But it's ok cause you got to found a college at Cambridge! Also you're indirectly the source of the name Clarence. Hooray for legacy!
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.
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.
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 got into Plantagenet history after reading the Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Penman because I was interested in the War of the Roses. Since then I've been reading her other books in the Plantagenet series and have been doing research of my own. I couldn't believe how interesting the era was, it felt like something straight out of a movie.
Before I started actively reading and researching, as a complete casual in history who was born and raised in the UK, I can honestly tell you I'd never heard of the Plantagenets. It somehow never came up in school or everyday life compared to the Tudors and Victorian era. I remember brief mentions of the Roman era, Anglo Saxons, Vikings and Normans, pretty much solely because of the Battle of Hastings.
I'd heard about the House of York and House of Lancaster , Richard III and Richard the Lionheart but never knew that they were all part of the Plantagenet history. I've been telling my family and friends about some of the extended history and they're just as shocked as I was. They'd heard about the same big names I mentioned earlier but not a peep about the dynasty they belonged to. There's also the hundred years war, latter part of the anarchy, signing of the magna carta, murder of Thomas Becket and so much more that people may casually know about, not knowing the era it all took place during.
Anyone else have a similar experience? If not please share your experiences. If yes, is it just a coincidence, something that was intended or is there another justification entirely?
There are academics who have dedicated their life to studying, documenting and interpreting heraldry. Mad respect.
I freely admit I'm more of a "Oh, look he had birdies on his shield!" or a "That one is aesthetically really good-looking." or a "Wow, that's an unfortunate ugly stripe across there." type of person. In fact, my knowledge is so limited, I don't even qualify as a dilettante.
But here's the first six shields from the bannerets roll of 1312, including our friends and frenemies:
Edward II
Gilbert de Clare
Piers Gaveston
Henry de Lacey
Thomas of Lancaster
John de Warenne
There are way weirder and prettier ones down the line. More on that later! But feel free to post your favorites.
From The Constitutional History of England.
Richard the First:
The laborious and quarrelsome career of Richard came to an end in April, 1199. His subjects, fortunately for themselves, saw very little of him during the ten years of his reign. They heard much of his exploits, and reconciled themselves in the best way they could to his continual exactions. Under his ministers they had good peace, although they paid for it heavily: but the very means that were taken to tax them trained them and set them thinking. The ministers themselves recognised the rising tendency to self-government in such measures as those we have described.
To Richard the tendency would be probably unintelligible. He was a bad king: his great exploits, his military skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes, his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want of sympathy, or even consideration, for his people. He was no Englishman, but it does not follow that he gave to Normandy, Anjou, or Aquitaine the love or care that he denied to his kingdom. His ambition was that of a mere warrior: he would fight for anything whatever, but he would sell everything that was worth fighting for. The glory that he sought was that of victory rather than conquest.
Some part of his reputation rests on the possession of qualities which the English had no opportunity of testing: they were proud of a king whose exploits awakened the wonder of Christendom, they murmured against ministers whose mediation broke the force of an oppression which would otherwise have crushed them. Otherwise the latter years of the reign were years of progress in wealth and in the comfort which arises from security: a little respite before the tyranny that was coming.
The reign of Richard is marked by no outbreak of feudal insubordination: had there been any such, the strength of the administration would have been sufficient to crush it. But the great nobles were, like the king himself, partly engaged abroad; those of them who were left at home had learned the lesson of submission; they saw themselves surrounded by a new body of equals, sprung from and working with the ministerial families, and they were assimilating themselves to this new nobility in forming hopes and ambitions more truly national. The feeling towards union that was working in society generally was affecting the barons not less than the people whom they were to lead on to liberty.
Edward the Third:
Edward III was not a statesman, although he possessed some qualifications which might have made him a successful one. He was a warrior; ambitious, unscrupulous, selfish, extravagant, and ostentatious. His obligations as a king sat very lightly on him. He felt himself bound by no special duty either to maintain the theory of royal supremacy or to follow a policy which would benefit his people. Like Richard I he valued England primarily as a source of supplies, and he saw no risk in parting with prerogatives which his grandfather would never have resigned.
Had he been without foreign ambitions he might have risen to the dignity of a tyrant or sunk to the level of a voluptuary. But he had great ambition and an energy for which that ambition found ample employment. If on the one side the diversion of his energy to foreign wars was to the benefit of his people, on the other it was productive of an enormous amount of suffering. The general history of the reign is thus full of strong contrasts.
The glory and the growth of the nation were dearly bought by blood, treasure, and agony of many sorts. The long war which began under Edward placed England in the forefront of Christendom; it gave her a new consciousness of unity and importance, and exercised, even whilst it exhausted, her powers. It enabled her leading men to secure, one by one, steps in advance which were never retraced, and to win concessions from Edward which he was unable or did not care to estimate at their true value. Hence whilst England owes no gratitude to the king for patriotism, sagacity, or industry, she owes very much to the reign.
Much however of the glory of the reign, on which later historians loved to dwell, was due to retrospect, and to a retrospect taken through the medium of Froissart's narrative. Edward was the last of the great kings who governed England with a safe and undisputed title, the patriarch of the great houses which divided and desolated the land for a century; and it had not yet become clear that the present evils, which caused men to look back upon his age as an age of gold, were all results of his foolish policy and selfish designs.
The writers of his own country and date, whilst they recognise his greatness as a warrior, describe the state of his kingdom in language which conveys a very different impression from that which is derived from the reading of Froissart. A king whose people fly from his approach, a king overwhelmed with debt, worn out with luxury, the puppet of opposing factions, such as Edward in his latter years became, is a very different thing from the gentle, gay, and splendid ideal king of chivalry.
Did he just stood there and watched? Would he cry while watching or pray? I just get the giggles how they'd just get him everywhere like a poor bag puppy