A good king, but not a nice guy
November 1st was not a historical date to remember fondly. In 1180, the fifteen year old Philippe Capet was crowned as king of France. While French historians give him high marks as a medieval monarch for greatly expanding French territory at King John’s expense, there was nothing warm or lovable about the guy, as his unhappy Danish queen, Ingeborg, and the French Jews could attest; he actually believed in the blood myth. Henry’s sons, Hal, Richard, and Geoffrey, attended the coronation, and Hal kindly helped to balance the crown on the youthful king’s head as it was too heavy for him. I can’t say I find Philippe very likable; he almost went to war against his own mother, was bailed out by Henry II, and we know how he repaid Henry’s generosity.
November 1st was a bad day for English Jews, too. In 1210, John put a high tallage of 60,000 marks upon the country’s Jews and those who could not pay were arrested and imprisoned until they scraped up the money.
November 1st was a bad day for English Jews, too. In 1210, John put a high tallage of 60,000 marks upon the country’s Jews and those who could not pay were arrested and imprisoned until they scraped up the money.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Anduine
(new)
Nov 01, 2018 11:25PM
Which actually makes me think - not for the first time - can great kings be "nice guys"? I really doubt it. As an absolute monarch you hardly ever can afford to be nice, if you want to stay in power and expand your territory. You had to have this, brutish or at least hard streak to survive and "flowrish". All absolute rulers had it, even the ones we admire.
reply
|
flag
In light of last week's headlines we have come a long way in many areas since 1210 but sadly, in many others, not very far at all.
So true, Gary. Certainly anti-Antisemitism remains with us, although at least it is no longer being preached from the pulpit as it was in the MA. Many people like to believe that we live in a more evolved age, but I think they are deluding themselves. That is a very interesting observation, Anduine. Henry II is a good example. Henry was a great king. I d not think he had a cruel streak the way John did. But he was capable of being quite ruthless when he felt it was necessary. Stephen, on the other hand, was not respected by his lords because they felt he was not capable of that sort of royal ruthlessness. Ironically, he'd committed a very ruthless act in a fit of unusual rage, ordering the hanging of the entire garrison of a rebel castle. But his subjects did not believe he had the strength to exercise his mastery over other men, and perhaps the most damning verdict on his kingship came from a contemporary chronicler, who said he was "a mild man, gentle and good, and did no justice."
I always thought that Philippe Capet as the French version of Richard the Lionheart. In my opinion, both of them are somewhat overrated as kings, terrible husbands, horrible brothers, famous by war, and conveniently inconstant Catholics. Richard was a good son, but he was also Eleanor's favourite - it's almost as if he owned that to her. I had a few discussions with friends about these two - they were said to hate each other, maybe because they could see a faint reflection of themselves?
Sharon Kay Penman's Blog
- Sharon Kay Penman's profile
- 4037 followers
Sharon Kay Penman isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
