r/houseofplantagenet

>"During the decade of the Lionheart's rule, fighting was almost endemic, but it was concentrated chiefly in the Seine valley against Philip Augustus and in rebellious regions on the southern fringes of Poitou, leaving the Loire valley on the sidelines of the main events. Because Anjou lay between these two trouble-spots, Richard passed through the region every year of his reign except during his crusade and captivity, 1191 through 1193. Only in the summer of 1194 did warfare draw Richard into Greater Anjou. Following his return from Germany and a visit to England, he marched into the Touraine to reassert his authority. On 6 July, he confronted Philip Augustus near Vendome, forced him to flee and captured the French baggage train. Returning from Aquitaine to Normandy later that summer, the English king stopped in Anjou to shore up his authority there. He summoned his magnates to an assembly at Le Mans and apparently sought to shame them into stronger support by a speech commending to them the deeper devotion displayed by his English subjects. Yet no serious revolt threatened the region again until Richard's death in 1199, when a disputed succession gave Angevin nobles an excuse to defy John. The Lionheart's government made so little impression on the Angevin annalists that they treat him 'as if he were a stranger to the land'. [Annales de Saint-Aubin in Halphen, Annales angevines et vendomoises, 19, notes without comment the death of Richard, 'most illustrious king of the English', while in recording Henry II's death, it describes him as 'famous and most powerful from sea to sea'.] Charter evidence strengthens this impression. Of his surviving acta, an overwhelming majority treat English and Norman matters, and only 27 (3 per cent) out of some 750 concern Anjou. Even when Richard was resident in Anjou, most of the charters issued there concerned either England or Normandy."

This is somewhat surprising to me as Richard is known to have identified himself through his patrimony as chiefly a descendant of Melusine and the House of Anjou. But Angevin peoples themselves seem to have seen him largely as an outsider, despite him being Henry's son. But Henry himself, despite exerting broadly similar policies to the Greater Anjou region as his son (and to John before he lost it), was regarded as much more a native and local, with Angevin annalists looking back very fondly on his reign and perhaps also that of Geoffrey his father. Perhaps it is largely because Henry was born there ("For he [Henry] had promised the inhabitants of that city [Le Mans] that he would not forsake them, giving it as his reason, that his father rested there, as also, the circumstance that he himself was born there, and loved that city more than all others") ?

But it's curious that there's such a generational break between Geoffrey and his son Henry on the one hand, compared to between Henry and his son Richard on the other.

For those of you who don't know, Isabella of France was the queen who deposed her husband in 1327 and earned the moniker "She-wolf of France". Now due to her seemingly traveling with Roger Mortimer, who was the 1st Earl of March who was exiled to France following a failed rebellion and escaping imprisonment after drugging his guards, openly and staying in the same manors and/or castles while in France during her exile and in England after ceasing control. The evidence that Roger and Isabella having an affair and later a romantic, and likely sexual, relationship seem overwhelming, especially for the time.

Evidence for the affair and aforementioned relationship

Traveling openly together with a man who wasn't her husband is already bad enough, but staying in the same manor and castles, even if they stayed in different chambers, was a bad look that she should have been greatly aware of. Yet it wasn't enough to dissuade her as she wanted her son to inherit England and get her lands back from Edward II's favorite at the time Hugh the Younger. The Despensers, notably Hugh and his father, also called Hugh, were running England into the ground. By December 1325 rumors and reports of their romantic relationship were already circulating and were enough for King Charles IV of France, Isabella's brother, and Pope John XII to receive complaints of their supposed affair.
Isabella and Roger lived openly together and appeared consistently side by side in public. Adam Murimuth was a royal clerk and chronicler that knew both of them and wrote that they showed "excessive familiarity" and "remarkable intimacy" toward Roger while he was in France. This was used as a reason she did not go back to her husband. Keep in mind that King Edward II was a client of his so Adam would certainly have a bias, especially with Edward II also sending angry letters to France and the Pope.
The scandal of Isabella's relations with Roger was so bad and believable that they had both to withdraw from the French court to Flanders.
14th‑century chronicler Geoffrey le Baker called Isabella an adulterous “Jezebel” and implied a scandalous liaison with Mortimer. Now keep in mind that this was written after Isabella of France was "overthrown" by her son, Edward III. Geoffrey died in 1360 while Isabella died in 1358, so they lived during the same time period. So not exactly the strongest piece of evidence due to obvious bias, but his writing was based on Adam's work as mentioned above as well as from William Bisschop, a companion of the king's alleged murderers, Thomas Gurney (a knight who served under Roger Mortimer, but who was not the first lord he served), William Ockley (a man at arms who was also considered to be one of the alleged murderers of King Edward II. He was condemned for regicide by King Edward III and is believed to have died in 1330 via some form of execution by Edward III as there isn't any trace of William after that year), and John Maltravavers (a knight and close associate of Roger Mortimer).
There is also the fact that when Roger Mortimer overexerted his influence in court and disrespected King Edward III, there is no evidence of Isabella doing anything to reign back or correct his behavior and slights against her son, even if they were done unintentionally, though it is likely Roger did not care about the optics.
The most damning pieces of evidence to support this long-perpetuated view of Isabella and Roger as lovers is when in the infamous summer of 1329, Roger Mortimer invited pretty much every noble in England for a major tournament where he dressed himself as King Arthur as Isabella as Queen Guinevere, the wife of King Arthur and known for infamously having an affair with Arthur's most trusted knight... Keep in mind that Roger's own wife Joan de Geneville did not attend even though the tournament was meant as a celebration of their daughters' marriages. Apparently, this wasn't the first time the two dressed as Arthur and Guinevere and were known for holding or attending private performances.
To make matters worse, King Edward III, the actual King of England was cast as Sir Lionel, a knight that served the king of England. The optics were so bad that even Roger Mortimer's own sons, can't remember which one, called him the "King of Follies". Yet Isabella not only did not seem to distance herself from the event or try to warn Roger of how bad an idea this was as Isabella was a widow and he was married but seem to eagerly participate in the event and seemed to enjoy it, not being concerned or bother by how bad this would look or how humiliating this would be for her son. This is an instance where Isabella's intelligence was completely absent and provides the strongest support for the adultery. Even in modern times this would be a bad look for a widowed woman and a married man, who have shared living quarters, but not the same room as best we can prove. If two purses were enough to condemn two princesses into shame and imprisonment, I say two as Joan was acquitted, then Isabella should have had the common sense to know better unless she indeed involved in adultery, and by extension sexually.
In 1330, Roger executed the Earl of Kent for an attempt to rescue and restore Edward II, who had been buried and already believed dead. This is instance where Ian Mortimer provides evidence that Edward II was not in fact killed by actually lived and died years later, however that is an entirely different discussion. This is important as Isabella choosing to not save one of her cousins and initial supporters to oust her husband shows she definitely placed Roger, an earl, over her family. Now Roger wasn't just another earl as he was indeed powerful, but I doubt he was as powerful as all of England's dukes, barons, and Isabella's vassals she could call upon for aid if Roger though he could take the crown for himself.
Finally, there is the instance when Edward finally having had enough of Roger's behavior, which greatly resembled that of the Despensers, stormed the castle he was staying at alongside the queen, Isabella cried out for her son to spare him. Her exact words were "Fair son, have pity on gentle Mortimer." Gentle is perhaps the last word that should be used to describe Roger given his actions before being overthrown and allowing King Edward III to take the reins. There is also the case of Isabella suffering from fits of madness or a nervous breakdown, whether this was from stress or from Roger being executed we don't know, but let me know your thoughts.

Here is the thing about this though and why I find it odd that a woman as experienced as Isabella and the manner she was raised in could be as blinded as she was as a regent.

The Tour de Nelse was enough to show Isabella of the repercussions of adultery seeing as how it was her own eyewitness account that sent the entire scandal off even though there was less evidence of her sisters in laws having affairs as best as I could find, but everyone please feel free to let me refer me to additional sources.
She was raised by King Philip IV, a main who's main concern was for the dignity of his office and that of his children as well, even if he married them off for politically practical reasons instead of love, which resulted in a whole host of problems. He was deeply pious and proud of his faith and likely he raised Isabella to view religion in the same manner and not do anything scandalous as commit adultery.
She did develop a deep relationship with religion as she became increasingly interested in religion and their practices as she grew older, visiting a number of shrines.
In spite of the humiliation Edward III suffered under Roger's regency, he still maintained close ties with Isabella and was incredibly close with her. Isabella also developed a close relationship with her daughters as well. The former queen seemed to be a big part of her grandchildren's lives and had a close relationship with them as well.
Isabella was never charged with adultery, and neither was Roger, though whether this was done to Isabella's reputation is unknown as Edward III was the opposite of his father and closer to his grandfather in terms of behavior and faithfulness in his marriage to his wife.
Isabella asked to be buried in her wedding dress and Edward II's embalmed heart, both of which had been preserved over the course of decades after she had ousted her husband from power.

I want to hear anyone arguments as to why they think Roger and Isabella's relationship was purely political and out of mutual interest and went no further or if they did in fact had a romantic affair that lasted for years and until Roger's execution? I would you guys to provide supporting evidence of why you fall into one side or the other or how you formed your own personal opinions? Another think I would like to ask if it was possible to conduct DNA analysis on Edward II's and Edward III's remains to finally get a definitive answer if Edward II did in fact die, likely murdered, shortly after being overthrown by confirming if the bodies are indeed related in the same way Richard III's identity was confirmed after his burial site was discovered following a parking car lot collapsed? Why or why not? Isabella's remains and actual tomb site was lost due to King Hendry VIII's reign and his disassociation with the church, the great fires of London in 1666, and the bombing of the city in World War II so I don't think we are able to confirm a DNA connection between the heart she was buried with and Edward II's remains. One final question I have is if anyone knowns when Isabella suffered her miscarriage and the possible cause?

Please write down your thoughts and reasoning!

r/houseofplantagenet

Which of the following Plantagenets do you most blame for the downfall of the dynasty?

Henry II was much more beloved by Angevins than Richard I was, despite them being father and son: Henry was seen as a local man and an Angevin prince, while Richard was seen as more of an outsider

Isabella of France relationship with Roger Mortimer

Geoffrey Plantagenet’s dying words