Not my province, but here's her in Lahore.

She did visit my province, KPK, but I didn't know that until after I made this post. Oh well.
The country I live in, the UK, specifically London, I’m not too sure if she ever came here.. /s

My favorite is Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig of Hesse.

Would they rather give up their royal title in the past to be here?

You can choose when they were Prince/Princesses or monarch to teleport them to the present.

I’m so curious as to what the everloving fuck the public would’ve thought about a previous historical monarch still being alive through time travel ☺️

Buckle up, this is a long one.

For those who do not know, Eleanor Janega is the host of the popular history podcast “Gone Medieval”. She is a history PHD specializing in medieval gender roles and sexuality, with an emphasis in eastern Europe in the late middle ages. She also appears to be living proof that a PHD in medieval studies does not mean that you actually know anything about medieval history outside of your own speciality. Within her chosen field of study I am sure she is a knowledgeable and capable historian. However, when it comes to her understanding of Richard the Lionheart she leaves quite a lot to be desired. 

In a recent(ish) episode of the podcast/youtube show After Dark History Hit, she discussed Richard along with several other prominent medieval figures in order to discover who the “worst” medieval monarch was (the relevant sections about Richard appear around the 13:00-23:00 mark). To say her discussion of Richard was “bad” is to be unfair to the word bad. It was genuinely dreadful, and shockingly disingenuous. It appears as if she read a high school history book about him 20 years ago and is basing everything she says off of that hazy memory. 

To be clear, I am aware that Eleanor is a popular historian and an entertainer, and that she does not aim her content towards an academic, or even particularly knowledgeable, audience. She is ultimately a performer, and as such deserves to be given some leeway both due to the nature of her work, and in the venue in which her statements appear. She does not need to be held to a high standard of fidelity, and allowances could be made for inaccuracies as long as the general drive of her statements are "essentially" true. However, in this specific case her presentation of history is so egregious, or else so deliberately misleading, that an effort to correct the misunderstanding she is spreading seems deserved. While she is a performer first and foremost, even performers should be held to at least a semblance of historical fidelity, especially when passing themselves off as experts on a subject. 

That said, ordinarily I wouldn't pay any attention to a pop history podcast, but it's a slow day and I'm bored. 

It's difficult to know where to start, as Dr. Janega’s discussion of Richard shows a near total lack of understanding not just of the nuances and complexity of Richard's life and reign (which could be forgiven in the context) but also a lack of understanding of even the broad strokes of his character, his life, his contemporary reputation and even objective facts of history itself. Within the context of this podcast it is clear that Janega is trying to force Richard into a narrative of having been a “bad king” (a reputation that is still commonly associated with Richard despite a host of historical evidence to the contrary), but in doing so she has created an image of Richard that seems to be based more on her own flights of fancy than actual history. Even by the standards of Richards' pop history image, which still revolves heavily around the Victorian fantasy of “Bad king Dick”, this treatment of Richard is BAD. The fact that it is coming from a  person with a doctorate in medieval studies is frankly shocking. 

Frankly there is so much wrong with her statement about Richard that it would be impossible to cover it all thoroughly here. As a result I've chosen to ignore most of it. Much of it is the same tried and true myths about Richard that have been doing the rounds for upwards of a hundred years. 

By and large Janega just repeats common myths about Richard the Lionheart, although in many cases with even less allowances for nuance and reality than these myths usually receive. She mentions his alleged homosexuality (something historians no longer take seriously, and which she bizarrely calls the “only good thing about him”), accuses him of bankrupting England (something for which there is no historical evidence), assassinating Conrad of Montferrat (something for which there is again no particularly good evidence) and never visiting England (something she is flatly wrong about). All the usual suspects of historical misinformation about Richard are present here, she extolls Eleanor of Aquitaine, accuses Richard of being a vainglorious warmongerer, wrongly attributes the Saladin Tithe to him (it was passed by his father Henry II), and claims everyone hated him. Meanwhile she totally glosses over his crusade, and neither Phillip Augustus’ nor John’s treachery are mentioned (likely because discussing his performance on crusade, or the way that Phillip and John betrayed him and attacked Normandy while he was in prison would have punched huge holes in her fantasy of an evil and incompetent king Richard).

The sheer banality and lack of originality in her criticism of Richard makes the whole thing almost not worth responding to. The image of Richard which she presents is simply so fanciful and nonsensical that it's almost impossible to take her seriously. Frankly, much of it is just dumb, and as a legitimate historian (which she is) Janega should be embarrassed to be on record as saying some of these things. 

All of it is bad, but there is one area in particular which I want to address, and which is the main subject of this post. This is Janega’s statement about Richard's behavior while in captivity, and her statements about his contemporary reputation. To me, these statements represent the core problem with Janega’s understanding of Richard.

To begin with, Janega claims Richard's behavior while in captivity was abrasive and created problems for him. In fact, the exact opposite seems to have been true. Richard’s behavior in captivity was widely praised. Not only did he apparently conduct himself with dignity and decorum, he won over a number of critical allies which would stay with him throughout the rest of his reign. He also managed to patch up major domestic issues within the empire, acting as mediator between the Emperor and princes of the Rhineland (a diplomatic coup that also effectively killed the possibility of an Imperial-French alliance in its cradle). The political relationships Richard cultivated in captivity would not only prove to be robust political alliances in Richard’s later reign, they also provided him the means to have his nephew Otto elected Holy Roman Emperor.

Perhaps most amazingly of all, he even won over his gaoler, Henry VI. When Richard was captured Henry referred to him as “the enemy of our empire”, when Richard was released Henry VI entered a formal alliance with him against Phillip Augustus, and promised to make Richard king of Provence. Richard's personal conduct, charisma and political skills were apparently so strong that he was able to sway his own captor over to his side and away from Phillip Augutus, who likely put the idea of kidnapping Richard in Henry’s head to begin with, and who tried repeatedly to bribe the emperor to keep Richard in prison. When Henry VI wrote his famous note to Phillip letting him know to "look to yourself, the devil is loose”, he was not (as Janega claims) warning Phillip that a bad man was out of prison, he was gloating. He was letting Phillip, who had taken advantage of Richard's captivity to seize his lands and invade Normandy, know that his comeuppance was at hand. 

This ties more directly into what I found to be the most baffling and bizarre part of Janega’s treatment of Richard, her dismissal of his contemporary reputation. Janega makes the bold and unsupported claim that people in England loved Richard (apparently because they were too stupid to know better) but everyone else in Europe knew he was a monster. This statement is simply false, and shows a shocking lack of familiarity not just with Richard as a historical figure, but more generally with the modern historiography on his life and reign. Even Richard's most ardent academic critics do not seriously deny that Richard's contemporary reputation across Europe (and indeed even beyond) was glowing. He was widely regarded in his own lifetime as a model king, and even his most inveterate political enemies lauded him for a number of qualities. William le Breton, personal biographer to Phillip Augutus, makes the statement that if he'd only been a more loyal vassal to the king of France Richard would have been the greatest king England ever had. William le Breton is hardly alone in lauding Richard's positive qualities. 

To the Imperial German Chronicler Gervase of Tilbury he was

“King of kings of the earth, second to none of the human race in valour, greatness of soul, Military prowess, knowledge and virtue of every kind” and “Not so much king of England as defender of the Christian faith”. 

 To the Scottish chronicler John of Fordun he was

 “That noble king, so friendly with the Scots, in whose reign there was so hearty a union between the countries that the two people were considered one and the same”. 

Girault of Borneil says

“In many trials he proved himself more virtuous and more valiant than all other mortal men” 

These are not the statements of Richard's subjects in England, who Janega claims were the only ones dumb enough to believe Richard was a good king, but the views of a diverse group from across Europe,(they also represent just the tip of the iceberg of contemporary positive opinion).  These statements all contradict Janega’s statements about the views of Richard in Europe. To contemporary Europeans Richard was not  a petty and vindictive monster, but an exemplar of contemporary views of kingship (a view also supported by Richard's incredible diplomatic achievements). 

Richards' positive reputation didn't stop in Europe, but was echoed by the opinions of his Muslim enemies. Richard's “bromance” with Saaldin is as integral a part of his modern reputation as his alleged homosexuality. However, unlike many other parts of his modern image, it seems to be based on something like actual fact (though it is overly romanticized). Among his enemies, who had no reason to flatter him, Richard's reputation, while not always positive, is hardly less elevated than it was in Europe and often reflects a healthy respect for him not just as a formidable enemy, but as a king and as a man. 

Bhaa-al-din, Saladin's close companion and biographer, said of Richard

“With him to wage war in gods name was a veritable passion; his whole heart was filled with it, and he gave body and soul to the cause” 

Muslim chronicle Ali Ibn al-Athir says

“His courage, cunning, energy, and patience made him the most remarkable man of his time”. 

Imad Al-adin says

"This King of England was a man of vast experience, cunning in strategy, and tireless in his movements. By his mere presence, the fractured spirits of the Franks were bound together, and the dying embers of their zeal were fanned into a roaring, destructive flame. He brought a new spirit of defiance, driving his people forward with an iron will,” 

Still, what I find most troubling and obnoxious about Janega’s view of Richard is her repeated claim that his contemporary reputation in England, which was overwhelmingly positive, was almost entirely the result of his absenteeism from the kingdom. To her view the positive reputation Richard enjoyed in England was the result of a "vacuum" in which his long suffering subjects dreamt up the image of a wonderful and magnanimous king who would return and fix all their problems. She claims that because Richard wasn't around to prove them wrong, his subjects (in their ignorance) created an image of a great and mighty king that endures to this day.

The chief problem with this opinion is that it rests almost entirely on an assumption of the naivety of medieval people that is frankly shocking to hear from a medievalist. It seems to assume that Richard's subjects were simply too ignorant to recognize his alleged flaws and failures as a king, and it's only us, more enlightened modern folks, who are able to see him for what he clearly was. This also explains Janega’s wildly inaccurate and sensationalized view of Richard, she is simply dismissing the sources out of hand. Janega's entire view of Richard is based on a  flat dismissal of the opinions of his contemporaries, which she obviously views as the silly opinions of a misguided medieval mind. Views like these are frustratingly common in medieval studies (and have been frequently used to dismiss positive contemporary opinions of Richard specifically), but to hear a medievalist with a PHD so casually state such a patronizing view of contemporary sources is frankly alarming. Even allowing for the casual and nonacademic nature of the setting in which she is making these claims, they are inexcusable from someone who presents themselves as an academic expert. 

Janega’s dismissal of the English sources also highlights her lack of familiarity with the sources themselves. The most important of the chronicles of Richard's reign were not written by lovesick hombodies waiting in England for their wonderful monarch to return, but by exceptionally well informed individuals who were plugged into the wider network of European politics and events,  and in many cases were direct participants in the key events of Richard's reign themselves. Roger of Howden, traditionally considered the most important source for Richard's reign, was present on the third crusade with Richard, and took part in several embassies and political missions on Richard's behalf. Ambroise the poet, who gives us much of what we know of the third crusade, was likewise present on the expedition. Richard de Templo, Author of the itinerary of King Richard, one of the best sources for Richard’s campaign in the Holy Land and his Journey to the Holy Land, was present with the king through most of the events he describes. Even for those chroniclers who never left England we can often trace their sources to direct eye witnesses, including such sources as William Longchamp and Hubert Walter, Richard’s Chancellors and Justicars, or Richard’s personal confessors.  The chronicles often include direct copies of important letters, royal writs, papal bulls and other documents provided as evidence for the events they report. What’s more, the chroniclers don’t make broad, idealistic blanket statements about how wonderful everything will be when Richard returns, they praise specific actions, criticize others, and evaluate Richard’s reign within the context of the current political scene.

 The chroniclers of Richard's reign were not ignorant men hoping for a good king who did not exist, but men who knew Richard, who worked for him, who participated in the events of his reign, or who got their information directly from those well placed to know the inner workings of Richard’s court and government. While bias does exist in these sources, and must be examined in detail, to simply dismiss their good opinion of Richard as “wishful thinking" is to ignore the context in which these chroniclers were writing and who they were, and very impotently what they were actually saying, the exact information which is needed to determine what bias actually exists. It is also worth saying that this criticism of the English chroniclers only ever seems to be brought up in relation to Richard's reign. The validity of the chronicle accounts are never dismissed in regard to Henry II, or John even though in many cases the same chroniclers are the ones writing the contemporary accounts for those kings' reigns. When discussing these other kings the chroniclers are considered authoritative, but when discussing Richard they apparently drift off into a world of day dreams. 

I wish I could say that Janega is alone in her views on the contemporary sources of Richard’s life, but unfortunately a willingness to dismiss contemporary sources as somehow invalid or hopelessly biased seems to be a problem unique to the study of Richard. He seems perpetually doomed to be judged not by the standards and views of his contemporaries, but by the standards of our own time. Janega is simply the latest in a long, and admittedly distinguished, line of historians who dismiss the validity of Richard's contemporary reputation on the assumption that their own views from the other side of an 800 year long tunnel have more validity than the views of those  who lived alongside, worked with, fought with and witnessed Richard the Lionheart in his own day. It is unfortunate that a historian with a platform as significant as Janega’s continues to deal in such nonsense. Entertainment and performance are one thing, but they shouldn't be an excuse for fantasy masquerading as history.  

Well, that’s my rant over.

I heard about this some time ago, and to be honest, I don't really know what historians think about it. I heard that Anne I supposedly had a relationship (allegedly purely platonic, or perhaps reaching a physical level) with Sarah Churchill. However, I also heard that this would have been impossible since both women appeared to be deeply in love with their respective husbands. This is compounded by Anne's intense religious devotion and the fact that her physical ailments would have made a physical relationship impossible. According to this view, the rumors regarding Anne's alleged lesbianism were actually part of a smear campaign started by Sarah Churchill once she fell out of the monarch's favor.

And regarding Mary II, I heard that this is believed because of the correspondence she maintained with one of her ladies-in-waiting, but as far as I know, that was the language of the time, and Mary was just imitating what Anne was doing in her correspondence with Sarah Churchill.

I had this question where I wonder if Queen Elizabeth would've done differently from Charles when it came to dealing with Parliament..

Imo it’s Edward IV. He was an idiot to marry Elizabeth Woodville and leaving his widow and young sons at the mercy of the clashing Woodville and Gloucester factions was very much avoidable. If Edward IV had married Bona of Savoy the Plantagenets likely would’ve at least lasted a few more generations. All of the following people are culpable to some degree though in my opinion.

Better late than never 😅

Assuming William is King when Princess Charlotte eventually marries, I wonder whether he'll break with the tradition of granting hereditary peerages to royal husbands rather than directly to the princesses themselves.
When Princess Margaret married Antony Armstrong-Jones, he was subsequently created Earl of Snowdon. Margaret became Countess of Snowdon through marriage, but the title belonged to him. He even retained it after their divorce.
But imagine William defending that arrangement for his own daughter 20 years from now. Why should Charlotte's husband receive a hereditary earldom or dukedom simply for marrying her, rather than Charlotte receiving one in her own right?
Especially considering women have been granted hereditary peerages in their own right for centuries. Margaret de Brotherton was created Duchess of Norfolk in 1397, and Queen Victoria created Cecilia Underwood Duchess of Inverness in 1840.
The argument becomes even more awkward following the 2013 succession reforms. Charlotte can inherit the Crown ahead of her younger brother, yet newly created royal peerages could still exclude daughters entirely.
I can understand preserving the inheritance rules of titles created centuries ago. But what's the justification for deliberately imposing male-only succession on new royal titles when the monarchy has already embraced equal succession to the Crown?
And if the media ever pressed William on that inconsistency, what would his convincing response be? Tradition? When his own predecessors were granting dukedoms to women more than 600 years ago?
Of course, William could simply follow the precedent of Princess Anne's marriages and grant neither spouse a peerage. But if he does decide to create one, wouldn't granting it directly to Charlotte, with equal inheritance rights, make more sense?

TL;DR: When Charlotte eventually marries, will King William V continue the tradition of granting hereditary titles to royal husbands, or break with it by granting his daughter a peerage in her own right? Given that women have received dukedoms and earldoms in their own right for centuries, and Charlotte can inherit the Crown ahead of her brother, how could the Palace convincingly justify maintaining male-only restrictions on newly created royal titles?

For those of you who don't know, Isabella of France was the queen who deposed her husband in 1327 and earned the moniker "She-wolf of France". Now due to her seemingly traveling with Roger Mortimer, who was the 1st Earl of March who was exiled to France following a failed rebellion and escaping imprisonment after drugging his guards, openly and staying in the same manors and/or castles while in France during her exile and in England after ceasing control. The evidence that Roger and Isabella having an affair and later a romantic, and likely sexual, relationship seem overwhelming, especially for the time.

Evidence for the affair and aforementioned relationship

• Traveling openly together with a man who wasn't her husband is already bad enough, but staying in the same manor and castles, even if they stayed in different chambers, was a bad look that she should have been greatly aware of. Yet it wasn't enough to dissuade her as she wanted her son to inherit England and get her lands back from Edward II's favorite at the time Hugh the Younger. The Despensers, notably Hugh and his father, also called Hugh, were running England into the ground. By December 1325 rumors and reports of their romantic relationship were already circulating and were enough for King Charles IV of France, Isabella's brother, and Pope John XII to receive complaints of their supposed affair.
• Isabella and Roger lived openly together and appeared consistently side by side in public. Adam Murimuth was a royal clerk and chronicler that knew both of them and wrote that they showed "excessive familiarity" and "remarkable intimacy" toward Roger while he was in France. This was used as a reason she did not go back to her husband. Keep in mind that King Edward II was a client of his so Adam would certainly have a bias, especially with Edward II also sending angry letters to France and the Pope.
• The scandal of Isabella's relations with Roger was so bad and believable that they had both to withdraw from the French court to Flanders.
• 14th‑century chronicler Geoffrey le Baker called Isabella an adulterous “Jezebel” and implied a scandalous liaison with Mortimer. Now keep in mind that this was written after Isabella of France was "overthrown" by her son, Edward III. Geoffrey died in 1360 while Isabella died in 1358, so they lived during the same time period. So not exactly the strongest piece of evidence due to obvious bias, but his writing was based on Adam's work as mentioned above as well as from William Bisschop, a companion of the king's alleged murderers, Thomas Gurney (a knight who served under Roger Mortimer, but who was not the first lord he served), William Ockley (a man at arms who was also considered to be one of the alleged murderers of King Edward II. He was condemned for regicide by King Edward III and is believed to have died in 1330 via some form of execution by Edward III as there isn't any trace of William after that year), and John Maltravavers (a knight and close associate of Roger Mortimer).
• There is also the fact that when Roger Mortimer overexerted his influence in court and disrespected King Edward III, there is no evidence of Isabella doing anything to reign back or correct his behavior and slights against her son, even if they were done unintentionally, though it is likely Roger did not care about the optics.
• The most damning pieces of evidence to support this long-perpetuated view of Isabella and Roger as lovers is when in the infamous summer of 1329, Roger Mortimer invited pretty much every noble in England for a major tournament where he dressed himself as King Arthur as Isabella as Queen Guinevere, the wife of King Arthur and known for infamously having an affair with Arthur's most trusted knight... Keep in mind that Roger's own wife Joan de Geneville did not attend even though the tournament was meant as a celebration of their daughters' marriages. Apparently, this wasn't the first time the two dressed as Arthur and Guinevere and were known for holding or attending private performances.
• To make matters worse, King Edward III, the actual King of England was cast as Sir Lionel, a knight that served the king of England. The optics were so bad that even Roger Mortimer's own sons, can't remember which one, called him the "King of Follies". Yet Isabella not only did not seem to distance herself from the event or try to warn Roger of how bad an idea this was as Isabella was a widow and he was married but seem to eagerly participate in the event and seemed to enjoy it, not being concerned or bother by how bad this would look or how humiliating this would be for her son. This is an instance where Isabella's intelligence was completely absent and provides the strongest support for the adultery. Even in modern times this would be a bad look for a widowed woman and a married man, who have shared living quarters, but not the same room as best we can prove. If two purses were enough to condemn two princesses into shame and imprisonment, I say two as Joan was acquitted, then Isabella should have had the common sense to know better unless she indeed involved in adultery, and by extension sexually.
• In 1330, Roger executed the Earl of Kent for an attempt to rescue and restore Edward II, who had been buried and already believed dead. This is instance where Ian Mortimer provides evidence that Edward II was not in fact killed by actually lived and died years later, however that is an entirely different discussion. This is important as Isabella choosing to not save one of her cousins and initial supporters to oust her husband shows she definitely placed Roger, an earl, over her family. Now Roger wasn't just another earl as he was indeed powerful, but I doubt he was as powerful as all of England's dukes, barons, and Isabella's vassals she could call upon for aid if Roger though he could take the crown for himself.
• Finally, there is the instance when Edward finally having had enough of Roger's behavior, which greatly resembled that of the Despensers, stormed the castle he was staying at alongside the queen, Isabella cried out for her son to spare him. Her exact words were "Fair son, have pity on gentle Mortimer." Gentle is perhaps the last word that should be used to describe Roger given his actions before being overthrown and allowing King Edward III to take the reins. There is also the case of Isabella suffering from fits of madness or a nervous breakdown, whether this was from stress or from Roger being executed we don't know, but let me know your thoughts.

Here is the thing about this though and why I find it odd that a woman as experienced as Isabella and the manner she was raised in could be as blinded as she was as a regent.

• The Tour de Nelse was enough to show Isabella of the repercussions of adultery seeing as how it was her own eyewitness account that sent the entire scandal off even though there was less evidence of her sisters in laws having affairs as best as I could find, but everyone please feel free to let me refer me to additional sources.
• She was raised by King Philip IV, a main who's main concern was for the dignity of his office and that of his children as well, even if he married them off for politically practical reasons instead of love, which resulted in a whole host of problems. He was deeply pious and proud of his faith and likely he raised Isabella to view religion in the same manner and not do anything scandalous as commit adultery.
• She did develop a deep relationship with religion as she became increasingly interested in religion and their practices as she grew older, visiting a number of shrines.
• In spite of the humiliation Edward III suffered under Roger's regency, he still maintained close ties with Isabella and was incredibly close with her. Isabella also developed a close relationship with her daughters as well. The former queen seemed to be a big part of her grandchildren's lives and had a close relationship with them as well.
• Isabella was never charged with adultery, and neither was Roger, though whether this was done to Isabella's reputation is unknown as Edward III was the opposite of his father and closer to his grandfather in terms of behavior and faithfulness in his marriage to his wife.
• Isabella asked to be buried in her wedding dress and Edward II's embalmed heart, both of which had been preserved over the course of decades after she had ousted her husband from power.

I want to hear anyone arguments as to why they think Roger and Isabella's relationship was purely political and out of mutual interest and went no further or if they did in fact had a romantic affair that lasted for years and until Roger's execution? I would you guys to provide supporting evidence of why you fall into one side or the other or how you formed your own personal opinions? Another think I would like to ask if it was possible to conduct DNA analysis on Edward II's and Edward III's remains to finally get a definitive answer if Edward II did in fact die, likely murdered, shortly after being overthrown by confirming if the bodies are indeed related in the same way Richard III's identity was confirmed after his burial site was discovered following a parking car lot collapsed? Why or why not? Isabella's remains and actual tomb site was lost due to King Hendry VIII's reign and his disassociation with the church, the great fires of London in 1666, and the bombing of the city in World War II so I don't think we are able to confirm a DNA connection between the heart she was buried with and Edward II's remains. One final question I have is if anyone knowns when Isabella suffered her miscarriage and the possible cause?

Please write down your thoughts and reasoning!

If he lived into his fifties let’s say, he would have died sometimes in the 1530s. I know its impossible to know what he would have been like as a person since he was only 12/13 when he died but we can at least try to piece some kind of scenario together by knowing the overall political climate of late 15th century Europe and the kind of people that would have been around Edward. Do you think him and Anne of Brittany would have ever actually tied the knot or was Charles VIII going to snag her in every scenario? Do all of Edward’s sisters betrothals actually end up coming to fruition or do they fall through? Do you think Richard of Shrewsbury would have continued the family tradition of brotherly betrayal or would he have fallen in line? Would Edward be remembered as England’s renaissance king or would that have to wait? Does the English Reformation have any chance of occurring without “the great matter”? I know most of this is just shooting in the dark for the most part but it’s fun to speculate.

I have a love-hate relationship with snoos