Angevins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Angevin)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the English royal house of the 12th and early 13th century. For other houses of Anjou, see House of Anjou.
Angevins
Royal Arms of England (1198-1340).svg
Arms adopted in 1198
Country England
Parent house House of Anjou
Titles
Founded 1154
Founder Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou
Final ruler John, King of England
Current head Extinct[1]

The Angevins /ænvɪns/("from Anjou") were an English royal house in the 12th and early 13th centuries composed of three English monarchs—Henry II, Richard I and John. In the 10 years from 1144, two successive counts of Anjou won control of a vast assemblage of lands that would last for 80 years and would retrospectively be referred to as the Angevin Empire. As a political entity this was structurally different to the preceding Anglo-Norman realms, the county of Anjou—from which the house is named—and the subsequent history of the Plantagenets. The first of these counts—Geoffrey— became duke of Normandy in 1144 and his son—Henry— added Aquitaine by virtue of his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152 and became king of England in 1154 by successfully pursuing a claim derived from his descent from his maternal grandfather, Henry I of England.[2]

Henry was succeeded by his third son—Richard. Through his reputation for martial prowess Richard gained the French epithet "Cœur de Lion" which translates to "the Lionheart".[3] He was born and raised in England but spent very little time—perhaps as little as six months— in the country during his adult life. For Richard England's importance was as a source of revenue to support his military adventures including the Third Crusade.[4] He remains an enduring iconic figure both in England and in France despite this and is one of very few kings of England remembered by his nickname as opposed to regnal number.[5]

When Richard died without legitimate heir Henry’s fifth and only surviving son—John—claimed succession. In 1204 John lost Anjou and the Angevins' continental territory to the House of Capet. The loss of Anjou from which the dynasty is named is the rationale behind John's son—Henry III of England— being considered the first Plantagenet—a name derived from a nickname for Geoffrey. Where no distinction is made between the Angevins—and Angevin era— and subsequent English Kings, Henry II is the first Plantagenet English king.[6][7][8][9][10] From John the dynasty continued successfully and unbroken in the direct male line until the reign of Richard II before dividing into two competing cadet branches, the House of Lancaster and the House of York.

Terminology[edit]

Angevin[edit]

The adjective Angevin is especially used in English history to refer to the Plantagenet kings —beginning with Henry II— descended from Geoffrey and Matilda; their characteristics, descendants and the period of history which they covered from the mid-twelfth to early-thirteenth centuries. In addition it is also used pertaining to Anjou, or any sovereign, government derived from this. As a noun it is used for any native of Anjou or Angevin ruler. As such Angevin is also used for other Counts and Dukes of Anjou; including the three kings' ancestors, their cousins who held the crown of Jerusalem and unrelated later members of the French royal family who were granted the titles to form different dynasties amongst which were the Capetian House of Anjou and the Valois House of Anjou.[11]

Angevin Empire[edit]

The term "Angevin Empire" was coined in 1887 by Kate Norgate. As far as it is known there was no contemporary name for this assemblage of territories which were referred to—if at all—by clumsy circumlocutions such as our kingdom and everything subject to our rule whatever it may be or the whole of the kingdom which had belonged to his father. Whereas the Angevin part of this term has proved uncontentious the empire portion has proved controversial. In 1986 a convention of historical specialists concluded that there had been no Angevin state and no empire but the term espace Plantagenet was acceptable.[12]

Origins[edit]

An illuminated diagram showing the Angevins; coloured lines connect the two to show the lineal descent
Thirteenth-century depiction of the Angevins (Henry II and his legitimate children): (left to right) William, Henry, Richard, Matilda, Geoffrey, Eleanor, Joan and John

The line of the Count of Anjou that the Angevins form part of descend from Geoffrey II, Count of Gâtinais and Ermengarde of Anjou (daughter of Fulk III of Anjou) who inherited the title in 1060 via cognatic kinship when an older line dating from 870 and descending from a noble called Ingelger ended.[13][14] The marriage of Count Geoffrey to Henry I of England's daughter, heir and only surviving legitimate child—Matilda—was part of struggle for power during the tenth and eleventh centuries that the Counts of Anjou had with rival princes in northern and western Gaul. It was from this marriage that Geoffrey’s son, Henry, inherited the claims to England, Normandy and Anjou that marks the beginning of the Angevin and Plantagenet dynasties.[15] These princes included the rulers of Normandy—Henry, Brittany, Poitou, Blois, Maine and the kings of France. This was the third attempt that Geoffrey’s father—Fulk V, Count of Anjou—had tried to build political an alliance with Normandy. The first was by marrying his daughter Alice to Henry’s heir—William Adelin—but the prince drowned in the wreck of the White Ship. Fulk then married his daughter Sibylla to William Clito, heir to Henry's older brother Robert Curthose, but Henry had the marriage annulled to avoid the strengthening of William’s the rival claim to his lands.[16]

Inheritance custom and Angevin practice[edit]

In the 11th-century growing prosperity and stability led to developments in inheritance custom that allowed daughters to succeed in the absence of sons. Ralph de Diceto noted that the counts of Anjou extended their dominion over their neighbours by marriage—’’Et tu felix Andegavia nube’’—rather than conquest.[17] The marriage of Geoffrey—the son of a count—to the daughter of a king who was a widowed empress can be seen in this context. However, it is unknown whether King Henry intended to make Geoffrey his heir but it is known that the threat presented by William Clito made his negotiating position very weak. Even so it is probable that should the marriage be childless King Henry would have attempted to be succeeded by one of his Norman kinsman such as Theobald II, Count of Champagne or Stephen of Blois who in the event did seize King Henry’s English crown. King Henry’s great relief in 1133 at the birth of a son to the couple described as ‘’the heir to the Kingdom’’ is understandable in the light of this situation. Following this the birth of a second son raised the question of whether custom would be followed with the maternal inheritance passing to first born and the paternal inheritance going to his brother, Geoffrey.[18]

According to William of Newburgh writing in the 1190s the plan failed because of Geoffrey’s early death in 1151. The dying Geoffrey decided that Henry would have the paternal and maternal inheritances while he needed the resources to overcome Stephen and left instructions that his body would not be buried until Henry swore an oath that once England and Normandy were secured the younger Geoffrey would have Anjou.[19] Geoffrey never received Anjou, instead dying in 1154 but not before being installed count in Nantes after Henry aided a rebellion by its citizens against their previous lord.[20]

The unity of Henry’s assemblage of domains was largely dependent on the ruling family, influencing the opinion of most historians that—due to this instability, whatever occurred—it was unlikely to endure. The custom of partible inheritance would lead to political fragmentation. Indeed if the Young King and Geoffrey of Brittany had not died young the inheritance of 1189 would have been fundamentally altered. Henry and Richard both planned for partition on their deaths while attempting to provide overriding sovereignty to hold the lands together. For example in 1173 and 1183 Henry tried to force Richard owed allegiance to his older brother for the duchy of Aquitaine and later Richard would confiscate Ireland from John. This was complicated by the Angevins being subjects of the kings of France who felt these rights more legally belonged to them. This was particularly true when the wardship of Arthur and lordship of Brittany became contentious between 1202 and 1204. On the Young King’s death Richard became heir in chief in 1183 but refused to give up Aquitaine to give John an inheritance. More by accident than design this meant that the two partition plans that came to pass was that John would have Ireland, Arthur Brittany and the rest would fall to Richard. By the mid-thirteenth century there was a clear unified patrimony and Plantagenet empire but this cannot be called an Angevin Empire as by this date Anjou and most of the continental lands had been lost.[21]

Arrival in England[edit]

Multi-coloured map of 12th-century France and southern England
Henry's continental holdings in 1154, showing the lands known as the Angevin Empire

(Henry I of England) named his daughter Matilda heir but when Henry died her cousin Stephen had himself proclaimed king.[22][23] Although Geoffrey had little interest in England he invaded Normandy.[24] During the civil war known as the Anarchy, Matilda landed in England to challenge Stephen, and was declared "Lady of the English". She captured but was forced to release Stephen—in a hostage exchange for her half-brother Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester—who was re-crowned. Matilda was never crowned but Geoffrey conquered the Duchy of Normandy. Matilda's son, Henry II, became wealthy after acquiring the Duchy of Aquitaine by his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine. After skillful negotiation with King Stephen and the war-weary English barons, Henry agreed to the Treaty of Wallingford and was recognised as Stephen's heir.[25]

When Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury died, Henry II appointed his friend Thomas Becket to the post to re-establish what Henry saw as his rights over the church in England and to reassert privileges held by his father-in-law. Henry had clashed with the church over whether bishops could excommunicate royal officials without his permission, and whether he could try clerics without their appealing to Rome. Becket opposed Henry's Constitutions of Clarendon, fleeing into exile. Relations later improved, allowing Becket's return, but soured again when Becket saw the coronation of Henry's son as coregent by the Archbishop of York as a challenge to his authority and excommunicated those who had offended him. When he heard the news, Henry said: "What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born clerk". Three of Henry's men killed Becket in Canterbury Cathedral after Becket resisted a botched arrest attempt.[26] Within Christian Europe Henry was widely considered complicit in Becket's death. The opinion of this transgression against the church made Henry a pariah, so in penance he walked barefoot into Canterbury Cathedral where he was scourged by monks.[23]

In 1155, Pope Adrian IV gave Henry a papal blessing to expand his power into Ireland to reform the Irish church.[27] This was not an urgent matter until Henry allowed Dermot of Leinster to recruit soldiers in England and Wales, including Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke (known as Strongbow), for use in Ireland. Henry became worried as the knights assumed the role of colonisers and accrued autonomous power. Dermot died in 1171 and his son-in-law Strongbow seized considerable territory, but to defuse the controversy surrounding Becket's murder Henry re-established all fiefs in Ireland.[28]

Henry II tried to give his landless youngest son John a wedding gift of three castles that the Young King believed were rightfully his prompting rebellion by his wife and three eldest sons. Louis VII supported the rebellion to destabilise his Henry II. William the Lion and other subjects of Henry II also joined the revolt and it took 18 months for Henry to force the rebels to submit to his authority.[29] In Le Mans in 1182, Henry II gathered his children to plan a partible inheritance in which his eldest son (also called Henry) would inherit England, Normandy and Anjou; Richard the Duchy of Aquitaine; Geoffrey Brittany, and John Ireland. This degenerated into further conflict. the younger Henry rebelled again before he died of dysentery and, in 1186, Geoffrey died after a tournament accident. In 1189 Richard and Philip II of France took advantage of Henry’s failing health, forcing him to accept humiliating peace terms, including naming Richard as his sole heir.[30]

Decline[edit]

Man on horseback, wielding a sword

On the day of Richard's English coronation there was a mass slaughter of Jews, described by Richard of Devizes as a "holocaust".[31] After his coronation, Richard put the Angevin Empire's affairs in order before joining the Third Crusade to the Middle East in early 1190. Opinions of Richard by his contemporaries varied. He had rejected and humiliated the king of France's sister; deposed the king of Cyprus and sold the island; insulted and refused to give spoils from the Third Crusade to Leopold V, Duke of Austria, and allegedly arranged the assassination of Conrad of Montferrat. His cruelty was exemplified by the massacre of 2,600 prisoners in Acre.[32] However, Richard was respected for his military leadership and courtly manners. Despite victories in the Third Crusade he failed to capture Jerusalem, retreating from the Holy Land with a small band of followers.[33]

Richard was captured by Leopold on his return journey. He was transferred to Henry the Lion, and a 25-percent tax on goods and income was required to pay his 150,000-mark ransom.[34][35] Philip II of France had overrun Normandy, while John of England controlled much of Richard's remaining lands.[36] However, when Richard returned to England he forgave John and re-established his control.[37] Leaving England permanently in 1194, Richard fought Phillip for five years for the return of holdings seized during his incarceration.[38] On the brink of victory, he was wounded by an arrow during the siege of Château de Châlus-Chabrol and died ten days later.[39]

His failure to produce an heir caused a succession crisis. Anjou, Brittany, Maine and Touraine chose Richard's nephew Arthur as heir, while John succeeded in England and Normandy. Philip II of France again destabilised the Plantagenet territories on the European mainland, supporting his vassal Arthur's claim to the English crown. Eleanor supported her son John, who was victorious at the Battle of Mirebeau and captured the rebel leadership.[40]

Arthur was murdered (allegedly by John), and his sister Eleanor would spend the rest of her life in captivity. John's behaviour drove a number of French barons to side with Phillip, and the resulting rebellions by Norman and Angevin barons ended John's control of his continental possessions—the de facto end of the Angevin Empire, although Henry III would maintain his claim until 1259.[41]

After re-establishing his authority in England, John planned to retake Normandy and Anjou by drawing the French from Paris while another army (under Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor) attacked from the north. However, his allies were defeated at the Battle of Bouvines in one of the most decisive battles in French history.[42][43] John's nephew Otto retreated and was soon overthrown, with John agreeing to a five-year truce. Philip's victory was crucial to the political order in England and France, and the battle was instrumental in establishing absolute monarchy in France.[44]

Old manuscript
One of only four surviving exemplifications of the 1215 text of the Magna Carta

John's French defeats weakened his position in England. The rebellion of his English vassals resulted in the Magna Carta, which limited royal power and established common law. This would form the basis of every constitutional battle of the 13th and 14th centuries.[45] The barons and the crown failed to abide by the Magna Carta, leading to the First Barons' War when rebel barons provoked an invasion by Prince Louis. Many historians use John's death and William Marshall's appointment as protector of nine-year-old Henry III to mark the end of the Angevin period and the beginning of the Plantagenet dynasty.[1] Marshall won the war with victories at Lincoln and Dover in 1217, leading to the Treaty of Lambeth in which Louis renounced his claims.[46] In victory, the Marshal Protectorate reissued the Magna Carta as the basis of future government.[47]

Legacy[edit]

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Historians use the period of Prince Louis's invasion to mark the end of the Angevin period and the beginning of the Plantagenet dynasty. The outcome of the military situation was uncertain at John's death; William Marshall saved the dynasty, forcing Louis to renounce his claim with a military victory.[46] However, Philip had captured all the Angevin possessions in France except Gascony. This collapse had several causes, including long-term changes in economic power, growing cultural differences between England and Normandy and (in particular) the fragile, familial nature of Henry's empire.[48] Henry III continued his attempts to reclaim Normandy and Anjou until 1259, but John's continental losses and the consequent growth of Capetian power during the 13th century marked a "turning point in European history".[49]

Richard of York adopted "Plantagenet" as a family name for himself and his descendants during the 15th century. Plantegenest (or Plante Genest) was Geoffrey's nickname, and his emblem may have been the common broom (planta genista in medieval Latin).[50] It is uncertain why Richard chose the name, but it emphasised Richard's hierarchal status as Geoffrey's (and six English kings') patrilineal descendant during the Wars of the Roses. The retrospective use of the name for Geoffrey's male descendants was popular during the Tudor period, perhaps encouraged by the added legitimacy it gave Richard's great-grandson Henry VIII of England.[51]

Descent[edit]

Through John, descent from the Angevins (legitimate and illegitimate) is widespread and includes all subsequent monarchs of England and the United Kingdom. He had five legitimate children with Isabella:

John also had illegitimate children with a number of mistresses, including nine sons—Richard, Oliver, John, Geoffrey, Henry, Osbert Gifford, Eudes, Bartholomew and (probably) Philip—and three daughters—Joan, Maud and (probably) Isabel.[56] Of these Joan was the best known, since she married Prince Llywelyn the Great of Wales.[57]

Contemporary opinion[edit]

The chronicler Gerald of Wales borrowed elements of the Melusine legend to give the Angevins a demonic origin, and the kings were said to tell jokes about the stories.[58]

Painted statues of reclining king and queen
Tomb of Henry and Eleanor in Fontevraud Abbey

Henry was an unpopular king, and few grieved his death;[59] William of Newburgh wrote during the 1190s, "In his own time he was hated by almost everyone". He was widely criticised by contemporaries, even in his own court.[60][61] Henry's son Richard's contemporary image was more nuanced, since he was the first king who was also a knight.[62] Known as a valiant, competent and generous military leader, he was criticised by chroniclers for taxing the clergy for the Crusade and his ransom; clergy were usually exempt from taxes.[63]

Chroniclers Richard of Devizes, William of Newburgh, Roger of Hoveden and Ralph de Diceto were generally unsympathetic to John's behaviour under Richard, but more tolerant of the earliest years of John's reign.[64] Accounts of the middle and later years of his reign are limited to Gervase of Canterbury and Ralph of Coggeshall, neither of whom were satisfied with John's performance as king.[65][66] His later negative reputation was established by two chroniclers writing after the king's death: Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris. The latter claimed that John attempted to convert to Islam, but this is not believed by modern historians.[67]

Constitutional impact[edit]

Many of the changes Henry introduced during his rule had long-term consequences. His legal innovations form part of the basis for English law, with the Exchequer of Pleas a forerunner of the Common Bench at Westminster.[68] Henry's itinerant justices also influenced his contemporaries' legal reforms: Philip Augustus' creation of itinerant bailli, for example, drew on Henry's model.[69] Henry's intervention in Brittany, Wales and Scotland had a significant long-term impact on the development of their societies and governments.[70] John's reign, despite its flaws, and his signing of the Magna Carta were seen by Whig historians as positive steps in the constitutional development of England and part of a progressive and universalist course of political and economic development in medieval England.[71] Winston Churchill said, "[W]hen the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns".[72] The Magna Carta was reissued by the Marshal Protectorate and later as a foundation of future government.[47]

Architecture, language and literature[edit]

Tomb of Richard I of England and Isabella of Angoulême (at back)

There was no distinct Angevin or Plantagenet culture that would distinguish or set them apart from their neighbours in this period. Robert of Torigni recorded that Henry built or renovated castles throughout his domain in Normandy, England, Aquitaine, Anjou, Maine and Torraine. However this patronage had no distinctive style except in the use of circular or octagonal kitchens of the Fontevraud type. Similarly amongst the multiple vernaculars—French, English and Occitan—there was not a unifying literature. French was the lingua franca of the secular elite and Latin or the church.[73]

The Angevins were closely associated with the Fontevraud Abbey in Aquitaine. Henry's aunt was Abbess, Eleonor retired there to be a nun and the abbey was originally the site of his grave and those of Eleanor, Richard, his daughter Joan, grandson Raymond VII of Toulouse and John's wife—Isabella of Angoulême.[74] Henry III visited the abbey in 1254 to reorder these tombs and requested his heart be buried with them.[75]

Historiography[edit]

A photograph of the wood block print of the Book of Martyrs. The book's title is in the centre and various scenes from the book are depicted around it.
John Foxe's Book of Martyrs (official title Acts and Monuments) viewed John's reign positively.

According to historian John Gillingham, Henry and his reign have attracted historians for many years and Richard (whose reputation has "fluctuated wildly")[76] is remembered largely because of his military exploits. Steven Runciman, in the third volume of the History of the Crusades, wrote: "He was a bad son, a bad husband, and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier." [77] Eighteenth-century historian David Hume wrote that the Angevins were pivotal in creating a genuinely English monarchy and, ultimately, a unified Britain.[64] Interpretations of the Magna Carta and the role of the rebel barons in 1215 have been revised; although the charter's symbolic, constitutional value for later generations is unquestionable, for most historians it is a failed peace agreement between factions.[78] John's opposition to the papacy and his promotion of royal rights and prerogatives won favour from 16th-century Tudors. John Foxe, William Tyndale and Robert Barnes viewed John as an early Protestant hero, and Foxe included the king in his Book of Martyrs.[79] John Speed's 1632 Historie of Great Britaine praised John's "great renown" as king, blaming biased medieval chroniclers for the king's poor reputation.[80] Similarly, later Protestant historians view Henry's role in Thomas Becket's death and his disputes with the French as worthy of praise.[81] Similarly, increased access to contemporary records during the late Victorian era led to a recognition of Henry's contributions to the evolution of English law and the exchequer.[82] William Stubbs called Henry a "legislator king" because of his responsibility for major, long-term reforms in England; in contrast, Richard was "a bad son, a bad husband, a selfish ruler, and a vicious man".[82][83]

He was a bad king: his great exploits, his military skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes, his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want of sympathy, or even consideration, for his people. He was no Englishman, but it does not follow that he gave to Normandy, Anjou, or Aquitaine the love or care that he denied to his kingdom. His ambition was that of a mere warrior: he would fight for anything whatever, but he would sell everything that was worth fighting for. The glory that he sought was that of victory rather than conquest.

William Stubbs, on Richard[84]

The growth of the British Empire led historian Kate Norgate to begin detailed research into Henry's continental possessions and create the term "Angevin Empire" during the 1880s.[85][86] However, 20th-century historians challenged many of these conclusions. During the 1950s, Jacques Boussard, John Jolliffe and others focused on the nature of Henry's "empire"; French scholars, in particular, analysed the mechanics of royal power during this period.[87] Anglocentric aspects of many histories of Henry's reign were challenged beginning in the 1980s, with efforts to unite British and French historical analyses of the period.[20] Detailed study of Henry's written records has cast doubt on earlier interpretations; Robert Eyton's 1878 volume (tracing Henry's itinerary by deductions from pipe rolls), for example, has been criticised for not acknowledging uncertainty.[88] Although many of Henry's royal charters have been identified, their interpretation, the financial information in the pipe rolls and broad economic data from his reign has proven more challenging than once thought.[89][90] Significant gaps in the historical analysis of Henry remain, particularly about his rule in Anjou and the south of France.[91]

Interest in the morality of historical figures and scholars waxed during the Victorian period, leading to increased criticism of Henry's behaviour and Becket’s death.[92] Historians relied on the judgement of chroniclers to focus on John's ethos. Norgate wrote that John's downfall was due not to his military failures but his "almost superhuman wickedness", and James Ramsay blamed John's family background and innate cruelty for his downfall.[93][94]

Richard's sexuality has been controversial since the 1940s, when John Harvey challenged what he saw as "the conspiracy of silence" surrounding the king's homosexuality with chronicles of Richard's behaviour, two public confessions, penances and childless marriage.[95] Opinion remains divided, with Gillingham arguing against Richard's homosexuality[95] and Jean Flori acknowledging its possibility.[95][96]

According to recent biographers Ralph Turner and Lewis Warren, although John was an unsuccessful monarch his failings were exaggerated by 12th- and 13th-century chroniclers.[97] Jim Bradbury echoes the contemporary consensus that John was a "hard-working administrator, an able man, an able general" with, as Turner suggests, "distasteful, even dangerous personality traits".[98] John Gillingham (author of a biography of Richard I) agrees and judges John to be a less-effective general than Turner and Warren do. Bradbury takes a middle view, suggesting that modern historians have been overly lenient in evaluating John's flaws.[99] Popular historian Frank McLynn wrote that the king's modern reputation amongst historians is "bizarre" and, as a monarch, John "fails almost all those [tests] that can be legitimately set".[100]

In popular culture[edit]

A medieval sketch of Matthew Paris, dressed as a monk and on his hands and knees.
Matthew Paris, a historian during John's early reign

Henry II appears as a fictionalised character in several modern plays and films. The king is a central character in James Goldman's 1966 play The Lion in Winter, set in 1183 and narrating an imaginary encounter between Henry's family and Philip Augustus over Christmas at Chinon. Philip's strong character contrasts with John, an "effete weakling".[101] In the 1968 film, Henry is a sacrilegious, fiery and determined king.[102][103] Henry also appears in Jean Anouilh's play, Becket, which was (filmed in 1964).[104] The Becket conflict is the basis for T. S. Eliot's play, Murder in the Cathedral, an exploration of Becket's death and Eliot's religious interpretation of it.[105]

During the Tudor period, popular representations of John emerged.[106] He appeared as a "proto-Protestant martyr" in the anonymous play The Troublesome Reign of King John and John Bale's morality play Kynge Johan, in which John attempts to save England from the "evil agents of the Roman Church".[107] Shakespeare's anti-Catholic King John draws on The Troublesome Reign, offering a "balanced, dual view of a complex monarch as both a proto-Protestant victim of Rome's machinations and as a weak, selfishly motivated ruler".[108][109] Anthony Munday's plays The Downfall and The Death of Robert Earl of Huntington demonstrate many of John's negative traits, but approve of the king's stand against the Roman Catholic Church.[110]

Richard is the subject of two operas; in 1719 George Frideric Handel used Richard's invasion of Cyprus as the plot for Riccardo Primo and in 1784 André Grétry wrote Richard Coeur-de-lion.

Robin Hood[edit]

The earliest ballads of Robin Hood such as those compiled in A Gest of Robyn Hode associated the character with a king named "Edward" and the setting is usually attributed by scholars to either the 13th or the 14th century.[111] As the historian J.C. Holt notes at some time around the 16th century, tales of Robin Hood started to mention him as a contemporary and supporter of Richard, Robin being driven to outlawry, during the John’s misrule, while in the narratives Richard was largely absent, away at the Third Crusade. [112] Plays such as Robert Davenport's King John and Matilda further developed the Elizabethan works in the mid-17th century and transferred the role of Protestant champion to the barons and focussing on John's tyranny.[113] Graham Tulloch noted that unfavourable 19th-century fictionalised depictions of John were influenced by Sir Walter Scott's historical romance, Ivanhoe. They, in turn, influenced the late-19th-century children's author Howard Pyle's The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood which cast John as the principal villain of the Robin Hood narrative. During the 20th century, John also appeared in fictional books and films with Robin Hood. Sam De Grasse's John, in the 1922 film version, commits atrocities and acts of torture.[114] Claude Rains' John, in the 1938 version with Errol Flynn, began a cinematic trend in which John was an "effeminate ... arrogant and cowardly stay-at-home".[89][115] John's character highlights Richard's virtues and contrasts with the Sheriff of Nottingham, the "swashbuckling villain" opposing Robin. In the Disney cartoon version, John (voiced by Peter Ustinov) is a "cowardly, thumbsucking lion".[116]

In medieval folklore[edit]

Main article: Matter of England

During the 13th century, a folktale developed in which Richard’s minstrel Blondel roamed (singing a song known only to him and Richard) to find Richard's prison.[117] This story was the foundation of André Ernest Modeste Grétry's opera Richard Coeur-de-Lion, and inspired the opening of Richard Thorpe's film version of Ivanhoe. Sixteenth-century tales of Robin Hood began describing him as a contemporary (and supporter) of Richard the Lionheart; Robin became an outlaw during the reign of Richard's evil brother, John, while Richard was fighting in the Third Crusade.[118]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b "The Angevins". The Official Website of The British Monarchy. 
  2. ^ Gillingham 2001, p. 1
  3. ^ Turner & Heiser 2000, p. 71
  4. ^ Harvey 1948, pp. 62–64
  5. ^ Harvey 1948, p. 58.
  6. ^ Blockmans & Hoppenbrouwers 2014, p. 173
  7. ^ Aurell 2003
  8. ^ Gillingham 2007, pp. 15–23
  9. ^ Power 2007, pp. 85–86
  10. ^ Warren 1991, pp. 228–229
  11. ^ "Angevin". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2005. 
  12. ^ Gillingham 2001, pp. 2–5
  13. ^ Davies 1997, p. 190
  14. ^ Vauchez 2000, p. 65
  15. ^ Gillingham 2001, p. 7
  16. ^ Davies 1999, p. 309
  17. ^ Gillingham 2007, pp. 7–8
  18. ^ Gillingham 2007, pp. 10–12
  19. ^ Gillingham 2007, p. 18
  20. ^ a b Gillingham 2007, p. 21
  21. ^ Gillingham 2007, pp. 119–121
  22. ^ Hooper 1996, p. 50
  23. ^ a b Schama 2000, p. 117
  24. ^ Grant 2005, p. 7.
  25. ^ Ashley 2003, p. 73.
  26. ^ Schama 2000, p. 142
  27. ^ Jones 2012, p. 53.
  28. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 79–80
  29. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 82–92
  30. ^ Jones 2012, p. 109
  31. ^ Ackroyd 2000, p. 54
  32. ^ Jones 2012, p. 128
  33. ^ Carlton 2003, p. 42
  34. ^ Jones 2012, p. 133
  35. ^ Davies 1999, p. 351
  36. ^ Jones 2012, p. 139
  37. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 140–141
  38. ^ Jones 2012, p. 145
  39. ^ Jones 2012, p. 146
  40. ^ Turner 1994, pp. 100
  41. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 161–169
  42. ^ Favier 1993, p. 176
  43. ^ Contramine 1992, p. 83
  44. ^ Smedley 1836, p. 72
  45. ^ Jones 2012, p. 217
  46. ^ a b Jones 2012, pp. 221–222
  47. ^ a b Danziger & Gillingham 2003, p. 271
  48. ^ Gillingham 1994, p. 31
  49. ^ Carpenter 1996, p. 270
  50. ^ Plant 2007
  51. ^ Wagner 2001, p. 206
  52. ^ Carpenter 1996, p. 223
  53. ^ Carpenter 1996, p. 277
  54. ^ Carpenter 2004, p. 344
  55. ^ Carpenter 2004, p. 306
  56. ^ Richardson 2004, p. 9
  57. ^ Carpenter 2004, p. 328
  58. ^ Warren 1978, p. 2
  59. ^ Strickland 2007, p. 187
  60. ^ White 2000, p. 213
  61. ^ Vincent 2007b, p. 330
  62. ^ Flori 1999, pp. 484–485
  63. ^ Flori 1999, p. 322
  64. ^ a b Gillingham 2007, p. 2
  65. ^ Warren 2000, p. 7
  66. ^ Gillingham 2007, p. 15
  67. ^ Warren 2000, pp. 11, 14
  68. ^ Brand 2007, p. 216
  69. ^ HallamEverard 2001, p. 211
  70. ^ Davies 1990, pp. 22–23
  71. ^ Dyer 2009, p. 4
  72. ^ Churchill 1958, p. 190
  73. ^ Gillingham 2001, p. 118
  74. ^ Gillingham 2001, p. 75
  75. ^ Gillingham 2001, p. 115
  76. ^ Flori 1999, pp. 484
  77. ^ Runciman 1954, pp. 484
  78. ^ Huscroft 2005, p. 174
  79. ^ Bevington 2002, p. 432
  80. ^ Gillingham 2007, p. 4
  81. ^ Gillingham 2007, p. 3
  82. ^ a b Gillingham 2007, p. 10
  83. ^ White 2000, p. 3
  84. ^ Stubbs 1874, pp. 550–551
  85. ^ Gillingham 2007, p. 16
  86. ^ Aurell 2003, p. 15
  87. ^ Aurell 2003, p. 19
  88. ^ Gillingham 2007, pp. 279–281
  89. ^ a b Gillingham 2007, pp. 286, 299
  90. ^ Barratt 2007, pp. 248–294
  91. ^ Gillingham 2007, p. 22
  92. ^ Gillingham 2007, pp. 5–7
  93. ^ Norgate 1902, p. 286
  94. ^ Ramsay 1903, p. 502
  95. ^ a b c Gillingham 1994, pp. 119–139
  96. ^ Flori 1999, p. 448
  97. ^ Bradbury 2007, p. 353
  98. ^ Turner 1994, pp. 23
  99. ^ Bradbury 2007, p. 361
  100. ^ McLynn 2007, pp. 472–473
  101. ^ Elliott 2011, pp. 109–110
  102. ^ Martinson 2007, p. 263
  103. ^ Palmer 2007, p. 46
  104. ^ Anouilh 2005, p. xxiv
  105. ^ Tiwawi & Tiwawi 2007, p. 90
  106. ^ Bevington 2002, p. 432
  107. ^ Curren-Aquino 1989, pp. 19
  108. ^ Curren-Aquino 1989, p. 19
  109. ^ Bevington 2002, p. 454
  110. ^ Potter 1998, p. 70
  111. ^ DobsonTaylor 1997, pp. 14–16
  112. ^ Holt 1982, p. 170
  113. ^ Maley 2010, p. 50
  114. ^ Aberth 2003, p. 166
  115. ^ Potter 1998, p. 210
  116. ^ Potter 1998, p. 218
  117. ^ Flori 1999, pp. 191–192
  118. ^ Holt 1982, p. 170

Bibliography[edit]