u/Accurate_Rooster6039

I ranked medieval English queen consorts by the title held by their father at the time of their marriage to the monarch (whether before or after accession)

The ranks are divided into: Emperor, King, Duke, Count/Earl, and Baron.

Consorts who were daughters of an Emperor:

• Anne of Bohemia — daughter of Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor

Consorts who were daughters of a King:

• Matilda of Scotland — daughter of Malcolm III, King of Scotland
• Berengaria of Navarre — daughter of Sancho VI, King of Navarre
• Eleanor of Castile — daughter of Ferdinand III, King of Castile, León, and Galicia
• Margaret of France — daughter of Philip III, King of France
• Isabella of France — daughter of Philip IV, King of France
• Isabella of Valois — daughter of Charles VI, King of France
• Joan of Navarre — daughter of Charles II, King of Navarre
• Catherine of Valois — daughter of Charles VI, King of France

Consorts who were daughters of Duke:

• Eleanor of Aquitaine — daughter of William X, Duke of Aquitaine
• Adeliza of Louvain — daughter of Godfrey, Duke of Lower Lorraine
• Margaret of Anjou — daughter of René, Duke of Anjou

Consorts who were daughters of Count/Earl:

• Matilda of Flanders — daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders
• Matilda of Boulogne — daughter of Eustace III, Count of Boulogne
• Isabella of Angoulême — daughter of Aymer, Count of Angoulême
• Eleanor of Provence — daughter of Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Provence
• Philippa of Hainault — daughter of William I, Count of Hainaut
• Anne Neville — daughter of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick

Consorts who were daughters of Baron:

• Elizabeth Woodville — daughter of Richard Woodville, Baron Rivers

Note: Some of these royals and nobles held multiple titles, but I ranked the queen consorts according to the highest ranking title held by their father at the time of their daughter’s marriage.

The battle pitted King Henry Ill against rebel barons led by Simon de Montfort. Despite being outnumbered, de Montfort's forces won decisively. A major reason was that Prince Edward, the future Edward I, chased fleeing troops too far from the battlefield, leaving the royal army exposed.

From the annalist and monk of St Albans, William Rishanger:

>Then Edward with his line rushed on his enemies with such violence that he compelled them to retreat, and many of them, to the number of sixty knights, it is said, were overwhelmed. Soon the Londoners were routed, for Edward thirsted for their blood because they had insulted his mother, and he chased them for four miles, slaughtering them most grievously. But through his absence the strength of the royalists was considerably diminished.

>Meanwhile many of the might men of the royal army, seeing the earl's standard on the hill and thinking he was there, made their way thither and unexpectedly slew those London citizens, for they did not know that they were on their own side. In the meantime the earl [Simon de Montfort] and Gilbert de Clare were by no means inactive, for they smote, threw down and killed those who opposed them, endeavouring with the utmost eagerness to take the king alive.

>There were captured Richard, the king of Germany, Robert Bruce and John Comyn, who had led the Scots thither. Also King Henry had his horse wounded under him, and giving himself up to earl Simon was soon brought under guard to the priory.

When Edward finally returned, the battle was already over. The royal army had fallen apart, and King Henry III had retreated to Lewes Priory after the crushing defeat.

With the town in flames, his army defeated, and his father captured by the rebels, Edward had little choice but to surrender. Under the agreement known as the Mise of Lewes, he was taken hostage by the barons, who sought to place limits on the King’s power.

I tried to trace every possible ancestral path from Edward III back to Hugh Capet, and this is what I ended up with.

I knew it would be a big tree, but not this huge. The more I worked on it, the more the lines started crossing and reconnecting, showing how much connected medieval families were.

I didn’t want to simplify too much. When there were multiple ways to reach the same ancestor, I kept those lines separate instead of combining them. That’s why some nobles/royals can be traced in more than one line. I used colors and different line styles for male and female ancestors to make it easier to read. But with a tree this large, there’s only so much I can do. If it looks a bit all over the place, that’s partly on me, but also because Edward III’s ancestry is very complicated.

Also, I’d love to hear what you think about this chart and what stands out to you. Personally, I was surprised by how much Spanish ancestry Edward III had, and it was also interesting to see that he descended from the House of Capet in several ways through his father’s side. But you know what surprised me most? That there was no way to trace Henry II to Hugh Capet through his father and House of Anjou line.

If you notice any mistakes or anything that looks off, please point them out. I double checked every line, but I probably missed something, who knows.