historicwomendaily

[historicwomendaily]

"After the death of Olympias, Macedonian troops were commanded by yet a third woman general during the struggle of the successors: Cratesipolis. Cratesipolis was the wife of Alexander, son of the regent Polyperchon, who had been Olympias’ ally. Alexander first appears in the historical record in 317, towards the end of his father’s regency and at the climax of the struggle between Olympias and Adea Eurydice. Naturally he was an ally of Olympias vis-à-vis his father, Polyperchon. Following the death of Alexander the Great, Polyperchon had managed to control portions of the Peloponnese, particularly the ports of Corinth, Sicyon, and Patrae (Diod. 19.35.1; 54.3). In 317 BCE, this Alexander, the son of Polyperchon, was poised to attack Cassander, who himself was besieging Tegea. Cassander sped to Macedon, however, when he heard that Olympias had deposed Adea Eurydice and Philip III. After the death of Olympias, Alexander continued to fight Cassander but eventually switched over to Cassander’s side when Cassander offered him generalship over the Peloponnese, the prize for which he was fighting anyway.

Alexander’s wife, Cratesipolis, was highly esteemed by her husband’s army because she distributed largesse to those in need (Diod. 19.67.1). In 314 BCE, Alexander was assassinated by revolutionary Sicyonians, but Cratesipolis bravely assumed the command of Alexander’s troops and quelled the rebellion (Diod. 19.67.1–2). The Greek Sicyonians thought they had nothing to fear from a woman, and were surprised when Cratesipolis and her forces defeated them. Whereas the Greeks of Sicyon—like those in earlier Rhodes or Aeolis—were loath to be ruled by a woman, once again we see that Macedonian soldiers were willing to take orders from a woman commander. Like her male counterparts, Cratesipolis was shrewd. Whereas Plutarch (Demetrius 9) tells us that she was renowned for her beauty, Diodorus (19.67.2) relates that Cratesipolis was intelligent and possessed “daring [tolma] beyond that of a woman.” Writing almost 400 years later than Thucydides, Diodorus still saw tolma as a male quality, at least the kind of tolma needed to engage in warfare.

Nothing is known of Cratesipolis’ origins or family. Macurdy suggests that she was of the Macedonian nobility, since she married Alexander, the son of a high-ranking Macedonian official, the regent Polyperchon. Her name, Cratesipolis, is found on inscriptions in Larissa in Thessaly, perhaps suggesting a Thessalian origin. Or her name may have been awarded later in life, just as Olympias, Myrtale, and Stratonike were names given by the Macedonians to Alexander’s mother, who was originally called Polyxena (Plut. Mor. 401b). Cratesipolis does mean “ruler of the city,” after all.

Cratesipolis ruled the poleis of Patrae, Sicyon, and Corinth for seven years, but ultimately handed over Sicyon and Corinth to Ptolemy I, perhaps hoping that he would marry her (Diod. 20.37.1; Polyaen. 8.58). She was also no match in terms of military strength for Ptolemy, whose resources and wealth were certainly far greater. Ptolemy, however, tried to woo Cleopatra, the sister of Alexander the Great. Cleopatra was murdered by Antigonus’ machinations, and Ptolemy’s plan was ultimately frustrated. Marriage to Cleopatra might have included the throne of Macedon as a dowry, and Ptolemy was more interested in a royal bride than in Cratesipolis. Cratesipolis then tried to woo Demetrius, another of the warring successors and the son of Antigonus, also with no success as he was almost killed by his enemies trying to meet her, and was forced to flee (Plut. Demetrius 9). We do not hear of Cratesipolis successfully remarrying, nor do we hear anything of her after the incident with Demetrius. Despite her obscurity in both life and death, Cratesipolis’ ability to both govern cities and command armies places her among the ranks of an Olympias or Adea Eurydice."

Postcolonial Amazons, Female Masculinity and Courage in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit Literature, Walter Duvall Penrose

[historicwomendaily]

Pictured: Clara Bow sitting on Lesbian film director Dorothy Arzner’s lap

Caption: “Clara Bow and Dorothy Arzner are pals.”

[historicwomendaily]

[historicwomendaily]

"The Jesuits were especially baffled by the active role of Flathead and Pend d'Oreille women in warfare. Women joined dances dressed as warriors, and they frequently entered battle. As De Smet observed in 1846,

Even the women of the Flathead mingled in the fray. One, the mother of seven children, conducted her own sons into the battle-field. Having perceived that the horse of her eldest son was breaking down in a single combat with a Crow, she threw herself between the combatants, and with a knife put the Crow to flight. Another, a young woman, perceiving that the quivers of her party were nearly exhausted, cooly collected, amidst a shower of arrows, those that lay scattered around her, and brought them to replenish the nearly exhausted store.

At least one Pend d'Oreille woman distinguished herself in war and appears to have been a recognized leader. Her native name was Kuilix, "The Red One" (or "Red Shirt"), referring to a bright red coat she wore-probably part of a British military uniform. She was known to whites as Mary Quille or Marie Quilax.

Father Point drew and painted her and described her in his journals and letters. He relates an occasion in 1842 when a small group of Pend d'Oreilles came upon a large party of Blackfoot and attacked them. When the sounds of gunfire reached the Pend d'Oreilles camp, the other warriors rode out to join the fray. According to Point:

The first Pend d'Oreille to dash out at the enemy was a woman named Kuilix, "The Red One," ... Her bravery surprised the warriors who were humiliated and indignant because it was a woman who had led the charge, and so they threw themselves into the breach where nature's shelter had protected the enemy. The Blackfeet immediately shot four shots almost at point-blank range; yet not a Single Pend d'Oreille went down. Four of the enemy-some claim it was only two-managed to escape death by hiding in the thickets, but the rest were massacred on the spot.

Kuilix was also present at a battle with the Crows in 1846. According to Point:

The famous Kuilix ... accompanied by a few braves and armed with an axe, gave chase to a whole squadron of Crows. When they got back to camp, she said to her companions, 'I thought that those big talkers were men, but I was wrong. Truly, they are not worth pursuing.'

Point's illustration of the episode bears the caption, "A woman warrior's swift about-face left the enemy stupefied." According to Point, Kuilix was "renowned for intrepidity on the field of battle." De Smet referred to her as the "celebrated Mary Quille" and an engraving of her based on Point's drawing appears on the title page of his 1844 Voyages aux montagnes rocheuses."

Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America, Will Roscoe

[historicwomendaily]

Vibia Sabina study to match Hadrian’s and Antinous’

[historicwomendaily]

The evidence from the Good Parliament encapsulates the key criticisms of Alice that had developed over the first half of the 1370s. In addition to the dominant complaint that she had too much influence over the king, it is clear from Brinton’s sermon that it was broadly perceived that Alice was involved in making political decisions at the highest level and had a controlling power over the governance of the realm, reflecting Walsingham’s statement that ‘weighty decisions’ were made on her advice. More specifically, the accusations made by the Commons as recorded in the Anonimalle Chronicle demonstrate: that Alice’s relationship with Edward III was deemed to be damaging the king’s spiritual and moral well-being; that she played a significant role in the wider accusations of the mismanagement of royal finances by lifting money directly from the king’s chamber; that she had inappropriately received wardships of great men; and that she was having a negative impact on the war effort – although, naturally, the Commons were never going to understate their case. Finally, the ordinance issued against her confirms that it was believed that she was using her influence to practise maintenance and secure favourable outcomes to her legal and financial disputes, as was stated by Walsingham, William Langland in Piers Plowman and a number of individuals in the parliamentary petitions. [...] She may also have been believed to be involved in the £20,000 which so preoccupied the Commons due to her links within the city, particularly to Lyons and Pyel. More than anything else the accusations made against Alice in the Good Parliament demonstrate how a very personal quest for financial and political power had been transformed into a national scandal.

— Laura Tompkins, The Uncrowned Queen: Alice Perrers, Edward III and Political Crisis in Fourteenth-Century England, 1360-1377 (PhD Thesis, University of St Andrews, 2013)

[historicwomendaily]

Alix of Vergy, Duchess and Regent of Burgundy

The family that Alix comes from [...] has a long and complicated history. The first known Lord of Vergy was a certain Guérin, the brother of Saint Leodegar. Guérin himself reputedly died a martyr’s death when he was allegedly stoned near a rocky promontory in Vergy, on the site where a castle was subsequently built. The noble line of the Lords of Vergy, who were also the counts of Chalon, Macon and Auverge, originated during the ninth century. We do not know much about Alix before she married because practically no information from this period has survived. She was most probably born in 1182 and she was the daughter of Hugo of Vergy and Gillette de Trainel. Several disputes erupted between the Lord of Vergy and the Duke of Burgundy, which nearly resulted in war between both men. The precise reason for these conflicts is not known, but in the end both men reconciled and peace was to be guaranteed by the marriage of young Alix to the Duke of Burgundy, Odo III. Odo was a very capable man. During his father’s absences he managed the Duchy as regent and after his faher died in the Holy Land, it was Odo who was declared Duke before the eyes of noblemen at the St-Bénigne Cathedral in Dijon according to the old custom. He ruled the duchy between 1192 and 1218. He did not follow an aggressive policy towards the French Crown as his father had initially done. He pursued another trend and became the faithful and loyal ally of Phillip II. Augustus, mainly in the kings wars against John Lackland and Emperor Otto IV. He courageously fought alongside his king in the battle of Bouvines in 1214, which was won by the French. He then fought with the Cathars and endeavoured to eliminate hereticism in the south of France. Alix was his second wife [as Odo had repudiated his first wife, Theresa of Portugal] and she provided the Duke with his heir, the subsequent Hugo IV. The couple also had three daughters. Odo II subsequently decided to take up the cross. However, he unexpectedly died in 1218 during his journey to the Holy Land, leaving behind his wife Alix and his minor son, who was approximately five years old at the time, in the duchy of Burgundy. […] In his will, which he wrote before he departed on his crusade, the Duke appointed two men to oversee his son and wife and provide them with advice — William of Champagne, Archbishop of Reims and Robert of Auvergne, Bishop of Clermont. He basically appointed advisors that were to help the Duchess manage the territory. However, the sources I had available do not indicate that this actually took place. These two men are not mentioned in practically any sources and they do not appear in the list of witnesses or in the text of issued documents. The witnesses were usually people close to the Duchess, important noblemen or her brother, the Seneschal of Burgundy, but the two advisors appointed in the will do not appear as witnesses at all. It was probable that the Duchess did not adhere to the will too closely. Alix was capable of making her own decisions and probably did not require advice from these two men very much or at all. [...]

As the Regent of Burgundy Alix was naturally involved in political events — she worked with the counts of Champagne and supported them in their dispute against the noblemen of Nevers. She also acted as mediator in the conflict between Dijon and Citeaux. During her regency she was revealed to be a powerful, strong and confident woman with extensive authority. She also personally made the feudal pledge of loyalty to King Philippe Augustus. From her personal correspondence and documents we can observe her interesting transformation into a strong duchess who was capable of independently ruling the entire Duchy of Burgundy. She was capable and not frightened by the problems that arose, on the contrary, she was capable of effectively resolving these problems. What is more she was also involved in political events in surrounding areas and was also considerably successful in this area. She also appeared to be a competent economist, she was capable of dealing with a poor financial situation and had full control over political aspects in Burgundy. She ruled for a very long time and there is no trace of anyone attempting to remove her from power and appoint her son as duke before she herself wished it. Furthermore, she was also capable of retaining her strong position in the court of Burgundy under the rule of her son. She actually did not need to fight for her power and all her regency was remarkably untroubled. [...]

Documents and letters by Alix of Vergy are very emotionally distant, matter-of-fact and rational with regard to the used wording. Alix did not resort to using emotionally coloured, complicated phrases. Nor can we find any references to the Bible, which were fairly frequent at the time. This reflects her personality — she does not let herself be controlled by her emotions, but is a rationally thinking ruler who leaves emotion aside. She did not endeavour to achieve her goals by appealing to emotion, but by using logical arguments based on the specific issue and her solution. In her documents and letters Alix always very clearly and briefly outlines the situation and seeks the simplest and easiest solution. Her practicality is also reflected in the length of the texts — they are usually briefer, describe the issue and subsequently provide a solution without any unnecessary protraction. Of course she also issued extensive documents, the length of which was not the result of more stylised wording, but the extensiveness of the topic she was dealing with. In the light of these documents Alix appears to be an independent woman and ruler, with her own principles and goals. At the time of her regency she governs independently, she is completely familiar with the problems of the duchy and is capable of quickly, effectively and successfully responding to them. She managed to reinforce her position, fulfil the pledge given to her husband and send 100 armed knights to the Holy Land, resolve the conflict with Dijon and stabilise the duchy’s financial situation. She became the mediator in disputes between her subjects several times and acted as a guarantor and the supreme secular authority in the region. She confidently handled power-based issues, which is apparent from several of the documents she issued, in which she mentions topics of power dominance over specific areas. In addition to this she managed to support Blanche of Navarre in the power struggle for the title of count, she also devoted her energy to monasteries, settled disputes between her noblemen and travelled extensively. She managed to sensitively respond to the requirements of the duchy at specific times. All this made her into an unusually successful and confident regent, who gained wide-ranging respect and achieved an unusually strong and independent position. She had good judgment and was capable of effectively resolving problems, which she may have learned from Duke Odo during their twenty years of marriage. She carried out a successful power-related and cultural policy. She managed to assert herself very well in her field and, in spite of today’s established concept of the subordinate standing of medieval women, she concentrated considerable political power in her hands during her independent rule over the Burgundy Duchy. Alix managed to reinforce her power over the duchy, administered and managed it well and diligently, which led to further prosperity in her lands. She also became a ruler respected by people around her and was significantly independent of other men who surrounded her. She managed to hand over the duchy to her son as a prospering and stable area [...].

After completing her regency, Alix focused more on cultural and religious activities, but did not withdraw from political life in Burgundy completely. Particularly during the period her son left on his first crusade. She was the force behind new structures or renovations of many important church buildings, particularly between the area of Dijon and Beaune. Alix was politically and culturally active basically until her death. The last surviving document is dated 1250. Alix was buried next to her husband in the family burial grounds in the Chapel of the Dukes of the Monastery Church in Citeaux. She is probably depicted on the keystone now stored in the depositary of the local museum in Reulle-Vergy and is also one of the modern statues on the bell-tower of the Cathedral in Dijon.

— Valentina Karlíková: "The Duchess of Burgundy and Regent Alix of Vergy in the Light of Her Documents and Correspondence", Prague Papers on the History of International Relations, 2018

[historicwomendaily]

Amastris financed the urbanization and monumentalizing [of her eponymous city] with her own newly minted coins. She issued silver and bronze coins employing the Herakleian weight coin system, while in Herakleia the mints of the city adopted the Atticweight tetradrachm, besides the local standard staters. Amastris’ silver staters and bronze issues and their iconography have been explored thoroughly by de Callataÿ (2004). On the obverse of the bronze and silver coins is the head of a youth, identifiable as Mithras, rather than as Amastris herself or an Amazon, wearing a Persian headdress with wreath. On the reverse, the issues bear Amastris’ name with the title of Basilissa, ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ ΑΜΑΣΤΡΙΟΣ. The bronze exemplars have only a bow in its quiver, while the silver coins show a leaning sceptre and a veiled and enthroned Aphrodite on the left, holding Eros, who presents a wreath (with visible leaves, as suggested by Catharine Lorber) to a radiate head of Helios (figure 3.2). In an alternative series, the reverse Aphrodite has a cylindrical crown, a polos, and, instead of Eros, a Nike crowns either her or her title, while Helios is no longer present (figure 3.3).

Figure 3.2 Silver didrachm (9.67 g), 300–288 BCE, from Amastris.

Figure 3.3 Silver stater (9.71 g), 300–288 BCE, from Amastris.

The young male with a Phrygian bonnet – Mithras – openly recalled the Persian ancestry of Amastris and was consistent with her choice to adopt the Persian weight as standard. Although the ruler was wife of two Macedonian diadochoi and of a Greek dynast, Amastris chose not to promote the legitimacy of her claim by building primarily on her Greco-Macedonian connection. Her queenship was instead promoted as rooted in her family lineage, in her descent from Oxathres, the brother of Darius, as it is obsessively repeated by the literary sources (Diodoros 20.109.7; Arrian Anab. 7.4.5; Strabo 12.3.10; Memnon BNJ 434 F 1.4.4). Similar to what was done by kings, between the family of origin and the family by marriage, Amastris openly grants prominence to the former.

The reverse of the coin has been interpreted convincingly as Aphrodite. There are several instances of Hellenistic royal women and consorts identified with Aphrodite and often honoured with civic cults, starting with Phila Aphrodite (Athenaios 255c). Scholars have suggested that this association was due to the attribution to the royal women of the goddess’ sexuality and domesticity – valuable qualities for the wife-mother of the king. Nevertheless, in the Seleukid environment, Aphrodite with less domestic features appeared also in association with queens; in particular, Panagiotis Iossif and Catharine Lorber (2007) have related the military victory of Nikephoros to the goddess, exploring the association of at least two Seleukid queens, Stratonike and Laodike III, with the militarily victorious Aphrodite. Not accidentally, in the Iranian East, Aphrodite had been related to the Iranian deity Anahita, also goddess of fertility, waters, and sea conveyance, who additionally had bellicose features and gave aid against the enemy. Most important, Anahita was the divinity responsible for the investiture of kings, as she enthroned the Achaimenid kings, and was thus closely connected with royalty and legitimacy. Therefore, the crown-bearing Nike and the polos associated with Aphrodite/Anahita on Amastris’ coins portrayed the militant goddess of victory, responsible for enthroning monarchs. This image likely aimed to induce the people of the satrapy to identify the victorious goddess with the successful queen, who clearly was making a statement of the legitimacy of her rule.

Additionally, the astral iconography of the staters portrays the veiled enthroned Aphrodite while sustaining Eros who offered Helios the wreath. The presence of and interaction between Helios, Aphrodite, and Eros long ago induced Imhoof-Blumer (1883: 229) to suggest the interpretation of the goddess as Aphrodite Ourania. In fact, Anahita, as well as the Asia Minor Aphrodite, was also ascribed the celestial features of Ourania, as wife of Helios. By suggesting the identification between Amastris and the goddess, the coin might ultimately present the queen as offering herself as the astral wife of the celestial god Helios, symbol of male kingship itself.

— Monica D’Agostini, "Can Powerful Women be Popular? Amastris: Shaping a Persian Wife into a Famous Hellenistic Queen", Celebrity, Fame, and Infamy in the Hellenistic World. The photos of the coins have been taken from the book and are courtesy of Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger and Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.respectively.

[historicwomendaily]

Costanza Bruno was born in Siracusa on January 31, 1915, to Brigadier General Francesco Bruno, (later a decorated WWI veteran), and Concettina Salomone of the Barons of Nicosia. The eldest of three children (she would be joined by Carmelina, 1919-2009, and Bruno, 1922-2013), Costanza grew up in a wealthy and cultured environment, fluent in several languages and well-versed in poetry. Her character was marked by obedience, generosity, and compassion, traits she demonstrated by caring for her ailing mother and sister, and assisting those in need.

Coming from a wealthy family, Costanza was cultured, could speak several languages and was well versed in poetry.  Obedient, generous and caring, she spent her youth taking care of her ailing mother and sister as well as helping people in need.

At the age of 20, Costanza volunteered as a Red Cross nurse, serving in hospitals in Palermo, Catania, and Siracusa. Her dedication to the injured soldiers, both physically and spiritually, earned her the affectionate nickname "little fairy."

With the outbreak of WWII, the Bruno family relocated to the Salomone family palace in Nicosia for safety. Costanza continued her service at the town's poorly equipped military hospital.

On July 22, 1943, during an intense air raid, the hospital was struck. Volunteer nurse Maria Cirino was killed instantly, and Costanza suffered severe injuries: a bullet wound to her left hand, shrapnel wounds to her side, and a bullet to her temple. Despite these critical injuries, Costanza initially concealed their severity, urging the doctor she was assisting to continue treating the wounded.

When her father arrived, her condition was clearly grave. She was rushed to a nearby military ambulatory, where three of her left fingers were amputated. Throughout this ordeal, Costanza remained stoic, uttering no complaints. She was then transported to Mistretta's field hospital, arriving late at night. Unfortunately, no surgeon was available for a life-saving operation.

Her father, realizing the futility of further medical intervention, decided to bring her back to her grandparents' home in Nicosia, allowing her to spend her final hours surrounded by family. Costanza died the following day, July 23, 1943.

Initially buried in Nicosia's graveyard, her remains were later moved to Siracusa in 1948, entombed in the Church of San Tommaso al Pantheon, a shrine for Syracusan soldiers fallen in WWI. She is the only woman buried there.

Costanza Bruno's extraordinary service and sacrifice were posthumously recognized in 1947 with the Florence Nightingale Medal, the Italian Red Cross Golden Medal, and the Bronze Medal for Military Valor.

Sources

GALIZIA MARIA,Costanza Bruno

Nicosia, ricorre il 22 luglio 2023 l’ottantesimo anniversario delle crocerossine Costanza Bruno e Maria Cirino

RIZZO ESTER, Costanza Bruno Siracusa 1915 - Nicosia 1943

[historicwomendaily]

The first woman to rule the Sasanian Empire in her own right, Boran (590-632) did her best to bring peace and stability during her brief reign.

A crumbling empire

The Sasanian Empire was the last pre-Islamic power on the Iranian plateau. Boran was the daughter of King Khosrow II. Her mother was possibly the Byzantine princess Maria.

Boran was married to her brother, Kavad II, who overthrew their father in 628. His reign was short-lived, and he was succeeded by his son from another wife, Ardashir III. As a child, Ardashir had no real authority and was soon assassinated by the usurper Shahrbaraz.

Boran then had Shahrbaraz killed and took the throne. The exact timeline of her reign is debated, with some sources placing its beginning in 629 and others in 630.

To further complicate matters, Boran’s sister, Azarmidokht, ruled briefly in 630. This suggests that Boran was dethroned and later reinstated. Azarmidokht was described in later sources as a just, intelligent, and attractive woman. She was later depicted as seated, wearing a red embroidered gown and sky-blue studded trousers, holding a battle-axe in her right hand and leaning on a sword in her left. She was likely murdered, though the details of her death remain uncertain.

Stabilizing the empire

The situation Boran faced was dire, with both external threats and internal factional conflicts. Once on the throne, she immediately worked to strengthen her legitimacy by associating herself with her father and imitating his coinage. She proclaimed herself the "Bringer of Glory" and the "Restorer of the Race of Gods."

Boran was deeply committed to justice and worked to provide stability for her subjects. She issued open letters expressing her desire to improve their lives. She reduced taxes, which had been excessively high during her father’s reign, and focused on rebuilding infrastructure, including roads and irrigation systems that had fallen into disrepair.

She ensured the empire’s prosperity by minting a significant number of coins. She also improved relations with the Byzantine Empire, previously an adversary, and sent an embassy to Emperor Heraclius, which was well received.

One of her most remarkable achievements was forging an unprecedented alliance among rival factions, allowing the Sasanian Empire to temporarily resist the Arab invasions.

Despite her efforts, Boran’s period of consolidation was short-lived, and the empire was already in decline. She died around 632, either from illness or assassination. The identity of her immediate successor is unclear—some sources claim it was her nephew, Yazdegerd III, while others suggest that it was her sister, Azarmidokht. In 651, the Sasanian Empire ultimately fell to the Islamic Caliphate.

Boran’s dedication earned her a place in Ferdowsi’s epic, the Shahnameh (Book of Kings).

If you enjoy this blog, consider supporting me on Ko-fi!

Further reading: 

“Azarmigduxt”, Encyclopædia Iranica

“Boran”, Encyclopædia Iranica

Haeri Shahla, The Unforgettable Queens of Islam: Succession, Authority, Gender

Hodge Mehdi Malek, Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, History and Coinage of the Sasanian Queen Bōrān (AD 629-631)

Hussain Ashna, “Boran”, in: Goucher Candice (ed.), Women Who Changed the World, Their Lives, Challenges, and Accomplishments Through History

[historicwomendaily]

"Among these divorcées were a few individuals of unusual wealth and independence. Preeminent among them, based on the number of references to her in Genizah documents, is the late eleventh—early twelfth-century businesswoman Karima (“the dear one”), known as Wuhsha (“object of yearning”) al-Dallala (“the broker”). Her name appears so often because of her extensive business transactions, including loans, and because her descendants were identifed by their connection to her.

Born in Alexandria, the daughter of Ammar, a banker, Wuhsha married and gave birth to a daughter before her marriage ended in divorce. Although she never remarried, she lived with a man named Hassun and the couple had a son. Wuhsha may have chosen not to marry her companion in order to deny him access to her wealth. In her very ex-tensive will she cancelled a considerable debt Hassun owed her but made clear that he was not to receive anything else from her estate. Wuhsha’s unusual personal choices did not pass unnoticed or uncensored in Cairo’s Jewish community; on one Yom Kippur the president of the Iraqi synagogue even expelled her from the congregation.

Wuhsha’s extensive will, written in Arabic, outlined elaborate funeral arrangements. Her largest bequest was to her son and included funds to provide him with a private tutor; she also left considerable sums of money to her surviving brother and to one of her two sisters, as well as generous legacies to the needy, the cemetery, and to all four Cairo synagogues, including the synagogue that had publicly humiliated her. Perhaps she saw this gift as a way of having the last word, since she knew that her money would not be refused.

Given her unconventional personal life and her significant business endeavors, it is not surprising that Wuhsha was well known in her community. Documents refer not only to her daughter, son, and grand-daughter in terms of their relationship to her, but even individuals in court cases long after her death are described as “Al-Wuhsha’s sister’s son” and “Al-Wuhsha’s relative.”

However, it is difficult to know how exceptional she was as a businesswoman. Goitein notes that she happened to live at a time from which a larger num- ber of documents have survived than from any other period of the “classical Genizah.” Moreover, he points out that Wuhsha had many business dealings with other women, “and by no means only in small matters.” Part of her gold, as stated in her will, was deposited with “Lady Choice”; in another document, Wuhsha releases a “Lady Beauty” from all obligations she may have incurred for making transactions on Wuhsha’s behalf. Thus, it is evident that some of Wuhsha’s female contemporaries were also involved in business transactions at a high level and it is not impossible that there were other Jewish women in the medieval Muslim world who attained or approached her degree of success and autonomy, even though they have not left significant traces in the Genizah writings."

Baskin Judith R., "Independent Jewish Women in Medieval Egypt: Enterprise and Ambiguity", in: Francesconi Frederica, Mirvis Stanley, Smollett Brian M. (eds.), From Catalonia to the Caribbean: The Sephardic Orbit from Medieval to Modern Times

[historicwomendaily]

Licoricia of Winchester (c. 1220–1277) was an exceptionally successful financier and businesswoman who acted as a leader for her community and frequently dealt with royalty.

Licoricia and her time

Little is known about Licoricia’s early life. Like many Jewish women of her time, she was likely highly educated. By 1200, England’s Jewish population numbered between 4,000 and 5,000. Marginalized and subjected to widespread antisemitism, Jewish communities faced fluctuating tolerance—often depending on their financial usefulness to the crown.

Licoricia first appears in records in 1234 as a young widow running a prosperous business. She had three children with her first husband: Benedict, Cokerel, and Lumbard.

Jewish women were not uncommon in the world of finance. Around 10% of loans recorded in the English king’s rolls at the time were made by Jewish women. Names like Henna of York, Mirabelle of Gloucester, Belia of Bedford, Chera of Winchester, and Abigail of London stand out among the many successful female Jewish financiers.

These women acted as independent moneylenders, traveling on horseback or by cart—often with armed escorts—appearing in court on their own behalf, dressing richly, owning estates, and lending money to men from various social ranks.

Licoricia’s business ventures

Well-connected and influential, Licoricia lent money to a wide range of clients—from farmers and local barons to the aristocracy and the church. Among her borrowers were King Henry III and his brother-in-law, Simon de Montfort. She also rented homes to Christian women and conducted business across southern England.

In 1242, Licoricia married David of Oxford, another prominent financier with whom she had a son, Asher. Their union faced obstacles as David’s first wife, Muriel, refused to consent to a divorce. It was only through royal intervention that the marriage was permitted.

Despite her marriage, Licoricia continued to manage her business independently. When David died in 1244, Licoricia was imprisoned in the Tower of London to prevent her from interfering while royal accountants assessed his estate. To reclaim David’s debts, she was forced to pay a sum of 5,000 marks—part of which was used to fund a new shrine to Edward the Confessor at Westminster Abbey.

After her release, Licoricia expanded her late husband’s business. Thanks to her access to the king, Licoricia was often called upon by other Jews to intervene on their behalf.

Though highly successful, she was not without controversy. In 1253, a man sued her for charging excessive interest on a loan that allegedly forced his father to sell his estate and forge documents. She defended herself by accusing the plaintiff of murder and forgery. With royal intervention, she managed to settle the case with only a small fine.

Unsolved murder

In 1277, Licoricia was found stabbed to death in her Winchester home, alongside her devoted Christian servant, Alice. Her coffers, strongboxes, and goods were stolen, suggesting the crime was motivated by greed. The culprit was never found.

Her legacy endured through her sons, who continued to refer to themselves as the “sons of Licoricia.” Asher, in particular, became a successful financier. However, just 13 years after her death, Edward I expelled the Jewish population from England.

Today, a statue of Licoricia stands in Winchester, bearing the message “Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself” at its base.

If you enjoy this blog, consider supporting me on Ko-fi!

Further reading

Bartlet Suzanne, Tallan Cheryl, “Licoricia of Winchester”

Berman Brown Reva, McCartney Sean, “David of Oxford and Licoricia of Winchester: glimpses into a Jewish family in thirteenth-century England”

“Licoricia of Winchester project”

Waterman Hillary, “Licoricia of Winchester, Jewish Widow and Medieval Financier”

Williams-Boyarin Adrienne, “Anglo-Jewish women at court”, in: Kervy-Fulton Kathryn,   Bugyis Katie Ann-Marie, van Engen John (eds.), Women intellectuals and leaders in the Middle Ages

[historicwomendaily]

Queen Mary of the United Kingdom, consort of Kind George V, ca. 1910.

[historicwomendaily]

It is true that Æthelflæd exercised a degree of authority unmatched by any royal woman prior to Edgar’s controversial queen, Ælfthryth. Nevertheless, her career should not be viewed as wholly distinct from that of other well-born women of the period. The charters depict a woman who gained political prominence, not in spite of contemporary gender expectations, but through them. Her rise to domina Merciorum followed a traditionally gendered path from daughter to sister, wife, and widow. She, like other noble women, provided her father, brother, and husband with a means of fulfilling their ambitions for themselves and their family. Yet she should not be seen as a passive or unwilling participant in this project; rather, it was her place at the intersection of West Saxon familial expectations and Mercian royal traditions that positioned her to achieve the sort of political influence typically available only to men. At the same time, like the Alfredian entries in the Chronicle or Asser’s vita Alfredi, Æthelflæd’s charters must also be understood as the political propaganda of a savvy West Saxon dynasty accustomed to crafting both a public narrative and a documentary record to suit their needs. The Æthelflæd of the charters is no less fictional than the Alfred of Asser or, for that matter, the Alfred of the prologue to the OE Pastoral Care. The charters, like these texts, are an exercise in political image-making. If the “real” Æthelflæd still remains elusive, however, we may at least be able to catch a glimpse of her in the documents of the law.

— Andrew Rabin, "The Charters of Æthelflæd", Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, and Women in Tenth-Century England (Edited by Rebecca Hardie)

[historicwomendaily]

The attraction of Eleanor of Aquitaine to post-medieval historians, novelists and artists is obvious. Heiress in her own right to Aquitaine, one of the wealthiest fiefs in Europe, she became in turn queen of France by marriage to Louis VII (1137–52) and of England by marriage to Henry II (1154–89). She was the mother of two of England’s most celebrated (or notorious) kings, Richard I and John, and played an important role in the politics of both their reigns. She was a powerful woman in an age assumed (not entirely correctly) to be dominated by men. She was associated with some of the great events and movements of her age: the crusades (she participated in the Second Crusade, and organized the ransom payments to free Richard I from the imprisonment that he suffered returning from the Third); the development of vernacular literature and the idea of courtly love (as granddaughter of the ‘first troubadour’ William IX of Aquitaine, she was also a patron of some of the earliest Arthurian literature in French, and featured in one of the foundational works on courtly love); and the Plantagenet–Capetian conflict that foreshadowed centuries of struggle between England and France (her divorce from Louis VII and marriage to Henry II took Aquitaine out of the Capetian orbit, and created the ‘Angevin Empire’). She enjoyed a long life (she was about eighty years old at the time of her death in 1204) and produced nine children who lived to adulthood. The marriages of her off spring linked her (and the Plantagenet and Capetian dynasties) to the royal houses of Castile, Sicily and Navarre, and to the great noble lines of Brittany and Blois-Champagne in France and the Welfs in Germany. A sense of both the geographical and temporal extent of Eleanor’s world can be appreciated when we consider an example from the crusades. Eleanor accompanied her husband Louis VII on the Second Crusade in 1147–9; when Louis IX went on crusade over a hundred years later, he left France in the care of Blanche of Castile, a Spanish princess and Eleanor’s granddaughter, whose marriage to Louis’s father had been arranged by Eleanor. Just this single example shows her direct influence spanning a century, two crusades and three kingdoms.

— Michael R. Evans, Inventing Eleanor: The Medieval and Post-Medieval Image of Eleanor of Aquitaine

[historicwomendaily]

That Joan was considered a high-status noblewoman in Wales following her marriage to Llywelyn is confirmed by the fact that the Iorwerth Redaction of the Welsh law texts reveals ‘a growth in the importance of the queen in Gwynedd’. David Stephenson attributes this to ‘the prominence at the court of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth of Joan’. Whether the Welsh themselves held her in high esteem, however, is another question. Those Welsh leaders who had suffered adversely from Llywelyn’s rise to power, which was aided by his marriage to Joan, would be unlikely to esteem her very highly. […] Not only was Joan Llywelyn’s wife, she was also ‘the king of England’s daughter’ – by inference a daughter of the conqueror, the enemy. Possibly the Welsh were unhappy about Llywelyn taking a foreign wife. [...] There is almost a note of glee in the report of the chronicles [when they described Joan’s adultery with William de Braose], as though what they had expected had come to pass.

While commenting on the increased role of the queen in the Iorwerth version of the Welsh laws, Robin Chapman Stacey qualifies what she has to say about Joan’s increased role. She believes that Joan was probably ‘a very controversial figure’ in the eyes of many of the Welsh, not only because of her well-known affair with de Braose, but also for precisely the reason that made her such a valuable asset to Llywelyn, her relationship to the English crown. As Stacey says, the redactor of Ior makes it clear that ‘Joan was to enjoy the luxuries and expanded household befitting the consort of a powerful Welsh prince, but she was not to meddle in his public affairs.’ This suggests that a noblewoman like Joan, in the hiatus created by the invasion and response to it, accrued power at this time, albeit an ambiguous power, but there was a reluctance to formally (or publicly) acknowledge her authority. Not only was this true at the time, but it is unfortunately mirrored in the historiography as well. In reality Joan was repeatedly expected to intervene and ‘meddle in his public affairs’ when the political situation for Llywelyn became dire, or he needed her help. The wording of the entries in the Bruts when Joan first interceded with her father shows that it was not just Llywelyn who expected Joan to approach her father. The entries state that Llywelyn sent Joan to King John ‘by the counsel of his leading men’.

Gwenyth Richards, From Footnotes to Narrative: Welsh Noblewomen in the Thirteenth Century, PhD Thesis, University of Sydney (2005)

[historicwomendaily]

Although heiress to a wealthy and powerful county, [Ida of Boulogne] is portrayed as a pawn, [Renaud of Dammartin's] stepping stone to a more favorable position vis-à-vis the king of France. While she is characterized as instrumental in Renaud’s rise to power, she disappears from most narratives after their marriage and his pledge of fidelity to the king [Philip Augustus] in 1191. Such accounts, which fail to recognize her as an actor in her own right, reduce Ida to an object of exchange among men, not only dismissing her desires as inconsequential but discounting them in the interest of male scheming. The use of the term abduction to describe the events preceding her marriage perpetuates this view, suggesting a bride forced to marry against her will. As a result of such assumptions about her lack of agency, Ida is only briefly mentioned in texts that purport to address the political history of France during Philip’s reign (1180–1223).

However, a careful assessment of the sources in which Ida appears, including both chronicles and charters, reveals a more nuanced view of her ‘‘abduction’’ and of her agency as countess of Boulogne. The chronicle of Lambert of Ardres, the main narrative source for her marriage to Renaud and for conclusions about the forced nature of their union, suggests that in fact Ida conspired with Renaud to secure it over serious opposition. The registers of Philip and the cartularies compiled by monastic foundations in Boulogne provide considerable information that corroborates the view of Ida as a willing accomplice in her abduction. The charter evidence demonstrates that while her ability to govern Boulogne was limited during her minority and first two marriages, it grew markedly during her marriage to Renaud, further supporting the theory of her complicity. Indeed, from 1192 until Renaud’s incarceration in 1214, Ida emerges as an increasingly active religious patron who participated extensively in county governance, and it may well be that marriage to Renaud attracted her precisely because it afforded her a greater political presence.

— Erin L. Jordan, "The ‘‘Abduction’’ of Ida of Boulogne: Assessing Women’s Agency in Thirteenth-Century France", French Historical Studies, Volume 30, Issue 1 (Winter 2007)

Ida’s rise to a position of authority as heiress of Boulogne illustrates the problems that resulted from the medieval insistence on primogeniture and patrilineage and from the high mortality rates among men in the era of crusades, tournaments, and constant military conflict. […] Initially, Ida’s experience seems to have conformed to the expectations attending female authority versus male power. Until her first marriage in 1181, Boulogne was ruled by her uncle, Philip of Alsace, count of Flanders since the death of his father, Thierry. The young countess was rarely mentioned in documents issued by Philip that pertained to the governance of Boulogne. In a charter issued in 1180 concerning the collection of a tithe on herring at Calais, Philip referred to Ida as his niece, countess of Boulogne, whose tutor he had become. Both Ida and her younger sister, Mathilda, appeared among the list of witnesses, identified as ‘‘daughters of my brother Mathieu, once count of Boulogne.’’ In addition to governing Boulogne, Philip orchestrated both girls’ marriages, which he viewed as opportunities to foster alliances favorable to Flanders.While Ida was married to Gérard II, count de Geuldre, Mathilda was married to Henri of Louvain, son of Godefroid, duke of Brabant. Although the union of Ida and Gérard was not in the best interests of France, the young Philip Augustus was not yet in a position to object. During their brief marriage, Gérard demonstrated little interest in county affairs, apparently issuing only one charter as count of Boulogne. This charter, which granted concessions to the town of Calais, was witnessed by a number of individuals. Ida was not among them, but she issued a later charter confirming her husband’s actions.

After Gérard’s death in 1182, Ida returned to Boulogne, where she acted as countess until 1183, issuing four charters to several religious foundations in her domains. In 1182 she issued one granting certain forest rights to the abbey of Saint-Josse-sur-Mer ‘‘for the soul of her father,’’ whose sepulcher was located in the abbey’s church. In 1183 she made concessions to the abbey of Licques concerning a tithe at Westaxla ‘‘for the soul of her father and her mother’’; she also confirmed earlier charters issued by ‘‘those men of good memory, the counts of Boulogne, Mathieu and Gérard de Geuldre’’ on behalf of the abbey. The third charter issued by Ida in 1183 confirmed a donation of a tithe made to the abbey of Andres. This charter was most likely issued on the eve of her marriage, as she stipulated that the donation would be confirmed later by her husband. All of these charters were issued by Ida expressly as ‘‘countess of Boulogne’’ and under her seal.

However, Ida’s increasing activity as countess was temporary, as the county of Boulogne was too strategically important for her to remain a widow. Her second marriage, to Bertold IV, duc de Zeringhen, in 1183, was also arranged by Philip of Alsace, whose motives are unclear. Since Bertold was nearly sixty, it seems unlikely that Philip expected the union to produce an heir. Although Ida had become more visible after the death of her first husband, she apparently returned to the periphery and issued not a single charter during her three years of marriage to Bertold. Her limited role in county affairs may have resulted from his lack of interest, as he issued no charters pertaining to Boulogne during their marriage. Like Gérard, Bertold seems to have been content to leave control of the county to Philip, which may be why the marriage appealed to the count of Flanders in the first place.

When Bertold died in 1186, Ida returned to Boulogne. Although she had already been married twice, she was only twenty-five [or, alternatively, as young as twenty-one] and had not produced an heir to the county; she would most likely have anticipated a brief widowhood.

Most modern accounts of her third marriage, to Renaud of Dammartin, imply that the union occurred against her will, but the evidence is open to interpretation. If nothing else, it suggests the need to revisit our understanding of the medieval use of the term abduction. According to Lambert of Ardres, after her return to Boulogne, Ida began an affair with Arnold of Guines, son of Bauduin II, count of Guines, and a staunch ally of Philip of Alsace. Arnold had been raised in Philip’s household and had gradually distinguished himself as a man of courage and honor. When Renaud, son of the count of Dammartin, began to entertain thoughts of marrying Ida, his intentions were made known to her by Isabelle of Hainaut, niece of Philip of Alsace and wife of Philip Augustus.Lambert suggests that initially, in spite of her affair with Arnold, Ida was receptive to Renaud’s overtures: ‘‘He sought her boldly with a not dissimilar effort and expectation, and he labored and strove to attract her love with great industry. Inflamed and alight as she was with women’s frivolous love, she would have satisfied both her desire and Renaud’s if she had found her uncle, the count of Flanders, ready and willing to consent.’’ However, Philip of Alsace was convinced that Ida’s marriage to Renaud would force him to relinquish control of the county. According to Lambert, ‘‘Count Philip, a man of worthy spirit, had gotten the county of the land of Boulogne and held it in hand and had received and dispensed its fruits at will.’’ Unlike Renaud, Arnold was clearly subordinate to the count of Flanders and could not wrest from him control of Boulogne. Furthermore, Philip of Alsace was convinced that Renaud ‘‘was both related to and had the ear of the king of France and helped and obeyed him in every way and in all things in his council.’’By this time the breach between Philip of Alsace and Philip Augustus had widened into open hostility, and the count of Flanders undoubtedly feared the consequences of an alliance between the king of France and the count of Boulogne. As a result of her uncle’s opposition to her union with Renaud, Ida, ‘‘full of stupid female instability and inflamed by love,’’ returned her affection to Arnold.

However, Renaud was not easily dissuaded; he continued to plot marriage, even though he was already married to Marie de Chatillion, the king’s cousin. Luring Ida away from Arnold, Renaud removed her to his castle in Lorraine and consummated their union. To Lambert, it is clear that Ida assented to her ‘‘abduction’’: ‘‘Renaud, who was always vigilant and feared Arnold of Guines more than anyone else, secretly came to her with his henchmen and—oh, the perfidy of female instability!—without really using force, he brought force against the willing woman, just as he wished to do; he abducted her and carried her to the fortress of Riche in Lorraine without consulting Count Philip of Flanders.’’ While Lambert does use the word abduxit to describe Renaud’s actions, it is clear in context that any ‘‘abduction’’ was feigned, as Ida was clearly a willing participant in the scheme. Thus Renaud’s real crime was to marry Ida without the consent of her uncle and tutor, Philip of Alsace.

Lambert states that Ida, appealing to Arnold for help, insisted that ‘‘Renaud had brought force against her while she resisted and was unwilling.’’ Yet he remains skeptical, dismissing her assertion as ‘‘the machinations of feminine treachery.’’ Lambert presents her as complicit in her own abduction but regretful of her actions afterward. She promised Arnold that ‘‘she would leave Renaud and marry him [Arnold] if he could come for her’’ however, before he could arrive, she betrayed him to Renaud by informing the latter of her impending rescue. Ida’s duplicity enabled Renaud to seize the unsuspecting Arnold and imprison him in ‘‘unyielding shackles.’’ Ultimately, Lambert dismisses Ida’s protestations as a disingenuous attempt to manipulate the men around her. He represents her ‘‘abduction’’ as a means of circumventing her uncle’s opposition to her marriage to Renaud. Once the union was consummated, of course, Philip of Alsace’s disapproval was irrelevant. Even though he unequivocally condemns Ida’s behavior, Lambert questions neither her complicity nor her agency.

Although Lambert mentions only the objection of Philip of Alsace, Ida’s abduction may also have been an attempt to overcome the opposition of Philip Augustus, whose niece would have had to accept an annulment from Renaud before he could marry Ida. However, like Philip of Alsace, Philip Augustus would have been forced to recognize the marriage once it had been consummated and Ida’s consent was no longer an issue. After receiving the annulment (retroactively), Renaud secured Philip Augustus’s consent (also retroactively) to marry Ida, who then declared by charter in 1191 that ‘‘the lord king of France Philip received my homage of the county of Boulogne and received my husband, Renaud of Dammartin, as his liege man of the same county with my assent.’’ Apparently determined to make the best of the situation, the king exacted from Ida the unprecedented sum of seven thousand livres artois, in addition to the feudal relief of three thousand livres artois owed by major vassals of the crown; he also forced her to forfeit a key fortress at Lens and relinquish all claims to the Vermandois. Moreover, in pledging homage to Philip Augustus, Ida and Renaud removed Boulogne from a position of subordination to the count of Flanders and thereby became direct vassals of the king, strengthening his position by weakening his rival’s.

Lambert’s depiction of Ida as an assertive woman who may have welcomed marriage to Renaud is corroborated by charter evidence. Initially, Ida seemed destined, as expected, to function as a feudal placeholder, legitimating the actions of the men who wielded power in her stead. During her minority she played an extremely limited role in the governance of Boulogne. Rather than expanding this role by removing her from the tutelage of Philip of Alsace, Ida’s first two marriages perpetuated her marginalization. When she returned to Boulogne in 1186 after the death of her second husband, however, Ida became increasingly active in county affairs. In four years she issued sixteen charters, directing donations to the church of Watten and to the abbeys of Andres, Clairmarais, Cluny, Fontevraud, Longvilliers, Saint-Vulmer, and Sainte-Austreberthe de Montreuil. Such patronage did not merely stem from personal piety; it would have been perceived by her contemporaries as a reflection of her authority and an indication of the resources at her command.

Ida also participated in the secular affairs of Boulogne, granting rights to a toll to Robert de Béthune in 1189 and exemptions from tolls for travel among various destinations in the county of Boulogne. She also relinquished the droit de lagan, the seigneurial right to all ships that washed ashore, in her domains. Such concessions proved crucial to the town of Boulogne’s ability to establish itself gradually as an autonomous community. Ida’s increasing visibility in the historical record after her second marriage most likely mirrored a growing confidence born of age and experience; it was made possible in part also by the absence of Philip of Alsace on crusade.

While a third marriage may have been inevitable for Ida, her fading back into obscurity in the documentary record was not. Her marriage to Renaud did not force her to return to the margins of government. The number and nature of the charters she issued, both independently and jointly with her husband, demonstrate that Renaud’s interest in the county gave Ida ample opportunity to participate in government. Their marriage was much more a partnership than either of her previous unions had been. Not only did the couple continue to reside in Boulogne, but Ida actively helped her new husband govern, especially in internal matters. The nature of their arrangement is aptly illustrated by the two charters issued on the same day in Paris in 1191 after their marriage. The first, issued by Ida under her seal as countess, was the one stating that the king had accepted her pledge of fealty for the county of Boulogne and had received Renaud ‘‘as his liege man’’; the second, promulgated in the name of the king, conveyed his willingness to accept Renaud’s homage with the consent of Ida, and to accept her homage as well.

In this transaction Ida did not merely consent to Renaud’s oath of homage or appear jointly with him; she was required to make the pledge in her own name. She then designated Renaud as her representative, chosen with her consent to perform the duties associated with the fief. This arrangement illustrates the difference between authority and power in the Middle Ages, particularly with regard to women who inherited powerful fiefs. Legitimate authority in the county of Boulogne derived from Ida, daughter of the former count. Her consent to Renaud’s vow of homage was necessary for him to act in her name as count of Boulogne, wielding power on her behalf. Clearly, Ida’s role was more than perfunctory, her consent more than a rubber stamp for her husband’s actions. Furthermore, it was Ida who officially paid the price for marrying Renaud without the king’s prior consent, agreeing to Philip Augustus’s harsh demands by relinquishing claims to the Vermandois, razing the fortress at Lens, and paying ten thousand livres artois. Renaud issued no corresponding charter concerning Philip’s demands. In fact, he did not grant his consent in either charter to any of his wife’s actions. He remained a silent witness, undoubtedly present but not participating in the legal process.

During their marriage Ida appeared in twenty-four charters, nineteen of them issued jointly with Renaud. Roughly half concerned county administration, primarily arrangements made with local governments. For example, in 1203 the count and countess granted the aldermen of Boulogne extensive rights to self-government, and in 1204 they relinquished the droit de lagan in the area of Rouen. Two years later they relinquished it in Saint-Omer as well, and in 1210 they arbitrated a dispute between the towns of Calais and Merch. Ida and Renaud also made grants to various religious communities, many of which had enjoyed comital favor for generations. The abbey of Saint- Bertin received two confirmations of earlier donations, including rights to a tithe of herrings from Calais and exemption from a toll at Wisant. The abbey of Andres received rights to alms in the form of woods at Hodenehout that Renaud and Ida donated in 1194, and in 1199 the couple confirmed the possessions and privileges enjoyed by the abbey of Saint-Wulmer. The abbey of Notre-Dame du Parc received an annual rent of ten thousand herrings in 1209.

The charter evidence discussed above illustrates the various ways that Ida and Renaud negotiated their roles as countess and count, sharing both authority and power. Their union appears to have been mutually beneficial.Marriage to Renaud allowed Ida considerable independence and autonomy. Rather than returning her to the margins of political activity, where her first two marriages had confined her, it propelled her to the forefront of comital affairs. At the same time, Renaud acquired access to Boulogne’s vast resources and, by leveraging his control of the county, became one of the most powerful men in northern Europe, courted by the kings of France and England. His increasing importance is illustrated by Philip Augustus’s repeated attempts to secure his support with royal favors, including investment with the county of Mortain in 1201 and the arranged marriage of his brother Simon to Marie, daughter and heiress of the count of Ponthieu, in 1208.