens of France (and the Royal Arms of England were openly quartered with the lilies of France) from 1340 (Edward III) to 1801 (George III). Nearly five hundred years! George III may have been bonkers, but even he realised it was a bit silly to carry on insisting that he was King of France after the French had actually decided to guillotine their real king, along with most of his aristocracy. Odd thing is I've never read anywhere that the French (after Joan of Arc) ever formally objected to the ridiculous English claims: perhaps - apart from that spot of bother with Henry V and a couple of other tiresome Plantagenets - they found this English nostalgic hankering after former glories mildly amusing?
Yet in 1558/59 the English were absolutely enraged by reports that the young Dauphine of France, the Queen of Scots, was daring to style herself Queen of England. It was actually Henry II's idea: he had his daughter-in-law publically proclaimed in Paris as Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland, and she and young Francis added the English coat of arms to their own. The English ambassador, Nicholas Throckmorton, was horribly embarrassed when he was asked to dine with the young French/Scots royal couple and discovered that he was eating off silver plates bearing the usurped insignia of his own queen! Elizabeth - as may be imagined - *fumed*.
At a lavish jousting display in the summer of 1559, two heralds wore purple velvet displaying Mary's new coat of arms* - and after Henry II died in that very same tournament (10th July), Mary found herself able to add France to her list of kingdoms.
Elizabeth was understandably horrified: Mary was now undoubted Queen of France and Scotland and, in the eyes of all Catholic Europe, her claim that she was also Queen of England (and Ireland) was - unlike the centuries-old English pretensions to the French crown - no empty one.
SST.
* I was going to put 'plus little lions', but I'm not sure if Mary's arms now displayed lions or leopards. I shall check. -
Message 42
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 12th May 2011
Iirc, as late as Charles II's reign, a member of the House of Lords had to apologise at the Bar of the House for having referred to Louis XIV as King of France, since that title was one claimed by his own Sovereign. Parliamentary protocol therefore required that Louis be referred to either by name alone, or else as "The French King". He was a king and he was French, so that was allowable, but he couldn't be called "King of France".
-
Message 43
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 12th May 2011
Great stuff, Mikestone8!
Did Oliver Cromwell claim to be Lord Protector of *France* too? -
Message 44
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
Not that I've ever heard.
The Protectorate's coat of arms, as shown on Wiki, does not include any symbol for Frogland.
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 Β 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
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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.