How Harold Harefoot Got His Name

=

 Harold Harefoot was a son of King Cnut and would succeed his father in 1035, albeit in dubious circumstances as a rivalry emerged between Harold and his half brother Harthacnut. Harold was born to an Englishwoman, though there are some question marks over the identity of his mother, and Cnut with Harthacnut being born during Cnut's second marriage, to Emma of Normandy. Cnut died in 1035 after ruling England for 19 years. Cnut had been a wise and just king, coming a long way from the Viking raids that he had been a part of during his early teen years. On one occasion ,during those early years, Cnut had ordered a group of hostages to have their ears and noses cut off, and in other cases castrated, before they were unceremoniously dumped. To the men that young Cnut was now leading, after the death of his father, this was a justified and almost praiseworthy show of strength. To those in Anglo Saxon England, it was an act of horrifying brutality. Cnut, however, after taking the throne in late 1016 proved himself to be more than just a brutish Viking and he grew to become not only one of early England's great kings but also a king who ruled over the North Sea Empire as he took control of Denmark and Norway too. Whoever succeeded him, had a hard act to follow.

Cnut died in 1035 and the throne should now have passed to Harthacnut who was currently in Denmark. A meeting was held as it was eventually agreed that Harold would hold the throne until Harthacnut had made sure his kingdom in Denmark was secure and peaceful. However, there were those who could see trouble in this arrangement and perhaps expected Harold to establish himself as outright king which could potentially lead to a civil war if Harthacnut landed in England. One of the most vocal voices of opposition was Earl Godwin, one of the most important figures in the history of 11th century England. And they were quite right to be suspicious of Harold's motives and Godwin, Harthacnut's mother Emma, and a group of noblemen attempted to resist Harold's attempts to take full control of the country. With Emma staying in Winchester, Godwin and his allies attempted to keep hold of Wessex but their efforts were ultimately futile and it was soon clear that Harold was now the King of England.

Godwin knew which way the wind was blowing and now he abandoned any potential alliance with Emma. In 1036, a new threat was posed to Harold's fragile kingship and potentially to Godwin as well. This was the arrival in England of two exiles. They were Alfred and Edward, sons of Aethelred The Unready and Emma of Normandy, whom she had been married to before her second marriage to Cnut. The two young men had gone into exile in Normandy with Aethelred after his brief deposition in 1013 and had remained there. The two intended to visit their mother, Emma, in Winchester but were ambushed by Godwin who attacked their travelling party with Alfred forcibly and terribly blinded, dying from his injuries with Edward just about escaping. Emma sensibly advised him to return to Normandy. Whilst Godwin may have been the man responsible for this awful act of violence, Harold Harefoot would not have been upset at the removal of one potential rival to his throne and the exile of another. In Denmark, Harthacnut, already furious at Harold's betrayal, was further outraged by these latest developments.

In 1037, Harold was formally recognised as King with Harthacnut taking too long in Denmark, according to the Anglo Saxon Chronicles and with Emma also forced to flee over the English channel, it appeared Harold had a strong grip on his throne now. Unfortunately his reign was entirely forgettable and it was largely spent consolidating power. He was clearly an athletic man as Harefoot is a reference to his fleetness of foot whilst hunting but, as king, Harold left little to no lasting impression. Indeed, some found it hard to believe he was Cnut's son. His assumption of the throne ahead of Harthacnut showed a lack of loyalty and honour. After Harold's death in 1040, Harthacnut finally came and took the English crown. He had Harold's body dug up, beheaded and dumped unceremoniously.

 

Eadric Streona: The Great Traitor of Anglo Saxon England

 Eadric Streona is one of the great traitors and villains in English History. His duplicity as Edmund Ironside and Cnut tussled for the throne was something quite remarkable. And Eadric's treachery started long before that, during the reign of Edmund's father, Aethelred The Unready. In 1005, Eadric set a trap for an Ealdorman named Aelfhelm where, during a hunt, an accomplice of Eadric leapt out and murdered Aelfhelm. This was merely a sign of things to come.  Becoming Ealdorman of Mercia in 1007, Eadric then married a daughter of King Aethelred in 1009, proving that Eadric was a man with growing influence. Eadric wasn't the only member of his family who was beginning to make himself known at the court of Aethelred. Evidently, Eadric's brother, Brihtric, also had the ear of the king and he began to whisper accusations about a man named Wulfnoth, who was the father of the future Earl Godwin and grandfather to the would be Harold II, to the king and Aethelred had Wulfnoth exiled. Furious, Wulfnoth seized some ships and began to ravage the south coast. This was an opportunity that Brihtric had been hoping for and he took a number of ships also, substantially more than Wulfnoth's small fleet, and he set sail, hoping to smash Wulfnoth's rebellion and take glory for himself. However, Brihtric's ships feel victim to a terrible storm and was soon finished off by Wulfnoth.

These shambolic scenes now served as a distraction to a far bigger problem for Aethelred; the Viking invasions. Led by Thurkil The Tall, the Vikings, around this time, launched another brutal raid, sacking the Isle of Wight, Sussex, Hampshire, Berkshire and other places. Aethelred tried to launch a counterattack but such was his lack of authority and the disunity that gripped his subjects, the Vikings were essentially allowed to do as they pleased until winter set in. Throughout 1010 and 1011, things continued in much the same vain with Aethelred, somewhat desperately, calling his advisers together, including Eadric, and seeking some sort of resolution to the invaders devastating his country. Matters became even more pressing when the Vikings seized the Archbishop of Canterbury and took him hostage. Shortly before Easter 1012, Eadric came to the king as he and other nobles tried to raise the ransom for the Archbishop's release. However, the brave Archbishop demanded that no ransom was paid for him, perhaps recognising it would serve no long term gain for the English as further attacks were guaranteed to follow. Angry at the Archbishop's defiance, his Viking captors, in a drunken rage, had him murdered. Eadric's efforts, however strong or otherwise they might have been, were too late.

Between November 1013 and February 1014, king Aethelred was briefly deposed by Sweyn Forkbeard but on Sweyn's sudden death, he was recalled. But it seemed he and Eadric had learned nothing as the king continued to make bad decisions and Eadric continued to look after himself over the good of the nation. In 1015, Eadric tricked two thanes named Sigeferth and Morcar into meeting him and had them murdered. Aethelred then unscrupulously seized their property and ordered Sigeferth's widow to be brought to him. However, before the king decided what to do with her, his son, Edmund Ironside, married her without his permission and also stole the property that had been seized by the king. Such was the chaotic nature of England at this time. By now, Aethelred was falling into poor health and was no match for his energetic young son. The country was now at a tipping point with Sweyn's son, Cnut, leading the Viking presence in England and Aethelred on the cusp of death. In the North, Edmund gathered his forces whilst Eadric seized 40 ships and, showing no shame, joined Cnut. On 23rd April 1016, Aethelred died and the struggle for control over England began in earnest with Eadric right at the heart of it.

Edmund was proactive in his bid to defeat Cnut, meeting the enemy in numerous battles and skirmishes and defeating the Vikings at the Battle of Brentford. It was shortly after this that Eadric switched sides and joined Edmund's forces at Aylesford. Whether Edmund fully trusted him is unsure. It's possible that, after relentless campaigning in which he would have sustained heavy losses, Edmund would have simply been too relieved to gain a new ally to care about Eadric's questionable loyalty. The Anglo Saxon Chronicles was strong in it's condemnation of Edmund accepting Eadric's offer of friendship. The Chronicles described Edmund's forgiveness of Eadric as being ill-advised to the point that nothing else compared. And it wasn't long before Eadric proved the point. In October 1016, Cnut and Edmund met at the Battle of Ashingdon. The fighting was fierce but Edmund may have won the day had it not been for Eadric. During the battle, with Edmund appearing to be on top, Eadric spread a rumour that the English king had been killed. He then pretended to flee and chaos in the English ranks followed. Cnut and the Vikings took full advantage and won a decisive victory.

Following Ashingdon, another skirmish broke out before talks were held between Edmund and Cnut. Cnut obviously had the upper hand and, from the discussions, it was established that he was now the real power in England. Cnut would then hold total control over England when Edmund died in mysterious circumstances in late November 1016. Famously, a story goes that Edmund was brutally murdered whilst going to the toilet. Whilst I'm not sure if that story is correct, it would certainly seem as though the timing of Edmund's death was a little too convenient to have been an accident or illness. It would also seem most likely that it was Eadric who was the man behind Edmund's death. Now that he was firmly on the winning side, Eadric did not want Edmund spoiling that and so he had to be removed. However, Cnut knew full well he couldn't trust Eadric and in 1017, he had Eadric executed.

 Greedy, self serving and treacherous, Eadric is a remarkable man for all the wrong reasons. The chronicler, John of Worcester, writing a century after Eadric's death, described him as " a man, indeed, of low origin, but his smooth tongue gained him wealth and high rank, and, gifted with a subtle genius and persuasive eloquence, he surpassed all his contemporaries in malice and perfidy, as well as in pride and cruelty." And William of Malmesbury described Eadric as This fellow was the refuse of mankind, the reproach of the English; an abandoned glutton, a cunning miscreant;" 

Medieval History Buff On YouTube 

Medieval History Buff On X

Richard The Lionheart And His Troublesome Brother John Lackland

 Shortly after becoming king, Richard The Lionheart began to make preparations for The Third Crusade.Among many considerations Richard had to think about was his one remaining brother, John. To keep John content, Richard gave his brother the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Nottinghamshire and Lancashire. John was also made the Count of Mortain and, on top of this, a marriage was arranged for him to Isabella of Gloucester, the daughter of the Earl of Gloucester. On Richard’s part, this was extremely generous. But why? William of Newburgh claimed it was because of Richard’s deep affection for John. Richard did have some brotherly affection for John but his motives go beyond that. Richard didn’t trust John and these gifts of lands and a wife was essentially a bribe. And given Richard’s own behaviour during the reign of his and John’s father, Henry II, to expect loyalty from John now would be naive. Far from dissuading John from making a power grab, Richard only added to John’s greed.

Richard, despite whatever fears and suspicions he may have had, set off for the Crusade where he would establish a reputation as one of the greatest generals that the Medieval world had ever seen or ever would see. So feared did Richard become that Muslim parents would warn their children, if they didn’t behave, then the King of England would get them. Despite his brilliance and numerous gains on the Crusade, ultimately the success of the venture was limited. The end goal of retaking Jerusalem, which had fallen back into Muslim hands in 1187, failed with Richard reluctant to launch an assault on the Holy City despite the urgings of many around him. Richard felt he lacked the manpower to retake Jerusalem. But, in the king of England’s mind, other factors were at play. One of them was John.

One of the Crusade’s achievements was capturing the City of Acre. The siege was threatening to drag on aimlessly until Richard’s arrival which swung things in favour of the Christians. Once the capture was complete, the French king, Philip II, decided that now was the right time for him to return home. This did not go down well with Richard who smelled a rat. Richard, thanks to his father, held significant lands in France and it was plain that they were under threat if Philip did indeed return home and Richard remained in the East. Despite Richard’s pleas, Philip abandoned the Crusade, leaving Richard, fuming, to lead the Crusade by himself. Potentially, the king of England could have followed the French king westwards but, in his eyes, the Crusade was God’s work and that took priority over any earthly possessions.

When Richard did leave the Crusade, in 1192, he encountered more serious problems on the way home. He was kidnapped by the Archduke of Austria before being handed over to the Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI. This now potentially left the path clear for an alliance between John and Philip. However, despite being far away from his kingdom and now being a captive, Richard still maintained a strong grip on his kingship and he wrote to the church in regarding the vacant archbishopric of Canterbury. Despite his current predicament, Richard still managed to assert his authority as king. Richard also had another trump card up his sleeve. His energetic and formidable mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, with whom he’d always been close. It was Eleanor who kept John, and a potential alliance with Philip, in check and Eleanor was pivotal in raising the money required to get Richard released. When it was announced, in 1194, that the king was to be freed, Eleanor travelled to Germany to make sure it was done. Despite John’s plots and plans, Richard, on his return, made it clear to his brother that he forgave him, calling John “just a child”, despite the fact that John was, by now, in his late 20s. Although John remained loyal to Richard for the rest of his reign, it was clear that he would struggle to govern a realm if presented the chance. He was treacherous, greedy, vindictive, self serving and, at times, cruel. Richard, however, made John his heir despite having a nephew who ranked higher up in the succession then John. And it was John who took the crown. His reign would change the course of English history forever.

Why was Henry III Always Short of Money?

 

In June 1239, a baby boy was born to Henry III and Eleanor of Provence. He would ,one day, become king Edward I. Congratulations were sent to the Royal couple from across England. Edward had been born at Westminster and across London the celebrations that took place were particularly joyful. Drums and tambourines were played with and people danced enthusiastically. Lanterns were lit so the celebrations could go on deep into the night. Messengers were sent across the land to spread the word of the birth of this new prince. Presents were sent to the king from nobles from every part of England but this did not completely satisfy the king. Presents that Henry deemed insufficient in either quantity or value, he had sent back and it would be made clear to the well intentioned sender that Henry expected more.

This type of behaviour would certainly have displeased a lot of people but it was far from the only instance where Henry failed to keep his nobles on his side. One of his most notorious failings was allowing the relatives of his Queen to come to England where they prospered a bit too much from an English perspective. And, to make things worse, some of Henry’s own relations, the Lusignans, also came to England to enrich themselves and have. The money wasted on these unwelcome guests would have gone down terribly with the nobility.

And it wasn’t just family members that Henry wasted money on. He made promises to go on crusade but, for one reason or another, such as problems in Gascony, the king failed to keep his promises to take the Cross. As a result, Henry found himself becoming heavily in debt to the Pope. In this instance, there may be a way out for the King. The Pope proposed an idea to Henry that would see Henry’s son, Edmund Crouchback, become king of Sicily. Henry hoped to make it happen but his dire financial situation put paid to what was a wildly fanciful idea. 

Henry was also noted for his building projects. The most notable of these is, of course, his work at Westminster Abbey where he now lies. Grand schemes such as these obviously cost vast sums of money and put further strains on Henry’s, and England’s, finances. If Henry could see the tourists that flock to Westminster Abbey today, he may well have considered his money well spent. But, in the 13th Century, his diabolical laxity when it came to finances almost, though not quite, put his father, King John, to shame.

How Did Henry V Die?

 During the difficult and bloody Siege of Meaux, which rumbled on for some months, the forces of Henry V of England were eventually successful. But it came at a price as the English army sustained heavy losses from injuries inflicted by their French enemies and also from diseases such as dysentery, Eventually, Henry V himself fell ill. Over the next weeks and months, the king of England gradually became incredibly weak as his illness worsened and eventually he was gripped by fever. Both Henry and his doctors realised that he had little time left and so the king began to prepare accordingly. He ordered that debts that he owed be paid from the sale of his personal possessions. As the end drew near, Henry took Holy Communion and made his peace with God after a life on the battlefield. He died on 31st August 1422, leaving his 9 month old son as the new king of England.

Thomas Walsingham claimed that the French mourned the death of Henry with “great lamentations”. And that Henry had been some saviour from the tyranny of the government of Charles VI. Whilst that is wishful thinking on Walsingham’s part, it is, nonetheless, interesting to ponder what would have happened had Henry avoided sickness. Just weeks after Henry’s death, his father in law, Charles VI, after years of mental health problems, also died. The Treaty of Troyes, signed in 1420, had not only married Henry to Charles' daughter, Catherine of Valois, but had also placed Henry as Charles’ designated heir. Had Henry lived, would his succession to the French crown have actually occurred? A smooth succession seems extremely unlikely. Resistance to Henry, a foreign invader, taking the crown would surely have been inevitable. 

But he was married to a French princess who had, in late 1421, given him a son and prospective heir. Henry had emphatically proved himself to the French in the art of warfare, such an important trait for any king in medieval Europe. Alas, Henry’s death gives us one of history’s great What Ifs? Would he have been able to unite the English and French crowns? Or would he have prioritised his new French kingdom had he succeeded? In my view, Henry, had his health allowed, would have had the stamina, vigour, energy and know how to manage both kingdoms. Unfortunately, his death put paid to any possibility of England and France united under one Crown, even though the two nations paths remained intertwined as they had done since William of Normandy conquered England. And, what was worse from an English perspective, was that Henry had not only left a child as his heir but a BABY! This meant a long minority government and minority governments often led to conflict as powerful nobles vied for position in the game of who ruled the country until the king came of age. Henry V’s death was the root course of the Wars of the Roses. Had he lived just a decade longer, not an unreasonable hope given he was only 35 when he died, English and European history may well have taken a very different course.

Henry VIII's Pride And Joy

 In October 1537, Henry VIII, at long last, had an heir with the birth of a boy who would succeed him as Edward VI. Henry’s joy would be tempered by two things. First, the death of Queen Jane, 12 days after giving birth. Writing to the king of France, Henry said, with great and genuine sorrow”, “Divine providence has mingled my joy with the bitterness of the death of her who has given me this happiness.” Henry also had to live with the terrible thought that some childhood illness could claim the life of the little baby as it had done to a boy born to the king during his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. That baby, named Henry, lived for just 7 weeks and Henry knew, in this day and age, history could well repeat itself. Nonetheless, despite these fears and sorrows, Henry rejoiced in the presence of his son. One day, when Edward was about 7 months old, the king spent a day at a hunting lodge with the little prince, holding him in his arms, playing with him and showing him off to crowds of people.

And it wasn’t just Henry who took joy in the Prince. One Lady described Edward as being “the goodliest babe that I ever set my eyes upon.” Edward was also described as being “so merry, so pleasant, so loving of countenance”. No doubt, such sentiments were designed to please the king but genuine delight at Edward’s birth wouldn’t have just been felt by Henry. On Edward’s birth, celebrations had been held in the streets of England with bonfires, drinking and feasting. People knew that a king without an heir could and almost certainly would prove extreme difficulties. Yes, before Edward’s birth, Henry had two living daughters. But the idea of female rule in Tudor England was still too alien a concept to comprehend for many. Henry also had an illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, who may have been a possible candidate to become king but had died the year before Edward’s birth.

So, Henry’s only option had been to have a legitimate son. And as time had marched on, with one wife divorced and another executed, and the king rapidly aging and with declining health, things began to look dire not only for Henry and his dynasty but also for the prospects of England in the not too distant future. Contested successions had brought troubled times in the past in English history; most notably on the deaths of Henry I and Edward IV. Henry not only needed a son but also to ensure that, if he survived the perils of Tudor childhood, his succession to the throne would be smooth. In an ideal world, Henry would go on to have a second son. And, in the brief period between Edward’s birth and Jane’s passing 12 days later, Henry’s thoughts may have briefly turned to that although, if it had, it would have been fleeting as Jane’s condition worsened. Despite Jane’s death and all the uncertainties of life in the 16th century, the birth of Edward remained a joyous thing for Henry VIII and proof that he could, in fact, produce a healthy son. In the years of failure with Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, Henry’s fragile ego had taken a heavy hit but the birth of Edward was a triumph and vindication, in his mind, that he had been right all along and all others, especially his treacherous wives, had been wrong.

Richard II's Revenge Against The Lords Appellant

In 1397, rumours began to spread that Richard II of England was to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. The rumours were entirely false but were enough to inflate Richard’s already overgrown ego. His behaviour became increasingly obnoxious, forcing wealthy members of the nobility to lend him large sums of money. And he came down hard on those who had sought to keep him in check in the past. A decade earlier, the Lords Appellant had sought to clean up Richard’s government by removing his favourite, and corrupt, ministers. A lot of water had passed under the bridge since then but Richard was a man who held grudges. His own uncle, Thomas, Duke of Gloucester was imprisoned and then murdered. The Earl of Warwick was lured into a trap. Warwick was invited to a banquet and then arrested. The Earl of Arundel, Richard Fitzalan, was arrested and then beheaded Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray both banished into exile. These men who had tried to spare England from Richard’s tyranny now fell victim to it themselves.

It wouldn’t be long before Richard had his comeuppance. Henry Bolingbroke returned in 1399 to claim the inheritance of his father, John of Gaunt, that Richard had stolen. On his arrival in England, Henry found that appetite for change was in the air. And, so, from simply coming to claim the Duchy of Lancaster, Henry turned his eyes to a far bigger prize; the Crown of England. Richard had gone on campaign in Ireland which was either remarkably arrogant or downright stupidity (or perhaps both) as he left his kingdom vulnerable to the many enemies that he had made. And so Henry took his chance. 

Richard, on hearing of Henry’s arrival, crossed the Irish Sea in hope of recovering the situation. But, by the time he arrived in Wales, it was too late and he was captured in pitiful fashion. He was forced to abdicate at the Tower of London in 1399 before he was moved Northwards to Pontefract Castle, the former powerbase of John of Gaunt. Henry was crowned king and Richard died a miserable, lonely and starving man in early 1400 after a plot to restore him to power had failed.

.

What Role Did Women Play During The Crusades?

 

Pregnant women and crusades seems to be a massive contradiction but it did happen. Motivated by sheer religious devotion or perhaps not wanting to be parted from their husbands, expectant women made the long and difficult journey to the Holy Land and elsewhere. The suffering in blistering summer heat in the East would have been terrible for women in this condition and Albert of Aachen spoke of pregnant women travelling alongside the First Crusade and being forced to give birth prematurely and with water supplies running desperately low. Albert, in almost accusing fashion, says that the women abandoned their child to die by the roadside but the likelihood of either mother or child surviving in this instance would have been doubtful at best. Surviving a medieval pregnancy was a minor miracle at the best of times. Giving birth on Crusade, depending on the circumstance, quite probably, horrendous.

It would be easy here to question why a woman, in circumstances such as these, would even think of going on Crusade. Indeed, to us today, it seems almost madness for anyone to go on Crusade, male or female. Often, for the male Crusaders, greed has often been levelled at them and that would have certainly been a factor for some. But, for both the men and women of the Crusading era, the true motivation was unquestionably driven by their religious convictions. Ultimately, the opportunity to travel to the Holy Land was something that simply could not be passed up. The dangers that such ventures posed to their physical and mental well being was clear. In his preaching for the First Crusade, Pope Urban had spoken in no uncertain terms as to what lay ahead for his Holy Army.

And stories of the First Crusade and the remarkable and often chilling deeds that were accomplished there would not only have inspired future generations of would-be warriors and pilgrims but would also have informed them of the immense sufferings that the likes of Godfrey of Bouillon had gone through during the First Crusade. So, ignorance cannot be used as a reason to explain why Crusaders and their female companions decided to make such a journey in the name of Christ.

Of course, with different classes taking part in the Crusades, it’s likely that women of less reputable backgrounds may have hoped to use their charms in order to gain some advantage with some European nobleman but that would be far from the norm. For the women like Adela of Normandy, wife of Count Stephen of Blois, a leader of the First Crusade, Crusades were to be fought with no half measures. When Stephen returned to the West before the task of Jerusalem being retaken had been achieved, Adela ordered him to return. He did, was captured by Muslim enemies and was beheaded. Adela would grieve at the news but, for her, comfort lay in the fact that her husband had died both a man and in the name of Christ. A Holy Warrior.

The Siege Of Calais 1346-1347, Edward III And The Mercy of Queen Philippa

Following on from the success at the battle of Crecy, Edward III then laid siege to Calais. The siege dragged on, with Edward growing increasingly impatient and angry. The conditions inside Calais’ walls grew increasingly grim as men and women, young and old alike, had grown so weak from hunger that many were unable to stand. It was eventually agreed that 6 of Calais’ prominent citizens would go to the English king, barefoot, halters around their neck and with the keys to Calais in their hands. Despite this gesture of surrender, Edward remained angry at the losses that he had sustained and he was certainly inclined to have the six men executed. It was here that Queen Philippa intervened and begged for the men’s lives, throwing herself to her knees and weeping. A woman known for her gentleness and kindness held a certain influence over Edward and he released the men.

But was this story true? Well, it certainly contains one inaccuracy. The chronicler who relayed the tale stated that Philippa was heavily pregnant, which was not the case. However, Philippa certainly had a penchant for mercy and it would certainly be understandable if Edward was in an unforgiving mood. Sieges were brutal for both the besiegers and the besieged and its doubtful leniency was Edward’s first inclination. That’s not to say Edward was going to sack the place or that Philippa’s interventions had prevented a total bloodbath but I am tended to believe that the story is true, taking into account the odd inaccuracy in the telling of it.

 

What Killed Edward IV?

 In 1483, Edward IV died. Various suggestions were given by medieval chroniclers as to what killed the king. One suggestion was that Edward, just 40, died of grief from unwelcome news that had been brought to him from the continent. To hide his sorrow, Edward had, in the months leading up to his death, put on numerous performances for his court to enjoy and presumably feasting. Given that Edward was very overweight by this point in his life, rumours that suggest he had had a stroke seem very plausible. Another possible reason was that Edward had fallen ill after a day of fishing and had never recovered. And one other possibility is syphilis. Edward liked women to say the least and it’s possible his sexual activities caught up with him. One way or another, Edward’s excessive lifestyle certainly took its toll on him and his premature death would have dramatic consequences.

Before he died, Edward, conventionally, made his peace with God before outlining his wishes for the succession. Edward died at Westminster on 9th April 1483. From there, his body was taken to Windsor Castle in a solemn procession where he was interred in St George’s Chapel. His controversial wife, Elizabeth Woodville, would join him here on her own death. So ended the life of Edward IV. A king who’d proved himself brilliantly capable militarily but was deeply flawed as king. As his first reign (1461-1470) had worn on, Edward found himself increasingly unpopular and this showed itself in the rebellions of Robin of Redesdale and Robin of Holderness. Shortly after those uprisings, Edward had been displaced as king by the unlikely union of Richard Neville and Margaret of Anjou, the queen of Henry VI.

Edward had pushed Neville into an alliance with his enemy Margaret after his secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville whilst Neville had been in France, negotiating for a more high profile marriage for the king. When Neville found out that Edward had married a commoner, he was irate and turned to Margaret. Ultimately Edward survived this fiasco and reclaimed the crown in early 1471. But he would fail to leave a meaningful legacy. More interested in wine, food and women then in long term stability for England. Had Edward’s premature death been avoided, which surely it could have been had Edward shown more restraint with his diet, then the tragic outcome that awaited Edward’s two sons, “The Princes In The Tower” may never have happened and we may have seen what type of king Edward V would have been.

How Did The Hundred Years War Start?

 In 1337, Edward III of England began what would become known as the Hundred Years War by laying claim to the crown of France. Edward’s mother, Isabella, was the daughter of the French king Philip IV. Philip had three sons who succeeded him but had all died after relatively brief reigns. The throne now passed to Philip VI. On hearing that Edward was now bearing the arms of both England and France, Philip VI was disparaging of Edward, referring to him as a “poor knight of ours” and of England as well, calling it a little island in comparison to the “great kingdom of France”. Despite this bravado, Philip was obviously unsettled and the fact that Edward was styling himself king of France would have put further doubts in his minds as to who had the better claim to the French crown.

And it wouldn’t be long before doubts in Philip’s minds increased. Defeats for the French at the Battle of Sluys, a naval engagement, in 1340 before later, more famous defeats at Crecy and Poitiers must have made France fully aware that they were up against a formidable opponent. Edward was no mere “poor knight”. To the contrary, he was one of the greatest warrior kings in European history and Philip’s dismissive words had been rammed right down his throat. Ultimately, Edward’s bid to become king of France failed but he had shown what he was capable of by confronting a European superpower and besting them numerous times. Edward had also shown he was capable of winning victories on both land and sea and can perhaps be considered as an early inspiration for later English naval supremacy.

The Survival of Edward II?

 In 1330, rumours began to circulate across England that the former king Edward II had not been killed in 13+27 following his deposition after all. Supposedly, these rumours had been not only encouraged by Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer, the people behind Edward’s downfall, but had, in fact, been started by them. The rumour went that Edward was in fact living, perfectly happily at Corfe Castle. After his deposition in 1327, Edward had indeed spent time at Corfe Castle before he was moved on to Berkeley Castle where, it’s generally believed, he met his end. Elaborate steps were taken to make the rumours seem believable ;entertainment, dancing and feasts were staged in the castle as though a king was truly staying there. The former king’s brother Edmund believed the rumours and would ultimately be executed for apparently conspiring to free Edward II; another victim of the tyranny of Mortimer and Isabella.

What the 17 year old Edward III thought of these rumours is an interesting matter to ponder but what is clear is that he had now had just about enough of Mortimer. Mortimer had, instead of being a regent acting in the best interests of the country, acted like he was the king and it was said that he would enter Parliament and received a louder ovation then Edward himself. Repeatedly, Mortimer would be in the presence of the king and would show a remarkable level of arrogance. Very often, he would, defying convention, walk in front of the king, instead of just behind or, at the least, to the side. Edward's mother Isabella was little better and she would be exiled in disgrace. When Edward's patience with the pair finally ran out, he cornered them, on one dramatic night at Nottingham Castle. Despite Isabella's pleas, Mortimer could expect no mercy. He was arrested and hanged. Thus, Edward III's reign truly began. As for his father, despite the rumours, there is no real plausible reason to believe Edward II was not murdered at Berkeley Castle in 1327. Mortimer and Isabella had shown how thirsty for power they were and, to keep hold of it, the old king had to be out of the way.

William The Conqueror's Speech Before The Battle of Hastings

 According to the chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, William The Conqueror gave this speech to his men before the battle of Hastings .”Ah! let any one of the English whom our predecessors, both Danes and Norwegians, have defeated in a hundred battles, come forth and show that the race of Rollo ever suffered a defeat from his time until now, and I will submit and retreat. Is it not shameful, then, that a people accustomed to be conquered, a people ignorant of the art of war, a people not even in possession of arrows, should make a show of being arrayed in order of battle against you, most valiant?”

 Did William actually speak these words? It seems unlikely. For one thing, the speech, if true, ran the risk of making the Normans TOO confident, such is the disparaging nature of William’s words about the English. He is almost making it seem that they were not fit to be on the same battlefield as the Normans. His references to the Normans Vikings origins and portraying the earlier Norse armies as being almost invincible would have been careless in the extreme and it seems likely that the men in William's ranks would not have believed his words given they would have been aware of recent event. The English had their fair share of success in the Viking wars in the centuries prior, not least at the Battle of Stamford Bridge just 3 weeks before Hastings where Harold II had defeated Harald Hardrada of Norway. Calling the English ignorant of war and being accustomed to being conquered could surely have been of very little benefit to William. 

Even if William did say and believe these words, he would find in the years to come, despite his triumph at Hastings, that the English would not simply roll over and would, in fact, resist his rule fiercely. And they would, at an incredibly heavy price, earn his respect. In 1087, as he lay dying, William referred to the English as “that fine race.”  He may have held them in contempt before his conquest of England but his attitude towards the natives would certainly change over the course of his reign.