Early Anglo-Saxon sources are considered scarce compared to later ones, and we know little of that time period if not for Bede and his book ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English People’, and the help of archaeological discoveries.

I’d like to learn more about Anna (or Onna) of East Anglia. He was known as a devout king and was killed in battle by Penda of Mercia, after which East Anglia fell under Mercian control. That was probably inevitable given how smaller East Anglia was than Mercia. Interestingly, all of Anna’s children were canonised after their deaths.

In the comments section for my recent post about the opening of the tomb of Edward II in 1855 and what it revealed I received an interesting comment from burntcoffee48 that I haven't been able to let go. Here it is:

If they were to exhume Edward II, could they perform an osteological or isotopic analysis?

I did not know the answer. I had no idea what such an analysis could reveal. But I got very curious. So I looked into it and here's what I found out. Disclaimer: By no means do I consider myself anything resembling an expert on any of this after simply having seen a couple of youtube videos and read a few articles. I could be very wrong and probably am on many points, so please correct me if I've misunderstood something! Much obliged.

Osteological analysis:

This is a way to determine a biological profile, individual features or characteristics, cause of death and the age of the body.

Broadly speaking, determining age in juveniles is a very accurate and precise process. In adults, it's a lot more challenging. Once the skeleton has formed and fully fused, there are no more defined stages of development. What we find in adults is gradual sequence of degeneration that typically starts in the early 30's. The joints start to decay and show signs of joint disease and overall we're able to start detecting these changes in morphological analysis. The key is to focus on immobile joints (such as the pelvis or the auricular surface at the back where the pelvis joins onto the sacrum, or the ends of the ribs where they meet at the sternum in the midline). That's because if a person was very active (as Edward demonstrably was until at least 1327) the mobile joints will decay much quicker than those of a very sedentary person. Together, these methods can provide us with an age at death range which is around about the nearest 10 years.

According to the contrasting theories Edward died either in September 1327 at age 43 or around 1340/41 at 56-57.

However, this is still not a precise science. Working with a contemporary Mexican sample, scientists tested published age standards for the sternal end of the fourth rib. Their analysis of 444 males and 60 females with known ages at death ranging from 17 to 92 years revealed that the published standards underestimated age. In addition, they found that in males, inaccuracy increased with advancing age as had been commonly assumed previously. Bugger.

In other words, an osteological analysis would be helpful, but shouldn't be considered decisive in determining his age at death.

Isotopic analysis:

Isotope analysis is defined as a method that examines isotopic ratios in dental and skeletal materials to obtain information about an individual's diet, geographic location, and life history. We're naturally mostly interested in what the analysis could tell us about geographic location, as one theory argues that Edward II lived and died in England, while the other claims he lived out his life in northern Italy (duration 13+ years).

Dental anthropology is useful in forensic, bioarchaeological, and paleontological contexts. Teeth are the single most abundant element in the fossil record due to the relative durability of enamel. Tooth enamel is less susceptible to diagenesis, the process of chemical change and decay in organic remains following death, so isotopic evidence from teeth has the potential to produce more reliable results than can be obtained from bone. Because the mineralized portions of teeth are 20–25% higher than that of bone, they may very well provide a more faithful representation of the acquisition and integration of isotopes into body tissues during life. As with other elements of the skeleton, the most frequently studied isotopes in teeth include carbon, nitrogen, and strontium, which reveal information about diet (carbon, nitrogen) and geographic location (strontium).

However, unlike bone, teeth do not remodel during life. This means that there is a somewhat truncated window for the uptake of isotopes into the teeth in relation to the rest of the skeleton. Isotopic information from the teeth is particularly useful in regard to the area where individuals were born and spent their early years but will not reflect changes in diet and environment that may have taken place later in life.

Isotope ratios in bone however reflect changes in diet and location as ratios turn over in bone roughly every ten years. I find this very interesting indeed.

As an great example of how isotope ratios in the dental and skeletal materials could be helpful in determining the fate of Edward II, we should take a look at a study from 1995 conducted by Sealey et.al.

They analyzed the remains of five individuals from different temporal contexts and life situations from South Africa including two prehistoric Khoisan hunter–gatherers, two likely European soldiers, and a female in her fifties buried beneath the floor of a lodge where enslaved persons lived. Sealey and colleagues analyzed the isotopic ratios present in an earlier forming tooth (the first permanent molar or an incisor), the third permanent molar (which is the last tooth to form), and a sample from the skeleton, which as discussed above would have turned over within the ten years or so before death. This method of sampling from the remains ensured that they had samples from three points during each individual’s life. In this way, a sort of personal life history could be reconstructed for the individuals.

Results indicated that the hunter–gatherers had maintained a nearly consistent diet and residence during their lives, whereas the possible soldiers had distinct differences between the earlier and later isotopic signatures between their bones and teeth, as would be expected for one traveling and dying quite a distance from their birthplace.

Using this method, I believe we would be able to determine whether Edward II, buried in that tomb, lived out his life in Italy or not.

It's highly unlikely that permission for such an exhumation and analysis would be granted anytime soon but Edward II will be patiently waiting in his tomb. He's not going anywhere.

TL;DR:

Osteological analysis:

Inconclusive

Isotopic analysis: 

1st tooth: where the person was born

Last tooth: where the person grew up

Bones: where the person lived for his/her last years

Additional sources not embedded in the text:

Osteology

Isotope Analysis - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Skeletal Anatomy & Function - Human Osteology - Sheffield University lecture

My top 5:

1. House of Plantagenet (Kings Henry II to Richard II) (Founder: Geoffrey Plantagenet, father of Henry II and second husband of Empress Matilda)

2. House of Wessex (King Alfred the Great of Wessex to King Edward the Confessor of England)

3. House of Lancaster (cadet branch of the Plantagenet dynasty; Kings Henry IV to Henry VI) (Founder: John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward III)

4. House of York (another cadet branch of the Plantagenet dynasty; Edward IV to Richard III) (Founder: Edmund of Langley, the fourth son of Edward III)

5. House of Tudor (King Henry VII to Queen Elizabeth I)

We all know the greats - Henry V, Elizabeth I, Victoria, George VI. But which Monarch of British History, has either gone under the radar, or has an unfair reputation? I'd go with either Hywel Dda of Deheubarth, or Henry III of England.

I find it interesting in the new BBC series, King and conqueror they’re having Eddie Marsan play him like he’s slow and dimwitted, and completely under the thumb of his mother. I realize he wasn’t an overly ambitious king, but he was on the throne for over 20 years so he was probably doing something right. Thoughts on this portrayal ?

Alexander III was born on 4 September 1241 at Roxburgh, the only son of Alexander II and Marie de Coucy. His father died in 1249, leaving the boy to inherit the throne at just eight years old. He was crowned at Scone Abbey, where according to custom, the royal inauguration stone was raised high for all to see.

During his minority, government was dominated by rival factions of magnates. The Comyn family, led by Walter Comyn, Earl of Menteith, held the guardianship of the king and leaned toward cooperation with Henry III of England, while Alan Durward, the Justiciar of Scotland, pushed back and sought to assert Scottish independence. This tug-of-war often turned violent: at one point in 1255, Alexander was physically seized and controlled by Durward’s faction in order to neutralize the Comyns’ influence. The boy-king found himself a pawn in aristocratic feuds, but by his mid-teens he had begun to assert authority, balancing his great lords against each other and making it clear that he would not be ruled by either camp.

In 1251, at the age of ten, Alexander married Margaret of England, daughter of Henry III. The marriage was meant to secure closer ties between England and Scotland, but it also gave Henry an excuse to press old claims of overlordship. Henry even wrote to the Pope asking that Alexander not be crowned, on the grounds that the King of Scots was his vassal through his English estates. Alexander refused, supported by loyal Scottish magnates. By his teens, Alexander had begun to assert real independence from both his English in-laws and his ambitious regents. The Comyns, notably, were leaned favourably to the English. In spite of this, however, Alexander enjoyed a cordial, if not outright friendly relationship with his English in-laws, notably his brother-in-law the Lord Edward, later Edward I. Quite unusual for English and Scottish monarchs of the time.

One of the defining achievements of Alexander’s reign was the extension of Scottish authority over the Western Isles and the Hebrides, long under Norse influence. Following a failed Norwegian expedition led by King Håkon IV in 1263, which ended with the Battle of Largs, Scotland and Norway signed the Treaty of Perth (1266). Under its terms, Scotland gained control of the Hebrides and the Isle of Man, while Norway retained Orkney and Shetland. This marked a decisive step in consolidating the kingdom geographically.

In addition to territorial consolidation, Alexander actively bolstered Scotland’s trade. He built on the burgh system developed by his ancestor David I, granting new charters and privileges that strengthened urban autonomy and commerce. Under his rule, major ports like Berwick, Aberdeen, Perth, and Dundee flourished, exporting wool, hides, fish, and timber to markets in Flanders, northern France, and the German towns of the Hanseatic League.

The Treaty of Perth in 1266, by securing the Hebrides and Isle of Man, also gave Scotland control over key western sea routes, facilitating trade across the Irish Sea. Alexander encouraged the presence of foreign merchants, including Flemings and Germans, who brought capital and connections, and his steady governance allowed commerce to expand without the disruptions of war or noble rebellion. The resulting prosperity enriched the burghs and increased royal revenues, while keeping taxation on the countryside relatively light.

His marriage to Margaret of England strengthened ties across the border, and together they had three children:

1. Margaret (28 February 1261 - 9 April 1283). Named for her mother, she was close with her maternal uncle Edward I of England. The younger Margaret married Eric II of Norway in 1281, where she allegedly found him uncultured and "tried to cultivate Eric by teaching him French and English, table manners, and fashion." Margaret gave birth to their only child, a daughter named Margaret, in 1283, though unfortunately the new mother died soon after the birth.
2. Alexander (21 January 1264 - 28 January 1284). Named for his father. In or after 1275, he was made Lord of Mann which gave him revenue and a "quasi-royal position of dignity" while also assuring the people of the island that the recently established Scottish rule would be efficient. Much like his elder sister Margaret, Alexander enjoyed a close relationship with his uncle Edward. Alexander married Margaret of Flanders, the daughter of Guy, the Count of Flanders. Unfortunately, almost a year after the death of his sister, Alexander died unexpectedly. As his widow was not pregnant, this left Alexander's young niece the new heir presumptive.
3. David (20 March 1272 – June 1281). Likely named for his ancestor David I of Scots. Died in June 1281 at around eight or nine, depriving his father of an heir and the first among many family tragedies that would make up the last years of Alexander III's life.

With the death of Prince Alexander in 1284, and his widow Margaret not pregnant, King Alexander was left with only one obvious heir: his infant granddaughter Margaret of Norway. Within weeks of his son's death, Alexander III had all thirteen earls, twenty-four barons, and three clan chiefs come to Scone and swear to recognize his granddaughter as his successor if he died leaving neither son nor daughter and if no posthumous child was born to Margaret of Flanders. As Margaret was not pregnant, it was clear that the the Maid of Norway was the heir.

Alexander did marry again the following year to Yolande of Dreux, and their marriage was celebrated on 15 October of that year. Alexander's choice of a French bride may have been an attempt to further distance himself from the eyes of Edward of England, who knew full well of the precarious position Alexander was in. After hearing of the death of Prince Alexander in 1284, Edward offered his condolences to his brother-in-law. Alexander responded with "much good may come to pass yet through your kinswoman, the daughter of your niece, who is now our heir". The two kings seemed hopeful for an English match for young Margaret, and, at least personally, it reads as thoughts of a unified kingdom when Alexander explicitly says "our" heir. Such plans may have been in the mind of Edward when he arranged the match of his son Edward of Caernafon and Margaret of Norway years later.

On the night of 19 March 1286, Alexander intended to ride out to meet his new wife, as her birthday was the following day. Alexander ignored the pleas of his advisors and went out on horseback during a storm, intent on seeing his wife. Alexander’s body was later found off a cliff, his neck broken. It is generally assumed that in the dark and poor weather, his horse lost its footing, and Alexander may have gotten lost from his entourage. Yolande, allegedly pregnant at the time, also miscarried some time later. With this, his granddaughter Margaret was to be crowned the next ruler of Scots. However, the young girl died in 1290 at only seven, plunging Scotland into factionalism and leading into the Wars of Independence.

Alexander III’s reign is often remembered as a golden age of medieval Scotland: a time of territorial consolidation, peace, and prosperity. Alexander himself was shrewd and pragmatic, with a deep understanding of economy and skilled tactician. Yet his tragic death and the collapse of his dynasty marked the beginning of one of the most turbulent periods in Scottish history.

Two from Navarre, one from Portugal, one from Castile, and here is a problem.

Catherine of Aragon is the daughter of the Catholic monarchs Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, so she was neither from Aragon nor Castile.

Technically, she was from Spain, since the Catholic monarchs’ marriage joined the kingdom of Castile and Aragon together to make Spain.

Navarre is also Spanish territory nowadays, but Joan of Navarre was French. Her family, the House of Évreux, was a cadet branch of the House of Capet like the House of Valois.

Her great-grandfather (father of her father’s grandfather) was Louis, Count of Évreux, younger half-brother of Philip IV and full brother of Margaret of France, second wife of Edward I.

I am not sure about Berengaria, but her family, the House of Jiménez, controlled the kingdoms of Castile, León, Galicia and Aragon at some point (Though the family had long lost their grip on these kingdoms at the time of Berengaria’s birth), so she was kind of Spanish?

BTW Catherine of Braganza was a descendant of Alfonso, Duke of Braganza, illegitimate son of John I of Portugal, husband of Philippa of Lancaster, oldest sister of Henry IV.

Catherine of Aragon was descended from both Philippa and her younger half-sister, Catharine of Lancaster, who was Queen of Castile. Catherine of Aragon was named after Catherine of Lancaster.

Joan of Navarre’s sister-in-law (wife and queen to her brother Charles III of Navarre), another Eleanor of Castile (or Trastámara) was the paternal aunt of Catherine of Lancaster’s husband, and Joan was Catherine’s sister-in-law.

Because we have portraits starting from the Tudor era, so I will only talk about the Plantagenet Queens aka the medieval Queens of England because medieval drawings are crappy.

I initially thought that all Queens would be described as pretty because of, ya know, flattering, but it seems like it was not the case.

Side Note, the illustration was a Victorian portrayal of Philippa of Hainault, not Isabella of France.

Berengaria of Navarre was said to be beautiful.

Both Isabella of Angoulême and Eleanor of Provence were well-known beauties across Europe.

Side Note 2, Eleanor and her three sisters, Margaret, Sanchia and Beatrice of Provence were all beauties, and all four of them became Queens; Margaret was Queen of France by her marriage to Saint Louis IX of France, Eleanor was Queen of England by her marriage to Henry III of England, Sanchia was married to Henry’s younger brother Richard and became Queen of Germany/the Romans, and Beatric was married to Louis’ younger brother Charles and became Queen of Sicily.

Eleanor of Aquitaine was also a renowned beauty.

Isabella of France was said to be “the beauty of beauties... in the kingdom if not in all Europe.” By the way, her mother was said to be “plump and plain” in appearance so she definely took after her father in appearance. And personality as well.

Eleanor of Castile was not stated to be pretty.

Margaret of France‘s sister Blanche was said to be beautiful, and Margaret herself also seemed to be a beauty.

Philippa of Hainault was not stated to be pretty.

Anne of Bohemia was said to be a beauty, albeit not a great one.

Side Note 3, Joan of Kent, although only Princess of Wales and never Queen, was said to be a great beauty, the “Fair Maid of Kent” (Although this did not seem to be contemporary), and her son Richard II was said to be have a fair appearance.

Isabella of Valois, albeit a young girl, was stated to be pretty by English envoys. Catherine of Valois, Isabella’s younger sister, was said to be a beauty as well.

Joan of Navarre was stated to be beautiful, majestic and graceful. Keep in mind that she was 33 years old and a mother to 7 surviving children at the time of her marriage to Henry IV. Now that was something.

Margaret of Anjou was said to be attractive.

Elizabeth Woodville was stated to be "the most beautiful woman in the Island of Britain" with "heavy-lidded eyes like those of a dragon.”

Anne Neville was seemingly a beauty since the Nevilles were said to be a family full of handsome guys and pretty girls.

I know that Margaret was engaged before Charles of Burgundy to Peter V of Aragon, Constable of Portugal, although the marriage never took place as he died in 1466. Let's say that for whatever reason, her marriage to Charles the Bold doesn't go ahead too. Who would she marry?

The Coronation:

"The Duke then came to London, the archbishops, bishops, earls, and barons, and a vast multitude of knights, coming thither to meet him; by whose consent and advice he was consecrated and crowned King of England, at Westminster, in London, on the third day before the nones of September, being the Lord's Day and the feast of the ordination of Saint Gregory, the Pope (the same being also an Egyptian day), by Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was assisted at the coronation by Walter, Archbishop of Rouen; John, Archbishop of Dublin; Formalis, Archbishop of Trier; Hugh, Bishop of Durham; Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln; Hugh, Bishop of Chester; William, Bishop of Hereford; William, Bishop of Worcester; John, Bishop of Exeter; Reginald, Bishop of Bath; John, Bishop of Norwich; Sefrid, Bishop of Chichester; Gilbert, Bishop of Rochester; Peter, Bishop of St Davids; the Bishop of St Asaph; the Bishop of Bangor; Albinus, Bishop of Ferns; and Concord, Bishop of Aghadoe; while nearly all the abbots, priors, earls, and barons of England were present.

"First came the bishops, abbots, and large numbers of the clergy, wearing silken hoods, preceded by the cross, taper-bearers, censers, and holy water, as far as the door of the King's inner chamber; where they received the before-named Duke, and escorted him to the Church of Westminster, as far as the high altar, in solemn procession, with chants of praise, while all the way along which they went, from the door of the King's chamber to the altar, was covered with woollen cloth.

"The order of the procession was as follows: first came the clergy in their robes, carrying holy water, and the cross, tapers, and censers. Next came the priors, then the abbots, and then the bishops, in the midst of whom walked four barons, bearing four candlesticks of gold; after whom came Godfrey Lucy [Archdeacon of Richmond, future Bishop of Winchester], bearing the King's cap [of maintenance], and John Marshal [hereditary Earl Marshal] by him, carrying two great and massive spurs of gold. After these came William Marshal, Earl of Striguil [John's younger brother], bearing the royal sceptre of gold, on the top of which was a cross of gold, and by him William FitzPatrick, Earl of Salisbury [cousin of the Marshal family], bearing a rod of gold, having on its top a dove of gold. After them came David, Earl of Huntingdon, brother of the King of Scotland [William I]; John, Earl of Mortaigne, the Duke's brother; and Robert, Earl of Leicester, carrying three golden swords from the King's treasury, the scabbards of which were worked all over with gold; the Earl of Mortaigne walking in the middle. Next came six earls and six barons, carrying on their shoulders a very large chequer, upon which were placed the royal arms and robes; and after them William Mandeville, Earl of Aumarle, carrying a great and massive crown of gold, decorated on every side with precious stones.

"Next came Richard, Duke of Normandy, with Hugh, Bishop of Durham, walking at his right hand, and Reginald, Bishop of Bath, at his left, and four barons holding over them a canopy of silk on four lofty spears . Then followed a great number of earls, barons, knights, and others, both clergy and laity, as far as the porch of the church, and dressed in their robes, entered with the Duke, and proceeded as far as the quire.

"When the Duke had coine to the altar, in presence of the archbishops, bishops, clergy, and people, kneeling before the altar, with the Holy Evangelists placed before him, and many relics of the saints, according to custom, he swore that he would all the days of his life observe peace, honour, and reverence towards God, the Holy Church, and its ordinances. He also swore that he would exercise true justice and equity towards the people committed to his charge. He also swore that he would abrogate bad laws and unjust customs, if any such had been introduced into his kingdom, and would enact good laws, and observe the same without fraud or evil intent.

"After this they took off all his clothes from the waist upwards, except his shirt and breeches; his shirt having been previously separated over the shoulders; after which they shod him with sandals embroidered with gold. Then Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, pouring holy oil upon his head, anointed him King in three places, on his head, breast, and arms, which signifies glory, valour, and knowledge, with suitable prayers for the occasion; after which the said Archbishop placed a consecrated linen cloth on his head, and upon that the cap which Godfrey Lucy had carried. They then clothed him in the royal robes, first a tunic, and then a dalmatic; after which the said Archbishop delivered to him the sword of rule, with which to crush evildoers against the Church: this done, two earls placed the spurs upon his feet, which John Marshal had carried. After this, being robed in a mantle, he was led to the altar, where the said Archbishop forbade him, in the name of Almighty God, to presume to take upon him this dignity, unless he had the full intention inviolably to observe the oaths and vows before-mentioned which he had made; to which he made answer that, with God's assistance, he would without reservation observe them all.

"After this, he himself took the crown from the altar and gave it to the Archbishop; on which, the Archbishop delivered it to him, and placed it upon his head, it being supported by two earls in consequence of its extreme weight. After this, the Archbishop delivered to him the sceptre to hold in his right hand, while he held the rod of royalty in his left; and, having been thus crowned, the king was led back to his seat by the before-named Bishops of Durham and Bath, preceded by the taper-bearers and the three swords before-mentioned.

["It caused many people to whisper and to marvel when a bat was seen flying through the monastery at midday, although the day was clear, circling about in an untimely way, especially about the King's throne.]

"After this, the Mass of our Lord was commenced, and, when they came to the offertory, the before-named bishops led him to the altar, where he offered one mark of the purest gold, such being the proper offering for the King at each coronation; after which, the bishops before-named led him back to his seat.

"The Mass having been concluded, and all things solemnly performed, the two bishops before-named, one on the right hand and the other on the left, led him back from the church to his chamber, crowned, and carrying a sceptre in his right hand and the rod of royalty in his left, the procession going in the same order as before. Then the procession returned to the quire, and our lord the King put off his royal crown and robes of royalty, and put on a crown and robes that were lighter; and, thus crowned, went to dine; on which the archbishops and bishops took their seats with him at the table, each according to his rank and dignity. The earls and barons also served in the King's palace, according to their several dignities; while the citizens of London served in the cellars, and the citizens of Winchester in the kitchen.

["A thing happened on that same coronation day at Westminster that could hardly be spoken of in a whisper then, for it was an omen of no little portent. At Compline, the last hour of the day, the bells happened to be rung for the first time that day, for no-one in the convent and even none of the ministers of the church had thought about it till afterwards, and the service of Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and two Masses had been solemnly celebrated without any ringing of bells."]

Rioting:

"While the King was seated at table, the chief men of the Jews came to offer presents to him, but as they had been forbidden the day before to come to the King's court on the day of the coronation, the common people, with scornful eye and insatiable heart, rushed upon the Jews and stripped them, and then scourging them, cast them forth out of the King's hall. Among these was Benedict, a Jew of York, who, after having been so maltreated and wounded by the Christians that his life was despaired of, was baptised by William, Prior of the Church of St. Mary at York, in the Church of the Innocents, and was named William, and thus escaped the peril of death and the hands of the persecutors.

"The citizens of London, on hearing of this, attacked the Jews in the city and burned their houses; but by the kindness of their Christian friends, some few made their escape.

["Then one might have seen the most beautiful parts of the city miserably blazing in flames, caused by her own citizens as if they had been enemies. The Jews, however, were either burnt in their own houses, or, if they came out, were received on the point of the sword. Much blood was shed in a short time, but the rising desire for plunder induced the people to rest satisfied with the slaughter they had committed. Their avarice overcame their cruelty; for they ceased to slay, but their greedy fury led them to plunder houses and carry off their wealth. This, however, changed the aspect of affairs, and made Christians hostile to Christians; for some, envying others for what they had seized in their search for plunder arid wicked emulation in avarice, were led to spare neither friends nor companions.]

["These events were reported to the King as he was banqueting in festivity with all the assembly of nobles; and Ranulf Glanville, who was justiciary of the realm - a man both powerful and prudent - was thereupon sent from his presence, with other men of equal rank, that they might turn aside or restrain the audacity of the mob; but it was in vain, for in so great a tumult no one listened to his voice or showed respect to his presence; but some of the most riotous began to shout against him and his companions, and threatened them in a terrible manner if they did not quickly depart. They, therefore, wisely retired before such unbridled fury; and the plunderers, with equal freedom and audacity, continued to riot until eight o'clock on the following day; and at that time satiety or weariness of rioting, rather than reason or reverence for the King, allayed the fury of the plunderers.]

"On the day after the coronation, the King sent his servants, and caused those offenders to be arrested who had set fire to the city; not for the sake of the Jews, but on account of the houses and property of the Christians which they had burnt and plundered, and he ordered some of them to be hanged."

King Richard Summons Benedict:

"On the same day, the King ordered the before-named William, who from a Jew had become a Christian, to be presented to him, on which he said to him, 'What person are you?' to which he made answer, 'I am Benedict of York, one of your Jews.'

"On this the King turned to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the others who had told him that the said Benedict had become a Christian, and said to them, 'Did you not tell me that he is a Christian?' to which they made answer, 'Yes, my lord.'

"Whereupon he said to them, 'What are we to do with him?' to which the Archbishop of Canterbury, less circumspectly than he might, in the spirit of his anger, made answer, 'If he does not choose to be a Christian, let him be a man of the Devil.' And so, inasmuch as there was no person to offer any opposition thereto, the before-named William relapsed into the Jewish faith, and after a short time died at Northampton.

["The King, however, after the slaughter of the Jews, established peace by proclamation; of which, nevertheless, they did not long enjoy the fruits."]

King Richard Holds Court:

"On the second day after his coronation, Richard, King of England, received the oaths of homage and fealty from the bishops, abbots, earls, and barons of England. After this was done, the King put up for sale everything he had, castles, villas, and estates. Accordingly, Hugh, Bishop of Durham, bought of the King his good manor of Sedgefield [in County Durham], with the wapentake and knight's fees thereof, for six hundred marks of silver, by way of a pure and perpetual alms; and the said purchase was confirmed by charter.

"Also the said Bishop gave to the before-named King marks of silver for receiving the Earldom of Northumberland for life, together with its castles and other appurtenances. [The King gloried in a bargain of this kind, and jokingly said, 'I am a wonderful workman; for out of an old bishop I have made a new earl.' But when the Bishop had thus divested himself of his money, which he had previously devoted to the sacred pilgrimage (to Jerusalem) for the sake of Christ, he next studied how to revoke the vow he had made to Almighty God on solemnly assuming the cross; and since he could not say to the Roman pontiff, by his messengers, 'I have purchased an earldom, and therefore I cannot set out for Jerusalem; so I pray thee have me excused' - which, indeed, he might have said with truth - he spoke instead of his failing age, and alleged that he was unequal to so laborious a pilgrimage. Being thus left to his own conscience, he thereupon weakly and irreverently cast away the sacred emblem of devotion, and rested in the possession of that precious pearl which he had found in the King, and for which he had given so much; which however is not a solid possession, but, in regard to the changes of times and things, is but brief and transitory.]

["That great and powerful man, Stephen of Marzai, who had been Seneschal of Anjou under the lately deceased King Henry and who was extremely savage and domineering, even to his master, was seized and put in chains and brought to Winchester, where he was made a spectacle to angels and to men, miserably weakened by hunger and loaded down with chains. He was forced to pay 30,000 pounds of Angevin money for his freedom and to promise 15,000 pounds more.

"Ranulf Glanville, the governor of the realm of the English and the King's eye, a man inferior to Stephen only in morals and in wealth, was stripped of his powers and taken into custody. He purchased his freedom, at least to come and go, with 15,000 pounds of silver. And although this name of Glanville had been so great on the day before, a name above all other names, as it were, so that anyone to whom the Lord had granted it might speak amongst princes and be worshipped by the people, yet on the day after there was not one man left on earth who was willing to be called by that name.

"What ruined these two men, Stephen, that is, and Ranulf, what certainly has ruined a thousand others before them, and what will ruin still others in the future, was the suspicion that they had taken advantage of their intimacy with the late King.]

"The office was then entrusted by the King to the Bishop of Durham, who did not hesitate to accept it."

My feelings on Phillip IV is complicated. I dont like that he was so brutal, I dont like all the torture.

But he also worked hard towards centralizing the state.

Im impressed by him.

The same way people can admit that Edward I was a quite good king. But recognize that he could be VERY crual.

I feel the same about Philip.

And I just find Philip's entire pope feud amusing.

2 overpowered shitheads fighting it out.

So much drama!

Philip having a propaganda machine running. and wanting to put the fricking pope on trial.

It deserve a tv show..

Since we are still on the subject of royal brothers, one of the clearest examples comes from Edward the Black Prince and his younger sibling, John of Gaunt.

Edward was born in 1330, and a decade later, in 1340, John was born in Ghent. With such an age gap, their bond might easily have been distant, since they were moving through very different stages of life. Yet John spent much of his boyhood in Edward’s household, where he learned the duties and expectations of a prince. He shadowed his brother closely, even insisting at age ten on joining Edward aboard his warship during the battle of Winchelsea in 1350 against the Castilian fleet.

As they grew older, John continued to serve under Edward in battle. They fought together in 1367 at the Battle of Nájera (or Navarrete), siding with Pedro I of Castile during the Castilian Civil War. In 1370, John was sent to Aquitaine with reinforcements to support both Edward, who was in poor health, and their younger brother Edmund of Langley. He joined them at the Siege of Limoges that September. Afterward, Edward entrusted John with the lieutenancy of Aquitaine before returning to England.

John’s loyalty to his brother endured even after Edward’s death. When Edward’s son Richard II became king, John supported him as well, standing by the young monarch’s authority, going so far as to accept the exile of his own son until Richard’s actions later strained that trust.