Review: Britain's Bloodiest Dynasty: The Plantagenets (DVD)

A history resource article by Mary Harrsch © 2015

For 300 years the Plantagenets murdered, betrayed, and tyrannized an England just emerging from the chaos and violence of the Middle Ages.  This dynasty also produced some of England's most legendary (and often notorious men) from the famous Crusader king Richard the Lionheart to the ruthless Edward the Longshanks, Hammer of the Scots, of Braveheart fame to  Henry V whose "band of brothers" extracted a bloody victory at Agincourt.  But it is not these men whose lives are examined in this documentary serie.  It shines its light instead on lesser known members of the clan who, despite military blunders and family treachery brought the British Empire such lasting achievements as a representative parliament and English Common Law.

The series begins, where else, but at the beginning with the reign of the first Plantagenet, Henry II.  Henry II became an heir to the English throne when his father Geoffrey V, the (French) Count of Anjou  and later Duke of Normandy, married the Empress Matilda, the only surviving legitimate child of King Henry I of England.

At the tender age of 18, young Henry marries the powerful Eleanor of Aquitaine whose marriage to Louis VII of France had been recently annulled.  Together the couple produced a brood of eight children, including five very ambitious princelings.  Encouraged by first King Louis VII then King Philip II of France who had suffered the loss of Brittany and much of central France south to Toulouse due to Henry's imperial expansion, "Young Henry", Richard (later to become the Lionheart) and Geoffrey, dissatisfied that their father had not shared his power when they came of age, rebelled against him in 1173 with the support of their mother Eleanor. (the basis for the 1968 Oscar winning film "The Lion in Winter" starring Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn)

A painting from Chinon Castle thought to depict Eleanor of Aquitaine on Crusade.

This documentary appears to attribute much of this strife to Henry II's unwillingness to yield any of his tight-fisted control of his expanding empire to his sons.  I always thought sons were supposed to wait until their father dies before taking their turn at the helm, but apparently not the Plantagenets.

I have a dear friend who is absolutely in awe of Eleanor of Aquitaine. But I can't help but think Eleanor has bathed, at least to some degree, in the reflected glory from the legends of her son Richard the Lionheart.  As this documentary reveals her role in the intrigues surrounding her husband's reign it appears to me she is someone who, having the taste of queenship at a young age, harbors a healthy appetite for power herself.

Like a witch from Macbeth, Eleanor keeps stirring the cauldron, resulting in a second revolt in 1183 in which "Young Henry", the heir apparent, is killed.  Richard, now next in line for the throne, begins to fear his father will make Richard's younger brother (and his father's favorite) John, king, so Richard rebels a third time in 1189, aided by the French King Philip II.  Henry II is finally defeated and, suffering from a bleeding ulcer, retreats to Chinon in Anjou where he dies.

This tale of betrayal and complex political machinations is told with professionally acted cinematic clips and voice overs by award-winning journalist and historian Dan Jones.  Mr Jones appears periodically throughout the program in research libraries or on the grounds of castles or cathedrals. For the most part, talking heads are pretty much avoided, a most welcome approach that makes the viewer feel more immersed in the events.

I found the next episode riveting as well.  The reigns of Richard the Lionheart and his brother King John (of Robin Hood fame) are skipped over and the narrative picks up during the reign of Henry III, King John's son.  We discover this Henry, unlike his grandfather, is totally inept on the battlefield, despite dreams of recovering the family lands in France lost by his father.  Furthermore, the king is now limited in his authority to levy taxes on his barons by the Magna Carta, signed by his father, so when his barons lose confidence in him, he must redirect his energies to something less expensive than making war and turns to building Westminster Abbey.

King John signs the Magna Carta. Image from Cassell's History of England -
Century Edition (1902)

But he chafes under the Magna Carta's restrictions on his kingship and turns to an experienced warrior from France, Simon de Montfort, to pursue Henry's dreams of conquest in 1230.  The documentary mentions that de Montfort had spent his youth "chasing heretics" in France.  Having visited southern France just two years ago, I was aware of the slaughter that occurred in the Albigensian Crusade (to persecute the religious sect now referred to as Cathars) and it was certainly not an activity to be taken quite that lightly.

Simon de Montfort on the Leicester Clock Tower.
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

At first I thought this Simon de Montfort was the religious zealot I had encountered in the histories of a number of sites in Languedoc that I had visited.  I spent a beautiful day wandering the streets of the little village of Minerve, the site where Crusaders led by de Montfort burned 140 men, women and children at the stake for heresy.  Of course this atrocity did not hold a candle to the massacre of 20,000 inhabitants of Béziers, another picturesque city  overlooking the river Orb in the Languedoc region that I had the opportunity to visit. I even stood on the grounds of the Cathedral of St.Nazaire where many townsfolk had taken refuge and were subsequently killed when the cathedral was set ablaze and the roof caved in on them.

A panoramic view of the beautiful village of  Béziers, France.  Taken from the ramparts of the Cathedral of St. Nazaire.
Photo by Mary Harrsch © 2013

Although the overall commander of Crusader forces at Béziers was officially the papal legate, Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux, de Montfort was named his chosen successor shortly thereafter.

My research revealed Henry III's de Montfort, though, was just a youth at the time. But he apparently accompanied his father on these grisly expeditions and evidently learned a lot from him.

Henry finds Simon charismatic and much more militarily decisive than the king.  By 1236, Simon is so confident in his position at court that he refers to himself as the Sixth Earl of Leicester, although the king has not officially granted him that title.  (His father had earned the title of Fifth Earl of Leicester but it was not a hereditary title.) Simon's ambitions continue to soar when the king allows Simon to marry Henry's sister, Eleanor.  But there's a fly in the ointment.  Henry, perpetually short of funds, does not give Simon the lands he should have received as part of Eleanor's dowry.  Then Simon takes out a big loan naming Henry III as a guarantor without the king's knowledge.  This arrogant miscalculation on Simon's part infuriates Henry who threatens to imprison both de Montfort and the king's own sister in the Tower.  Being fully aware that Henry is deadly serious, de Montfort and Eleanor flee to France.

The Tower of London was built by William the Conqueror
in 1078.  Photo by Mary Harrsch © 2006

Henry eventually recalls de Montfort and asks him to campaign against King Louis IX of France in Poitou, another of Henry's disastrous attempts at recovering lands in France.  But during the battle Henry flees the field and leaves de Montfort fighting a desperate rear guard action.  When De Montfort finally escapes, he confronts Henry, telling Henry he should be locked up like the ineffectual Carolingian king Charles the Simple of Paris (a cowardly character in the History Channel series "Vikings".)

Henry III returning from Poitou from the Historia Anglorum,
British Library, Royal MS 14, C. VII f. 134v

Although Henry is furious, he recognizes de Montfort's considerable administrative talents and seeks to appease him by appointing him viceroy of the troublesome Duchy of Gascony.  Simon, true to his inflexible Crusader upbringing, comes down hard on the barons of Gascony, even cutting down their vineyards - an appalling atrocity to the French.

Meanwhile, Henry has turned over administration in England to the Lusignans, French warlords who had gained a reputation for their ruthlessness in the Holy Lands.  The Lusignans immediately begin grabbing land and property, including the sack of the London palace of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

A chained Guy de Lusignan with Saladin by
Jan Lievens 1625.

Back in France, the Gascons raised so much of a ruckus about de Montfort that Henry places de Montfort, who is now a titled baron recognized as the Sixth Earl of Leicester, on trial, apparently thinking he will finally rid himself of this troublesome fanatic who even wears a hairshirt under his clothes day and night.  But the other English barons come to de Montfort's defense and will not convict him.  Evidently, the barons are fed up with Henry's Lusignans and need the military skills of de Montfort to lead a rebellion against the Lusignans.

Henry responds to the crisis illogically by deciding to accept the Pope's commission to invade Sicily, another foolish dream of military conquest that he cannot afford.  To finance the fiasco, Henry defies the Magna Carta and levies a substantial tax on his barons.  The barons, led by de Montfort, descend on London dressed in full battle armor and demand that the king not only give up his dreams of glory in Sicily but that he agrees to remove the Lusignans and introduce a council of 15 barons that will meet three times a year to conduct the realm's business.  Henry has no choice but to agree to the "Provisions of Oxford", a document on which England's current parliament is based.

But Henry is not a man of his word and within four years' time tries to bring back the Lusignans.  De Montfort raises an army and defeats Henry in the resulting civil war at the Battle of Lewes, despite the encumbrance of a broken leg.  With Henry as prisoner, de Montfort essentially runs the country for the next ten years until Henry's son Edward (the Longshanks) raises a Plantagenet army and confronts de Montfort's forces at the village of Evesham.  There, Prince Edward commissions a 12-knight hit squad to find and slaughter de Montfort on the field of battle - reflecting the ruthlessness he would later employ against the Scots.

Simon de Montfort's grave at Evesham.
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Plantagent rule is reestablished and the dynasty and documentary series, continues, skipping the reign of Edward the Longshanks, then examining the reign of his son, Edward II. The last episode focuses on the reign of Richard II, the son of the famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) Edward, The Black Prince.  Richard II is considered by some the last of the main Plantagenet line before it split between the House of York and the House of Lancaster.

The Daily Mail compared this series to a real-life version of Game of Thrones and, although we have no dragons or stone men, I would be inclined to agree.  The sheer ruthlessness demonstrated by those who held the throne or lusted after it during this period makes for a riveting series.  Once more Athena in collaboration with RLJ Entertainment has brought out an excellent educational resource for history enthusiasts around the world.

Just as a reminder, RLJ Entertainment also offers an online streaming service named Acorn TV that features a rotating collection of some of Britain's best documentaries and dramas for $4.99 per month.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Review: Archaeology Hotspot : Egypt by Julian Heath

A history resource article by Mary Harrsch © 2015

I just finished the first book in a new series, "Archaeology Hotspot: Egypt" by Julian Heath.  The book's subtitle, "Unearthing the Past for Armchair Archaeologists" describe its target audience and, although the author has an MA in archaeology from the University of Liverpool, the book is relatively free of technical jargon and quite readable.

Heath begins by describing each period of Egypt's past then delves more deeply into archaeological activities within each period.  I was particularly pleased to note that Heath gives attention to the often overlooked pre-dynastic period as well as the more widely studied Old, Middle and New Kingdoms and their associated Intermediate Periods.  I was especially interested in his discussion of the Naqada Period because, not only were many of the traditions of Egypt in their embryonic stage then, but I had the opportunity to photograph Naqada pottery and unusual figurines at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the British Museum.

Beaker with Nile River Scene Early Naqada II
 3650-3500 BCE pottery predynastic Egypt.
Photographed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art
by Mary Harrsch © 2006

Apparently, there were a number of scholars who at one point believed the prehistoric period was a kind of "Golden Age" free of violence and conflict before the vast accumulation of wealth that was a hallmark of the dynastic periods created envy and greed.  But Heath relegated those speculations to the rubbish heap when he described the findings at the cemetery of Gebel Sahaba near the Nubian border.  In a burial of 59 individuals with almost half of them women and children, researchers found outright evidence of violent death (embedded projectile points and/or cut marks) on the remains of 24.

Female Figurines of bone and ivory Predynastic Naqada I
Egypt 4000-3600 BCE.  Photographed at The British Museum
by Mary Harrsch © 2008.

"...disturbingly, the children seem to have been executed by being shot in the head or neck with stone projectiles," Heath states.

Heath also relates the results of a 2012 CT scan on a naturally mummified body of a young man between 18 and 20 years old from the Naqada II period (about 3400 BCE) recovered at Gebelein by Wallis Budge of the British Museum.

"The scan threw up something of a nasty surprise," Heath writes, "as it uncovered compelling evidence that Gebelein Man had been murdered with his killer catching him unawares.  This evidence took the form of a stab wound in his back, just below his left shoulder blade, that had been made by a copper or flint dagger.  The blow that ended Gebelein Man's life had evidently been delivered with some force, as not only had it shattered one of his ribs, causing bone splinters to become embedded into his muscles, but it also penetrated his left lung."

He also pointed out that Gebelein Man had no apparent defensive wounds.

Heath includes a number of examples like this of very recent research in this book so, despite its brevity, the reader comes away with not only a good foundation in the historical periods of Egypt and significant explorations that have revealed the development of its culture but an excellent overview of current research, including technological advances in satellite imagery, ground penetrating radar and digital analyses.  It even touches on the current political and economic issues surrounding the illegal antiquities trade.

Perhaps among the most valuable inclusions in the book were the concluding passages listing museums with the largest collections of Egyptian antiquities (I didn't realize the Museum of Fine Arts Boston was among them so I have added it to my must see list!) and websites where visitors can not only view images of recovered artifacts but browse maps, plans and satellite imagery of archaeological sites and even journals kept by famous archaeologists.  Heath even suggests ways to get involved with current digs.  There are also extensive footnotes listed by chapter and a lengthy bibliography - a virtual handbook for any Egyptian history enthusiast.

I look forward with anticipation to the next book in this series!

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Sheer ruthlessness: a hallmark of American capitalism and "The Men Who Built America" (DVD Review)

A history resource article by Mary Harrsch © 2014

I watched an absolutely fascinating series on the History Channel (now available on DVD) entitled "The Men Who Built America".  It traces the careers of some of the most powerful men in American history including Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J. P. Morgan and Henry Ford.  It is one of the first series I have ever seen that does not white wash the rise to power of these so-called 20th century "titans" of industry.

Probably the thing I found most disturbing in the series was the apparent viewpoint of these men that they were somehow above the subhuman worker populations they employed. They were willing to acquire wealth through any means possible and their net worth, regardless of how it was acquired, represented to them their superior worth as a human being.

Each of these men had personal ambition that knew no bounds and a ruthlessness that drove them to exploit every opportunity in an industrial landscape that had little regulation to prevent insider trading, overt market manipulation and outright intimidation.

Andrew Carnegie was treated a little more gently than the others mainly because he handed off the day to day operations of Carnegie Steel to a totally ruthless chairman named Henry Frick so Carnegie could ostensibly sail off to Scotland to enjoy the fruits of his labors.

Andrew Carnegie portrait at the National
Portrait Gallery.  Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

Today, we associate Andrew Carnegie with education and the arts because of his philanthropic contributions to Carnegie Hall, Carnegie-Mellon University and thousands of libraries around the world.  But, in truth, Carnegie was the ultimate decision maker in the operation of his steel empire during a tumultuous period of violence and even death. He was certainly aware of the decisions implemented by his chairman and did nothing to intervene in plant operations until nine workers at his flagship Homestead Steel Works were gunned down by the Pinkertons under Frick's orders in 1892.

The steel workers had been ground down by increasingly longer hours - 12 hours a day six days a week by the time of the massacre - under absolutely hellish conditions, while wages were whittled away by Frick to increase profits.

When I researched the life of Andrew Carnegie further to write this review I read that Carnegie claimed he was a disciple of Herbert Spencer whose economic theory of evolution is best characterized as economic survival of the fittest.  Spencer declared that any provisions made to assist the weak, unskilled, poor and distressed to be an imprudent disservice to evolution and that "severe fate" was the natural process to single out the weak, debauched and disabled.

I noticed, however, that even Spencer was appalled when he visited one of Carnegie's steel works and remarked, "Six months' residence here would justify suicide."

The program pointed out that 1 in 11 steel workers at the time were suffering horrendous injuries or death.  Yet labor unions had only been formed to bargain for wages and working conditions for just the skilled workers, less than 1/4 of the workforce.  Even so, Frick complained about the labor union that represented the skilled workers at the Homestead Steel Works in a letter to Carnegie stating "The mills have never been able to turn out the product they should, owing to being held back by the Amalgamated men."  Although Carnegie had publicly claimed to be in favor of labor unions, privately he agreed with Frick and gave his approval to Frick's efforts to break the union at Homestead.

Carnegie's carefully cultivated public personae as a responsible industrialist and generous philanthropist was often used as a smoke screen to obscure his less noble activities.  For example, Carnegie publicly advocated less government while aggressively lobbying for protective trade tariffs that resulted in millions of dollars a year in extra revenue for his companies.

In this documentary, the producers pointed out that the development of Carnegie's benevolent personae was a direct result of the public relations nightmare generated by the Johnstown flood that killed 2,209 people in 1889.

Henry Frick, sometimes called the worst
CEO in American history.  Image courtesy
of Wikipedia.

Carnegie's chairman, Henry Frick, and a group of speculators, developed  an exclusive club for leading business tycoons of Western Pennsylvania, most connected through business dealings to Carnegie Steel.  The club was located  along the shore of Lake Conemaugh behind the South Fork Dam above the town of Johnstown, Pennsylvania.

The area had been prone to flooding since its founding by Joseph Johns at the confluence of the Stoney Creek and Little Conemaugh rivers in 1800.  The steep hills of the narrow Conemaugh Valley and the Allegheny Mountains range to the east produced large amounts of runoff from annual rain and snowfall.  This vulnerability was further compounded as the community grew and became the site of Cambria Iron Works who dumped slag from its iron furnaces along the river to create more land for building, but further narrowed the riverbed.

To make matters worse, Frick and his development speculators then lowered the dam,  so the top of the dam could be used as a roadway for Frick and his fellow wealthy clubmembers' carriages. They also built a fish screen in the spillway, the only remaining water control mechanism. A previous owner had already removed and sold for scrap the three cast iron discharge pipes that had been originally used to control the release of water.

A Johnstown house skewered by a tree.
Amazingly, all six people in the house
survived .  Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

Then the worst downpour ever recorded in the area, 6 - 10 inches of rain in just 24 hours, struck.  Following a night of unrelenting rain, at 3:10 p.m. on May 31, 1889, the South Fork Dam collapsed sending a 60 foot wall of water and debris down upon the residents of Johnstown.  The death toll was the largest loss of civilian life in American history until the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.  Wikipedia states the 1900 Galveston hurricane claimed more lives but the program producers must not have agreed.

As is usually the case when the uber rich are involved, the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club was never held legally responsible for the disaster.  The court ruled the disaster an "act of God" and denied the survivors any legal compensation.  But the club members, including Carnegie, were vilified in the national press.  (The court ruling was considered so irresponsible a number of states adopted Rylands v. Fletcher, a British common-law precedent establishing the liability of a landowner with a reservoir for flood damage if the reservoir is not properly maintained.)

Anyway, since then, Carnegie had worked very hard to restore his reputation.

So back to the Homestead Strike of 1892 - just before the confrontation, the union had requested a wage increase in their collective bargaining agreement that was due to expire on June 30, 1892.  Frick countered with a 22% wage decrease and proposed the elimination of a number of positions and that the steel works would become non-union after the expiration of the current contract.  Pointing out that the union only represented the skilled workers at the plant, Carnegie exclaimed the union was "an elitist discriminatory organization that was not worthy of the Republic!"

Frick eventually relented a little and offered a slightly better wage agreement. But the union refused the offer so Frick shuttered the mill the night before the contract expired and built a barricade around the mill to keep workers from returning.  The workers took possession of the mill anyway, determined to prevent operation by strikebreakers imported by Frick.  So Frick called in the Pinkertons to route the workers from the mill using any means necessary.

I had no idea that the Pinkertons at this point in history actually had more firepower than the entire United States military.  When the program explained this and I reacted with incredulity my husband pointed out "Where do you think we got companies like Blackwater?!!"

The Homestead riot / drawn by W.P. Snyder after a
photograph by Dabbs, Pittsburg. Image courtesy of
Wikipedia.

When I further researched this statement, I found it to be absolutely true.  Apparently the Pinkertons by the 1890s had more agents than there were soldiers in the U.S. Army and were often hired by late 19th and early 20th century businessmen to infiltrate unions, block strikers, keep unionists out of factories and even recruit "goon" squads to intimidate workers.  It sounds more like the mob than a reputable security agency!

Anyway, 300 Pinkerton agents armed with Winchester rifles fired on the striking workers at Carnegie's Homestead Steel Works, killing  nine of the men and wounding 23 others.  Seven Pinkerton agents were also killed.

As the program recounted these turbulent events I was totally riveted.  The production was punctuated by short reenactments by professional actors playing the different industrialists in crucial scenes of their careers.  These cut scenes were just enough to draw you into their world and make the program seem more of a drama rather than a documentary.

I would highly recommend this series as a way to understand not only the history of the individuals portrayed but the evolution of industry in the United States and how it impacts our lives today.  I would especially encourage any American history teachers out there to incorporate this series into their curiculum to provide their students with an unvarnished look at the foundations of American capitalism.

Related articles

• How Andrew Carnegie Turned His Fortune Into A Library Legacy

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Review: Medieval Lives: Birth, Marriage, Death (DVD)

A history resource article by Mary Harrsch © 2014

The producers of the excellent history DVD "She-Wolves: England's Early Queens", Athena Learning in association with RLJ Entertainment, have released another fascinating look at life in the Middle Ages entitled "Medieval Lives: Birth, Marriage, Death".  Once again, Cambridge professor Helen Castor guides us through a wealth of information based on first person accounts from such sources as the Paston letters, a collection of over 1,000 documents kept as a family archive by three generations of the Paston family of Norwich.

In the first episode, I was surprised to learn that if a woman died in childbirth before the infant had emerged, the child was removed from the mother before burial because, although the mother had been baptized, the child had not and with the taint of Original Sin could not be buried in sanctified ground.  I had never heard this before and Dr. Castor was quick to point out that this requirement was often ignored whenever possible.
For this reason, the church actually granted midwives the authority to baptize a child in the birthing chamber.  If the midwife thought there was a real possibility the child would imminently die, they could perform the rite as soon as the head emerged in a last ditch effort to save the child's soul.  If the mother died first, midwives were supposed to cut open the woman and extract the baby so it could be baptized, even if it would not ultimately survive.

Childbirth in the Middle Ages often involved the use of
a birthing stool.

Medieval paintings and books, like the 12th century Trotula texts, based in part on the research of the ancient Greco-Roman physician, Galen, as well as newer Arabic medicine, illustrated the practice.

"In Antiquity, midwives (called, in Greek, maiai, and in Latin, obstetrices or more generically medicae) were the normative caretakers of both the gynecological and obstetrical needs of Greek and Roman women.  Medical writers from at least the third century BCE to the sixth century CE composed texts specifically for midwives’ use, and there is ample evidence (such as inscriptions and artwork) that midwifery was professionalized in larger urban communities.  Ancient writings on gynecology and obstetrics conceived of the ideal midwife as not simply literate and competent in medical theory, but as responsible for all disorders of the reproductive organs as well as routine assistance in childbirth.  In the scope of her practice, at least, she was fully the equivalent of modern obstetrician/gynecologists and not simply a birth attendant." - Women and Gender in Medieval Europe, An Encyclopedia

But between the 6th and 13th centuries the literate midwife of antiquity disappeared and the task of aiding women in childbirth was relegated to neighbors and kinswomen, most without any training except experience.  This changed somewhat when the church, concerned about the need for emergency baptism of a newborn, initiated a formal licensing process, first in France, then spreading throughout northern Europe and England.

When I looked up the Trotula texts, I found that, although the original texts were produced in Latin, by the 13th century, editions in Anglo-Norman and Old French were circulating.  By the 14th and 15th centuries, there were translations in Middle English, German, Irish and Italian as well.  If the popularity of these texts was not all attributable to purient male interest, this would indicate women must have been among the literate practitioners using the manuals since male physicians were not generally allowed in medieval birthing chambers until late in the 15th century.

Dr. Castor also mentioned that, in addition to the church-licensed midwives,  objects made of black jet, amber or coral that were thought to have mystical properties were used in the birthing chamber, including parchment birthing girdles (belts) embellished with prayers.

In episode two, Dr. Castor moved to the next significant life event, marriage.  Dr. Castor pointed out that medieval marriages before the 13th century amounted to little more than a declaration between a man and a woman that could occur anywhere, often in taverns or even out in the countryside.  Witnesses were not required, although if one of the participants might want to contest the validity of the marriage at a later date, witnesses would make such a task easier.

Weddings in the Middle Ages were often a raucous affair held in the local
tavern.  A Peasant Wedding by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1566-1569.  Image
courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Parents of prospective brides and grooms would often negotiate the exchange of property if a marriage should take place and would arrange for couples to formally meet with the intention that a marriage was deemed suitable between them but parents could not force a marriage.

Parents of prospective couples would negotiate the property that was to be
contributed to the bride and groom to help them establish their
new household.

Royal marriages were usually arranged by diplomats so I was surprised to learn that the famous poet, Geoffry Chaucer, actually arranged the marriage between King Richard II and Anne of Bohemia.  The negotiations took five years which was probably a good thing since Richard II was only ten years old when he ascended the throne.

The informal nature of marriages became a real problem in 1066 when William the Bastard, later known as William the Conqueror, was recognized as the son and heir of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, even though his mother, Robert's mistress, was a daughter of a tanner.  When William's first cousin once removed, Edward the Confessor, died childless, William became a claimant to the throne of England.  Of course, William invaded England and became King after defeating King Harold II at the battle of Hastings.

William the Conqueror was able to overcome his illegitimate
birth to become the King of England because his father,
the Duke of Normandy formally recognized him as his son.
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Although legates from Pope Alexander II ceremonially crowned William during the Easter court of 1070, giving the church's "seal of approval" to William's reign, the church recognized the danger in having such important matters as succession reliant upon such a casual relationship.  By the 12th century, the church produced and distributed missales that prescribed correct marriage rituals including the practice of calling the banns, a proclamation about an impending marriage so anyone could raise issues of canonical or civil legal impediments to the marriage.  The banns had to be announced on three successive holy days with at least one weekday in between.  The binding of women's hands during the marriage ceremony was also prohibited and the ceremony itself had to be one of reverence  - obviously not a bawdy affair in a tavern!

As consumation of a marriage was grounds for disputing its legitimacy, the church implemented the "putting to bed" ceremony whereby a priest would proceed with the couple to the site of the marriage bed and sanctify the bed before the couple was left to "perform their duty".

15th century woodcut depicting a bishop blessing the marriage
bed of a newly married couple.  Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

At this point, the church's position of sex being a necessary evil for procreation transformed into a viewpoint where sex was considered a compulsory requirement of marriage.  The church declared that neither partner in a marriage could withhold sex if it was requested.  Hmmm...I wonder how they enforced that!

Where the church once viewed sex as a necessary evil, in the

12th century the church proclaimed sex as compulsory for

married couples.  Sculpture by Properzia de Rossi, female

Renaissance artist.

Castor also described the medieval marriage ceremony in which both the groom and bride were covered with a veil.  After the ceremony the priest would kiss the groom who was then allowed to kiss the bride.
Again the Paston letters provided insight into the actual practice of marriage in an upper class family. Margaret Paston, a member of the first generation of the nouveau riche family, had a daughter named Marjorie who fell in love with the son of one of their estate bailiffs (overseers).  Of course this marriage was considered totally inappropriate to Margaret who banished Marjorie's love interest from the estate.  But Marjorie claimed the couple were married having privately pledged their love to each other.  Margaret appealed to the bishop of Norwich.  I was surprised to learn that the bishop actually sided with the couple despite Margaret's wealthy influence.

Fresco depicting a bedroom scene circa 1320 CE

So if marriage was so easy to declare, how easy was it to dissolve?  Not very, apparently.  Dr. Castor gives a number of examples from the historical record, not the least included the attempts of the exasperated King Henry VIII in his quest for a male heir.  Although Henry VIII tried to prove his marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon, his brother Arthur's widow, was invalid because he was too closely related, the list of reasons the church would consider also included a finding that one of the two partners in a marriage was already married (due to an informal declaration), was insane or that the husband was impotent.  Husbands who were charged with impotency had to submit to the ministrations of a court appointed panel of prostitutes.

After 17 years of marriage, Henry VIII asked for an 

annulment from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, claiming

the marriage was invalid because he had married his brother's

widow.  In medieval law, a marriage extended the familial 

relationship to all family members of both marriage partners.  

Therefore Catherine would have been viewed as Henry's 

sister.  Catherine claimed her first marriage was never 

consumated so such a relationship had never existed.

Multimedia sculptures by artist George S. Stuart.

Photographed at the Museum of Ventura County by 

Mary Harrsch  © 2006.  

 

Surprisingly, adultery was not grounds for annullment.  Dr. Castor explains the case of Edward IV's physician who was a blatant (and public) philanderer.  Although the wife called witness after witness, many soldiers and physicians on campaign with the adulterer, the church granted only a decree granting the wife the right to live apart from him and, I assume, obtain financial support from him for her separate household.  They were still considered married and could not officially marry anyone else.

The last episode of the series dealt with what constituted a "good death" in the medieval world.  Much of this segment discusses the ramifications of the official introduction of the concept of purgatory in the 12th century. Although prayers to assist the dead in their journey to the afterlife have been performed since ancient times, the recognition of a more formalized practice that includes provisions in wills for the cost of ongoing prayer performance was a doctrinal innovation at that time.

A medieval vision of assisting souls in purgatory with indulgences 

I was aware of the sale of indulgences, a document granting a petitioner a defined period of forgiveness of sin, as a means for the Church to obtain wealth in the late Middle Ages.  But I was unaware that the introduction of the concept of purgatory led to the wealthy leaving huge bequests to establish and/or maintain chantries where clerics would officially perform the prescribed prayers to aid the deceased wealthy in the newly defined transitory location.

I was also surprised to learn that King Henry VII, known as a tight-fisted miser, left huge sums in his will to the college of priests at Westminster Abbey to say masses "forever" for his soul.  This massive transfer of wealth eventually triggered King Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries to recapture much of his kingdom's treasure.

At least one beneficial development followed, however.  Hospitals were built as part of this effort to ensure that one's soul would speed through purgatory.  Medieval hospitals not only cared for the sick but fed the poor as well and gave the common people an opportunity to demonstrate their piety.  One loaf of bread given to the poor was equivalent to helping one soul in purgatory.

At Henry VII's funeral a nobleman dressed in

the king's armor rode into Westminster Abbey

and right up to the high altar.  There he dismounted

and removed the armor then dedicated it to god.  

This armor is that of the king's son, Henry VIII.

Photographed at the Tower of London by 

Mary Harrsch © 2006

 


As in the episode on marriage, Dr. Castor described medieval funerary rites.  The most dramatic funeral service again involved King Henry VII.  Dr. Castor said a nobleman dressed in Henry VII's finest armor rode into Westminster Abbey right up to the high altar.  There he removed the armor and offered it to god.  Henry VII may have ruled through fear and blackmail but he definitely knew how to make a classy exit!

The DVD is lavishly illustrated with beautiful closeups of stained glass, paintings, tapestry and sculpture and is definitely a valued addition to my collection of history DVDs.  It is scheduled for general release on August 26, 2014.

Related articles

• Pride, Ecumenism, Contraception, and Divorce
• Historian Helen Castor: ancestors' superstitious, gory and unsophisticated attitudes live on

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!