We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
The Polish Wikipedia about the battle of Kowal (1327) says (translation mine, maybe in some places duke and prince are not used correctly):
In 1327 Władysław I Łokietek [the Polish king] begun the process of subordinating the [Duchy of] Masovia from Poland. The successful process was giving to Łokietek a chance of unifying subsequent Polish lands, increasing access to Teutonic [Order] boundaries and improving relations with allied Lithuania. The divided Masovia was then ruled by: Rawa [Mazowiecka] prince Siemowit II, Czersk prince Trojden I and Płock prince Wacław, who on January 2, 1326 in Brodnica signed a defence treaty with Teutonic knights. The treaty was directed against aggressive and claim-ful politics of the Polish king and was to guarantee by the Order the independence and integrity of Mazovia. The fact of negotiations with the Teutonic Knights was not accepted by Władysław Łokietek. After refusal of homage to the Polish king by the rulers of Mazovia, in July 1327 Polish troops invaded the Płock principality of Wacław, while the Lithuanians of Gediminas - lands of Siemowit II. In accordance to the treaty, the Teutonic [Knights] came with an assistance to the Płock prince.
(The war was eventually won by Poland, but Masovia managed to stay independent).
Of course I understand that such a type of war was common those days, and there could have been many different casi belli, but the question is whether a king (or other ruler) could demand a homage from anybody?
The Wikipedia article about vassals is very brief, so is Britannica article, but also other sources do not say it was obligatory to have a senior (lord) and the system is shown as some sort of a contract.
(Please do not include examples where a ruler became a vassal because of a lost war).
I will start by making two suppositions (OP: please correct me if this is not what was meant).
- The question is relative to a specific time (Middle Ages, approx. 10th to 14th centuries), place (Western Europe) and society (feudalism).
- The term "prince" may be taken in a broad sense, to include other nobles with some local power base (barons, counts,… )
The term "homage" can have two different meanings. According to the Collins English Dictionary, in a feudal context we can have either
a. the act of respect and allegiance made by a vassal to his lord. See also fealty
b. something done in acknowledgment of vassalage
This perhaps covers rather well the two aspects of the relationship between major and minor lords, from the point of view of the minor (dependent) party. On the one hand, he owed the major lord due respect, perhaps externalized by a solemn promise. On the other, he needed to come to his lord's assistance when required - which was a reciprocal undertaking by both parties.
This dual nature of the minor lord's obligations is perhaps reflected by the formal act of allegiance. In 12th- and 13th-century Catalonia, the rather ceremonious form of homagium ore et manibus was well established, and has been documented in Valencia at least until the middle of the 14th century. The minor lord promises his fealty in words "ore", but also places himself symbolically into his hands "manibus".
Back to the question:
- Could a ruler demand homage from an independent prince, in the sense (b) of military help? I think not, if the prince was truly independent of the ruler, i.e. did not depend on the ruler's military might to conserve his domain and position. This happened often, when minor vassals on the periphery of a king's area of influence were far enough from the king's center of power and had accumulated enough local influence. For example, the counts in late 8th- and 9th-century Marca Hispanica were in theory vassals of Charlemagne and his descendants, but in practice were very much independent.
- Could a ruler demand homage, in the sense (a) of showing respect and allegiance? This is perhaps a more complex question. The legal basis of the vassal's position was in the feudal system the territory that the major lord had given him. If he openly flaunted the terms of his relationship, he would in essence be undermining his own legal right to hold the land and the people. This is quite different from inventing some suitable excuse so as not to reply to the lord's summons for men (a bad harvest, local troubles needing attention,… whatever). I am under the impression the prince would have needed to feel very sure of his own position to risk going that far.
 Culturas Políticas Monárquicas en la España Liberal, Mateu Rodrigo Lizondo, Universitat de Valencia. ISBN: 8437093252
Could a ruler demand a homage from an independent prince? - History
Government is said to be a necessary evil. The saying appears to be without merit. For can anything be at once necessary and evil? True, all governments have had a history of evil-doing, more or less. However, it does not follow from this experience that their good is indistinguishable from their evil. Governmentsassuming a proper limitation of their activitiesare necessary and not evil. Their evil begins when they step out of bounds.
7 things you didn’t know a medieval princess could do
Many fairy tales tell us that princesses spent years confined to towers waiting for knights to rescue them, little more than decorative pawns to be traded by their father. But the lives of historical princesses paint a very different picture. Here, through the lives of the five daughters of Edward I, historian Kelcey Wilson-Lee shares seven lessons on what it was to be a real medieval princess…
This competition is now closed
Published: March 21, 2019 at 9:13 am
Medieval princesses could command a castle
In 1293, Eleanor, the eldest daughter of Edward I, married Henri, the ruler of the small province of Bar in present-day northern France. Four years later, Henri was fighting near Lille when he was captured by hostile French forces and taken as a prisoner to Paris. With her husband imprisoned, responsibility for securing the county fell to Eleanor.
As the 14th-century writer Christine de Pisan wrote, a princess should “know how to use weapons… so that she may be ready to command her men if need arises”. Eleanor marshalled what remained of Henri’s army to defend her home – the castle at Bar – and wrote to her father and other allies to raise money for Henri’s ransom, successfully safeguarding the inheritance of her young children.
Almost 30 years earlier, another princess named Eleanor held Dover Castle against her own brother, King Henry III, for several months during the uprising led by her husband, the rebel baron Simon de Montfort. After the decisive battle at Evesham, in which Eleanor’s husband and eldest son were killed, the tireless princess nevertheless fought on, bringing in a siege engine to defend the castle and using its coastal position to ship her younger children abroad with money for their upkeep.
Medieval princesses could marry for love
Joan of Acre, Edward I’s second daughter, first married at the age of 18 to a much older man – Gilbert de Clare, a 46-year-old divorcee who was a troublesome magnate within her father’s kingdom. When he died five years later, his widow found herself extremely eligible: young, proven fertile (as a mother of four), and in sole possession of one of England’s most valuable estates. Coupled with her royal connections, the princess proved a strong temptation to powerful European rulers and could easily have found herself consort at a rich court far from England.
But Joan had fallen in love, with a dashing but landless young man in her deceased husband’s retinue named Ralph de Monthermer. Determined not to be parted from her lover, Joan married Ralph in a secret ceremony that contravened her vow of homage to her father (rich widows who held land directly from the monarch needed the king’s permission to remarry, since their new husbands would be empowered through control of their estates). The king was livid, but eventually he forgave his headstrong daughter, who managed to keep her estates and independent income, as well as the man she loved.
They could read and write
Early in the 14th century, Mary of Woodstock, the fourth daughter of Edward I, commissioned a history of the reign of her father. It was written in the Anglo-Norman dialect of French that Mary spoke, suggesting that she intended to read the book herself. Its close focus on key moments in her life seem almost autobiographical.
Mary was not alone in enjoying reading. Although ‘literacy’ in medieval England meant fluency in the reading and writing of Latin (which almost no one except priests, some nuns, and a tiny number of secular men and women were able to achieve), Mary and her sisters were taught to read by their educated mother, Eleanor of Castile. They had enough Latin to recite major prayers, having learned to sound out their letters practising on psalters and books of hours bought for that purpose in Cambridge. And they had much greater familiarity with Anglo-Norman romances, histories, and devotional works, mostly read aloud in small groups with other women.
Even more rare than reading was the ability to write the challenging letterforms of a medieval scribe, but princesses might also have devoted themselves to this exceptional skill. Purchases of writing tablets recorded over several years show that Mary’s eldest sister, Eleanor, was practicing the art of writing during her late teens.
Medieval princesses would travel – constantly
Intrigue and tragedy brought Elizabeth, the last of Edward’s daughters and a widow at only 18, home to England from Holland in the summer of 1300. Desperate to see her father again, Elizabeth journeyed from the Low Countries to London and then north as far as Carlisle, where she and the king were reunited. The journey of sea and land took two months of near constant travel, but Elizabeth, like her sisters, was accustomed to the extraordinary distances covered from years of itinerant living.
The English court in 1300 had yet to become settled. It was nothing at all like the palace-based courts at Versailles and Whitehall in centuries to come, and more resembled a travelling circus with the king at its centre. Up and down the countryside the monarch, his wife, their children (from the age of about eight), and vast retinues – of knights, clerks, and servants of widely differing rank – travelled in convoys on horseback and cart. Often they stopped only a night or two in royal castles, aristocratic houses, and monasteries before moving on. They moved to check in on estates and to display their majesty to their subjects throughout the country.
Princesses like Elizabeth travelled extensively with their parents, but also independently with their own households. They would have been perched fairly comfortably atop a saddled, narrow-backed palfrey horse, or less pleasantly inside a fixed-wheel carriage, over-stuffed with velvet cushions that did little to dampen the jolts inevitable on rutted dirt roads.
They could build castles
Not long after joining her husband’s court in Brussels in the late 1290s, Edward’s third daughter, Margaret, needed a plan. Her husband, Jan, the Duke of Brabant, was conducting very public affairs with a succession of mistresses whose influence threatened her own. Margaret needed an alternative court – a forum away from Jan’s mistresses, somewhere she could preside that was desirable enough to tempt powerful courtiers and even her husband. None of the existing ducal houses were grand enough to suffice, so she built her own on the site of an old hunting lodge at Tervuren in Belgium.
The building of castles is most commonly associated with conquest. The first motte and bailey castles in England appeared in William the Conqueror’s reign, and Margaret’s father constructed a commanding sweep of fortifications across north Wales following his capture of that principality. But Edward’s construction programme imposed more than just military might on the Welsh landscape his castles featured delicate gardens, decorative stonework, and elaborate symbolism, and their grandeur was testimony to the king’s power even far from London. Margaret, who visited the Welsh castles as a child, learned from her father and created at Tervuren a palace that affirmed her own position within Brabant.
Medieval princesses could gamble
In the summer of 1306, Mary of Woodstock undertook a pilgrimage at her father’s expense to the great shrine of St Mary at Walsingham. But though the princess was a nun – veiled at Amesbury Priory at the unusually early age of six – this was no ascetic contemplative journey. Over the course of one month, as they travelled from Northampton to Walsingham and back to Amesbury, Mary and her lady companions were entertained by groups of minstrels and ate lavish feasts with many courses of game, roast meats, and fish. In total, they spent more than the sum needed to fund a knight’s household for a whole year.
But despite the king’s generosity, three times during that month Mary was forced to send messengers to her father begging for significant cash sums. The nun had a taste for gold (and ran up astronomical debts to London jewellers), but her greatest decadence was losing money on dice. Medieval aristocrats gambled on games of skill such as chess, and on games of luck such as dice. Many, like Mary, fell into trouble paying off large debts, but few could rely on the resources of the crown to save them – the princess-nun was lucky that her father proved happy, time and again, to cover her losses.
They could defy the king
Joan of Acre had never been afraid of her father. As a youth, she quarrelled with her father’s clerks, demanded a larger household when she learned she had fewer paid retainers than her sisters (and consequently appeared less influential). She also petulantly missed a sister’s wedding – seemingly to prove that she could – soon after her own marriage brought her greater independence. As an adult, she married against her father’s wishes (and her own vow of homage), and rarely repaid her large debts to him.
But her most direct snub to the king’s authority may have been in July 1305, when Edward confiscated the estates and income of his son, the future Edward II, to reprimand the prince for his behaviour and troubling favouritism of the courtier Piers Gaveston. Unabashed, Joan sent her own seal to her brother, instructing him to use it to pay for whatever he wanted. The gesture was a direct challenge to her father, and few could have gotten away with such insolence. But the old king was used enough to his daughter’s headstrong behaviour and, once a chastened Prince Edward returned his sister’s seal, nothing more is mentioned of the incident.
Kelcey Wilson-Lee is a historian and the author of Daughters of Chivalry: The Forgotten Children of Edward I (Picador, 2019)
- In today's world you must be a FreeMason in order to gain power or fame
- In order to join the Masons, you must be recommended and then go through various ceremonies in which you repeat several oaths of secrecy you cannot break or you will be killed.
- Freemasons have several secret hand signals that are known to each other through which they communicate with each other. You can investigate these on your own but here's a chart I found
- Most people high up in Entertainment, Music, Media, Education, Politics, and Religion are FreeMasons and you'll see several in the video doing their hand gestures.
- At least 14 of our US Presidents were FreeMasons
- Kennedy was assassinated because he intended to reveal their secrets
- Freemasons are connected and a part of the Knights Templar, the Jesuits, Zionists, and the Illuminati
- Freemasonry is Satanism in disguise
- Freemasons believe that Satan is the light bearer, good and pure, and that God is the oppressor and Jesus is the False Messiah
- They believe we are currently in hell and that when the New Age comes, Satan will rule and God will be defeated.
- They believe Satan was brave and noble to reject God's rule and cause a war in heaven from which he fell and took 1/3 of the angels with him
- 90% of Freemasons do not know any of this. Only when you reach the high degrees are you informed that you are really worshiping Satan
- The highest degree you can reach in FreeMasonry is 33 degrees. 33 because Satan cast down 1/3 of the angels when he fell.
- The Church of Satan was founded by a 33 degree mason
- Charles Darwin was a FreeMason
- The hand signal circled above in red is the sign of 666
- Freemasons consider people who are not masons to be vile, ignorant, and profane. They hate Christians
- Freemasonry is a sex cult. The all seeing eye (one of their symbols) represents the male organ
- They erect obelisks all over the world. The obelisk is the male organ
- Nature is their moral god. Do as thou wilt is their prime commandment
- Free Masons are into child sacrifice and abuse. They sacrifice children to their god Satan. They do this with blood rituals and torture children and the innocent.
- Over 8 million children go missing each year in the world and are never found
- Free masons hate Christianity and Democracy
- The Papacy and the British Monarch are all Masons
- Our US $1 is covered with Masonic symbols all over the back.
- The New Age and new agers was started by FreeMasons.
- Billions of people need to die in order for the New Age to come to pass
- They believe Jesus is evil because he denies human nature and burdens people with sin, while Lucifer sets people free from sin
- One of the symbols of Masonry is the 2-headed eagle, which represents 2 opposing sides. One good, one bad, but both lead to the same outcome.
- Order out of chaos. They create the problem, blame someone else, then swoop in to solve the problem when the people beg them to help (Think Covid and the vaccine)
- They have been planning the New World Order for a long, long time.
- The World Economic Forum Symbol is a 666 symbol (have to see in video)
- Google's Logo is also 666 (hidden in plain sight)
- Founder of the KKK was a Freemason
- Mormonism was founded on Freemasonry
- Freemasonry embraces Buddhism and Zionism (not Judaism)
- They embrace and believe in the Noahide laws, which may sound good on the surface, but one of them is an anti-idol worship law which includes death by decapitation if you break it. (Jesus is considered an idol by them)
- Why has Chanel created a Smart Guillotine?
- Every leader of the world has signed the Noahide laws
Well done Marylu, well done. I remember some of the things you posted that i had long ago forgot. To all the Masons,women of The Eastern Star,Demolays for young boys,Rainbows for young girls and any other organization associated with the Masonic Lodge. You can come out of it. You don't have to be enslaved by the oaths you took. There is forgiveness in Christ. Just ask him to forgive you. He is just,true and faithful to forgive you of all your sins and cleanse you of all unrighteousness.
Hi Terry! Yes, you are absolutely right. It's never too late to come out of this Satanic cult. Thank you for reminding me to say that. Jesus is always waiting at the door for anyone who turns to Him!! Blessings to you and your wife!
I was raised in the SBC, and my father was a Freemason when I was little. He left it at some point. My mother doesn’t believe there is anything wrong with it to this day. She also loves DJT, and got “saved” by Billy Graham. He subtly taught works salvation. Apparently, the wives are used to recruit the husbands, as apparently the man has to ask to join.
I used to see paranormal activity in our home when I was little. Apparently, no one else did, nor was I believed.
Walt Disney was also a Freemason, and his whole organization is evil.
All I can say is Wow, Cheryl. You have had first hand knowledge of the evil in your own home. Thank you also for the reminder of Walt Disney. I just added him to the list.
Mary, here are 3 more good videos on the Convergence of end time signs. Of course I only try to view Biblical based watchers for link-ing purpose.
Thank for for such an excellent post on the Masons. You did a great job of covering the very long video! So much Biblical convergence, so much happening everywhere, it makes ones head spin! TITUS 2 V 13!! MARANATHA!!
thank you, Ron. I've actually watched the first 2 videos already. Great minds, eh? I'll be reading the article by lynn soon. We have grandkids today. :-) Thank you so much for the original article on the Masons! I pray that it and this post wake some people up. Maranatha.
Ron, THANK YOU for sharing that incredible video. What an eye opener.
Sorry, but should have been a break in-between, the 2nd link and the 3rd link of
Hi MaryLu, wow, I have known about the dangers/cross-purposes with Christianity of freemasonry for some time, but this is truly eye-opening. I looked up the Barbara Bush reference to try to verify parentage--unbelievable. There are some other organizations to be cautious of as well--though not as insidious as masonry. When I was in college I joined a sorority. After becoming born again, years later, I became more and more uncomfortable with that membership. I did not stay active after college, but was still a member of a group that bases its membership on exclusisvity. I remember how I hated the post rush party discussions of potential candiates as to their "worthiness" or not. I was not even a Christian but extrememly bothered by this. Then I remembered the initiation ceremony, that includes paying homage to a patron goddess. I eventually wrote headquarters to disallow my membership explaining that as a Christian I could not support the organization. It is so easy to be innocently duped. But as you point out, the higher one goes in freemasonry, the more enlightened they are. There can be no "innocent" participation at that point. It's downright scary to read the list of famous masons, past and present. How in the world is one to know whom to trust? Jesus alone.
Thank you Judy. Yes, it is so very easy to be deceived today! That's why Jesus and the Apostles warned us over and over! Wow, I didn't know that about sororities. That's very scary.. esp that so many of our young are taking those vows to other gods. I pray every day for people to wake up.. esp "christians" caught in Satan's web of lies. We were warned but so many are asleep. The Lord Jesus wins and will be victorious!
All so very true. My father was a freemason and made it to the top of his local lodge. There was so much secrecy. All those chants brought mental illness and sexual abuse into my home. A few years ago, after reading Derek Prince's book "Blessing or Curse: You can choose," I vocally repented for my father's role in the Masons, and my life changed instantly. I had never experienced such a flood of the Holy Spirit as I had that day. It was like He had been pushing against the curse over me, and once it was lifted, He could finally get inside where He wanted to be. I laughed so loud for thirty minutes straight, uncontrollably. The book took me through so many curses that are put on us through the generations before us and ones that we put on ourselves without realizing it. Freemasonry is one of them, but a big one. It's possible that breast cancer comes from this curse because of the oaths taken over the chest. Also, check out the Georgia Guidestones. Planted in rural Georgia with the freemason plan for depopulation for all to see in many languages. It's horrifying.
Katy, Wow. So you really do have first hand knowledge of this. I'm so very sorry your father was so high up on the Mason pyramid. Did he ever get out? I'm not surprised it brought demons and curses into your home. I have also read Derek Prince's Blessings or Curses book and gone through the list too! Derek was/is my mentor. I have nearly every sermon and book he's produced. Anyway, I'm not surprised at your Holy Spirit laughter! That's amazing. We serve such a loving God! And yes, I have seen the Georgia Guidestones, I think they said they want the population under 500 million. Seems like they are starting that depopulation now. By the way, how is your son? Email me privately if you wish.
I took your advice about biting my tongue, and it worked well. :) On Sunday, he asked if we would like to attend church at his original non-denominational church he had been going to for two years. I said sure, then learned after that he went to two services at the two churches. But that was nice of him to consider us. but get this. we showed up to church, and the pastor spoke on the Tribulation and rapture. God is so good! My whole family who won't listen to me, got an ear-full. :) I continue to be amazed at His unfolding plan. I don't need to take all this on myself. Just trust Him.
That's fabulous news, Katy!! Wow. I love how God works. It's always in the most surprising way. Nope. it's not on you. God's got this and He has your son too!
This comment has been removed by the author.
You did an EXCELLENT job on this. Thank you for all your work and time.
Thank you, Beckie. Blessings!!
Hi MaryLu you have done your research on this one for sure. And I'm guessing some folks aren't happy to hear who has partnered with such evil corruption. I know that out of all those Pastors that were mentioned, MANY have been saved. So satan's plans backfired there. Most of the denominational churches are drawing a thin line with TRUTH and so many lukewarm at best. But there are the true seekers that have to come through this way to find Jesus and except the WORD as Holy and Inspired by God. Like the ENTER NET and the WORLD WIDE WEB, what satan has meant to trap us with, God has used it for TRUTH AND GOODNESS with all of us who seek HIM. The Free masons under satan's influence remind me of a terrible fast spreading dark cancer and to look into them, it's very intricate, revolting and huge. Unbelievable sickness and take over of the world. Satan draws people in such a subtle way and what appears to be the truth and innocent, before pulling the rug out from them. The visions in my mind of those people and the evil HELL they are truly living in, is more graphic than my mind can handle anymore. Praise Jesus it is finally almost over. I don't know if my stomach can handle the five hour video as my knowledge of this is enough to know where it's all coming from. Hell on Earth for those that live in such filth.
I have a cousin that is very involved as a producer in Hollywood and I knew him as a child. I have seen Holly HELL take over his soul. Pictures of him the past few years I see no light in his eyes only darkness. He sold his soul for money and fame. And sacrificed his children and wife too, seeing where their lives are all going. Nothing of Jesus. With Israel surrounded by all the enemies of the Ma-Gog war, I think what is building with satan for his global AC take over, can be left behind, as this Bride is feeling the tug UP WARD. And God help those Left Behind, when they see who has taken over this world. We are so close now. I love that you are exposing the truth here for all those that NEED to know how deceived we've been by these so called "leaders" of the "faith" and the govt's. May the Lord keep us from these deceptions as we purify ourselves for our final HOME with HIM for all eternity in Jesus. love you Sweet Sister for your honesty. As someone told me recently, they thanked me for my "raw" honesty. This one is definitely "raw." But purely out of the deepest love and care for those who are willing to listen.
Well said, Cillie! I add my Amen to all you posted. Blessings and hugs to you and yours! See you soon in the clouds!
Thank you so much Mary Lu for exposing the truth about masons. it goes all the way back to our founding fathers and to this day, most of our presidents have been masons as are so many in congress and judges. The Hegalian Dialectic is being played out pitting right against left, conservative against liberal and they are all masons, Jesuits, playing their role to bring in their false "light bearer" Satan. So much deception and we were warned. You are truly amazing and I just wish more people read your blog! God bless you and keep you!
Thank you, Susan! The Hegalian Dialectic! That's the term I was searching for! I couldn't remember it. Yes, they are all playing a part.. good and evil, leading SO MANY astray. Including most of my friends and family. ALL leading to Satan. But yes, like you said, we were warned and warned and warned. If you knew me, you would not find me amazing. LOL God is just using this crazy romance author for His purpose. And I'm thrilled to be His servant. :-) God Bless you!!
From the outbreak of war to the Treaty of Brétigny (1337–60)
Hostilities in the Hundred Years’ War began at sea, with battles between privateers. Edward III did not disembark on the Continent until 1338. He settled at Antwerp and made an alliance (1340) with Jacob van Artevelde, a citizen of Ghent who had become the leader of the Flemish towns. These cities, in their anxiety to ensure the continued supply of English wool for their textile industries, had rebelled against Louis I, count of Nevers, who supported Philip. Edward also won the support of several rulers in the Low Countries, such as his brother-in-law William II, count of Hainaut, and John III, duke of Brabant. He also made an alliance (1338) with the Holy Roman emperor Louis IV (“the Bavarian”). Edward besieged Cambrai in 1339, and, on October 22 of that year, a French and an English army came within a few miles of each other at Buironfosse, without, however, daring to join battle.
A similar encounter occurred near Bouvines in 1340, after an English army supported by Flemish militia failed to take Tournai. Meanwhile, at sea, Edward’s ships defeated the French fleet, which had been reinforced by Castilian and Genoese squadrons, in the Battle of Sluis on June 24, 1340. This made it possible for him to move troops and provisions to the Continent. After this victory, the Truce of Espléchin (September 25, 1340), brought about by the mediation of Philip VI’s sister, Margaret, countess of Hainaut, and of Pope Benedict XII, temporarily suspended hostilities.
The scene of operations shifted in 1341 to Brittany, where, after the death of Duke John III in April, the help of the French and English kings was invoked, respectively, by Charles of Blois and by John of Montfort, rival claimants for the succession. The troops of both kings invaded the duchy, and their armies were confronting each other near Vannes by December 1342 when the legates of the new pope, Clement VI, intervened and managed to negotiate the Truce of Malestroit (January 19, 1343).
At this stage neither king was anxious to press the conflict to a decisive battle each hoped to achieve his purpose by other means. They embarked on an intensive war of propaganda. Edward tried to enlist French support for his claims by means of proclamations nailed on church doors, while Philip cleverly exploited to his own advantage all the traditions of the French kingship and lost no opportunity for stressing his claim to be the lawful successor of his Capetian ancestors. Edward’s efforts were partly successful in fomenting rebellions in western France (1343 and 1344). These, however, Philip crushed with severity. Edward resumed the offensive in 1345, this time in Gascony and Guyenne, since the murder of Jacob van Artevelde (July 1345) made it difficult for the English to use Flanders as a base for operations. Henry of Grosmont, 1st duke and 4th earl of Lancaster, defeated a superior French force under Bertrand de l’Isle-Jourdain at Auberoche (October 1345) and took La Réole. In 1346 Henry repelled at Aiguillon an army led by John, duke of Normandy, Philip’s eldest son.
How the Royals Wore Their Love and Respect at Prince Philip’s Funeral
The queen has a brooch for every occasion—even the funeral of her husband, Prince Philip. The queen’s mourning clothes, though a stark contrast to her usual pastel ensembles, came accented with a special accessory that paid homage to her partner of 73 years.
According to Express, the queen wore her Richmond Brooch on Saturday. It’s one of the largest in her collection, the paper reported, and was a wedding present for her grandmother Queen Mary’s nuptials in 1893. Usually the Queen wears the pin, made of diamonds, with a hanging pear-shaped pearl drop. But that feature was removed for the funeral.
The sparkling accessory lit up the queen’s all-black look, and matched her face mask—also black, with white trim around the edges. The monarch sat alone through the funeral, which was pared-down due to the pandemic, like so many others.
But the queen was not solitary in her statement jewelry. Kate Middleton also brought her own. Actually, it came from the queen: the Duchess wore a four-strand pearl necklace borrowed from Elizabeth’s collection.
Today reports that it was made with pearls gifted from the Japanese government. Princess Diana wore the choker to a dinner in 1982.
Watch: The most powerful images from Prince Philip's funeral
Kate’s matching pearl-drop earrings, which peeked out from underneath her netted black fascinator, were also from the Queen’s jewelry box. For the somber affair, the Duchess was able to sneak in a dash of glamour with her veil and Roland Mouret dress.
One photographer caught Kate right before she exited her vehicle, and she stared straight into the camera’s lens. Such determined, direct eye contact isn’t something the Duchess is known for, but her look set the tone for a dignified, if very different, type of royal funeral.
As had been previously reported, the royals did not wear military dress. Following their father and grandfather’s coffin, Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Prince William, and Prince Harry were all seen wearing medals, a compromise reached after an internal debate in the royal family about the appropriate dress for Harry and Andrew.
Camilla Parker Bowles wore pearls and a brooch that also dripped with significance. As Hello noted, she showed up in the so-called Bugle brooch, which honored Philip’s tenure as Colonel-in-Chief of The Rifles, an infantry regiment of the British Army.
For his final public engagement last year, the Duke of Edinburgh passed on his position to Camilla, who is his daughter-in-law. So it’s a significant and symbolic jewelry choice for the day.
Princess Eugenie, a new mother who named her infant son after Philip, wore a netted veil to the ceremony. It was similar to Kate’s, though Eugenie paired hers with an oversized black headband.
Unlike the other women, Eugenie did not wear much jewelry, save for a simple pair of earrings. She did, however, wear a rather trendy Gabriela Hearst trench coat, per the Daily Mail.
Penny Brabourne, Countess Mountbatten, a close friend of Philip’s and fellow equestrian, was one of the 30 guests who was not a direct family member. (She is married to Philip’s godson, Norton Knatchbull.) She wore a black pillbox hat and fitted suit, along with a crystal fern brooch.
Of course Meghan Markle, who is pregnant, was unable to travel from Los Angeles with Prince Harry. She might not have been there in person—the former Duchess reportedly watched from home—but Meghan ensured a part of her was present. Per The Daily Mail, Meghan left a handwritten note on a wreath left at the chapel.
The royal family did not speak at the event. Emotions were expressed in other ways. Some of it was literal, like when Sophie, the Countess of Wessex wiped away tears in the chapel. Some of it was more symbolic, like the queen sitting alone while bidding goodbye to her husband. Or William and Harry chatting after the ceremony, two estranged brothers brought together through grief.
And much of it was through fashion: small nods to history, and hand-me-downs representing the continuation of longstanding royal tradition.
Watch: The wonderful life of Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh
Edward I, King of England. Born 1239, died 1307. Reign 1272 – 1307
One of the most effective English kings, Edward was also one of Scotland's greatest adversaries. Through his campaigns against Scotland he would come to be known after his death as 'Scottorum malleus' – the Hammer of the Scots.
Intelligent and impatient, Edward proved to be a highly effective king. The reign of his father, Henry III, was marked by internal instability and military failure. Upon succeeding to the throne on 1272 Edward did much to rectify these issues. He managed to control and placate the unruly English barons and unite them behind him.
A learned scholar, Edward also took great personal interest in matters of administration and government and introduced reforms and ideas learnt whilst staying abroad in the family-held territory of Gascony. He also made great use of his Parliament – a strategy that helped maintain stability in the country and, more importantly for Edward, brought in regular sums of money to enable Edward to pursue his ambitions. Edward also devised far uglier means of raising money.
In 1275 Edward issues the Statute of Jewry that persecuted the Jewish population of England and imposed severe taxation on them. Proving both lucrative and popular, Edward extended this policy further. In 1290 the Jews were expelled from England – minus their money and property. The money raised from this dark practise was used to fund his his ambition to be overlord of the Scotland and Wales.
As a younger man Edward forged an impressive reputation as a man of action. Domestically and abroad Edward proved himself as a soldier and a leader of men. In 1266 Edward received international accolade for his role in the 8th and 9th Crusades to the Holy Land where he helped secure the survival of the beleagured coastal city of Acre.
It was while returning from the Crusade that Edward learned that his father, Henry III, had died and that he was now the King of England. Ambitious and impulsive, Edward wasted no time in enforcing his will on his neighbours.
As an ominous precursor for his plans for Scotland, Edward attacked Wales.
Edward attacks Wales
During the 1250s Edward's father, Henry III, had mounted military campaigns in an attempt to control and dominate Wales. After a series of disastrous defeats Henry was forced to negotiate a peace that saw the Welsh prince Llywelyn ap Gruffydd extend his territories into England. Henry also had to recognise the royal status of Llewelyn as Prince of Wales. Llywelyn in turn was to acknowledge Henry as his overlord.
Edward had experienced these failed campaigns first hand as part of his father's retinue and was determined not to repeat the same mistakes. Using the pretence of Llywelyn's refusal to pay homage to him in 1274 Edward raised a sizeable army and invaded Wales. Llywelyn was defeated and stripped of his territories.
In another uncanny foreshadowing of events to come in Scotland Edward's complete conquest of his neighbour was to be thrown into doubt by a courageous campaign for liberation.
In 1282 Llywelyn's brother Dafydd sparked a rebellion to rid Wales of English dominance. With Edward caught off-guard the rising had initial success. The death of Llywelyn in battle turned the tide for Edward however. Soon after Dafydd was captured and executed. Without strong leadership the Welsh rising failed.
To consolidate his stranglehold, Edward built a series of impressive castles across Wales (such as Caernarfon Castle) and in 1284 Edward issued the Statute of Rhuddlan that effectively annexed Wales and made it a province of England. The title Prince of Wales was handed to Edward's eldest son, Prince Edward (later Edward II) – a practise that continues to this day.
Edward plots against Scotland
In 1287 Alexander III, King of Scots, died suddenly after falling from his horse at Kinghorn. The succession crisis that followed presented Edward with a golden opportunity to expand on his conquest of Wales.
With the absence of an immediate heir, the Scots throne looked likely to pass to Alexander's infant granddaughter, Margaret (the 'Maid of Norway') – the daughter of the King of Norway.
Rival Scottish claims for the right to succeed as the next monarch led to the Norwegians approaching Edward. Edward planned to wed his own son Edward to Margaret and thus control Scotland via matrimonial rights.
The Scots nobles, fearful of such a takeover, agreed that Margaret should be queen – but at the expense of Edward's marriage plans. Events were thrown into turmoil when Margaret died en route to Scotland.
Edward the Kingmaker
With the succession crisis still looming large and rival claimants still in fierce competition the Guardians of Scotland needed to find someone to adjudicate the claims and help break the deadlock. The perfect candidate was Edward.
As an internationally respected king and a recognised expert on legal matters of state Edward was a logical choice. With the benefit of hindsight this may seem to be the worst of decisions until you consider that England and Scotland had enjoyed an extended period of relatively peaceful co-existence. Claims of English overlordship over Scotland were seen to be a thing of the distant past. The Guardians were in for a very rude shock.
In a series of political manouverings Edward insisted that he be recognised as feudal overlord of the Scots before a new Scots king be appointed. The Guardians refused but Edward, the legal expert, got his wish.
While there were two rival claimants (Robert Bruce and John Balliol) Edward's role was adjudicate. If there were more than two then, under medieval law, only a judge could be expected to pronounce a verdict. As a judge Edward had to have authority – and in royal matters authority meant overlordship.
Edward found other claimants for the vacant throne to put pressure on Bruce and Balliol. The plan worked and one by one they came forward to swear allegiance. From that point, with all principle claimants as his vassals, it did not matter who became king. Ultimately Balliol took the crown.
Edward's subsequent heavy-handed treatment of the Scots (demanding taxes and soldiers to help fight his wars) led to the first inklings of rebellion.
In 1295 the Scots signed a mutual aid treaty with France (later to be known as the Auld Alliance). This pact with Edward's enemy brought about swift retaliation from Edward.
Edward destroyed Berwick, slaughtering thousands of the town's inhabitants, before pushing deeper into scotland. The Scots met Edward in battle at Dunbar but was decisively beaten. repeating his accomplishments in Wales, Edward had now conquered Scotland.
In a similar tactic to the those he employed in Wales Edward stripped the country of its treasures and symbollic icons of nationhood as easily as he stripped Balliol of his status as king. Most notably the crown jewels and the Stone of Destiny was removed to be sent back to England. The message was clear – there was to be no other king in Scotland but Edward.
Edward's campaigning, however, had left him seriously short of funds. He could no-longer afford to build costly castles to control his new domain as he had in Wales.
Wars of Independence
Just as he had with the welsh, Edward had underestimated the Scots. Within a year rebellions to English control broke out – notably led by Andrew Murray in the north and William wallace in the south of the country.
Edward left the matter of crushing the rebellion to his representative, John de Warenne, rather than take control personally. At Stirling Bridge Warenne's force was routed by Wallace and Murray's army.
Edward marches north and took control of his army and defeated Wallace's army at Falkirk. Wallace was later captured and executed. Once again Edward assumed that Scotland was conquered.
An interesting point to note is that the expense incurred in subjugating the Welsh meant that the same pattern of conquest and castle-building was not open to Edward. The success of that campaign could not so easily be emulated.
Enter the Bruce
Waiting in the wings for Edward was Robert the Bruce. Bruce's ambition to be king was finally realised in 1306. News of the coronation of a new Scots king brought Edward's army northward.
A series of swift victories saw Edward victorious and the new King of Scots on the run. Once again Edward assumed the job was done.
News of Bruce's return with a handful of followers was given scant regard. Edward would rue this inattentiveness. Within a year Bruce had defeated larger English forces and regained control of swathes of Scotland. A minor rebellion had become a sizeable rising. Not even the capture and execution of key Bruce supporters (including members of Bruce's own family) could reverse the tide.
In Bruce Edward had met a formidable, ruthless and determined opponent – a man cut from the same cloth.
A Job Worth Doing.
Despite ill health and advancing years Edward, Hammer of the Scots, marched his army north to rid himself of Bruce once and for all.
In 1307, with Scotland in sight, Edward died at Burgh-on-Sands. The campaign for the conquest of Scotland passed on to his son, Edward II. The Scots were relieved to find that the brutal and effective military prowess displayed by the father were absent in the son.
In 1314 Bruce routed a larger English force at Bannockburn. Recognition of Scotland's sovereignty came years later in 1328.
On his death bed accounts credit Edward's dying wish to be that his bones be left unburied as long as Scotland was unconquered. Mercifully this request was ignored. As arguably, England's greatest king (and Scotland's greatest enemy) his temporary interment would have lasted an awful long time.
In the Defense of The Prince
feared than loved "? In any context, this could look like remorseless however, the deeper the meanings are reached once with a glance at Machiavelli's morals and arguments achieved. Inside this essay, I will discuss the deserves, shortfalls and contravene arguments of the philosopher political philosophy and system. Also, I will be able to check up on Machiavelli's personal history furthermore to grasp abundant any what and the way drive this argument. It is scarcely scarily eerie to relish the philosopher
Could a ruler demand a homage from an independent prince? - History
The ancient regal system of Tonga (or the Friendly Islands) evolved into a tri-partite system of three rulers, styled the Tu'i Tonga, the Tu'i Ha-a Takala'ua and the Tu'i Kanokupolu. All three shared the same descent from the creation through the Tu'i Tonga line, they branched out later.
The Tu'i Tonga was the lord of the soil, and enjoyed divine honours. He took no part in the civil government of the country and could not arbitrate in any civil quarrel, but could absolve sinners who had broken the taboo. The Tu'i Kanokupolu held temporal power, wielding absolute power over the life and death of the people. Only a son, or grandson of a Tu'i Tonga, by a daughter of the Tu'i Kanokupolu, could succeed as Tu'i Tonga. The Tu'i Tonga could only have two children by one wife, she being taken away from him after the birth of their second child. The eldest daughter of the Tu'i Tonga, held a higher spiritual rank than her father and was styled the Tu'i Tonga Fefine. She was forbidden from marrying any mortal, but may if she chose, have children by irregular unions. Her eldest daughter was styled the Tamaha, the highest dignity on earth, to whom both her mother and grandfather, had to pay homage.
Tonga was once a powerful Empire ruling faraway lands, including Samoa, parts of Fiji and the Cook islands, Niue and Fotuna. The people of Fotuna breached convention by killing the sacred Tu'i Tonga Takala'ua ca. 1535. This act of sacrilege was a watershed in Tongan history. His son and successor, Tu'i Tonga Kau'-ulu'-fonua, decided to separate the religious and secular functions of his office by dividing power between himself and his half-brother. Mo'ungamotu'a, accordingly became the first Tu'i Ha-a Takala'ua, responsible for military and civil affairs, and government of the people. The Tu'i Tonga thereafter retreated from civil government by becoming the divine head of state, a position not unlike that of a constitutional monarch who was also head of a state church.
The Tu'i Kanokupolu dynasty springs from Ngata, son of the 6 th Tu'i Ha-a Takala'ua Moungatonga. Ngata was appointed as the first Tu'i Kanokupolu by his father and delegated with temporal rule over the people ca. 1610. The office was not strictly hereditary, but was usually assumed by the nominee of the previous holder, and then confirmed by the nobles. Appointments seem to have alternated between members of the Tu'i Kanokupolu and Tu'i Ha-a Takala'ua lines.
At first, authority was divided on a regional basis between the Tu'i Kanokupolu and Tu'i Ha-a Takala'ua. However, by the later eighteenth century, the Tu'i Kanokupolu completely eclipsed the latter.
During the late eighteenth century, a regional nobleman entitled Finau-'Ulukalala made himself supreme on Vav'au, establishing his own independent kingdom on that island. He deposed or expelled several successive Tu'i Tonga and Tu'i Kanokupolu. Eventually, his position became so strong that he refused to pay even nominal obeisance to the Tu'i Tonga. He then refused to a any successor to be installed after the death of the incumbent in 1810. The sacred Tu'i Tonga title was left vacant for seventeen years.
This state of affairs continued until the ruler of Ha'apai Taufa'ahau' Tupou', began to extend his authority over the other islands. On the death of his father-in-law, Finau-'Ulukalala in 1833, Taufa'ahau' became ruler of Vava'u. He was converted by Wesleyan missionaries and was baptised as Sia'osi (George), in honour of King George III of Great Britain. He repudiated all but his favourite wife, who took the name of Salote (Charlotte) in honour of George III's Queen. Succeeding his uncle as Tu'i Kanokupolu in 1845, he then began to consolidate his position over Tongatapu and the other outlying islands. This was a long and painful process, which pitted Christians against tradistionalists and Protestants versus Roman Catholics.
George persuaded the hereditary ruler of Niu'atuputapu to cede his sovereignty in 1862. Three years later he had himself installed as Tu'i Tonga on the death of his longtime adversary. George then set about melding the islands into a single kingdom, formally merging the ancient titles of Tu'i Tonga and Tu'i Kanokupolu with the Crown, along with his other titles of Tu'i Ha'apai and Tu'i Vava'u. He converted all his people to Christianity, outlawed serfdom and slavery, promulgated a constitution, established parliament, implemented land reforms, expanded education and negotiated treaties with the major European powers. Towards the end of the century the wars and revolutions that had plagued Tonga were a distant memory. The King reigned over a realm at complete peace, crime was rare and murder unknown. The only public forces were a ceremonial guard without ammunition and an unarmed police force. His long and glorious reign ended in 1893 with the old King mourned throughout the Pacific, as its very own 'Grand Old Man'.
King George Tupou II, succeeded on the death of his great grandfather. Although a gifted composer and lyricist, with wide ranging artistic and aesthetic interests, he was no statesman. He left the cares of state in the hands of a Wesleyan missionary called The Rev Shirley Baker. Baker soon made himself a virtual dictator, energetic and inventive, but prone to drive sane bureaucrats to distraction. Ever short of funds, his native inventive genius devised a special brand of accountancy to manage the kingdom's financial affairs. Administrative chaos, financial mismanagement, dissaffection and baying creditors resulted with an inevitable British intervention. Baker was forcibly removed from the islands in 1899, government expenditure curtailed, the size of the cabinet and parliament trimmed. When these reforms still failed to restore financial calm, the King was persuaded into accepting a British Protectorate in 1900. These were grim days for Tonga, a series of natural disasters compounding made-made ones and devastating the population.
George II expired in 1918, leaving his throne to his eldest surviving daughter, Queen Salote. She was to reign for forty-seven glorious years. Her long reign would witness two World Wars and saw the islands steadily making progress in all fields. The population slowly recovered and expanded to the point where it became a burdon. Economic growth, good government and financial regularity became the envy of far larger realms. For half her reign, her constant helpmate and partner being the unflappable Prince Tungi, Prime Minister and Prince Consort. The Queen's government was personal and she was widely interested in all things. She took a close personal interest in the welfare of all her subjects as individuals, noble or commoner, rich or poor, young and old. During this time, through her wonderful charm, kindness and serene dignity, Tonga became famed the world over. The tiny realm, becoming the "Friendly Islands" in name, as well as, in fact. The old Queen died universally lamented at home, throughout the islands of the Pacific, indeed throughout the world.
King Taufa'ahau' Tupou' IV, Queen Salote's eldest son, inherited her enviable mantle in 1965. Highly educated in Tonga, New Zealand and Australia, he served his mother as a Minister of the Crown and as Prime Minister for over two decades. Five years later he steered his country to full independence, free of British protection and into a hostile world.
Tonga's years since 1970 have not been easy ones. A burgioning population has placed immense pressure on resources and forced many to emigrate. Falling commodity prices have affected revenues and forced the country to look to other means of generating income. Relations with Taiwan were abandoned in favour of the PRC and with Cuba, both in the hope of attracting more foreign aid. Foreign investors from Hong Kong and the US have been invited to the country with generous incentives. Yet many of these ventures have proved illusory, sharp-witted foreign business types taking advantage of the more easygoing Tongans. The traditional system of government has come under fire, though mostly from abroad. These troubles have not been helped by an almost continuous barrage of vicious criticism and mocking superiority spewed out from certain sections of society in Australasia. Often, these have been delivered with a veiled undercurrent of that ugly haughtiness now mercifully unfashionable in other Western democracies. A Commonwealth friend, even a small erring one, deserves to be treated with sympathy and undertanstanding. Her problems should be discussed friend to friend, not by harranging from the rooftops or by bullying by powerful neigbours. Tonga's contribution during the great struggle of the Second World War was greater, per head of population, than any other. Those loudly claiming that honour for themselves should be reminded of that. Blessed in abundance with very lucrative natural resources of all kinds, they ought to also sympathise with the problems of one who has been given none.
RULES OF SUCCESSION:
The 1875 Constitution specifies that the succession is confined to the descendants of King Sia'osi Taufa'ahau' Tupou' [George Tupou' I], through his son Crown Prince Tevita 'Unga, his son Prince 'Uelingatoni Ngu and through their legitimate issue. It established primogeniture, males succeeding before females. In the event of failure of lawful descendants, the succession passes to the lawful heirs of Ratu Enele Ma'afu'o-Tu'itonga, cousin and brother-in-law of King George Tupou' I. A Prince Regent may be appointed in the event that the sovereign has not reached the age of eighteen.
STYLES AND TITLES:
The Sovereign: By the grace of God, King of Tonga, with the style of His Majesty.
The consort of the Sovereign: Queen of Tonga, with the style of Her Majesty.
The Heir Apparent: Crown Prince, together with the style of His Royal Highness.
The younger sons of the Sovereign: Prince, with the style of His Royal Highness.
The grandons of the Sovereign in the male line: Prince, with the style of His Royal Highness.
The daughters and grand daughters of the Sovereign in the male line: Princess, with the style of Her Royal Highness.
(Note: it is usual for the sons and grandsons of the sovereign to be granted traditional noble titles, after they come of age).
After the promulgation of the 1875 Constitution, King George Tupou I created 20 ancient chiefly titleholders into hereditary nobles, adding a further 10 in 1880. 6 matapule titleholders were similarly honoured. King George Tupou II granted two noble titles during his reign, and Queen Salote created one. During the current reign, King Sia'osi Taufa'ahau Tupou IV has advanced two existing hereditary nobles to the rank and title of Baron, primarily as a means of ensuring proper recognition by foreigners. The styles enjoyed by these individuals are as follows:
Barons: The Right Honourable Baron (hereditary title) of (territorial seat).
Wives of Barons: The Right Honourable Baroness (husband's hereditary title) of (husband's territorial seat).
Sons and daughters of Barons: The Honourable (given names) (father's hereditary title).
Other nobles: The Honourable (hereditary title) in English, or Nopele (hereditary title) in Tongan.
Wives of nobles: The Honourable (given names) (husband's hereditary title).
Sons and daughters of nobles: The Honourable (given names) (father's hereditary title) in English, or Ko 'Eiki (given names) (father's hereditary title) in Tongan.
(Note: members of the Privy Council, Cabinet Ministers, Judges and island Governors also enjoy the style of The Honourable, while holding office).
Kings and Princes of Wales
Although the Romans invaded Wales in the first century AD, only South Wales ever became part of the Roman world as North and Mid-Wales is largely mountainous making communications difficult and presenting obstacles to any invader.
After the Roman period the Welsh kingdoms that emerged were the ones that commanded stretches of useful lowland, especially Gwynedd in the north, Ceredigion in the south-west, Dyfed (Deheubarth) in the south and Powys in the east. Powys would always be at a disadvantage however, due to its close proximity to England.
The great princes of medieval Wales were all westerners, mainly from Gwynedd. Their authority was such that they could wield authority well beyond the borders of their kingdoms, enabling many to claim to rule all Wales.
Below is a list of the kings and princes of Wales from Rhodri the Great to Llywelyn ap Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, followed by the English Princes of Wales. After the Conquest of Wales, Edward I created his son ‘Prince of Wales’ and since then, the title ‘Prince of Wales’ has been given to the heir apparent to the English and British throne. HRH Prince Charles currently holds the title.
Sovereigns and Princes of Wales 844 – 1283
The Prince of Wales’ Feathers
(“Ich Dien” = “I serve”)