Who's your favorite historical Queen ?
Gary Clark
(preferably from medieval history) ?
Renia
> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen individual
> (preferably from medieval history) ?
Who's yours?
Renia
William Black
Gary Clark <yem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:64c023a5.02020...@posting.google.com...
> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen individual
> (preferably from medieval history) ?
Edward II :-)
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
erilar
yem...@hotmail.com (Gary Clark) wrote:
> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen individual
> (preferably from medieval history) ?
Eleanor. No explanation needed.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar)
What do you mean, too many books??
------------------------------------------------
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
erilar
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gary Clark <yem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:64c023a5.02020...@posting.google.com...
> > Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen
> > individual
> > (preferably from medieval history) ?
>
> Edward II :-)
>
Fortunately I had already set down my coffee cup when I read that! 8-)
Peter Flowers
> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen
individual
> (preferably from medieval history) ?
Maud/Mathilda
I love her. Can't explain it.
Pete
Kel Rekuta
>
> Gary Clark <yem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:64c023a5.02020...@posting.google.com...
> > Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen individual
> > (preferably from medieval history) ?
>
> Edward II :-)
>
> --
> William Black
I'll second that!
Cheers!
Kel
Mike Dana
>
> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen individual
Umm... Brian May?
> (preferably from medieval history) ?
Oh. Never mind.
I suppose Eleanor of Aquitaine leads the short list; though "favorite"
isn't quite the word I'd choose. More like "the one I find most
interesting".
--
Mike Dana Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
"It's all just bubblegum and baloney!"
--Eliseo Soriano, 18 September, 2001
D. Spencer Hines
Great-Grandmother Aliénor d'Aquitaine [c. 1122-1204] is a peach indeed.
<g>
She was 30 and Henry was just 19 when they married.
Aliénor had married Louis the Frog when she was just 15 and he 17.
So, when she married Henry in 1152, Aliénor was the experienced older
woman.
Deus Vult.
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Mike Dana" <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote in message
news:3C61802...@NOSPAMboeing.com...
ANNE V. GILBERT
> Maud/Mathilda
> I love her. Can't explain it.
I'll second that. I think she's gotten a "bad rap" mostly for being female.
Anne G
Michael W Cook
D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu wrote on 2/6/02 7:44 PM:
> Hmmmmmmm.
>
> Great-Grandmother Aliénor d'Aquitaine [c. 1122-1204]
Here we go again ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
(snip)
Queen Beth !!!
Regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
======================================
Renia
> in article FJf88.351$dy4....@eagle.america.net, D. Spencer Hines at
> D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu wrote on 2/6/02 7:44 PM:
>
> > Hmmmmmmm.
> >
> > Great-Grandmother Aliénor d'Aquitaine [c. 1122-1204]
>
> Here we go again ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
> (snip)
>
> Queen Beth !!!
I agree. Good Queen Bess. (And she wasn't my grea-grand-aunt 17 times
removed either.)
Renia
sophia
mm.net>, erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> writes
>
>> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen individual
>> (preferably from medieval history) ?
>
>Eleanor. No explanation needed.
Of Aquitaine presumably rather than of Castille? She gets my vote,
though I've also got a soft spot for both Margaret of Anjou and
Elizabeth Woodville.
Favourite Kings: John and Edward IV of England.
>
--
Sophia
Faith in Fabulousness
www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
icq: 93834408
Nichol
"The Fair Maid" of Kent (though both are ladies I am proud to have on
my family tree!) and nominate a lesser-known lady: Sibilla of
Conversano, Duchess of Normandy.
The Italian-Norman Sibilla was the wife of Robert "Curthose", Duke of
Normandy, and mother of the ill-fated William Clito. C. Warren
Hollister, in his biography of her brother-in-law, King Henry I of
England, says:
"Sybilla was much admired by the writers of her time, who praised her
for her beauty and intelligence. Robert of Torigny observed that when
she adminstered Normandy during Curthose's absences, she did so more
successfully than her husband had done." -- from "Henry I" (Yale
Monarchs Series), p.180, a most excellent book, and one I urge
everyone pick up. *shameless plug*
Sibilla, unfortunately, died soon after the birth of her son on 25
October 1102; and there seem to be many reasons given for this sudden
death. William of Malmesbery blames an illness caused by a midwife
binding her breasts too tightly, and Robert of Torigny suspected "a
jealous cabal of some noblewomen". Orderic Vitalis would have us
believe Sibilla was poisoned by Robert Curthose's mistress, Agnes
Giffard, so that the way would be clear for Curthose to marry his
lover. It's also entirely possible Sibilla was just carried off by one
childbed fever or another, as was so common in those days. In any
case, as Hollister notes, her death left Normandy even more devoid of
decent counsel.
.:Nichol:.
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message news:<FJf88.351$dy4....@eagle.america.net>...
Wolf
: Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical
: Queen individual (preferably from medieval history) ?
Queen Margrethe (d. 1412) of Norway, Denmark and Sweden.
You'd have to read up on her to understand why.
Wolf,
Bard
Whatta lady.
--
**************************************
Dolor ad tempus est.
Sanatur vulni.
Cicatrices amantur a scortillis.
**************************************
Avon never did anything I wouldn't do,
under the same circumstances.
**************************************
http://www.rahul.net/starwolf/shm
Curt Emanuel
>
> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen individual
> (preferably from medieval history) ?
Theodora. According to Procopius she was _everyone's_ favorite. ;)
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
D. Spencer Hines
Sybilla de Conversano is certainly another smart-stunner.
Deus Vult.
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Nichol" <pha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:83b02775.02020...@posting.google.com...
Brian M. Scott
Wolf<capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com> wrote:
>Gary Clark (reaching for a drink) wrote:
>: Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical
>: Queen individual (preferably from medieval history) ?
>Queen Margrethe (d. 1412) of Norway, Denmark and Sweden.
>You'd have to read up on her to understand why.
Well, she's been described as 'perhaps the most gifted politician in
Nordic history'. He continues: 'We are left with an impression of
personal piety which was unusually strong, and of a resulting
Christian charity which found expression in helping the victims of
political events -- widows, raped women, fatherless children --
whether they had supported her or were against her. But one has a
suspicion that even in her own time there was no-one who was allowed
to be very close to the person of Margrete.' (This after pointing out
that many, especially in Sweden, wrote ill of her after her death.)
This is from a coffee-table book that I heartily recommend to anyone
who can find it: _Margrete I, Regent of the North_, essays and
catalogue of an exhibition at the National Museum of Denmark,
published in 1997 (ISBN: 87-89384-82-0.
Brian
Paul J Gans
>I'll second that!
Now now. Be kind.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <erilarloFRY-7722...@news.airstreamco
>mm.net>, erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> writes
>>
>>> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen individual
>>> (preferably from medieval history) ?
>>
>>Eleanor. No explanation needed.
>Of Aquitaine presumably rather than of Castille? She gets my vote,
>though I've also got a soft spot for both Margaret of Anjou and
>Elizabeth Woodville.
If you want abiguity, I'll go for Matilda.
>Favourite Kings: John and Edward IV of England.
>>
Hmmmm...
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Now you've done it. Do you have any idea how many Queen Matildas
there are in English history? The one I suspect you are thinking
of wasn't really a queen. She was either "Empress" or later,
"Lady of the English".
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Gary Clark wrote:
>>
>> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen individual
>> (preferably from medieval history) ?
>Theodora. According to Procopius she was _everyone's_ favorite. ;)
ROTFLMBO!
---- Paul J. Gans
Peter Flowers
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
a3t225$h05$8...@news.panix.com...
> Now you've done it. Do you have any idea how many Queen Matildas
> there are in English history? The one I suspect you are thinking
> of wasn't really a queen. She was either "Empress" or later,
> "Lady of the English".
She's the one I was thinking...
Why not Queen? Her father so decided, and even she was dispossessed by
her cousin, her dynasty finally won. I'm not english, sorry. The
History of England fascinated me since I was a boy, and I've always
been a supporter of "Queen" Mathilda. Stephen of Blois was an usurper!
Cheers
Pete
Michael Farthing
writes
She won't be very interested in you any more, then. [Though I suppose
there'd now be an opening for you as a court official].
[And to include a bit of useful info, anyone after a good read for the
period could try Robert Graves novel Belisarius. Level of historical
accuracy about that of Plutarch - no worse, no better. But it's a
ripping yarn].
--
Michael Farthing
cyclades
Software House
Curt Emanuel
At the Pseudo session last year at K'zoo I kept waiting for the
presenter on ducks (dux) to discuss how they were fed (or geese anyway)
during the 6th century. Maybe he figured that was a bit too off-color.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
David C. Pugh
Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net> wrote in message
news:3C6286...@accs.net...
A mere dabbler, obviously.
David
Afropea
favorite.
JMHO,
Eve
erilar
wrote:
> Gary Clark wrote:
> >
> > Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen
> > individual
> > (preferably from medieval history) ?
>
> Theodora. According to Procopius she was _everyone's_ favorite. ;)
tsk! tsk!
erilar
<sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <erilarloFRY-7722...@news.airstreamco
> mm.net>, erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> writes
> >
> >> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen
> >> individual
> >> (preferably from medieval history) ?
> >
> >Eleanor. No explanation needed.
>
> Of Aquitaine presumably rather than of Castille? She gets my vote,
> though I've also got a soft spot for both Margaret of Anjou and
> Elizabeth Woodville.
>
> Favourite Kings: John and Edward IV of England.
> >
Yes, Eleanor of Aquataine, just because she was such an interesting
woman. Of course, I picture her as Kate Hepburn 8-)
Mike Dana
Besides; Drake was 16th century, not 6th.
-- The Punstrel
Paul J Gans
Technically, a queen isn't a queen until she is crowned.
That's the way the medievals played it.
But as for Matilda, do you have any idea what the wife
of Stephen of Blois was named?
----- Paul J. Gans
Peter Flowers
> Technically, a queen isn't a queen until she is crowned.
> That's the way the medievals played it.
Right. Nevertheless if they ask me who's my favorite Queen,
I still say Matilda, crowned or not crowned 8)
> But as for Matilda, do you have any idea what the wife
> of Stephen of Blois was named?
No, I haven't. Would you please let me know? Thanks.
Regards
Pete
Michael Kuettner
Jon Meltzer <jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bu956usloptnb2erp...@4ax.com...
>
> >In article <64c023a5.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> >yem...@hotmail.com (Gary Clark) wrote:
> >
> >> Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen
individual
> >> (preferably from medieval history) ?
>
> ... )
Messalina; she had a *cough* heart for the common man ....
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Sandy Frykholm
> > But as for Matilda, do you have any idea what the wife
> > of Stephen of Blois was named?
>
> No, I haven't. Would you please let me know? Thanks.
This is from a BBC History website:
"Matilda of Boulogne
Queen to Stephen, King of England (1135-54). Matilda was a bitter opponent
of Empress Matilda, the daughter of Henry I.
Matilda was a powerful heiress, and used her resources to bolster support
for her husband. In 1140, she further strengthened his cause by agreeing a
marriage between her son, Eustace and the daughter of King Louis VII of
France."
Sandy Frykholm
fryk...@olypen.com
D. Spencer Hines
Anne of Cleves died on 16/17 Jul 1557, at 41, whereas Mary I, Queen of
England died on 17 Nov 1558, at 42.
So, they died well *over* a year apart.
However, Mary, was Queen of England when she died. <g>
And, Anne of Cleves was born in Düsseldorf ---- so she was actually
German, not Flemish. She did speak High Dutch.
Mare? You decide.
Hans Holbein painted the flattering portrait of her that snookered Henry
VIII.
Deus Vult.
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"David R. Teague" <davt...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:20020207.142634.-
| If we're talking about Tudor era queens, give me Anne of Cleves any
day.
| Which of Henry VIII's other spouses was able to walk away from
marriage
| with the big guy with nary so much as a scratch, get a government
pension
| and the honorary title of "The King's Own Dear Sister" for life, never
| have to go home in pieces (or disgrace) to the family, remain an
| independent woman for life, and even outlive the erstwhile husband who
is
| said to have compared her to a Flemish mare? (In fact, she outlived
| Edward VI as well, and only died about a year before "Bloody" Mary.)
|
| David Teague
D. Spencer Hines
bad.
Mares do too ---- often.
Deus Vult.
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| Well, sort of.
|
| Anne of Cleves died on 16/17 Jul 1557, at 41, whereas Mary I, Queen of
| England died on 17 Nov 1558, at 42.
|
| So, they died well *over* a year apart.
|
| However, Mary, was Queen of England when she died. <g>
|
| And, Anne of Cleves was born in Düsseldorf ---- so she was actually
| German, not Flemish. She did speak High Dutch.
|
| Mare? You decide.
|
| Hans Holbein painted the flattering portrait of her that snookered
Henry
| VIII.
|
| Deus Vult.
| "David R. Teague" <davt...@juno.com> wrote in message
Paul J Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Matilda of Boulogne
Of course, there were other Matilda's running around then
too. The C. Warren Holister-Sharon K. Penman cabal has
decreed that the nickname for the period shall be the
Age of the Matildas.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>On 7 Feb 2002 21:34:32 GMT, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>>But as for Matilda, do you have any idea what the wife
>>of Stephen of Blois was named?
>Laverne? :-)
Only among close family.
----- Paul J. Gans
Peter Flowers
Michael Kuettner
> > Marozia, Senatrix of Rome (a lady that knew how to have a good
time
> > ... )
>
> Messalina; she had a *cough* heart for the common man ....
uhmmm... Messalina was living many centuries before middle age...
Marozia, at the contrary, was not only a senatrix, but even Queen of
Italy (923 or 924)
Pete
David C. Pugh
One phase of the Anarchy was called "The War of the Two Matildas".
That was when Stephen was captured and Queen Matilda was fighting the
Empress Matilda. Apparently the patriarchy had no problem following
her, which for me raises grave doubts as to whether the contemporary
dislike of the Empress was solely due to the inability of men to
accept a woman in power, as one often hears. It is, after all,
unthinkable that a woman can be disliked solely for being incompetent
and unpleasant, as that would have implications for the individuals
advancing such theories.
David
Chris Allen
Paul J Gans wrote:
"You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me"
Chris Allen
Paul J Gans wrote:
"You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me"
Chris Allen
Paul J Gans wrote:
"You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me"
Peter Flowers
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >> But as for Matilda, do you have any idea what the wife
> >> of Stephen of Blois was named?
> >No, I haven't. Would you please let me know? Thanks.
> Matilda.
Oh, yes, I did know her actual name! But the way you put the question
deceived me. I was thinking about some terrible nickname, such as "Bloody"
(or "Laverne", too). 8)
Anyway, "my" Matilda didn't need to be crowned in England for being Queen.
Heinrich the Fifth was King of Germany as well as Emperor. By wedding him,
Matilda received the titles of Queen and Empress.
At last, in matter of Matildas and their fascinating era, I would remember
Matilda of Tuscany, who proudly faced two emperors, the father-in-law and
the husband of Matilda of England.
A legendary figure I love too, but she was a Countess, not a Queen...
Pete
David C. Pugh
Peter Flowers <mail...@jumpy.it> wrote in message
> Anyway, "my" Matilda didn't need to be crowned in England for being
Queen. Heinrich the Fifth was King of Germany as well as Emperor. By
wedding him, Matilda received the titles of Queen and Empress.
I suppose so, but don't try calling her anything other than Empress to
her face, you wouldn't like her when she's cross. (Sorry, Civ3
overdose.)
> At last, in matter of Matildas and their fascinating era, I would
remember
> Matilda of Tuscany, who proudly faced two emperors, the
father-in-law and
> the husband of Matilda of England.
> A legendary figure I love too, but she was a Countess, not a
Queen...
Technically she was a Margravine, wasn't she?
David
Julian Richards
> Among other faults aplenty, Henry VIII said that Anne of Cleves smelled
> bad.
I doubt that he was particularly fragrant either.
--
Julian Richards
"Cultures that wilfully anaesthetise themselves to the past, will
infantilise themselves. To have no sense of your parents, and your
grandparents, and of the pleasures and pains of actually understanding
your antiquity, is to be completely robbed of any freedom to shape
your posterity" Cicero
Mike Dana
>
> Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> > Sandy Frykholm <fryk...@olypen.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > But as for Matilda, do you have any idea what the wife
> > >> > of Stephen of Blois was named?
> > >>
> > >> No, I haven't. Would you please let me know? Thanks.
> >
> > >This is from a BBC History website:
> >
> > >"Matilda of Boulogne
> >
> > >Queen to Stephen, King of England (1135-54). Matilda was a bitter opponent
> ?
> ? ?Matilda was a powerful heiress, and used her resources to bolster support
> ? ?for her husband. In 1140, she further strengthened his cause by agreeing a
> ? ?marriage between her son, Eustace and the daughter of King Louis VII of
> ? ?France."
> ?
> ? Of course, there were other Matilda's running around then
> ? too. The C. Warren Holister-Sharon K. Penman cabal has
> ? decreed that the nickname for the period shall be the
> ? Age of the Matildas.
>
> "You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me"
*Three* choruses of "Waltzing Matilda"? You *are* a jolly swagman,
aren't you!
--
Mike Dana Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
"It's all just bubblegum and baloney!"
--Eliseo Soriano, 18 September, 2001
erilar
Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
ooooooooo
Kathy McIntosh
<davi...@online.no> writes
taking advice, even when she had asked for it?
I should think most men would plump for a woman who listened to them,
rather then one who didn't! And this isn't a "male ego" comment, it's a
"they knew which one was more likely to keep them alive" comment :-}
--
Kathy
There is nothing more dangerous than a man with an idea.
erilar
wrote:
> Of course, there were other Matilda's running around then
> too. The C. Warren Holister-Sharon K. Penman cabal has
> decreed that the nickname for the period shall be the
> Age of the Matildas.
Who's C. Warren Holister??
Peter Flowers
> > Matilda received the titles of Queen and Empress.
> I suppose so, but don't try calling her anything other than Empress
to
> her face, you wouldn't like her when she's cross. (Sorry, Civ3
> overdose.)
I haven't many informations about her life, but reading here and there
I see "hard temperament"... "arrogant"... "irascible"...
All qualities of great kings, of course :-)
IMHO her trouble was, Barons weren't inclined to tolerate these
in a woman.
> > Matilda of Tuscany....... was a Countess, not a Queen
> Technically she was a Margravine, wasn't she?
It's very hard to define what she was. By inheriting many domains,
from Central to Northern Italy, and to Lorraine, she owned almost an
Empire, but did'nt merge them into a new State.
So she was Countess into family domain of Canossa, Margravine in
Tuscany, Duchess in Lorraine, etcetera.
But she was very godly and didn't take care of her noblesse, she was
a woman who marched in front of her army just like a "warrior of God".
In Italy this woman was known as "The Great Countess", as she
always preferred this family title, and today is better remembered as
"Matilda of Canossa" than "of Tuscany".
Pete
Jon Guite
Clark <yem...@hotmail.com> writes
>Who (and why) is your very favorite real life historical Queen individual
>(preferably from medieval history) ?
My vote is for Emma, daughter of Richard, 3rd Duke of Normandy who was
either grandfather or great grandfather (I forget) of William the
Conqueror. She achieved the unusual distinction of becoming Queen of
England twice under 2 different kings. She was first married to
Ethelred II until his death. About a year later, she married Cnut (or
Canute as he is commonly misknown). She was a fascinating lady who must
have lived a most extraordinary life.
--
Jon Guite
David C. Pugh
> David C. Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
>
> > > Matilda received the titles of Queen and Empress.
>
> > I suppose so, but don't try calling her anything other than
Empress
> to
> > her face, you wouldn't like her when she's cross. (Sorry, Civ3
> > overdose.)
>
> I haven't many informations about her life, but reading here and
there
> I see "hard temperament"... "arrogant"... "irascible"...
> All qualities of great kings, of course :-)
> IMHO her trouble was, Barons weren't inclined to tolerate these
> in a woman.
Barons weren't very keen on refusal to take advice in a king either. I
get the impression that she was far too impressed with her imperial
title and thought it made her omniscient.
> > > Matilda of Tuscany....... was a Countess, not a Queen
>
> > Technically she was a Margravine, wasn't she?
>
> It's very hard to define what she was. By inheriting many domains,
> from Central to Northern Italy, and to Lorraine, she owned almost an
> Empire, but did'nt merge them into a new State.
> So she was Countess into family domain of Canossa, Margravine in
> Tuscany, Duchess in Lorraine, etcetera.
> But she was very godly and didn't take care of her noblesse, she was
> a woman who marched in front of her army just like a "warrior of
God".
> In Italy this woman was known as "The Great Countess", as she
> always preferred this family title, and today is better remembered
as
> "Matilda of Canossa" than "of Tuscany".
Interesting, thanks!
David
David C. Pugh
Kathy McIntosh <ka...@knotland.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
(....)
> >One phase of the Anarchy was called "The War of the Two Matildas".
> >That was when Stephen was captured and Queen Matilda was fighting
the
> >Empress Matilda. Apparently the patriarchy had no problem following
> >her, which for me raises grave doubts as to whether the
contemporary
> >dislike of the Empress was solely due to the inability of men to
> >accept a woman in power, as one often hears. It is, after all,
> >unthinkable that a woman can be disliked solely for being
incompetent
> >and unpleasant, as that would have implications for the individuals
> >advancing such theories.
> >
> Was she not also arrogant, pig-headed, bloody minded, and incapable
of
> taking advice, even when she had asked for it?
That's what I gather. Round here they would interpret that as being "a
strong woman", which is a Good Thing.
> I should think most men would plump for a woman who listened to
them,
> rather then one who didn't! And this isn't a "male ego" comment,
it's a
> "they knew which one was more likely to keep them alive" comment :-}
Yup, it's an instrumental value. People, of whatever gender, involved
in civil wars do sometimes need to think of such incorrect things ;-)
David
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:a3vhts$t4c$4...@news.panix.com...
>> Peter Flowers <mail...@jumpy.it> wrote:
>>
>> >Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >a3urt8$5pb$1...@news.panix.com...
>>
>> >> Technically, a queen isn't a queen until she is crowned.
>> >> That's the way the medievals played it.
>>
>> >Right. Nevertheless if they ask me who's my favorite Queen,
>> >I still say Matilda, crowned or not crowned 8)
>>
>>
>> >> But as for Matilda, do you have any idea what the wife
>> >> of Stephen of Blois was named?
>>
>> >No, I haven't. Would you please let me know? Thanks.
>>
>> Matilda.
>>
>One phase of the Anarchy was called "The War of the Two Matildas".
>That was when Stephen was captured and Queen Matilda was fighting the
>Empress Matilda. Apparently the patriarchy had no problem following
>her, which for me raises grave doubts as to whether the contemporary
>dislike of the Empress was solely due to the inability of men to
>accept a woman in power, as one often hears. It is, after all,
>unthinkable that a woman can be disliked solely for being incompetent
>and unpleasant, as that would have implications for the individuals
>advancing such theories.
Are you suggesting that we seriously discuss this? I'm
game.
It is one of my favorite periods in English history. And
after many years of neglect, a good number of books on it
have come out.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
That one too. That was the famous "Antipodal Matilda"
famous in the neglected and now lost "Chronicle of Oz".
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> Matilda.
>Pete
Yes, Matilda of Tuscany was quite a woman. And one who also
directed armies.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 02:09:42 -0000, D. Spencer Hines said,
>> Among other faults aplenty, Henry VIII said that Anne of Cleves smelled
>> bad.
>I doubt that he was particularly fragrant either.
Why would that be? Medievals (thought H8 hardly
qualifies for that) washed.
---- Paul J. Gans
Peter Flowers
Sandy Frykholm <fryk...@olypen.com> wrote in message
> This is from a BBC History website:
> "Matilda of Boulogne
> Queen to Stephen, King of England (1135-54).
> Matilda was a bitter opponent of Empress Matilda, the daughter
> of Henry I.
Well, I was persuaded that "Queen Matilda" was the daughter of Henry
I, and now I realize that a Queen named Matilda was her opponent!
In my encyclopedias (even in an american one, translated in italian)
there is such an entry: "Matilda, Queen of England", but it is just
dedicated to the dynastic war of "Empress ", as I see english people
call her...
Just for a moment she WAS Queen of England, if it's true that:
"In 1141 Robert captured Stephen in battle at Lincoln; Stephen's
government collapsed and Matilda was recognized as Queen."
Now I understand that she wasn't crowned, and that's the reason of her
absence in the english roll of Kings and Queens. Maybe that momentary
recognition is valued differently in other Countries, where they
include Matilda among Queens of England ?
> Matilda [of Boulogne] was a powerful heiress, and used her
> resources to bolster support for her husband. In 1140, she further
> strengthened his cause by agreeing a marriage between her son,
> Eustace and the daughter of King Louis VII of France."
That's a great surprise! Louis VII, born in 1120, married in 1137, had
a daughter before 1145? Surely not with Eleanor! Maybe out of wedlock?
(Ehi, it's a joke, I know that Constance of Toulouse was the daughter
of Louis VI and obviously sister of the current King of France :-))
Pete
Chris Allen
my system gave me an error to say the had not been sent
Gilmore, Phyllis
"Peter Flowers" <mail...@jumpy.it> wrote:
> Eustace and the daughter of King Louis VII of France."
>
> That's a great surprise! Louis VII, born in 1120, married in 1137, had
> a daughter before 1145? Surely not with Eleanor! Maybe out of wedlock?
> (Ehi, it's a joke, I know that Constance of Toulouse was the daughter
> of Louis VI and obviously sister of the current King of France :-))
Not sure when, but Eleanor did bear her Louis a couple of girl children;
if my source is correct, the first, Marie, was born in 1145.
I wonder if she'd have been able to get a divorce if they were boys.
Phyllis
Julian Richards
A blubberbutt with gout may well have hummed rather in warm weather.
Afropea
>Not sure when, but Eleanor did bear her Louis a couple of girl children;
>
>if my source is correct, the first, Marie, was born in 1145.
I believe the second one was Alix. Richard the Lion Hearted mentions both of
his half-sisters in his "Prisoner" song.
>I wonder if she'd have been able to get a divorce if they were boys.
I rather doubt it.
Louis went on to have three additional daughters from two other wives.
JMHO,
Eve
Paul J Gans
>In article <a3vi8j$t4c$7...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>> Of course, there were other Matilda's running around then
>> too. The C. Warren Holister-Sharon K. Penman cabal has
>> decreed that the nickname for the period shall be the
>> Age of the Matildas.
>Who's C. Warren Holister??
The well-known and well-respected medieval historian whose
posthumously published book on Henry II talks of the various
Matildas and distinguishes them by number.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Sandy Frykholm <fryk...@olypen.com> wrote in message
>> This is from a BBC History website:
>> "Matilda of Boulogne
>> Queen to Stephen, King of England (1135-54).
>> Matilda was a bitter opponent of Empress Matilda, the daughter
>> of Henry I.
>Well, I was persuaded that "Queen Matilda" was the daughter of Henry
>I, and now I realize that a Queen named Matilda was her opponent!
>In my encyclopedias (even in an american one, translated in italian)
>there is such an entry: "Matilda, Queen of England", but it is just
>dedicated to the dynastic war of "Empress ", as I see english people
>call her...
>Just for a moment she WAS Queen of England, if it's true that:
>"In 1141 Robert captured Stephen in battle at Lincoln; Stephen's
>government collapsed and Matilda was recognized as Queen."
>Now I understand that she wasn't crowned, and that's the reason of her
>absence in the english roll of Kings and Queens. Maybe that momentary
>recognition is valued differently in other Countries, where they
>include Matilda among Queens of England ?
The crux of the matter lay in London. For various
reasons the Church was reluctant to crown her. Mainly
because they took annointing seriously. A king was
annointed with the same holy oil used to consecrate a
bishop. It was *permanent*.
Now Stephen was annointed. He was to many of the higher
clergy, still king.
Yet it seems clear that Matilda could have brought them
around to her side or, as her father had done, find a
sympathetic churchman to annoint her.
But before that could be done, something she did (historians
differ on what it was) aggravated the Londoners to the
extent that she was driven out of the city. No coronation.
And that ended that and likely changed history.
>> Matilda [of Boulogne] was a powerful heiress, and used her
>> resources to bolster support for her husband. In 1140, she further
>> strengthened his cause by agreeing a marriage between her son,
>> Eustace and the daughter of King Louis VII of France."
>That's a great surprise! Louis VII, born in 1120, married in 1137, had
>a daughter before 1145? Surely not with Eleanor! Maybe out of wedlock?
>(Ehi, it's a joke, I know that Constance of Toulouse was the daughter
>of Louis VI and obviously sister of the current King of France :-))
Eleanor had at least two daughters by the King of France. She
did not give him a son. So the idiot divorced her without
taking pains to arrest her. That led to three centuries of
almost continuous warfare between England and France.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I don't think *she* wanted the divorce. The king seems to
have been in a bind vis-a-vis a son. And of course they
were not divorced. It was recognized, at the kings request,
that they were too closely related to have a valid marriage.
So the marriage was declared invalid but the children were
declared non-bastards.
One has to have a theological mind to understand all of this.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Dead Wrong.
C. Warren Hollister's book is on Henry I ---- NOT Henry II.
Deus Vult.
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a41v7o$1lp$4...@news.panix.com...
Paul J Gans
>On 8 Feb 2002 17:31:13 GMT, Paul J Gans said,
>> In soc.history.medieval Julian Richards <julian-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 02:09:42 -0000, D. Spencer Hines said,
>>
>> >> Among other faults aplenty, Henry VIII said that Anne of Cleves smelled
>> >> bad.
>>
>> >I doubt that he was particularly fragrant either.
>>
>> Why would that be? Medievals (thought H8 hardly
>> qualifies for that) washed.
>A blubberbutt with gout may well have hummed rather in warm weather.
Yeah, but he could have had help. Isn't that what varlets
are for?
---- Paul J. Gans
erilar
wrote:
>
> Eleanor had at least two daughters by the King of France. She
> did not give him a son. So the idiot divorced her without
> taking pains to arrest her. That led to three centuries of
> almost continuous warfare between England and France.
She DID provoke her husbands, didn't she? Henry certainly had her
imprisoned for a good while 8-)
erilar
wrote:
> erilar <erila...@spamchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <a3vi8j$t4c$7...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> Of course, there were other Matilda's running around then
> >> too. The C. Warren Holister-Sharon K. Penman cabal has
> >> decreed that the nickname for the period shall be the
> >> Age of the Matildas.
>
> >Who's C. Warren Holister??
>
> The well-known and well-respected medieval historian whose
> posthumously published book on Henry II talks of the various
> Matildas and distinguishes them by number.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Aha! Another BT specialist!
D. Spencer Hines
This one, the little old schlockmeister, can't even remember the
difference between Henry I and Henry II.
Perhaps if he counts on his fingers...
Pratfall!
KAWHOMP!!!
How Sweet It Is!
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:erilarloFRY-1303...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
Paul J Gans
>In article <a41vts$1lp$6...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> Eleanor had at least two daughters by the King of France. She
>> did not give him a son. So the idiot divorced her without
>> taking pains to arrest her. That led to three centuries of
>> almost continuous warfare between England and France.
>She DID provoke her husbands, didn't she? Henry certainly had her
>imprisoned for a good while 8-)
I'm not sure that failing to bear sons can be classed as
"provoking", but then kings tend to be testy about things
like that.
And, as far as the medievals were concerned, the gender of
a baby was determined by the woman.
----- Paul J. Gans
Pat James
(in message <PCd98.952$dy4....@eagle.america.net>):
> Hardly!
>
> This one, the little old schlockmeister, can't even remember the
> difference between Henry I and Henry II.
>
> Perhaps if he counts on his fingers...
>
> Pratfall!
>
> KAWHOMP!!!
>
> How Sweet It Is!
This kind of post reminds me of why my _least_ fav historical queen is D.
Spencer Hines.
Peter Flowers
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> The crux of the matter lay in London. For various
> reasons the Church was reluctant to crown her. Mainly
> because they took annointing seriously. A king was
> annointed with the same holy oil used to consecrate a
> bishop. It was *permanent*.
>
> Now Stephen was annointed. He was to many of the higher
> clergy, still king.
>
> Yet it seems clear that Matilda could have brought them
> around to her side or, as her father had done, find a
> sympathetic churchman to annoint her.
>
> But before that could be done, something she did (historians
> differ on what it was) aggravated the Londoners to the
> extent that she was driven out of the city. No coronation.
> And that ended that and likely changed history.
Really a sensible explanation. Thank you. However...
History did not change for that, Plantagenets ruled in England
anyway, with or without a crown upon the head of Matilda.
But what if William of Blois succeeded to Stephen's throne? 8)
Pete
D. Spencer Hines
>differ on what it was) aggravated the Londoners to the
>extent that she was driven out of the city. No coronation.
>And that ended that and likely changed history.
Paul J. Gans ---- AKA Gans the Ignorant.
---------------------
Codswallop.
This is yet *another* example of Gans's flaunting and parading his
ignorance of Mediaeval History ---- even **British** Mediaeval
History ---- 1066-1347 ---- wherein he PRETENDS to have some competence.
Yes, this is yet another of his favourite little Gansian evasive-dodges,
like the one of placing a slightly, quasi, critical remark about Israel
in his posts on the Palestinian-Israeli disputes ---- in order to claim
that he is unbiased and balanced. Sham and Delusion.
This additional little Gansian-anserine trick is to claim that
"historians disagree" ---- so he needn't go into the details ---- ***the
discrete historical facts*** ---- because they are "all in dispute" ----
so why bother?
Balderdash and Codswallop.
Gans simply doesn't KNOW the discrete historical facts, so he posts
erroneous gibberish, supra.
Gans obviously has not READ the _Gesta Stephani_, [he can't read Latin
at all], J. H. Round's _Geoffrey de Mandeville; A Study of the Anarchy_
and Marjorie Chibnall's fine book on the Empress Matilda [_The Empress
Matilda -- Queen Consort, Queen Mother and Lady of the English_]. Yet
Gans prattles and pirouettes ---- not even having READ the relevant
historical sources.
So, Gans is abysmally ignorant, as usual ---- but he is the "victim"
[always the "victim", of course, the poor "liberal" unable to exercise
any self-discipline and/or concerted scholarship, with respect to the
historical issues] of that malignant "teaching gene" of his. ----
Therefore, he has an overwhelming urge to POST anyway ---- ignorant
though he is.
The salient facts are as follows ---- Matilda, as Lady of the English,
behaved arrogantly and haughtily towards the people of London. The
Londoners asked for their financial burdens to be reduced. But, Matilda
alienated the Londoners by demanding money from them anyway.
Matilda was encamped at Westminster on 24 June 1141 ---- and was
preparing for a ceremonial entrance into the city.
Note, that Matilda was not IN the city, as Gans stupidly states, supra.
She was SEEKING ADMITTANCE to the city.
The Londoners, thoroughly angered by her performance and mismanagement
of the situation ---- and threatened by the armies loyal to King
Stephen ---- seeing that they had nothing to hope for from the Empress,
decided to throw in their lot with Stephen's queen, Matilda of Boulogne.
So, in good order, the Londoners rang their bells as a call to arms and
swarmed out of the gates toward Westminster. Matilda and her loyal
supporters, warned just in time, beat a hasty retreat to Oxford, leaving
many of their belonging behind and the remains of their banquet ----
which the Londoners enjoyed eating.
So, the Londoners quite literally ate the Empress's lunch ---- just as I
have eaten Gans's.
William of Malmesbury also tells us in colourful language that the
retreat was a rout. But I seriously doubt that Gans has read William of
Malmesbury either. It's in Latin.
So, once again, Gentle Readers, we see that the little old
schlockmeister of Washington Square ---- fraud, poseur, charlatan and
historical prevaricator ---- has been hoist with his own petard ----
revealed to be pig-ignorant about the mediaeval historical facts of the
event or period about which he is prattling and pontificating ---- and
has taken yet another Egregious Pratfall.
KAWHOMP!!!!!
Hilarious!
Paul J Gans
>On 9 Feb 2002 02:01:32 GMT, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Yet it seems clear that Matilda could have brought them
>>around to her side or, as her father had done, find a
>>sympathetic churchman to anoint her.
>>
>>But before that could be done, something she did (historians
>>differ on what it was) aggravated the Londoners to the
>>extent that she was driven out of the city. No coronation.
>>And that ended that and likely changed history.
>Probably her habit of using "Vide infra" in her royal proclamations
>:-)
>
Or more likely, "Deus Vult".
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Actually, if I recall correctly, William was the older
brother and clearly had no interest in spending his
life bogged down in English politics.
As for history being changed, Henry would likely have grown
up in England rather than in Anjou and likely not have been
in the right place to carry off Eleanor of Aquitane. That's
one way history might well have been different.
----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
>But before that could be done, something she [Matilda] did (historians
>differ on what it was) aggravated the Londoners to the
>extent that she was driven out of the city. No coronation.
>And that ended that and likely changed history.
Paul J. Gans ---- AKA Gans the Ignorant.
---------------------
Codswallop.
Balderdash and Codswallop.
Note, that Matilda was not IN the city of London, as Gans stupidly
states, supra. She was SEEKING ADMITTANCE to the city.
The Londoners, thoroughly angered by her performance and mismanagement
of the situation ---- and threatened by the armies loyal to King
Stephen ---- seeing that they had nothing to hope for from the
Empress ---- decided to throw in their lot with Stephen's queen, Matilda
of Boulogne.
So, in good order, the Londoners rang their bells as a call to arms and
swarmed out of the gates toward Westminster. Matilda and her loyal
supporters, warned just in time, beat a hasty retreat to Oxford, leaving
many of their belongings behind and the remains of their banquet ----
ANNE V. GILBERT
> I'm not sure that failing to bear sons can be classed as
> "provoking", but then kings tend to be testy about things
> like that.
>
> And, as far as the medievals were concerned, the gender of
> a baby was determined by the woman.
I don't think the kings that are left nowadays are quite so "testy" about a
child's gender, but they certainly were in the Middle Ages. But OTOH,
they'd never heard of things l ike X and Y chromosomes, either(let alone who
has what).
Anne G
ANNE V. GILBERT
> Really a sensible explanation. Thank you. However...
> History did not change for that, Plantagenets ruled in England
> anyway, with or without a crown upon the head of Matilda.
> But what if William of Blois succeeded to Stephen's throne? 8)
But what was William of Blois really like? He seems kind of a cipher to me.
Anne G
ANNE V. GILBERT
.
>
> As for history being changed, Henry would likely have grown
> up in England rather than in Anjou and likely not have been
> in the right place to carry off Eleanor of Aquitane. That's
> one way history might well have been different.
Oh dear. A nice obedient English or Scottish wife? No, Richard the
Lionhearted, no John, no. . . .How dull.
Anne G
ANNE V. GILBERT
And just about everything Hines says below is probably codswallop, too, as
usual. I'm quite confident that Mr. Gans has probably read all the books
you mention(I wish I had access to them). But then I'm not really sure
Hines has, in the light of his "performances" on this newsgroup, bu t that's
another story.
Anne G
ANNE V. GILBERT
> Or more likely, "Deus Vult".
YOu're probably right. From what I know of her(which admittedly isn't
much), Matilda seems definitely to have been a "Deus Vult" type. Too bad
Dispenser of 57 Varieties of Disorganized Thinking Hines can't find more in
common with her(although I have a certain sneaking sympathy for her, since
she clearly was a *lot* more intelligent than The Dispenser.
Anne G
Peter Flowers
ANNE V. GILBERT <avgi...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
Your last period cheers me up. You all destroyed the figure of strong,
unlucky and misunderstood woman I had imagined up now. 8)
I'm preparing a list of women who _made_ hystory in the middle age,
and I was curious to know how Matilda is considered by english
culture.
Thanks to you all, now I just know it.
I'm sorrowful about the feudal duel between Mr. Gans and Mr. Hines.
Obviously I can't judge anyone. I would only say that I currently read
Latin, but medieval chronicles are often untrustworthy, as writers
were at the service of some Lord rather than of Truth. If we believe
those chronicles, there's no need of historical criticism (even of
discussion groups...) as we could find there all facts and concerning
opinions.
But we do not believe this, do we?
Regards
Pete
erilar
wrote:
> erilar <erila...@spamchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <a41vts$1lp$6...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Eleanor had at least two daughters by the King of France. She
> >> did not give him a son. So the idiot divorced her without
> >> taking pains to arrest her. That led to three centuries of
> >> almost continuous warfare between England and France.
>
> >She DID provoke her husbands, didn't she? Henry certainly had her
> >imprisoned for a good while 8-)
>
> I'm not sure that failing to bear sons can be classed as
> "provoking", but then kings tend to be testy about things
> like that.
>
> And, as far as the medievals were concerned, the gender of
> a baby was determined by the woman.
>
How on earth did they "explain" the sons she bore Henry?
Paul J Gans
Agreed. And had they heard of X and Y chromosomes they'd have
blamed their wives anyway... <no smiley>
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I agree. A biography of him would be wonderful though. He was
one of the peers of France and his times included some very
dramatic events.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Yeah. And no hundred years war with the subsequent impoverishment
of both England and France. The renaissance that started in
the 12th century in the north of France might not have died
and ... etc., etc.
Sadly, we will never know, but it would seem to make for
an interesting alternate history novel ala Turtledove.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>And just about everything Hines says below is probably codswallop, too, as
>usual. I'm quite confident that Mr. Gans has probably read all the books
>you mention(I wish I had access to them). But then I'm not really sure
>Hines has, in the light of his "performances" on this newsgroup, bu t that's
>another story.
>Anne G
Well, stripping all that away to what it seems to be, there
are two complaints: (1) that Matilda was not really in
London and (2) that the reasons why the Londoners turned
on her was her demand for more money from them.
The first hangs on a bit of a technicallity and Hines might
be right because of it. Matilda's forces were certainly
in London, her adherents held both the Tower of London and
a second major fortress whose name I have not been able
to discover in my quick run through.
She herself seems to have stopped at Westminster which
was then outside the gates of London but certainly inside
the urb of London. It seemed the most suitable place for
the woman who had just been awarded the title of "Lady of
the English".
The wait at Westminster was to plan her annointment and
crowning as Queen of the English. Stephen was being held
captive at the time and even though the church was not happy
with it, her crowning seemed assured.
Then something happened and the Londoners streamed out of
the gates of the city and drove Matilda and her entourage
away (to Oxford).
In other words Matilda's forces *occupied* London but she
herself did not technically enter it. This is pointed out
quite well in Keith Stringer's "The Reign of Stephen",
Routlege, 1993. He writes, and I quote:
"When Matilda at last entered London in June (she was
driven out a week after its grudging submission)..."
The submission of London to her had come a week or two
before.
David Crouch, in his book on King Stephen also uses the
term "driven out of London" (page 174).
Marjorie Chibnall does *not* use the phrase "driven from
London". She says "Westminster". While she discusses the
occupation of London by Matilda's forces (which Hines did not
tell you about though it is on the page previous to the one he's
doubtless citing), she does note that Matilda herself never entered
London. But, I stress, that in spite of what is said below, she
was NOT seeking admittance to the city, that had already
been granted. She was waiting for the coronation plans
to be set. The city was already occupied by her forces.
But yes, she was not IN London. Technically, this is correct as
Westminster was not *yet* part of London, being just outside
the walls.
As for what alienated the Londoners, we can not know. The
_Gesta Stephani_ is notoriously biased against her, more
so than William of Poitiers is biased *for* William the
Conqueror. More sober analysis shows that Matilda managed
to alienate the Church by interfering in a succession fight,
the nobility by refusing to confirm various grants and
charters, and the Londoners by refusing to confirm the
city's old laws. And she wished them to pay more money
in taxes as well. Which of these is *the* cause is
impossible to tell. None of it really affected the common
Londoner, it all affected the aristocracy. How the "rabble"
was roused and what it was told was recorded by nobody.
For the rest of it, I note that Horace Round, famous and
excellent as he is, hardly modern. The unearthing of
far more material about this period in England is what is
behind the recent spate of books on the subject by Crouch,
Chibnall, Bradbury, Stringer, and others.
I thank you for asking me this. I know that Mr. Hines
continually blasts away at me. If ever anyone feels that
he has actually raised a real question, *PLEASE* do as
Anne Gilbert has done and ask.
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
It is hard to know. Almost everyone who wrote a surviving
chronicle was opposed to her. Some wrote the most scurrilous
material. In fact, Chibnall wrote her biography of Matilda
(certainly the first modern and like the only one ever done)
to counter a lot of that propaganda. She was a much more
competent person than, for example, the _Gesta Stephani_
would have you believe.
If you have some sympathy for her, read Chibnall. Her
book is out in paper.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <a43rpb$kfq$2...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>> erilar <erila...@spamchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>> >In article <a41vts$1lp$6...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Eleanor had at least two daughters by the King of France. She
>> >> did not give him a son. So the idiot divorced her without
>> >> taking pains to arrest her. That led to three centuries of
>> >> almost continuous warfare between England and France.
>>
>> >She DID provoke her husbands, didn't she? Henry certainly had her
>> >imprisoned for a good while 8-)
>>
>> I'm not sure that failing to bear sons can be classed as
>> "provoking", but then kings tend to be testy about things
>> like that.
>>
>> And, as far as the medievals were concerned, the gender of
>> a baby was determined by the woman.
>>
>How on earth did they "explain" the sons she bore Henry?
Just one of those things. Perhaps she was being mean
to poor old Louis.
--- Paul J. Gans
Pat James
(in message <a46h6b$8q2$5...@reader2.panix.com>):
She had more respect for Henry than for Louis. As she had no repsect at all
for Henry...
D. Spencer Hines
sword again.
How can one man be so *decidedly* and *consistently* wrong?
Because he's Gans. Ipso Facto.
"My midsummer Matilda had reached Westminster and was negotiating with
the Londoners for entry into the city"
Marjorie Chibnall, _ The Empress Matilda -- Queen Consort, Queen Mother
and Lady of the English_, Blackwell, 1993, ISBN 0-631-19028-7, p. 103.
There is no indication by Professor Chibnall at all "of the occupation
of London by Matilda's forces". that is a pure pipe-dream by Gans. No,
that's too soft. That is a LIE by Gans.
Does he really think you are all so abysmally stupid that you can't or
won't read Chibnall for yourself? I suppose so. He can certainly rely
on all the little gansocoprophagi to simply take him at his word ---- on
faith. But surely there are still some folks left here who have not
lost basic integrity and intelligence of their own.
Gans compounds the error ---- and the lie ---- by stating: "The city
was already occupied by her forces."
Chibnall makes NO mention of any such "occupation of London by Matilda's
forces".
Lie on Gans's part. He can read.
Continuing:
"her alienation of the Londoners by demanding money from them when they
asked for their financial burdens to be reduced."
[...]
"The result of her mismanagement of the situation was that the citizens,
threatened as they were by the armies loyal to Stephen and with nothing
to hope for from the empress, decided to throw in their lot with the
queen [Stephen's queen, Matilda of Boulogne ---- DSH]. ---- Chibnall,
op. cit., p.104.
Again, absolutely NO mention of "Matilda's forces occupying the City of
London" ---- as Gans would have us naively believe.
Gansian lie ---- pipedream. Bad grass?
"As preparations for a ceremonial entry into the city were being made at
Westminster on 24 June, they rang their bells as a call to arms and
swarmed out of the gates. The empress and her supporters, forewarmed
just in time, retreated hastily to Oxford, leaving the Londoners to
plunder their belongings and eat the remains of the banquet. William of
Malmesbury loyally insisted that they withdrew in good order, the _Gesta
Stephani_ described the retreat in colourful language as a rout." ----
Chibnall, op. cit., p.104-105
So ---- once again ---- I've proven that Gans simply doesn't know his
Mediaeval History ---- not even his BRITISH Mediaeval History 1066-1347.
He is a fraud, a piker, a charlatan and a liar.
Pity.
And, Hines has eaten his lunch again. <g>
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Gans, the little old schlockmeister of Washington Square, falls on his
sword again.
How can one man be so *decidedly* and *consistently* wrong?
Because he's Gans. Ipso Facto.
"By midsummer Matilda had reached Westminster and was negotiating with
the Londoners for entry into the city."
Marjorie Chibnall, _ The Empress Matilda -- Queen Consort, Queen Mother
and Lady of the English_, Blackwell, 1993, ISBN 0-631-19028-7, p. 103.
There is no indication by Professor Chibnall at all "of the occupation
of London by Matilda's forces". That is a pure pipe dream by Gans. No,
that's too soft. That is a LIE by Gans.
Does he really think you are all so abysmally stupid that you can't or
won't read Chibnall for yourself? I suppose so. He can certainly rely
on all the little gansocoprophagi to simply take him at his word ---- on
faith. But surely there are still some folks left here who have not
lost basic integrity and intelligence of their own.
Gans compounds the error ---- and the lie ---- by stating: "The city
was already occupied by her forces."
Chibnall makes NO mention of any such "occupation of London by Matilda's
forces".
Lie on Gans's part. He can read.
Continuing:
"...her alienation of the Londoners by demanding money from them when
they asked for their financial burdens to be reduced." ---- Chibnall,
op. cit., p. 104.
[...]
"The result of her mismanagement of the situation was that the citizens,
threatened as they were by the armies loyal to Stephen and with nothing
to hope for from the empress, decided to throw in their lot with the
queen [Stephen's queen, Matilda of Boulogne ---- DSH]. ---- Chibnall,
op. cit., p. 104.
Again, absolutely NO mention of "Matilda's forces occupying the City of
London" ---- as Gans would have us naively believe.
Gansian lie ---- pipe dream. Bad grass?
"As preparations for a ceremonial entry into the city were being made at
Westminster on 24 June, they rang their bells as a call to arms and
swarmed out of the gates. The empress and her supporters, forewarned
just in time, retreated hastily to Oxford, leaving the Londoners to
plunder their belongings and eat the remains of the banquet. William of
Malmesbury loyally insisted that they withdrew in good order, the _Gesta
Stephani_ described the retreat in colourful language as a rout." ----
Chibnall, op. cit., pp. 104-105.
So ---- once again ---- I've proven that Gans simply doesn't know his
Mediaeval History ---- not even his BRITISH Mediaeval History 1066-1347.
He is a fraud, a piker, a charlatan and a liar.
Pity.
And, Hines has eaten his lunch again. <g>
How Sweet It Is!
The Empress Matilda's basic problem was that she was far too "German"
for the English. They saw it and decided they wanted no part of her.
Matilda was betrothed to Kaiser Henry V, The Holy Roman Emperor, when
she was eight and married him when she was eleven ---- in Mainz.
Let's face it ---- she was "German" ---- and by no means "English". The
English were probably spot on in their evaluation and rejection of her.
This silly, continuing, anserine attempt by Gans to make the Empress
Matilda into some sort of 12th Century prototypical feminist
heroine ---- is just his congenital knee-jerk Political Correctness ----
his naive and credulous leftism ---- run amuck ---- as usual.
Even *Marjorie Chibnall* does not try to glorify the Empress Matilda in
the childish, puerile, insipid way that Gans lamely and clumsily tries
to do ---- because he's trying to suck up to some of the women here.
They have traditionally been some of his most unquestioning, loyal,
followers ---- along with some gansocoprophagi men.
Chibnall understands Matilda's failings and faults and doesn't try to
conceal them ---- as does Gans. She's a Historian.
Further, Marjorie Chibnall is a *Real Mediaeval Historian* of the first
rank ---- while Gans is a poseur a fraud, and a pretender ---- a
self-professed "medievalist" of "Western Europe" ---- who knows no Latin
and can't read the sources!
Hilarious!
ANNE V. GILBERT
> Your last period cheers me up. You all destroyed the figure of strong,
> unlucky and misunderstood woman I had imagined up now. 8)
> I'm preparing a list of women who _made_ hystory in the middle age,
> and I was curious to know how Matilda is considered by english
> culture.
> Thanks to you all, now I just know it.
> I'm sorrowful about the feudal duel between Mr. Gans and Mr. Hines.
> Obviously I can't judge anyone. I would only say that I currently read
> Latin, but medieval chronicles are often untrustworthy, as writers
> were at the service of some Lord rather than of Truth. If we believe
> those chronicles, there's no need of historical criticism (even of
> discussion groups...) as we could find there all facts and concerning
> opinions.
> But we do not believe this, do we?
>
I don't know much about Matilda, but from what I know of her, she wasn't a
"nice" woman. And prejudice against women who are assertive or outspoken
still exists, although probably not to anything like the extent it did in
Matilda's day. Having said that, I think that part of her problem was that
she was in a more or less intolerable position: Her father Henry I insisted
on marrying her off to Geoffrey of Anjou, but the two of them weren't suited
to one another and about all he was good for in her estimation(and she in
his, no doubt), was producing an heir, which she did in the shape of the
later Henry II. But she still had to establish herself as a ruler, and for
a woman then, this was much harder. Women weren't *supposed* to rule
anything, although nobody thought it odd that they ran castles and
busineesses(which they did at times). Being Henry I's only live, legitimate
offspring meant that she was a logical choice to begin with. Henry I
supposedly got all the important lords in England to swear to support her
before he died, but then when Stephen presented himself(and I'm admittedly a
little vague about this), a lot of them thought a man(in the shape of
Stephen)would do a better job. Unfortunately, unlike Matilda, Stephen was
just a little too "nice" to be a ruler in the 12th century, so he hasn't
come off too well, either.
Anne G
ANNE V. GILBERT
>
> Agreed. And had they heard of X and Y chromosomes they'd have
> blamed their wives anyway... <no smiley>
Darn! I would have thought medieval people would have been smarter than
that! :-(
Anne G
Kathy McIntosh
<ga...@panix.com> writes
snip of some interesting info
>
>As for what alienated the Londoners, we can not know. The
>_Gesta Stephani_ is notoriously biased against her, more
>so than William of Poitiers is biased *for* William the
>Conqueror. More sober analysis shows that Matilda managed
>to alienate the Church by interfering in a succession fight,
>the nobility by refusing to confirm various grants and
>charters, and the Londoners by refusing to confirm the
>city's old laws. And she wished them to pay more money
>in taxes as well. Which of these is *the* cause is
>impossible to tell. None of it really affected the common
>Londoner, it all affected the aristocracy. How the "rabble"
>was roused and what it was told was recorded by nobody.
>
>
According to Barlow, the causes of the Londoners discontent was all of
the above, but he does mention that she tried to tallage the citizens,
and got asked to follow the laws of St. Edward, not her father.
Londoners have never liked paying taxes :-}
Barlow goes on to say that the Queen's pleading for her husband's
release had got a lot of sympathy, and she then turned up on the
approaches to Southwark with an army.
--
Kathy
There is nothing more dangerous than a man with an idea.
Kathy McIntosh
<patj...@newsguy.com> writes
Snip of various attributes and a bit of text
>>>> And, as far as the medievals were concerned, the gender of
>>>> a baby was determined by the woman.
>>>>
>>
>>> How on earth did they "explain" the sons she bore Henry?
>>
>> Just one of those things. Perhaps she was being mean
>> to poor old Louis.
>
>She had more respect for Henry than for Louis. As she had no repsect at all
>for Henry...
>
Nope. She used a different ovary. Each ovary produces eggs of one sex.
This is a little known medical fact, as conveyed to my Mum in the 1040s,
when she had one removed. "You'll only be able to have children of one
sex now."! She went on to have my middle brother, then me, thus making
medical history as the first woman to have children of different sexes
from the same ovary. :-}
ANNE V. GILBERT
> Sadly, we will never know, but it would seem to make for
> an interesting alternate history novel ala Turtledove.
I basically don't have "time" for alternate history, and I consider it more
a forum for a lot of wishful thinking rather than asking important questions
about what might be called "contingencies". I think there's a lot you can
do with the history that is known, even on the "science fiction" level, and
that's one of the reasons I'm on this and other medieval forums(yes, I'm
writing science fiction, but not any "alternate history").
Anne G