Edward II and Richard I

Pffft! Compared to the way a lot of kings treated their wives, is that the only criticism? That he wasn't 'attentive and polite' enough? I mean, sheesh, if that's all she had to complain about...poor Isabella, what terrible suffering!

I got the impression from Doherty et al. that Edward treated the young Isabella fairly nicely, other than his behavior at the coronation banquet when he pretty much ignored her. He provided her with the lands and the household that were expected to be given to a queen--an indication that outwardly, at least, he treated her with respect.

Exactly - the fact that Edward treated Isabella with respect and consideration for most of their marriage is rarely mentioned - or that he gave her a household double the size of previous queens' and paid all the costs, or that he paid all her expenses throughout their marriage, with 1 exception - a nugget she gave as an offering at Canterbury. He allowed her to overspend by £10,000 a year, about 5000 times most people's annual income. Or that he showed great concern for her on numerous occasions, such as in 1316 when he ordered her to come to him with all speed because he was worried about the earl of Lancaster, and paid her messenger a generous sum when he informed him that Isabella was on her way.

And as this thread about Richard I too, does anyone know how often he spent time with Berengaria of Navarre? I mean, if we're talking about kings who weren't 'attentive and polite' to their queens....

Well Berengaria did make the trip from Navarre to Sicily then Cyprus then the Holy Land and back again - for the most part in the company of Joanna, Richard's sister - and the first part with Eleanor, Richard's mother. And then there was all that time in France whilst he was a prisoner - and all that time in France once he was released.

I believe Berengaria spent quite some time with Richard following his release - a child would have been expected to be forthcoming from any "union" during this time - quite remarkable that no issue was forthcoming.

Mayhap the theory of Berengaria's barrenness holds some weight - or maybe all that time in the saddle ended the career of Richard's little "men". Remembering the front of the saddle was quite "higher" than it is in today's typical riding saddle.


(Trying to be very tactful here ... )

RE: Catherine de Medici - yes, she managed to reign through her 3 sons - but she didn't know she would end up doing that when she married Henri II. She was seen as an unworthy bride for Henri when he was Duc d'Orleans. She had to tolerate her husband flaunting his mistress in front of her in all matter of ways - having their initials entwined - H and D, instead of H and C, Henri wearing Diane's colours of black and white, money, lands and titles granted to her, and Diane's constant interference in politics. Must humiliating of all, was Diane helping to solve her problem with conceiving - suggesting positions she and Henri might try because she had a womb that tilted back. Diane having to arouse her husband first before he could face coming to her bed, and then taking control of the royal nursery.

Amazingly, Catherine did not take full revenge after the death of Henri - apart from banishing Diane from court and taking back chateaus and grants.

And Henri was hetrosexual! Just imagine if Gaveston had had to arouse Edward before he could do his duty with Isabella! I don't think Isabella had it too bad at court. She was a queen consort, and many a queen consort had found herself in a similar position. It's not like Edward made a scene that he found her physically repugnant - a fate suffered by Anne of Cleves. Both did their duty in producing an heir, and Isabella seems to have been well treated by Edward. She wasn't neglected and Edward kept her financially as a queen should - thanks to Alianore for providing the figures.

It was a chivalric ideal - that the king would love his queen and the knight his lady - but as many found out, the reality was something else. Isabella must surely have been aware of her role.

Maurice Druon's novel The She-Wolf of France has Isabella complaining that Hugh Despenser has to arouse Edward before he can perform his marital duty with her. Complete nonsense, of course, especially as three of Edward and Isabella's children were conceived before Despenser became Edward's favourite!

I'd forgotten that Henry VIII said that about Anne of Cleves - how deeply humiliating. Certainly puts Edward's treatment of Isabella into perspective.

I've also read that Diane de Poitiers had to arouse Henri, then sent him upstairs to Catherine to perform his duty - then he scarpered back to Diane. Yes, Catherine became very powerful after Henri's death - I think she deserved it after having his mistress flaunted in front of her for goodness knows how many years!

The most unfortunate royal wife I can think of is Blanche (or Blanca) of Bourbon, who married Pedro the Cruel of Castile in 1353. He imprisoned her within days of the wedding, kept her in prison for 8 years, then had her murdered. So when I read about poor little Isabella's alleged 'suffering' at the hands of Edward, I think of Blanche - I bet she would have considered herself blessed if all she had to worry about was that Pedro wasn't polite enough!

Oh dear - so Edward having to be aroused by his favourite before 'doing the deed' with Isabella has been included in fiction! What a travesty!

I knew nothing of Blanche of Bourbon's treatment - and from what you posted Alianore, I would agree she was the most unfortunate wife!

At least Catherine de Medici got to wield power after her husband's death, and Anne of Cleves got to live quite a comfortable life as Henry VIII's 'sister' - and she was subsequently treated well by Henry's children. Still, must have been humiliating when Henry said she had saggy breasts and he felt too physically revolted to his duty!

[quote="Melisende"]

Gyrfalcon wrote:

1. Richard had two children - out of wedlock.

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but genealogy is my forte. Richard had one known illegitimate child, and that was Philip Fitzroy. He may or may not have been the father of the Henry Fitzroy that John raised (yes, selfish, evil prince John took responsibility for one of his brothers' byblows). We don't know for sure who Henry's father was -- John just calls him his nephew -- but it was probably Richard or Geoffrey, or one of Henry II's illegitimate sons.

Thanks Mipp - yes Richard did acknowledge Philip, Lord of Cognac as his son. This was recorded by contemporary chroniclers. However, he is also ascribed a second son, one Fulk, through a liaison with Joan de St.Pol. However, he was not openly acknowledged, like Philip.

I wasn't referring to John's many offspring and "nephews" as the Popes liked to refer to their offspring.

Melisende wrote:

Thanks Mipp - yes Richard did acknowledge Philip, Lord of Cognac as his son. This was recorded by contemporary chroniclers. However, he is also ascribed a second son, one Fulk, through a liaison with Joan de St.Pol. However, he was not openly acknowledged, like Philip.

I wasn't referring to John's many offspring and "nephews" as the Popes liked to refer to their offspring.

Fulk? Who? Who says Fulk was Richard's son? None of Richard's reputable biographers have ever mentioned any son named Fulk. Please cite some documentary evidence to support this claim.