She Wolves
She Wolves
2012-03-15 11:22:20
I was going to mention this new BBC Tv series last week after the episode on Matilda and Eleanor of Aquitaine, two fascinating figures in Medieval history, but thought I'd wait until after last night's episode on Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou to see how her history was once she had done a subject I know quite a lot about.
Helen Castor gave a very [far too] sympathetic portrait of Margaret, full of lovely images and anecdotes, too much legend and not very accurate history.
But Helen was only interested in making her case for these women NOT being really worthy of the name "she wolf". Fair enough up to a point.
But it now throws doubt on what I had thought her enlightening view of Matilda last week. Always interested in Stephen I had mainly viewed that period from his pov before so I thought I'd missed quite a lot. But if I knew nothing of the Wars between Lancaster and York I'd now be thinking what rotten dogs those men had been to deny such a nice lady her and her son's rights!
Now I agree with Miss Castro when she says that in Medieval England women in power had problems a many, mainly as the monarch was expected to fight for his crown and fight to keep it, while all the time playing the power game with his nobility. The expectation though was that women were expected to be submissive rather than taking charge, and that this was what tripped up Matilda, and in turn Isabella and Margaret.
I would argue that had Eleanor of Acquitaine been in Matilda's place things would have been very different, as it was the character and intelligence of the women involved rather than their sex.
Matilda always called herself Empress, after her title from her first marriage, and behaved by the majority of accounts in an arrogant and selfish way.
Margaret and Isabella behaved in the same manner, and Isabella's treatment of Hugh Dispenser was appalling, something alone she deserves the name she wolf for. Margaret's lack of political acumen and single minded ambition to see her son crowned was a mind set that would later bring down Elizabeth Woodville, and split the house of York in two.
Margaret split the country into two parties and seems to have listened to nothing but her own ambition. Would Cecily of York had done a better job? In my biased way I have to think she undoubtedly would have!
Paul
next week Tudor queens. I imagine some hagiography will be involved!
Richard Liveth Yet!
Helen Castor gave a very [far too] sympathetic portrait of Margaret, full of lovely images and anecdotes, too much legend and not very accurate history.
But Helen was only interested in making her case for these women NOT being really worthy of the name "she wolf". Fair enough up to a point.
But it now throws doubt on what I had thought her enlightening view of Matilda last week. Always interested in Stephen I had mainly viewed that period from his pov before so I thought I'd missed quite a lot. But if I knew nothing of the Wars between Lancaster and York I'd now be thinking what rotten dogs those men had been to deny such a nice lady her and her son's rights!
Now I agree with Miss Castro when she says that in Medieval England women in power had problems a many, mainly as the monarch was expected to fight for his crown and fight to keep it, while all the time playing the power game with his nobility. The expectation though was that women were expected to be submissive rather than taking charge, and that this was what tripped up Matilda, and in turn Isabella and Margaret.
I would argue that had Eleanor of Acquitaine been in Matilda's place things would have been very different, as it was the character and intelligence of the women involved rather than their sex.
Matilda always called herself Empress, after her title from her first marriage, and behaved by the majority of accounts in an arrogant and selfish way.
Margaret and Isabella behaved in the same manner, and Isabella's treatment of Hugh Dispenser was appalling, something alone she deserves the name she wolf for. Margaret's lack of political acumen and single minded ambition to see her son crowned was a mind set that would later bring down Elizabeth Woodville, and split the house of York in two.
Margaret split the country into two parties and seems to have listened to nothing but her own ambition. Would Cecily of York had done a better job? In my biased way I have to think she undoubtedly would have!
Paul
next week Tudor queens. I imagine some hagiography will be involved!
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: She Wolves
2012-03-15 13:04:10
Bravo. Excellent review, Paul. I've always given great credence to your opinions on these things.
We're in a period when the proverbial pendulum has swung a bit more in favour of women. Young women, in particular, are looking for strong role models. But people being human, regardless of gender, lack of bias is hard to come by. Sometimes the best we can get is something reasonably close that entices us to hit the books and pursue more details and POVs.
What if we'd never seen/read Shakespeare's "Richard"? As you yourself have said, it's what set things rolling for most us here. The ignorant learn one thing and staunchly believe; the sign of wisdom is supposing maybe, just maybe, there's more to a story.
I look forward to the series. Thanks loads!
Judy
In my experience over 60 years, people can be one way in one place and time and totally different in others. Even non-sociopaths. One of the Cavalier poets wrote: "...If she be not kind to me, what care I how kind she be...."
A friend of a friend once volunteered at some not-for-profit hotline in Florida, where we all lived at the time. Leaving late, one night, a nice man walked her to her car, saying: "You never know what kinda creeps may be out here." That nice guy turned out to be Ted Bundy.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 6:22 AM
Subject: She Wolves
I was going to mention this new BBC Tv series last week after the episode on Matilda and Eleanor of Aquitaine, two fascinating figures in Medieval history, but thought I'd wait until after last night's episode on Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou to see how her history was once she had done a subject I know quite a lot about.
Helen Castor gave a very [far too] sympathetic portrait of Margaret, full of lovely images and anecdotes, too much legend and not very accurate history.
But Helen was only interested in making her case for these women NOT being really worthy of the name "she wolf". Fair enough up to a point.
But it now throws doubt on what I had thought her enlightening view of Matilda last week. Always interested in Stephen I had mainly viewed that period from his pov before so I thought I'd missed quite a lot. But if I knew nothing of the Wars between Lancaster and York I'd now be thinking what rotten dogs those men had been to deny such a nice lady her and her son's rights!
Now I agree with Miss Castro when she says that in Medieval England women in power had problems a many, mainly as the monarch was expected to fight for his crown and fight to keep it, while all the time playing the power game with his nobility. The expectation though was that women were expected to be submissive rather than taking charge, and that this was what tripped up Matilda, and in turn Isabella and Margaret.
I would argue that had Eleanor of Acquitaine been in Matilda's place things would have been very different, as it was the character and intelligence of the women involved rather than their sex.
Matilda always called herself Empress, after her title from her first marriage, and behaved by the majority of accounts in an arrogant and selfish way.
Margaret and Isabella behaved in the same manner, and Isabella's treatment of Hugh Dispenser was appalling, something alone she deserves the name she wolf for. Margaret's lack of political acumen and single minded ambition to see her son crowned was a mind set that would later bring down Elizabeth Woodville, and split the house of York in two.
Margaret split the country into two parties and seems to have listened to nothing but her own ambition. Would Cecily of York had done a better job? In my biased way I have to think she undoubtedly would have!
Paul
next week Tudor queens. I imagine some hagiography will be involved!
Richard Liveth Yet!
We're in a period when the proverbial pendulum has swung a bit more in favour of women. Young women, in particular, are looking for strong role models. But people being human, regardless of gender, lack of bias is hard to come by. Sometimes the best we can get is something reasonably close that entices us to hit the books and pursue more details and POVs.
What if we'd never seen/read Shakespeare's "Richard"? As you yourself have said, it's what set things rolling for most us here. The ignorant learn one thing and staunchly believe; the sign of wisdom is supposing maybe, just maybe, there's more to a story.
I look forward to the series. Thanks loads!
Judy
In my experience over 60 years, people can be one way in one place and time and totally different in others. Even non-sociopaths. One of the Cavalier poets wrote: "...If she be not kind to me, what care I how kind she be...."
A friend of a friend once volunteered at some not-for-profit hotline in Florida, where we all lived at the time. Leaving late, one night, a nice man walked her to her car, saying: "You never know what kinda creeps may be out here." That nice guy turned out to be Ted Bundy.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 6:22 AM
Subject: She Wolves
I was going to mention this new BBC Tv series last week after the episode on Matilda and Eleanor of Aquitaine, two fascinating figures in Medieval history, but thought I'd wait until after last night's episode on Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou to see how her history was once she had done a subject I know quite a lot about.
Helen Castor gave a very [far too] sympathetic portrait of Margaret, full of lovely images and anecdotes, too much legend and not very accurate history.
But Helen was only interested in making her case for these women NOT being really worthy of the name "she wolf". Fair enough up to a point.
But it now throws doubt on what I had thought her enlightening view of Matilda last week. Always interested in Stephen I had mainly viewed that period from his pov before so I thought I'd missed quite a lot. But if I knew nothing of the Wars between Lancaster and York I'd now be thinking what rotten dogs those men had been to deny such a nice lady her and her son's rights!
Now I agree with Miss Castro when she says that in Medieval England women in power had problems a many, mainly as the monarch was expected to fight for his crown and fight to keep it, while all the time playing the power game with his nobility. The expectation though was that women were expected to be submissive rather than taking charge, and that this was what tripped up Matilda, and in turn Isabella and Margaret.
I would argue that had Eleanor of Acquitaine been in Matilda's place things would have been very different, as it was the character and intelligence of the women involved rather than their sex.
Matilda always called herself Empress, after her title from her first marriage, and behaved by the majority of accounts in an arrogant and selfish way.
Margaret and Isabella behaved in the same manner, and Isabella's treatment of Hugh Dispenser was appalling, something alone she deserves the name she wolf for. Margaret's lack of political acumen and single minded ambition to see her son crowned was a mind set that would later bring down Elizabeth Woodville, and split the house of York in two.
Margaret split the country into two parties and seems to have listened to nothing but her own ambition. Would Cecily of York had done a better job? In my biased way I have to think she undoubtedly would have!
Paul
next week Tudor queens. I imagine some hagiography will be involved!
Richard Liveth Yet!
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.