Blood Royal

Finally, I'm getting somewhere! I didn't think the information would present itself so blatantly to help my potential theses, but it's finally come!


In the section of the book (same one) that I'm at, it's talking about the increase in the importance of titles and family. Again, it's in the section "Royal Blood and the Royal Brood."


It talks about how in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, the idea of royal blood had become very important. Titles were being invented, and given to members of the royal family, to show who they were and who they were related too, more importantly. For example, Edward I created a title still used today by naming his eldest surviving son and heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales. Prince Charles, son of Elizabeth, carries that title today. It's fascinating to read about titles being created that are still in use today. 


Other such titles were given to anyone with "blood royal" to separate them from the the general public. It wasn't enough to just be a noble. You also needed some royal blood to receive more validation. In fact, three of the six noblemen given the title of "marquess" were related to the king. Also at this point, members of the royal family wanted to describe themselves as the "uncle/nephew/anything" to the king. They did anything to prove that they were closely related to the king. Names held power in this society, and to associate yourself as being close the king, then you had power, no matter how big or small.  


The time period of this is also important. At this time, the Lancasters and Yorks both had claims to the crown, and wanted to do anything to strengthen that claim. Illegitimates and half siblings were used to add power to numbers, while before they weren't really considered. Both would want to exaggerate their connection to the crown and prove their validation in getting the throne. The Tudors were also big on titles, though I don't have enough solid information yet to really understand their importance in it. 


From my reading, it is also clear that the English wanted to build up a royal reputation greater than the French monarchy. England and France have always had an interesting relationship, and the importance in being part of the English monarchy, and giving out important sounding titles would have served as a sign that the English really wanted to surpass the French in reputation. 


The topic of blood royal will serve as an important part of any prospective thesis i have. It shows how being related to the king, or a part of the royal family was important, and I want to go deep into the reasons of why this was. Sure, it's cool to be the brother of one king and uncle to that king's son, but what's the importance behind that? Is it for the title? The power? Or did they just get a front row seat in the all the drama surrounding a monarchy? I guess I'll have to read more to find out. 


Since I'm moving into Lancaster and York, here's a complex look at their family tree. From what I understand of it, it looks as though Henry VII (Tudor, descended from Lancasters) married Elizabeth of York, so their son, Henry VIII would have had Lancastrian and York blood, giving both families what they wanted. Cool, huh?

 Link to image

What makes a Good King? (Or Queen)

While still reading through the Oxford book (I know, still on the same book), I came upon a section talking about "Royal Brood and Royal Blood." It deals with talking about the fight for the crown between the Lancasters and Yorks, and the training of kings, specifically from the Middle Ages (Tudors, etc.). It also talked about where the different kings were born, the nationalities of their children's spouses, and how much it factored into how they ruled and how much they believed that they had a right to the throne. 


While reading this section, I started thinking about what makes a good King or a Queen. Is it their education? Is it their drive? Is it their desire to make sure their children take over the throne? Or is the skill to lead a nation effectively something that only some monarchs were born with; a natural born talent?  I know before I was talking about how a monarchy was driven by a King's or Queen's desire (or lack thereof) of producing offspring, but now I think that's it's much more complicated than that. Sure, some rulers really want their kids to take over, and sometimes those kids fight with each other to get what they want, but it's definitely more than that. Some Kings just believe that they should be where they are because a higher power put them into the position to rule the people (Divine Right of Kings). They could also just think that since their father was a King, they would automatically be a good King as well. 




I think if I want to have a successful seminar presentation, I'll need to go much deeper than just looking at the offspring of a King or Queen who fought over the throne. I'll also need to look at where they were born, their education, who trained them, how many siblings they had, how healthy they were, and a multitude of other pieces of information that would transform them into the monarch they became. 


Realistically, I know that I won't be able to do this in the fullest amount of detail. I'm sure that there are students focused on entirely studying the monarchy that would need to take a whole school year to even skim the top of the complexities and interesting relationships that surrounded the English monarchy from the 1300's to now. 


I'm going to try my best to look generally at each house and specific monarchs to try and find a similar pattern, or at least some trend that I can turn into a nice, understandable thesis. A lot of reading and research will need to occur between now and the 13th of June for this to happen!

Family Tree

I've realized that a lot of what I've been saying may be a little confusing without a little reference.


So, here is an attached family tree of the house of Plantagenet. It ends at Richard II, who was the last Plantagenet before the Yorks/Lancasters decided to fight over the throne. I'll be starting research on the War of the Roses and the fight for the throne within the week (I hope).


Those family ties may be a little confusing, but I"ll try to find a good tree to represent the relationships. 


Anyways, here's the Plantagenet tree, with wives, kings, and all that fun stuff. 

(source): http://www.paranormalx.yolasite.com/resources/Royal_Haunts/Family%20Tree%20-%20Plantagenet.jpg

Quick Update

Due to the wonderful weather, family functions and various other procrastinatory media, I did not do much research this weekend. 


What little I've done (on the same book) have not done much to support my previous idea that monarchies were run by the King's desire to give their kingdom to their offspring.


My research has gone a bit into difficulties over the Lancastrian kings, and whether the female line should play any role in hereditary rights. It has also delved a little into when a king should give up control. Or when they should get it. Henry VI was a baby when he was made king, and other kings were deemed senile and unable to rule. 


Those are just some monarchy-related issues I've encountered. It seems like a lot of Kings (Ahem, Edward I) left a bit of a mess for their sons to clean up, and the new kings were not always up to the task. 


Whenever I read a brief page description on a king, it usually details how his father screwed up royally (hah), and then how he managed to continue this chain of bad leadership. To follow with my example of Edward I, his son Edward II was left with a mess. He was still at war with Scotland, and was losing battles, which discredited his rule. On top of this, he was a little too friendly with a Gascon noble, and was overthrown multiple times. First the earl of Lancaster and some nobles overthrew him, but that didn't stick too well.


Then his wife, Isabella did, and this time, he was forced to give the throne to his son. But again, I'm sure the mess Edward II left for Edward III was not pretty, though I haven't gotten to that yet. 


What appears to be a big theme now is a king's relationship with nobles, and how that dictates his rule. The will of the people does not seem to matter as much, nor has it been mentioned in the text in much detail. It's mostly about how the nobles don't like how the king is doing things, and then decide to take things into their own hands.


Is there a potential thesis out of this? King vs nobles, and the effect it's had on England? Possibly, though more research is definitely required. 

Oops

Despite my self-professed goal to finish the book it...didn't happen. Despite the time it has been taking me to get through it, I do enjoy what I've been reading, for the most part. 


I tried doing work on the older stuff, but then I got a little sidetracked by a name, which led to a Wikipedia search. Of course, once you're on one Wikipedia page, you've got to click a link to another, and I found myself reading about the Windsor house and how it's really just Saxe-Gotha renamed to make it less German. Also, I didn't realize that the current Queen had a sister who died, nor that she had four children. I also didn't know that Victoria was called the "Grandmother of Europe" since her grandchildren seemed to get around. Or that Victoria's grandson was the Kaiser. 


Realizing how far the British royal family traced back also depressed me a little, since I realize how far back I can go in my own family tree. My maternal grandfather's mother's family can go back to the mid 1800's, but other than that, nothing. This may be straying a little, but it's a thought that's been running through my head a lot.


But that's what could have been what helped draw me to this topic - the fact that all of this information about a well known, yet complicated royal tree has so much information readily available, while I can't even say who my great-great-great-great-great etc. grandparents are. I know, other people don't know or don't care to learn, but the past has always been something that interested me. And those people could probably find some information if they delved a little. 


My dad told me that my recent ancestors would have lived in shtetls in Eastern Europe, which would have had records. These of course don't exist anymore. 


I guess I like the reliability of this family tree - though cousins married each other and illegitimate children were aplenty, everything is still laid out nice and easy in a variety of sources. And that's something I'll never have. 

An Update

Well, Oxford sure knows how to write a very, very, very long book.  It's not surprising, seeing as how it's encompassing a thousand odd years or so of a very complex history, but I didn't anticipate how long it would take for me to get through it.


The book is organized in such a way that important information about each ruler is put into their own little box. This box does not always have anything to do with text surrounding it. This can be a little confusing, because the box for Henry II may not have any surrounding text that has much to do with him.


In fact, sometimes, it goes back to Henry I or Edward the Confessor, or even Cnut. I'm still not even sure who Cnut is, but apparently he was king of a ton of places, including England. I'm not going back that far, so it was a little disconcerting to see his name brought up so much when I still don't understand the full implications/complications of his rule. And to go back even further would be impossible and ridiculous. 


I also did not realize how...let's say complex, that some of these rulers were. So far, it seems that King John and his line had plenty of problems with the English people, not even counting the Irish, Welsh and Scottish people who they had control over. Combined with the land in France (Gascon) that they had, the monarchy, its dominions, and lands had a lot of complexity surrounding them. 


It's kind of interesting to see how the shaping of these countries still had an effect today. England claiming  that the Irish, Scottish and Welsh fell under their dominion has caused a lot of rustle throughout history, including but not limited to the Irish rebellion, Scottish battles and a whole lot of complex marriages. 


I don't regret going so far back in history because it really is fascinating to see the shaping of such an influential country being made by seemingly incompetent or plain selfish leaders. Each king has had their own agenda thus far, which has caused many tensions with the people. In fact, Henry III's own brother-in-law lead a civil war against the throne, and won. Yet, the brother-in-law (Simon deMontfort) died, putting Henry III back on the throne. Interesting, right? The book explains the tensions that built to this, yet the resolution seems rushed, as though there is more to say about it. Perhaps it will come up in a couple dozen pages? By then, the whole conflict will be almost forgotten to me, and I'd have to go back and read about the background again. 


I'm hoping that the format of the book will change as it goes on, and that it will become more fluid in its timeline. Though there are 500 more pages or so to skim through, I know I need to move on to other sources, so I'll work my hardest to get through it by the weekend, and provide an update after. 


Time to get back to reading!


P.S. I'm glad I'm just focusing on English kings, rather than Scottish/Irish/Welsh ones as well. My brain would have exploded from all of the information. Also, Welsh names are hard to pronounce. 

Potential Thesis

Though I haven't gotten through many of my books yet, the Oxford one that I'm currently reading has brought up some interesting points, and based on my knowledge of more recent British houses, an inkling of a thesis has begun to form in my mind.


I think it would be interesting to argue that the British monarchy is driven by its inheritance. That is to say, that the actions of the ruler, be it King or Queen, are based upon whether or not there are any children to take the throne, and if there are multiple children, how to get them to stop fighting over who will take over. 


Kings such as Henry VIII have gone to great lengths to produce heirs, changing rules to do so. Henry II, who I am currently reading about, gave his sons titles at a very young age, even making one of his sons a Junior King while Henry was still alive! Monarchs and their subjects have always seem to have had an obsession of who will take over their place once they are gone, with whole wars even starting because of it. Though I don't know much about it yet, I have a book about the War of the Roses, which, if I am to understand it, was a war between two houses (Lancaster and York), over which house was entitled to the throne. 


By making my way through the British royalty trees, and looking at how their children, (or lack of, for some) influenced a monarch's rule, I could hopefully come up with some great arguments. 


More streams of consciousness are sure to follow!