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!