Friday, April 1, 2011

One Emperor to Rule them All! (The Holy Roman Empire)

 
Banner of the Holy Roman Empire

Of all the great and powerfully misunderstood political entities in history, few are as confusing as the political monstrosity now known as the Holy Roman Empire. Indeed, many who know little about European History have heard of this strange empire, sometimes wondering when and where it was, why it was Holy and Roman, and if it was even an empire. Well it has been long in coming but let us explore what was, for a while, one of the most powerful empires in the western world.

The Frankish Empire
Let us begin with the FIRST Holy Roman Empire, or at least the original empire that would become, through twists and turns, that empire. The original empire was much larger, actually, than the one that reached its height around the year 1600 in the modern state of Germany. Historians now call the earlier empire the Frankish Empire, or the Carolingian Empire. Neither are really correct, though, since it was not always ruled by Franks nor by Carolingians. Nonetheless, the coronation on December 25th, 800 as Roman Emperor of Charles the Great, Roman Emperor Charles I, Charlemagne, heralded a new age for Europe. Starting from this date, the Holy Roman Empire claimed a 1006 year heritage from its founding in 800 until its demise in 1806 under the overwhelming occupation of Napoleon I Bonaparte of France. It established the precedent of the Germanic emperors being "Roman Emperors" for, indeed, the Carolingian emperors from whence the empire claims its foundation was built upon control over Rome and the defeat of the Lombards by Charlemagne in 774. Thus the Holy Roman Empire was indeed based upon a true empire that included Rome.

The Frankish Empire showing its maximum extent and its 843 divisions

In addition, Pope Leo III who crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor did not feel that he was stealing the title. Rather, he felt he had a legitimate right to place such a title upon Charles' head. First and foremost, he did not recognize the legitimate Roman Emperor in Constantinople. Constantine VI, the legitimate emperor, had been overthrown in 797 by his mother, Irene, who claimed the title Roman Empress, the first female to ever hold the imperial throne. Since there was no precedent for such a title, Leo III felt the throne had become vacant and, as the senior patriarch of the Christian church, took the initiative and crowned his savior, Charles, as an anti-emperor to Irene. Despite Irene's death in 802, Byzantium's replacements proved unworthy and the papacy continued to support its own line of Roman Emperors. Secondly, the Lombards who had controlled Rome were defeated and their Iron Crown captured by Charles. Charles was already, then, King of the Lombards and thereby King of Rome, and so he was the only logical candidate for the imperial title.

What happened next is why the Holy Roman Empire is considered separate from the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne. Charles' grandsons divided up the empire with the eldest son taking the title of Roman Emperor. But, in exchange, the eldest son was also placed in the worse condition, being ruler of a narrow strip of lands stretching from the Netherlands south through Burgundy to Tuscany and Italy. His younger brothers controlled the more centralized lands of Francia and the more warmongering lands of Germania. Quickly, the imperial title was abandoned and minor rulers in Italy fought for it. Berengar I was the last such emperor and died in 824. The Frankish Empire was dead.

The Early Roman Empire of the Germans
The Holy Roman Empire formed out of the ruins of the Germanic Eastern Empire of the Franks. The Carolingian line had died and Germany had pieced itself apart into small duchies. Bavaria and Saxony became the biggest rivals. Henry of Saxony was elected the first king of Germany in 919. He was a warrior who defeated the Magyars (Hungarians) to the east. His son, Otto, continued that war and achieved fame and renown. In 951, Otto campaigned in Italy where he aided then married the widowed queen of Italy and, as a reward, was crowned Emperor of Rome by the pope in 962. Thus Otto became the first Roman Emperor of Germany. Otto's son, Otto II, elevated his title to match that of his eastern counterpart, angering the Byzantine Empire even more. But to counter his presumption, he wed a Byzantine princess. The early Holy Roman Emperors were constantly split between loyalty to Italy, whence their titles come, and loyalty to Germany, where their hereditary lands and people resided. Thus while it can certainly be said that Holy Roman Emperors were Roman, it perhaps would have been better if they had also been German. In these early days, the empire was still hereditary in the line of Henry. That would all change when Henry II died.

The First Election and the "Holy" Empire
In 1024, Henry II of the Ottonian dynasty died leaving no heirs. The dukes and high nobles of the land, therefore, chose his successor: Conrad II of the Salian dynasty. While the line remained in the Salian dynasty for quite some time, a precedent had been unknowingly set. The fate of the empire had passed from hereditary right, as had been with the Carolingian emperors, to election by peers. And though the pope had the power to crown the emperor, the peers had the power to select the king of Germany who would be eligible for the imperial crown. Thus, a change in tides was coming though it was still long off.

The Holy Roman Empire, c. 1000

Meanwhile, Pope Gregory VII was establishing a different kind of precedent. For many centuries, the Roman Emperors had been in charge of appointing their own bishops and choosing which clergy would assist them in their day-to-day tasks. In 1075, Gregory and Henry IV excommunicated eachother, leading to a bitter struggle to determine the place of the church in government. For Henry it was a disaster. He walked to Canossa in 1077 and prostrated himself before the pope. In Germany, he had lost such face that some dukes elected a new king, Rudolf of Swabia. Henry's son, Henry V, finally resolved the conflict through the Concordat of Worms in 1122. It held the empire in check and removed the pope from it.

Following the earlier tradition, a new dynasty arose through election, the Hohenstaufens, and they used their political power to increase the "Romanness" of Italy and Germany. At every turn, they tried to fight against papal power but ultimately failed in their attempt. The pope kept the rulers in constant check by including blackmail in their elevations to emperor. Only if a king were "holy" would the pope crown them emperor over his domain. Thus the "Holy Roman" aspect of the empire became a dependent clause — if the empire wanted to be Roman, it had to be holy since the pope controlled Rome. And if it wanted to be holy, it had to be Roman since the pope lived in Rome. Thus the Holy Roman Empire, during its pre-Habsburg years, was constantly Holy and Roman, even though it was often only reluctantly both.

This problem reached its apex during the reign of Frederick II. Already many Crusades had gone out, generally with the enthusiastic support of the Holy Roman Emperors. These campaigns in the Middle East helped strengthen the claim that the empire was "Holy". But in Italy, Frederick and the papacy fought constantly. Frederick supported multiple anti-popes while Pope Innocent III long supported rival kings to Frederick II. Frederick's reign also saw the end of centralized rule in Germany. Whereas before Germany was a rather centralized Empire, it became after Frederick a decentralized empire. Frederick spent most of his efforts in Italy, specifically Sicily, giving wide-reaching freedoms to his dukes in Germany. Thus when Frederick died in 1250, the German empire literally crumbled into the confusions of history.

The Holy Roman Empire, c. 1300

The "Holy" "Roman" "Empire"
Where most of the confusion comes concerning the terminology of the HRE derives from the period from 1250 through 1806. During this time, Germany lost its control over Rome, lost its direct election by the pope, and lost the centralization required to truly be called an empire. Thus, while the HRE was at one point all three of those things, by the time history books catch up to it in 1806, it was none of those things.

An Early Image of the College of Electors

The empire dissolved after 1250. A 23-year interregnum ended with the election of Rudolf I of Habsburg as the new king and emperor-elect. The College of Electors was firmly in place by this time, having been created out of the power vacuum of the past two decades. The college became the elective body that chose the next German king. It met to discuss imperial law and was comprised of the chief dukes and archbishops of the state. In state affairs, the archbishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne met with the margrave of Brandenburg, count palatine of the Rhine, and the duke of Saxony. In imperial elections, the King of Bohemia, a seventh party, presided and acted as the swing-vote. In 1621, the duke of Bavaria became the eighth electorate, though it would later inherit the Palatinate. In 1692, a ninth elector was chosen—the duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (Hanover). These people were deemed overlords of the empire under the ruling emperor, but each region was autonomous in all things save inter-territorial disputes.

The Decline of the German Empire
The decline of the empire happened gradually and over much time. Most of the post-1250 emperors were not crowned by the pope in Rome, but rather held the title "emperor-elect", which sometimes had the blessing of the pope. The emperors ruled their own lands and presided over the imperial courts. The majority of imperial funds came from their own lands except for a small tax imposed on all the other lords, which often went unpaid. Yet even as the empire dissolved into hundreds of petty states separated by rival dynasties and cadet branches, the government began to bureaucratize. Institutions sprang up, especially throughout the Renaissance after the Black Death. In 1512, the empire received its first legal name: The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The concept of a centralized German state had reappeared, but centralization was but a pipe dream. The Habsburgs became the founders of a nearly-unbroken line in 1452. Charles V would be their banner-boy but he could not hold his massive empire that spanned from the New World, Spain, and Italy together. Religious strife appeared with the teachings of Martin Luther in the heart of Germany, and with it came the many wars of religion that would prove the death of a central German state until 1871.

The Holy Roman Empire, c. 1648, after the Peace of Westphalia

One-by-one, the Holy Roman Empire fell to pieces. The Peace of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years' War in 1648 granted near-complete sovereignty to hundreds of the German states. The Dutch Netherlands rebelled from the empire while Switzerland achieved independence in 1499. Control of the empire shifted from a united entity to rival major states vying for control of the petty states. Of these, Brandenburg-Prussia, Austria-Hungary-Bohemia, Bavaria-Palatinate and Saxony became the biggest competitors. The balance of power, however, rested solely in Austria and Prussia, the two largest states in Germany.

The Holy Roman Empire, c. 1789, on the eve of the French Revolution

Only outside chaos could have ended the stalemate of the Holy Roman Empire. The French Revolution turned Prussia against many of its neighbors while Austria retreated to its heartland. In addition, the majority of the smaller states were forcibly annexed by their neighbors via French mediation. Ultimately, Holy Roman Emperor Francis II voluntarily dissolved the empire on August 6th, 1806. Napoleon took the remaining imperial lands and created the Confederacy of the Rhine, while the Austrian Habsburgs declared themselves Emperors of Austria and survived for another 112 years until their ultimate defeat in World War I. Germany reorganized into the German Confederation after Napoleon was defeated in 1815, and became the North German Confederation in 1866 when Prussia took control of Germany. The Hohenzollern king of Prussia, in 1871, declared himself King of Germany and dissolved the confederation after that, and the German Empire lasted for another 47 years before it, too, was ended in World War I.

So ends the tragic tale of the rise and fall of the First Reich of the German Empire. It rose in splendor and glory, passed through times of trial and success, and fell to lows unforeseen and unrepairable. Thus the Holy Roman Empire became, through feats of piety and subservience, Holy, through feats of strength, Roman, and through expansion and allegiance, an Empire, only to lose all three through greed and disorganization. The Holy Roman Empire's last remnant in Europe lies in Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, two petty states of the great empire that somehow survived through it all.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

The Rulers of the Disney Renaissance (Disney Films: Part II)

Continuing my series on Disney dynastological analyses, today we will be reviewing the films from The Rescuers through Tarzan, which means we will be encompassing the majority of what has become known as the "Disney Renaissance". Again, any critique on the dynastological aspects of the films in no way lessens my appreciation and enjoyment of said films. This period especially is one of my favorites in Disney's history and I hope it is returning as it seems to be. Let us begin...

 
Princess Eilonwy

 25. The Black Cauldron (1985) – Often known as one of Disney's darkest and least-known films, The Black Cauldron tells the story of Taran and Princess Eilonwy, two Welsh heroes who fight to end the conquering desires of the Horned King and his minions. While the monarchical aspects of the film are generally downplayed, two different types of royalty are represented in this film. The Horned King, the evil enemy whom all must defeat, is portrayed as a tyrannical conqueror of unknown origins but who has destroyed the beautiful countryside. Princess Eilonwy, in contrast, is a legitimate princess, the daughter of a common man and a daughter of the Sea King. Little further is explained on this matter, however, and Eilonwy mostly brushes off her ancestry as burdensome to recount. In the end, the story focuses primarily on the pig, Hen Wen, and Taran rather than the monarchs and, while the defeat of the Horned King is important to the overarching story, little is discussed in relation to the future of the lands the Horned King once ruled over.

 
Princess Ariel and Prince Eric 

28. The Little Mermaid (1989) – Disney's first masterpiece in the series of films that became the "Disney Renaissance", The Little Mermaid tells of how Ariel, the daughter of Triton, King of the Oceans, fell in love with a human and forfeited her life as a mermaid for life on land with a man. Disney chose to use two blood royals in this story to place both characters on the same grounding. Ariel is the youngest daughter of the Sea King, a man who apparently has no (legitimate) sons since none are mentioned at a pageant near the beginning of the film (nor in any subsequent sequels or television episodes). Eric, the man she falls in love with, is a prince as well but nothing is discussed of his background. Whether he is a sovereign prince, as in a reigning prince, or the son of a monarch is unclear.  It is highly possible that since Eric seems to live as the ruler of a large castle on the sea with no parents ever mentioned in the film, he is the actual ruler rather than simply the child of the ruler. In either case, his hereditary royalty is never in doubt from the time of his first introduction throughout the film.

 
Belle and Beast 

30. Beauty and the Beast (1991) — A "tale as old as time", this film focuses on an imprisoned and scholarly peasant woman who is captured by an evil beast in his massive castle and inevitably falls in love with him, redeeming him in the process. The beast is in fact a prince turned monster by a sorceress. While he was yet a mid-teenager at the time of his transformation, no mention is ever given to parents in the film suggesting that the Beast was in fact a sovereign prince in charge of the castle and the lands around it. The townsfolk nearby seem to know of the beast but not of his dominion, suggesting that either the castle is much farther away than portrayed or that it does not rule the lands in which Belle once lived. In all likelihood, Cogsworth and Lumière were probably stewards and maybe even regents for the prince in his youth and continued as advisers as he reached maturity. At the time in the film, the Beast was supposed to be around 21 years old, with only one year to break the curse from his 21st birthday.

 
Princess Jasmine

 31. Aladdin (1992) — The classic tale passed down from One Thousand and One Arabian Nights, Aladdin tells the tale of a street urchin who finds the lost genie's lamp and becomes a prince. He does so through his (eventual) marriage to Princess Jasmine, the daughter of the Sultan. However, this film actually has three different forms of monarch portrayed in it. As with the previous three films, Jasmine is a legitimate princess, the daughter of the ruling monarch: Sultan. Aladdin becomes a prince jure uxorious, "by right of his wife", when he eventually marries her (which doesn't actually happen until the third film: Aladdin and the Prince of Thieves). But do not forget the Grand Vizier Jafar, who temporarily uses the power of the genie's lamp to become the Sultan of Agrabah. His claim to the throne is sheer conquest, but that is a style of succession long tried and supported. And while Jafar ultimately fails in his quest, he does manage to change succession law in Agrabah by convincing Sultan than Aladdin, as a hero, is worthy of marrying his daughter, despite the fact that Aladdin has no royal blood. In reality, royalty in Arabia has often married non-royals to cement alliances between tribes, and heroes are certainly good marriage material.

 
King Simba of the Pride Lands

 32. The Lion King (1994) — One of Disney's most remembered and loved films, The Lion King is also the one of only three films to feature a title of royalty in its title. The "Lion King" in question is Simba, initially the son of Mufasa, king of Pride Rock and the Pridelands. Mufasa is the legitimate king of the lands and that is something his younger brother, Scar, despises. Scar is eventually able to orchestrate a coup against his brother with the help of a band of hyenas. They kill Mufasa and attempt to kill his son, Simba, but eventually allow him to flee into the savannah in disgrace. Scar takes over the pride despite resentment from the lionesses while Simba settles in at a watering hole with Pumba, a warthog, and Timon, a meerkat, both outcasts of their own. Fate eventually catches up with Simba, though, and his once betrothed lioness finds him while going on a long hunt. She convinces Simba to return and challenge his uncle for control over the pride. Simba does so and wins the fight, with angry hyenas finishing the task of killing the deposed usurping Scar. The film ends the way it began, with Simba and Nala having their newborn child blessed and presented before the residents of the Pridelands. The dynasty continues.

 
 Pocahontas 

33. Pocahontas (1995) — In contrast to The Lion King, the monarchical roles in Pocahontas seem downright subtle, but they are still there. Pocahontas is a princess of an Algonquian Native American chieftain named Powhatan. Lacking a son, Powhatan is in negotiations with a mighty warrior of the tribe to wed his daughter, who is trying her utmost to make herself scarce. Eventually Pocahontas falls in love with an English explorer named John Smith, but circumstances halt their romance. The monarchy in this is a hereditary tribal chiefdom. While the chief is able to pass his claim to leadership on to his children, bravery and leadership qualities are expected of the leader. Little is explained about how the monarchy works and it remains a background topic throughout the film.

 
Hercules 

35. Hercules (1997) — One of the lesser films of the "Disney Renaissance", Hercules deals with a non-monarchical issue but one that is surrounded by monarchs. Thirteen to be exact. That is the number of gods and goddesses there are on Mount Olympus and Hades. The film is played out like a dynastic struggle for leadership of the Olympian Gods, a struggle fought mostly between Zeus and Hades, using Hercules as their tool. Hades and Zeus are brothers, but Zeus is god above while Hades god below. This angers Hades and so the underworld lord leads a rebellion by releasing their gigantic and wrathful parents, the Titans, upon the world. Hercules, through his bravery, is able to stop both the Titans and Hades' attempt at conquest by rescuing his love from what appears to be a Well of Souls. His immortality defeats Hades and Olympus is saved. Zeus became god of Olympus when he defeated the Titans the first time around, and thus this film is really about a dynastic struggle between two brothers who both feel like they should rule their siblings, a topic oddly similar to that in The Lion King.

 
The Han Emperor 

36. Mulan (1998) — Mulan follows the journey of Fa Mulan as she joins the Chinese army disguised as a man and falls in love with her captain. Two aspects of the story suggest royalty. The obvious one is that the story takes place in Imperial China during the Han Dynasty that lasted from the 3rd century BCE through the 3rd century CE. The emperor plays a fairly prominent role at the end of the film as he is  captured and nearly killed by the Hun leader, Shan Yu. The Chinese monarchy was a agnatic (Salic) primogeniture system prone to periodic succession by conquest. This film follows one of those attempts, as Shun Yu, the leader of the Huns, leads a campaign of conquest over the Great Wall and toward the Imperial City. Shan Yu is most likely a tribal chieftain who rose to his rank through deeds rather than by heredity, although some hereditary descent may have occurred. Had he conquered the Chinese capital, he would likely have adopted the manners of China as did the Mongols in the 14th century and the Manchurians in the 18th. It should be added, however, that Mulan, at no point in this story, becomes or is implied to become a princess. She remains the daughter of a soldier and marries a soldier.

Of the remaining films in this period, nearly all have a trace of monarchy in them despite the fact that no monarchs or their children appear in the films. Basil: The Great Mouse Detective (1986) and Tarzan (1999) both take place in Victorian England or with a Victorian English cast, with the former mentioning the Crimean War periodically and the latter featuring modes of Late Victorian dress in both the character of Jane and many of the slides she shows to Tarzan. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) takes place during the reign of King Louis XI in the 1400s, and the king appears once in the novel but not in the film. As a stretch, The Rescuers Down Under (1990) takes place in contemporary Australia, which means Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is also the Queen of Australia via the Commonwealth of Nations. That leaves only Oliver & Company (1988) without any monarch whatsoever, either implied or otherwise, featured in the film since it takes place in contemporary New York City. Coincidentally, though, the novel upon which Oliver & Company was based, Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens, took place in London during the reign of King William IV. Thus the "Disney Renaissance" is also a period in Disney's history rich with connections to monarchs and, most surprisingly, legitimate female rulers whose husbands are the ones not royal. Indeed, only Belle from Beauty and the Beast becomes royalty through her marriage, all the rest already are royalty. A kind switch from earlier Disney films.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Royal Weddings and Curious Titles (William & Kate Wedding)

William and Kate

 It has been two weeks now since Prince William and Kate Middleton married at Westminster Abbey, yet questions continued to be raised regarding various aspects of the royal wedding and, in particular, the status of the couple in the royal hierarchy. I, therefore, hope to answer some of these persistent questions so all of us become better informed.

Why is Prince William now called the Duke of Cambridge?
Hours before the marriage ceremony, the queen endowed upon her grandson the titles of Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus. Since Duke of Cambridge is the most preeminent of those titles, it is the one he thereby takes as his own.

Isn't a duke inferior to a prince?
 
William, Duke of Cambridge

 In this context, no. There has always been confusion regarding the title "prince". Technically speaking, any child of a monarch could be called a prince or princess. It is a default title denoting a recent descent from royalty. As the eldest son of the son of the reigning queen of England, William is, quite logically, a prince. However, his title doesn't really mean anything. It is a courtesy given to someone who has no other inherent titles. In contrast, his new title Duke of Cambridge is an official title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and as such grants him certain rights and privileges. Historically, it would grant him lands, a seat in the House of Lords, and the right to attend the royal court. Now it is mostly a titular title with little power, but it is still superior to the simple title "prince". It should be noted, though, that he doesn't lose the the title "prince," it just isn't as important as "Duke of Cambridge".

As a quick aside, royal dukes hold a special place in British history. Most sons of the monarch become a duke. Charles is technically Duke of Cornwall, a title that the eldest male gets upon birth, and Andrew is the Duke of York. Edward, oddly, is styled the Earl of Wessex, but that title holds an historic legacy in Britain and is the highest earldom available to bestow in Britain. Duchies provide income from a small tax to their landowners even today.

But Charles is a prince, right?
 
Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, et al.

 Prince Charles is indeed a prince, but he is a different type of prince than the courtesy title bestowed on all children of royals. Charles is the "Prince of Wales", which is an actual title. It is granted at some point to the eldest child to denote that they are next in line to the throne. Historically, the title presumed ownership of the Principality of Wales, an occupied country west of England. But during the reign of Henry VIII, Wales was permanently appended to England and the title became nothing more than that. It holds no official place in the British peerage, although the bearer of the title also is usually the Duke of Cornwall and thus the head of the peerage. Wales used to give a tax to the Prince but it no longer does since it technically doesn't exist separate from England. In any case, Charles is the Prince of Wales, technically a sovereign of a foreign land, which is very different than a royal prince.

Why is Charles' wife called Duchess of Cornwall, then? Shouldn't she be Princess of Wales?
 
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

Camilla is, in fact, the Princess of Wales. But out of respect for her step-children, William and Harry, and the memory of Charles' much-loved first wife, Diana, she chose (or Charles chose for her) to use a different title. The next highest title in Charles' collection is Duke of Cornwall, the place where he makes the majority of his income, so Camilla is the Duchess of Cornwall. If Charles and Camilla were to have any children, they would still be in the line of succession behind William and Harry.

So why isn't Kate a princess?
She is! Kate Middleton became a princess as soon as she was married to Prince William. Haven't you ever seen a Disney movie? There are two ways to become a prince or a princess: you can be born one or you can marry one. When Kate married William, she became Princess Catherine.

But why does everyone call her the Duchess of Cambridge?
Because that is a stronger title than princess. Just as Prince William has taken the title Duke of Cambridge, Kate has become the Duchess of Cambridge. Even for married peers, a royal duchess is better than a royal princess because it comes with benefits.

But why Cambridge?
 
Cambridge

Why not? Cambridge is a respectable town in England famous for its university. As a duchy, it was last held by the grandson of George III through his seventh son, Adolphus. The title went extinct in 1904. It had previously been granted to George Louis, who became George I of Great Britain, as well as four sons of James II, all of whom died in infancy. Cambridge was also created as a marquessate in 1917 for the queen's brother, Adolphus. That line ended in 1981 when George Francis died without issue.

And what about Strathern and Carrickfergus?
Having an English title makes William a bit too pro-England for the likes of Scotland and Ireland. And so William was also granted subsidiary titles in those two realms. He was created Earl of Strathern which was an ancient earldom in Scotland dating from around the 1130s or earlier. In recent history, it has been created into a duchy but always dependent on another duchy, usually Cumberland or Kent. The last such duchy was Connaught and Strathearn, whose last holder died in 1942. The title Baron Carrickfergus is a minor one, at best, and represents a region in Northern Ireland. The title was only used once before, from 1841 and 1883, after which it went extinct. Together, William's three tiles represent his claims to England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, with his eventual title of Prince of Wales giving him Wales as well.

Can Kate become Queen of England?
 
 Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Yes and no. There has always been confusion in the United States about queens. The current ruling monarch of the United Kingdom is Queen Elizabeth II. She is queen because she has no brothers and she was the eldest child of the former king, George VI. The UK still uses male-preference primogeniture for their succession system, which favors sons, but that doesn't mean women can't rule. Kate, however, is not the eldest daughter of a son-less monarch, nor even the granddaughter. She is married to the eldest son of the eldest son of the monarch. Assuming all goes well, William will someday become King William V of the United Kingdom. Kate will then become Queen Catherine. But she will not be a ruling queen, but rather a queen consort—the spouse of the king. Her power will rest entirely in William's power, and if he predeceases her, she will become Queen Mother and their eldest son (or eldest daughter if they have no sons) will become the next monarch.

But isn't Queen Elizabeth married?
 
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

 Yes she is. She is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Just like Kate, he is a prince because he married royalty. However, it was decided during the reign of Queen Anne back in 1702 that the husbands of ruling queens should not be called "king". In those days, kings had a lot of power and queens did not. Thus, if the queen wanted to rule uncontested, she had to marginalize her spouse in the realm of monarchical politics. What Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II all did was grant their spouses titles and jobs, maintaining them much in the same way that a king treats his queen consort. Indeed, only one "King Consort" has ever existed in England, and that was from 1555 until 1558. Queen Mary I (Bloody Mary) named her husband, Philip of Spain, king consort and delegated some powers to him, much to the dismay of England's Protestants.

Will William and Kate's children be eligible for the crown?
Of course! They are the children of a legally married royal couple. People often talk about Kate as a "commoner" but that doesn't make children ineligible in England. Most royals these days marry into the nobility, some into foreign royalty, but marring into the peasantry isn't unknown and it certainly doesn't stop people from inheriting the throne.

Why did William decide not to wear a wedding ring?
Because he didn't want to. Being in the military may have something to do with it, but royals, just like anyone else, can choose to wear or not to wear a wedding ring. Whether Kate agreed with William's decision is up in the air, but William has every right to refuse to wear a ring.


I think that will be all for now. If anyone has any further questions regarding the wedding, please feel free to comment here. I will reply as soon as possible with an answer. Until next time, cheers!

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Damsels in Distress (Disney Films: Part I)

As a fun little dynastology topic that I have been putting off, I want to analyze all the canon Disney Theatrical Animated Features released since Snow White in 1937 and each film's monarchical style. I hope you enjoy and I promise, my critique of the dynastological aspects of the films do not have any baring on my enjoyment of the film. I am a huge fan of Disney's canon and hope one day to have the whole series.

This first set of analyzes will revolve around the first twenty-two episodes up through The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. The majority of Disney films in this period do not have monarchical concepts, but a few do including some of the most famous princess films. Note: Numbers beside film-names represent that films sequence number according Walt Disney Animation Studios.

 
Princess Snow White

 1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)The first in a long chain of Disney princess films that continue to this day, Snow White also sets the stage for one of the two modes that a "princess" becomes a princess. For Snow White, her method is ancestry. Snow White is the (apparently) only daughter of the late king. When the king died, it seems that her step-mother, called the Queen, usurped the kingdom from Snow White. All was well and good until Snow White became "fairest of them all". The Queen attempted to murder Snow White and she fled into exile. A while later, the Queen discovered Snow White still lived and, through a power struggle, both were killed. Snow White, however, was rejuvenated following the kiss of a rather mysterious man simply named Prince. Snow White and the Prince ride off toward the castle and "live happily ever after". Talk about stereotypical and unhelpful. The only thing that can be assumed at the end of this film is that the Prince is going to become the King suo uxoris—by right of his wife. That wife, it is assumed, is or will be Snow White. This is all left out, though, as is the identity of Snow White's parents and why Snow White didn't become queen after her father's death. Also, who ruled the kingdom once the evil Queen was gone? Surely some time passed and, it was assumed, that Snow White was dead either by the woodsman's axe or the Queen's poison. Surely someone would have claimed the throne since the Queen's passing. So many things left unsaid that this film, unfortunately, does upset me due to its simplicity. Other Disney films fare much better in the end. 

 
Bambi, Prince of the Forest

 5.  Bambi  (1942) – Throughout this film, Bambi is called a prince. His father is known as the Great Prince of the Forest establishing some form of monarchy. With Bambi being the Great Prince's son, he is established as the heir to the dynasty. This concept is little expanded on throughout the film, but the Great Prince does come to the rescue twice to save Bambi from danger, suggesting that Bambi is important to the continuity of the dynasty. The story ends with Bambi overlooking the birth of his children with his father, and then his father turning and walking away, suggesting that Bambi will soon be established as the next Great Prince. The dynastological undertones of this story are extremely strong, but the lack of conversation and depth in the film constricts its ability to tell its dynastological story.

 
Cinderella 

12.  Cinderella  (1950) – The direct contrast to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella tells the tale of a maiden-turned-princess, Disney's other favorite form of "princess" to princess story. Basically, Prince Charming needs a wife because he currently shows no interest in getting married. The king wants a son, dosh garnit! So he invites every maiden in the kingdom to flaunt themselves in front of Charming. Dynastologically, this is already becoming improbable. Royalty-peasantry marriages are generally taboo even today and were much moreso back in the Middle Ages, when this story takes place. Even marrying nobility could be seen as damaging to the legitimacy of a dynasty, certainly marrying the gentry or peasantry was just ludicrous. Generally, that lot was reserved as mistresses or simple concubines. Anyway, Charming meets Cinderella, the wealthy heiress of a man whose widow and step-daughters treat the young woman as a common household servant. Cinderella's fairy godmother enchants Cinderella into basically becoming a noblewoman, but only until midnight! Upon her midnight flight, Cinderella leaves behind a glass shoe that Charming uses to find the young woman again. How only one woman in all of the kingdom fits Cinderella's shoe size is beyond me. Buying shoes for her must really stink. After some quarreling with the family, Cinderella finally manages to try on the show, which fits, and become a princess through her marriage to Prince Charming, a prince by blood. Thus, as Charming's father wished, Cinderella fills in the role of wife and mother to Charming and the many children she will undoubtedly have to fulfill her husband's and father-in-law's wishes.

 
The King and Queen of Hearts 

13.  Alice in Wonderland  (1951) – In Alice's imagination, she falls into the Kingdom of Wonderland, as it is eventually established. Wonderland is ruled by what appears to be a Queendom. Upon further analysis, though, there is a king and, since this was written in Victorian times, it is likely that the king was the suo jure monarch while the queen was just a heavy-handed consort. In either case, the Queen of Hearts is quite obviously the power behind the throne. The only other possibility, and it is a stretch, is that the king and queen are co-monarchs much like William III and Mary II were, but this seems unlikely. The parallels between the large Queen of Hearts and pompous Victoria and the twitchy King of Hearts and powerless Prince Albert are hard to miss. No further description of the monarchy can be found in the film.

 
Princess Aurora 

16.  Sleeping Beauty  (1959) – Disney's third foray into princess land returns the princess technique to that of Snow White: the hereditary princess. Unlike Snow White and Cinderella, however, Sleeping Beauty demonstrates a high amount of dynastological information. Aurora is born as the only child to her parents, King Stefan and Queen Leah. Soon after her birth, she is betrothed to Prince Philip, the son of King Hubert, in a dynastic alliance to unite the two kingdoms together. Thus, the story establishes that Aurora is the heiress of Stefan and implies that she will become Queen suo jure—in her own right. It also makes clear that Philip is the heir of Hubert and will become King in his own right. Thus there will become a dynastic union between the kingdoms, hopefully made permanent once the couple produce children. Years later, when the two meet, they fall in love, but Philip believes Aurora to be a peasant girl rather than the princess in exile. This suggests that the love is not meant to be, since, as mentioned in the Cinderella critique, royalty did not marry peasantry. In fact, Hubert brings this up when Philip reveals the news that he no longer wants to marry Aurora but rather this strange peasant woman. Hubert denies Philip the right to marry the peasant, for reasons mentioned above. Meanwhile, as with Snow White, Aurora is killed by a spinning wheel but may be revived if kissed by Philip. The evil fairy, Maleficent, captures and locks up Philip (why she did not just kill him, I know not). Philip escapes and kills Maleficent and then awakens Aurora, and they all live happily ever after. Out of all of Disney's princess films, this one is probably the best at properly portraying dynastic laws. There is a prearranged marriage for dynastic purposes. Hubert denies Philip the right to marry outside his class (or his betrothal). Both parties are already princes(ses) in their own rights. Frankly, I like the story too, even though Aurora is a really two-dimensional character. Definitely a well-done dynastological story.

 
Arthur, King of the Britons

 18. The Sword in the Stone (1963) – The treatment of the King Arthur story is bound to be controversial since there in all likelihood was no historical king by that name. Regardless, the story behind this version of the legend is that England is in the Dark Ages because Uther Pendragon died without naming his heir. When he died, a magical sword appeared in London embedded in a stone and anvil. The crux: who ever pulls out the sword becomes king of England. Quite an odd succession technique if you ask me. Regardless, Wart (aka Arthur) eventually pulls out the sword and becomes king. The story pretty much ends there, with a short epilogue explaining how Arthur becomes king and brings England out of the Dark Ages. Nothing is explained about his parentage (like that he is Uther's son), nothing about why he wasn't king to begin with, and nothing about his continuing legacy, except how famous he will become. Honestly, for a film about King Arthur, I would expect more regarding monarchy and less about preteen angst.

 
Mowgli and King Louie 

19. The Jungle Book (1967) – Besides the context of British India during the reign of Queen/Empress Victoria, "King" Louie is the only other monarchical figure in this allegorical story. He acts more like a kingpin—a Jabba the Hutt-like figure—rather than a literal king, making his placement in the dynastological context that of a non-dynastic leader and nothing more.
Richard I the Lionheart, King of England

 
John, Prince of England
21. Robin Hood (1973) – This film's dynastological context is quite obvious. Prince John is the little brother of King Richard the Lionheart. Robin Hood, a local outlaw, wants to ensure that Richard's rights in England are retained against the king's usurping little brother. He does this by "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor". John, whenever reminded of his mother, cries "Mother!" and sucks his thumb. Basically, all this is fun but completely contradicts history. Richard wasn't in the Holy Land by this time but imprisoned in Austria. John had usurped the regency of England in this time but the high taxes that Robin Hood fought against were because John was raising funds to ransom his brother from Austrian custody, a fact that Robin Hood would probably have known. When Richard left again in 1196, he left the government in the care of John, who he had named his heir despite the fact that John had a senior-line nephew, Arthur, the son of his elder deceased brother Geoffrey. Richard, in the end, trusted his youngest brother more than his nephew to lead England. Concerning Prince John's constant wailing about his mother, all was well and good. His mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, was still alive and well, although quite old. She acted often as John's ambassador and served as Richard's regent prior to John usurpation. John only made a grab for the regency after his mother had left to negotiate for Richard's release in Austria.

The films 2. Pinocchio (1940), 3.  Fantasia (1940), 4.  Dumbo  (1941), 6.  Saludos Amigos  (1942), 7.  The Three Caballeros   (1944), 8.  Make Mine Music   (1946), 9. Fun and Fancy Free   (1947),  10.  Melody Time   (1948), 11.  The Adventures of Ichabod & Mr. Toad   (1949), 15.  Lady and the Tramp  (1955) , 20. Aristocats (1970) and 22. The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977) do not appear to have any significant monarchical figures or dynastological concepts. 14.  Peter Pan   (1953) also does not show any significant concepts but initially takes place in Edwardian Great Britain (1901 to 1910) placing it in a monarchical context. Likewise, 17. One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961) takes place during an unknown time in British history, probably sometime in the reign of George V from 1910 until 1936 but shows no other monarchical tendencies.

 
Limited Edition Thomas Kinkade painting of Peter Pan & Company soaring over Edwardian London to Neverland

Friday, December 31, 2010

Tudoring Angevin Normans on Dynastology (England)

Today completes my series of fifty-one dynastology posts, begun long ago at the beginning of 2010. Through this series, I have presented dozens of different dynasties from around the world, terms that help describe dynastic politics, and theories that explain the importance of dynastology today. It has been fun, but the reason I am ending is because it has also become work. With me working nearly 35 hours a week, taking 6 units of classes, doing daily exercises, volunteering once a week at the SLV Museum, helping and going to church and youth group weekly, hosting a game night every Tuesday, and publishing a Zam Wesell comic each week, I just don't have the time any more to do these posts. They take up quite a bit of my time once a week and, while they are informative, I want to have a little bit of my free time back. I still will post a dynastology every once in a while when I'm in the mood, but the weekly posts cease after this.

Sorry for those of you who really enjoyed them. I still have plans for the posts. First and foremost, I want to go back and republish these posts on a Blogger blog I've set up. It still needs some work, but after doing this for a year, I feel I can probably go back and expand and edit the posts to be more consistent with my theories and terminology. Also, it will allow me to add more images to all the posts, which I don't think anyone will object to. Second, at some point I hope to publish a book on my theories. This is probably a very long-term goal but it's something I feel strongly about. If I ever go for a PhD, dynastology in some form or another will be my dissertation topic and the focus of my studies. Finally, if I ever get the opportunity to teach at a university, I want to teach a special interests class on this topic. I don't even need to be published to do it since there are already numerous books on the topic I could use. I've even done up a syllabus for a fictional class on dynastology (it is for my resume).

But, let's be honest, you are reading this post because you want to hear about dynastology, not my hopes and dreams for the future. Therefore, I am ending on the highest note I can think of: the triple dynasties of the Normans, Angevin-Plantagenets, and the Tudors. The three of them encompass over 500 years of English history, from the Norman Conquest to the personal union with Scotland. But the three also encompass a period of English history that, although separated into dynasties, is almost continuous with the same ruling styles and goals. I will explain more of this as we survey these three houses and their monarchs.

The House of Norman
The Normans were newcomers to Europe. They emerged as Christianized Vikings who settled down in northern France along the English Channel. The first such Norman dukes spread out from northern France and ended up conquering about a quarter of Gaul before settling down and plotting further expansions. England became their prime target, although Brittany, Aquitaine, and Gascony were all on their minds as well.

Harold II, last Anglo-Saxon king of EnglandThe political situation in England shattered following Cnut's Danish conquest of the early 1000s. While he reorganized the government and centralized it, he didn't live long enough to reestablish order. His son, Harald, took over England and ruled ruthlessly for a short time following Cnut's death. Harthacnut, Harald’s half-brother, followed after and restored some of the order. He also returned England to local rule after his death. Edward the Confessor, who lived at the Norman court for many years, became the first Anglo-Saxon king of England in two decades. His pacifist reign gave much power to the Anglo lords and decentralized the government once again. But England was united mostly and when Edward died in 1066, Harold II, his brother-in-law and former chief minister, came to rule the country. The problem: Edward had promised the throne to William the Bastard, duke of Normandy, during his stay at the Norman court, and Harold had promised to back that claim when he was shipwrecked and stranded in Normandy some years later. William was not happy when Harold took the English throne, and so came the Norman Conquest.

William the Conqueror, first Norman king of EnglandThe Norman Conquest was brief and decisive. Harold, weakened by a Norwegian invasion in the north, was unable to gather enough forces to defeat William in the south. He was killed at the Battle of Hastings. The Anglo Wittengot (an early parliament) elected the young Edgar to replace Harold, but William forced Edgar to step down almost immediately. William restructured the English state. He invited his conquering followers and their families to England, gave them large estates throughout the country, and slowly but surely pushed the Anglo-Saxons to the background. Within 50 years, there were almost no Anglo-Saxon lords left in England, although many of their titles had passed to Franco-Norman lords. The Doomsday Census recorded the entire population of England, including parts of southern Scotland and the Welsh marches. It changed the balance of the early House of Lords decisively in favor of the Normans. The House of Norman became firmly established as the ultimate rulers of England.

William II Rufus, king of EnglandWhen William died, a succession dispute arose over the next king. This would be the first of many that would infect the English monarchy over the next 500 years. William the Conqueror was succeeded by William Rufus ("the Red"), but his reign was in conflict constantly with his brother, Robert Curthose, who ruled in Normandy. When William was assassinated, his youngest brother, Henry I, became the next king. According to an agreement between Robert and William II, Robert should have inherited England following William's death.

Henry I, king of EnglandBut Henry was in England at the time and Robert was on crusade, so Henry seized the English crown and later invaded Normandy, taking it from his quarrelsome elder brother. In 1106, Henry defeated his brother and placed him in prison for the rest of his life. Henry annexed Normandy to the English crown in perpetuity. William Clito, Robert's son, never was able to reclaim either of his ancestral lands, but did receive the duchy of Flanders for year in return for services rendered to the French king. With Clito's death, the English monarchy was completely in Henry I's hands.

Stephen of Blois, king of EnglandSo, naturally, another problem had to develop. In 1120, the "White Ship" sank in the English Channel, killing Henry I's only legal son and two of his illegitimate sons. His daughter, Matilda, became his heir, but she would have become the first reigning queen of England. Instead, the English barons supported the cause of Stephen of Blois, a nephew of Henry I, son of Henry's sister Adele. Stephen was the count of Boulogne, the second son of Stephen, count of Blois. His elder brother, Theobald, had no desire to be the English king, so Stephen volunteered himself and usurped the throne from Matilda. His reign began peacefully enough, with only the typical Scottish and Welsh revolts to quell. By 1139, though, Matilda had landed in England and begun a period of English history known as The Anarchy. The clergy had deserted Stephen and the barons were split between him and Matilda.

Matilda, Lady of the EnglishStephen was imprisoned in 1141 and Matilda was the de facto Queen of England for a few brief months. But politics forced her to trade Stephen for her lieutenant, the Earl of Gloucester, and Stephen reclaimed the throne. Matilda was forced to escape England but a few years later, the two came to an agreement wherein Matilda's son, Henry, would inherit the throne following Stephen's death. Stephen's sons were passed over in the succession but one became the next count of Blois.

The House of Anjou, commonly known as the House of Plantagenet
Henry II, king of EnglandMatilda had married into the rival Angevin family, which fought constantly with the Normans during much of the 11th and 12th centuries. With the succession passing to Henry II, however, Anjou and Normandy were reconciled and placed under one ruler. The Angevin family was quite influential in French and Crusader politics. Henry II's grandfather, Fulk V, had fathered multiple lines of descent. His eldest, the counts of Anjou, became the kings of England. The next line became the counts of Maine. The younger two sons became kings of Jerusalem, with the youngest holding that line for a few generations. All-in-all, the House of Anjou was already prestigious before Henry II ever became the first Angevin king of England.

Richard the Lionheart, king of EnglandThe Angevins are probably the best-known kings of England. Henry's sons provide the background setting for the myths around Robin Hood, for example. Richard the Lionheart was Henry's immediate successor, although Henry had an elder son, also named Henry, who died just a month before the king's death. Richard was a rebellious prince and a greedy king, who sought harsh taxes on the English people to fight losing wars against Muslims in the Holy Land. He left the country under the authority of his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, a woman famous for bringing concepts of French chivalry to England. Eleanor had also brought considerable lands to the English crown, with Aquitaine joining Anjou and Normandy.

John Lackland, king of EnglandWhen Richard died, John took the throne, being the elder and more experienced of the two possible heirs. But his young nephew, Arthur, who was the only son of his elder brother, Geoffrey, was proclaimed count of Anjou, Maine and Brittany. Philip II of France fought against John on behalf of Arthur but the young prince failed to gain any lands for long. But John failed to uphold his dues to his various French possessions and Philip declared all his French lands except Gascony forfeit. John immediately declared war on France and a long war ensued. Arthur was eventually captured and probably murdered by John in 1203. John also imprisoned his niece, Eleanor, sister of Arthur and heir to Brittany. After many years of high taxation and and conflict with France and the Catholic church, the barons rebelled against John. In 1215, English barons with their Welsh and Scottish allies surrounded John's forces and forced him to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter) which established the modern House of Lords with 25 lords. John immediately contacted the pope and renounced the Magna Carta, claiming he signed it under duress. But the barons rebelled again and staged the First Barons' War, which saw Prince Louis of France (later Louis VIII) become King Louis of England in opposition to John. Two thirds of the barons, one third of the English countryside, and the king of Scotland all paid homage to Louis. John died soon after and the barons decided they'd rather have John's young son Henry III be king rather than the French heir.

Henry III, king of EnglandLouis renounced his claim the next year and is generally not regarded as king in English king lists. Henry III spent the first decade of his life under a regency that saw baronal power expand exponentially. He spent the remainder of his reign trying to figure out just how much power he had left. He failed completely to retake Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine from France, and he was forced to call his first parliament in 1264 which saw almost the complete abolition of the English monarchy. The House of Commons was unofficially founded in this time when Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, expanded parliament to include local communities. Despite a rocky relationship with his son, Henry III was succeeded by Edward I without opposition, the first such transition of power since the Norman conquest.

Edward Longshanks, king of England and Lord Protector of ScotlandEdward Longshanks is yet another well-known English monarch thanks to his participation in the Scottish War of Independence. Edward spent the first decade of his reign ending independent Welsh rule and balancing the parliament-monarch relationship into something that would work for the next three hundred years. Next, he decided that the succession problem in Scotland provided a perfect opportunity to take over the northern kingdom. Scotland’s child queen, Margaret, had died on her voyage from Norway in 1285. That left the kingdom with plenty of claimants and no legal heirs. Edward was invited to help in the selection but instead claimed lordship over the kingdom. He supported the selection of John Balliol as king but the Scots rebelled and Edward deposed John in 1296. Scotland remained a rebellious province of England until 1308 when it finally asserted its full independence from England with the coronation of Robert the Bruce. Edward died a year earlier, however, leaving England in the hands of his incompetent son, Edward II.

Edward II, king of EnglandThe reign of Edward II was so disastrous that it hardly merits mention in this history. He began his reign losing all control of Scotland. He failed to subdue Welsh and Scottish revolts. His probable homosexuality forced his wife and children away from him, and when they returned, they deposed the king. Isabella, his wife, and her lover, Roger Mortimer, earl of March, returned to England in 1326 and forced Edward out of London. Edward was eventually captured, imprisoned, and forced to abdicate in 1327. His son, Edward III, replaced him on the throne with a regency established by Isabella and Mortimer. Edward II was secretly murdered a few months later, probably under the direction of the regents.

Edward III, king of England and pretender to FranceEdward III's regency lasted only as long as it had to. As soon as Edward was competent enough to manage the government himself, he tossed off his mom and her lover and had Mortimer thoroughly executed. Edward transformed the legislature into much the system we see today, although the House of Lords remained dominant. In 1338, Edward declared himself the true heir to the Kingdom of France due to conflicts he had with the country and his place in France's primogeniture line of succession (the French, meanwhile, decided to follow Salic Law). This claim prompted the 118-year Hundred Years War. Over the course of his reign, he reconquered much of Normandy, Aquitaine, Brittany, and the rest of France in a lightning campaign that returned England to the glories of William the Conqueror. His only major failure was dying before his grandson could reach maturity.

Richard II, king of EnglandRichard II was the son of Edward the Black Prince of Wales. Edward had predeceased his father while on campaign in France and Richard was too young to rule on his own. A council of regents was selected because otherwise, his uncle John of Gaunt would have been the only logical regent. Gaunt still controlled the government for much of Richard's early reign. Richard's personal rule was generally peaceful but the final two years undid everything. He took revenge on some of his former regents, having many executed, and his most disastrous action was disinheriting Gaunt's son, Henry, from the throne in 1399. Henry invaded England later that year and deposed Richard II, crowning himself Henry IV instead. Richard died in captivity the following year under suspicious circumstances.

Henry IV Bolingbroke, king of EnglandHenry IV was the first in a line of kings that would be known as theHouse of Lancaster. They were in reality just the line of Edward III's third son, John of Gaunt. His second son, Lionel of Antwerp, had died many years earlier but survived through a grandson, Edmund Mortimer, and his sister, Anne. This line stayed in the background for many years but would reemerge. Most of Henry's reign was spent quelling rebellions, including that of an upstart prince in Wales and a rebellion led by Henry's son. He also spent considerable time trying to continue the fight in France, where things had stalemated since Richard's reign. His son, Henry V, succeeded him.

Henry V, king of England and FranceHenry V was the only king of England that could actually claim to be king of France as well. His short ten-year reign saw almost all victories in the war against France. In 1417, the Treaty of Troyes saw Henry V become the heir and regent of France, with the king marrying Catherine of Valois, the daughter of the French king. Unfortunately, Henry V died two months before the French king, leaving the future of both England and France in the hands of an infant, Henry VI.

Henry VI, king of England and FranceHenry VI, despite his age, was crowned king of France at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris in 1431. This was done in opposition to Charles VII, who was crowned two years earlier at Rheims Cathedral. Joan of Arc had made significant military advances against France and, although Henry VI was the legal king of France, the French were beginning to rally around Charles VII. Internal intrigue began to infect the House of Lancaster during this time: fights between the earls of Somerset, illegitimate descendants of John of Gaunt, and the dukes of York, descendants of Edward III's fourth son, came to the forefront of politics. Henry's favoritism toward his Somerset cousins was a bad mistake that ultimately cost England France. Because of these politics, by 1453 the Hundred Years War was over and Calais remained the only French possession in English hands. Henry fell into insanity and York took over the government. Despite Henry's return to sanity, York had convinced many that his claim to the throne was stronger than Henry's. Richard of York, you see, was the son of Anne Mortimer, descended from the line of Edward III's second son Lionel of Antwerp. Richard was killed in 1460, but his son, Edward, took on the cause and deposed Henry VI in 1461.

Edward VI, king of EnglandEdward IV ruled an England in chaos for nine years. In 1470, the forces of Henry VI briefly kicked Edward IV off the throne and reclaimed the country for Lancaster, but it was short-lived. Henry VI was killed and Edward IV returned to power. When Edward reclaimed the throne in 1470, the House of York returned to business as usual. Things went smoothly until 1483 when Edward IV fell fatally ill and left the country in the hands of his ambitious brother, Richard III.

Richard III, king of EnglandTechnically, Edward V followed Edward IV to the throne. Edward V, though, was a minor and was sent to the Tower of London soon after he became king and was never seen again. His uncle, Richard III, took the government upon himself, but the people of England did not trust Richard and saw him as a murderer and liar. In 1485, a rebellion began led by Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond. At the Battle of Bosworth Field, Richard III died in open combat and Henry took the crown as Henry VII.

The House of Tudor
So, we come to the last dynasty of this trilogy. How exactly is the House of Tudor part of the overarching Norman-Angevin-Tudor dynasty? Quite simply, it is because Henry VII was more Angevin than Tudor. His wife, Elizabeth of York, was Angevin, and so all his children were 1/2 Angevin. His mother was a Beaufort, the daughter of John Beaufort, duke of Somerset, of the illegitimate line of John of Gaunt. Thus he was 1/2 Angevin. And what of his father, Edmund Tudor? Edmund was the result of a illegal liaison between Owen Tudor, a Welsh soldier, and Catherine of Valois, widow of Henry V of England and one-time regent of Henry VI. Thus, Henry VII was 1/2 Angevin and 1/4 French royalty. That makes Henry VIII 3/4 Angevin and 1/8 French royalty. So, you see, although the male-line of the Tudors descends from a Welsh soldier, all the female lines are royalty supreme. Did I forget to mention that Edmund Tudor's father may have actually been another duke of Somerset, thus making Edmund Tudor an Angevin, rather than Tudor, instead? Well, that is a strong possibility as well since Catherine of Valois had a number of possible lovers at that time. Not the best formula for a king, but it definitely worked for the Tudors.

Henry VII Tudor, king of EnglandAnd so Henry VII set off to establish his dynasty. He made sure that his mother's line was emphasized so that he would be seen as the legitimate English monarch in spite of his marriage to Elizabeth of York. And he had to use this twice because he had to fight in 1487 against armies supporting Lambert Simnel, a boy claiming to be a Yorkist heir. Simnel was pardoned and became a servant in the royal kitchens. Another upstart in 1490, though, was less lucky. Perkin Warbeck also claimed to be a Yorkist heir and persuaded people in France and Scotland to invade England for his cause. But Henry captured the upstart in 1497 and had the bloke executed. Two years later, Henry executed the last remaining true Yorkist heir, the Earl of Warwick, and the male line of the Angevin family ended at last. The remainder of Henry's reign went well, although he lost his heir, Arthur, in 1502. Henry died in 1509 and Henry VIII took over.

Henry VIII, king of EnglandHenry VIII is famous for many things, but his wives usually take the cake. Henry married his brother's widow Catherine of Aragon, sister of Queen Juana of Castile. Despite stereotypes, Henry was actually a very well-built and attractive king until his later years and he stayed loyal to Catherine for more than 20 years before temptation drove him away. He also remained a Catholic even after he broke away from the church, even persecuting Calvinists and Lutherans. Henry very hesitantly broke with the Catholic Church in 1532, using the break mostly to nationalize church property and make divorce a state issue. He divorced Catherine and married Anne Boleyn, the sister of his former mistress Mary Boleyn. When Anne proved incapable of producing a male heir (she birthed Elizabeth soon after their marriage), Henry waited until Catherine of Aragon had died and then had Anne executed as a traitor. The same year, Henry married Jane Seymour who died in childbirth giving Henry his only surviving son, Edward. At the same time, Henry annexed Wales to England permanently, a state in which Wales still exists today. Henry married Anne of Cleves by proxy soon after Jane's death, but when Anne arrived he had the marriage annulled since Anne didn't look much like her portrait. In 1540, Henry married his fifth wife, Catherine Howard, but Catherine soon after had an affair with another courtier and Henry had her executed two years later. His last wife, Catherine Parr, was a liberal church reformer who cheated death only by outliving her husband. Henry VIII died in 1547, having been reconciled to his two daughters not long before his departure.

Edward VI, king of EnglandEdward VI, Henry's son, never truly ruled England. He came to the throne as a child and died a teenager, still under a regency. The regency was first headed by his uncle, Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset, but Seymour was eventually deposed and replaced by John Dudley, duke of Northumberland. England remained in turmoil over the reformation crisis Henry VIII had caused. The Church of England had yet to be standardized and organized and Edward's regents took it upon themselves to do so. Thomas Cramer published the Book of Common Prayer during Edward's reign, the only real lasting legacy of this short time period. Edward died in 1553, leaving the succession, under coercion, to his cousin Jane Grey, a Protestant descendant of his great aunt.

"Bloody" Mary I, queen regnant of EnglandJane Grey's reign lasted no more than thirteen days. She became queen upon Edward's death, but Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, stormed into London and imprisoned the teenage queenling. Mary's reign was marked with Catholic reprisals against England's move toward Protestantism. Anyone who was intelligent feigned Catholicism during her reign, but some, such as Cramer, still suffered execution under her orders. Mary had married the Catholic king of Spain, Philip II, who became England's only King Regent. Philip, however, was disinterested in English politics and thus rarely visited England. Mary's biggest failure, although rarely remembered, was losing Calais at last to the French, the last fragment of an empire that once claimed the throne of France. Mary died in 1558, only five years into her reign, leaving England in the hands of its last Tudor monarch, Elizabeth I.

Elizabeth I "the Virgin Queen" of EnglandElizabeth I needs no introduction. She is as famous as any monarch in English history, and for good reason. Over the course of her forty-five year reign, she established the Church of England as the ultimate religious authority in England. She restored the order that had fallen apart under her father by rebuilding parliament into a system that could survive royal successions and decide matters of state. She also began the most famous period of the English Renaissance by supporting theatre, arts, and culture throughout her kingdom. By the 1580s, she was pursuing imperial expansion beyond the seas toward the New World, rather than focusing on France as her predecessors all had. Sir Francis Drake circumnavigated the globe during her reign. Shakespeare wrote many of his plays for her court. Raleigh established the first short-lived colony in Virginia (named after Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen). Her death in 1603 ended an era established in 1066 by William the Conqueror. The throne passed to the Stuarts of the Kingdom of Scotland, and English history would never be the same again.

By the reign of Elizabeth I, England had come full circle. In 1066, William had conquered England for his native land of Normandy. By 1603, England was the powerbase with no lands left in France but sights set on another continent entirely. English was the language of the state, not French. The Catholic Church had left England while in 1066 England was Catholic to its core. The Norman-Angevin-Tudor progression is atypical of other European dynasties which saw consolidation during this time but not multiple generations of civil and succession strife. Yet somehow England survived it all and the chaos that began the era ended with a single unified state that encompassed not only England, but Wales and Ireland as well. This period of English history is a testament to the study of dynastology and everything dynasties can achieve over time.

Conclusion
With that I end my study of dynasties. Thank you for spending your time reading all of these posts. I know this last one was probably my longest, but I also enjoyed writing it a lot. Please check back for future posts as I may write some more when my mind wanders. Have a Happy New Year and God Bless!

Labels

[brief] (102) female monarch (31) Capet (26) [abbreviated] (19) Roman Empire (17) Great monarchs (16) Japan (15) Papacy (15) England (13) saints (13) France (11) Portugal (11) [Missing Deaths] (11) Habsburg (10) Sweden (10) Byzantine Empire (9) Carolingian (9) China (9) Hohenzollern (9) Oldenburg (9) Holy Roman Empire (8) Japan (dynasty) (8) Aragón (7) Austria (7) Denmark (7) Electorate (7) Ethiopia (7) Hungary (7) Navarre (7) Norway (7) Romanov (7) Russia (7) Saxony (7) Scotland (7) Wettin (7) Wittelsbach (7) Bavaria (6) Burgundy (6) Egypt (6) Italy (6) Lorraine (6) Luxembourg (6) Persia (6) Poland (6) Sicily (6) Spain (6) Valois (6) Capet-Burgundy (5) Franks (5) Germany (5) Plantagenet (5) Prussia (5) Quraish (5) Solomon (Ethiopia) (5) Tuscany (5) Anjou (4) Aquitaine (4) Barcelona (dynasty) (4) Bohemia (4) Brittany (4) Burgundy-Aviz (4) Burma (4) Capet-Valois (4) Castile (4) Constantinople (Patriarchate) (4) Habsburg-Lorraine (4) Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov (4) India (4) Ireland (4) Jerusalem (4) Jiménez (4) Kiev (4) Mongolia (4) Naples (4) Netherlands (4) Normandy (4) Osman (4) Ottoman (4) Palaeologos (4) Savoy (4) Savoy (dynasty) (4) Trastámara (4) Wales (4) Afghanistan (3) Albania (3) Bagrationi (3) Banu Hashim (3) Blois (3) Borjigin (3) Bourbon (3) Brabant-Hesse (3) Brandenburg (3) Capet-Bourbon (3) Cologne (3) Croatia (3) Cyprus (3) Disney (3) Fairhair (3) Georgia (3) Gwynedd (3) Hainaut (3) Hesse (3) Hohenstaufen (3) Holland (3) Holstein-Gottorp (3) Inca (3) Islam (3) León (3) Limburg (3) Lithuania (3) Livonia (3) Lothier (3) Macedonia (dynasty) (3) Mainz (3) Mann (3) Medici (3) Morocco (3) México (3) Nassau (3) Nguyễn (3) Serbia (3) Stuart (Stewart) (3) Toungoo (3) Tudor (3) Turkey (3) Vaudemont (3) Vietnam (3) Welf (3) Wessex (3) published articles (3) Abberfraw (2) Aberffraw (2) Alexandria (patriarchate) (2) Angevins (2) Anglo-Saxon (2) Ardennes-Metz (2) Auvergne (2) Ayyubid (2) Basarab (2) Bernadotte (2) Billung (2) Boulogne (2) Brabant (2) Bruce (2) Burgundy-Bragança (2) Caliphate (2) Cilicia (2) Constantine (2) Crovan (2) Denmark (Dynasty) (2) Draculesti (2) Dreux (2) Dunkeld (2) Dutch Republic (2) Estridsen (2) Flanders (2) Florence (2) Further Austria (2) Greece (2) Habsburg-Spain (2) Hanover (2) Hardrada (2) Hauteville (2) Hawai'i (2) Ivrea (2) Joseon (2) Karadordevic (2) Konbaung (2) Korea (2) Maya (2) Merovingian (2) Milan (2) Ming (2) Monaco (2) Nassau-Orange (2) Nassau-Weilburg (2) Norman (2) Novgorod (2) Orange (2) Ottonian (2) Piast (2) Piedmont-Savoy (2) Poitiers (dynasty) (2) Robertian (2) Romania (2) Rurik (2) Sardinia (2) Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (2) Seljuk (2) Siam (2) Syria (2) Teutonic Knights (2) Thailand (2) Theodosian (2) Thuringia (2) Timurid (2) Tokugawa (2) United Kingdom (2) Valois-Burgundy (2) Vandal (2) Venice (2) Visconti (2) Vladimir (2) Wallachia (2) Württemberg (2) York (2) Yugoslavia (2) Zeeland (2) the Britons (2) 18th Dynasty (Egypt) (1) Abbasid (1) Adal (1) Agiad (1) Akinyele (1) Al Khalifa (1) Al-Said (1) Alawiyya (Egyptian) (1) Albret (1) Algeria (1) Algonquian (1) Amber (1) Angola (1) Anjou (dynasty) (1) Anjou-Hungary (1) Ansbach (1) Antonia (1) Antonine (1) Apulia (1) Arabia (1) Armenia (1) Arpad (1) Arsacid (1) Asen (1) Ashikaga (1) Athens (1) Avesnes (1) Avignon Papacy (1) Aviz-Beja (1) Aztec Empire (1) Baden (1) Bahrain (1) Balti (1) Barakzai (1) Barazkai (1) Barcelona (1) Battenberg (1) Belgium (1) Bengal (1) Berg (1) Berg (dynasty) (1) Bernicia (1) Bharatpur (1) Bhutan (1) Bjelbo (1) Bonaparte (1) Bonde (1) Bonngau (dynasty) (1) Borghese (1) Borja (1) Bosnia (1) Bourbon-Two Sicilies (1) Brandenburg-Ansbach (1) Brienne (1) Brutus (1) Bukhara (1) Bulgaria (1) Canossa (1) Capet-Dreux (1) Carthage (1) Celje (1) Celje (dynasty) (1) Chakri (1) Champagne (1) Champagne (dynasty) (1) Chartres (1) Cometopuli (1) Contantine (1) Cordoba (1) Craiovesti (1) Crusader States (1) Dalmatia (1) Damascus (1) Danesti (1) Debeubarth (1) Deira (1) Deira (dynasty) (1) Denmar (1) Dulo (1) Díaz (1) Early Han (1) East Anglia (1) East Francia (1) Eastern Han (1) Eastern Jin (1) Egmont (1) Estonia (1) Farnese (1) Fatimid (1) Fatimid Caliphate (1) Flanders (dynasty) (1) Flavian (1) Friuli (1) Gausi (1) Geneva (1) Geneva (dynasty) (1) Gordiani (1) Grimaldi (1) Guelders (1) Guideschi (1) Gwent (1) Gwynedd (dynasty) (1) Gyatso (1) Haag (1) Hainaut (dynasty) (1) Hanan Cuzco (1) Hashim (1) Hashimite (1) Hebrides (The Isles) (1) Hellenes (1) Herat (1) Hohenzollern-Ansbach (1) Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1) Holland (dynasty) (1) Hunfriding (1) Ibadan (1) Iran (1) Iturbide (1) Jaipur (1) Jin (1) Jordan (1) Julio-Claudian (1) Jungingen (1) Justinian (dynasty) (1) Kachwaha (1) Kalakaua (1) Kamehameha (1) Karrani (1) Kent (1) Kent (house) (1) Kestutis (1) Khurasan (1) Knights Templar (1) Komnenos (1) Kotromanić (1) Lakota Sioux (1) Lancaster (1) Latin Empire (1) Lebanon (1) Leuchtenberg (1) Lombards (1) Ludowinger (1) Lusignan (1) Luxembourg (dynasty) (1) Luxembourg-Limburg (1) Maan (1) Macedon (1) Magdeburg (1) Maine (1) Majorca (1) Malaysia (1) Manghit (1) Maratha Empire (1) Marinid (1) Matsunaga (1) Maurya (1) Mecklenburg (1) Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1) Meissen (1) Mercia (1) Mercia (dynasty) (1) Miniconjou (1) Moldavia (1) Montenegro (1) Montferrat (1) Morgannwg (1) Mortain (1) Mountbatten (1) Mughal (1) Muhammad Ali (1) Munster (1) Musat (1) Myanmar (1) Nakagawa (1) Ndongo and Matana (1) Nemanjic (1) Nepal (1) Nervo-Trajan (1) Neuchâtel (1) Nigeria (1) Nominoë (1) Northumbria (1) O'Brien (1) Obrenović (1) Odowa (1) Olgovich (1) Olympus (1) Orléans-Longueville (1) Ostrogoths (1) Ottawa (1) Pahlavi (1) Palatinate of the Rhine (1) Parma (1) Penthièvre (1) Petrović-Njegoš (1) Poděbrady (1) Pointiers (Ramnulfids) (1) Poitiers (1) Poitiers-Lusignan (1) Polignac (1) Powys (1) Prasat Thong (1) Premyslid (1) Provence (1) Přemyslid (1) Q'umarkaj (1) Qin (1) Qing (Manchu) (1) Reginar (1) Reginarid (1) Rethel (1) Rethel-Boulogne (1) Ribagorza (1) Rouergue (1) Roupenians (1) Sa Malietoa (1) Safavid (1) Salian (1) Salzburg (1) Samoa (1) Sarantapechos (1) Saud (1) Saudi Arabia (1) Second Triumvirate of Rome (1) Selangor (1) Selangor (dynasty) (1) Sforza (1) Shah (Nepal) (1) Shi'a Imamate (1) Shishman (1) Shivaji (1) Silesia (1) Simmern (1) Sinsinwar Jat (1) Skowronski (1) Slovenia (1) Sobieski (1) South Africa (1) South America (1) Sparta (1) Spoleto (1) Sture (1) Sudan (1) Sussex (1) Sverre (1) Swabia (1) Swasi (dynasty) (1) Swaziland (1) Swiss Confederation (1) Tang (1) Tenochtitlan (1) Teotihuacán (1) Terter (1) Tibet (1) Tikal (1) Tolkien (1) Toulouse (1) Tours (dynasty) (1) Transylvania (1) Tunisia (1) Umayyad (1) Unruoching (1) Valencia (1) Valois-Angoulême (1) Valois-Anjou (1) Valois-Orléans (1) Vasa (1) Vermandois (1) Visigoths (1) Vokil (1) Wangchuck (1) Wied-Neuwied (1) Windsor-Mountbatten (1) Württemberg (dynasty) (1) Yamato (1) Ying (Qin) (1) Yuan (1) Zanzibar (1) Zhao (Song) (1) Zhou (1) Zhu (1) Zogu (1) Zulu Nation (1) Zápolya (1) Zähringen (1) bretwalda (1) cardinal (1) fantasy (1) fiction (1) shogunate (1) terms (1) Árpád (1) Öuchi (1)