Very nicely written, but "subverting feudal legislation" has to go -- it doesn't really make sense. If there was such a thing (whole different topic -- I don't think it's a valid expression), then baronial courts would have epitomized it, I'd have thought. The Barons were just abusing the hell out of their power, which had incresed dramatically as a result of the war between Stephen and Matilda. JHK
The point is that feudal legislation was the legislation of the time, ad hoc and rough justice that it was; I agree that the phrase is somewhat oxymoronic but what was going on here was a major shift in power between State (in the form of the King) and the Barony, and this is characterised in reversal by the radical reforms which Henry II introduced. This is a watershed phase in English history. The barons weren't just abusing their power, they were refocussing power to their own ends, a quiet revolution. Henry wasn't going to have that... But if you feel you have to rephrase it, please do. I couldn't think of a better way of explaining a fairly complex phenomenon without the aforementioned oxymoron... sjc
- The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think there is such a thing as "feudal" legislation. There's just whatever existed at the time. Feudal implies something having to do with personal allegiance and oaths, but some of the people who benefited from Henry's changes wouldn't have had much to do with that. Plus, I'm pretty sure that, if you look at English vs. French vs. Imperial legislative and judicial systems (which many people would call feudal), you'd find that they were all dramatically different. <sigh> I'll sleep on it and see what I can come up with ... <the Carolingianist sighed again, wishing the Middle Ages weren't such a pain in the arse>. It's times like these that I just want to do bios on the Arsenal back four JHK
The Arsenal back four are certainly less complicated: but some of Eeyore's tackles are positively mediaeval in their lateness... :-) sjc
- Hey <she said, chuckling mightily> -- Eeyore is one of my heroes! Anyway, it looks like Mr Campbell is getting set to inherit the nickname... and a certain other person who wears bright red boots seems to be making up for age and lack of speed with a Chelsea-like aggressiveness...JHK
Is it "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" or "troublesome priest"? I thought the latter, but bouncing both of Google (a legitimate form of historical research, as I'm sure you all know) produces more of the former. Only by a margin of about 2:1, though. Come to think, it's rather remarkable that Henry II spoke modern English.
- So what did he say? -- Paul Drye
- Probably neither since Henry II's first language was French... sjc
- Perhaps "turbulent" and "troublesome" are the same word in French?
- According to Simon Schama in A History of Britain, the actual quote was "What a parcel of fools and bastards have I nourished in my house that not one of them will avenge me of this one upstart clerk!". As Simon says, it was a roar of Plantagenet anger. - bruzie 10:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
---
The article says that Henry had his son Henry the Young King be crowned king in 1170, yet it also states that he continued to reign himself until 1189. So what is going on? Were they co-kings, did they govern different areas, or what?
They were sort of co-kings. It was an attempt to make sure that Henry's heir would suceed him, something he had no guarantee of when he was young. RickK 01:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Who were the five sons of Henry and Eleanor? I can only find four: Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, and John. Daughters were Matilda and Eleanor. RickK 01:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
---
the following was posted in the Eleanor of Aquitaine discussion area:
Italic textI am very dubious about the link concerning the tapestry designs from the Dame à la Licorne series. The formatting of the web page is a huge hindrance to readability. As I am not one to judge French visual puns I cannot make comment on the first half of the page where deciphering of the tapestries is described. However towards the end of the page the author begins to go off on a tangent concerning the ?sang réal", that is the myth that Christ bore heirs and that the ?blood? of Christ ran through the reigning houses of Europe. This coupled with a virtually Gnostic theory of history of the Italians leads me to doubt much of anything the author says about these tapestries. - Frank BurdettItalic text Someone with a bit more knowledge than I actually removed the link there, should it not also be removed here? --Frank Burdett 03:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
---
I was under the impression that Beckett more likely *fled* england? -as
- Er...when? When he left in 1164? Or do you mean was actually not killed but instead fled? Adam Bishop 15:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
William Marshal
There is an error here about William Marshal. It said during the rebellion that he stood by the side of Henry II, this is not true. He sided with Henry the Young King. In reply to the question above, "William" was the first child of Henry and Eleanor. Died around the age of 3 however. Henry(the young king), Matilda, Richard(coeur de lion), Geoffrey, Eleanor, Joan, and John(Lackland) were the following children, in order. -THM
- Agreed, Marshal was the protector of the Young King and stood by the Young King, against Henry. Imagine haveing to choose sides, the father or the son: "Cursed be the day when the traitors schemed to embroil the father and the son" (William Marshal). --Stbalbach 20:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
|
