The story about the legion that was wiped out, I thought it took place up in the Borders country, on the River Tweed. Maybe it’s another legion. The story I’m thinking of, it was that either one or two entire legions simply disappeared over the course of time, probably picked off by the locals during guerrilla warfare. The book I was reading used the phrase, “…swallowed up”.
Okay, I went and read about the Ninth Legion http://www.electricscotland.com/history/wylie/vol1ch16.htm and I don’t think that was it. The book in question was a travel book, and it just kind of mentioned in passing that the Borders country is so rough that it “swallowed up” an entire Roman legion. The Ninth Legion battle took place farther north and west, I thought.
It was also mentioned in passing in one of those “how I went back to the land as a Scottish shepherd and got in touch with my roots” books, that the country had “swallowed up” an entire Roman legion.
I read an account of the fort of Trimontium, http://www.trimontium.freeserve.co.uk/fort.htm and it sounds like there was a gap of about 50 years during the occupation. Maybe that’s what they were talking about.
I thought Richard III was from the House of York, not Plantagent. You remember the opening of the play, “Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this son of York.” Or was Plantagent a more general name encompassing Lancaster and York as well as what I remember Plantagent being.
I think Plantaganet was the “family” name for the House of York and Tudor was the name for the Lancaster branch. I can never remember which one was white and which was red (the roses thing).
(I’m just filling in while 2sense and mattk regroup. Or take a nap.)
Wish I’d bought that Durant series when it was on sale cheap. Then I wouldn’t have to bore those nice British boys with this stuff.
So the War of the Roses was an intra-Plantagenet war. They didn’t use the term much at the time since it wasn’t the “operative word” in that conflict. I seem to remember the term Angevin being applied to a lot of pre-Tudor houses as well, but not everyone treat it as overlapping with the Plantagenet. Things got much simpler after the Tudors took over, at least nominally.
Yeah, Boris, looks like York and Lancaster were both Plantaganets, and Henry Tudor was also connected, although just by marriage. (Didn’t his mom marry a Plantaganet, after he was born?)
I suppose if you’re gonna kill the legitimate king, like Henry did, it’d be smart not to keep using the same name.
You know, it’s lots easier to remember presidents than try and keep those tangled royal lines straight.
I did my best, but I couldn’t come up with any extant royal Anglo-Saxon residences. I do not keep up with archeology. I am not a producer of secondary and tertiary works, I am a consumer of them. This does not mean that there aren’t any still around, they certainly existed.
There were no Earls at this time. The Laws of Ine ( late 7th century ) establish that there was a noble class at the time, feudalism had not yet emerged. Ceorls owed their taxes and allegiance to the king. I included the latter part of the quote to indicate the status of the ceorl, the devolution of the ceorl ( landowning freeman ) to the churl ( peasant ) had not yet occurred.
In addition to the royal estates, the various kingdoms also had a capital. London was the capital of the East Saxons ( Essex ), Canturbury was the capital of Kent, and so on. Later in the Anglo-Saxon age the kings would periodicly travel their kingdom and their subjects were required to feed them. This custom continued well after the Conquest. It was also a form of political control over wealthier subjects. No matter how rich a subject was, a lengthy stay by the king and court could impoverish them.
As to King William the Conqueror, he was in fact the bastard son of Robert, his predecesor as Duke of Normandy. Calling a bastard Fitz-( father’s name ) was a custom of England, but I am not sure that the custom is that old. I see no reason that it could not be. He certainly was refered to as William the Bastard. Of course, once he was your ruler you might want to be careful about that.
I hope this helps.
The name comes from Geoffrey the Handsome, Count of Anjou and Maine. He was an avid hunter so to improve the groundcover he was prone to planting broom in prime hunting spots. French for broom is genet. So he was also known as the Broom-Planter, or Plantagenet. He married Matilda, the granddaughter of the Conqueror. Since there was no direct male heir, their son Henry eventually became king. After the obligatory civil war ( always a concern with a minor heir ). Henry the 2nd was the first Plantagenet king. Over the next 2 centuries the kingship passed down through his male heirs, not always from father to son ( and not always peacefuly for that matter ), but through a male descendant nonetheless.
In 1377 CE when King Edward the 3rd died ( peacefuly for a change ), he had had too many sons. Only 4 need concern us here, in order of birth:
Edward the Black Prince ( the Bard seems to have invented the title, sounds cool though ), Lionel- Duke of Clarence, John of Gaunt ( born in Ghent )- Duke of Lancaster, and Edmund -Duke of York.
The Black Prince had preceded his father to the grave and his son, Richard the 2nd, became a child king. His uncles with some other powerful magnates ruled during the minority and were reluctant to give up power as the years went by. Eventualy Richard gained enough power to oust them. He felt slighted and when he got the chance he got his revenge. This didn’t make him a popular king ( plus he admired French culture, during the Hundred Years War ). When on the death of John of Gaunt he seized John’s estates, he went too far. John’s son, Henry of Bolingbroke, staged a coup and became King Henry the 4th. This is when the House of York took the throne. This was also a cause of the War of the Roses. You see, as the son of John of Gaunt, Henry the 4th was not the next in line for the throne. The next in line was the descendant of Lionel, Duke of Clarence. After some inbreeding the claim of Lionel was passed to the Dukes of York and there you have the trouble on the horizon.
Since the kings of the Houses of York and Lancaster were descended from the male line they retained the surname Plantagenet. Strictly speaking, they were not Houses at all but branches of the House of Plantagenet.
I will continue with a short description of the War of the Roses tomorrow, but for tonight the moral is:
** A child heir is a dangerous thing** ( don’t forget those Princes in the Tower ).
2sense–I hope you don’t mind me chiming in on this thread, and answering some of the questions myself. I happen to have read quite a bit on the Wars of The Roses–about 40 or more books about the Wars themselves and the biographies of the involved kings.
2sense is right that we’ll probably never know. However, there has been an argument put forth that if Richard had killed the princes, he **should have and would have made their deaths known **, as to do so would be to derive the maximum benefit from their deaths (the removal of them as figureheads in potential rebellions). The princes were not a threat to Richard as long as they were securely confined. He had already been declared king.
While people would have been horrified by their deaths, Richard could have said that they died in an escape attempt, or a fall, or some such. He might not have been believed, but at least their potential as figureheads for rebellion would have been removed (this is why Edward IV killed Henry VI).
The fact that the princes were not known to be dead at the time of Richard’s death at Bosworth leads at least some people to believe that Henry VII might have killed them (if alive, they were at least as great at threat to him. More, actually)
Finally, some believe the Duke of Buckingham might have done it, right before he rebelled against Richard. He had the motive (murder them and blame it on Richard, making himself look more attractive as a candidate to be king) and the opportunity (he was Richard’s “right hand man” and would have had access to the tower.)
2sense–if interested, I’d like to exchange reading lists with you.
The actual line goes:
“Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York”
–Richard III, act 1, scene i
I don’t post this to be anal or condescending, but to elaborate. “sun of york” is a play on words: Edward IV was a “son” or the House of York, but “sun of york” also was a play on Edward IV’s badge or crest (sort of like a battle flag): the “Sunne in Splendor”.
Legend has it that, right before the battle of Mortimer’s Cross (1461), which was Edward’s first battle as commander in chief (also the first after his father Richard had died, making him the Yorkist heir), Edward and his army witnessed three suns in the sky. He won the ensuing battle, and took on the three suns motif on his badge. Interestingly, he won a later battle (Barnet) at least partially due to the fact that his flag looked very much like one of his enemies (the Earl of Oxford) and at one point, his enemies got separated from each other, and the Earl of Oxford’s men was attacked by one of his allies.
FYI–White was York, Red was Lancaster. (Easy to remember by “White York”-“w” and “y” are close in the alphabet)
In actual fact, I believe that the Red Rose was not used by the Lancastrians. The imagery of Red and White Rose was largely from Shakespeare.
This account is disputed on several points. (no implied criticism to matt for posting it, of course)
One thing I’m fairly certain is incorrect about the above post is that Brackenbury was not asked to help kill the princes (if they were murdered at all at that time) and he was not asked to bury the bodies.
Robert Brackenbury was considered by most historians to be a notoriously honest and morally upright man. What many people do NOT know is that Brackenbury died on the field of Bosworth *** FIGHTING FOR RICHARD ***! He certainly would not have done so had he been even asked into any plot to kill the princes.
**
The name comes from Geoffrey the Handsome, Count of Anjou and Maine. He was an avid hunter so to improve the groundcover he was prone to planting broom in prime hunting spots. French for broom is genet. So he was also known as the Broom-Planter, or Plantagenet. He married Matilda, the granddaughter of the Conqueror. Since there was no direct male heir, their son Henry eventually became king. After the obligatory civil war ( always a concern with a minor heir ). Henry the 2nd was the first Plantagenet king. Over the next 2 centuries the kingship passed down through his male heirs, not always from father to son ( and not always peacefuly for that matter ), but through a male descendant nonetheless.
In 1377 CE when King Edward the 3rd died ( peacefuly for a change ), he had had too many sons. Only 4 need concern us here, in order of birth:
Edward the Black Prince ( the Bard seems to have invented the title, sounds cool though ), Lionel- Duke of Clarence, John of Gaunt ( born in Ghent )- Duke of Lancaster, and Edmund -Duke of York.The Black Prince had preceded his father to the grave and his son, Richard the 2nd, became a child king. His uncles with some other powerful magnates ruled during the minority and were reluctant to give up power as the years went by. Eventualy Richard gained enough power to oust them. He felt slighted and when he got the chance he got his revenge. This didn’t make him a popular king ( plus he admired French culture, during the Hundred Years War ). When on the death of John of Gaunt he seized John’s estates, he went too far. John’s son, Henry of Bolingbroke, staged a coup and became King Henry the 4th. This is when the House of York took the throne. This was also a cause of the War of the Roses. You see, as the son of John of Gaunt, Henry the 4th was not the next in line for the throne. The next in line was the descendant of Lionel, Duke of Clarence. After some inbreeding the claim of Lionel was passed to the Dukes of York and there you have the trouble on the horizon.
Since the kings of the Houses of York and Lancaster were descended from the male line they retained the surname Plantagenet. Strictly speaking, they were not Houses at all but branches of the House of Plantagenet.
I will continue with a short description of the War of the Roses tomorrow, but for tonight the moral is:
** A child heir is a dangerous thing** ( don’t forget those Princes in the Tower ).
**
My compliments to 2sense for a very cogent and well done summary.
If I may, I’d like to add a few clarifications/corrections. (However, I don’t want to take away from the fine job 2sense has done.)
The Civil War that 2sense mentions above was between Matilda and Stephen. Matilda was the rightful heir, but many in England did not want a female ruling, and Matilda was unpopular because she was seen as arrogant and was married to an Angevin husband. The Angevins at that time were hated in England. Stephen, on the other hand, was very popular. He was the nephew of the old king (Henry I), so he was royalty and acceptable to many that did not accept Matilda. Eventually, a compromise was reached allowing Stephen to rule, and Henry II to be Stephen’s heir.
The “Black Prince” was not invented by Shakespeare. I don’t know where the term first came up or who invented it, but I believe it might have been a contemporary term (ie, when he was still living). This would have been more than 200 years before Shakespeare. The name was believe to have been stemmed from the dark colored, possibly black, armor he wore.
Finally, Henry of Bolingbroke’s coup brought the LANCASTRIANS to the throne. The rightful heirs were from the house of Clarence, which later became intertwined with the House of York, as 2sense correctly states.
Again, I’d like to compliment 2sense for a very well done job, minor nits notwithstanding!
**
Hi Ducky,In reply to your Battle of Hastings question:
Would have won is speculative, of course, but King Harold had chosen his battleground well. I would think that if he could have lasted the day ( which the English almost did ) then he would have been in good shape. I looked over the site that mattk linked to. It seems accurate. You will note that matt read it incorrectly, it states that the English had no archers, only “spears, javelins, and rocks”. Unlike the famous battles of the Hundred Years War, time was on the side of the English. They were in a position to recieve supplies and reinforcements. So William the Bastard had to attack or concede. But we can never know for sure.
**
It should also be noted that Harold had just fought a battle against the Viking King Harald (aided by King Harold’s brother Tostig!) and that during this battle or shortly thereafter, William the Conqueror landed in the South (the battle with the Vikings was fought in the North). William begin burning and sacking Harold’s own homelands, possibly trying to deliberately lure Harold into marching to face him and fighting before he had a chance to rest his weary men and gather reinforcements. If I recall correctly, at least some historians believe that if Harold had waited to recruit reinforcements, the difference might have proven decisive.
link for ya
http://www.warsoftheroses.com/index.htm
There is a lot more information if you put Towton Moor into your search engine.
Follow the various links and you will get to the
Elmete Historical society
Well, that’ll teach me to post on subjects I know nothing about won’t it? Inventing archers…no more Saturday night posting for me.
Carry on, 2sense, I’ll leave it to you!
What were the battles of Epping Forest and Marston Moor? They are in rock songs.
Here is a link to an earlier thread on the subject of the princes in the tower.
There was a much earlier, and much longer and more detailed thread on the same subject, but as noted in the link above it doesn’t seem to come up in the search engine.
Marston Moor - during the English Civil War, the Earl of Leven’s Parliamentary forces crushed the Royalist forces of Prince Rupert, near York, in July 1644.
Yorkshire Evening Press history
Epping Forest - not an actual “battle”, as such. If it’s the Genesis song you’re referring to, it’s based on a news story about two rival gangs fighting for control of protection rackets in London’s East End.
Just a note to fellow britsh history buffs: For those of you who haven’t found it, the BEST history page on the web (British or otherwise) HAS GOT to be http://www.britannia.com. It absolutely rules with regard to thoroughness of information. This was by far one of my favorite websites of all time. Check it out!