My Lady The King's Mother, Margaret Beaufort, Countess Of Richmond And Derby: The Matriarch Of The Tudor Dynasty (1443-1509)

On today's post, after some time deliberating about our next subject for this blog, we have come to decide writing about this woman who played an important role not only throughout the Cousin's War, an event that marked England's history due to the dispute over the English crown between two factions of the Plantagenet dynasty--the house of York and the house of Lancaster- but was crucial on the ascension to one of the most known dynasties to rule England: the Tudors.

We are aware that lady Margaret has been a controversial character whose image has not always been popular at the first sight. In our days, social media has been an instrument that link the access to documents and sources to common folk who are not entitled to be historians which can make it easier to propose a discussion about such a woman. However, popular cultura in the same means has been responsible for perpetuating a view about Margaret that does not match with the person that she was. It's often seen that writers or not work with historical characters by dividing them in two categories: good or bad, forgetting that human beings are too complex as a whole to be classified according to personal tastes. Naturally, we are entitled to opinions but we must bear in mind before asserting any sort of judgement the society such characters lived in, how they performed a social role that needs input them, and of course have a read of days that we have not lived with careful eyes. Thus, we must put aside our contemporary views in order to comprehend the background of the matriach of this dynasty we intend to study. Must it always be remembered, in addition, that this post is nothing but the result of humble attempts in analyzing this Beaufort lady and hoping to implement a discussion with it.

The question that leads this post, as often did in previous ones, is mostly directed to inquire about the person she was. As a woman born and raised in the 15th century, how was her conduct before the conflicts that culminated, of all events in her life, in separating herself from the son whom she loved the most and was quite devoted to until the end of her days? How did she live to see the reigns of six different kings? How did she, who witnessed the fall of one dynasty and most certainly helped to raise another, use her position for her own sake? Who, in the end, was Margaret Beaufort? No definite truths are the answer to be found, but we might be able to read between the lines as sources come to our eyes.

Margaret Beaufort was born on the year 1443 at Bletshoe, located near Higham Ferrers in Bedfordshire. She was the only child of John, duke of Somerset, and his consort, Margaret née Beauchamp. From her father's side, Margaret was a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt who was one of the sons of King Edward III. John of Gaunt, who was once the topic discussed on this same blog, had taken as his third wife his long time mistress Katheryn Swynford née de Rouet. During the reign of King Richard II, the Beauforts had been legitimized, but Henry IV in posteriority denied his half-siblings any claim to the throne. 

It states that Margaret's father, the duke of Somerset, had agreed with Henry VI that, had he died in his expeditions at the french soil, his daughter's wardship would remain under Margaret Beauchamp's care. However, upon his return, Somerset fell out of favour and rumour has it he took his own life, but the chronicle who wrote it so held in high favour the Yorkists, and the author Lady Margaret Domville works with the view that he was likely dead by some disease. Because of Somerset's fallen out of the royal graces, Henry VI broke such agreement, placing Margaret under the care of William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk.

Even though Margaret was permitted to "remain under her mother's roof", Suffolk did not take too long to engage his son to lady Beaufort. Instead, the king seemed to have thought better in choosing a proper suitor for his Beaufort cousin. As quoted below:

"By february 1453, the king had annulled Margaret's wardship and marriage to John de la Pole, the papal dispensation for which was signed on 18 august 1450, expressly so that she should be available for remarriage. This made Lady Margaret's wardship and marriage a very desirable asset and without any doubt the king intended a marriage between Margaret and one of the Tudor brothers. Since Edmund was the elder, it was he who Margaret would marry."

That way,  

"On 24 March Edmund and Jasper were jointly granted the keeping of all the possessions of the late John Beaufort first duke of Somerset, then in the king's hands, including the wardship and marriage of Somerset's nine-year-old daughter and heiress Margaret Beaufort. When Margaret was summoned to court on 24 May, together with her mother Margaret Beauchamp, the king made her a grant of 100 marks to mark the occasion, to spend on clothes."

Both authors, listed on the bibliography, Bayani and Domville list an account of Margaret's remembrance of the time she was betrothed to Edmund Tudor found in Bishop Fisher, her religious adviser, in his "Mornynge Remembrance". It appears that she told this tale a few times and, naturally, it is our duty to quote it below:

"Being not yet fully nine years old, and doubtful in her mind what she were best to do (as to the marriage proposals made to her), she asked counsel of an old gentlewoman whom she much loved and trusted, who did advise her to commend herself to St. Nicolas, the patron and helper of all true maidens, and to beseech him to put in her mind what she were best to do. This counsel she followed, but specially that night when she should the morrow after make her determination. A marvellous thing! The same night, as I have heard her tell many a time, as she lay in prayer, calling on St. Nicolas, whether sleeping or waking she could not assure, but about four o'clock in the morning one appeared to her arrayed like a bishop, and naming unto her Edmund Tudor, bade her take him as her husband. This she related to her parents (the Duchess of Somerset had re-married with Lord Welles), who willingly followed the supernatural direction."

This account is mainly interpreted as a sign of Margaret's apparent contentment with the choice made, since it can be said that she had no choice upon the matter. Hence, their marriage eventually "took place on 1 Novemberat the bride's birthplace, Bletsoe Castle."

Unfortunately for the young bride, the "union with Edmund Tudor was of short duration ; before the year was out the little bride of fourteen was left a widow, and the young Earl of Richmond was buried in the house of the Grey Friars at Caermarthen, whence, at the dissolution of the monastery, his remains were removed to the Cathedral church of St. David [...]"

An addendum must be made, however. It has been discussed about how Edmund and Margaret's consummation implied some flaws concerning the former's character, that the earl of Richmond payed no respect towards his young bride by choosing not waiting until Margaret was older and have her body matured for such an act. Before we set our contemporary eyes in the judgement of two characters who lived and were raised following the customs of the 15th century, let us be remembered that once a woman, regardless of her age, bled for the first time it counted as being mature and ready to conceive a child. Edmund was not different from other men of his days, so to accuse him of disrespectful is to forget the society he was inserted to. We may not know of his character as the sources scarcely mention him on that matter, but must not be us the judges of the past. Margaret herself cherished her late husband's name by signing Margaret Richmond and continuing the use as Countess of Richmond until the end of her days. That there are motives for doing so on behalf of her son is plausible, but perhaps here lies an indictive of their relationship.

The young widow, at the early age of 13, gave birth to her only son, the future king Henry VII on the 26th January 1456, following the feast of St Agnes. Henry, who was born already entitled as Earl of Richmond due to his father's premature death, probably had, by the time of his birth, Henry VI as his godfather, whom he was probably named after. There are accounts, however, that regard Jasper naming his nephew Owen, whilst Margaret preferred to honour the king, her cousin. Whether was the case, there are not further evidence about Henry being styled as Owen Tudor, though one might suspect his whole name might have been Henry Owen Tudor, something that we can only speculate. As seen below:

"Jasper Tudor, with the young mother and child under his protection, took charge of proceedings. According to the Welsh chronicle Elis Gruffydd, Jasper named the boy Owen, in memory of his own father. But Margaret, now well enough to attend the baptism, commanded the bishop to halt the service, begin again and give her son the name of Henry."

It is important to highlight the nature of Margaret Beaufort and Jasper Tudor's relationship, which has been used by novelists to credit a romantic relationship that never had occurred in real life. On the following paragraphs an excerpt taken from Debra Bayani's book "Jasper Tudor, Godfather of the Tudor Dynasty" explains properly why this romantic nature never occurred, presenting plausible arguments for such.

"[...] From the moment Margaret became a widow, she sought Jasper's guidance for herself and also for important decisions regarding her son, who needed a strong base. It is often claimed by novelists, and thought by many people, that Jasper and Margaret were in love with each other but as brother-in-law and sister-in-law were forbidden to marry Jasper chose, out of compassion, to take care of her son, his nephew. This is most likely unfounded gossip and there are in fact several reasons which disprove it.

If Jasper and Margaret were really in love and wanting to marry they could have easily discussed this with the king, who could have been able to ask the pope for a dispensation. Whether or not the request would have been granted remains open to question, but the fact is that the pope did give his permission in other similar cases: for example, the later marriage of Henry VIII to his widowed sister-in-law Catherine of Aragon.

Further, custody of Margaret was fully in Jasper's hands after Edmund's death, something that would surely have expedited matters if there were any feelings of love between them. On the contrary, Jasper started negotiations with the duke of Buckingham (with whom he had by now developed a close relationship) for Margaret's marriage to the duke's son, probably  two months after she had given birth. As soon as the young mother was churched in March, Jasper, Margaret and probably baby Henry visited the duke at his manor at Greenfield near Newport and it is likely that this was when Margaret's third marriage was arranged with Buckingham's second son Henry Stafford, her second cousin. By this marriage, Jasper lost a source of income, but as he made the match himself he must have preferred Margaret and his young nephew's safety and the cementing of this powerful and political alliance above the financial side."

In addition to these arguments, Bayani considers the two children Jasper allegedly fathered: Joan and Hellen Tudor, children of a Welshwoman named Mevany Ferch Dafydd from Gwynnedd. It appears that both girls were born in Snowdonia and made good marriages in their adult lives, with one of them, most likely Hellen, being the mother of Stephen Gardiner, a proeminent figure during the reigns of Henry VIII and Mary I.

Against the view of Margaret as a cold, heartless and ruthless woman, there lies an account that points how:

"Lady Margaret was held by her contemporaries to have shown no inconstancy of affection, but rather a wise discretion when, after two years, she consented to marry her cousin, Lord Henry Stafford, a younger son of the Duke of Buckingham. But though the Lady Margaret proved an excellent wife, and was much beloved by her second husband's family, her strongest affections seem always to have been centred on her son and only child ; for, in the quaint phrase of an old chronicler, "though she was married to the Lord Henry Stafford, and again to the Earl of Derby, yet she never brought forth a child after, as though she had done her part when she had born a man-child, and the same a kynge of the realms."

Another indicative of Margaret's affectionative and warm side that few discuss about, comes from her own son, Henry VII:

"That Henry himself had a vivid remembrance of his mother's care and love is proved by a letter written by him towards the end of his life, when, after acceding to a request she had made him, he goes on to say: "And not only in this, but in all things that I may know should be to your honour and pleasure and weal of soul, I shall be as glad to please you as heart can desire it ; and I know well that I am as much bounden to do it as any creature living, for the great and singular motherly love and affection it hath pleased you at all times to have for me."

Where her habits are concerned, it's safe to say she did not differ much of others of her position in her days. As a young woman,  

"the Lady Margaret was taught French thoroughly, for she could converse freely and translate it easily. Of Latin she had only "a little perceiving, chiefly in the rubrics and the ordinal, and for the saying of the service which she well understood"; in after life she regretted that she had not given herself seriously to study the language, "as she might easily have done"."

As an adult, "that her studious habits were known and appreciated is shown by the bequest made to her by her husband's mother, the duchess of Buckingham, who died in 1480". The said duchess gave Margaret books as "Legenda Sanctorum", "Luccan", and others of religious nature as the Epistles and Gospels. Her wit, once mentioned by Erasmus when Margaret was already an older lady, is quite perceptible by the translations she made. After all, "as regards purity of diction and choice of language, Lady Margaret's writings may be regarded as standard specimens of the good English of the age."

During the days she was wed to Lord Stafford, she enjoyed a relatively peaceful life, visiting her son Henry, who was placed under the care of William Herbert, whenever she could. Her marriage with Stafford offered her some stability and comfort, and there's a quote below that tells us about her household and mentions, naturally, her pious nature:

"From her mother, a woman of great piety and zeal for religion, the Countess of Richmond had learnt to give the first hours of the day to religious exercises, and to fulfill all her duties with promptness, diligence and care. 'Her own household with marvellous diligence and wisdom this noble Princess ordered, providing reasonable statutes and ordinances, which she commanded to be read three or four times a year; and oftentimes she would lovingly encourage them to do well, sometimes herself, sometimes by other persons. If there were any strife or controversy, she would with a great discretion study the reformation thereof'."

But such peaceful days would come to an end when Civil War broke again. She was only 28 years of age when she was widowed again and it was by June 1472 that Margaret remarried for the third, or fourth if the reader considers the marriage with John de la Pole valid, time. This time, it was a convenient marriage, a political alliance with the ruthless Thomas Stanley, Lord High Constable and King of Mann. 

As Stanley was linked to the Yorkists, Margaret enjoyed the opportunity to approach the new regime. Must be remembered that Henry, her son, was by then in exile in Brittany with Jasper and with Margaret's Somerset cousin being executed for treason, she realized that, to have her son back safely home, she would have to cope with her enemies. Thus, by this marriage she managed to return in good graces with Edward IV and his consort, Elizabeth Woodville. It appears she grew close to the Queen to the point that she was named godmother to one of her daughters. An apparent engagement between princess Elizabeth to the exile Henry seemed to have been accorded, but then nothing came out of it.

Another addendum must be made here. Much has been speculated about relations between Margaret Beaufort and the Queen Dowager Elizabeth Woodville. It is widely known that both women plotted during King Richard III's reign after the disappearance of the princes in the Tower, that Elizabeth of York would be Henry of Richmond's wife had he won the throne over Richard III's body, which eventually happened, and by extense the partisans of the Woodville-Yorkists woudl follow him. However, these close ties seemed to have changed when Henry of Richmond became King Henry VII and Margaret was referred as "My Lady the King's Mother."

"Much has been made of supposed 'contention' between the new king's mother and the new queen's mother as to who was more influential at court, but the truth is that Margaret was willing to walk a half-step behind Elizabeth Woodville while that former queen was at court and that is a huge concession to Elizabeth's rank. Margaret did get the same high quality clothes, and she was given great power over the court by her son, but there is no evidence this caused undue friction among the royal women. Henry's bride, Queen Elizabeth, would have known Margaret since her youth and the women shared a mutual devotion to the king and the children Elizabeth bore him."

As the Countess was referred following the already mentioned title, novelists and, for a long while, historians had vilified Margaret by crucifying the woman as ambitious, cruel and ruthless. Throughout this post we have proved otherwised. Her kindness towards Queen Elizabeth, her daughter-in-law, goes against the false belief that Margaret was envious of the other's position. In fact, the two of them worked together and an example of this mutual coalition showed by the time of Margaret's granddaughter and namesake's betrothal to the King of Scots, James IV. Margaret and Elizabeth convinced Henry VII not to send the princess to the Northern lands too soon due to the early age, reminding him of what had happened to her by marrying and consummating the marriage too soon.

That Elizabeth Woodville ended her days in a convent is also used as a weapon against Margaret Beaufort, as most claimed that the countess wished to sweep away from the court the remaining Yorkists. There is no evident proof that Woodville was part of the Warbeck conspiracy even though it is not wise to exclude her completely from it, but there was more than enough proof condemning Cecily Neville, duchess of York, in it. And yet, did Margaret act upon the elderly woman? To forge accusations over Margaret's character after all she'd been through is to diminish her charity, her good sense and the already mentioned qualities that her enemies seem quite easily to forget.

Throughout her son's reign, Lady Margaret "enjoyed legal and social independence which other married women could not [...]. Her son's first parliament recognized her right to hold property independently from her husband, as if she were unmarried. Towards the end of her son's reign she was given a special commission to administer justice in the north of England."

Also, 

"later in her marriage, the Countess preferred living alone. In 1499, with her husband's permission, she took a vow of chastity in the presence of Richard FitzJames, Bishop of London. [...] The Countess moved away from her husband and lived alone at Collyweston, Northamptonshire (near Stamford). She was regularly visited by her husband, who had rooms reserved for him. Margaret renewed her vows in 1504."

She was, after all, a survivor. Margaret managed to play the game of thrones throughtout the Wars of the Roses, and her wit with discipline, good will, resilience and piety all combined shaped her character. She left a legacy in her translating works and in academic foundations that are still found in present days. Margaret was constantly occupied, found in diverses journeys, which confirms that she enjoyed a good and strong health. Blessed Fisher, who left his work 'Mornynge Remembrance' to us, said that "in her hours of leisure she used to recreate her mind with reading and translating from the French books profitable to religious meditation."

Margaret Beaufort was, for her own days, a very successful woman. She filled her duty as daughter, wife and, above all, mother. She was cunning and her wit is clear in every act that made her the matriarch of the Tudors. She outlived her dearest and most loving son, whom she much cherished and devoted her time to. It would be no surprise if this accelerated her aging. For she died peacefully on 29 June 1509, a day after her grandson's 18th birthday, giving him completely power to rule solely. At Henry VIII's coronation, it's said that Margaret wept. What would have been her thoughts back then? We can only but speculate. A model of chastity and loyalty, Margaret must be remembered for being it so instead of being degenerated by faults that others in her own days shared... if not worst. 

Lady Margaret was buried in Westminster Abbey and received every pomp and honour that she deserved in life. It's said that her grandson and his court grieved her deeply, and how could it be otherwise? To end this post, we leave the epitaph, translated to English, written by the very well known humanist scholar Eramus to the Countess of Richmond and Derby:

"Margaret, Countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII, grandmother of Henry VIII, who donated funds for three monks of this abbey, a grammar school in Wimborne, a preacher in the whole of England, two lectures in Scripture, one at Oxford, the other at Cambridge, where she also founded two colleges, one dedicated to Christ and the other to St John, the Evangelist."

Bibliography:

- DOMVILE, Lady Margaret. "The King's Mother. Memoir of Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby." London: Burns & Oates, Limited. 1899.

- BAYANI, Debra. "Jasper Tudor, Godfather of the Tudor Dynasty." MadeGlobal Publishing. 2015.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Beaufort,_Countess_of_Richmond_and_Derby

- https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/margaret-beaufort-mother-of-the-tudors/

- http://www.kyrackramer.com/2016/06/29/the-passing-of-margaret-beaufort/

Joseph II Of Habsburg: An Enlightened Emperor (1741-1790)

If previously we have discussed about Maria Theresa, the only female entitled as Holy Roman Empress by right of heritance, this time we intend to bring Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II to the light of discussions. He, who was overshadowed by his famous sister Marie Antoinette Queen of France, eventually reigned as co-emperor by his mother's side and was forced to deal with her conservative policies in opposition of his liberal tendencies.

Nonetheless, it must always be reminded that Joseph of Habsburg was a man of the 18th century, a time where sovereigns as Frederick II of Prussia and Catherine the Great of Russia left their deeds to history. Certainly, Joseph left his. But what were these deeds? What kind of ruler this austrian prince was? That was what we intend to find out on this post.

Baptized Joseph Benedikt Anton Michael Adam, he was born at Vienna, Austria, on 13 March 1741 as the oldest son of Holy Roman Empress Maria Theresa and her husband, Holy Roman Emperor Franz I (or Francis). Joseph is most remembered for being the Queen of France Maria Antonia's brother, but as we will see, his deeds do not limit him to such blood relations.

Not much is known about his childhood and youth, except that his "formal education was provided through the writings of Voltaire and the Encyclopédistes" and "his pratical training was conferred by government officials, who were directed to instruct him in the mechanical details of the administration of the numerous states composing the Austrian dominions [...]."

As the Crown Prince of Austria, Joseph was married twicely. The first time, his mother sought an arragement with princess Isabella of Parma, whose mother was the oldest daughter of the king of France Louis XV. This match had the political purpose of achieving peace with France, but in reality it became more than this for they fell in love. Joseph was reputed for being very affectionate with his wife, and the sentiment apparently was mutual. She was also very close to one of Joseph's sisters, Maria Christina, duchess of Teschen. As we see below:

"Joseph married Princess Isabella of Parma in October 1760, a union fashioned to bolster the 1756 defensive pact between France and Austria. [...] Joseph loved his bride, Isabella, finding her both stimulating and charming, and she sought with special care to cultivate his favor and affection."

But this union, however happy as it appeared to be, did not last too long. Isabella was fearful of pregnancies, giving only one child named Maria Theresa, who would live until the age of eight. After Maria Theresa, she suffered of miscarriages and at her last pregnancy she contracted smallpox. She went to labour earlier than expected and both mother and child did not survive.

"The loss of his beloved wife and their newborn child was devastating for Joseph, after which he felt keenly reluctant to remarry; though, he dearly loved his daughter and remained a devoted father to Maria Theresa. 

For political reasons, and under constant pressure, in 1765, he relented and married his second cousin, Princess Maria Josepha of Bavaria, the daughter of Charles VII, Holy Roman Emperor and Archduchess Maria Amalia of Austria. This marriage proved extremely unhappy [...] and it lasted only two years."

This marriage was fruitless and by the time Maria Josepha died, Joseph had ascended as sole emperor upon his mother's death. Afterwards, he was forced to deal with the death of his only daughter, Maria Theresa, which left him traumatized. In spite of these fatidic events, Joseph refused to remarry and by the time of his death, he would pass the throne to his younger brother, the future Leopold II.

As sole emperor, Joseph sought to distance from some of his mother's politics. One of the best examples on this was breaking "with the devoutly Catholic policies of his mother to embrace the sweeping trend of the so-called 'Enlightenment' which viewed traditional Europe as a place of injustice and intolerable." In other words, he would provide reforms that, in his view, were as "reasonable" as possible. A phrase in which is said "Everything for the people. Nothing by the people" is credited to be his and this summons precisely what sort of government he expected to form. That way, he was not entirely different from Catherine of Russia and Frederick II of Prussia, for example, and their relations were close as we will see laterwards.

"Upon his ascension he gave his large inheritance to ease the national debt and ordered his brother to do likewise. He cut government spending, built the first truly public parks, charged the Church with caring for the sick and destitute and granted religious toleration to Jews and Protestants. He abolished such traditional Catholic devoltions as the Rosary and religious processions, expelled the Jesuits and seized a great deal of Church property. Yet, throughout his reign, whether in Vienna or on the battlefield, he heard mass every morning and was an enemy of Protestant Prussia (though both monarchs had a great deal of respect for the other's abilities). It was under Joseph II that Wolfgang Mozart rose to fame, though his music was a little too extravagant for the very simple Joseph. Nevertheless his support of Mozart & his contemporaries earned Joseph the nickname 'The Musical King'."

This particular Church reformation, which intended to turn the religion a tool of the state, was not seen with good eyes. The emperor was accused of being a protestant, but in truth he expected to separate religion from mundane matters. As explained below:

"Probably the most unpopular of all his reforms was his attempted modernization of the highly traditional Catholic Church, which in ancient times had helped establish the Holy Roman Empire beginning with Charlemagne. Calling himself the guardian of Catholicism, Joseph II struck vigorously at papal power. He tried to make the Catholic Church in his empire the tool of the state, independent of Rome. Clergymen were deprived of the tithe and ordered to study in seminaries under government superivision, while bishops had to take a formal oath of loyalty to the crown.[...]"

Similarly,

"Joseph sharply cut the number of holy days to be observed in the Empire and ordered ornamentation in churches to be reduced. He forcibly simplified the manner in which the Mass (the central Catholic act of worship) was celebrated. Opponents of the reforms blamed them for revealing Protestant tendencies, with the rise of Enlightenment rationalism and the emergence of a liberal class of bourgeois officials. [...]

The Secularization Decree issued on January 12, 1782 banned several monastic orders not involved in teaching or healing and liquitated 140 monasteries (home to 1484 monks and 190 nuns)."

What some might see this church reform as inclination to Protestantism is, in fact, as already mentioned a great step of secularization of the State. Joseph intended to be more tolerant towards the practice of different religions, giving freedom of religion towards the Jews and the Protestants. He had, as we will see, a strong perception of the power of a monarch and that greatly influenced his policies in reformations. We comprehend that Joseph's

 "[...] intensity of his belief in the power of the state was directed by reason. As an absolutist ruler, however, he was also convinced of his right to speak for the state uncontrolled by laws and of the sensibility of his own rule. He had also inherited from his mother the belief of the house of Austria in its 'august' quality and its claim to acquire whatever it found desirable for its power or profit.

[...] He strove for administrative unity with characteristic haste to reach results without preparation. Joseph carried out measures of emancipation of the peasantry, which his mother had begun and abolished serfdom in 1781. In 1789, he decreed that peasants must be paid in cash payments rather than labor obligations. These policies were violently rejected by both the nobility and the peasants, since their barter economy lacked money. Joseph also abolished the death penalty in 1787, a reform that remained until 1795."

Following this belief in making the authority of an emperor a role of an autocrat, which explains his poor relationship with nobility but also the indirect influence of Russia on this concept, it came what might be early to use the term of nationalism, since Joseph hoped to extend the use of the German language towards all of the Habsburg dominions. As it states on the following excerpt:

"Joseph set about building a rationalized, centralized and uniform government for his diverse lands, a hierarchy under himself as supreme autocrat. The personnel of government were expected to be imbued with the same dedicated spirit of service to the state that he himself hald. It was recruited without favor for class or ethnic origins, and promotion was solely by merit. To further uniformity, the emperor made German the compulsory language of official business throughout the Empire, which affected especially the Kingdom of Hungary. The Hungarian assembly was stripped of its prerogatives, and not even called together."

Furthermore, this secularization so present at his policies were also found within his domines in other affairs. For example, the University of Vienna was removed out of the church sphere, placing the monarchy as the instrument which consolidated the educational system. Elementary education was provided "for all boys and girls, and higher education on pratical lines was offered for a select few". He was directly responsible for giving scholarship for the gifted students who could not afford paying an university, as well for granting permission for the creation of schools for Jews and other religions. In addition to this, by 1784, "he ordered that the country change its language of instruction from Latin to German", a movement seen as contradictory due to the vast dominions of his empire that held its own culture and languages.

Aside of those changes, we perceive them as well as in another ares. Despite the resistance that eventually came within traditional kingdoms as Austrian Netherlands and Hungary, on the next paragraph, we have a better comprehension of the extent of Joseph's changes, :

"The judiciary and the executive had already been separated at the top; Joseph extended this process to the lower administrative levels. In 1786 the Universal Code of Civil Law was issued. Under Maria Theresa the physician Gerard Van Swieten had organized a public health service, and in Joseph's time the General Hospital in Vienna was considered one of the best equipped in Europe. The monarchy's finances were balanced. The reorganization of the army secured Joseph's position in Europe. [...] By the Edict of Toleration he established religious equality before the law, and he granted freedom of the press."

It's been formerly mentioned that Joseph II was fond of science, music and arts. Similarly, he was the one to present Mozart to the world. It is said, and here the concept of nationalism appears by another means, that this taste of music of his reflected as well in other parts of his govern. As the following excerpt states:

"He was very German, he favored always simplicity and efficiency. It was said that his poor houses and government buildings looked like army barracks. He himself usually wore a military uniform rather than the latest fashions and he despised court ceremony and lavish Church rituals. [...]

The emancipation of the Jews within a short time endowed cultural life with new vitality. The artistic life of Vienna rose to new heights when the Burgtheater became the German National Theater. By transferring the management of the theatres to the actors, Joseph introduced an artistically fruitful concept."

Where his international affairs were concerned, his diplomacy did not seem to weight too much amongst european relations. He visited the courts o Catherine II of Russia, and the French one where he apparently was disguised as Count Falkestein. The prospectives of these visits aimed Joseph:

"to obtain a personal view of the situation in eastern and western Europe, Joseph visited France, where he was enthusiastically received by the intellectual elite, and then also visited Catherine of Russia. The banquets given in his honour in Paris could not conceal the truth from him: France was headed for catastrophe. His Russian visit gave him the impression of a state retarded in its development compared with the West, but the loyalty of its enormous population to Catherine and her nearly unlimited power seemed to make her the best ally for political manoeuvres in Europe."

His attempts in saving his sister and her family did not bring any positive results from the tension that led Revolutionary France to war against Austria. Towards the end of his reign, Joseph faced difficult rebellions to be dealt with, being forced to withdrawl the changes he imposed upon Hungary. By the time he died in 1790, Joseph was alone in his deathbed for his physician refused seeing him and his brother and heir Leopold was found in Florence.

Despite Joseph having been the only character of the 18th century for not being entitled as "the great", he was likely the only of his counterparts whose reformations improved the lifestyle of his subjects. To claim he was good or bad is unfair with this character, not because of his doings, but because he was a man of his days and, as such, had his flaws and qualities. It's a good reminder to point this out in order to prevent a contemporary judgement, after all values, ethic and habits, culture itself, all of these have changed from 1790 to our present days.

Nonetheless, Joseph is not often a figure discussed when compared to his sister or the Russian autocrat, or even his friend-enemy Frederick II of Prussia. There is an extent of subjects concerning Joseph, for thankfully most sources have found their ways towards us. But the most important here was to present this character to the reader so they can comprehend that many impressive kings, queens, emperors, etc did so much during their lives and history still overshadowed them. To close this post, a necessary quote, taken from the blog mad monarchist¹, is here written:

"For all of these things Joseph was adored by the common folk but despised by the aristocracy and high clergy. Certainly the Emperor had his share of heartaches and trouble. His beloved first wife died early on and Joseph never recovered from the loss. Victory over Prussia's Frederick the Great constantly escaped him and his sister was the famous Marie Antoinette who was murdered by French revolutionaries. In the royal community of Europe, most of whom were also adherents of the "Enlightenment", Joseph was consistently held in very high regard. Czarina Catherine the Great of Russia was greatly impressed with the young monarch who oddly insisted on wearing an Austrian army uniform rather than lavish costumes, and Prussia's Frederick the Great never ceased to express his admiration for Joseph even when they faced each other in battle. In fact, it was partly the high esteem in which Joseph held the Prussian king that led his desire to emulate his victories in the field."

Bibliography:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-II

-https://www.biography.com/people/joseph-ii-9358214

-http://www.habsburger.net/en/chapter/joseph-ii-reformist-emperor-or-enlightened-despot

-http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com.br/2010/05/enlightened-despot-emperor-joseph-ii.html¹

-https://www.questia.com/library/1369633/the-revolutionary-emperor-joseph-the-second-1741-1790

-http://www.klastervyssibrod.cz/History/text-4[en]

-http://www.shoreshim.org/en/infoEmperorJoseph.asp

-http://nerdalicious.com.au/people/holy-roman-emperor-joseph-ii-discusses-nymph-racing-and-the-chastity-commission/

Eric Bloodaxe: The Viking Who Reigned Over Norway and Northumbria (885-954)

Previously on this blog, we have discussed the lifetime of the first king of Norway. As promised, to follow that post we proceed with Harald Fairhair's son, Eric Bloodaxe. Who was this king who received this surname? What can be expected of him? Like his father, he too was a viking, but what were his deeds? These were the questions that motivated us in order to attempt to bring a discussion about this royal man.

Eric (in Norse language written as Eirik) was probably the oldest, but certaintly the favourite, son of Harald Fairhair, first King of all Norway. His mother is allegedly a woman of noble birth named Ragnhildr in rika, who some sources claim to be the daughter of Eric of Jutland. But there is not much to know about his childhood. What comes to us is that he began as Viking at the age of 12. Following one of the expeditions, he was married to Gunnhild, who was the daughter of Gorm inn Gamili ("the Old") of Denmark (whom we have already discussed on this blog as well). Sources claim Gunnhild as a witch, and the reasons for such we can only speculate.

Afterwards, we come to circumnstances that contributed to why Eric was known as "Bloodaxe". As it explains below:

"It is said that Erik secured his importance by gradually killing all of his brothers. These actions probably gave him his nickname 'Bloodaxe' and in one of the Latin texts dated to 1200s, Erik is called "fratris interfector"- brother killer."

The problem of heritance which we have mentioned when discussing the reign of Harald I of Norway is explained by the great number of children Harald left. Although they were given lands to be overlords, Eric's authority was contested by them and so Eric resolved this issue by killing them. Hence the nickname.

But this did not mean Eric had a long and prosperous reign in Norway; even though he had his brothers killed, one did not. Apparently a half younger brother named Hakan was living under protection of the king Aethelstan of England, who, in turn, seemed to have been friends of the predecessor king of Norway. As we can see in the following paragraph:

"Erik's reign in Norway was apparently hard and unpopular, and his royal power was challenged by his one surviving, younger half-brother Hakan, who is said to have grown up in England at King Aethelstan's court. Hakan sailed to Norway to claim their inheritance, and Erik fled to England, where he was occupied with raids in Scotland and around the Irish Sea. Ancient tales say he was welcomed by Aethelstan because of the friendship between his father, Harald Fairhair, and Aethelstan, who appointed him ruler of the Viking kingdom of Jorvik Northumbria. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and various Irish chronicles, Erik became King of Northumbria (c.947-94), that is, several years after the death of Aethelsatan, but a later chronicle of William of Malmesbury mentions diplomatic relations between Athelstan and Harald Fairhair that fit with the fairy tale tradition."

However began the conflict for the crown of Norway, it is clear that Eric, even if he had inherited any warrior skills of his father, could not hold it from Hakan and that way he went to exile in York (then written and spoken as Jorvic) within the realm of Northumbria. This is why Eric was also regarded as King of Northumbria as much as he was King of Norway. Even in exile, accounts claim that Eric's children inherited the norwegian crown.

To keep the crown of Northumbria was, nevertheless, just as difficult as it was in Norway. King Eadred fought quite a resistance against the Viking's dominion over that english area. On that matter, it is said that:

"Archbishop Wulfstan of York reneged on his pledge to Edred of England and hastened to offer his alliegience to Eric. Northumbria had previously been bitterly fought over between the Saxon kings and the Hiberno-Norse line of descendants from Ímair, kings of Dublin."

Even so, apparently this Saxon king won the crown over Eric's as it states below:

"As the English army headed south, Eric Bloodaxe's army caught up with its rearguard and made a great slaughter at Castleford. Eadred threatened to destroy Northumbria in revenge, and the Northumbrians turned their back on Eric and made reparations to the English king. 

After another change of mind they accepted Olaf Sihtricsson as their ruler, only for Eric to drive him out and take over again. Finally in 954, Eric Bloodaxe was expelled for the second and final time and King Eadred of Wessex and England gained control."

Finally, this lead us to conclude that

"More careful examination of Eric's story suggests that things were rather more complicated. Despite his reputation as warrior, Eric apparently abandoned Norway to his brother Hakon [...] and he was subsequently driven out of Northumbria at least twice. The sagas represent him very much as a henpecked husband, and the likely origin of his nickname is both murkier and less glorious than the obvious explanation of his prowess in battle." 

However was the end of Eric, killed in battlefield or dead after he was driven out of Northumbria for the second time, he, like his father before him, was a man of his days. A man who lived accordingly his times, perhaps he would have succeeded better not being a ruler, but that is how history of monarchy is made: sometimes strenght is just not enough. Regardless, Eric left a reputation and by some means he earned respect if not inspired fear in his contemporaries.

To end this post, here's a "skaldic poem Eirkismàl ('The Lay of Eric')", in which "describes Eric's heroic entrance into Valhalla and his welcome by the gods after his death in Stainmore":

What dream is that? quoth Odin,
I thought to rise ere day-break
To make Valhall ready
For troops of slain;
I roused the champions,
Bade them rise swiftly
Benches to strew,
To wash beer-flagons,
The Valkyries to pour wine
As a prince were coming

Sources:

-http://www.ancientpages.com/2016/09/29/famous-viking-warrior-eric-bloodaxe-haraldsson-king-of-norway/

-http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/viking/eric-bloodaxe

-http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/vikings_8.html

-http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/bloodaxe_01.shtml

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Bloodaxe

Harald Fairhair of Norway: The Story Of The 'Viking' Who Became The First King Of Norway (c.850-932)

For nearly two months this blog hasn't been posted due to the lack of inspiration of our part, and for that we apologize. Initially we thought about preparing for a post concerning the Roman emperors, but whilst inspiration for that subject does not come for now, the swift to another was found necessary. So we have decided to go back to the topic where vikings became the overlords of their own kingdoms.

As such, we firstly came across with other historical figures such as the proeminent and nearly a mythological being Ragnar Lothbrok before reaching the one we intend to approach this day. Who was Harald Fiarhair and how did he become the first king of Norway? Questions as these are what move us in finding out about him in the hopes to enlighten this forgotten royal.

We do not know much of this character's background due to the lack of reliable sources. However, those we consulted lead us to some aspects of his life that made Harald quite respected during his lifetime and possibly after. As for example, Harald was known for being the son of Halvdan the Black. Some believe he was a king, others claim that Halvdan was järl (earl). Whether was the case, Halvdan ruled "part of southeastern Norwary" and was part of one of the oldest royal houses of Sweden, the Yngling dynasty.

What happened next was Harald ascending as a king or as jarl upon the death of his father, when he was ten years of age. Apparently "his father drowned because he crashed his sleigh". But History tells us countless times the result of a young sovereing on a throne. With Harald, could be not different. Other järls took in arms against him, but surprisingly were won by the ten year old Harald. As said below:

"His first conquest came with the suppression of a revolt in the Uplands region. A pact with Haakon, earl of Lade, enabled him to pursue conquest of the western districts, culminating in the battle of Hafrsfjord, dated 872 by medieval historians but placed 10 to 20 years later by modern historians."

It is also claimed that during his minority, his "protector-regent was his mother's brother Guthorm". Afterwards, comes a tale about the time he reached the age of marriage. He was proposing a woman of noble birth named Gyda, but she refused the proposal because she thought he was the overlord of insignifcant lands. Harald vowed not to cut his hair until the united all of what we know today as Norway. And only cut it after he and the said woman were married. If this story is accurate or not, we cannot tell for certain, after all, the accounts of his children differ whether he had 8-11 or about 20 with different wives.

What we do know, however, is that:

"Harald's conquests and taxation system led many chiefs and their followers to emigrate to the British Isles, adjacent lands, and perhaps to Iceland, which first became known to Scandinavians during the era of Harald's rule. He acquired wealth through his control of coastal trade but ruled indirectly through lesser chieftains in areas other than his own tightly controlled home district, in the southwest. His major governmental contribution lay in the development of provincial administrations through such chieftains."

This is the result of the many battles he fought, all of which he left victorious as we can perceive below:

"At one battle, the battle of Trondheim, he defeated eight kings in eight different battles in order to take the city. In another battle, he defeated three other kings at once. Jarls submitted to him left and right, yielding their lands to his rule. The story goes he'd personally charge into combat at the head of a force of over 60 Viking beserkers who would literally go nuts, froth at the mouth, and rip apart armor with their bare hands. Harald let his conquered kingdoms live in peace, so long as they submitted to him. He only imposed a land tax and took twenty thanes from each king to add to his army. "

In spite of this accord where some of the jarls kept their lands but had to respond for the authority of Harald, there had been threats that, as previously mentioned, not only were resolved with the exile that consequently established Iceland, but also as seen below:

"Many Norwegian chieftains who were wealthy and respected posed a threat to Harald; therefore, they were subjected to much harassment from Harald, prompting them to vacate the land. At last, Harald was forced to make an expedition to the West, to clear the islands and the Scottish mainland of some Vikings who tried to hide there. The earliest narrative source which mentions Harald, the 12th century íslendingabók notes that Iceland was settled during his lifetime. Harald is thus depicted as the prime cause of the Norse settlement of Iceland and beyond. Iceland was settled by 'malcontents' from Norway, who resented Harald's claim of rights of taxation over lands, which the possessors appear to have previously held in absolute ownershipr."

Unfortunately there are not many informations concerning the wherabouts of his reign, except that the latter part of his life was marked by problems of inheritance since he had many children. The excerpt below can show it to us better:

"The number of sons he left varies in the different saga accounts, from 11 to 20. Twelve of his sons are named as kings, two of them over the whole country. He gave them all the royal title and assigned lands to them, which they were to govern as his representatives: but this arrangement did not put an end to the discord, which continued into the next reign. When he grew old, Harald handed over the supreme power to his favourite son Eirik Bloodaxe, whom he intended to be his successor. Eirik I ruled side-by-side with his father when Harald was 80 years old. Harald died three years later due to age in approximately 933." 

What is known of Harald afterwards is that it is believed he was buried  under a mound close by the church of Haugesund in the area that is known nowadays for the same name. That being said, Harald filled the expectations of his days, building not only a reputation of an excellent warrior, something his son and the next subject of this blog would follow, but that of a respectful king. It is an unfortunate for us that not much of those days have survived. 

Sources:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Fairhair

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Harald-I-king-of-Norway

-http://historythings.com/historys-badasses-harald-fairhair/

-https://www.sailmagazine.com/cruising/norse-longship-draken-harald-harfagre-voyage

Carolo Magno [Charlemagne] Of Franks: The Story Behind the King Who Built An Empire (c.742-814)

There had been much thought about which historical figure we would approach on this blog. Considerations were made that, at least, we should turn our eyes to France in the medieval period. But who would be? A few names crossed our minds before Carolo Magno, or how he is better known as Charlemagne, was chosen. But why?

In truth, whilst so many admire him, others might not share the same sentiment, which makes this historical character who lived centuries away from us be surrounded in myths or only the straight sense that praises him by the benefict of the distance in time. It is hardly our intention to make use of this post to denegrate an image of this legendary man, but instead to enlight him as a man of his days as we have been doing with others who left their marks in history. Therefore it is less about the myth that shaped him as a monarch than the society he was in that turned Carolo in Charlemagne.

Carolo Magno was born between the years of 742 and 748, though the date of his birth more acceptable is 742. Little is known regarding his childhood and education, but of his family we know that he was the son (whether being the oldest or the youngest we cannot be sure) of Pippin III (known best as Pippin the Short), who was a "major of the palace, an official serving the Merovingian king but actually wielding effective power over the extensive Frankish kingdom". It is also suggested that:

"[...] he received practical training for leadership by participating in the political, social, and military activities associated with his father's court. His early years were marked by a succession of events that had immense implications for the Frankish position in the contemporary world. In 751, with papal approval, Pippin seized the Frankish throne from the last Merovingian king, Childeric III. After meeting with Pope Stephen II at the royal palace of Ponthion in 753-754, Pippin forged an alliance with the pope by committing himself to protect Rome in return for papal sanction of the right of Pippin's dynasty to the Frankish throne."

A primary resource¹ written by a scribe of name Einhard states that:

"Pepin [...] was raised by decree of the Roman pontiff, from the rank of Mayor of the Palace to that of King and ruled alone over the Franks for fifteen years or more [752-768]. He died of dropsy [Sept 24, 768] in Paris at the close of the Aquitanian War, which he had waged with William, duke of Aquitania, for nine successive years, and left his two sons, Charles and Carloman, upon whim, by the grace of God, the succession devolved."

In other words, this act could be interpreted as of usurpation that was, however, legitimized by chuch in power relations that helped to extend Christianity's influence over the world, more than what already had been so far, though it would not be until the year 1000 that Denmark, Sweden and Norway would convert to the religion. But by Pippin's death, inheritance was not well defined, for back then there was not yet the costume of passing the throne for the oldest living son and heir. As we can see below, from the same source of the last paragraph, it is stated that:

"The Franks, in a general assembly of the people, made them both [Carolo and Carloman] kings [Oct 9, 786] on condition that they should divide the whole kingdom equally between them, Charles to take and rule the part that had to belonged to their father, Pepin, and Carloman the part which their uncle, Carloman had governed. The conditions were accepted, and each entered into the possession of the share of the kingdom that fell to him by this arrangement; but peace was only maintained between them with the greatest difficulty, because many of Carloman's party kept trying to disturb their good understanding [...]. Carloman had succumbed to disease after ruling two years [in fact more than three] in common with his brother and at his death Charles was unanimously elected King of the Franks."

What we interpret from this is the possibility of a clash of interests between the two brothers, considering what we know of Carolo's ambition that would make him emperor years later. But this is merely speculation, though in other websites here consulted the rilvary between two brothers is mentioned. Whatever the case, he allied with the king of Lombards, whose sister became his consort, but any suspicious of an upcoming conflict ended with Carloman's death in 771.

A characteristic of Carolo, or Charles as we see here often being mentioned, is one obvious for those who are well acquainted with his history or at least heard of him once, but nonetheless still important to sublime: his warrior skills. Accordingly,

"By Frankish tradition he was a warrior king, expected to lead his followers in wars that would expand Frankish hegemony and produce rewards for his companions. His Merovingian predecessors had succeeded remarkably well as conquerors, but their victories resulted in a kingdom made up of diverse peoples over which unified rule grew increasingly difficult."

Hence why his reign was marked with wars and conquests, as his social role as sovereign reflected what society expected from their kings. Power relations within the court of the period can be better seen below:

"[...] the Frankish social system, which had been based on kinship ties, on bonds linking war leaders and their comrades in arms, and on ethnicity, was being overlaid by social bonds created when one individual commended himself to another, thereby accepting a condition of personal dependence that entailed the rendering of services to the superior in return for materal considerations granted to the dependent party. Moreover, the world beyond Francia was being reshaped politically and economically by the decline of the Easter Roman Empire, the triumphal advance of Arab forces and their Islamic religion across the Mediterranean world, and the threat posed by new Scandinavian, Slavic and Central Asian invaders."

Where foreign matters are concerned, there is one in particular that has captured our attention. The excerpt below tells us how Carolo Magno dealt with his Saxon enemies:

"No war ever undertaken by the Frank nation was carried on with such persistence and bitterness, or cost so much labor, because the Saxons, like almost all the tribes of Germany, were a fierce people, given to the worship of devils, and hostile to our religion and did not consider it dishonorable to transgress and violate all law, human and divine.[...] In this way the Franks became so embittered that they at last resolved to make reprisals no longer, but to come to open war with the Saxons [772]. Accordingly war was begun against them, and was waged for thirty-three successive years with great fury; more, however, to the disadvantage of the Saxons than of the Franks. It could doubtless have been brought to an end sooner, had it not been for the faithlessness of the Saxons."

In truth, though we are enlightened with such events by a primary resource as we have formerly mentioned it, we must nevertheless be careful upon looking at it. The choice of words and how some of these events are presented to the reader are naturally to praise Carolo Magno's person as a ruler, as a man and as the one chosen by God. It is, nonetheless, very interesting to point out he sent to death circa of 30,000 pagans during this war against the Saxons. He was, as it must constantly be said in order to prevent modern judgements to cloud the purpose of understanding him better as a historical character even if this post is not a specific study about it.

As a result of this, we come to comprehend a bit of the military character of this sovereign. However, it must also be remembered that Carolo's link with the Church would bound him to move forward the ambition of making himself the great emperor, as if he was the responsible for bringing it back the ancient Roman Empire. So in short analyzis we can state that:

"The distinguishing mark of Charlemagne's reign was his effort to honour the age-old customs and expectations of Frankish kingship while responding creatively to the new forces impinging on society. His personal qualities served him well in conforting that challenge. The ideal warrior chief, Charlemagne was an imposing physical presence blessed with extraordinary energy, personal courage, and an iron will. He loved the active life- military campaigning, hunting, swimming- but he was no less at home at court, generous with his gifts, a boon companion at the banquet table, and adept at establishing friendships. Never far from his mind was his large family: five wives in sequence, several concubines, and at least 18 children over whose interests he watched carefully."

That being aside, we turn to another face of his that is lessen discussed: his personal life. As already mentioned in the paragraph quoted above, Carolo Magno had an impressive family. It seems he was close to his mother until the end of his life and was apparently a gentle, thoughtful man to the standards of those days where the care of his descendants were concerned. Here's an account of this familiar side that not all of us is acquainted with:

"[...] He married a daughter of Desiderius, King of the Lombards, at the instance of his mother; but he repudiated her at the end of a year for some reason unknown, and married Hildegard, a woman of high birth, of Suabian origin. He had three sons by her- Charles, Pepin and Louis- and as many daughters- Hruodrud, Bertha, and Gisela. He had three daughters besides these- Theoderada, Hiltrud, and Ruodhaid- two by his third wife, Fastrada, a woman of East Frankish (that is to say, of German) origin, and the thrid by a concubine, whose name for the moment escapes me. At the death of Fastrada [794], he married Liutgard, an Alemannic woman, who bore him no children. After her death [Jun 4, 800] he had three concubines- Gersuinda, a Saxon by whom he had Adaltrud; Regina, who was the mother of Drogo and Hugh; and Ethelind, by whom he lead Theodoric. Charles' mother, Berthrada, passed her old age with him in great honor; he entertained the greatest veneration for her; and there was never any disagreement between them except when he divorced the daughter of King Desiderius, whom he had married to please her. She died soon after Hildegard, after living to three grandsons and as many granddaughters in her son's house, and he buried her with great pomp in the Basilica of St Denis, where his father lay. He had an only sister, Gisela, who had consecrated herself toa religious life from girlhood, and he cherished as much affection for her as of his mother.[...]"

That is how we suspect he was an affectionative man. We say 'suspect' because the author, throughtout his story of Carolo Magno, hardly points out a flaw of his character, which must again be said that the events here described must be studied carefully. This does not stop him, however, from being an affectionative person as we said. It is still surprising, for those of us who until this research were not so acquainted with his historical person, to see what a large family he had and how close to it he likely was for such days.

As a monarch, he was a legend, surpassing all expectations projected over him. As a man, it would make him less human to his admirers to understand he was a reflection of the socialization he went through. He was a medieval man born to be a king who grew to be crowned emperor of the Franks not by divine blessing or merely luck, but because he had skills for it. For:

"Charlemagne possessed considerable native intelligence, intellectual curiosity, a willingness to learn from others, and religious sensibility- all tributes which allowed him to comprehend the forces that were reshaping the world about him."

He was indeed a great ruler, builder of an empire that would remain an inspiration for monarchs of the next generations. A legend is what he became, but it must be necessary to bring the man he was out of it and even through the praises generally written about him and his life, to understand who he was and how society's demands reflected directly upon him. To close this post, a citation about the end of his life is written below:

"Toward the close of his life [813], when he was broken by ill-health and old age, he summoned Louis, Kigi of Aquitainia, his only surviving son by Hildegard, and gathered together all the chief men of the whole kingdom of the Franks in a solemn assembly. He appointed Louis, with their unanimous consent, to rule with himself over the whole kingdom and constituted him heir to the imperial name; then, placing the diadem upon his son's head, he bade him he proclaimed Emperor and is step was hailed by all present favor, for it really seemed as if God had prompted him to it for the kingdom's good [...] While wintering there [at Aix-la-Chapelle], he was seized, in the month of January, with a high fever [Jan 22 814], and took to his bed. As soon as he was taken sick, he prescribed for himself abstinence from food, as he always used to do in case of fever [...] He died January twenty-eighth, the seventh day from the time that he took to his bed, at nine o'clock in the morning, after partaking of the holy communion, in the seventy-second year of his age and the forty-seventh of his reign [Jan 28, 814]."

Bibliography:

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charlemagne

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

-Einhard: The Life of Charlemagne, translated by Samuel Epes Turner (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1880)¹

-https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/einhard.asp#Charlemagne's Accession¹

-https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/stgall-charlemagne.asp

King George II of Great Britain (1683-1760) and the Jacobite Rebellion: History Behind "Outlander"'s Story.

Our post today, although concerning the forgotten British king George II, closes the trilogy of posts about the transition of power between the Stuarts to the Hanovers' dynasty through the background of the Jacobite rebellion that had set its beginning from Queen Anne's reign and ended in King George II's. We intend to discover throughout the post who was George II as a monarch in days where kings had no more the power they once had, as a (historical) person but even so how the Jacobite rebellion shaped his reign and how it affected the Anglo-Scottish relationship that were bounded into one Parliament under the reign of Anne Stuart.

From the beginning, George II was, like his father, the product of a century and the man of another. Born in the year of 1683 in the city of Hanover, he was the oldest and only legitimate son of George I who was by then Elector of Hanover and his stranged wife Sophia Dorothea of Celle. George had a younger sister, also named Sophia Dorothea, who was born three years later.  

In matters of his education, it appears that he received an education that was not much different from those of his rank. George was able to speak German, French and English, but it appears he was not the brightest of the men elsewhere: in terms of politics, it was generally regarded that his wife, Caroline of Ansbach, was the mind behind the crown when he inherited the English crown years later.

As for his military career, George

"participated in the Battle of Oudernarde in the vanguard of the Hanoverian cavalry; his horse and a colonel immediately beside him were killed, but George survived unharmed. The British commander, Marlborough, wrote that George 'distinguished himself extremely, charging at the head of and animating by his example [the Hanoverian] troops, who played a good part in this happy victory."

We can assume, from this excerpt, that George was not only interested in military affairs but played a good part in it from his youth accordingly to the expectations of those days towards young men and the army in general. But not much is said after that and most of what we will report onwards regards his life as king of Great Britain. 

As for his personal life, around 

"June 1705, under the false name of 'Monsieur de Busch', George visited the Ansbach court at their summer residence in Triesdorf to investigate incognito a marriage prospect: Caroline of Ansbach, the former ward of his aunt Queen Sophia Charlotte of Prussia. The English envoy to Hanover, Edmund Poley, reported that George was so taken by 'the good character he had of her that he would not think of anybody else'. A marriage contract was concluded by the end of July. On 22 August/ 2 September 1705. Caroline arrived in Hanover for her wedding, which was held the same evening in the chapel at Herrenhausen."

Caroline, in turn, was born in the mentioned German principiality of Ansbach and before she was married to George, she was under the cares of George's aunt, Sophia Charlotte of Prussia. The two ladies were very close to each other, with the Queen always addressing Caroline as her adoptive daughter. This relationship turned Caroline to a very prospective match for European royals, and her typical beauty (being blonde with blue eyes and pale skin) and the attributes addressed to her personality and bright mind quickly drawn George. Though at first Caroline and George's relationship began as affectionative, she was then acquainted with George's mistresses and he was always telling her about his affairs. Nonetheless, it appears their relationship remained respectful and Caroline's brightness helped her to hold more influence over her husband after he became King than his own mistresses. As a queen, and even before, she held her own court filled with intellectuals, promoting Voltaire and the advancing of  medicine. However, she was very discrete in such matters as the king had a dislike for her doings.

As for George's relationship with his father, it was never one of the bests, though, but it grew worse after he became King George I. As we have said in the former post concerning George's father, the first Hanoverian king held a dislike for his oldest son, who in turn represented the opposition for George I's policies. He was even

"Banned from the palace and shunned by his own father, for the next several years the Prince of Wales was identified with opposition to George I's policies, which included measures designed to increase religious freedom in Great Britain and expand Hanover's German territories at the expense of Sweden. His new London residence, Leicester House, became a frequent meeting place for his father's political opponents, including Sir Robert Walpole and Viscount Townshend, who had left the government in 1717."

However, there was an attempt of reconciliation when by 1720,

"Walpole encouraged the king and his son to reconcile for the sake of public unity which they did half-heartedly. Walpole and Townshend returned to political office, and rejoined the ministry. George was soon disillusioned with the terms of the reconciliation; his three daughters who were in the care of the king were not returned and he was still barred from becoming regent during the king's absences." 

During this time when George and his wife retired from public life, he and Caroline developed a strange relationship with their oldest son, Frederick. Like George with his father, when the former ascended as George II, the new prince of Wales would live stranged from his parents and hold a court in opposition to George II's policies. Nonetheless, when Frederick died, it was said that he wept with Frederick's widow, princess Augusta, though he claimed that the death of Louise, his favourite child, pained him the most.

When George became King George II, he was clever enough to have "courted popularity with voluble expressions of praise for the English, and claimed that he had no drop of blood that was not English". By then, George held also the title of Duke of Brunswick-Lünebrug (Hanover), Archtreasurer and Prince-Elector of the Holy Roman Empire. In other terms, he was quite the image of Protestant, warrior and powerful royal that was expected. In his first years, he was also popular for not going to his father's funeral, since that George I's travels to Hanover was not seeing with good eyes by the English, who held a strong dislike for foreigners as their rulers. 

In domestic affairs, there was a proper establishment for the Tories and Whigs as the system that until our present days marks the British government. It was Caroline mostly the "bridge" between Walpole and George II's political relationship, though this does not mean George II was merely a puppet for the ministers as the british historiography for so long believed. However, what matters for our discussion today was his relationship with the Jacobites and how did the Hanovers managed to secure their crown... For if the Jacobites had moved south and not north, perhaps the Stuarts would be on today's throne and not the House of Windsor.

The French, as usual, historically supported British's pretenders or whomever that could mess with their long time enemies. By then, there was a war concerning the Austrian Succession and the British held quite an empire that Louis XV was eager to dismount, for the lack of better word. So that way he motivated Charles Edward Stuart, otherwise known as Bonnie Prince Charlie, who was the grandson of the late and ill fated king James VII/II, to pursue his crown 'by right'. This rebellion is shown in the popular tv show "Outlander", where we have Claire Beauchamp trying to prevent it to happen as she knows the truth that will come out of this effort. To have a better comprehension of what was this rebellion and the extent of it, we have an excerpt of the letter of Bonnie Prince Charlie for his father, the Old Pretender. 

"There is one thing and but one, in which I have had any difference with my faithful highlanders, it was about setting a price upon my kinsman's head, which knowing your majesty's generous humanity I am sure will shock you are much as it did me, when I was shown the proclamation setting a price on my head. I smiled and treated it with the disdain it deserved, upon which they flew out into a most violent rage and insisted on my doing the same by him as this flowed solely from the poor men's love and concern for me I did not know how to be angry with them for it, but tried to bring them to temper by representing to them that it was a mean and barbarous practice among princes that must dishonour them in the eyes of all men of honour, that I could not see how my cousin having set me the example would justify me in imitating that which I blame so much in him. But nothing I could say would satisfy them, some went even so far as to say, shall we go and venture our lives for a man who seems so indiffierent about preserving his own? Thus I have been drawn in to do a thing for which I can damn myself. Your majesty knows that in my nature I am neither cruel or revengeful and God who knows my heart knows that if the very prince who has forced me to this (for it is he that has forced me) was in my power, the greatest pleasure I could feel would be treating him as the brave, black Prince treated his prisoner, the king of France, to make him ashamed of having shown himself so inhumane an enemy to a man for attempting a thing which he himself if he has any [sincerity] would despise for not attempting."¹

What can be implied of this letter below is that resentment and a self sense of being the heir of a crown usurped by his Hanoverian cousin motivate Bonnie Prince Charlie to carry on with the expeditions his father lost and was defeated in the reigns of Queen Anne and King George I. We have not found, unfortunately, nothing written concerning George II's own personal thoughts of the occasion. Nevertheless, we thought interesting to share the thoughts of George's enemy to comprehend the purpose of this rebellion. In the following paragraph, there is another excerpt of the letter written by Bonnie Prince Charlie concerning his plans in case he succeeds in overthrowing George II and his Hanoverian dynasty:

"[...] But should it happen that any Foreign Power contributed to place me on the Throne, it must be visible to all thinking men, that I can neither hope to keep it, nor enjoy Peace and Happiness upon it but by gaining the Love and Affections of my Subjects. I am far from approving the mistakes of former Reigns. I see, I feel the Effects of them, and should be void of all Reflection did I not propose to avoid them with the utmost Care. And therefore I do not entertain the least thoughts of assuming the Government on the footing my Family left it.[...] This Declaration was written in Consequence of the sentiments and Reflections expressed in this Letter. It contains a General Indemnity [compensation] without Exceptions, for all that has passed against me and my Family."²

In other words, he, like the foreign princes before him and even as George II did in the begin of his reign, attempted to use his English/Scottish blood as royal connection to gain the support of the British people, who, as already said before, held a certain kind of reputation for looking upon those foreigners who tried to govern their countries. It was what Queen Anne did after the death of her brother-in-law and George II to distinguish himself from his father, who was constantly travelling to Hanover. But Prince Charles was also aware of the event that culminated in such a situation he was now in: the Glorious Revolution that resulted in James VII of Scotland and II of England being sent to the exile if he did not want to lose his head like his father did. In fact, he makes sure to distance himself from his grandfather in this aspect and even more so from George I, which is why his reign and that of his aunt before the Hanovers, were mentioned although subtle so. 

And the result of those letters whose content clearly pointed out to a determined man that would not give his claim to the throne he genuinely believed to be his by right, is the letter written by Charles Edward Stuart's ally, probably the same old duke of Argyll who in the past supported the Old Pretender against George I. The excerpt of the declaration of "war" is seen here:

"the positive Orders we have from  his most Christian Majesty are to attack all his Enemies in this Kingdom, whom he has Declared to be those who will not immediately Join, or assist as far will ly in their Power, the Prince of WALES, Regent of Scotland etc. His Ally, and whom he is resolved, with the Concurrence of the King of SPAIN, to Support in the taking Posession of SCOTLAND, ENGLEAND, and IRLAND, if Necessary at the Expence of all the Men and Money, he is Master of, to which three Kingdoms, the Family of STEWART, have so Just and indisputeable a Title."³

To comprehend better this tense and complex situation, see it below:

"In July 1745, the Old Pretender's son, Charles Edward Stuart, popularly known as Bonnie Prince Charlie or the Young Pretender, landed in Scotland, where support for his cause was highest. George, who was summering in Hanover, returned to London at the end of August. The Jacobites defeated British forces in September at the Battle of Prestonpans, and then moved south into England. The Jacobites failed to gain further support, and the French reneged on a promise of help. Losing morale, the Jacobites retreated back into Scotland. On 16/27 April 1746, Chales faced George's military-minded son Prince William, Duke of Cumberland, in the Battle of Culloden, the last pitched battle fought on British soil. The ravaged Jacobite troops were routed by the government army. Charles escaped to France, but many of his supporters were caught and executed. Jacobitism was all but crushed; no further serious attempt was made at restoring the House of Stuart."

In fact, the Duke of Cumberland was later known as 'Butcher Cumberland' "for the actions of his troops after Culloden and in the subsequent suppression of the whole Highland way of life." And this effective end of the gallic language and the mentioned Highland way of life can be seen in the "extracts from a sketch of regulations proposed to be made in Scotland, 28 June 1746".:

"A Bill, to empower the King to issue a Commission or Commissions of Enquiry with proper Powers to enquire concerning the Behaviour of the Clans, within certain Districts, from the Beginning & during the Course of the Rebellion: whether the Inhabitants remained at the Places of their Habitations; to what Places they went; whether armed or not; whether they continued in their Allegiance or joined or assisted the Rebells. [...] It is to be wished that the abolishing the Names of some of the worst clans, may be of use. But, the MacGregors, tho' forbid by Law, continued always to be called so in the Hills, and on all Troubles, publickly took up that Name again, it is to be fear'd, nothing but Transplanting can succeed. [...] Not to call or write themselves by that Name, under Pain of Transportation. [...] for religious worship in Scotland where the King & family shall not be prayed for by Name."

We can see, from this act in particular, the concern of the British in erasing from History the existance of the rebels and how the name and surname were so important for those clans that were even used as defiance, as a way of resisting the English' rule. We see it so in "Outlander" as the enemy clans reunite, and how proud they were of their lineage. Unfortunately, this sad episode in George II's reign mark the complete dominium of the English over his long time enemy, the Scots. This does not mean however the blame is solely on the figure of King George II. He was the head of the State, but figures as the Walpole mininster ruled more actively. But also he had to protect his crown, and in days of "civil war", self protection at any cust was what mattered. Had it been otherwise, certainly George II would have faced a different destiny that Charles Edward Stuart did when the latter fleed back to France. 

For better or worse, that was how history worked, made of men and their power. Towards the end of his reign, George II, who by then had "lived longer than any of his English or British predecessors", left his marks in some of the British universities and encouraged scientists and philosophers, though hardly no more than his late wife Caroline did. He was a men of his days, but mostly the product of another century. Like his father, George II was the "best" of both worlds. He died possibly of aortic aneurysm at the age of 77 and was succeeded by his most famoust grandson who became King George III, also known as the Hanoverian who lost the colonies, but this is for another time.

Bibliography:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_II_of_Great_Britain

-http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/659

-http://blogs.bl.uk/untoldlives/2015/10/the-coronation-of-george-ii-and-queen-caroline.html

-http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usbiography/monarchs/georgeii.html

-https://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=george2

-http://www.historyextra.com/article/military-history/profile-life-facts-george-ii

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/flora-macdonald/

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/laws-control-scotland/

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/charles-edward-stuart/¹

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/catholic-threat-1745/²

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/jacobite-declaration-war/³