THE NETFLIX SERIES BRIDGERTON/WHY ASTRID ESSED IS ALL
IN FAVOUR OF BRIDGERTON
Readers!
Here she is again!
Actually I would do this Post following week, but since I am
really excited over the Bridgerton series and I have much to say about it,
I start tonight with my second comment!
Perhaps you remember my first comment in which I revealed something about the
storyline itself, the loving, but complex relationship between one of the main characters, Lady Violet Bridgerton and her eldest son Anthony [1]
A very fascinating part of the series, that relationship which I will
come back to in subsequent comments.
But in this Post, which will be short, I like to share with you why
this Story, Bridgerton, fascinates me.
COSTUME DRAMA’S
I have seen a lot of costume drama’s, some were interesting, others good,
others boring.
And some [like Pride and Prejudice] [2] I saw so many times, that I was
tired of it, although interesting.
So I didn’t look anymore.
HISTORICAL REALITY
And I must confess, that when I first heard about Bridgerton I had my
doubts and I’ll explain why.
I learned that the series were about a noble Family in England in the Regency era [3] [so far, so good] and the cast was colorblind.
Which meant, that white and black nobles were part of the series on
equal stances.
I thought firstly:
What is that about?
In the Regency Time England, in which slavery and slavetrade flourished,
white and black aristocrats mingled and stood shoulder to shoulder?
That’s historically seen, nonsense.
And since I am historian, I could know.
Of course there were already black people in England since the 16th century,
[4] but eventually they either left or mingled with the white British population.
And ”black aristocrats” even when they were in England in the Regency Time, were rare.
What happened was that there were a minority of rich black people
in England that time, mostly children of plantation owners and a black slave mother, who were sent to England by their fathers for education. [5]
SO FAR, SO GOOD
FAIRY TALE
But then I decided to step away from historical reality and look at the
storylines an sich, forgetting that black-white thing.
Because, so I thought:
What would it be beautiful if the history had gone another
way and indeed black and white aristocrats mingled with each
other in England, without the curse of racism?
Why the world should not be a Fairy Tale, at least for the time
watching the series?
And when you look at it from that perspective, the world, for a while,
is much more relaxed and then the Story an sich is relevant, not
the colour of people.
Would that not be a Relief in the real world?
Then let’s assume, for a moment, that it IS the real
world and black people regain thed dignity again, which
was token from them by the nasty historical reality.
That was the moment, the Bridgerton Story began to interest and even
fascinate me.
CHARACTERS
And then beautiful characters came to live.
Like Lady Danbury, an impressive black noblewoman [6]
Simon Basset, Duke of Hastings, Anthony Bridgerton’s best
and closest friend [7], who would marry Daphne Bridgerton, sister
of Anthony [the same Anthony who had a warm, but complicated
relationship with his mother, Lady Violet Bridgerton] [8]
And so more important black aristocrats and others.
And not to forget the historical figure Queen Charlotte, grandmother
of Queen Victora [9], who was black in the Bridgerton series, andwho by the way is the subject of a discussion, whether she was of African descent. [10]
COLORBLIND CAST/IDEA
RELAXING AND MORE EXCITING
SHORTLY SAID:
That colorblind idea [in the Bridgrton books, all the personae are,
of course, white] [11], is relaxing and makes the series more
interesting and exciting
STORYLINES
Since the story is not ”hindred” by race and color issues, it is not
only more entertaining and relaxing, but there is more
room to focus on the Story Itself
And the storylines are fascinating:
Themes are forbidden love, unresolved trauma’s, warm, loving
motherhood, the Cinderella theme, strong family bonds, warm and intense
male friendships [like Anthony and Simon Basset], scandals, social
prejudice, great Family Stories and yet, the racism thing passes also,
but on a more relaxed way.
You see all aspects of human life pass the review.
Because you know?
Although racism and unequality do exist and the fight against it must
continue, it sometimes can overshadow human relations and certainly
in TV series, for entertainment, it can be boring and disturbing.
Let we fight the fight against racism in the streets, not in TV series!
FINAL
Bridgerton is a strong and fascinating Story, with many aspects of
human life, you see the main characters eat, drink, cry, be happy or
unhappy, love, hate etc, just as if they were real.
BRIDGERTON/MY FIRST COMMENT ON THE NETFLIX SERIES BRIDGERTON/ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF
LADY VIOLET BRIDGERTON AND HER ELDEST SON ANTHONY
[Readers, later I will explain more about this]
IN THE CLASHES WITH ANTHONY, LADY VIOLET BRIDGERTON DID NOT
SHOW HERSELF A WARM AND LOVING MOTHER, NOT EMOTIONALLY BEING PRESENT, WHEN HE NEEDED HER MOST
Lady Violet Bridgerton never realized, that Anthony was just a boy of 18 years,
when his father died, fresh from Eton and now having to carry all responsibilities
of a great noble Estate.
Instead of encouraging him, she constant scolded him, no friendly word and
comparing him with his father, which was unfair, since his father was the yearlong
Earl [Count?] of the Estate.
And….a good mother is tender to all her children, instead of seven and left the eldest
in the cold.
And take for example her different reaction regarding her daughter Daphne, marrying
Anthony’s best friend Simon, Duke of Hastings [apart from the duel drama from which
mother Violet, happily, was unaware], in comparison with her attitude regarding
Anthony”s love [otherwise a relationship, although on and off, doesn’t last at
least six years]for opera singer Siena Rosso.
And YES
I know and realize that in the Regency Time a marriage or openly relastionship
between a Viscount and an opera singer was not appropriate and was not accepted.
I realize Lady Violet couldn’t support that.
But at least she could have shown some compassion and comfort to her son,
who needed her as a mother too, instead of harsh disapproval and only
pointing out to his duties, for him to believe, that to his mother, only social
status weighted and that she didn’t see him as her son, but only as
the Head of the Household.
He was just a boy and needed his mother too.
Besides, it must have hurt her emotionally too, that she and her son always
clashed.
In some things she told him she was right, of course, but she didn’t criticize him
with love, always hateful and stern
VIOLET”S PERSPECTIVE
And don’t get me wrong.
I don”t say she did not love him, because watching the show I noticed that
she loved him deeply and warmly, also in Season 1.
But she didn’t show it.
Admitted:
She mourned her husband very much and thereafter she had a traumatic
childbirth, was so depressed [which she could help either] that she
couldn’t be there for Anthony and the other children, laying all the weight on
Anthony.
But she did not appreciate everything what he did, untill in Season 2
And I do understand the impossibility of their both positions.
Anthony now being the head of the Household [immediately after
her husband’s death she had to leave the marital bedroom, that now belonged
to Anthony as new Viscount and he had to make the medical decision at her
childbirth to ”choose” between the life of his mother and the unborn baby, which
was traumatic to her and also Anthony]
That shift of positions gave them both an unnatural relationship from mother and just the eldest son to the Head of the Family and
she as indulger of his decisions or critic.
But she remains his mother and, showing him his duties [in which
she was right], not granting him HER moral and emotional
duty to give him motherly support, although I understand that sometimes
she had to be stern.
CONCLUSION:
Lady Violet loved Anthony deeply.
I don’t doubt that at all.
But while criticizing him [which was sometimes of course necessary]
she showed no warmth, valued ”the ton” and ”Family honor” which he
indeed had to preserve, above her natural love for him and when aware of
the Siena Rosso affair, she didn’t give him any comfort or warmth
[like ”I know it’s hard for you to end the relationship, but given the apparent
social ostracism for you and the Family you have no choice darling” or something
like that]
She couldn’t just use the excuse of being ”mortified by the scandal” or
”damaging the Family honor or the marrying chances of her daughters, although true.
When your child is grieving [and she must know he was, since she herself had seen
him watching Siena], you comfort your child, not just ”sacrificing his apparent
happiness to the happiness of the other seven”
Poor boy
He must felt so abandoned, if the person, who is supposed to love
you most, leaves you into the cold.
I understand her point of view too. Yet it is unforgivable and he should
have stood up against her.
”Mother, I need you too, and I am not just ”the Head of the Family’, who must
do my duties”
I am also your son.”
APOLOGIES
Therefore I am pleased, that she apologized in Season 2 [although not
for her emotional neglect of Anthony in the Siena Rosso affair] for
the heavy burden she put on him and not seeing his emotional
pain and isolation [after all he mourned for his father too and as she, had
watched him die]
Her very words touched me:
“I am sorry for everything that happened in the days that followed. If I could go back and change it, you have no idea. I would go back and change everything”
It was deeply moving, especially spoken in a historic Time, that
parents seldom apologized to their children.
CONCLUSION
Although failing for a time in her emotional approach of
Anthony, Lady Violet was at heart a warm and loving
mother, also to him, flawed by the strict demands of the Regency Time on social aspects, the different role of sons and daughters,
especially the ”Head of the Family” and her own intense grief
after her husband’s sudden death.
She had the courage, finally to acknowledge the pain she
unwillingly caused to her son, so preventing that she lost him
emotionally
SEE FUTURE POSTS ON MY BLOG
ASTRID ESSED
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Bridgerton/My first Comment on the Netflix series Bridgerton/About the relationship of Lady Violet Bridgerton and her son Anthony
40i And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
NEW TESTIMONYMATTHEW 25: 40 https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25
READERS!
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you canb see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
ASTRID ESSED’S VIEW ON THE CRUSADES/ASTRID ESSED VERSUS
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY”/NO EXCUSE FOR RICHARD COEUR DE
LION’S MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH”
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you canb see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
ASTRID ESSED’S VIEW ON THE CRUSADES/ASTRID ESSED VERSUS
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY”/NO EXCUSE FOR RICHARD COEUR DE
LION’S MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH”
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you can see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
Fig 3: The north-transept façade of the Abbey offered the most direct connection between the Palace and the Abbey. The reconstruction of the nave continued into the 15th century. Westminster Abbey photographed for Country Life magazine by Paul Highnam.
WESTMINSTER ABBEY, THE CROWNING PLACE OF ENGLISH KINGS
CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III/”I COME NOT TO BE SERVED, BUT TO SERVE”
CORONATION OATH OF KING CHARLES III
The King stands and the Archbishop says:
”Our Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law.
Are you willing to take the Oath?
The King replies
I am willing.
The King places his hand on the Bible, and the Archbishop administers the Oath
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
The King replies
I solemnly promise so to do.
The Archbishop says
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
The King replies
I will.
The King kneels at the Chair of Estate. The Archbishop says
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
The King replies
All this I promise to do.
The King places his hand on the Bible and says
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
The King kisses the Bible. The Archbishop says
Your Majesty, are you willing to make, subscribe, and declare to the statutory Accession Declaration Oath?
The King replies
I am willing.
I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
The King signs copies of the Oaths, presented by the Lord Chamberlain,whilst the choir sings
Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help; that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
God of compassion and mercy whose Son was sent not to be served but to serve, give grace that I may find in thy service perfect freedom and in that freedom knowledge of thy truth. Grant that I may be a blessing to all thy children, of every faith and belief, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
On 6 May 2023, the Coronation of Charles III, King of the United Kingdom and
the Commonwealth Realms, took place. [1]
Actually, he acceded the throne on 8 september 2022, upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II [2]
At the age of 73, he became the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having been the longest heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history [3]
His coronation took place at Westminster Abbey, where traditionally
the English monarchs are crowned, [4]
Simultaneously, his wife, Queen Camilla, was also crowned [5],
as is usually the case [6]
ANCIENT MONARCHY/ANCIENT TRADITIONS
A QUICK WALK WITH ASTRID ESSED THROUGH HISTORY!
What I love about this Coronation [and those before] are
the old traditions, which is logically, since the English kings
stand in an impressive tradition of more than thousand years!
The eldest Royal House I can recall is the House of Wessex, in
899 to begin with, under king Alfred the Great! [7]
Before the House of Wessex under Alfred the Great, there was the
”old” House of Wessex, founded by Cerdic of the Gewisse [The West Saxon dynasty], but in those times England was not united, but
consisted of different kingdoms [8]’
[By the way, The House of Wessex was by times interrupted
by the House of Denmark, when England was under Danish control] [9]
It was under Alfred the Great, the first to call himself
”King of the Anglo Saxons [instead of just the West Saxons], that the first steps were
taken to unify England, which was completed by Alfred the Great’s
descendants. [10] The last king from the House of Wessex was king Edward the Confessor [11]I will refer to him later in this Coronation article, with respect to the St Edward’s Crown”…….You will see, o Readers.
And the present English monarchy descents from William the Conqueror,the Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in the Battleof Hastings in 1066, defeating king Harold II [brother in lawof Edward the Confessor], the last Anglo Saxon king [12]
FASCINATING, when you realize, that the Dutch Monarchy only
exists since 1813, being one of the youngest monarchies in
Europe! [13]
I
THE CORONATION CEREMONY
A SACRED CEREMONY
The Coronation Ceremony is firstly a spiritual and sacred one.
But also one of traditional symbols.
Sacred are of course the Oath and the Anointing with the Holy Oil:
THE OATH
ANOINTING THE OIL [Behind Curtains]
THE OATH
The Coronation Ceremony of King Charles III was, like those of
his predecessors, firstly a SACRED Ceremony, which is seen, not only as performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but in the Kings’ Oath:[The Archbishop]”
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?”
[The King]
”All this I promise to do”
[And the King, placing his hand on the Bible]
”The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.” [14]
Now this Holy Oath has everything to do with the fact, that
king Charles III is Head of the Anglican Church [the Church of England] [15], which is tradition since king Henry VIII, who broke with thePope and subsequently the old Catholic Church [called
”Holy Church” in Medieval England] [16]
Yet apart from that breach with the Holy Church, Coronation Ceremonies were always sacred:
See a part from the Oath that king Edward II, one of the forefathers
of king Charles III, took at his Coronation in 1308:[English translation from the original French text]”
Sire, will you in all your judgments, so far as in you lies, preserve to God and Holy Church, and to the people and clergy, entire peace and concord before God?
[Edward II]
I will preserve them.[17] HOWEVER:Oaths, based on the Church of England or on the Catholic Holy Church or not, those Sacred Customs were all based on the concept ofSacred Kingship, or in Western history: the concept of theDivine Right of Kings [18], which also has a pre Christian tradition [19] and is a universal concept from Old Historian Times. [20] Because in old Times [and perhaps the divine right of kingsis based upon that] there was that concept of a king, who wasalso high priest [21]
II ANOINTING THE OIL [SPIRITUAL] The English Coronation Ceremonies are ancient, very ancient,and main elements of
the coronation service and the earliest form of oath can be traced to the ceremony devised by Saint Dunstan for King Edgar’s coronation in 973 AD at Bath Abbey.
It drew on ceremonies used by the kings of the Franks and those used in the ordination of bishops.[22]
But that was then.
Through the centuries, there were different versions of coronation
services [23], but untill the Reformation, based on catholic traditions [24]
With the Reformation, there were changes [25], but some things,
especially regarding the Place of Coronation, the Holy Oil Anointing,
the Crown, the Chair and other traditions, remained largely unchanged.
I refer to those in a moment, a five minutes reading!
ANOINTING THE OILA MOST SACRED CEREMONY, STEMMING FROM THE BIBLE!
The anointing is the most sacred part of the coronation ceremony, and takes place before the crowning.
The Archbishop pours holy oil from the Ampulla (or vessel) into the spoon, and anoints the sovereign on the hands, breast and head [26]
And this Anointing Tradition is based on
the Old Days, especially Biblical Ones!
I refer to the Old Testimony, Book ”Kings”
and quote about the Coronation of King Salomon:
”Then Zadok the priest took a horn of
oil from the tabernacle and anointed Solomon. And they blew the horn, and all the people said, “Long live King Solomon!”
[Book ”Kings” 1:39] [27]
Anointing was one of the medieval holy sacraments and it emphasised the spiritual status of the sovereign. Until the seventeenth century the sovereign was considered to be appointed directly by God and this was confirmed by the ceremony of anointing. Although the monarch is no longer considered divine in the same way, the ceremony of Coronation also confirms the monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. [28]
BEHIND CURTAINS
And since the anointing is considered as that holy
and sacred, it is NOT for others to see, but hidden for public view.
To hide the anointing for public, king Charles III’s
mother, Queen Elizabeth II, used a canopy, while
king Charles III kicked things up a notch with a full-blown screen [29]
Like I said before, the Coronation Ceremony
is firstly a sacred and religious One and emphasizing
the Divine Right of Kings [although that Divine Right Concept is ancient
and historical], the anointing has to be done in private!
See for important facts and events about the Coronation Ceremonies of English kings since the
Anglo Saxon king Edgar [Reign, 959-975] [30], under note 31!Exciting, isn’t it!
THE ANOINTING OILCHANGED TIMES….. Although the Anointing Ceremony of king Charles IIIwas largerly the same as his predecessors, there were some changes, especially in the use of the AnointingOil:
The holy oil that was traditionally used for coronations past contained civet oil, from the glands of the small mammals, and ambergris from whale intestines. The formula was used at Queen Elizabeth’s ceremony and is hundreds of years old. [32]
However, the holy oil that will be used at Charles’ coronation is vegan-friendly, in order to reflect modern anti-animal cruelty sentiments. It is made with olive oil, pressed just outside Bethlehem, and perfumed with essential oils such as sesame, rose, jasmine, cinnamon, neroli, benzoin and amber and orange blossom. [33]A 21st Century Monarch, Changed timesBut the Essentials of the Coronation are still maintained, despite different personal touchs ofkings throughout the centuries [and sometimes memorable things happened at Coronations] [34] and the change fromthe old Holy Church to the present, protestant Church of England. [35]
III WESTMINSTER ABBEY Interesting historical tradition is, that sincethe ancestor of all English kings [after his conquest ofEngland in 1066], William the Conqueror, allEnglish kings have been crowned at WestminsterAbbey [36] [although according to some sources, the lastAnglo Saxon king, Harold II, who was defeated byWilliam the Conqueror, was also crowned at Westminster Abbey [37]Although…[and forgive me Readers, that my historicalheart takes it over again….] there were apart crowning ceremonies….Because king Henry III, father of the more famous king Edward I and [I mean king Henry III] the son of king John I [alsomentioned ”Lackland”, a brother of kingRichard Coeur de Lion and a greatgreatgrandsonof William the Conqueror] [38], that king Henry III was crowned twice!Firstly at Gloucester Cathedral in 1216 and only in 122o at Westminster Abbey! [39]REASON?When Henry’s father, king John died [Henry was only nine years old], there was stilla rising of noblemen against his father’s government, ”the War with the Barons”, which by the way resulted in the Magna Charta [40]And to make things worse, there was a French invasionalso See for more information, note 41So Henry III was hastily crowned in Gloucester Cathedral in 1216, since at that moment the French occupied London and after more stable times, in 122oin Westminster Abbey! [42]And to make it more fascinating than it already was…..When king Henry had been crowned for the first time,THERE WAS NO ROYAL CROWN!Because during the Baron’s War the Crown had been lost, probably lost as king John crossed oneof the tidal estuaries which empties into the Walsh,being sucked in by quicksand and whirpools…[43]So at his first Coronation, Henry had no Crown andtherefore was crowned with a golden Corolla[headdress] [44], belonging to his mother Isabella ofAngouleme! [45]Interesting, isn’t it? IV ST EDWARD’S CROWN!We’ll stay in the king Henry III times awhile! Because when he was crowned at the second time,and now in Westminster Abbey [See above], he neededa real crown, since his father John’s crown was lost during the Baron’s War.And since king Henry III was a great admirer of Edward the Confessor, one of the last Anglo Saxon kings [the direct predecessor of King Harold, the king who was defeated by William the Conqueror in 1066], he calledthe crown, that was made for him ”St Edward’s Crown”[46]According to some sources it really WAS the crownof Edward the Confessor, but that is open todiscussion I think [47]HOWEVER, the crown with which king Charles III iscrowned, is called ”St Edward’s Crown, but not theoriginal, since a new Crown was made for king Charles II, since after the deposition and executionof his father King Charles I most of the British CrownJewels, the Crown included, were destroyed, broken upor sold off. [48]So the Crown, that is used by the Coronationof king Charles III is the crown of king Charles II from the 17th Century! [49] V CORONATION SPEECH IN ENGLISH! What I found really exciting to learn was this:KingHenry IV, who by the way usurped the thronefrom his cousin Richard II [50] which eventually would cause the Wars of the Roses [51], was the firstEnglish king, who at his Coronation made a speechin English! [52]
Before this, the official language of the court was French, ever since William I conquered England [53]
VI
MORE TRADITIONS AND SYMBOLS AT THE CORONATION
CEREMONY/THE SPOON, THE ANCIENT SPOON!
THE SPOON
What makes the Coronation so fascinating, are,
as I said before, the ancient traditions.
Like the use of the Coronation Spoon, dated from the 12th century and probably made for either king
Henry II or his son king Richard Coeur de Lion
[respectively the father and brother of king John, alsonamed ”Lackland”, from whom all present Englishkings descent] It is also the only
piece of royal goldsmiths’ work to survive from the 12th century! [54]
So unique!
The spoon is first recorded in 1349 as preserved among St Edward’s Regalia in Westminster Abbey. Already at this date it is described as a spoon of ‘antique forme’ [55]
About the role of the Coronation Spoon:
The Archbishop pours holy oil from the Ampulla (or vessel) [the ampulla was made for the
Coronation of king Charles II] into the spoon, and anoints the sovereign on the hands, breast and head. [56]
Interesting is, that the Spoon may originally have been used for mixing wine and water in a chalice, but it was certainly used for anointing the sovereign during the coronation of James I in 1603, son of the executed Mary, Queen of Scots, successor
of Queen Elizabeth I and the first Sovereign from the House of
Stuart and a unified England and Scotland, and at every subsequent coronation. [57]
VII
THE CHAIR/THE CORONATION CHAIR!
Also a very ancient and fascinating symbol
is the 700 years old Coronation Chair!
The Coronation Chair was made by order of Edward I [58] to enclose the famous Stone of Scone [59], which he brought [stole, remark bij Astrid Essed see note 60] from Scotland to the Abbey in 1296, where he placed it in the care of the Abbot of Westminster.
The Stone of Scone had been used by Scottish kings for centuries to sit upon when they were crowned! [61]
The Chair has been in use at the coronation ceremony since 1308 although opinion is divided as to when it was actually used for the crowning, but this was certainly the case from 1399 when
Henry IV was crowned in the Chair. [62]And after king Henry IV, nearly all English kings were crownedin that Chair [63] Just fascinating, when you think that the present king Charles III is crowned in a Chair, that his ancestor king Edward I has ordered to make at the beginning of the 14th century! [64]
VIII AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST:THE KING’S CHAMPION! I described some fascinating symbols and aspects ofthe Coronation, which is [see above] a Sacred CeremonySee about yet more details, note 65 However, the last fascinating aspect I want to share with you,o Readers, is ….”The King’s Champion!”……. which is atypically Medieval symbol! [66] As far as my investigation reaches, King’s Championtraditions stems from William the Conqueror, that Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in 1066 and laid the foundation of the present British Monarchy [all subsequent kingsare his descendants] [67] This is how it went and how the King’s Champion tradition took shape:
When William, the Conqueror seized the English throne in 1066, he asked his friend Robert Marmion to act as his Champion. Marmion’s role was to literally throw down the gauntlet, openly challenging anyone doubting the new king’s legitimacy, to prove their case through armed combat. [68]
This was not a formality or a mere ceremony in the Middle Ages, but,
given the violent times then, a real Danger……
To make a long story short, out of gratitude for risking his life, Marmion was given an estate at Scrivelsby, in
Lincolnshire.
The grant for this sets out that:
”The manor of Scrivelsby is holden … the service of finding on the day of Coronation, an armed knight who shall prove by his body, if need be, that the King is true and rightful heir to the kingdom.” [69]
Interesting is, that over the centuries, not only
the tradition of ”The King’s Champion” survived, but
that the role of King’s Champion remained with
Marmion’s descendants, who, since 1350, have been
the Dymoke Family [70]
Their family motto is the Latin phrase ”Pro Rege Dimico”
a play on their name, implying ”I contend for the King” [71]
See under note 72 the role of the Dymoke Family at theCoronation of King Edward IV [during the Wars of the Roses, with the Astrid Essed remark, that the PlantagenetBranch of the House of Edward IV, the House of York,had a superior claim to the English throne [73] THE KING’S CHAMPION IN ACTION! I already referred to the violent ancient times in whichthe role of the King’s Champion was notjust a ceremony.The last time however, the King’s Champion reallyperformed the ancient role of throwing down the gauntletwas at the coronation of King George IV! [74] THE KING’S CHAMPIONMODERN TIMES We are living in modern times now and F
rancis Dymoke won’t ride into King Charles III’s coronation on horseback and challenge any pretender to the throne to single combat as his ancestor did in 1066, but he will carry the Royal Standard into Westminster Abbey. [75]
Dymoke, a 67-year-old farmer from eastern England, will be the King’s Champion at the coronation, fulfilling a role performed by members of his family since William the Conqueror was crowned nearly 1,000 years ago……
An old tradition, anyway, although not so ”romantic” anymore
like in the ancient times……
Although I like Dymoke’s comment on his ceremonial
role as ”King’s Champion”
”“This is the one moment in my life that really matters,” ,
as he had told the Daily Telegraph [76]
Apart from the modern times we live in, one of
the reasons the King’s Champion doesn’t fullfill his
original role is this:
The King’s Champion originally rode into the coronation banquet on horseback, threw down a gauntlet and challenged anyone who doubted the king or queen’s right to rule.
BUT:
there hasn’t been a coronation banquet since 1821, so Champions now perform other roles, usually bearing a flag or standard, the palace said. [77]
MODERN TIMES…..END You and I, readers, have watched the Coronation ofthe new English king, Charles III [78], followedthe symbols and traditions.Travelled through the Ages in which the Coronationstook shape, with the fascinating history of the CrownJewels, the 12th century Coronation Spoon, the 700years old Coronation Chair, the St Edward’s Crown,the King’s Champion, all those ancient andmeaningful traditions, from the Middle Ages untillModern Times. Much is changed, yet the tradition and the Bond with History remains.I will end with the words, king Charles III uttered at his Coronation:”I come not to be served, but to serve” [79] Readers, it was nice to travel with you to history againand….end in those modern times! Hope you enjoyed it [I CERTAINLY DID!] See to my next article Then I travel with you to the Middle Ages againThe Time of the Wars of the Roses! My next article will be about Richard Neville, the 16th Earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker! [80] See you then ASTRID ESSED NOTES NOTES 1 AND 2
RICHARD NEVILLE [LINKS] EN ZIJN NEEF KONING EDWARD IV
FICTIE:
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, WITH ON THE BACKGROUND HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERSHISTORICAL FICTIONRICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, MET OP DE ACHTERGROND ZIJN VROUW EN DOCHTERS/HISTORISCHE FICTIE
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, DE KINGMAKERHISTORISCHE FICTIE
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, WITH ON THE BACKGROUND HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERSHISTORICAL FICTIONRICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, MET OP DE ACHTERGROND ZIJN VROUW EN DOCHTERS/HISTORISCHE FICTIE
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, DE KINGMAKERHISTORISCHE FICTIE
DE KINGMAKER EN ZIJN DOCHTERS LADY ANNE EN LADYISOBEL [UIT DE SERIE ”THE WHITE QUEEN]
In 2019 las ik in het nummer van Ontdek Magazine, ”De Geschiedenis
achter the Game of Thrones”, in hun gedeelte over de Rozenoorlogen [
blz 20-25], een opmerking over een van de hoofdrolspelers, Richard Neville,
de 16e Graaf van Warwick, ook wel ”de Kingmaker” genoemd [1]
Ziehier de opmerking in ”Ontdek”, op blz 24, links bovenaan
””VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON
De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”
Omdat ik deze opmerking, historisch gezien, grote onzin vond, heb ik
”Ontdek Magazine” hierover aangeschreven [2] en hierop,
ik zou haast zeggen natuurlijk, geen reactie ontvangen, wat mijn
gelijk alleen maar heeft bevestigdIk wil graag de originele mail aan Ontdek met u delenZie dus direct onder de noten!En veel leesplezier! ASTRID ESSED
HISTORISCHE MISSER TAV RICHARD NEVILLE, DE 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK, GENAAMD ”DE KINGMAKER”
[Door omstandigheden is de mail in 2021, twee jaar na de uitgave van
het nummer van Ontdek, opgestuurd]
Astrid Essed <astridessed@yahoo.com>Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:28 AMTo: “winkel@vipmedia.nl” <winkel@vipmedia.nl>AANDe Redactie van Magazine ”Ontdek”Aflevering:De geschiedenis achter Game of ThronesUitgegeven in 2019[Wegens drukke werkzaamheden is deze historische kritiek nu, september 2021, aan u verstuurd.Onderstaand magnum opus, want zo mag ik het wel noemen, is door mij aangevangen in september 2019, kort na lezing van uw tijdschriftDuik dus even in uw archieven]Onderwerp:Onzininformatie over Richard Neville, de 16de Graaf van Warwick, beter bekend als ”The Kingmaker”Geachte Redactie,Alvorens met mijn kritiek los te barsten, een oprecht woord van waardering.Als groot fan van de nu afgelopen grootse serie ”Game of Thrones” heb ik het buitengewoon gewaardeerd, dat u een uitgebreide achtergrondspecial hebt samengesteld, waarin u op een diversiteit aan aspecten over de serie zelf, maarook op een aantal historische perioden, zoals de Vikingen, de eerste christenen, kaliefen in het Midden-Oosten en andere onderwerpen, bent ingegaan.Of het allemaal historisch klopt, wat u schrijft, heb ik nog niet in detail kunnen nagaan, omdat ik nog niet alles heb gelezen [aanstonds zult u begrijpen, waarom ik dit naar voren breng], maar wat ik er wel van gelezen heb, komtals redelijk betrouwbaar en goed doorwrocht over.Totdat ik bij het gedeelte over de Rozenoorlogen kwam [blz 20 t/m 25 van uw Magazine] en, excusez les mots,op een aantal ronduit onzinopmerkingen van uw kant stuitte.Kijk, DAT u de Rozenoorlogen in uw special hebt betrokken, vind ik interessant en is bijna vanzelfsprekend, omdat The Game of Thrones er in belangrijke mate op is gebaseerd.Of beter uitgedrukt:Schrijver George R.R. Martin heeft zich door die Rozenoorlogen in belangrijke mate laten inspireren, met hoog kwalitatief resultaat!Maar als u nader op die Rozenoorlogen ingaat, mag verwacht worden, dat u met historisch juiste informatie komt.Anders zeg ik:Schrijf er dan niet over.Ik ben nog niet in de gelegenheid geweest, alles en detail te lezen [wel enkele passages], wat u over die Rozenoorlogen geschreven hebt, vanwege een druk bezette agenda [misschien komt er nog een aanvullende brief, waarin ik u daarover te grazen neem, als ik dat nodig acht], maar ronduit belachelijk en historisch totale NONSENS [nogmaals, excusez lets mots] was, wat u over een van de hoofdrolspelers, Richard Neville, 16 de Graaf van Warwick, ook wel ”the Kingmaker” genoemd [1], hebt neergeschreven.UW SCHRIJFSEL OVER RICHARD NEVILLE, DE KINGMAKEREerst maar eens uw schrijfsel over Richard Neville, de Kingmaker, wat te lezen is.Ik lees [en u nu met mij] bladzijde 24, links bovenaan:”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROONDe Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”Einde uw tekstDit, waarde Redactie, is een warwinkel van nonsens, taalverwarring en historische inaccuratesse.TEN EERSTE:Richard Neville, de 16e Graaf van Warwick, liep, hoewel aanvankelijk inderdaadeen ”aanhanger” van koning Hendrik VI [van het Huis van Lancaster, klopt], NIETover naar het Huis van York, NADAT zijn neef Eduard, 7e Earl [Graaf] of Marchen zoon van Richard, de hertog van York, als Eduard IV tot koning werd gekroond:Neen, hij [Richard Neville dus] was al jaren in oppositie tegen koning Hendrik VI, waarbij hij samenwerkte met zijn eigen vader Richard, de vijfde Graaf van Salisbury en de hertog van York, vader van de latere Eduard IV [vanaf hier aangeduid als Edward, het was tenslotte een Engelse koning!]Bovendien was hij juist de grote voortrekker van de kroning van neef Edward totkoning Edward IV! [2]Ik kom hierop aanstonds uitgebreider terug.TEN TWEEDE:U schrijft”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”Dat ..machtswellust” is een zeer kort door de bocht en simplistische verklaringvoor de oorzaken tot het latere conflict tussen koning Edward IV en Richard Neville [van nu af aan aangeduid met de Graaf Warwick of Warwick], waarover aanstonds uitleg volgt.Het klopt, dat Warwick de koning gevangen nam, maar het is aperte nonsens om neer te pennen, dat Warwick zelf op de Engelse troon wilde komen!Hij had [en dat was erg belangrijk in de Middeleeuwen!] in geen enkel opzicht, niet eens in de verte, recht op die troon, omdat hij niet tot het Huis Plantagenet behoorde en er ook niet zijdelings van afstamde.Kortom:Naar Middeleeuwse mores zou niemand voor hem gevochten hebben en al evenmin was er een schijn van kans, dat hij als koning zou zijn geaccepteerd.Wel probeerde hij, door een slimme wijze van uithuwelijking van zijn tweewettige dochters [hij had ook nog een onwettige dochter, Margaret]. [3],zo dicht bij de troon te komen, dat hij effectief macht kon uitoefenen.Hierop kom ik terug.TEN DERDE:Taalverwarring:U schrijft”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen”Uit bovenstaande zin wordt volstrekt niet duidelijk om welke koning het nu ging en om welke veldslag.U had moeten aangeven, dat het hier ging om koning Edward IV [want zoalsu het hebt neergeschreven, kon het ook wel om koning Hendrik VI, vanaf nu aangeduid als Henry VI, gaan] en dat het ging om de volgende veldslag:The Battle of Edgecote in 1469, waaraan de slimme Warwick overigens niet zelf deelnam….] [4]Dergelijke duidelijkheid is van groot belang, omdat het anders de toch al ingewikkelde verwikkelingen rond de Rozenoorlogen nog gecompliceerder maakt!ACHTERGRONDGRAAF WARWICK EN DE ROZENOORLOGENOm Graaf Warwick te kunnen begrijpen, moet hij gezien worden tegen het licht van de Rozenoorlogen, waarin hij zo’n belangrijke rol speelde.Om de Rozenoorlogen te kunnen begrijpen, moet je iets afweten van het toenmalige recht van opvolging op de Engelse troon en de verwikkelingenrond de regering van koning Richard II. [5]Want de Rozenoorlogen wortelen diep en zijn in feite gezaaid door de afzettingvan Richard II.[6]ROZENOORLOGEN:We beginnen met de voorgeschiedenis van de Rozenoorlogen, waarover u al geschreven hebt in uw Magazine.Globaal lezend heb ik echter gezien, dat u weliswaar de Rozenoorlogen alssuccessiestrijd aanmerkt, maar niet duidelijk hebt gemaakt, hoe het zat met de exacte claims van de Huizen Lancaster en York [De Tweede en Derde Zoon problematiek, zie onderstaand] en ook niet naar de wortels van het conflict gegaan bent.Daarom krijgt u hier deze informatie gratis en voor niets.Eigenlijk zou u mij hiervoor moeten betalen, HAHAHAHAHADe Rozenoorlogen, ook wel ”the Cousins War” genoemd [7] [pas een eeuw na het conflict raakte de term ”Rozenoorlogen;’ in zwang] waren een 30 jaar lang durend binnenlands militair conflict [burgeroorlog dus] tussen tweetakken van het toenmalige Engelse Koningshuis, het Huis Plantagenet[aan de macht vanaf 1154 tot 1485], de Huizen Lancaster en York.Een ”adellijke” burgeroorlog, die hoogst bloedig werd uitgevochten, waarbijde diverse adellijke families partij kozen voor Lancaster en York , weer van kant wisselden, als het hen zo uitkwam en verraad, kuiperijen, intriges en bloedige veldslagen elkaar afwisselden.Voor meer verdieping en informatie [die u ook deels hebt beschreven] zie noot 8GEZAAID ZAADMaar het conflict begon niet bij de eerste militaire veldslag of liever gezegd schermutseling, de Eerste Slag bij St Albans in 1455 [9]Ook niet bij het gerezen en hoogopgelopen conflict tussen de vrouw vande vreedzame en geestelijk labiele koning Henry VI, de strijdbare Margaretha van Anjou [10]en haar gunsteling, Edmund Beaufort, Duke [hertog] of Somerset [behorend tot de Beauforts, de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster en neef van de Lancaster koning Henry VI] enerzijds en anderszijdsRichard, de hertog van York [vader van de latere koning Edward IV], ook een [weliswaar verdere] neef van koning Henry VI[11]Neen, het wortelde in de afzetting van koning Richard II door zijn neef, de latere koning Henry IV. [12]RICHARD II/PRIMOGENITUUR RECHTIk heb weleens gekscherend opgemerkt, dat de diepere oorzaken van de Rozenoorlogen scholen in het feit, dat Edward III, de Engelse koning, die deHonderdjarige oorlog tegen Frankrijk startte, ook een soort successiestrijd [13],teveel zoons had.Het uiteindelijke Rozenoorlog conflict woedde dan ook tussen de nakomelingenvan de tweede zoon van Edward III [van wie de hertog van York van moederskant afstamde] en de derde zoon van Edward III [waartoe het Huis van Lancaster behoorde, de wettige tak en de onwettige tak]Genoemde Koning Richard II was een zoon Edward of Woodstock, beter bekend als ”’De Zwarte Prins” [14] de oudste zoon van Edward III en volgde zijn grootvader Edward III op tienjarige leeftijd op, omdat zijn eigen vader reeds was overleden.En bij de Engelse troonopvolging gold het primogenituur recht [recht van de eerstgeborene] [15]Als de koning overleed, volgde zijn oudste zoon op.Wanneer deze overleed, diens zoon/nageslachtEn pas als zijn dynastie was uitgestorven, kwam de lijn van de tweede zoon aan de beurt,En zo ging het door.Vrouwen hadden in Engeland het recht op troonsopvolging, maar door de uitgesproken patriarchale samenleving in Middeleeuws Engeland probeerde men dat zoveel mogelijk te voorkomen. [16]Door een aantal oorzaken en hoogoplopende conflicten met zijn edelen liep het helemaal mis met de regering van Richard II en werd deze uiteindelijk door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke [Bolingbroke, naar het kasteel waar hij geboren was], afgezet [Richard II was kinderloos] [17] en liet Bolingbroke zichzelf kronen tot Henry IV en werd daarmee de grootvader van Henry VI, die koning was tijdens het begin van de Rozenoorlogen. [18]EN DAAR WRONG DE SCHOEN!Niet alleen, dat de wettige koning van Engeland, Richard II, werd afgezet, was van doorslaggevend belang [19] maar ook door wie, namelijk door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke, zoon van de DERDE zoon vanEdward III, John of Gaunt [Jan van Gent, hij was in Gent geboren gedurende Edward III’s oorlog tegen Frankrijk], hertog van Lancaster [die titel had hij gekregen via zijn eerste vrouw, Blanche van Lancaster, die de dochter was van de hertog van Lancaster] [20]Maar in feite waren er nog de nakomelingen van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp [Lionel van Antwerpen, in Antwerpen geboren] [21], die dus een sterkere claim hadden op de Engelse troon.Lionel of Antwerp had echter geen zoons gehad, maar een dochter, Philippa Plantagenet [22] en Philippa’s kleinzoon [zij was al overleden tijdens de afzetting van neef Richard II] Edmund was ten tijde van de afzetting van Richard II een kind van acht jaar en kon dus gemakkelijk opzij geschoven worden. [23]TWEEDE EN DERDE ZOON VAN EDWARD IIIWaar het dus op neer kwam was, dat de nakomelingen van de TWEEDE zoonvan Edward III [Lionel of Antwerp], door die van de DERDE zoon [John of Gaunt dus] opzijgeschoven waren, terwijl in feite die ”tweede zoon” nakomelingen een groter recht hadden op de Engelse troon!En Richard, de hertog van York, die met bondgenoten uiteindelijk de strijd tegenLancaster aan zou gaan, was via zijn moeders kant [Anne Mortimer] [24], een afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp![Richard’s moeder, Anne Mortimer, was via de kant van haar vader, Roger Mortimer, de achterkleindochter van Lionel of Antwerp, zie de stamboom onder noot 25]Om het lekker simpel te houden was Richard, de hertog van York [ik kan er ook niets aan doen, dat ze allemaal onder elkaar trouwden] van vaderskant ook nog eens de kleinzoon van de VIERDE ZOON van Edward III, Edmund of Langley, hertog van York.Maar zijn recht op de troon, dat superieur was boven Lancaster, kwam van zijn MOEDERSKANT!, afstammende van de TWEEDE zoon! [25]Dus samengevat:De hertog van York, vader van de latere koningen Edward IV en Richard III [die de laatste Plantagenet koning was], had een sterkere claim op de troon dan Lancaster, omdat hij van moederskant afstamde van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III en Lancaster van de DERDE zoon.LANCASTERS OP DE TROONWat het nog simpeler maakte was echter, dat de regerende koningen sinds de afzetting van Richard III dus uit het Huis Lancaster kwamen en al vanaf 1399 koning waren, wat ze een zekere legitimiteit gaf.Onder koning Henry IV, de feitelijke usurpator [26] van de Engelse troon,brak er nog geen dynastieke twist uit [denk eraan, dat de claimant van deEngelse troon, zoals gezegd, een jongen van 8 jaar was bij afzettingvan Richard II] [27], maar bij zijn zoon Henry V, de grote militaire leider inde nog voortwoedende Honderdjarige Oorlog, gestart door overgrootvader Edward III [28], zag je al het prille begin, belichaamd in het Southampton complot in 1415, waarbij onder andere Richard Conisburgh, de derde Graaf van Cambridge en de vader van Richard, de latere hertog van York met handlangers had geprobeerd, koning Henry V af te zetten ten gunste van zijn [ Conisburgh’s] zwager, Edmund Mortimer, de broer van zijn vrouw Anne Mortimer [Edmund was [de ”achtjarige jongen” met de grotere claim, ten tijde van de afzetting vanRichard II en oom van moederskant van de latere Richard, hertog van York.]Dat hele complot mislukte en de complotteurs werden geexecuteerd. [29]R.I.P. [30]KONING HENRY VI/HET FEEST KAN BEGINNEN/ROZENOORLOGENMaar het werd pas echt hommeles onder koning Henry VI, kleinzoon van usurpator koning Henry IV [onze ”Bolingbroke]Belangrijke oorzaak was de ontevredenheid, ontstaan door hetvoor Engeland rampzalige verloop van de Honderdjarige Oorlog, het feit,dat de vreedzame Henry VI het tegenovergestelde was van een flinke militaire leider EN vooral het feit, dat de arme man ernstige psychische problemen had, waardoor ambitieuze mannen probeerden zichzelf en hun familie naar voren te schuiven en grip op de macht te krijgen.Waardoor de Engelse troon een speelbal werd in handen van mannen met echte en vermeende claims.Tegen deze achtergrond laaide de strijd op tussen de Huizen Lancaster en York,aanvankelijk nog om de controle over de koning, maar gaandeweg om de troomzelf.Grote tegenstanders waren bij het uitbreken van de strijd enerzijds Richard, derde hertog van York, als afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III[Lionel of Antwerp] [31] de man met de sterkste claim op de troon.Anderszijds Edmund Beaufort, de tweede hertog van Somerset, behorend tot de onwettige tak van het Huis van Lancaster [32], die namens koning Henry VI optrad en gunsteling was van diens strijdbare vrouw, Margaret of Anjou.[33]Gaandeweg echter werd het steeds openlijker een strijd tussen York en zijn bondgenoten enerzijds en Margaretha van Anjou, de vrouw van de koning [de koning kon door zijn psychische problemen vaak niet effectief regeren] en haar bondgenoten anderszijds, zeker na cde geboorte van haar en de koning’s zoon in 1453.Het verbale en politieke steekspel tussen de heren [York en Somerset], die beurtelings ”protectors of the realm” [een soort regenten, vervangers van de koning] waren in de tijd, dat koning Henry VI niet kon regeren [staat voor: geestelijke inzinking] [34] duurde voort tot de eerste militaire confrontatie in de Rozenoorlogen, de Eerste Slag bij St Albans [35], waarin Beaufort, de tweede hertog van Somerset, sneuvelde [36]Daarna ging het van Kwaad tot Erger [lees noot 37] , ondanks EEN poging om de partijen te verzoenen, de door de vreedzame koning Henry VI goedbedoelde maar te laat gekomen geinstigeerde ”Loveday]] [door u genoemd in uw artikel: complimenten, niet veel mensen kennen deze gebeurtenis!] [38], maar daarna ging het al snel helemaal mis!En vanaf het sluiten van het Act of Accord [tussen York en koning Henry VI] [39] al snel gevolgd door de Slag bij Wakefield, waarin de hertog van York omkwam [40], ging het er niet meer om, wie koning Henry VI controleerde, maar een keihard gevecht om de troon.GAME OF THRONES! [41]When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground….” [42]Ja, DAT bewezen die Rozenoorlogen wel!Het tijdperk brak aan van de door u ook genoemde koning Edward IV, de Rozenoorlogkoning [43], die een redelijk stabiel bewind gevoerd heeft, slechts onderbroken door de Warwick opstand [44], waarover straks meer.Edward IV werd, niet geheel volgens wet en recht, opgevolgd door zijn broer Richard [Richard III]. [45]En tijdens zijn regering werden de Rozenoorlogen definitief beslecht in de Slag bij Bosworth in 1485 [46] tussen Richard III en Henry Tudor [de latere koning Hendrik VII][47], zoon van Margaret Beaufort [48] [uit het Huis van Beaufort en achterkleindochter van John of Gaunt en Katherine Swynford en aldus behorende tot de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster, die later was gewettigd].Bosworth werd gewonnen door Henry Tudor, waarbij niet alleen een definitief einde kwam aan de Rozenoorlogen, maar ook aan het Huis Plantagenet. [49]en in feite aan de Engelse Middeleeuwen.Richard III was de laatste koning uit het Huis Plantagenet.Het tijdperk van de Tudors [50] brak aan.Henry Tudor, die zichzelf in feite koning maakte ”by right of conquest” [51] was, bezegelde zijn legitimiteit als kining door te trouwen met Elisabeth of York, oudste dochter van koning Edward IV. [52]Slimme politieke zet:Want feite had Elisabeth of York [zoals zij werd genoemd en ook heette] natuurlijk koningin moeten worden, als dochter van Edward IV,die niet alleen koning geweest was, maar via zijn vader de hertog van York die superieure claim op de troon had geerfd, boven Lancaster en zeker boven de Beauforts, die onwettige [en later gewettigde tak van het Huis van Lancaster [53] [superieure York claim, weet u nog: via de TWEEDE zoonvan Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp….] [54]Maar ja, Elisabeth of York was geen strijdbare Margaret of Anjou [55], anders had ze wel gevochten voor haar recht op de troon!Nu werd zij in plaats van Queen by right [heersend monarch], Queen consort [echtgenote van de ko ning][56]Militaire overwinningen, he….Overigens waren Henry Tudor [Henry VII] en Elisabeth of York de ouders vande latere Henry VIII en dus de grootouders van koningin Elisabeth I.EN de voorouders van alle latere Engelse koningen!Nou Redactie, was dat een mooi college over de Rozenoorlogen of niet somsHAHAHAHAHA!NU naar Graaf Warwick, waar het om was begonnen en ZIJN plaats in die Rozenoorlogen.RICHARD NEVILLE, 16DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK/DE KINGMAKER/THE STORYDe geschiedenis van de Kingmaker is fascinerend en door uw redactie deelsverkeerd verteld en neergeschreven.Dat heb ik hierboven al gecorrigeerd:Nu een uitgebreider curriculum vitae, om een modern woord te gebruiken:Geboren als Richard Neville in 1428, was hij de zoon van Richard Neville,[door zijn huwelijk, via het recht van zijn vrouw] 5e Graaf van Salisbury [57] en Alice Montegu, 5e Gravin van Salisbury [Salisbury was in feite haar bezit en haar wettelijke titel] [58]Richard Neville stamde uit het Geslacht Neville, een oud-adellijke geslacht [teruggaand van nog voor Willem de Veroveraar] [59], dat als bondgenoten vanRichard, hertog van York, een doorslaggevende rol zou spelen in de Rozenoorlogen. [60]De Nevilles waren ook verwant aan de hertog van York!Want de tante van Richard Neville [de zuster van zijn vader] Cecily Neville, wasgetrouwd met de hertog van York. [61]Dus simpeler gezegd:Richard Neville, onze latere ”Kingmaker” was de volle neef van de latere koning Edward IV [zoon dus van de hertog van York en Lady Cecily Neville]De titel ”Graaf van Warwick” verwierf Richard Neville door zijn huwelijk metLady Anne Beauchamp, de dochter van de dertiende Graaf van Warwick.Door een aantal sterfgevallen binnen de Familie Warwick, werd Richard Neville[jure uxoris: bij het recht van zijn vrouw] [62], de 16e Graaf van Warwick.Genoeg over de ingewikkelde erfelijkheidskwesties binnen de Middeleeuwse Engelse adel.Nu waar het om begonnen is:De Rozenoorlogen.DIE ROZENOORLOGEN EN DE ROL VAN GRAAF WARWICK, IN VOGELVLUCHTDe wortels van de Rozenoorlogen, dat gewapende conflict tussen de HuizenLancaster en York, dat broeder tegen broeder en neef tegen neef opzette [63] en de mannelijke lijn van zowel het Huis van Lancaster als York zou uitroeien [64], alsmede een groot deel van de Middeleeuwse Engelse adel, lagen, zoals ik al schreef, in het verleden en wel bij de afzetting van Richard II door zijn neef, Henry of Bolingbroke [de latere Henry IV] [zie uitgebreid relaas, hierboven] En zie noot 65Maar hoewel het zaad reeds in 1399 [bij de afzetting van Richard II dus] was gezaaid, brak het feitelijke conflict uit tijdens de regering van Henry VI, kleinzoon van Henry IV, hoewel het al voorbodes had in the Southampton plot [66],waarbij de vader van de hertog van York, Richard Conisburgh [derde Graaf van Richmond] had geprobeerd [zonder enig succes!], Henry V af te zetten ten gunste van zijn [Richard of Conisburgh’s] zwager, Edmund Mortimer, 5e Graaf van March en feitelijke troonopvolger van Richard II, die in 1399 aan de kant was geschoven door de neef van zijn [Edmund’s] moeder, Henry of Bolingbroke [latere Henry IV] [67]GOEDHet gewapende conflict brak dus uit onder de regering van Henry VI, in 1455,56 jaar na de afzetting van Richard II.Uiteraard gingen er groeiende spanningen aan vooraf, met name tussenEdward IV’s vader Richard, de [derde, zal ik niet steeds meer vermelden] hertog van York, die in feite de superieure rechten op de troon had [als neef van Edmund Mortimer en via moederszijde afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp] [68], met als grote tegenspeler Edmund Beaufort [behorend dus tot de onwettige tak van het Huis van Lancaster], tweede hertog van Somerset. [69]Tussen die twee, van wie Edmund Beaufort een grote gunsteling was van de strijdbare Margaretha van Anjou, vrouw van Henry VI, barstte vanaf eind veertiger jaren tot 1455 [toen Somerset sneuvelde in de Eerste Slag bij St Albans] [70] een verbitterde machtsstrijd uit, waarbij op een zeker moment edelen partij gingen kiezen.Grote spelers waren dus de hertog van York en de hertog van Somerset, waarbij de sympathie van de Kroon [in feite Margaretha van Anjou] duidelijk aan de kant van Somerset lag en er een steeds grotere vijandschap ontstond tussen Margaretha van Anjou en de hertog van YorkEen machtsstrijd tussen twee machtige mannen dus, die in feite escaleerde door het feit, dat Henry VI een vrome en zachtmoedige man,[In de Middeleeuwen was zachtmoedigheid niet bepaald handig voor een koning, die een keihard leider en een bekwaam militair moest zijn, wilde hij zijn macht handhaven], geen spoor van overwicht had.Rampzalig was bovendien, dat de man heftige psychische problemen had [71], waardoor hij hele periodes niet kon regeren en er een soort Regentschap[Protectoraat] werd ingesteld, beurtelings ingevuld door Somerset en York. [72]Wat Henry VI miste aan vastberadenheid en overwicht, was aanwezig in Margaretha van Anjou, maar in die tijd was er voor een vrouw geen directe regeermacht weggelegd [wat ze wel graag wilde] [73], wat haar echter niet belette, het vuurtje flink op te stoken [zo zat zij nu eenmaal in elkaar], waardoor het conflict alleen maar excaleerde.Naast de zwakke regering van de onevenwichtige Henry VI en de daaruitvolgende spanningen tussen de adel, speelde het slechte verloopvan de Honderdjarige Oorlog en sociale onrust ook een belangrijke rol. [74]WHERE THE EARL OF WARWICK IS COMING INWat opvalt aan de Rozenoorlogen was, dat de keuze, die edellieden maakten[voor Lancaster, dus trouw aan koning Henry VI] of voor York [een bondgenoot van de hertog van York [die steeds openlijker tegenover de koning kwam te staan, hoewel hij zijn trouw aan de koning bleef volhouden] [75], niet zozeer gebaseerd was op principes [het al dan niet erkennen van de betere claim op de troon, die de hertog van York inderdaad had] [76] en zelfs niet op het feit, dat ”s konings positie steeds onhoudbaarder werd door zijn psychische problemen [77], maar door hetzij eigen persoonlijke belangen, hetzij conflicten met andere edellieden.Het is niet teveel gezegd, dat heel veel edellieden tot begin vijftiger jaren nog de kat uit de boom keken.Zo ook Warwick, die het aanvankelijke protest en verzet in 1452, van zijn aangetrouwde oom, de hertog van York [de man van Warwick’s tante van vaderszijde, Cecily Neville] niet steunde, zoals vrijwel alle edelen, die trouw bleven aan Henry VI. [78]Maar dat zou om diverse redenen veranderen, waardoor Warwick EN zijn vader, ook een Richard Neville, de 5de Graaf van Salisbury, de trouwste bondgenoten werden van de hertog van York.Drie Richards, door historische fictie-schrijver Con Iggulden in zijn serie over de Rozenoorlogenaangeduid [hij refereerde aan de vijftiger jaren van die vijftiende eeuw] metde aparte benaming ”Trinity” in het Nederlands [correcter] vertaald als ”Het Drievoudig Verbond” [79]Maar goed:Wat Warwick triggerde om gaandeweg te belanden in het kamp van zijn aangetrouwde oom Richard, de hertog van York, was zijn conflict met zijn zwager, de 2de hertog van Somerset.[Somerset was getrouwd met de halfzuster van Warwick’s vrouw Anne Beauchamp.Zij heette Eleanor Beauchamp] [80]JA, dezelfde Somerset, die de aartsvijand/rivaal was van de hertog van York en een diehard gunsteling van Margaretha van Anjou, de vrouw van koning Henry VI.Dat Warwick/Somerset conflict ging, zoals zo vaak bij de Middeleeuwse adel, over land en dreef Warwick in de armen van de hertog van York. [81]Hierdoor, maar ook naarmate het conflict tussen de hertog van York en Somerset [lees ook de koning en vooral zijn vrouw Margaretha van Anjou] verder opliep en York [tijdelijk] Protector of the Realm [een soort regent] werd[de koning was weer eens uitgeschakeld], kwam ook de vader van Warwick [dus de broer van York’s vrouw Cecily Neville] steeds meer in het kamp van York [82] en vormden deze drie Richards, Richard, de hertog van York, Richard Neville, de vijfde Graaf van Salisbury en diens zoon, Richard Neville, de 16e Graaf van Warwick, een geducht bondgenootschap in de vijftiger jaren van de vijftiende eeuw!Daarnaast woedde ook nog een vernietigend conflict tussen de Huizen Neville[met aan het hoofd Warwick’s vader] en Henry Percy, 2de Graaf van Northumberland, over land, wat de geschiedenis in zou gaan als de Percy-Neville feud [de Percy Neville vete] [83]En de Percy’s waren felle verdedigers van de Kroon, dus langs deze lijnen ontvouwde het conflict zich ook nog eens.En alles liep zo hoog en fel op, dat in de eerste Rozenoorlog veldslag, de Eerste Slag om St Albans, Warwick’s vader [en zijn zoon en York] tegenover Henry Percy en de hertog van Somerset zouden komen te staan, die beiden sneuvelden, waardoor het zaad van verbittering en haat [hun zoons wilden wraak] verder werd gezaaid. [84][Extra pijnlijk, omdat die Henry Percy weer getrouwd was met een zuster van Warwick’s vader, Lady Eleanor, waardoor ook de neven tegenover elkaar kwamen te staan!]”[85]Maar samengevatHet voor Engeland rampzalige verloop van de Honderdjarige oorlog, de mentale instabiliteit van de koning, dat Percy Neville conflict en allerlei andere conflicten tussen edelen, triggerden die Rozenoorlogen. [86]En in deze atmosfeer maakte een man als Warwick zijn carriere!WARWICK EN KONING EDWARD IVTOEN NOG THICK AS BROTHERS………….Wat in de vijftiger jaren begon als een schermutseling tussen de aanhangers van de hertog van York [met als bondgenoten Warwick en zijn vader ook een Richard Neville, weet u nog?] enerzijds en de getrouwen van koning Henry VI anderszijds [87], De zogenaamde Eerste Slag bij St Albans [88], werd gaandeweg steeds grimmiger, wat uiteindelijk uitmondde in een verbitterde burgeroorlog en een regelrechte strijd om de troon.Zie voor dat verloop noot 89, waarin de strijdbare vrouw, Margaretha van Anjou, steeds meer de leider van de Lancaster Partij werd.Ook wel begrijpelijk:Ze verdedigde niet alleen haar incapabele echtgenoot, maar ook de rechten van haar in 1453 geboren zoon, de toenmalige Prince of Wales, Edward of Westminster [90]Om een lang en bitter verhaal kort te maken:Na de nederlaag in de Slag bij Ludlow Bridge in 1459 waren de drie Richards gedwongen, in ballingschap te gaan, York en zijn tweede zoon Edmund, Earl of Rutland, naar Ierland, Warwick, zijn vader en York’s oudste zoon Edward, Earl of March [later Edward IV] naar Calais [91], ze kwamen terug, overwonnen aanvankelijk [92], waarna York koning Henry het recht van troonsopvolging afdwong [93], maar leden een bittere nederlaag in Wakefield, waarbij de hertog van York sneuvelde [of na afloop van de strijd gedood], zijn tweede zoon Edmund werd geexecuteerd, Warwick’s vader werd geexecuteerd en Warwick’s broer Sir Thomas Neville, sneuvelde. [94]Een militaire ramp dus, maar ook een persoonlijke tragedie,voor Warwick en Edward [latere Edward IV], die op dat moment pas 18 jaar oud was.Want beiden waren hun vader en een broer kwijt.Natuurlijk triggerde deze rampzalige verliezen deze twee heren, zowel om wraak te willen nemen als wel om nu echt voor de troon te gaan, wat in 1461 lukte, toen Edward, mede door inspanning van Warwick, tot koning werd gekroond na een aantal klinkende York overwinningen! [95]De nieuwe, jongere generatie York Leiders was dus aanmerkelijk harder en ging verder.Voor vader York was de troonsopvolging van Henry VI genoeg [96], de zoon echter ging direct voor de hoofdprijs.DE TROON!EDWARD EN WARWICKPARADISE?OR TROUBLE IN PARADISE…..THE BEGINNING:In het begin van de heerschappij van Edward IV leek alles nog zo goed te gaan.Warwick was king’s best ally and trusted advisor[97], bekwaam als hij was op diplomatiek gebied.Vooral op de Fransen maakte hij indruk.Zo merkte de Gouverneur van Abbeville op in een brief aan de Franse koningLouis XI [Lodewijk XI]:[vertaald naar het Engels]””They have but two rulers, M. de Warwick and another whose name I have forgotten.” [98] Naar mijn mening vulden Warwick en zijn koning Edward IV elkaar perfect aan.Warwick had het politieke inzicht en hoewel een redelijk goed militair, was het Edward IV, die een brilliant legeraanvoerder was en zelden een veldslag verloor.Zelfs op zijn achttiende had hij in de slag bij St Mortimers Cross in 1461, kort na de dood van zijn vader en broer [99] Jasper Tudor [oom van de latere koning Henry VII] , halfbroer [van moederskant] van koning Henry VI, verslagen en een zeer ervaren legeraanvoerder. [100] Zelf schrijf ik in mijn artikel ”The Causes of the wars of the Roses/A travel to the Past:”I myself hold the opinion, that when King Edward would have concentratedon the military (he was an extremely capable military commander) and the Earl of Warwick on ruling and diplomacy, they whould have been made a deadly double and perhapsruled England happily together, if at least Edward had not fallen ill and diedso untimely.” [101]Het was een Golden Couple:Edward IV, jong en een van de mooiste mannen van zijn tijd, een brilliant legeraanvoerder en Warwick, charmant, geslepen, zeer ervaren, een goed militair maar een nog veel betere diplomaat.Helaas…..het mocht niet duren….Het is nu eenmaal zo”When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die.There is no middleground” [102]Maar naast die machtsstrijd, die er ook tussen hen was, was het breekpunt het Geheime Huwelijk, dat Edward IV sloot met Elizabeth Woodville, weduwe van nota bene een Lancaster supporter, de edelman John Grey, die in de Tweede Slag om St Albans was gesneuveld [1461, uitgevochten tussen Warwick en Margaretha van Anjou/supporters, beslissende Lancaster overwinning] [103]Warwick was aan het onderhandelen over een politiek zeer voordelig huwelijk met de Franse prinses Bona, schoonzuster van de Franse koning Louis XI, toen bleek, dat de koning [zonder Warwick in kennis te stellen, al met Elizabeth Woodville getrouwd was. [104]Niet alleen een klap voor Warwick’s ego, die in het buitenland voor gek stond, de dame was ook nog eens weduwe van een man, die supporter geweest was van de Lancaster erfvijand!En tot overmaat van ramp begon de koning de aanzienlijke familie van zijn koningin, de Wooodvilles, te bevoordelen en aanzienlijke posities te geven, waardoor Warwick aan macht inboette! [105]Van Warwick’s kant dus wel begrijpelijk, dat zijn wrok gevoed werd en daarmee zijn zijn vervolgstappen beter te verklaren.Wat uw opmerking:”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.’ [106], dus wel zeer simplistisch maakt!HEBT U ZOVER NOG MEEGELEZEN?/MOOI!/DAN STAAT U ECHT OPEN VOOR KRITIEK EN BENT U BEREID, BIJ TE LEREN:VERVOLG:EDWARD AND WARWICKDE BREUKOndanks de strubbelingen over het Geheime Huwelijk van de koningen de toenemende invloed van de Woodvilles [de familie van Edward IV’s koningin], hield, om het even populair te zeggen, Edward IV nog van Warwick.Zo werd zijn broer, George Neville, tot Aartsbisschop van York benoemd en in juli 1465, toen de tragische [voormalige] koning Henry VI gevangen genomen werd, begeleidde Warwick hem naar gevangenschap in The Tower. [107]MAAR TOEN KWAM DE KLAPPER [OF KLAPPERS], DIE WARWICK EN EDWARD IV UIT ELKAAR DREEF!Terwijl Warwick de Koninklijke Opdracht kreeg, zowel met de Fransen en de Boergondiers [elkaars vijanden, de Bourgondiers waren de bondgenoten van de Engelsen geweest gedurende de Honderdjarige Oorlog] [108] te onderhandelen over een huwelijk van de zuster van de koning [Margaret] met een van de twee partijen en Warwick langzamerhand de aandacht verschoof naar de Fransen, bij wie hij een uitstekende reputatie genoot [109], sloot Edward IV een geheim verdrag met de Bourgondiers [uiteindelijk werd Margaret uitgehuwelijkt aan de Boergondische Graaf Karel de Stoute] [110], waardoor Warwick weer voor Gek stond!Zaken liepen nog meer uit de hand, omdat de schoonvader van de koning, Richard Woodville, Graaf Rivers, fel voor de verbintenis met de Boergondiers was. [111]Maar los daarvan:Het WAS verstandige en wijze politiek van Warwick, de voorkeur te geven aan een Franse alliantie:Frankrijk was een machtige monarchie en de voormalige tegenstander in de door Engeland begonnen Honderdjarige Oorlog [112] en als bondgenoot veel waardevoller dan het Graafschap Boergondie!MAAR ER GEBEURDE MEER TUSSEN WARWICK EN EDWARD IVWant tot overmaat van ramp weigerde Edward IV een huwelijk goed te keuren tussen Warwick’s oudste dochter en zijn [Edward IV’s] broer George, de hertog van Clarence. [113]Waarmee de maat voor Warwick vol was en duidelijk werd, dat Graaf Rivers [de schoonvader van Edward IV] de machtsstrijd had gewonnen.Niet alleen een klap voor Warwick persoonljk, maar ook voor de gehele Familie Neville, waarvan Warwick het Hoofd was. [114]Om een lang Verhaal kort te maken:Warwick stoorde zich niet aan het verbod van de koning, maar huwelijkte zijn dochter Isabel vrolijk uit aan ’s Konings broer George, hertog van Clarence, die ook al zo zijn eigen ambities had en graag met Warwick opliep, ook al omdat hij de illusie had [en misschien was dat ook Warwick’s intentie], dat Warwick Edward IV door hem zou willen vervangen als koning [115] [en vergeet ook niet, dat Warwick, na de koning, de rijkste man in Engeland was en dat een huwelijk met zijn dochter een zeer lucratieve zaak was. [116]Het Paar trouwde in 1469 in Calais, met de zegen van de Aartsbisschop van York, George Neville, broer van Warwick. [117]Daarna escaleerde de Zaak snel en een wervelwind aan gebeurtenissen volgdeWarwick orchestreerde een opstand in het Noorden, waarmee hij schijnbaar niets te maken had [slim!], onder leiding van een mysterieuze ”Robin van Redesdale” [118], keerde [in 1469] met schoonzoon George PLantagenet terug naar Engeland, ’s koning’s troepen werden door Robin of Redesdale verslagen in de slag bij Edgecote [119], waarna de vader en broer van deKoningin gevangengenomen werden en geexecuteerd [120] Drama ging door:Later werd de koning zelf gevangengezet, weer vrijgelaten door Warwick [121], een tijd leek dat dan weer redelijk te gaan tussen de koning en Warwick [de koning had Warwick en George hun verraad vergeven] [122], totdat de bom weer barstte, Warwick en George opnieuw in opstand kwamen en de koning gedwongen was, Engeland te verlaten en met een kleine groep getrouwen, waaronder zijn toen zeer loyale broer Richard. hertog van Gloucester en zijn boezemvriend, Lord Hastings [123].De koning ging in ballingschap naar Bourgondie, waar zijn zuster Margaret inmiddels met Graaf van Bourgondie Karel de Stoute getrouwd was. [124] Warwick sloot intussen een bondgenootschap met Margaretha van Anjou en plaatste de geestelijk instabiele koning Henry VI opnieuw op de troon [maar Warwick regeerde uiteraard] [125]Hiermee was Warwick definitief naar de kant van Lancaster overgelopen,iets wat enkele jaren daarvoor nog ondenkbaar was [zijn eigen vader en broer waren omgekomen tijdens de strijd in 1461] [126]Zijn bondgenootschap met Margaretha van Anjou werd bezegeld [voor wat, hoort wat!] door het huwelijk tussen Warwick’s jongste dochter Anne Neville en Margaretha’s en Henry VI’s zoon, Edward of Westminster, de Lancaster Prince of Wales. [127]Het Einde verliep tragisch, want Warwick’s periode van macht was een korte vreugde.Edward IV [wat was ook anders te verwachten] keerde naar Engeland terug met een leger [geholpen door zijn zwager Graag Karel de Stoute van Bourgondie] en versloeg Warwick in de slag bij Barnet [128], waarbij Warwick en zijn broer John, de Eerste Markies van Montagu, sneuvelden.Warwick’s schoonzoon George Plantagenet had zich inmiddels weer verzoend met broer Edward, waarschijnlijk gepiqueerd omdat Warwick zijnkaarten niet meer op hem als koning zette. [129]Zie voor een zeer interessant overzicht van Warwick’s carriere de documentaire van de Britse historicus Dan Jones [130]Met de dood van Warwick kwam feitelijk een einde aan de machtspositie van de Familie Neville.Erbij gezegd moet nog worden, dat zij tot een van de weinige adellijke Families behoorden, die aan de kant van het Huis van York stonden.De meeste adelsfamilies waren Lancaster, en dus koning Henry VI, trouw gebleven. [131]Want de monarchie was nog praktisch sacraal en het afzetten van een koning, ook al was dat al wel gebeurd met Edward II [hoewel ten gunste van zijn eigen zoon] en Richard II [usurpatie door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke, waarmee die het zaad van die ellende van de Rozenoorlogen werd gezaaid] [132], het afzetten van een koning dus, was nog net geen heiligschennis.Margaretha van Anjou, die ook met een troepenmacht naar Engeland was gezeild, maar helaas voor de Lancaster zaak te laat in Engeland aankwam om samen met Warwick Edward IV in een militaire tangpositie te nemen, werd in mei 1471 door Edward IV verslagen in de slag bij Tewkesbury, waarbij de kans op een Lancaster heerschappij verkeken was. [133]Tijdens het leven van Edward IV, althans.Na de dood van Edward IV bemachtigde zijn broer Richard, de hertog vanGloucester, de troon, als Richard III [Zie noot 45]] en werd hij, na twee jaar koningschap, zoals ikal in bovenstaande had vermeld, in de slagbij Bosworth verslagen door Henry Tudor, de latere Hendrik VII, zoon van Margaret Beaufort [uit het Huis van Beaufort en achterkleindochter van John of Gaunt en Katherine Swynford en aldus behorende tot de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster, die later was gewettigd].Hiermee kwam niet alleen definitief een einde aan de Rozenoorlogen, maar ookaan het Huis Plantagenet.Het tijdperk van de Tudors brak aan. [Zie noten 46 t/m 50]EPILOOGAanleiding tot mijn schrijven, een Opus, dat ik in september 2019 ben begonnen en nu heb voltooid, is uw ongenuanceerde uitspraakover een van de belangrijkste Spelers tijdens de Rozenoorlogen, Richard Neville,16e Graaf van WarwickNogmaals herhaald mijn reden tot kritiek:Op bladzijde 24 van uw uitgave ”De geschiedenis achter de Game of Thrones”,schreef u dus:”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROONDe Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”Einde uw tekstIn bovenstaande heb ik u niet alleen uitgelegd, waarom deze Passage uituw tijdschrift kort door de bocht, verward en historisch onjuist is [ik verwijsnaar het begin van mijn schrijven], ook heb ik u meegenomen opeen Reis door de Tijd, met uitgebreide informatie over de achtergrondenvan de Rozenoorlogen, tegen welks licht de carriere van Richard Neville,bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” gezien moet worden.Mensen zijn complexe wezens en zelden is iemand alleen ”de verrader” en handelt/zij hij alleen ”uit machtswellust”Handelingen van mensen, zeker uit voorbije tijden, die qua wereldbeelden opvattingen ver afstaan van de onze, moeten bekeken worden vanuitde complexiteit, die zij verdienen.Ik hoop, dat ik met dit commentaar ertoe heb bijgedragen, dat u inhet vervolg complexe historische gebeurtenissen en ontwikkelingenniet zult afdoen met goedkope one liners, maar recht doetaan de tijd, waarin een en ander dient te worden geplaatst en deafwegingen die iemand tot zijn gedrag hebben bewogen, ook meeweegt.Alleen dan doet u recht aan de historische werkelijkheid, voor zover wij die kennen.Een gecompliceerd en veelzijdig carrierepoliticus [om maar eenmodern woord te gebruiken] als de Graaf van Warwick verdient beter.Vriendelijke groetenAstrid Essed Amsterdam NOTENVoor uw gemak heb ik de bijbehorende noten in links ondergebrachtZie voor noten 1 t/m 133LINKShttps://www.astridessed.nl/noten-1-t-m-133-bij-brief-aan-het-historische-tijdschrift-ontdek-over-verkeerde-historische-informatie-over-de-rozenoorlogen/
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Rozenoorlogen/Originele mail Astrid Essed aan Ontdek Magazine over een historische misser
Please see below the feedback from the Editorial Team regarding the feedback that you have given.
OK, we’ve made a couple of small changes to this article, based on the reader’s message. Here’s the description of the revision in the article history (http://www.britannica.com/top ic/653692/history):
“Changing ‘usurped’ to ‘overthrown’ to acknowledge the contention of the legitimacy of the York claim based on the ‘Mortimer Claim.’ Also mentioned the 14th century practice among the nobility of privileging heir-male claims over heir-general claims.”
”House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet of England. In the 15th century, having overthrown the house of Lancaster, it provided three kings of England—Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.”
If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.
We hope that this is of some help to you. If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.
Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890”
THAT WAS THEIR REACTION!
You can understand I was a little proud on that and see the
text about the House of York you can read now!
SEE TEXT ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA UNDER NOTE 1
[NOTE 1, A]
And as an extra Source, under Note 1, my whole Correspondence with the Encyclopaedia Britannica
The house was founded by King Edward III’s fifth son, Edmund of Langley (1341–1402), 1st Duke of York, but Edmund and his own son, Edward, 2nd Duke of York, had for the most part undistinguished careers. Edward, dying childless, passed on the dukedom to his nephew Richard (whose mother was a descendant of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence). Richard, 3rd Duke of York (1411–60), was the initial Yorkist claimant to the crown, in opposition to the Lancastrian Henry VI. It may be said that his claim, when it was advanced, was rightly barred by prescription, the house of Lancaster having then occupied the throne for three generations, and that it was really owing to the misgovernment of Queen Margaret of Anjou and her favourites that it was advanced at all. Yet it was founded upon strict principles of lineal descent, for the 3rd Duke of York was descended from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the second surviving son of Edward III, whereas the house of Lancaster came of John of Gaunt, a younger brother of Lionel. One thing that might possibly have been considered an element of weakness in Richard’s claim was that it was derived through females—an objection actually brought against it by Chief JusticeJohn Fortescue (probably a reflection of the increasingly common practice among the English nobility of passing on their estates to a male heir). But apart from strict legality, Richard’s claim was probably supported in the popular view by the fact that he was descended from Edward III through his father no less than through his mother.
After seeking for many years to correct the weakness of Henry VI’s government, Richard first took up arms and at length claimed the crown in Parliament as his right. The Lords, or those who did not purposely stay away from the House, admitted that his claim was unimpeachable but suggested as a compromise that Henry should retain the crown for life and that Richard and his heirs succeed after his death. This was accepted by Richard, and an act to that effect received Henry’s own assent. But the act was repudiated by Margaret of Anjou and her followers, and Richard was slain at Wakefield fighting against them. In little more than two months, however, his son was proclaimed king at London by the title of
Edward IV, and the bloody victory in the Battle of Towton immediately after drove his enemies into exile and paved the way for his coronation.
After his recovery of the throne in 1471, Edward IV had little more to fear from the rivalry of the house of Lancaster. But the seeds of distrust had already been sown among the members of his own family, and in 1478 his brother Clarence was put to death—secretly, indeed, within the Tower of London, but still by his authority and that of Parliament—as a traitor. In 1483 Edward himself died; and his eldest son, Edward V, after a nominal reign of two months and a half, was put aside by his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, who became Richard III, and then, it is said, caused him and his brother Richard, Duke of York, to be murdered. But in little more than two years Richard was slain at Bosworth Field by the Tudor Earl of Richmond, who, being proclaimed king as Henry VII, shortly afterwards fulfilled his pledge to marry the eldest daughter of Edward IV and so unite the houses of York and Lancaster.
Here the dynastic history of the house of York ends, for its claims were henceforth merged in those of the house of Tudor.
This article was most recently revised and updated by Jeff Wallenfeldt. END OF NOTE 1
B
MY CORRESPONDENCE IN EMAIL WITH THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
ADDED
MY LAST REACTION ABOUT THE CHANGES OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA
Please see below the feedback from the Editorial Team regarding the feedback that you have given.
OK, we’ve made a couple of small changes to this article, based on the reader’s message. Here’s the description of the revision in the article history (http://www.britannica.com/top ic/653692/history):
“Changing ‘usurped’ to ‘overthrown’ to acknowledge the contention of the legitimacy of the York claim based on the ‘Mortimer Claim.’ Also mentioned the 14th century practice among the nobility of privileging heir-male claims over heir-general claims.”
”House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet of England. In the 15th century, having overthrown the house of Lancaster, it provided three kings of England—Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.”
If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.
We hope that this is of some help to you. If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.
Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890
______________________________ __ From: Astrid Essed [astridessed@yahoo.com] Sent: 25 February 2015 04:38 To: ukcustomerservice Subject: Re: (ESSED, Astrid) Britannica [AM]
TO BRITANNICA CUSTOMER SERVICE
Dear Sir/Madam,
You’re welcome. I passed this feedback to you with great pleasure. Thanks very much for your reaction and the trouble you have taken to pass my feedback to your Editorial Team.
To make things easier I send you the letter to Encyclopaedia Britannica as posted on my website, as a later comment on the same subject
See
THE WARS OF THE ROSES/LANCASTER AND YORK/ USURPATION AND THE RIGHT TO THE THRONE BY FEMALES/LETTER TO ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
We have passed your comprehensive feedback on to our Editorial Team for review. Thank you for taking the time to review this content and provide all of this feedback. When they have reviewed your comments we will let you know their response.
Kind regards
Britannica Customer Service
If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.
We hope that this is of some help to you. If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.
Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890
______________________________ __ From: Astrid Essed [astridessed@yahoo.com<mailto: astridessed@yahoo.com>] Sent: 16 February 2015 22:19 To: enquiries – General Enquiries at Britannica.co.uk Subject: Comments on your Page about the House of York
TO THE EDITORS OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA YOUR ARTICLE ABOUT THE HOUSE OF YORK SOME COMMENTS
Dear Editors,
At first I want to express my great admiration for your large scale History Page about ther various periods of human history,
I especially paid attention on your contributions to the English Late Medieval History and visited your page about the Hundred Years War between England and France with pleasure, learning much of your information
However I want to make some comments on your contribution, referring to your remarks about the ”usurpation” of the House of Lancaster by the House of York, as the ”weakness” of the claim to the throne by Richard, Duke of York, being derived by females.
But first, the usurpation:
FIRST:
USURPATION OF THE THRONE OF THE HOUSE OF LANCASTER BY THE HOUSE OF YORK
I think you are wrong here, since, according to my opinion, there was no ”usurpation” here, in the classic meaning of the definition. To go to the definition of ”usurpation”:
”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.” [3]
I will not go extensively into your remark that the House of York ”passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty”, which is wrong. Because, although there was a certain [not Tudor, but Beaufort/Lancaster] claim to the English throne [4], the House of York had a far stronger claim to the throne. I refer to that later. And smart Henry Tudor [who became King Henry VII and was undoubtedly aware of that stronger York claim] claimed the throne as ”right of conquest”,not by ”right of inheritance”, after his victory in the Battle of Bosworth, where he defeated the Yorkist King Richard III. [5] And as a ”right of conquest” the legality of Henry’s kingship was considered generally. [6]
I said it before According the definition, usurpation is ”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.”
That means not only deposing a King (which was almost a deadly sin in the Middle Ages), but also through someone who had none or lesser right to the throne.
In this case, at first there was no deposal of the throne at all, since there was ”the Act of Accord” and later, when King Edward IV ascended the throne, the deposal of King Henry VI was not as ”illegal” as it seemed, because of two factors: The stronger claim of the House of York to the throne, [the Mortimer claim to the throne], as the fact, that the House of Lancaster itself rose into power by usurpation. But first the Act of Accord
I referred to the fact, that there was no deposal at all at first, mentioning the Act of Accord in 1460. [8]. that included, that King Henry VI remained King of England, but that Richard, Duke of York and his heirs would succeed Henry, thus desinheriting Henry´s son, Edward of Westminster. [9]
Of course one can put questions by disinheriting the Kings´s son, but that’s another story. The Act of Accord was a legal document, as a result of negociations between the Duke of York and the Parliament.(10), after his come back from Ireland and (indeed) seemed to have tried to seize the throne.[11]
Admitted, that [the deal of the Duke of York with the Parliament] was power play, since the party of the Duke of York was on the winning hand in the Wars of the Roses at that moment, but the Act of Accord did not come ´´out of the blue´´ either.
ACT OF ACCORD WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE
Susan Higginbotham, historical fictional writer of Margaret Anjou, mentions the Act of Accord as ´´York, after all, had bullied her husband (Henry VI, my remark) into disinheriting his own son in favor of York´´ (12) and it is her right to see it like that, but I have another vision, because I take the whole history, which preceeded the Accord Act. into consideration.
Since King Henry VI’s uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, died in 1447, Richard, Duke of York, was heir presumptive to the then childless King Henry VI. [13] But from various reasons, King Henry VI, and his wife, Queen Margaret of Anjou [14] favourited the party of the Duke’s adversary, Edmund Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset [who was of the Lancaster Swynford line] [15] and sent Richard as Lieutenant to Ireland, obviously in a sort of exile.[16] Tensions grew high in the 50ths between York and the Duke of Somerset [with the Queen as his ally], the King got mental ill and in 1453 became father, which ended York’s position as heir presumptive, but due to the mental illness of the King, he became Protector of the Realm twice. Enmity between York and Somerset [and Margaret of Anjou] rose farther and probably they wanted York to be arrested, so he and his allies armed themselves. A military confrontation was enevitable and broke out between York [with his brother in law and his nephew, Warwick the Kingmaker as allies] and the King [actually the Queen and Somerset], which was the start of the Wars of the Roses. After several bloody battles, in 1459, the Coventry Parliament [probably instigated by Margaret of Anjou] attainted York and his allies [declared them to ”traitors” without trial] and forfeited their lives and estates [17], which left York [according to my opinion] no choice than first flee to Ireland and later trying to seize the throne, resulting in the Act of Accord.
I don’t think either York, however ambitious, was after the throne, before 1460. He had enough opportunities to have taken the throne before that [especially when the King was in his power after the First Battle of St Albans in 1455], but he never made an attempt untill he was pushed to the edge by the attainder of 1459. [18]
THE ACT OF ACCORD AFTERMATH BLOODY WAR, WAKEFIELD
When the Act of Accord had been accepted by the Lancastrian party, probably King Henry should have remained King till his death, but the bloody battles intensified. Understandably, Margaret of Anjou was furious about her son’s disinheritance and refused to accept it. She went to Scotland, asking Mary of Guelders, the Queen Regent, military support against the Yorkist party[19] and the military confrontations went on. In her absence, the Battle of Wakefield took place,where the Duke of York [higly probable] died in battle and his son Edmund Earl of Rutland, as the Dukes brother in law, the 5th Earl of Salisbury [the father of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the ”Kingmaker], were executed after the battle. [20] Unlike popular belief, Margaret of Anjou was not present at Wakefield, so she couldn’t have ordered their executions. [21] She returned to England and defeated Warwick in the 2nd Battle of St Albans [22], where she was responsible for the executions following. [23] However, she spared the life of John Neville, brother of the Earl of Warwick, probably since the brother of her commander the 3rd Duke of Somerset [son to the late 2nd Duke of Somerset, enemy of Richard of York] was a captive in Yorkist hands. [24]
But relieved as she might have been to get rid of the Duke of York, she had a more formidable military adversary in his son and heir Edward, now Duke of York, who defeated the Lancastrian forces in the bloody and decisive Battle of Towton. [25]
THE ACT OF ACCORD/AFTERMATH THE DUKE OF YORK’S SON AND HEIR’S ASCENDANCY TO THE THRONE KING EDWARD IV
Edward of York was not like his father, who had a loyalty to the throne till he was pushed to the extremes. Probably hardened by the loss of his father and brother at Wakefield [where Warwick also lost his father and brother Edward’s maternal uncle and cousin],as by an attitude of machiavellistic politics, he was not inclined to hold on to the Act of accord, remaining Henry VI King of England. In fact, since his mental instability, as the reality of Edward’s victories, he wouldn’t have ruled anyway. He was imprisoned in the Tower.
At march 1461, Edward was declared King of England, fulfilling his father’s wishes for his sons.
USURPATION OR NOT? THE CLAIMS TO THE THRONE OF THE HOUSE OF YORK
Although you call the overthrowing of the Act of Accord an usurpation, to my opinion it is no usurpation at all, since the Lancasters should not have to be kings all along, due to the superior claim to the throne of York, as the Lancaster usurpation of King Richard II. [26]
The claims to the throne first.
Richard, Duke of York had superior claims to the throne. He was the grandson of Edmund of Langley, the fourth son of King Edward III, but that was not his superior claim, since the House of Lancaster [The ”King Henry’s” as the Beauforts} descended from John of Gaunt, the third son of King Edward III. But it was his mother” side, that gave him the superior claim.[27]
York’s maternal grandfather, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March, was the materrnal grandson of Lionel of Antwerp, the SECOND son of King Edward III and that gave him a greater claim than that of the Lancaster. See the Family Tree
King Edward III
Lionel of Antwerp [second son to Edward III]
Philippa P lantagenet [Lionel’s daughter], married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd 3th Earl of March
Roger, 4th Earl of March [Philippa Plantagenet’s son]
Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March [son to Roger]
Anne Mortimer [daughter to Roger], maried Richard Conisburtgh [son of Edmund of Langley, first Duke of York]
Richard, Duke of York [son to Anne Mortimer, descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward II]
Isabel Plantagenet [daughter to Anne Mortimer and sister to Richard, Duke of York] [28]
MORTIMERS CLAIM TO THE THRONE
But there was more, which asserted the superior York claims. Since King Richard II was childless, he appointed as his heir presumptive, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March [Richard of York’s maternal grandfather]. Roger was the son of Richard II’s cousin Philippa [Richard II and Philippa were the children of two brothers, The Black Prince and Lionel of Antwerp, the first and second son of King Edward III]. [29]
Roger Mortimer never became King, since he died a year before Richard II, but his heir presumptive right passed to his son, Edmund, 5th Earl of March, who was the maternal uncle of Richard of York. [30]
However, since Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne from Richard II, Edmund, only a boy, was overlooked, so also his superior right to the throne. [31] However, when Edmund Mortimer [brother to Richard the Duke’s mother, Anne Mortimer]died childless, York not only inherited his lands and estates, as his titles, but also his heir presumptive right.
After the death of King Henry VI’s uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, [brother of his father Henry V],York became heir presumptive till the birth of Henry’s son in 1453, Edward of Westminster. [32]
WHO WERE THE REAL USURPERS? LANCASTER USURPATION OF RICHARD II
I have shown above, that it was Henry IV, founder of the House of Lancaster, who usurped not only the throne of England by deposing the rightful King Richard II [33], but also overlooked the rightful heir presumptive, Edmund Mortimer. When the right to the throne was justly followed, not King Henry IV, but Edmund Mortimer had ascended the throne and was probably succeeded by his nephew Richard, Duke of York.
Therefore it is [with all respect] utter nonsense to speak of an ”usurpation of the throne” by Edward, son of Richard of York, in 1461. The only usurpators were the Lancasters.
Amitted, due to the military succesful reign of King Henry V [34], the usurpation was forgotten, but that didn’t make it undone. Therefore it were the Mortimers and their descendant Richard of York, who should have been Kings from the beginning.
I think that was the reason, that York was ousted of power and sent to Ireland in the late 40s. And probably the reason, Margaret of Anjou didn’t trust him. [35]
SECOND:
THE ”WEAKNESS” OF THE CLAIM OF RICHARD OF YORK, SINCE IT WAS DERIVED FROM FEMALES?
You justly confirmed the superior claim of York to the House of Lancaster, as you correctly state, that was the reign of Henry VI succesful, the claim was never advanced at all. I also think, that the only reason York advanced his claim was the unsuccesful rule of Henry VI, due to his mental problems, his corrupt advisors, as the great losses in the Hundred Years War.
But I disagree with you on the point, that the weakness in the claim of York was, that it was derived from females.
Because although men had the first rights to the throne, there was no Salic Law in England, that exclude women from the throne, nor from claims to the throne, which passed through their descendants.
For example Queen Maud [mother to the later King Henry II and daughter to King Henry I, who was the son to William the Conqueror] was declared heiress to the throne by her father after the death of his only son. [36] Granted, the Norman barons didn’t accept her after the death of her father and civil war burst out [37], but were women excluded, her father should not have declare his daughter heiress.
But moreover, claiming rights to the throne from female line is done in English history at several occasions and was considered legally and valid.
FOUR IMPORTANT HISTORICAL OCCASIONS BY WHICH MEN CLAIMED OR INHERITED THE THRONE FROM FEMALE LINE
There are at least four important occasions by which men claimed the throne from female descent.
First: Stephen of Blois, cousin to Queen Maud [daughter of King Henry I and heiress to the throne], who claimed the right to the throne through female line [being a maternal grandson to William the Conqueror]
The first was in the time of Queen Maud [called also ”Empress Maud because of her earlier marriage with the Holy Roman Emperor]. Her right to the English throne was challenged by her cousin, Stephen of Blois, who claimed the throne through his grandfather, William the Conqueror, who was his maternal grandfather. [38] He had men enough, prepared to support his maternal claim, took the throne, drove his cousin Mathilda and her husband Henry of Anjou out of the country and a yearlong military struggle, the anarchy, started. [39] Eventually, after the death of Stephen’s son and heir, a deal was made, that Stephen would rule, but had to recognise Maud’s son, Henry of Anjou, as his heir. [40]
Second: Henry of Anjou [King Henry II], son to Queen Maud, who inherited the throne through his mother.
After Stephen’s death, Henry of Anjou would become King Henry II [41], father to Richard Lion Heart [Richard I] (42) and John, King of England [John Lackland] [43] Henry II was the founder of the Plantagenet Dynasty. [44]
So here are two men who claimed or inherited their throne from females. Stephen of Blois, claiming the throne as a grandson of William the Conqueror from his mother’s side as King Henry II, who inherited the throne from his mother’s side. No ”weakness” here.
Third King Edward III, who claimed the French throne through his mother, Isabella of France Resulting in the Hundred Years War with France, being the maternal grandson of the French King Philip IV.
Perhaps most famous is the claim to the French throne, laid by King Edward III [45], through is mother, Queen Isabella of France (46), who was the daughter of the French King, Philip IV (47) That made Edward III the maternal grandson to a French King. When the last son of King Philip IV, named Charles IV (48), died in 1328 without a male heir, the question was Who is going to be the new King! His sister Isabella, mother of Edward III, claimed the throne for her son, but problem was, that since 1316 the Salic Law was introduced in France (which excluded women as heirs to the throne). (49) This was no coincidence, but due to an adultery scandal, involving the wives of Charles IV and his brother Louis X (50), The Tour de Nesle Affair (51), questioning the paternity of the sons of the King. This was particularly urgent after the death of Louis X, since the legitimacy of his daughter Joan was in question, (52) due to her mother´s alleged adultery. (53)
Anyway, Isabella´s claim to the throne for Edward III was rejected, since she, being a woman, was excluded from the rights to the throne and couldn´t transmit a right what she didn´t possess. (54) But that was the French Law. Point I want to make is, that claiming through a female was quite strong in England, which didn´t know the Salic Law. Eventually Edward III would claim the French throne anyway [55], which was one of the causes of the Hundred Year´s war with France. And that´s my second point I want to state. Since no one in England questioned Edward´s claim through a female and the nobles wholeheartedly supported him in the war with France, female claims were neither unusual nor ´´weak´´.
FOURTH LANCASTER CLAIM TO THE THRONE THROUGH FEMALE LINE/THE QUESTION EDMUND CROUCHBACK
Since Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne of Richard II in 1399, becoming King Henry IV, a Lancaster right to the throne was of the greatest importance, that was superior to that of Richard II, son of the first son of Edward III as the Mortimer right to the throne [descendants of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III. So Henry IV was clever enough not to base his claim on his fathers side, since John of Gaunt [his father] was the third son of Edward III. In stead of that, he based it on the side of his mother, Blanche, of Lancaster [56], who was the great granddaughter of Edmund Crouchback.[57] And Edmund Crouchback was the son of King Henry III [58] and the younger brother of King Edward I. [59] One could say? So what about the claim. Well, here it is. According to Henry IV [Lancastrian views], this Edmund Crouchback was not the second son of Henry III, but his first son in stead of Edward I, but disinherited because of his bodily deformity [a twisted back]
You see the consequences? That makes King Edward I, II, III and Richard II a sort of usurpers and the rights to the throne of Richard II as the Mortimers claim null and void, since Edward III would be an usurper king. However, it’s a pity for Henry IV and the other Lancasters, who claimed the Crouchback case, that there is no proof whatsoever, that Edward I was not the first son of King Henry III. So its pure Lancastrian propaganda. [60]
I mentioned this ”Edmund Crouchback claim” as the fourth historfical example of men, who based their claims on females or inherited the throne by females.
A proof, that deriving a right to the throne from females, as has done by Richard, Duke of York, was not ”weak” at all, but has proven valid and generally accepted through English history.
EPILOGUE
To my opinion, the deposing of King Henry VI by Edward of York, son of Richard, Duke of York, was no usurpation, since The Duke of York [who passed the right to the throne to his eldest son, Edward] had a superior right to the throne than King Henry VI, [called the Mortimer claim] being the descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III, while Henry was the descendant of the third son of Edward III, John of Gaunt. In fact, after the death of King Richard II, the Dukes uncle, Edmund Mortimer, who was heir presumptive to Richard II should have become King of England. So by deposing Henry VI, Edward of York took his rightful place on the throne.
The reason why Edmund Mortimer didn’t become King was lain in the usurpation of Henry IV [grandfather to Henry VI] of the throne of Richard II, which was not only illegitimate, but also overlooking the superior Mortimer claim of Edmund Mortimer.
You also remarked the ”weak point” of the Mortimer claim [York’s right to the throne] his deriving from females. I’ve shown you four historical examples, by which claims to the throne [or even inheritance] by females were made, the most famous Edward III claim to the French throne by his mother, Queen Isabella [wife to Edward II] I think I have stated clearly, that the female right is valid and not weak.
I wrote this letter out of appreciation with your work. Thank you for reading it.
Much succes with your wortful historical research.
Kind greetings
Astrid Essed
Amsterdam The Netherlands
NOTES
[1]
ENGLISH HISTORY/THE WARS OF THE ROSES/ MARGARET OF ANJOU, TWO MAJOR PLAYERS ASTRID ESSED
The Swynford branch of the Lancaster line [the children of John of Gaunt, son to Edward III and his mistress Kathryn Swynford], called the ”Beauforts”, were legitimised first by King Richard II and later by King Henry IV [as legitimate son of John of Gaunt, the halfbrother of the Beauforts], on condition that they should not claim the throne.
”So Henry VII didn’t claim the throne through right of inheritance: he claimed it through the right of conquest, not through any of his own royal lineage.”
WOMEN’S HISTORY LEGITIMATE ENOUGH HERITAGE? TUDOR’S CLAIM TO THE THRONE [1485]
” Henry VII acknowledged the necessity of marrying Elizabeth of York to ensure the stability of his rule and weaken the claims of other surviving members of the House of York<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/House_of_York>, but he ruled in his own right and claimed the throne by right of conquest and not by his marriage to the heir of the House of York.”
”Margaret undoubtedly rejoiced over York’s death—York, after all, had bullied her husband into disinheriting his own son in favor of York, and Margaret had every reason to fear for her husband’s future in a government controlled by York—but she did not have what to her might well have been the pleasure of seeing her enemy fall.”
”The death of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, in 1447 left York next in line for succession to the throne, and the Beauforts had him sent—virtually banished—to Ireland<http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/293754/Ire land> as lord lieutenant.”
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA RICHARD, 3RD DUKE OF YORK
Kings favouritism of the Somerset and Suffolk party [which was the ”peace” party to France, more open for negociations] against the Gloucester [the Kings uncle Humphrey Duke of Gloucester] and York party [the war party to France]
”His attitude toward the Council’s surrender of Maine<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Maine_(province_of_France )>, in return for an extension of the truce with France and a French bride for Henry, must have contributed to his appointment on 30 July as Lieutenant of Ireland<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Lord_Lieutenant_of_Irel and>. In some ways it was a logical appointment, as Richard was also Earl of Ulster<http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Earl_of_Ulster> and had considerable estates in Ireland, but it was also a convenient way of removing him from both England and France.”
”In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury had suffered attainder<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Attainder>. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit.”
”On this day in 1459 the ‘Wars of the Roses’ between the houses of Lancaster and York took on an increased ferocity. Parliament had not met for three and a half years, since March 1456, when it had been dissolved following the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as Protector and the nominal resumption of authority by the mentally-unstable Henry VI. That summer the seat of government was effectively removed to Coventry, in the Lancastrian heart-lands, and the chief offices of state were allotted to intimates of the queen, Margaret of Anjou.” ON THIS DAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT ONLINE http://www.historyofparliament online.org/periods/medieval/ day-20-november-1459- parliament-devils-assembles- coventry
”In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury had suffered attainder<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Attainder>. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit.”
”On this day in 1459 the ‘Wars of the Roses’ between the houses of Lancaster and York took on an increased ferocity. Parliament had not met for three and a half years, since March 1456, when it had been dissolved following the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as Protector and the nominal resumption of authority by the mentally-unstable Henry VI. That summer the seat of government was effectively removed to Coventry, in the Lancastrian heart-lands, and the chief offices of state were allotted to intimates of the queen, Margaret of Anjou.” ON THIS DAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT ONLINE http://www.historyofparliament online.org/periods/medieval/ day-20-november-1459- parliament-devils-assembles- coventry
”While Mary was still mourning the death of King James II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/James_II_of_Scotland>, the Lancastrian Queen Margaret of Anjou<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou> fled north across the border seeking refuge from the Yorkists. Mary sympathetically aided Margaret and took Edward of Westminster<http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Edward_of_Westminst er> into her household to keep them out of Yorkist hands. Mary’s dealings with Margaret were mainly to provide aid to the deposed queen. Mary gave a number of Scottish troops to help Margaret and the Lancastrian cause”
”John Neville had been captured but was spared execution, as the Duke of Somerset feared that his own younger brother who was in Yorkist hands might be executed in reprisal”
”Though Parliament conceded that Richard had the better claim to the throne, they were unwilling to depose him outright. A compromise was reached, and that compromise was the Act of Accord.”
´´Louis’ second wife Clementia was pregnant at the time of his death, leaving the succession in doubt. A son would have primacy over Louis’ daughter, Joan<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Joan_II_of_Navarre>.[32]<h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo uis_X_of_France#cite_note-32> A daughter, however, would have a weaker claim to the throne, and would need to compete with Joan’s own claims – although suspicions hung over Joan’s parentage following the scandal in 1314´´
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Encyclopaedia Britannica versus Astrid Essed about the superior claim of the House of York on the English throne/Encyclopaedia Britannica corrects a mistake [2015]
King Charles III has officially delivered his first speech as British monarch. In an address recorded in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace earlier this afternoon, Charles spoke of his beloved mother, who he said always saw the best in people, and promised his lifelong service.
“I shall endeavor to serve you with loyalty, respect, and love,” he said.
Here, read King Charles
Here, read King Charles III’s first speech in full:
I speak to you today with feelings of profound sorrow. Throughout her life, Her Majesty The Queen – my beloved Mother – was an inspiration and example to me and to all my family, and we owe her the most heartfelt debt any family can owe to their mother; for her love, affection, guidance, understanding and example. Queen Elizabeth was a life well lived; a promise with destiny kept and she is mourned most deeply in her passing. That promise of lifelong service I renew to you all today.
Alongside the personal grief that all my family are feeling, we also share with so many of you in the United Kingdom, in all the countries where The Queen was Head of State, in the Commonwealth and across the world, a deep sense of gratitude for the more than seventy years in which my Mother, as Queen, served the people of so many nations.
In 1947, on her twenty-first birthday, she pledged in a broadcast from Cape Town to the Commonwealth to devote her life, whether it be short or long, to the service of her peoples. That was more than a promise: it was a profound personal commitment which defined her whole life. She made sacrifices for duty. Her dedication and devotion as Sovereign never wavered, through times of change and progress, through times of joy and celebration, and through times of sadness and loss. In her life of service we saw that abiding love of tradition, together with that fearless embrace of progress, which make us great as Nations. The affection, admiration and respect she inspired became the hallmark of her reign. And, as every member of my family can testify, she combined these qualities with warmth, humour and an unerring ability always to see the best in people.
I pay tribute to my Mother’s memory and I honour her life of service. I know that her death brings great sadness to so many of you and I share that sense of loss, beyond measure, with you all. When The Queen came to the throne, Britain and the world were still coping with the privations and aftermath of the Second World War, and still living by the conventions of earlier times. In the course of the last seventy years we have seen our society become one of many cultures and many faiths. The institutions of the State have changed in turn. But, through all changes and challenges, our nation and the wider family of Realms – of whose talents, traditions and achievements I am so inexpressibly proud – have prospered and flourished. Our values have remained, and must remain, constant.
The role and the duties of Monarchy also remain, as does the Sovereign’s particular relationship and responsibility towards the Church of England – the Church in which my own faith is so deeply rooted. In that faith, and the values it inspires, I have been brought up to cherish a sense of duty to others, and to hold in the greatest respect the precious traditions, freedoms and responsibilities of our unique history and our system of parliamentary government. As The Queen herself did with such unswerving devotion, I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the Constitutional principles at the heart of our nation. And wherever you may live in the United Kingdom, or in the Realms and territories across the world, and whatever may be your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love, as I have throughout my life.
My life will of course change as I take up my new responsibilities. It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply. But I know this important work will go on in the trusted hands of others. This is also a time of change for my family. I count on the loving help of my darling wife, Camilla. In recognition of her own loyal public service since our marriage seventeen years ago, she becomes my Queen Consort. I know she will bring to the demands of her new role the steadfast devotion to duty on which I have come to rely so much.
As my Heir, William now assumes the Scottish titles which have meant so much to me. He succeeds me as Duke of Cornwall and takes on the responsibilities for the Duchy of Cornwall which I have undertaken for more than five decades. Today, I am proud to create him Prince of Wales, Tywysog Cymru, the country whose title I have been so greatly privileged to bear during so much of my life and duty. With Catherine beside him, our new Prince and Princess of Wales will, I know, continue to inspire and lead our national conversations, helping to bring the marginal to the centre ground where vital help can be given. I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas.
In a little over a week’s time we will come together as a nation, as a Commonwealth and indeed a global community, to lay my beloved mother to rest. In our sorrow, let us remember and draw strength from the light of her example. On behalf of all my family, I can only offer the most sincere and heartfelt thanks for your condolences and support. They mean more to me than I can ever possibly express.
And to my darling Mama, as you begin your last great journey to join my dear late Papa, I want simply to say this: thank you. Thank you for your love and devotion to our family and to the family of nations you have served so diligently all these years. May “flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest”..
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor First Speech of king Charles III as a Monarch/Tribute to his mother Queen Elizabeth II
Added by Nerdfightergirl Posted in Diamond of the First Water (Netflix)Anthony Bridgerton (Netflix)/GallerySimon 
IMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA
Fig 3: The north-transept façade of the Abbey offered the most direct connection between the Palace and the Abbey. The reconstruction of the nave continued into the 15th century. Westminster Abbey photographed for Country Life magazine by Paul Highnam.
.jpg)
.jpg)
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES