The ancient land of Canaan, (today known as Israel) was of significant importance to the ancient empires because it was the overland route between the Egyptian and Assyrian Empires. For thousands of years this land has been contested, conquered and under several influences. For this reason the area is rich in different cultural influences, and history.
On June 28 I travel to Israel, and this trip could not happen at a more opportune time. I just took an Ancient Israel class, where I studied about early Israelite history: the Exodus from Egypt, King David and Solomon, the Divided Monarchy time period and exile into Babylon. Because of how old of history we are talking about, the only written source for the time was the Bible. We read this as a historical document, trying to put the religious elements on the back burner and compare the written evidence with the archeological record that has been found in the region.
Religious or not, the area provides a very interesting history because of its location, and because of the different power struggles going on in the region. Locked between two of the largest Empires in the world, the region was constantly fought over. It wasn’t until the two regions receded lands due to internal turmoil the country of Israel was able to form. The little slice of land became a monarchy under David, and later solidified under his son Solomon.
The archeological record does support a central government. Three towns, Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer all have the same six chamber gate. This gate was extremely secure against an attack, and all three towns were placed along the ancient overland travel route from Egypt to Assyria. There is also evidence of soldiers being held at these sites, so these cities were also defensive for the region.
After the short stint as a united Monarchy, the region split into two different countries: Israel in the North, and Judah in the South. The two countries were not one entirely equal proportion since Israel had most of the agricultural resources because of the wetter climate. For this reason, as well as encompassing the fertile Jezreel Valley, the country was more on the international scene, having to fight off other surrounding regions from conquest. However, eventually the Assyrian Empire was able to conquer the region and claim the land as part of the empire.
Now only Judah was left, and this area began to also feel the international pressures after a time. Then, a shift happened. The Assyrians were conquered by the Babylonian Empire and the Kingdom of Judah itself fell. It was at this time those living in Judah were exiled into Babylon. However, 50 short years later, the Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians, and those living in exile were allowed to return back to Judah. It was at this time the term Jew was developed to describe those living in Judah.
After this time the region was conquered by Alexander the Great during the Hellenistic period, and eventually the rule of Rome. This last part is stretching my knowledge since we barely touched on the Hellenistic period in my class. I did touch on Israel during my Roman Empire class as well, and learned a little about the Herod Dynasty.
But this is all really to give you context about the area I will be traveling in. My hope is that I will visit some of these ancient places on my trip and be able to post more specific history and information when I get back.
So, until I get back, I wish all my readers happy history. I am looking forward to visiting and living it!
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
"Maud"
In 1066 A.D. everything changed in England. William the Conquer claimed the throne of England, and established a feudal system while unting the Heptarchy for good. After his death, the country was fought over by his three sons, and was first ruled by his second son William Rufus, and finally by his third son Henry. Henry I ruled after the unpopular reign of his brother and had a lot of interesting things associated with his rule. Perhaps I can find a good time to speak about all of this at a later time, but for now it isn’t too relevant.
But there are two important things to note for this post. The first is that Henry’s oldest brother, the first born son William was given Normandy when his father died, and after fighting for it, Henry eventually claimed Normandy as part of his territory. This meant England consisted of both the country of England and the province of Normandy. The second important thing Henry did was mend relations by marrying Matilda, Princess of Scotland.
But the problems really started after Henry I died. During his life, Henry had 22 children, which under normal circumstances wouldn’t be a problem. The problem was of those 22 children, only two were with his wife, and only one of them was a son. Making matters even more complicated was the fact that Henry’s one legitimate heir died in a shipwreck, leaving only his daughter, also named Matilda, as a legitimate heir to the throne of England.
Despite being a woman, Matilda (or Maud. Matilda is the Latin version of Maud) had all the skills to make a good ruler. She was smart, ambitious and was a good manipulator. When she was 12 she was married to the German Emperor, but they had no children. When he died she returned to her father’s court, and she was married to her second husband Geoffery of Anjou and Maine. They were married June 17, 1129, and while it is believed they did not love each other (she was 23 and he was 13) they had three sons in four years.
Henry had his Barons swear oaths to his daughter three times while he was still alive, but when he died in December 1135 his Barons rebelled against her, and supported her cousin Stephen of Blois as King instead. This is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Normandy and Anjou had been rival territories for some time, and her being married to Geoffery placed Anjou as a ruling power over Normandy. Many of the Barons were Normans. The second reason was despite her skill, Maud had a reputation of being a difficult woman.
Blois was a small territory, and Stephen was a weak man, allowing the Barons to have free rule in England as they desired. Maud did not give up her throne easily, and waged a 20-year Civil War with Stephen for the throne. In the end, Stephen was able to maintain the crown, but her son Henry was accepted as the next ruler of England.
If you want a good summer read that is exciting and a bit historical, I might recommend “The Pillars of the Earth” by Ken Follett. It is a book taking place during the Civil War, and he touches a bit on both Stephen and Maud, although his main characters and not either of those. There is also brief mention of Henry II. I was reading the book when I found the date of Maud and Geoffery’s marriage, and that is probably why I felt partial to blogging about it this week.
I’m thinking of bringing the sequel to Israel with me as a good plane and bus book that will keep me occupied.
I realize that the last three posts have been about England, and I am sorry there isn’t more variety. I will try to leave next week with something from a different area of the world. Then, two weeks I’ll be gone to Israel, so I will probably dedicate at least two posts (make up ones from what I missed earlier) to some history from that area. But for now, feel free to post comments or suggestions below. Happy History all!
But there are two important things to note for this post. The first is that Henry’s oldest brother, the first born son William was given Normandy when his father died, and after fighting for it, Henry eventually claimed Normandy as part of his territory. This meant England consisted of both the country of England and the province of Normandy. The second important thing Henry did was mend relations by marrying Matilda, Princess of Scotland.
But the problems really started after Henry I died. During his life, Henry had 22 children, which under normal circumstances wouldn’t be a problem. The problem was of those 22 children, only two were with his wife, and only one of them was a son. Making matters even more complicated was the fact that Henry’s one legitimate heir died in a shipwreck, leaving only his daughter, also named Matilda, as a legitimate heir to the throne of England.
Despite being a woman, Matilda (or Maud. Matilda is the Latin version of Maud) had all the skills to make a good ruler. She was smart, ambitious and was a good manipulator. When she was 12 she was married to the German Emperor, but they had no children. When he died she returned to her father’s court, and she was married to her second husband Geoffery of Anjou and Maine. They were married June 17, 1129, and while it is believed they did not love each other (she was 23 and he was 13) they had three sons in four years.
Henry had his Barons swear oaths to his daughter three times while he was still alive, but when he died in December 1135 his Barons rebelled against her, and supported her cousin Stephen of Blois as King instead. This is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Normandy and Anjou had been rival territories for some time, and her being married to Geoffery placed Anjou as a ruling power over Normandy. Many of the Barons were Normans. The second reason was despite her skill, Maud had a reputation of being a difficult woman.
Blois was a small territory, and Stephen was a weak man, allowing the Barons to have free rule in England as they desired. Maud did not give up her throne easily, and waged a 20-year Civil War with Stephen for the throne. In the end, Stephen was able to maintain the crown, but her son Henry was accepted as the next ruler of England.
If you want a good summer read that is exciting and a bit historical, I might recommend “The Pillars of the Earth” by Ken Follett. It is a book taking place during the Civil War, and he touches a bit on both Stephen and Maud, although his main characters and not either of those. There is also brief mention of Henry II. I was reading the book when I found the date of Maud and Geoffery’s marriage, and that is probably why I felt partial to blogging about it this week.
I’m thinking of bringing the sequel to Israel with me as a good plane and bus book that will keep me occupied.
I realize that the last three posts have been about England, and I am sorry there isn’t more variety. I will try to leave next week with something from a different area of the world. Then, two weeks I’ll be gone to Israel, so I will probably dedicate at least two posts (make up ones from what I missed earlier) to some history from that area. But for now, feel free to post comments or suggestions below. Happy History all!
Friday, June 11, 2010
Vikings
On the 28 of June I am leaving to go on a 10-day trip to Israel. Needless to say, I am very excited and because of that it seems I’ve gotten my dates mixed up.
Last Friday I posted about Henry VIII and his first Queen Catherine of Aragon. They were married on June 11, and I thought last Friday was the 11. But instead, my post was a week early, so I find myself in a bit of a predicament about what to post on for the real this week.
So I decided since history is looking at things in retrospect anyway, I would post something interesting that happened on Tuesday of this week, Tuesday June 8 in 793 A.D.
In 793 the Vikings raided Lindisfarne in North Umbria and this event is commonly accepted as the beginning of the Scandinavian invasion of England. Lindisfarne Priory was one of the most important centers of early Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England.
The monastery was founded in 635A.D. and since it was located on an island along the coast it was an easy target for Vikings. The Vikings began to travel to other countries because of the cooling climate in Scandinavia, and many began to settle in Greenland, Iceland and even England. The people who settled on land were not known as Vikings, but rather as Norse. It was only those who went on raiding parties to gain wealth to sell who were known as Vikings.
During this time the Monastery’s were some of the richest places in Anglo-Saxon England. The Anglo Saxon chronicle was kept every year about activities in the country, and for 793 I found this entry:
"AD. 793. This year came dreadful fore-warnings over the land of the Northumbrians, terrifying the people most woefully: these were immense sheets of light rushing through the air, and whirlwinds, and fiery dragons flying across the firmament. These tremendous tokens were soon followed by a great famine: and not long after, on the sixth day before the ides of January in the same year, the harrowing inroads of heathen men made lamentable havoc in the church of God in Holy-island, by rapine and slaughter."
After 793 more Viking raids would come, and North Umbria would continue to be the destination of the raids. The Monastery’s continued to offer wealth to those who raided them, and the Vikings would not be dispelled until after Albert the Great came to power in 871, uniting all seven of the states in England (North Umbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Sussex, Wessex, Essex, Kent) into one united country.
The Vikings continue to be romanticized today, and they are definitely a cooler part of history, I must admit. I would to take the opportunity to say the horns of the helmet were not really historically accurate; they began as a costume for an opera in the 1800’s.
Next week I will have a time accurate post. Until then, leave comments and happy history!
Last Friday I posted about Henry VIII and his first Queen Catherine of Aragon. They were married on June 11, and I thought last Friday was the 11. But instead, my post was a week early, so I find myself in a bit of a predicament about what to post on for the real this week.
So I decided since history is looking at things in retrospect anyway, I would post something interesting that happened on Tuesday of this week, Tuesday June 8 in 793 A.D.
In 793 the Vikings raided Lindisfarne in North Umbria and this event is commonly accepted as the beginning of the Scandinavian invasion of England. Lindisfarne Priory was one of the most important centers of early Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England.
The monastery was founded in 635A.D. and since it was located on an island along the coast it was an easy target for Vikings. The Vikings began to travel to other countries because of the cooling climate in Scandinavia, and many began to settle in Greenland, Iceland and even England. The people who settled on land were not known as Vikings, but rather as Norse. It was only those who went on raiding parties to gain wealth to sell who were known as Vikings.
During this time the Monastery’s were some of the richest places in Anglo-Saxon England. The Anglo Saxon chronicle was kept every year about activities in the country, and for 793 I found this entry:
"AD. 793. This year came dreadful fore-warnings over the land of the Northumbrians, terrifying the people most woefully: these were immense sheets of light rushing through the air, and whirlwinds, and fiery dragons flying across the firmament. These tremendous tokens were soon followed by a great famine: and not long after, on the sixth day before the ides of January in the same year, the harrowing inroads of heathen men made lamentable havoc in the church of God in Holy-island, by rapine and slaughter."
After 793 more Viking raids would come, and North Umbria would continue to be the destination of the raids. The Monastery’s continued to offer wealth to those who raided them, and the Vikings would not be dispelled until after Albert the Great came to power in 871, uniting all seven of the states in England (North Umbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Sussex, Wessex, Essex, Kent) into one united country.
The Vikings continue to be romanticized today, and they are definitely a cooler part of history, I must admit. I would to take the opportunity to say the horns of the helmet were not really historically accurate; they began as a costume for an opera in the 1800’s.
Next week I will have a time accurate post. Until then, leave comments and happy history!
Friday, June 4, 2010
Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon
Everyone knows the story: Henry VIII wanted a son, and his first wife couldn’t provide one so he divorced her for Anne Boleyn and in the process changed the religious landscape of England forever.
This is all fine and dandy, and while I know that Anne is the interesting one (the typical intelligent conniving woman men of the time feared) Catherine was an interesting woman in her own right. Instead of sitting back and allowing her husband to discard her, she put up a massive fight to maintain her control in England.
This is all relevant because on June 11, 1509 Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon were married. However, this was not the original destiny for Catherine.
Catherine was the youngest surviving child of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. The two monarchs were revolutionary, uniting all the different territories of Spain into one country, and together were able to make Spain one of the most powerful countries in Europe. It was Ferdinand and Isabella who financed Christopher Columbus and his expeditions to the New World, and it was also these monarchs who carried out the Spanish Inquisition.
When Catherine was three, a marriage alliance was put in place between Catherine and Arthur, the elder son of Henry VII.
In 1501 when Catherine was 16 she traveled to England where she married Arthur on November 14, 1501. Six months later Arthur died, and Catherine was widowed. Because Catherine was still young, and Henry VII was keen on keeping her dowry, she was betrothed to Henry 14 months later. However, Henry was too young to marry.
By 1505 when Henry was old enough to wed Henry VII wasn’t as keen on a Spanish alliance, and Catherine’s future was uncertain for four years until 1509 when Henry VII died. One of Henry VIII first actions was to marry Catherine, and she was finally crowned Queen on June 24, 1509.
Catherine had six children total with only Princess Mary surviving. Her last recorded pregnancy was in 1518. Henry did have mistresses and two who are known are Mary Boleyn and Bessie Blount.
By 1526 Henry began to separate from Catherine because he had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn, the sister of Mary one of his mistresses. This is when the debate began. Henry wanted a male heir, up until this time there had only been male rulers of England. Matilda had attempted to gain control of England 3oo years earlier, but had been unsuccessful because of the male authority engraved at the time.
Now we all know the rest of the story: Henry decided after reading the Bible to have his marriage annulled. Catherine appealed the case to the Pope to try and maintain the status of her daughter Mary, and insisted her marriage to Arthur was no consummated and therefore they were not truly husband and wife. Finally in 1533 when Anne became pregnant and Henry broke from the church and had the Archbishop of Canterbury grant the annulment, and limited Catherine’s status as Princess Dowager of Wales. Catherine refused to accept the title, and died three years later.
This is the part of Catherine’s life that everyone knows. But what about the Queen Catherine; what was her life like between becoming Queen and being discarded.
Immediately after her marriage, Catherine was regarded as a close political advisor to her husband. In 1513 Henry went to war with France and made Catherine regent over England. While he was gone, Catherine had to deal with Scottish rebellion and put herself at the front of the troops to lead in war against the Scottish until the battle of Flodden Field ended the campaign.
It was after this that Ferdinand made a treaty with France, and Henry was greatly angered by the action. At this point Catherine realized she had to chose between her father or her husband, and changed her loyalty to England.
Despite this, Henry’s chief advisor Lord Chancellor Cardinal Wolsey never trusted Catherine, so over time Henry began to disregard her political advice.
Despite all of this Catherine was well loved by the people. She often gave to the poor of England food, clothes, money and fuel for fires in the winter. When Henry sought to divorce her the people were outraged.
I think Catherine is an overlooked woman in history. She was a very strong character considering all she was up against. If she had the right husband, I think things may have panned out differently. Instead of making her an enemy, making her an ally may have allowed England to gain an even stronger position. Catherine had been to war with her parents, and had first hand knowledge of how to unite a country and make it strong.
Sure, considering all of Henry’s six wives, Anne is usually the favorite because of the scandal she created. And because of the religious legacy left in England. However, Overlooking Catherine is not wise: given her chance she could have shined.
This is all fine and dandy, and while I know that Anne is the interesting one (the typical intelligent conniving woman men of the time feared) Catherine was an interesting woman in her own right. Instead of sitting back and allowing her husband to discard her, she put up a massive fight to maintain her control in England.
This is all relevant because on June 11, 1509 Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon were married. However, this was not the original destiny for Catherine.
Catherine was the youngest surviving child of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. The two monarchs were revolutionary, uniting all the different territories of Spain into one country, and together were able to make Spain one of the most powerful countries in Europe. It was Ferdinand and Isabella who financed Christopher Columbus and his expeditions to the New World, and it was also these monarchs who carried out the Spanish Inquisition.
When Catherine was three, a marriage alliance was put in place between Catherine and Arthur, the elder son of Henry VII.
In 1501 when Catherine was 16 she traveled to England where she married Arthur on November 14, 1501. Six months later Arthur died, and Catherine was widowed. Because Catherine was still young, and Henry VII was keen on keeping her dowry, she was betrothed to Henry 14 months later. However, Henry was too young to marry.
By 1505 when Henry was old enough to wed Henry VII wasn’t as keen on a Spanish alliance, and Catherine’s future was uncertain for four years until 1509 when Henry VII died. One of Henry VIII first actions was to marry Catherine, and she was finally crowned Queen on June 24, 1509.
Catherine had six children total with only Princess Mary surviving. Her last recorded pregnancy was in 1518. Henry did have mistresses and two who are known are Mary Boleyn and Bessie Blount.
By 1526 Henry began to separate from Catherine because he had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn, the sister of Mary one of his mistresses. This is when the debate began. Henry wanted a male heir, up until this time there had only been male rulers of England. Matilda had attempted to gain control of England 3oo years earlier, but had been unsuccessful because of the male authority engraved at the time.
Now we all know the rest of the story: Henry decided after reading the Bible to have his marriage annulled. Catherine appealed the case to the Pope to try and maintain the status of her daughter Mary, and insisted her marriage to Arthur was no consummated and therefore they were not truly husband and wife. Finally in 1533 when Anne became pregnant and Henry broke from the church and had the Archbishop of Canterbury grant the annulment, and limited Catherine’s status as Princess Dowager of Wales. Catherine refused to accept the title, and died three years later.
This is the part of Catherine’s life that everyone knows. But what about the Queen Catherine; what was her life like between becoming Queen and being discarded.
Immediately after her marriage, Catherine was regarded as a close political advisor to her husband. In 1513 Henry went to war with France and made Catherine regent over England. While he was gone, Catherine had to deal with Scottish rebellion and put herself at the front of the troops to lead in war against the Scottish until the battle of Flodden Field ended the campaign.
It was after this that Ferdinand made a treaty with France, and Henry was greatly angered by the action. At this point Catherine realized she had to chose between her father or her husband, and changed her loyalty to England.
Despite this, Henry’s chief advisor Lord Chancellor Cardinal Wolsey never trusted Catherine, so over time Henry began to disregard her political advice.
Despite all of this Catherine was well loved by the people. She often gave to the poor of England food, clothes, money and fuel for fires in the winter. When Henry sought to divorce her the people were outraged.
I think Catherine is an overlooked woman in history. She was a very strong character considering all she was up against. If she had the right husband, I think things may have panned out differently. Instead of making her an enemy, making her an ally may have allowed England to gain an even stronger position. Catherine had been to war with her parents, and had first hand knowledge of how to unite a country and make it strong.
Sure, considering all of Henry’s six wives, Anne is usually the favorite because of the scandal she created. And because of the religious legacy left in England. However, Overlooking Catherine is not wise: given her chance she could have shined.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Ice Skating
I am not a sports writer. I do like to watch sports, but really only understand football fully. I’ve had many embarrassing interactions with friend about sports that I know nothing about. But what I lack in sports knowledge, I think I make up for with my knowledge of history and the arts. I figure when you’re a writer you have to focus on what you know.
However, when one of my friends got the opportunity to work on a one day internship with Smuckers Stars on Ice, I decided a little variety in a portfolio never hurt anyone. So, for one day I placed myself out of my element, history and the performing arts, and focused on my Achilles heel: sports.
And it was one of the most exciting experiences I’ve had so far. Because it was only a one-day internship, I had the freedom to do whatever really. I learned basics about audio interviews in a class last year, and haven’t had a chance to utilize my skills since. My teacher said I was one of the best in the class, so I decided that would be what I would focus on from the experience. The tough part for me has been how to incorporate sports into my blog.
The initial idea was to do the history of ice-skating, but I’ve done something similar several times before. I’m trying to keep things fresh, and writing another history on how a sport has come to be just doesn’t seem appealing to me. Plus, it’s not exactly timely at the moment.
So I searched around a bit before I found an appealing topic.
Jackson Haines is the man credited with bringing figure skating to America. From what I could find on Haines, he was a dancer and combined these skills with his skating. He was revolutionary because he broke away from the rigid style of the time.
In 1863 Haines proclaimed himself the figure skating champion in America (which in retrospect didn’t mean much since many athletes gave themselves the title). However, the unenthusiastic attitude of Americans caused Haines to leave for Europe where he was warmly received. It was here the international style of figure skating was born, and the style eventually came back to America.
Haines was a revolutionary skater. I wish I could find more on him, but there was very little information I considered reliable. He seemed like a charismatic person and skater.
I did find some other historic figure skating moments at history.com. In 1948 Dick Burton won the gold medal. He was the first American to win the gold. In 1998 Tara Lipinski became the youngest Olympic gold medal skater. She was 15.
With this being said, I hope you can walk away knowing a bit more about some of the colorful skaters in the skating history. That being said, I’m going to attach my finished audio files for the skaters I interviewed at the Stars on Ice. Feel free to give them a listen. I’m pretty proud of them, and audio is definitely something I’d like to incorporate into my blog on a more regular basis.
As always, leave comments, and happy history!
Jeremy Abbott Interview
Meryl Davis and Charlie White Interview
Ben Agosto Interview
However, when one of my friends got the opportunity to work on a one day internship with Smuckers Stars on Ice, I decided a little variety in a portfolio never hurt anyone. So, for one day I placed myself out of my element, history and the performing arts, and focused on my Achilles heel: sports.
And it was one of the most exciting experiences I’ve had so far. Because it was only a one-day internship, I had the freedom to do whatever really. I learned basics about audio interviews in a class last year, and haven’t had a chance to utilize my skills since. My teacher said I was one of the best in the class, so I decided that would be what I would focus on from the experience. The tough part for me has been how to incorporate sports into my blog.
The initial idea was to do the history of ice-skating, but I’ve done something similar several times before. I’m trying to keep things fresh, and writing another history on how a sport has come to be just doesn’t seem appealing to me. Plus, it’s not exactly timely at the moment.
So I searched around a bit before I found an appealing topic.
Jackson Haines is the man credited with bringing figure skating to America. From what I could find on Haines, he was a dancer and combined these skills with his skating. He was revolutionary because he broke away from the rigid style of the time.
In 1863 Haines proclaimed himself the figure skating champion in America (which in retrospect didn’t mean much since many athletes gave themselves the title). However, the unenthusiastic attitude of Americans caused Haines to leave for Europe where he was warmly received. It was here the international style of figure skating was born, and the style eventually came back to America.
Haines was a revolutionary skater. I wish I could find more on him, but there was very little information I considered reliable. He seemed like a charismatic person and skater.
I did find some other historic figure skating moments at history.com. In 1948 Dick Burton won the gold medal. He was the first American to win the gold. In 1998 Tara Lipinski became the youngest Olympic gold medal skater. She was 15.
With this being said, I hope you can walk away knowing a bit more about some of the colorful skaters in the skating history. That being said, I’m going to attach my finished audio files for the skaters I interviewed at the Stars on Ice. Feel free to give them a listen. I’m pretty proud of them, and audio is definitely something I’d like to incorporate into my blog on a more regular basis.
As always, leave comments, and happy history!
Jeremy Abbott Interview
Meryl Davis and Charlie White Interview
Ben Agosto Interview
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Elizabeth I v. Mary Queen of Scotts
I’m really sorry I once again missed a week. Last week was finals week, and I feel that does grant me some leeway for neglecting my blog. However, we’ll tack it on as something I should make up, and make it up I will… I’m plotting readers, and it’s going to be well worth the wait.
Enough of that, on to my blog for this week.
Elizabeth I is one of my favorite monarchs, probably because she was the first strong Queen of England, and was able to make England one of the world powers without a man reigning over or with her. Through all of this, one of the things most known about her was her feud with her cousin Queen Mary of Scotland, and the next in line for the thrown of England. For this reason, the two were rivals for years.
For Christmas my friend got me the coolest book ever, and it definitely comes in handy for this post. It is called “Great Rivals in History: When Politics gets Personal.” This book is very valuable for this topic, and actually lays out the complexities of the issue.
The feud was laid by King Henry VIII. After King James V of Scotland died, Henry sought to bring the country under English control, something tired previously by England for hundreds of years. However, there were a couple of problems with this. First, Mary, James’ daughter, was related to Henry. Her grandmother was Henry VII sister, Margaret, thus making her a Tudor. Mary’s mother (also a Mary) was a Guise, one of Frances noble families. Complicating the situation further was the fact that Scotland was a Catholic country, and England at this point was no longer Catholic (Henry brake with the church to marry his second wife Anne).
Henry demanded that Scotland accept him as King and discard all French ties, something Mary Guise refused to do. Mary was crowned Queen of the Scotts when she was nine months old, and moved to France with her mother at the age of five for her safety.
After Mary’s husband (The Dauphin of France) died Queen Catherine de Medici of France wanted to limit the powers of the Guise family and pushed for Mary to return back to Scotland. In the summer of 1561 Mary prepared to return home. She was 19 years old, and almost six feet tall, something unheard of at that age. Before Mary left she sought Elizabeth’s promise of a safe passage through English waters, but Elizabeth would only agree if Mary ratified the Treaty of Edinburgh in which Mary would renounce her claim to the thrown of England. Mary refused to sign the treaty, and sailed anyway.
Elizabeth did not want to name Mary as next heir in case there would be an uprising in England winning her the thrown. When Elizabeth contracted Small Pox she had a change of heart; if Mary would agree to marry Robert Dudley she would agree to name Mary as her heir. Mary dismissed the offer, and instead married Henry Stuart her first cousin and a pretender to the English throne. Henry was a terrible husband; he demanded more power than Mary was able to give him and attacked her when she was pregnant hoping she would miscarry. He also killed one of Mary’s trusted aids in front of her. Henry later died after an explosion in his home went off, although he did not die from that but from suffocation.
Blame for Henry’s death fell on Mary, and she later married her third husband James Hepburn the Earl of Bothwell. This was the final straw for the Scottish people and they rose against her and Bothwell. They captured Mary in June 1567 and forced her to abdicate the thrown to her ten-month old son James. She was held prisoner in Edinburgh and then Lock Leven.
This was not the end for Mary; she escaped and raised an army against the Scottish lords who had imprisoned her. She was defeated and fled to England. Mary was hoping to get help from Elizabeth, but Elizabeth did not want to aid her. The Protestant Lords in Scotland did not want Mary returned and Elizabeth wanted these men on her side if conflict with France escalated.
Elizabeth did not see Mary, and instead imprisoned her in Sheffield Castle, and although Mary was tried for her husband’s death she was never convicted. Mary’s imprisonment stretched on for 19 years, during which Mary was sending letters to King Phillip II of Spain with the intensions of becoming Queen of England and returning the country to a Catholic country.
Ultimately Mary was out of touch with reality; Elizabeth was immensely popular in the country. However Mary did become focus of plots against Elizabeth’s life. As the attempts became more serious, Mary lost the little freedom she had. When Anthony Babington, a Catholic gentlemen, wrote of his plot to kill Elizabeth, and when Mary returned his letter Mary was put on trial for treason. In October 1586 Mary was found guilty, and the punishment was death. On February 8, 1587 Mary was killed. The first stroke missed her neck and struck her skull instead. The second swing severed her neck.
When Elizabeth died at the age of seventy in 1603 she named James Stuart, Mary’s son as her heir.
Why is all this significant? Ultimately it is what happened after Mary’s death which shaped the future: King Phillip II of Spain sending his infamous Spanish Armada to England to teach them a lesson and to overthrow Elizabeth and restore England as a Catholic country. Elizabeth and England defeated his Armada, and Spain’s international prominence began to decline as England’s power increased.
I figure everyone is familiar with Elizabeth I, but I couldn't think of a good painting I had seen of Mary. So I'm including both to be unbiased. Happy history all!
Mary Queen of Scotts
Queen Elizabeth I
Enough of that, on to my blog for this week.
Elizabeth I is one of my favorite monarchs, probably because she was the first strong Queen of England, and was able to make England one of the world powers without a man reigning over or with her. Through all of this, one of the things most known about her was her feud with her cousin Queen Mary of Scotland, and the next in line for the thrown of England. For this reason, the two were rivals for years.
For Christmas my friend got me the coolest book ever, and it definitely comes in handy for this post. It is called “Great Rivals in History: When Politics gets Personal.” This book is very valuable for this topic, and actually lays out the complexities of the issue.
The feud was laid by King Henry VIII. After King James V of Scotland died, Henry sought to bring the country under English control, something tired previously by England for hundreds of years. However, there were a couple of problems with this. First, Mary, James’ daughter, was related to Henry. Her grandmother was Henry VII sister, Margaret, thus making her a Tudor. Mary’s mother (also a Mary) was a Guise, one of Frances noble families. Complicating the situation further was the fact that Scotland was a Catholic country, and England at this point was no longer Catholic (Henry brake with the church to marry his second wife Anne).
Henry demanded that Scotland accept him as King and discard all French ties, something Mary Guise refused to do. Mary was crowned Queen of the Scotts when she was nine months old, and moved to France with her mother at the age of five for her safety.
After Mary’s husband (The Dauphin of France) died Queen Catherine de Medici of France wanted to limit the powers of the Guise family and pushed for Mary to return back to Scotland. In the summer of 1561 Mary prepared to return home. She was 19 years old, and almost six feet tall, something unheard of at that age. Before Mary left she sought Elizabeth’s promise of a safe passage through English waters, but Elizabeth would only agree if Mary ratified the Treaty of Edinburgh in which Mary would renounce her claim to the thrown of England. Mary refused to sign the treaty, and sailed anyway.
Elizabeth did not want to name Mary as next heir in case there would be an uprising in England winning her the thrown. When Elizabeth contracted Small Pox she had a change of heart; if Mary would agree to marry Robert Dudley she would agree to name Mary as her heir. Mary dismissed the offer, and instead married Henry Stuart her first cousin and a pretender to the English throne. Henry was a terrible husband; he demanded more power than Mary was able to give him and attacked her when she was pregnant hoping she would miscarry. He also killed one of Mary’s trusted aids in front of her. Henry later died after an explosion in his home went off, although he did not die from that but from suffocation.
Blame for Henry’s death fell on Mary, and she later married her third husband James Hepburn the Earl of Bothwell. This was the final straw for the Scottish people and they rose against her and Bothwell. They captured Mary in June 1567 and forced her to abdicate the thrown to her ten-month old son James. She was held prisoner in Edinburgh and then Lock Leven.
This was not the end for Mary; she escaped and raised an army against the Scottish lords who had imprisoned her. She was defeated and fled to England. Mary was hoping to get help from Elizabeth, but Elizabeth did not want to aid her. The Protestant Lords in Scotland did not want Mary returned and Elizabeth wanted these men on her side if conflict with France escalated.
Elizabeth did not see Mary, and instead imprisoned her in Sheffield Castle, and although Mary was tried for her husband’s death she was never convicted. Mary’s imprisonment stretched on for 19 years, during which Mary was sending letters to King Phillip II of Spain with the intensions of becoming Queen of England and returning the country to a Catholic country.
Ultimately Mary was out of touch with reality; Elizabeth was immensely popular in the country. However Mary did become focus of plots against Elizabeth’s life. As the attempts became more serious, Mary lost the little freedom she had. When Anthony Babington, a Catholic gentlemen, wrote of his plot to kill Elizabeth, and when Mary returned his letter Mary was put on trial for treason. In October 1586 Mary was found guilty, and the punishment was death. On February 8, 1587 Mary was killed. The first stroke missed her neck and struck her skull instead. The second swing severed her neck.
When Elizabeth died at the age of seventy in 1603 she named James Stuart, Mary’s son as her heir.
Why is all this significant? Ultimately it is what happened after Mary’s death which shaped the future: King Phillip II of Spain sending his infamous Spanish Armada to England to teach them a lesson and to overthrow Elizabeth and restore England as a Catholic country. Elizabeth and England defeated his Armada, and Spain’s international prominence began to decline as England’s power increased.
I figure everyone is familiar with Elizabeth I, but I couldn't think of a good painting I had seen of Mary. So I'm including both to be unbiased. Happy history all!
Mary Queen of Scotts
Queen Elizabeth I
Sunday, May 2, 2010
"The Children's Miracle"
I just recently had to write a research paper for my New South class. We were allowed to pick our own topic, something within the scope of the class. This doesn’t really narrow down the possibilities; the class time period is from 1865 to present. It also doesn’t help how difficult it is for me to make decisions regarding topics for papers.
With that, I went in to see my teacher, and he suggested I focus on something with the media to satisfy my second major. Thus, I settled on the media coverage of the Birmingham Campaign of 1963.
May 2 marks the anniversary of the Children’s Crusade, the portion of the campaign when school children began marching and filling the jails in Birmingham. This step became a necessity because of the low adult turn out for the earlier portion of the movement. In order to be effective the Civil Rights leaders realized they needed to effectively flood the system; have so many jailed no one else could be arrested because of the space issue.
In addition to the different phases of the campaign, I learned a lot about the media coverage of the movement. Initially the media coverage (and when I say this I mean the northern perspective) was against the Civil Rights movement. At the time the Cold War was in full swing, and journalists thought the movement leaders were working with the Communists.
The New York Times and Washington Post exert internal influence within the media world. If these papers cover an event, local papers will be more inclined to cover the same story because of it’s importance. Life Magazine also covered the movement with three startling pictures taken by photographer Charles Moore. Thus, my ultimate thesis was the coverage, whether negative or positive, was good because more Americans became exposed to the story and pictures photographers saw.
It was the images from the movement which probably struck the reader more than the articles. After the Birmingham Campaign President Kennedy decided to push Civil Rights legislation to end Jim Crow laws in the South and similar practices occurring in other parts of the country.
These three images I've included were three pictures from the May 17, 1963 edition of "Life Magazine." They are also three of the most famous images from the movement. One thing that bothers me is all the pictures featured older students or adults, which ignored the younger children participating in the movement. While it is an ethical decision many journalists make to exclude children under the age of 18, it is my opinion that the publications excluded a large part of the story by not picturing the younger movement participants.
This is just a summary of what I discussed in my paper, but again I found it fitting that I could summarize a bit of it for my blog this week. I did enjoy writing the paper; it fused my two majors and I enjoyed reading historical sources on the movement and journalism sources reflecting on the coverage of the movement.
This is my last week of class! I’m excited, but a bit sad too. I really did enjoy my classes. I’ve also realized I still haven’t posted anything from my Ancient Israel class, so I may need to tie in that topic for next week. Hope everyone has a great week!
With that, I went in to see my teacher, and he suggested I focus on something with the media to satisfy my second major. Thus, I settled on the media coverage of the Birmingham Campaign of 1963.
May 2 marks the anniversary of the Children’s Crusade, the portion of the campaign when school children began marching and filling the jails in Birmingham. This step became a necessity because of the low adult turn out for the earlier portion of the movement. In order to be effective the Civil Rights leaders realized they needed to effectively flood the system; have so many jailed no one else could be arrested because of the space issue.
In addition to the different phases of the campaign, I learned a lot about the media coverage of the movement. Initially the media coverage (and when I say this I mean the northern perspective) was against the Civil Rights movement. At the time the Cold War was in full swing, and journalists thought the movement leaders were working with the Communists.
The New York Times and Washington Post exert internal influence within the media world. If these papers cover an event, local papers will be more inclined to cover the same story because of it’s importance. Life Magazine also covered the movement with three startling pictures taken by photographer Charles Moore. Thus, my ultimate thesis was the coverage, whether negative or positive, was good because more Americans became exposed to the story and pictures photographers saw.
It was the images from the movement which probably struck the reader more than the articles. After the Birmingham Campaign President Kennedy decided to push Civil Rights legislation to end Jim Crow laws in the South and similar practices occurring in other parts of the country.
These three images I've included were three pictures from the May 17, 1963 edition of "Life Magazine." They are also three of the most famous images from the movement. One thing that bothers me is all the pictures featured older students or adults, which ignored the younger children participating in the movement. While it is an ethical decision many journalists make to exclude children under the age of 18, it is my opinion that the publications excluded a large part of the story by not picturing the younger movement participants.
This is just a summary of what I discussed in my paper, but again I found it fitting that I could summarize a bit of it for my blog this week. I did enjoy writing the paper; it fused my two majors and I enjoyed reading historical sources on the movement and journalism sources reflecting on the coverage of the movement.
This is my last week of class! I’m excited, but a bit sad too. I really did enjoy my classes. I’ve also realized I still haven’t posted anything from my Ancient Israel class, so I may need to tie in that topic for next week. Hope everyone has a great week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
