#historian: lauren johnson

[une-sanz-pluis]

I was rereading the chapter in Lauren Johnson’s Shadow King about the accusations against Eleanor and, well, to misquote Hotspur, it made me mad. It’s one thing reading something that obviously believes Eleanor was guilty, another thing that’s been shoddily researched and presented.

‘A great and cunning man in astronomy’, [Bolingbroke] had been commissioned by Eleanor to draw a horoscope for the king. Working with Eleanor’s physician, Dr Thomas Southwell, the pair had divined that Henry’s death was imminent. According to their calculations Henry would sicken in his twentieth year, enduring a wasting disease that would strike him first with fever and cold, then with an unnatural heat. By summer at the latest, he would be dead. 

This actually misrepresents Bolingbroke and Southwell’s prediction for Henry’s death in favour of, surprise surprise, a more shocking and dramatic reading. The original horoscope does not survive but a copy of it is found in an anonymous treatise that discusses it and two earlier natal charts of Henry VI before offering up its own. Hilary M. Carey breaks down the seven conclusions Bolingbroke and Southwell reached which I’ll paraphrase here.

Henry would endure a dangerous condition/event in his 20th year unless he was able to avoid it by art or industry

This condition/event would affect bodily disposition

The effect on the body would be in the nature of natural infirmities and would come from nature.

The origin of these infirmities would be of Saturn’s nature, possibly a fever with a great tremor, “moist” infirmities or brought on by great cold

Henry’s recovery would be characterised by excessive heat (e.g. continual fever, choleric abscesses)

The event/condition would begin at any time from April 1441 on and would last for an entire year at most

The event/condition would appear in July or August 1441 unless it was averted by “wise action"

So, the actual prediction is for a natural disease or condition could be fatal but could also be averted. There is nothing “overtly treasonable” in their readings, only a warning of “possible illness”. Carey (followed by Frank Millard) also suggests that Bolingbroke and Southwell shared their conclusions with Henry VI or Henry’s doctors. If this was the case, this means that rather than being the dastardly accomplices of Eleanor, Bolingbroke and Southwell may have actually been guilty of no more than trying to warn the king of a potential risk to his health. It is also possible, I suggest, that the horoscope may have been commissioned by Eleanor (perhaps out of concern for Henry's health?) and then shared with Henry or his doctors by Eleanor or on her orders so the illness could be averted.

(also note that that the event/condition was supposed to appear at the same time that Eleanor and her associates were moved against.)

The three men had been provided with a waxen image of the king by Margery Jourdemayne, also known as ‘the Witch of Eye’, which, on melting, would bring about the death of the king.

[citation needed]

OK, I actually know the citation for this is, it's Jessica Freeman's article on Margery Jourdemayne. But also the wax figure is associated with Roger Bolingbroke. The Brut mentions “ymages of siluer, of wexe, and of oþer metalles“ being displayed with Bolingbroke and the indictment for Bolingbroke, Southwell and Hume make mention of them using a wax figure for the purposes of drawing up the chart. Modern scholars Jessica Freeman and George Kittredge suggested Margery was their supplier of the wax image but it's more speculative than certain. I have a fair few issues with Freeman's article because it seems so speculative. It's entirely possible Margery did supply the wax figure but I've never seen anyone put forward evidence that she did (I've never seen much evidence about what Margery was supposed to have done) and it's impossible to know for sure at this great distance and with such limited evidence who made the wax figure. At best, contemporary records suggest the wax figure was associated with Bolingbroke.

Johnson’s account of events does not also acknowledge the possibility that the wax image may well have been used in some kind of fertility magic (which is the only thing we know Eleanor admitted to) or love magic (which Eleanor was also accused of). Kristen Geaman suggests that these images were used for fertility magic and notes that fertility magic was often tied up in love magic. I would argue that Eleanor turning to magical remedies for her childlessness makes perfect sense given her circumstances.

But more pointedly, this was a repeated issue with witchcraft accusations. Since magic was a taboo, it was carried out secretly and it was easy to represent the practice of relatively innocuous magic as something far more nefarious. It often came down to one person's words against another and, in those cases, about who "seemed" more likely to be telling the truth. The victims of witchcraft trials tended to be the marginalised and vulnerable in society. While Eleanor and other aristocratic women in late medieval England cannot be said to be marginalised figures, they were vulnerable to accusations in other ways. Eleanor had been the figure of scandal some years before for being the mistress of Humphrey during his marriage to the popular Jacqueline of Hainault and was of the lower gentry, meaning there was likely a degree of classism in how she was viewed, especially once she married Humphrey, and that her family did not have the influence to intervene for her sake. A contemporary poem, written before or shortly after her marriage to Humphrey, associated her with witchcraft and witches, and claimed she had used magic to force Humphrey's heart away from Jacqueline. It would be all to easy for Eleanor to be seen as guilty, regardless of the reality.

The wax figurine could have represented Henry. It could have represented Humphrey (if so, it may have been paired with an unrecorded figurine of Eleanor). It could have represented a hoped-for child. We don't know.

Moreover, as the indictment against Eleanor expressed it, by spreading a belief in Henry’s imminent mortality, the duchess had fomented unrest, encouraging his subjects to turn from their ‘cordial love’ of the king.

Not nitpicking Johnson here but the accusations themselves. Is it just me or is “spreading a belief in Henry’s imminent mortality” an incredibly stupid thing for a woman plotting his death to do? It’s things like this that make me go all conspiracy minded and wonder if the accusations against Eleanor were preceded by some kind of breakdown in Henry’s health (be it mental or physical) that has since been lost to history. It would explain why Eleanor (or someone else) had Henry’s horoscope drawn up and why there were rumours and fears for his health. It would also frame the response to the accusations against against Eleanor as a display of strength.

When pressed in her second examination, [Eleanor] had confessed to five of the twenty-eight counts of felony and treason, but she insisted that she had not sought Henry’s death, and that the wax images which the court interpreted as intended for his destruction were actually part of a fertility ritual, ‘for to have borne a child by her lord, the duke of Gloucester’. This more innocent use of magic did not save her from condemnation, however. By her own admission, she was a traitor and must be punished.

And this makes no sense.

First: Eleanor was tried by an ecclesiastic court. They were trying on her charges relating to ecclesiastic crimes. In short, treason was not an ecclesiastic crime. The court she was tried in had no jurisdiction over treason.

Now you might be going “what do you, random tumblr user, know about this” so, here’s J. G. Bellamy in The Law of Treason in Late Medieval England (Cambridge University Press, 2004):

Eleanor was summoned before a number of important churchmen including the archbishops of Canterbury and York and the bishop of Winchester to answer to twenty-eight charges of necromancy, witchcraft, sorcery, heresy and treason with Bolingbroke acting as a witness against her. This account is given by Stow and the author of The Brut: there is unfortunately no official record with which to compare it. Very likely the clergy were only investigating heresy and perhaps witchcraft. They would not have been investigating treason since it was not clergyable.

(note: Bellamy is published by an academic press, he is an expert in medieval law, he wrote the standard on medieval treason law. Johnson specialises in the Tudors, not medieval England, and wrote a pop history narrative biography of Henry VI which was naturally not published by an academic press.)

So, no, they did not investigate Eleanor for treason. It was not in their jurisdiction. It was not a charge they could or would have levied at her in her sole court trial. It was not a charge that she therefore could admit to. As Bellamy says, they probably investigated her for heresy (all magic was heresy, after all).

(It might be possible that they phrased the charges to refer to treason, i.e. something like "she did treasonably urge that a natal chart be drawn up predicting the king's death", but we do not and cannot know that. If so, it may constitute a merging of secular and spiritual authority in her case and may also suggest how desperate they were to frame her actions as treason and lends credence to the notion that she had been set up.)

Second: We do not know what 28 charges against Eleanor were, let alone what she admitted to. As Bellamy points out, the records don’t survive. We can safely dismiss treason from the list and focus on the heresy/witchcraft. We know that she was simultaneously accused of using love magic on her husband and that the one thing we know she admitted to is fertility magic so we should expect charges relating to those things to be among the twenty-eight, not just the use of magic against Henry VI (which likely centred on the natal chart). This further weakens Johnson’s claims that Eleanor had admitted to treason. Logically, too, Eleanor would have admitted to the most minor of the charges and it's possible that the five charges Eleanor admitted to were solely related to her admission of fertility magic.

Because I’ve rambled a lot, I’ll requote this bit:

[Eleanor] insisted that she had not sought Henry’s death, and that the wax images which the court interpreted as intended for his destruction were actually part of a fertility ritual ... [b]y her own admission, she was a traitor and must be punished.

Because it is just very:

Eleanor: I was trying to have a baby Johnson: TREASON!!!!!!!!!

There are some historians who note this defence might have alarmed Henry VI and co because Eleanor was attempting to secure her own succession. And possibly it did.

But it’s all very... nonsensical. It’s perfectly understandable that she would be trying to have a baby and would have progressed to less conventional methods considering her personal circumstances (being childless in her early 40s, married to the heir to the throne). Humphrey was Henry’s heir but lacked legitimate children, Henry wasn’t yet married and no movements had been made in that direction. Humphrey’s theoretical son might pose a theoretical risk to Henry but he would also be Henry’s heir. The anxieties around the succession are typically dated to after Humphrey’s death in 1447 but there is every reason to assume that this may happened earlier. I heavily suspect that these anxieties were a real concern for Humphrey and Eleanor, not least because their own lack of children meant they both lacked an heir. Additionally, if Henry and co were especially worried by the fact that Eleanor was trying to have a baby, the best way to solve that problem was for Henry to marry and start trying to produce an heir. And honestly, what were they even worried about? Eleanor was in her early 40s and childless after 13 years of marriage. She wasn't going to have a baby.

And by the way? That "[b]y her own admission, she was a traitor and must be punished” line? Creeps me the fuck out. It reads like the start of a S&M scene.

[fideidefenswhore]

I was curious if you knew of any good summary of the Seymour faction in 1536. I liked AB Files but is there a good one by a historian?

Bound to Obey and Serve? by Lauren Johnson is an excellent, comprehensive one, the longer version of the same article in the Tyndale Journal is even better.

The only aspect I would say she missed was the Seymour connection in the jury that convicted George and Anne Boleyn. There was Henry Courtenay, who was named conspirator by Chapuys, and there was also Thomas Wentworth, who was Jane's (maternal) first cousin. This is an aspect I hope another historian (or she herself, although I know of no upcoming Tudor books from this historian) expands upon; Johnson touched on the irony as far as it extended to Francis Bryan's involvement in this faction, and later assistance in the destruction of another of its most prominent members ('fortunate to escape imprisonment [in the Exeter Conspiracy], [yet Bryan] did so at the expense of his family [and] sat on the jury that condemned his brother-in-law Carew'). What was not mentioned was that Wentworth, also, was on the jury that condemned Henry Pole and, again, Henry Courtenay (both noted by Johnson as prominent members of the factional party of 1536) years later, again, in connection to the Exeter Conspiracy.

[margueritedanjou]

Concerning Margaret’s transition from Angevin princess to Queen of England, historian Lauren Johnson gives some light about it as we see below:

“While Henry prepared for his queen's arrival with costly restoration and building work on the royal palaces, Margaret remained with her family in Lorraine. In the end, she did not leave them until March 1445, eventually making the journey from Nancy through Armagnac controlled France with a considerable escort of musicians, courtiers and servants.

Margaret's brother, Jean of Calabria, accompanied her with a French escort as far as St Denis, then the duke of Orléans took his place as representative of the French princes.

At Pontoise, on the ancient road from Paris to Rouen, her French escort left her altogether and she was delivered into the care of the English.

Henry had spent more than £5,000 providing his queen with a suitably impressive, 300 strong, for her journey, but the strain of endless travel and the transformation in her situation started to take its toll on Margaret.

She had only just turned fifteen and had still never met the man for whom she was leaving her family and friends to begin a new life in England. Her physician's bills mounted, Dr Francis mixing up 'diverse spices, confections and powders' to make her medicine while a yeoman toiled in the kitchen to try to restore her to health with nourishing dishes. It did not help.

Margaret was so ill by the time she reached Rouen that the sumptuous chariot draped in cloth of gold that Henry had sent for her formal entry into the city had to be occupied by a proxy.

Suffolk's wife, Alice Chaucer, played the part of 'queen' while the sickly Margaret languished in Rouen Castle.

On 3 April, Margaret was rowed out to the Cock John off Cherbourg, one of a fleet of ships arranged to convey her to England. As the ship sailed along the coast between Portsmouth and Southampton she was serenaded from two Genoese galleys.

The music failed to soothe her. Margaret blamed the crossing for the sickness she suffered on arriving in England, but as she was still ill a week after setting foot on dry land, the 'pox' that afflicted her sounds more like the result of anxiety.

Whatever her private worries may have been, there was no turning back now. Her life as princess of Anjou was over. She was now queen of England.”

JOHNSON, Lauren. “Shadow King: Life and Death of Henry VI”

[cksmart-world]

SMART BOMB

The Completely Unnecessary News Analysis

By Christopher Smart  

May 30, 2023

NO HOAX — WITCHES EXONERATED

A dozen convicted New England witches have been vindicated 370 years after their executions. Dozens were dispatched for witchcraft in colonial America — and that was way before the scourge of social media. In different times folks now affiliated with QAnon could face the dunking wheel. Don't go getting any ideas, Wilson. Last year, Massachusetts formally exonerated Elizabeth Johnson, the last person convicted in the Salem Witch Trials. She was spared the noose and lived to be 77. Some historians say she suffered from mental instability that was mistaken for special powers. Colo. Rep. Lauren Boebert and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem might have been strapped to the dunking wheel for their special powers. If they didn't confess to witchcraft they'd be drown. If they did admit it, they were hung. You're right, Wilson, it is kinda like when a Republican is asked whether or not they support Trump. The comedy about witches, “Bell, Book and Candle,” it is not. Someone has cast a spell over congressional Republicans and undoing it will be tricky, said Democrat Elizabeth Warren. It would require Trump's little toe, a pot of heated chicken's blood, a shock of Mike Pence's hair, the guts of a toad, epsom salts, a Waring blender and a squirt gun. Nobody said it would be easy.

EVADE THE WOKE MIND VIRUS BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

If you want to be safe from forced Marxist indoctrination — escape to Florida. Gov. Ron “Churchill” DeSantis, is riding in on a self-righteous stallion to save us: “We fight the woke in the legislature. We fight the woke in the schools. We fight the woke in the corporations. We will never, ever surrender to the woke mob.” He champions the “Stop Woke Act,” that would keep schools and businesses from making white people “feel guilty or get distressed” by banning the teaching of the hideous poisons of slavery, Jim Crow, the civil rights movement and Critical Race Theory. Now, DeSantis is running for president to save the whole country from, the scourge of Black history, diversity, trans rights, homosexuality and women's reproductive health. But wait, there's trouble on the horizon. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker ruled large parts of the Florida law are unconstitutional. What the hell? Paraphrasing George Orwell's novel “1984,” he said, “The clocks were striking 13 and the powers in charge of Florida’s public university system declared ultimate authority to muzzle professors in the name of ‘freedom.” He issued a temporary injunction stopping enforcement, saying the law is “positively dystopian.” Freedom from Marxist indoctrination will have to wait. Sure.

FDA APPROVES BRAIN IMPLANTS — BAD NEWS FOR CONGRESS

Imagine a future where old folks don't forget names, idiots aren't idiots and conservatives like Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan can tell the truth from lies. No Wilson, we are not making this up. The FDA approved Neuralink's request to begin clinical trials where devices are implanted into human brains that link to computers. The company, owned by Elon Musk, is developing electronic implants that could restore debilitating functions, like paralysis, and could even teach monkeys how to play computer games. For Marjorie Taylor Greene it could be a real game changer. She would know that the “Gazpacho Police” are judges of soup not Nazi cops and that Monkeypox is not a sexually transmitted disease. A computer chip would be sewn into the surface of the brain to the RAM equivalent of Einstein. This would allow 88-year-old Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to know what day it is. But Sen. Mike Lee would't sign up for one because he's smarter than any computer. He even knows when it's time to duck out of a coup before heads roll. On the other hand, it would be great for Utah Rep. Burgess Owens. He could discover that he can vote however he wants despite instructions from Kevin McCarthy. Maybe not — that's a lot to ask of a computer.

Post script — That's a wrap for another wonderful week here in the promised land where we keep track of drag shows in St. George so you don't have to. The city council there is being sued for putting a drag on drag shows. Freedom of speech has to stop somewhere and in Utah's Dixie it's when men with beards and hairy arms don bustiers and dance around in spike heels. It's just not right and the mere thought of it drives city leaders up a wall. The Southern Utah Drag Stars filed the legal action in federal court alleging St. George discriminated against them by denying a permit to shake their booty in a public park. In related news, St. George Mayor Michelle Randall will again allow public comment at city council meetings. They were suspended earlier when a group brandishing signs proclaiming “Save Our Children” raised a ruckus, called the mayor and council communists and accused them of trying to make “St. George the drag queen hub of the West.” Caught between drag queens and angry vigilantes the mayor said public comments could resume if they were “respectful” and not “obscene or profane.” The “Save Our Children” folks won their demand for First Amendment rights while denying Southern Utah Drag Stars theirs. Let freedom ring.

Well Wilson, when you think about it, witches don't get a lot of respect. Donald Trump takes their name in vein and hey're always getting blamed for... just about everything. So wind up the guys in the band and ring out a little something for those New England maids who had it even worse than drag queens:

Susanna Martin was a witch who dwelt in Amesbury With brilliant eye and saucy tongue she worked her sorcery And when into the judges court the sheriffs brought her hither The lilacs drooped as she passed by And then were seen to wither A witch she was, though trim and neat with comely head held high It did not seem that one as she with Satan so would vie And when in court when the afflicted ones proclaimed her evil ways She laughed aloud and boldly then Met Cotton Mathers gaze "Who hath bewitched these maids," he asked, and strong was her reply "If they be dealing in black arts, ye know as well as I" And then the stricken ones made moan as she approached near They saw her shaped upon the beam So none could doubt 'twas there The spectral evidence was weighed, then stern the parson spoke "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, tis written in the Book" Susanna Martin so accused, spoke with flaming eyes "I scorn these things for they are naught But filthy gossips lies" Now those bewitched, they cried her out, and loud their voice did ring they saw a bird above her head, an evil yellow thing And so, beneath a summer sky, Susanna Martin died And still in scorn she faced the rope Her comely head held high

(Susannah Martin — lyrics unknown)

[richmond-rex]

Oh, first let me put forth my disclaimer that I haven’t read Johnson’s book, so I can only speak about the things I have been told. Apparently Johnson is quite good when talking about Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou, which is nice (though she repeats the myth that Henry VI needed a ‘sex coach’… which is quite unsubstantiated as far as I am aware). However, she falls in some common pop history pitfalls such as not exploring/not lending sufficient attention to the political background of her subject’s reign — which actually may explain why she doesn’t have a strong enough grasp on Henry VI’s councillors (and considering how long his minority was, or how the wars of the roses came about, one would say they are quite important).

Another thing is that Johnson wrote as if she believes Eleanor Cobham and Joanna of Navarre actually practised witchcraft/were guilty of the accusations levelled against them. Apparently she does not bother to discuss the type of political implications that such charges against powerful women in 15th century England represented. Also, some people may not like her book because it’s presented as narrative history — personally, once I tried to read her ‘So Great a Prince’ study on Henry VIII’s ascension and couldn’t get past the first chapter because it was written like a novel set in 1509 and that was not what I was looking for.

hi there! i was wondering, what would your book recs be on the topic of margaret of anjou and henry vi? preferably nonfiction. thank you!

Hi! I'm sorry for taking so long to reply, here goes my answer:

For Margaret of Anjou I would recommend:

Helen Maurer's biography Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England

The Letters of Margaret of Anjou, a collection by Helen Maurer and B. M. Cron.

Joanna Laynesmith's The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503, a study on Margaret and her three royal successors (focusing on the exercise of queenship)

There are also some pop history books like Amy Licence's Red Roses: Blanche of Gaunt to Margaret Beaufort, and Sarah Gristwood's Blood Sisters: The Women Behind the Wars of the Roses but I wouldn't particularly recommend them. I understand they may be more accessible, though!

For Henry VI, I would recommend:

R. A. Griffiths' The Reign of Henry VI, a classic (and giant) work

James Ross' Henry VI: A Good, Simple and Innocent Man (Penguin Monarchs series), a more accessible biography recommended to me by @nuingiliath ♡

Katherine Lewis' Kingship and Masculinity in Late Medieval England, a study on the exercise of medieval kingship and masculinity focusing on the lives of Henry V and Henry VI

Lewis has also written about Henry VI in Holiness and Masculinity in the Middle Ages and Religious Men and Masculine Identity in the Middle Ages. I don't know much about pop history books when it comes to Henry VI but I was warned against Lauren Johnson's The Shadow King. I can't personally vouch for it either way, though!

I hope this answer was helpful! 🌹x

[padawan-historian]

Decolonized Booklist - Queer Edition

Lil Nas X is letting y'all know that queerness is not a "white people thing." 💁🏾‍♀️🌈

Queerness is ancestral || queer folks existed in pre-colonial spaces, struggled and resisted under colonialism, and are kicking down barriers in the 21st century.

Here are some must reads by scholars, poets, and activists who are sharing the histories, lived experiences, and ancestral-liberation work of those who came before and those blooming and yet to come~

Find their works listed below on my Neighborhood Historian bookshop.

Top Picks

Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches - Audre Lorde (1984)

Freedom To Love For ALL: Homosexuality is not Un-African - Yemisi Ilesanmi (2013)

Black on Both Sides: A Racial History of Trans Identity -  C Riley Snorton (2017)

On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous - Ocean Vuong (2019)

Black Girl, Call Home - Jasmine Mans (2021)

The Transgender Issue: An Argument for Justice - Shon Faye (Pre-Order)

Queer History, Activism, and Liberation in the United States (by time period)

Female Husbands: A Trans History - Jen Manion (2020)

Arresting Dress: Cross-Dressing, Law, and Fascination in Nineteenth-Century San Francisco - Clare Sears (2014)

We've Been Here All Along: Wisconsin's Early Gay History - R. Richard Wagner (2019)        

Welcome to Fairyland: Queer Miami Before 1940 - Julio Capó (2017)

Her Neighbor's Wife: A History of Lesbian Desire Within Marriage - Lauren Jae Gutterman (2019) 

Queer Clout: Chicago and the Rise of Gay Politics - Timothy Stewart-Winter (2017)        

The Deviant's War: The Homosexual vs. the United States of America - Erin Cervini (2021)

We Are Everywhere: Protest, Power, and Pride in the History of Queer Liberation - Matthew Riemer and Leighton Brown (2019)

Queer Twin Cities - collected by Twin Cities Glbt Oral History Project (2010)

Queerness Across Borders and Generations

We Have Always Been Here: A Queer Muslim Memoir - Samra Habib (2019)

Queer and Trans Migrations: Dynamics of Illegalization, Detention, and Deportation - (2020)

Tolerance and Risk: How U.S. Liberalism Racializes Muslims - Mitra Rastegar (Pre-Order)

Lived Experiences and Memories in Marginalized Spaces

Visibility Interrupted: Rural Queer Life and the Politics of Unbecoming - Carly Thomsen (2021)

Living Queer History: Remembrance and Belonging in a Southern City - Gregory Samantha Rosenthal (Pre-order)

Girl, Woman, Other: A Novel - Bernardine Evaristo (2019)

On Being Different: What It Means to Be a Homosexual - Merle Miller (1971)

Black Girl Dangerous on Race, Queerness, Class and Gender - Mia McKenzie (2014)

Steel Closets: Voices of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Steelworkers - Anne Balay (2016)

Rust Belt Burlesque: The Softer Side of a Heavy Metal Town - Erin O'Brien and Bob Perkoski (2019)

Study Resources

We Will Always Be Here: A Guide to Exploring and Understanding the History of LGBTQ+ Activism in Wisconsin - Jenny Kalvaitis and Kristen Whitson (2021)

New Daughters of Africa: An International Anthology of Writing by Women of African Descent - edited by Margaret Busby (2019)

Black Queer Studies: A Critical Anthology - E. Patrick Johnson (2005)

[fatehbaz]

Imperial dispossession in Greenland and islands of the Pacific; making new suburbias; exporting US domestic lifestyles; Indigenous resistance

---

Within the Western popular imagination, places like the RMI [Marshall Islands] and Greenland are often used as mirrors or -- perhaps more accurately -- as bellwethers: an example of what could be (or what will become of) the so-called First World [...]. They are rarely made meaningful on their own. Instead, reports published in major news outlets describe a “melting” Greenland and a “disappearing” Marshall Islands by translating their loss through symbolic forms deemed more legible to the average American. [...] [N]uclear photography endeavored to “take the place out of the landscape” so as to replace public concerns around ethics instead with awe [...], [undertaken simultaneously as] movement of peoples necessary to, first, produce terra nullius -- a space emptied and made available [...] -- and second, to mark that space as distinctly American through the installation of miniature suburbias in the form of military bases and bunkers [...]. Social, geographical, and material practices of division -- split atoms, nuclear family units -- reflect what Aimee Bahng has referred to as “settler colonial… constructions of enclosure” [...]. [There was an] extension of heteronormative American domestic life onto and into Indigenous territories cleared for Cold War projects: a manifest destiny for the nuclear age. [...]

[A] “homemaking project” that once collapsed the “here” and “there” of US empire now envisions a difference that overlooks American complicity in apocalyptic climate futures upon Indigenous lands across North America, Oceania, and the Arctic. It is, in part, because of the presumed insignificance of the Marshall Islands and Greenland (and by extension their people) that these two places became pulled into the crosshairs of atomic geopolitical warfare. [...]

---

As Marshallese activist Darlene Keju-Johnson recalled, “in 1946, a U.S. Navy officer came to Bikini Island and told Chief Juda, ‘We are testing these bombs for the good of mankind, and to end all wars’… the naval officer did not tell the chief that the Bikinians would never see their home again” [...]. Moved to first Rongdrik (Rongerik), then Ānewetak, then Kuwajleen (Kwajalein), and then Kōle (Kili), ri-Pikinni struggled to survive as the United States tested sixty-seven nuclear bombs on Pikinni (Bikini) and other nearby sites between 1946 and 1958. [...] These ideologies were exported in the form of US military installations like the US Army Garrison Kwajalein Atoll and Greenland’s Camp Century, constructed in midcentury. [...] Historian Lauren Hirschberg’s analysis of the suburbanization of Kuwajleen highlights how the heteronormative nuclear family structure became central to the remaking of the atoll as both a space of exception and “a colonial technology for marking the island as a familiar domestic national space” [...].

Through a major partnership with Bell Telephone Laboratories, the US military promoted life on Kuwajleen as a space of supreme comfort and leisure through the publication of welcome guides that boasted salons, prime rib dinners, and department store shopping [...]. Meanwhile, Marshallese day laborers who provided janitorial, housekeeping, and groundskeeping services commuted from Epjā (Ebeye), where they lived both segregated from and economically beholden to the base [...].

---

Just as Marshallese were displaced from Pikinni and other atolls, Inuktun were moved to accommodate American military operations. [...] One of the largest military bases ever constructed by the United States, Thule served as a key strategic location [...] and, simultaneously, distracted from undisclosed nuclear activity at nearby Camp Century, a “city under the ice” that housed an arsenal of six hundred nuclear missiles [...]. [P]lans for Thule’s expansion in May 1953 included the forced removal of eighty-seven Inuktun and the demolition of their homes [...].

Newsreels about Camp Century similarly highlighted features designed to replicate American suburban life “under the ice.” Created by the United States in 1960, Camp Century operated as a cover for Project Iceworm, which used a network of subterranean tunnels burrowed under the Greenland ice sheet as a nuclear arsenal. The camp, which operated only until 1966, comprised living quarters, research facilities, and a portable nuclear reactor for the stated purpose of better understanding military effectiveness and operations in Arctic conditions. In the minds of Americans, who came to know this “city under the ice” through maps, photographs, and live footage circulated by the US government, it functioned as a kind of ultimate fantasy fallout shelter that promised to keep the American way of life secure and safe [...]. The US Department of Defense 1961 short film Big Picture: City under the Ice is one example of the substantial media production surrounding Camp Century, which reveled in the engineering used to build closed-system facilities for maintaining American lifestyles amid what is frequently referred to as “barren” and “lifeless” landscapes. In it, the narrator lists items representing domestic comforts: prefabricated houses, hot showers, and “even ice cream” as a subtle underscore of the hermetic barrier between the bunker and the glacier [...].

---

As Anne Spice points out in their analysis of Indigenous resistance to oil pipelines as “critical infrastructures” of the settler state, long-standing “binaries of civilized/savage and culture/nature” continue to inform theorizations of the built environment as marks of modernity. The role that infrastructure plays in state-building projects has a capillary function, pumping power in the form of oil, electricity, water, people, and capital into Indigenous territories in ways that, in turn, obscure Native presence. Tracing a substantial anthropology of infrastructure that locates transportation systems like pipelines, railroads, and highways as “settler colonial technologies of invasion,” Spice reveals how these material networks naturalize settler presence as seemingly stable, inevitable, and permanent [...]

---

Text above by: Hi’ilei Julia Hobart. “Atomic Histories and Elemental Futures across Indigenous Waters.” Media + Environment 3 (1). 2021. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Italicized first paragraph/heading in this post added by me. Presented here for commentary, teaching, criticism purposes.]

[minervacasterly]

THE TRAGEDY OF AN INSECURE KING & THE OVERPROTECTIVE QUEEN

The Wars of the Roses was a far more complex civil war that didn’t just bottle down to a power struggle between the two dominant factions of the Plantagenet House: Lancaster & York. While the Duke of York wanted to take control of the country because he believed he could do a better job than all the people working for Henry VI; Margaret was aggresively trying to prevent him from having any influence because she believed that too much power in the hands of someone with a strong claim to the throne, could get ideas that he should be the one wearing the Confessor’s crown. Margaert also came from a line of authoritative women who didn’t shy away from the political scene, and took matters into their own hands to safeguard their families’ fortunes. In Margaret’s eyes, what she was doing was no different. Her prayers had finally been answered. She had a son, succeeded in her primary duty as royal consort. Now all that was left for her to do, was safeguarding her baby boy’s legacy.

“Henry VI may have been on the road to recovery, but he continued to display a lack of interest in the affairs of his realm. He turned more than ever to religion to find solace, leaving Queen Margaret and Somerset holding the reins of power. Her position had been immeasurably strengthened by the birth of her son, which gave her more reason than ever to safeguard the Crown. She turned her attention to trying to rally as much support as possible, as well as persuading her husband that York was vying for the throne. York, meanwhile, knew that his enemies would soon try and move against him and was not prepared to wait for them to strike. Together with Warwick and Salisbury, he began raising an army with which to confront them. All three men owned extensive estates in the north, and combined were a force to be reckoned with. A great meeting of the King’s Council was planned for 21 May at Leicester, but York and his allies were deliberately excluded. Instead, they were all summoned to present themselves in front of the Council, but York was wary. Fearing the consequences now that Somerset was free, and suspecting that charges would be brought against him and his supporters, he took matters into his own hands: he and his army began to march south, intent on securing his own restoration to power and destroying Somerset for good. On 1 May, Jasper Tudor left London with the King on the first stage of their journey to Leicester. When word reached them that York and his supporters were travelling south with an army, Somerset convinced Henry that York was coming to claim the throne. He immediately raised a force in readiness to defend the monarch, fully aware that he, himself, was York’s real target. A violent outcome seemed impossible to avoid: the Wars of the Roses were about to begin. On 22 May, the political tension between the court party and the Duke of York and his supporters finally erupted into violence. Accompanied by Jasper Tudor, Somerset and ‘many lords’, Henry VI had reached St Albans, twenty-two miles north of London, when York intercepted them. Though he had the bigger force, neither he nor the royal party really wanted to fight. Instead, York attempted to persuade Henry to hear his complaints, and in so doing left him in no doubt as to his wishes: chiefly the removal and punishment of Somerset. His efforts were in vain, for the King –however weak- was not prepared to be dictated to and steadfastly refused to hand Somerset over. His men were heavily outnumbered, but his unyielding response made it clear that if York wanted to settle the matter, he would not be able to do peaceably. Feeling that there was no alternative, York made the drastic decision to attack. According to a Milanese envoy, informed by a messenger, when the King’s party ‘were outside the town they were immediately attacked by York’s men’. By taking such an aggressive stance, York was fully aware that many would believe he had taken up arms against his lawfully anointed king –and in so doing committed treason. The King’s forces, led by Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham –a man who would later be closely connected with Margaret Beaufort- were badly prepared and taken aback by the full ferocity of York’s charge. Despite being caught by surprise, the royal party initially held their own, but they were defeated when Warwick managed to lead a force into the town by unguarded back lanes. The result was disaster for the royal army, many of whom fled when they perceived the direction that the battle was taking. Although Henry’s men, including Jasper Tudor, fought valiantly, in less than an hour York had won the day thanks to the Earl of Warwick’s successful routing of the royal forces. The casualties on the King’s side were heavy and included the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Clifford. Many were also badly injured, among them Margaret’s cousin, Henry Beaufort, Somerset’s heir. He would survive his injuries, though his father would not be so fortunate. Realizing that the battle was lost and that York was out for his blood, Margaret’s [Beaufort] uncle Somerset attempted to take refuge at the Castle Inn in the town. It was not long, however, before York’s men had surrounded it: for Somerset –so long protected by the King and Queen- this time there would be no escape. Though he attempted to fight his way out and did so bravely, killing four men in the process, he was soon struck down. As John Benet’s Chronicle reported, ‘all of the Duke of Somerset’s party were killed, wounded or at the least despoiled’. With his death, the battle ceased … But for the King, who had stood watching the violence that was playing out around him, there were to be more direct consequences. On Warwick’s orders, Yorkist archers began to shoot at his bodyguard, killing and injuring several in the process –the injured included Jasper Tudor, the Duke of Buckingham and the King himself. Although Henry ‘was hurt with the shot of an arrow in the neck’, his injuries were not serious, but that was not an end to the matter. More alarming was that York succeeded in capturing him. Having gained control of the King’s person, according to the Milanese ambassador, ‘the Duke of York went to kneel before the king and ask pardon for himself and his followers, as they had not done this in order to inflict any hurt upon his Majesty, but in order to have Somerset. According, the king pardoned them’. York had successfully eliminated his enemy, and in so doing knew that he had taken a huge step in securing his return to power …” - The Uncrowned Queen by Nicola Tallis

Yet, as Nicola Tallis later pointed out in her biography of Margaert Beaufort, Margaret of Anjou’s mistake was expecting that she’d be allowed to play any part in her husband’s government. 

England’s contempt for uppity consorts was still not far behind. Since the times of the Angevin kings with the would-be-Queen, Matilda and later with the Plantagenets with Isabella Capet, the lords distrusted any consort who made her ambitions known.

There is no reason to believe that prior to the first Battle of St. Albans (1455), York had any designs on the throne. Like so many other royal relatives, the most he might have aimed for to is reaping the benefits of doing a good job. Margaret’s animosity and suspicious nature, and Henry VI’s incurable indecisiveness, personal insecurites and eagerness to please everyone pushed a man like the Duke of York (who was the entire opposite of Henry VI) on the edge. Before long, BOTH Margaret and the Duke of York reached their breaking point.

In her biography of Henry VI, historian Lauren Johnson points out that the last Lancastrian King was one of the most brilliant minds of his age. Several of his contemporaries remarked in his early teens that he was a treasure trove of knowledge, but his strict upbringing and uncles’ quarrels had made him extremely insecure. It is nearly impossible to say how he would have turned out if Henry V lived. But given the huge emphasis his father put on education, balanced with military instruction, it can be assumed that Henry VI would have been less obsequious towards sycophant courtiers and probably handled the whole animosity towards Margaret of Anjou and the Duke of York (that’s assuming he would have still married Margaret) far better.

[ujamaalive]

Afro-Spaniards are Spanish nationals of West/Central African descent. They today mainly come from Cameroon, Gambia, Mali and Senegal. Additionally, many Afro-Spaniards born in Spain are from the former Spanish colony Equatorial Guinea. Spaniards of Sub-Saharan ancestry originating in Latin America are generally excluded from this definition.

Afro-Spaniard

Total population  Spain 1,045,120 (2016) Regions with significant populations Andalusia, Catalonia, the Balearics, the Canaries, Madrid, Murcia, Valencia Languages Spanish; English, French, Portuguese, various languages of Africa Religion Predominantly Christian (mainly Roman Catholic), Sunni Islam, Traditional African religions, others, nonreligious Related ethnic groups African people, Spanish Equatoguinean, Cape Verdean Spanish, Afro-European

Notable people

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Activists

Antumi Toasijé, historian and Pan-African activist

Artists and writers

Juan Latino, poet and Renaissance humanist

Juan de Pareja, painter

Explorers and conquistadores

Juan Valiente

Juan Garrido

In entertainment and media

Francine Gálvez, journalist

Vicenta Ndongo, actress

Concha Buika, singer

Emilio Buale, actor

Virginia Buika, singer

Frank T, MC and rap producer

Dareysteel, rapper

Desirée Ndjambo, journalist

El Chojin, rapper

Santiago Zannou, film director

Jimmy Castro, actor

Hijas del Sol, music duo

Paloma Loribo, singer

Norberto de Noah, singer and writer

Andrés Montes, journalist

Philanthropists

Bisila Bokoko

Politicians

Dolores Johnson Sastre

Rita Bosaho

Juan Antonio de la Morena Doca, alcalde of Villamantilla

Pedro Oma Nkomi, alcalde of Pampliega

Guillem Balboa Buika, alcalde of Alaró

In sports

Miguel Jones, former football player

Vicente Engonga, football manager and former player

Benjamín Zarandona, retired football player

Venancio José, retired athlete

David Davis, retired handball player

Lauren, retired football player

Rodolfo Bodipo, football manager and former player

Glory Alozie, athlete

Yago Yao, retired football player

Souley Drame, basketball player

Iván Zarandona, football player

Valdo, football player

Rui, football player

Josephine Onyia, athlete

Marta Mangué, handball player

Alfi Conteh-Lacalle, football player

Javier Balboa, football player

Trihas Gebre, athlete

Alemayehu Bezabeh, athlete

Eva Ngui, athlete

Jade Boho, football player

María Bernabéu, judoka

Ruth Ndoumbe, athlete

Mark Ujakpor, athlete

Manuel Onwu, football player

Richard Nguema, basketball player

Godwin Antwi, football player

Jean Marie Okutu, athlete

Stephen Sunday, football player

Rubén Belima, football player

Aauri Bokesa, athlete and basketball player

Iván Bolado, retired football player

José Luis Collins, former basketball player

Serge Ibaka, basketball player

Emilio Nsue, football player

Pedro Obiang, football player

Eddy Silvestre, football player

Joel Johnson, football player

Omar Mascarell, football player

Derik Osede, football player

Jonás Ramalho, football player

Randy, football player

Astou Ndour, basketball player

Keita Baldé Diao, football player

Ilimane Diop, basketball player

Vanessa Blé, basketball player

Mamadou Diop, basketball player

Mamadou Tounkara, football player

Adama Traoré, football player

Iris Junio, basketball player

Larry Abia, basketball player

Sitapha Savane, basketball player

Iñaki Williams, football player

Marcelo Djaló, football player

Pape Cheikh Diop, football player

Nely Carla Alberto, handball player

Alexandrina Barbosa, handball player

Moussa Bandeh, football player

Mohamed Traoré, football player

Yankuba Sima, basketball player

Roberto Tobe, futsal player

Bacari Kambi, football player

Carlos Akapo, football player

Sergio Akieme, football player

Ismael Athuman, football player

Aitor Embela, football player

Igor Engonga, football player

Pablo Ganet, football player

José Kanté, football player

Niko Kata, football player

Josete Miranda, football player

Ana Peleteiro, athlete

Iván Salvador, football player

Boison Wynney, football player

Aridane Hernández, football player

Madger Gomes, football player

Juliet Itoya, athlete

Fátima Diame, athlete

Youba Sissokho, boxer

Gabriel Enguema, boxer

Jael Bestué, athlete

María Vicente, athlete

Joshua Tomaic, basketball player

Sebas Saiz, basketball player

Esteban Obiang, football player

Mujaid Sadick Aliu, football player

Jordi Mboula, football player

Cristopher Moisés, football player

Fátima Diame, athlete

Saúl Coco, football player

Jordan Gutiérrez, football player

Paolo Fernandes, football player

Sergio Hinestrosa, football player

Alberto Edjogo-Owono, former football player

Juvenal Edjogo-Owono, former football player

Juan Epitié, former football player

Rubén Epitié, former football player

James Davis, football player

Ruslan Elá, football player

Óscar Engonga, football manager and former player

Kily Álvarez, football player

Ruth Álvarez, football player

Sergio Barila, football agent and former player

Darwin Echeverry, athlete

Robert Sánchez, football player

Bambo Diaby, football player

Usman Garuba, basketball player

Aitor Ekobo, athlete

Ángel Mañana, basketball player

Óscar Ngomo, basketball player

Sebastián Bacale, basketball player

Riky Mendizábal, basketball player

Gorka Luariz, football player

Mamadou Gassama, handball player

Sekou Gassama, football player

Ángel Binyogba, futsal player

Luis Meseguer, football player

Acoydan McCarthy, basketball player

Adams Sola, basketball player

Federico Obama, football player

Salomón Obama, football player

Salma Paralluelo, athlete and football player

Mabel Okoye, football player

Fatoumata Kanteh, football player

Seth Airam Vega, football player

#AfroSpaniards are #Spanish nationals of West/Central #African descent. They today mainly come from #Cameroon, #Gambia, #Mali and #Senegal. Afro-Spaniards are Spanish nationals of West/Central African descent. They today mainly come from Cameroon, Gambia, Mali and Senegal.

[une-sanz-pluis]

What exactly do you think Henry VI thinks of his uncle Humphrey?

I'm glad you said what I think Henry VI thought of his uncle! The personal thoughts of any medieval individual are generally out of reach for us (there are exceptions; for example, we can tell that Henry V was pretty pissed off at his brother, John, Duke of Bedford here). It's even more difficult in the case of Henry VI, where historians have such wildly diverse opinions. The likes of John Watts and K. B. MacFarlane, who view Henry as a void around which kingship in his name was exercised (by his minority council, by his "favourites" Suffolk and Somerset), would probably say that Henry didn't think very much about his uncle or, well, anything. But even looking at the historians (e.g. Ralph Griffiths, Bertram Wolffe and Lauren Johnson) who ascribe to Henry far more agency in his reign will give us vastly different ideas of the relationship between Henry and Humphrey.

Johnson, for examples, depicts Henry as Humphrey's victim, depicting his quarrels with Cardinal Beaufort and his pro-war stance as a source of mental distress for Henry. She also depicts Humphrey as fully complicit in his wife Eleanor's alleged plot against Henry (there is nothing alleged about the plot for Johnson, of course) and arranging for his nephew to be sexually harassed.* For Wolffe, Humphrey is more the victim of a spiteful Henry - for instance, he argues that the treatment of Eleanor was an angry overreaction by Henry, who still bitter that Humphrey opposed his intention to release Charles, Duke of Orleans the previous year.

But what do I think?

Humphrey was pretty obviously a thorn in Henry's side. He seems to have advocated for Henry to get more involved in ruling, even though the circumstances weren't great for an inexperienced king and it appears Henry disliked the experience. As Henry matured, the policies he favoured were frequently in conflict with the policies Humphrey advocated for - as Humphrey often made clear (cf. his actions around the release of Charles, Duke of Orleans). What was often a common thread in Humphrey's chosen policies were that these were Henry V's policies. Humphrey seemed to be simultaneously urging Henry VI to greater independence but insisting that he exercise this independence through following the policies of his father.

It's easy to imagine that this became a sore spot for Henry. It's not nice to be constantly compared to someone else and always be found lacking. It's not nice to be someone who others are trying to shape into someone you're not. The fact that Henry was constantly being compared to his dead father who was becoming heavily mythologised would have only made it worse. It's really easy to imagine Henry coming to resent his father for that and easier still to see him resenting Humphrey who seems to have been the one who stuck at the "your father would've done this, do this, you should be more like your father" the longest.

This advocation of Henry V's policies seems to have led to Humphrey becoming seen as "a man who embodied the qualities Henry V had made them accustomed in a king, and which they were beginning to realize were lacking in their actual king". If Henry believed this too, it may be that he initially found Humphrey to be an intimidating, but not necessarily dangerous, figure - the embodiment of the qualities he was supposed to have, the representative of his father. Even if he didn't share the same view of Humphrey's qualities, Humphrey was, alongside John Duke of Bedford, the closest paternal blood relation Henry VI had and the one Henry saw the most of. He may have seen Humphrey as a threatening figure because of the popular belief that he had the qualities for kingship that Henry himself lacked (though, IMO, he wouldn't have been a good king) and, following Bedford's death in 1435, was Henry VI's heir.

If Henry didn't already view Humphrey as a threat, the accusations of treasonable necromancy against Humphrey's wife Eleanor would have likely made Henry come to that view. Most historians argue that Humphrey ended up estranged from Henry and alienated at court as a result of his wife's downfall. It may be that Henry (and others) suspected Humphrey had been aware of or part of the plot - although there is no evidence that this was ever suspected, much less that Humphrey was involved. At the very least, the accusations suggested that Humphrey was a figure others could see as a king and that he was an untrustworthy figure of poor judgement.**

It's pretty clear that from 1441 on, Humphrey was on the outs with Henry but it doesn't seem to be motivated entirely by fear. Henry made a number of grants in the 1440s of titles that Humphrey held to various people in the event of Humphrey's death (one of the most notable is Suffolk receiving the reversion of the earldom of Pembroke). One chronicle claims that Henry had forbidden his uncle from his presence since 1445 or 1446 and reputedly an armoured guard to fortify himself against his uncle. In 1445, Henry publicly humiliated Humphrey in front of a French embassy (according to Wolffe, the French ambassadors claimed that Henry "openly express[ed] his pleasure at seeing his uncle's discomfiture" at the treaty).

Finally, we have Humphrey's arrest for trumped-charges of treason*** and death in 1447. At the very least, Henry must have been aware and approved of the intention to arrest his uncle. Possibly, as Wolffe concludes, he had decided upon his uncle's "destruction".

We don't know what Henry VI intended to do with Humphrey following his arrest. The popular view at the time was that Suffolk was entirely behind Humphrey's arrest and his intention was Humphrey's murder, which was duly achieved within days of his arrest. It's not impossible that Suffolk was blamed because blaming Henry himself skirted too close to treason. It is pretty well accepted these days that Humphrey was not murdered and died as a result of a medical episode (such as a stroke or heart attack) caused by the stress of his arrest. But we have no idea about how Henry intended to deal with Humphrey, whether he intended to exile, execute, quietly murder or ultimately pardon Humphrey, and whether he was actively and knowingly involved in the plot against Humphrey and to what extent he was involved. Still, at the very least, we know that he approved of Humphrey's arrest and waited until the very last minute to pardon those who were to be executed for their part in Humphrey's so-called plot (iirc, they were literally hanging on the gallows when the pardon arrived). Amongst those pardoned was Humphrey's only known albeit illegitimate son, Arthur.

What is odd is that Humphrey seems to have been no threat to Henry. He may have disagreed with Henry on policy but there is nothing to indicate that his loyalty to Henry was ever in doubt. There is no suggestion he attempted to intervene to save Eleanor or that he planned to remove Suffolk from Henry's side. He did not head up an alternate court party similar to the Lords Ordainers or the Lords Appellant in the reigns of Edward II and Richard II respectively that saw him overthrow and execute Henry's favourites to impose his own will on Henry. Nor is there any evidence he intended to depose Henry to make himself king. As John Watts says, "if there is a single theme in the duke's career, it is one of obedience to Henry's personal authority [...] Faced with the destruction of his wife, a series of threats to his property and, finally, a thoroughly dubious charge of treason, Gloucester was unresisting."

Looking at the the various grants made by Henry of his uncle's titles and lands when he was still-living and the speed at which Humphrey's lands were granted out at his death (including the declaration that Eleanor Cobham was legally dead so she could not claim dower or jointure in the properties), it seems Humphrey had more to fear from his nephew (or those acting in Henry's name) than Henry had to fear from Humphrey. But it's easy to say that with the benefit of hindsight.

In short: I think Humphrey was a thorn in Henry's side, at first representing everything Henry wasn't and frequently disappointed in Henry. He advocated for policies that were frequently the opposite of the policies Henry wanted. He may have been viewed by Henry as a threat but by the mid-1440s seems to have viewed as someone of no importance, who could be publicly humiliated, and who would not fight back against his nephew. His arrest and death are strange but may be signs of resentment or fear by an insecure government and king.

* John Blacman's hagiography of Henry VI contains a scene where an unidentified "certain great lord" arranged for a troupe of female dancers to dance topless before Henry, who then angrily averts his eyes and leaves the chamber. The term used by Blacman to describe the dancers ("mulierculae") is more suggestive of prostitutes though the standard translation by M. R. James calls them "young ladies". Johnson claims that the "certain great lord" was Humphrey. Blacman is our sole source for this incident and does not identify the "certain great lord" and was trying to position Henry as a saint, for whom chastity was a chief requirement. As Katherine J. Lewis points out, the incident is part of a longstanding tradition in saints' lives where they resist sexual temptation (she also notes an "almost identical" episode in Caxton's life of St. Benedict) so it seems very doubtful that this incident actually occurred. Even if it was a truthful record, we have no way of knowing who the "certain great lord" was. Possibly, it was Humphrey but we have no way of determining it. It may be useful to note, too, that there is little evidence that Henry's piety was as strong as later traditions suggest.

** Contemporary sources made no suggestion of Humphrey's guilt, complicity in or knowledge of the plot. Although exculpatory, this made him appear a weak and emasculated figure whose unsound judgement had nearly brought ruin to his king and who could not control his wife or own household. Some modern historians have suggested he was complicit in or aware of the plot, but there is no evidence of this (the existence of the plot itself and Eleanor's guilt therein has been doubted explicitly since Tudor times). We have no idea what Henry, personally, made of the accusations. Johnson suggests he was frightened by Eleanor but given he was living in the same residence as she was imprisoned in at the height of the affair (literally when she was performing her penance walks) and one source claimed he intervened to save her life personally, it seems unlikely he was that frightened.

*** The exact charges against Humphrey are not known. However, the general consensus at the time and of subsequent chroniclers was that there was nothing in them, a consensus followed by historians.

[shitkid-moved]

Gimme some fun facts about historical queers

So I’m at work so I’ll do this at the top of my head. Starting with Alexander the Great who was in love with his childhood friend (which was super illegal. You were only supposed to bang little boys— not like adult men who were considered your equal) anyways there is a quote that is basically The only time Alexander the Great was defeated was by Hephaestions thighs. While I personally believe the “William Shakespeare was a pseudonym used by multiple authors” theory he did get credit for writing some explicitly gay sonnets.Aristotle and Socrates are both noted for having male lovers. Leonardo DaVinci, if I remember correctly was put in jail for a short amount of time and accused twice of sodomy. Lmao, man gave no fucks.Chevalier d'Eon was a French spy and diplomat. Spent the first half of her life as a man, until she up and waltzes into Queen Elizabeth's court dressed as a woman and demanded to be called one. Freida Kahlo radiated big dick energy. She had a long relationship with Josephine Baker, and that’s just one of them.Emily Dickinson was not a spinster she was a god damn lesbian who wrote love letters to a woman named Susan Gilbert Eleanor god damn Roosevelt fell in love with a reporter named Lorena Hickock and wrote her super romantic letters. Laurence Michel Dillon was the first transgender man ever to undergo a phalloplasty.Joan D’Arc gets to be on her queer list since at the very least her gender identity is up for debate. Maybe not trans but very NB to say the least. Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben a gay Prussian man who came to America and single handedly turned the tides of war by teaching American men HYGINE AND HOW TO USE A GUN (see men haven’t changed even in 200 years. This is 18h century queer eye.)Abraham Lincoln is an even hotter debate than Alexander Hamilton as he is also survived by so seriously questionable letters (and poems) but also he potentially had an affair with his body guard who’s name escapes me. Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens, but John literally has his own separate post because THATS MY BOY James Dean arguably the most attractive heartthrob actor who was the epitome of perfect greaser boy was extremely homosexual, only it didn’t come out until after his death. Marsha P. Johnson a trans woman threw the first brick in the stonewall riots. Was a goddamn trans queer poc goddess. Virginia Woolf was openly a lesbian despite being married to a man.Michelangelo thirsted real hard for some Italian noble dude. And wrote about his attraction to men. James Baldwin an extremely prominent activist and author was not only a black man but also gay. It pissed a lot of people off. Hatshepsut one of the longest standing rulers of Egypt was always depicted in statues and wall art as entirely male and often wore a fake beard. Despite that some historians still call him a Queen which is a goddamn insult.These are just a few off the top of my head!!! If you wanna know more send me a name and I’ll end up talking your ear off in an extremely long detailed way. Bonus points if you let me drunk rant it comes out like my John Laurens one.

[margueritedanjou]

“A number of the men attendant on them in Scotland at this time had met their wives while in royal service: Giles St Lowe, Sir Robert Whittingham and Sir William Vaux were all married to women who had long served Margaret.

Whittingham's wife Katherine had been one of Margaret's 'damsels' in 1452, and he himself had served every member of the family, working as one of Henry's ushers before becoming keeper of the queen's great wardrobe and receiver-general for Prince Edward.

Giles St Lowe, who was married to another 'damsel', Edith, had been a squire in Margaret's household and an esquire of the king. Sir Edmund Hampden, another stalwart in Edinburgh, had served Margaret since she arrived in England in 1445 and in 1458 was made Prince Edward's chamberlain."

Source: Johnson, Lauren. “Shadow King: The Life and Death of Henry VI”.

[ohioprelawland]

Internet Speech And The First Amendment: Censorship Vs. Protection

By Sarah Johnson, Ohio State University Class of 2024

June 21, 2021

The digital revolution of the past two decades has created a platform that allows extensive opportunities to find and share ideas all over the world. The Internet is an amazing place for people to publish ideas, connect with others, and quickly communicate their thoughts to a wide range of people. Before the Internet, other mediums such as newspapers and magazines acted as gatekeepers that determined the substance of media content and what kind of information their readers would consume. While this new digital age allows revolutionized communication throughout the world, it has also lead to many controversies causing people to view this medium as the leading First Amendment battleground [2].

In terms of regulation of speech on the Internet, lawmakers have been calling for much tighter restrictions of Internet Speech [8]. Unlike other methods of communication, the Internet has the unique ability to spread potentially dangerous information extremely quickly, and this information can be accessed by almost anyone. In the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. ACLU, this idea was echoed in the language of the decision because the Court believed that the Internet enables “any person with a phone line to become a ‘pamphleteer’ or a ‘town crier’ with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soap box” [2]. This sentiment is clearly reflected in how easily people with any kind of platform on the Internet are able to influence their followers and consumers of their content [7].

The rise of the modern day “internet influencer” has put many people in a position to reach an extensive audience from their platform. According to recent studies, 72% of the American public says that they use some type of social media [9]. Because of this, and due to the growing importance of the internet in daily life, the vast majority of American citizens are influenced in some way or another by the content that they consume on social media.

Among these social media influencers are other politicians trying to reach as many people as possible by using the far-reaching power of the Internet. More specifically, President Trump arguably reshaped the role of the presidency through his use to the popular social media app Twitter. Twitter ended up being President Trump’s preferred method of communication, where he averaged around 300 tweets per month [4]. To those not born into the digital age, it may seem strange to have a president’s primary mode of communication be a social media app, but cultural historian, Neal Gabler, put this idea into perspective: “FDR mastered the radio, JFK conquered the television, and Donald Trump rules the Internet” [1].

Trump spent his entire term as president constantly sending out tweets about current events, political rivals, and other controversial topics. His tenure on Twitter ultimately culminated in a permanent social media ban from not only Twitter, but other prominent sites such as Facebook and Instagram after the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol building. Twitter justified this permanent ban saying that President Trump’s tweets were a “risk of further incitement of violence” [5].

This decision has caused mixed reactions from both sides of the aisle. Some believe that Trump needed to be held accountable for the incitement of violence at the Capitol, while others believe that this ban was blatant censorship and a violation of free speech. Many influential figures have spoken out on this issue, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, calling the ban of President Trump’s account extremely problematic “because freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of elementary significance.” She goes on to say, “This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators - not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms” [5]. The private sector rules consumership on the internet, and this has recently caused problems with the growing use of social media as a primary method of communication for many Americans.

Twitter’s ban of President Trump’s account is ultimately not a First Amendment violation as many have claimed.  Twitter is a private company, therefore they can make their own decisions about who is allowed to use the app. Moreover, there are some significant exceptions to the First Amendment’s free speech protections. In the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that the First Amendment does not protect anyone against speech that creates a “clear and present danger of a significant evil.” So, if anyone were to promote violence or any kind of harm against other people, that speech is ultimately exempt from First Amendment protections [5].

While this ban is not an infringement on President Trump’s constitutional rights, the situation still calls into question a much larger problem of censorship in the digital age. The 1996 Communications Decency Act allows private internet companies to regulate themselves, which limits government regulation over content posted on these sites. This protects social media companies from liability for whatever their users might post. Ultimately this means that the companies are not the publishers, only host sites who can serve as moderators “in good faith” [5]. President Trump has recently called to repeal this law because he believes it contributes to a wider problem of social media companies being able to censor speech on their platforms. He believes that eliminating this law would facilitate more free speech on the Internet.

Today, so much of the world is viewed from behind a screen. As  society delves deeper into this modern era of the digital age where people are transitioning to privately owned social media apps to consume and release information, there are important questions being raised about what can and cannot be put out onto the Internet. In the case of President Trump, there was no infringement on his constitutional rights, but there was a disruption of his ability to communicate with his supporters from his most frequently used mode of communication. There is an important discussion that must be had about how companies can better regulate their users from spreading misinformation and harmful content while still allowing them to speak freely. The next couple decades will likely see the acceptance of social media as the most effective mode of communication, and lawmakers will have to keep up with the growing implications of free speech protections under the First Amendment on the Internet.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Brian L. Ott (2017) The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34:1, 59-68, DOI: 10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686

[2] Christopher S. Yoo, "Free Speech and the Myth of the Internet as an Unintermediated Experience," George Washington Law Review 78, no. 4 (June 2010): 697-773

[3] French, David. "The Growing Threat to Free Speech Online." Time. Last modified January 24, 2020. Accessed June 18, 2021. https://time.com/5770755/threat-free-speech-online/.

[4] Gabler, N. (2016, April 29). Donald Trump, the emperor of social media. Moyers & Company. Retrieved from http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-the-emperor-of-social-media/

[5] Giella, Lauren. "Did Twitter Violate President Trump's First Amendment Rights?" NewsWeek. Last modified January 11, 2021. Accessed June 18, 2021. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-twitter-violate-president-trumps-first-amendment-rights-1560673.

[6] Hudson, David L., Jr., and Rebecca DeVerter. "Online Speech." Freedom Forum Institute. Last modified March 2018. Accessed June 18, 2021. https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/k-12-public-school-student-expression/cyberspeech/.

[7] Jessica S. Henry (2009) Beyond free speech: novel approaches to hate on the Internet in the United States, Information & Communications Technology Law, 18:2, 235-251, DOI: 10.1080/13600830902808127

[8] Kahn, Ronald. "Internet." The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Last modified 2009. Accessed June 18, 2021. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1119/internet.

[9] “Social Media Fact Sheet." Pew Research. Last modified April 7, 2021. Accessed June 18, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/.

Photo Credit: The Opte Project

[minervacasterly]

Back to the beginning...

"The early years of Henry VIII's reign have been overlooked by many historians, who prefer to leap from the bloodshed of the Wars of the Roses to the religious and cultural upheaval of the English Reformation, when there's the added spectacle of Henry's love life to consider ... How can we comprehend the impact of the Reformation if we do not first appreciate the vibrancy of the all-encompassing Catholic ritual that it sheltered?" -So Great a Prince by Lauren Johnson

Exactly! As JRM said in the opening narration of season 1 of "The Tudors", to get to the heart of the story, you have to go back to the beginning. The real beginning, not the on which this series (and countless others) decide to start on. To fully understand Henry VIII's reign, history buffs must look at his upbringing and his early reign which means also focusing on the dynastic struggle that still went on in England and most of Western Europe as well as the various divisions and rivalries between Islamic kingdoms.

[une-sanz-pluis]

Reading this post about Anne Boleyn, made me think about Eleanor Cobham and her childlessness.

We don't know anything about Eleanor's childlessness beyond the fact of it. We don't know if she had pregnancies that ended in miscarriage or stillbirth or whether she was unable to conceive. But the possible impact on her mental health tends not to be even considered, let alone mentioned. In fact, her attempted defence at her trial for witchcraft - that she had only used "magic" in attempt to conceive her husband's child - has been over-interpreted by some historians (e.g. Lauren Johnson, Robert Bartlett) as a type of threat or an admission of treason. She wanted to have a baby because her son would replace Henry VI and she'd be the ~mother of kings!

Which is just bizarre. There are many reasons she could have wanted a child - and note that she did not specifically state she wanted a son but a child - but both Johnson and Bartlett reduce her to the cold-hearted scheming vixen only wants a son so she can rule through him. Also, like, Eleanor was literally the only woman alive in 1441 who could provide the Lancastrian dynasty with a clear-cut heir.

We know the succession became a point of anxiety not too long after Eleanor's downfall and while we can't explicitly trace it back to Eleanor's time as Duchess of Gloucester, it does stand to reason that she would have been aware of how fragile the Lancastrian dynasty was. Henry VI was four years away from marrying himself and twelve years away from having his only son (which, of course, Eleanor couldn't have known about). He was the only child of his father and had no brothers who could inherit the throne, while all of his paternal uncles except Humphrey had died without legitimate issue by 1435. Humphrey himself had no legitimate children. The succession after Humphrey was confused, with at least three possible claimants. Eleanor, as Humphrey's wife, was likely very well aware of how fragile the succession was and was the only woman at that time who could give birth to an heir. Yes, any child might be Henry's "replacement" and she would become the mother of the next monarch but that's how a heredity monarchy works. Maybe people should read less of the Philippa Gregory-style of historical fiction.

And that's not going into the culture of primogeniture or the idea that a woman's worth as a wife was often closely tied to the production of an heir. There are studies that talk about the stigma of involuntarily childless on modern women today, who have the benefit of feminist movements and not living in a culture based explicitly and totally in primogeniture.

Nor does it go into the fact that that having a child could have had an legitimising affect on Eleanor's controversial marriage and status, providing her with security. Nor does it discuss the emotional affect of suffering miscarriages and stillbirths - admittedly, we don't know that Eleanor suffered from these but there doesn't seem to much evidence around miscarriages and stillbirths in late medieval England and so we can't rule out the possibility this was part of her experience.

It's all too easy, when we put aside the scheming vixen image, to imagine Eleanor's fear, distress, desperation and anxiety over her childlessness. Even if she was a scheming vixen, as Johnson and Bartlett would have it, it still would have had a large impact on her. It would have influenced the way she behaved - perhaps the motif of her disastrous pride and ambition came from an desire to emphasis her status as a way of taking refuge from her inability to have a child. Although I'm yet to find contemporary allegations that supports the not-uncommon idea Eleanor was greedy and grasping, perhaps she was in order to build up a stockpile of wealth that she could use to support herself if her marriage to Humphrey was annulled or her dower seized after his death. We might also consider that she turned to magic/witchcraft in desperation to have a child or at least in attempt to know what awaited her.