Richard III gave Anne Neville a pet lion as a coronation gift. She used to send it out to London, where citizens would feed it stray dogs and cats. Simpler times?
Edward II was often his own worst enemy but there’s also no denying he also ran into some bad luck. But what was the worst thing to have happened to him?
This is a great article from Historic UK on the strange tale of Katherine's body.
Whether you believe the survival theory or not, Edward II's Fieschi-letter adventures make for a good yarn. An ex-king, traveling incognito and visiting his relatives, mixing with the commoners but meeting with the pope, and dropping by some tourist attractions pilgrimage sites, is fun to think about.
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:
Consorts who were daughters of a King:
Consorts who were daughters of Duke:
Consorts who were daughters of Count/Earl:
Consorts who were daughters of Baron:
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.
There's going to be way more detailed posts floating around Tudor reddit today, but it's worth marking the anniversary of an iconic woman's death, whose complex legacy is still being adjudicated. She did not deserve her fate, and she lived one of the most fascianting and dramatic lives in history.
I couldn't resist posting this clip that popped in my feed. First, it's so deliciously 1930s Art Deco with a chaser of the Eighteenth Century. Secondly, you can see the influence on the 2006 film.
The 1938 film plays up the love story between Marie Antoinette and Count Fersen, but it is notable for its sympathetic portrayal of Marie Antoinette as a young woman caught up in a political and social situation she is ill-equipped for.
Norma Shearer, who was in her mid-thirties, plays Antoinette from a young teenager to her death. Shearer, who was the widow of legendary MGM producer Irving Thalberg, chose to appear without makeup during the final scenes before the execution. This was a shocking thing to do for an actress at the time, especially one who was aging.
The film was a passion project of the late Thalberg, who advocated for it as a vehicle for his wife and Shearer was committed to completing it in his memory. She had a few more roles afterwards, before retiring from acting and stepping away from the spotlight.
No expense was spared in the costumes, which were designed by the legendary Adrian, and while the film did well at the box office, it initially lost money because of its large budget. However, it gained an audience later when it began airing on television in the 1950s.
It's completely worth a watch, for the performance by Shearer alone.
There's a really great account of the troubled production, some of its dated flourishes and the better film it might have been over on the blog Inviting History. It was originally supposed to be shot in color, with some of the gowns matching Shearer's eyes. You can see the colored image above shows the planned effect.
Here's a trailer.
Images: Norma as Antoinette, a film poster, a Colorized Norma as Antoinette and Anita Louise as Princess de Lambelle.
Other Sources: Turner Classic Movies & Wikipedia.
The 1938 film plays up the love story between Marie Antoinette and Count Fersen, but it is notable for its sympathetic portrayal of Marie Antoinette as a young woman caught up in a political and social situation she is ill-equipped for.
Norma Shearer, who was in her mid-thirties, plays Antoinette from a young teenager to her death. Shearer, who was the widow of legendary MGM producer Irving Thalberg, chose to appear without makeup during the final scenes before the execution. This was a shocking thing to do for an actress at the time, especially one who was aging.
The film was a passion project of the late Thalberg, who advocated for it as a vehicle for his wife and Shearer was committed to completing it in his memory. She had a few more roles afterwards, before retiring from acting and stepping away from the spotlight.
No expense was spared in the costumes, which were designed by the legendary Adrian, and while the film did well at the box office, it initially lost money because of its large budget. However, it gained an audience later when it began airing on television in the 1950s.
It's completely worth a watch, for the performance by Shearer alone.
There's a really great account of the troubled production, some of its dated flourishes and the better film it might have been over on the blog Inviting History. It was originally supposed to be shot in color, with some of the gowns matching Shearer's eyes. You can see the colored image above shows the planned effect.
Here's a trailer.
Other Sources: Turner Classic Movies & Wikipedia.
The 1938 film plays up the love story between Marie Antoinette and Count Fersen, but it is notable for its sympathetic portrayal of Marie Antoinette as a young woman caught up in a political and social situation she is ill-equipped for.
Norma Shearer, who was in her mid-thirties, plays Antoinette from a young teenager to her death. Shearer, who was the widow of legendary MGM producer Irving Thalberg, chose to appear without makeup during the final scenes before the execution. This was a shocking thing to do for an actress at the time, especially one who was aging.
The film was a passion project of the late Thalberg, who advocated for it as a vehicle for his wife and Shearer was committed to completing it in his memory. She had a few more roles afterwards, before retiring from acting and stepping away from the spotlight.
No expense was spared in the costumes, which were designed by the legendary Adrian, and while the film did well at the box office, it initially lost money because of its large budget. However, it gained an audience later when it began airing on television in the 1950s.
It's completely worth a watch, for the performance by Shearer alone.
There's a really great account of the troubled production, some of its dated flourishes and the better film it might have been over on the blog Inviting History.
Other Sources: Turner Classic Movies & Wikipedia.
O most great King Edward, you are our foremost in war, you are our leader and our prize champion in the race: like Moses, great in faith, while you stretch out your hands to the stars, and to the people of Israel, Amalek is defeated, and Joshua overthrows Jericho, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed is acquired by Edward in one hour of the day. And that not only: for, like the army of Pharaoh and his whole host submerged in the sea, the perfidious multitude of the faithless is driven from England and the dominion of the King in one day.
In days of old Alexander, the King of Macedon, overthrew the kings of Persia and Media and subdued the eastern provinces: now in our time the great King Edward undertook a ten-year war against the illustrious King of France, Philip; we recovered Gascony, which had been taken by deceit, by force and arms we acquired Wales from the enemy's hand, we invaded Scotland, having overthrown its tyrant with the edge of the sword.
Indeed, he rescued the kingdom of England from the mouth of the lion, when he freed Daniel, our King Henry, from the hand of the beast, Simon of Montfort, in the battle at Evesham. And so we exalted the great Edward to the royal throne both by virtue of war and by hereditary succession.
Once Brutus, a man mighty in strength, in destroying the monstrous giants, boasted that he had acquired an empty and abundant isle; but Edward was more than Brutus, as will be clear.
King Arthur made the Orcadian, Norwegian, Aquitainian, Scottish and Irish islands, half-filled with peoples, under tribute, and yet he could not completely destroy the Saxon tribe which had treacherously entered Britain, and wounded by Mordred, he, preserver of the peace of the Britons, escaped. Our King Edward succumbed to none.
Did not Edgar, the happy King of the English, once sitting in a ship, while he had been rowed by the kings of Scots, Cumbrians, and five other petty-kings across the Dee, proclaim that his successors would boast that the kings of England, since they enjoyed such a prerogative of honour, would have the power of so many kings subject to them? And behold, more than Edgar our Edward, for he trampled on the aforesaid governments of the islands by his own virtue, reducing several of them into the dominion of his predecessors, he distinguished his successors by the title of monarchy as kings of England much more magnificent than all the aforesaid.
But the famous King Richard of England, once a warrior of valour, who like a roaring lion conquered many overseas lands, is worthy of the of many praises. However, he suffered the mark of disgrace in the presumption of audacity, he was captured and suffered at the hands of the Austrians, living out not the full length of his days, like to the great Alexander. For he, reigning twelve years, drank poison and died; this one, mortally wounded with a bolt, died in the tenth year of his reign. Not so our king Edward.
Not so, but greater than the greatest kings was King Edward; who, when in the Holy Land pursuing the cause of the cross, was stabbed five times by a certain assassin, yet did not die; shot by many arrows, as at Stirling, he returned unharmed and without injury.
Here King Edward increased above all kings in military glory: by an edict issued in France, in Flanders, in Aquitaine, in England, in Scotland, in Ireland and in Wales, that as many as wished to serve with arms should come to the King and most abundantly present all the military ornaments from their wardrobe. And who has heard of such things? Therefore, the English world remembers how many great things it has achieved under his leadership, and the more abundantly sighs and laments that it has lost so much in his absence.
O my best fellow soldiers, look what has happened to us, pay attention and see our disgrace. Will our swords be beaten into plowshares, and our weapons into sickles? Will our spears be reduced to pruning hooks? for the flower of chivalry has withered, under which it was glory to march and advance, and finally to fight and triumph.
Let's face it. We live in the golden age of disinformation, where lies fly at the speed of light and the truth travels by mule cart. But disinformation and historical fallacies have always been a thing.
So, what did you believe until you learned it wasn't true? Was it just an innocent mistake, or something else?
Image: Possibly Catherine Howard, public domain.
This story is a favorite of historical fiction writers but it has little basis in reality. So, I spun one of my older posts here into a longer blog post.
Sometimes I do think people have forgotten that many of the ugly stories about Edward II and Piers were invented by people looking to justify their gruesome deaths.
Hugh Despenser the Younger dominated Edward II's late reign, and it surely appears he personally dominated Edward II (no comment from the peanut gallery, I'm talking politically). But even though Hugh the Younger was married to Edward II's favorite niece and was his chamberlain, Hugh never got a fancy title. Meanwhile, Piers Gaveston's earldom was so important to Edward II, he restored it and likely sealed his friend's doom.
Do you think Hugh was smart enough to say he didn't want an earldom? Or do you think Edward II had learned his lesson?
Why did I have to learn from Screen Junkies that Alan Tudyk's character Wat, is supposed to be THE Wat Tyler?
This is an expanded blog based on an earlier post about Isabella, Margaret, Piers and Edward and the hope they might have had during the festive season of 1310. Alas, it was not to be.