u/Accurate_Rooster6039

Edward had technically been king since his father Henry III died in 1272, but he was away on crusade and did not return to England until August 1274. He was anointed and crowned by Archbishop Robert Kilwardby, with Alexander III of Scotland and many of the English nobility present.

The coronation marked the beginning of a long, turbulent, and memorable reign. Edward would go on to conquer Wales and wage decades of war against Scotland, earning the nickname “Hammer of the Scots.”

Eleanor of Castile was also crowned Queen of England on the same day as her husband.

Many know that King John had a reputation for tyranny and cruelty. He is widely believed to have murdered his nephew, Arthur of Brittany, and to have starved Maud de Braose and her eldest son to death at Corfe Castle. However, many don’t know that John’s vengeance and cruelty did not end here. The deeper you dig into his reign, the more disturbing events you uncover.

Nottingham Castle is best known for its association with the legends of Robin Hood, but it was also the setting for one of the most infamous acts of King John’s reign. In 1212, after a Welsh uprising, John ordered the execution of 28 Welsh hostages who had been taken during his campaigns in Wales.

The story began in 1211, when John invaded Wales. From Flowers of History by Roger Wendover:

“…. the said king collected a large army at Whitchurch, and marched into Wales on the eighth of July, and penetrated in great force into the interior of that country as far as Snowdon, destroying all the places he came to; he subdued all the princes and nobles without opposition, and received twenty-eight hostages for their submission for the future.”

These hostages were the sons of leading Welsh princes and nobles, given as a guarantee of loyalty. However, in 1212 the Welsh rebelled, attacking English castles and forces:

“About this time the Welsh burst fiercely forth from their hiding-places, and took some of the English king's castles, decapitating all they found in them, knights and soldiers alike; they also burnt several towns, and at length, after collecting great quantities of booty, they again betook themselves to their retreats without any loss to themselves.

When these events became known to the English king, he was very indignant, and collected a numerous army of horse and foot soldiers, determining to ravage the Welsh territories, and to exterminate the inhabitants.

On his arriving with his army at Nottingham, before he either ate or drank, he ordered twenty-eight youths, whom he had received the year before as hostages from the Welsh, to be hanged on the gibbet, in revenge for the above-mentioned transgressions of their countrymen. Whilst he was, after this, sitting at table eating and drinking…”

So, what do you think was on King John’s menu that day?

(Image is of King John swearing vengeance on his barons after being forced to sign Magna Carta, but I thought it suitable here too.)

The office of the Justiciar, specifically the Chief Justiciar, was one of the most powerful positions in medieval England. They were the king’s chief administrator, political adviser, and sometimes even military commander. When the king was away, the Justiciar could effectively become the person running the kingdom, handling justice, finances, rebellions, and royal authority. The equivalent of a medieval prime minister, but with even greater power.

The Plantagenet era had many notable Justiciars, such as Ranulf de Glanvill, Hubert de Burgh, Hubert Walter, and, of course, the infamous William Longchamp.

My personal favorite is Hubert Walter. He was intelligent, ambitious, highly capable, and a skilled diplomat and administrator. As Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Chancellor, and Justiciar, he played a crucial role in keeping England stable during Richard I’s absences.

So, who do you think was the most interesting Justiciar, and why?

Edit: it’s Hubert de Burgh, not Hugh de Burgh. In my defence, both names seem similar.

Made a UK Monarchs XI and, before anyone asks, yes, most of my choices are based on vibes.

Richard I is my center forward because he was tall, aggressive, a nightmare for defenders, and also has the superstar energy. If anyone is leading the line, it’s the Lionheart.

Henry V and Edward I are on the wings because both feel like they could be absolutely devastating running at defenders. Edward III gets the CAM role and the captain’s armband. Great king, great warrior, and I don’t think he would be a controversial choice as captain.

In midfield, I’ve got Henry II and Henry VII as my main pairing. They’re both control freaks, which could be a problem, but I guess whatever. I did consider moving Edward III into a more box to box role alongside Henry II, but I just can’t see Henry VII working as a 10.

At centre back, Edward IV is there mainly because he’s tall and would dominate in the air. I paired him with Charles II because they’re probably the two monarchs I’d most want in the dressing room after a win.

My fullbacks were great athletes/warriors in the prime of their lives, so they get the wide hybrid defensive-offensive roles. And of course Henry VIII gets stuck in goal because somebody had to draw the short straw.

Honourable mentions on the bench: Richard III, Edward II, Henry I, George V, James VI and I, and George VI.

Really, if you think about it, it’s not much more centralized than the HRE until we get to Philip II Augustus.

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.