![]() ![]() In reality, knights were typically aggressive and well-armed young men. Fiction has often made these warriors out to be paragons of virtue. One of the most romanticized aspects of the Middle Ages was the knight. Other forms of government (such as republicanism in Florence or a sort of republic in Venice) existed also. ![]() ![]() It is difficult now to realise how shocking it was even as late as the 17 th century for the English Parliament to claim the right to depose (and then condemn to death) an acknowledged legitimate King. Anyone who spotted the logical flaws here would probably have been unwise to say (to the new owner of the Tower of London torture chamber) "Haven't you just proved that Divine Right of Kings just means Might is Right?" A useful circular argument went "I was right to depose him because my rebellion was successful thus proving he wasn't the rightful king because God didn't protect him which proves I am the rightful king which proves God protects the rightful king". This was usually either by demonstrating that the ex-king (or an ancestor from x-generations back) had been illegitimate or by some kind of No True Scotsman argument. When a rebellion was successful, the new King had to legitimise himself by quickly explaining why the previous incumbent wasn't really the proper king at all. īy the end of the Middle Ages formal feudalism was weakening and a more legalistic system of land tenure was coming in, but the idea that loyalty could be due to the state rather than to the current ruler was hardly yet forming. The Popes were semi-successful in inserting themselves into the "chain of command" in that they were sometimes able to assert their right as Vicar (i.e., Deputy) of Christ to depose a king (well, declare him deposed so that a powerful rival could legitimately take over). To reinforce this, kings were anointed by Archbishops (and Emperors by the Pope) and were thus given a priestly role in governing, making it sacrilege to attempt to depose them. The king was seen to have the same feudal relation to God, i.e. The second idea gained ground as the period progressed. A key question of the time was whether a man owed all his loyalty to his immediate lord (and so must support him even when the lord rebelled against the king) or whether everyone owed ultimate allegiance to the king. Under the system known as Feudalism, Kings parceled out land to great lords in exchange for personal oaths of allegiance and promises of military service - and then so on down the hierarchy. ("She whispered something about Dorothy's friend - does that ring any bells? Oh, and I think she mentioned a tartan skirt.") Even as late as Queen Elisabeth I of England, the monarch could name their successor. In some countries, a woman could take the throne if she had no brothers in others, she could not rule but she could pass the right to her son. Why don't you and your brother go and play in that nice Tower?"). ![]() Later, the oldest son would be seen as the only legitimate heir, even if he was so young that his kind Uncle had to act as regent for a while ("I'll look after England for you, young Edward. The kingdom might even be divided between siblings. In the early days, Monarchy was not strictly by primogeniture: when a king died, the strongest son or brother or uncle would be recognised as king (though quite possibly after the unfortunate deaths of all the most promising rivals). Monarchy was the prevalent (but not only) form of government in Europe during the period. Henry VI of England (ten years old!) is crowned as King of France. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |