#henri i

[histoireettralala]

Loyal brothers

The Capetian kings found their brothers no more difficult than their sons. The exceptions were the brothers of Henri I, Robert and Eudes, but thereafter the younger Capetians developed a tradition of loyalty to their elders. Robert of Dreux, the brother of Louis VII, who was the focus of a feudal revolt in 1149, was only a partial exception, for at that date the king was still in the East, and the real object of the hostility was the regent Suger. By contrast, Hugh of Vermandois was described by contemporaries as the coadjutor of his brother, Philip I. St Louis's brothers, Robert of Artois, Alphonse of Poitiers, and Charles of Anjou, never caused him any difficulties, and the same can be said of Peter of Alençon and Robert of Clermont in the reign of their brother Philip III. Even the disturbing Charles of Valois, with his designs on the crowns of Aragon and Constantinople, was always a faithful servant to his brother Philip the Fair, and to the latter's sons. The declaration which he made when on the point of invading Italy in the service of the Pope is revealing:

"As we propose to go to the aid of the Church of Rome and of our dear lord, the mighty prince Charles, by the grace of God King of Sicily, be it known to all men that, as soon as the necessities of the same Church and King shall be, with God's help, in such state that we may with safety leave them, we shall then return to our most dear lord and brother Philip, by the grace of God King of France, should he have need of us. And we promise loyally and in all good faith that we shall not undertake any expedition to Constantinople, unless it be at the desire and with the advice of our dear lord and brother. And should it happen that our dear lord and brother should go to war, or that he should have need of us for the service of his kingdom, we promise that we shall came to him, at his command, as speedily as may be possible, and in all fitting state, to do his will. In witness of which we have given these letters under our seal. Written at Saint-Ouen lès Saint-Denis, in the year of Grace one thousand and three hundred, on the Wednesday after Candlemas."

This absence of such sombre family tragedies as Shakespeare immortalised had a real importance. In a society always prone to anarchy the monarchy stood for a principle of order, even whilst its material and moral resources were still only slowly developing. Respectability and order in the royal family were prerequisites, if the dynasty was to establish itself securely.

Robert Fawtier - The Capetian Kings of France

[onlinesweetheart]

<3

[wolfythewitch]

Henry Clerval and the creature

[duchessripper]

“why do you still use tumblr?”

listen— i have to keep track of my hyper fixations somehow

[itsgonnagetinspiringsoon]

FUCK

[bruhstation]

you’re just like the rest of them

[chloesimaginationthings]

You know Henry’s final speech went hard in FNAF

[avastazyana]

'Transformers One' Cast Answer 50 of the Most Googled Transformers Questions (x)

[jovoy]

sometimes you guys are extremely strange but i have to forgive you because to me mutualship is like catholic marriage where you have to put up with weird bullshit forever amd you cant get a divorce no matter what

[lazylittledragon]

dndads s1 you're so special to me

[fantastic-nonsense]

[histoireettralala]

An absence of family strife

Their marriages were generally fruitful and, what was equally important, their sons were usually loyal, or at least obedient. There are remarkably few instances of rebellion against paternal authority. Robert the Pious did take arms against his father, probably in 996, and his own two sons Henri and Robert united against him in 1030; but these were isolated instances. The only other example that can be offered is the quarrel between Philip I and the future Louis VI, which may be attributed to the malicious intervention of the prince's stepmother, Queen Bertrada. If it demonstrates anything, it shows the patience and loyalty of Prince Louis under considerable provocation. No contemporary royal, or even noble, family, can show anything approaching so favourable a record in this respect.

The characters of the individual kings go some way towards explaining this absence of family strife. The Capetians were good husbands. Only two bastards are recorded for the fourteen kings of the dynasty: Isabella, daughter of Louis VI, who married Guillaume de Chaumont, and Pierre Charlot, the son of Philip Augustus and that 'damsel of Arras' whose name the chroniclers delicately omit. Only three scandals can be pointed to: the elopement of Philip I with Bertrada de Montfort, wife of Fulk of Anjou, on 15 May 1092; the estrangement of Philip Augustus and Ingeborg of Denmark in 1193; and the tragic episode of the daughters-in-law of Philip the Fair in 1314. The only excuse put forward for the first affair was the excessive obesity of the lawful queen ("praepinguis corpulentiae", according to William of Malmesbury); it would not be unfair to point out that the king himself, at the age of forty, was already very fat also. Dr Brachet has plausibly explained the behaviour of Philip Augustus as the consequence of the impact of a momentary anaphrodisia on a nervous system already strained by illness. Certainly, the adventure of the damsel of Arras apart, he does not appear to have led an irregular life. But we must look more closely at the third episode, which throws a vivid light on the moral values of the royal family.

Robert Fawtier - The Capetian Kings of France

[britneyshakespeare]

I'm curious about people's levels of familiarity; I intend no judgment or elitism and it's absolutely fine not to be a completionist, btw. I didn't think I would've intended to have read them all at age 25; it just sort of happened that after I passed the halfway point in the middle of 2023, I came out of a reading slump and was motivated to finish. Fwiw I consider myself a hobbyist (I am not involved in academia or professional theater) but I realize that that label is usually attributed to people with less experience.

I also have always loved seeing other bloggers' Shakespeare polls where they put certain plays or characters up against each other, but I'm often left wondering if it's really a 'fair' fight all the time if you're putting up something like Hamlet or Twelfth Night against one of the more obscure works, like the Winter's Tale. It's not a grave affront to vote in those polls if you don't know every play, but I am curious about it.

Please reblog for exposure if you vote; I would appreciate it a lot. Also feel free to elaborate on your own Shakespeare journey in tags, comments, reblogs, because I love to hear about other people's personal relationships to literature.

[charlie-rulerofhell]

"I'll be back. I promise you. And everything will be alright."

[charlotlie]

bitches be like “this is the best piece of literature i have ever read” and it’s either a book that took them six weeks to finish or a fanfic they read at 3 AM

[jupiterthesmart]

Michael Afton's life in 4 panels