Wednesday, October 9, 2013

The Story of King John (the first) Plantagenet

(Ancestor says he's my 24 x Great Grandfather - by my calculations, he's my 26 x Great Grandfather, at least on this particular line I am looking at, but I know he's in my tree more than once.)

King John

1199-1216

The Early Life of John

King JohnWhen John, the last child of the great Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine was born on Christmas Eve, 1167 at Beaumont Palace in Oxfordshire, his father jokingly nick-named him Sans Terre or Lackland, as there was no land left to give him. It seems ironic then, that John Lackland was eventually to inherit the entire Angevin Empire.
A born cynic, with a puckish sense of humour, feckless, treacherous and entirely without scruple, he was possessed of some of the restless energy of his father and was prone to the same violent rages but unlike his father, John was unstable and cruel and a thoroughly flawed character. His deep distrust of others sometimes verged on paranoia. After eight hundred years, John remains the maverick of the House of Plantagenet.
Originally brought up for a career in the church, he had been placed at the Abbey of Fontevrault in Anjou, as an oblate, while still in early childhood, to which the young John reacted rebeliously. He was educated by Ranulf de Glanvill, his father's Chief Justiciar. Henry II hoped to improve his youngest son's prospects, by betrothing him, at the age of nine, to a wealthy heiress, his second cousin, Isabella of Gloucester. Isabella was the granddaughter of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, the illegitimate son of Henry I. The couple were duly married when John was 21 but the marriage failed to produce children.
Henry II attempted to make his favourite son King of Ireland. The adolescent John and his companions alienated the Irish chieftains who came to pay him homage, mocking their clothes and pulling their beards, resulting in rebellion against his rule and he was forced to leave Ireland. A fickle character, in his youth John conspired against both his father and his brother Richard for his own gain. During Richard's absence on the Third Crusade, John had attempted to overthrow his justicar, William Longchamp. In the course of returning from his crusade, Richard was captured by Leopold V, Duke of Austria, and imprisoned by the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry VI. England had to raise a huge ransom for the return of its king. On his release in 1194, Richard readily forgave his younger brother for plotting his overthrow.

John's appearance

In appearance, John was nothing like his tall and majestic brother Richard. He was five feet five inches in height, as opposed to Richard's six feet four inches. Although his height may be considered short by modern standards, it was not considered so in his own time, when men were considerably shorter. He was stockily built as his father had been. He is reputed to have spent a fortune on rich clothing and jewels.

Reign

John succeeded to the throne at the age of thirty-two, on the death of Richard the Lionheart in 1199. Arthur of Brittany, the son of his deceased elder brother, Geoffrey, had an arguably better claim, but Richard was reported to have announced John his heir on his deathbed. John acted promptly, siezing the royal treasury at Chinon. His coronation took place on Ascension Day, 1199. The shrewd Phillip Augustus, in accordance with his policy of weakening the Angevin Empire by creating division amongst the Plantagenets, supported Arthur's claim and attacked Normandy.
King John tomb effigy at WorcesterJohn incurred further opposition through his infatuation with Isabella of Angouleme, the twelve year old daughter of Count Aymer of Angouleme and Alix de Courtenay. She had been betrothed to Hugh de Lusignan, although the marriage had been delayed because of her extreme youth. The unprincipled John stole the enchanting Isabella from under Hugh's very nose.
His first marriage to Isabella of Gloucester had been declared invalid, since they were related within the prohibited degrees. Hugh de Lusignan, incensed, joined forces with Phillip and Arthur, forming a coalition against the King of England. It was said that John was so besotted with his young bride that he refused to rise from bed until well after noon.

The Rebellion of Arthur of Britanny

True to his policy of causing dissension amongst the Angevins, Phillip Augustus recognised Arthur's claim in May 1200 Treaty of Le Goulet. In attempt to take Anjou and Maine, the teenage Arthur of Brittany besieged his octagenarian grandmother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, at Mirabeau. Eleanor sent an urgent message for aid to her son John and succeeded in drawing out the negotiations for as long as possible. John responded with uncharacteristic speed and came to her rescue, in the process taking both Arthur and Hugh prisoner. Arthur was imprisoned at Falaise Castle in Normandy.
King John attempted to make peace with his young nephew, on a visit to Rouen in 1203, he promised Arthur honours if he would separate himself from Phillip Augustus and adopt his uncle's cause. Arthur, proud, indignant and unbowed by his imprisonment, responded by demanding his rightful inheritance and unwisely warned John that he would never give him a moments peace for the rest of his life.
John "much troubled", responded by ordered him to be blinded and castrated, an order which Hubert de Burgh, Arthur's custodian, refused to carry out. By late 1203 rumours were circulating that the young Duke was dead. Phillip, seeing an opportunity to create further trouble, demanded that Arthur be produced. It appears that by this time Arthur was already dead, said to have been killed by John himself in a drunken rage. A contemporary chronicler states 'After King John had captured Arthur and kept him alive in prison in the castle of Rouen....When John was drunk and possessed by the devil, he slew (Arthur) with his own hand and tying a heavy stone to the body, cast it into the Seine.'
John also imprisoned Arthur's sister, Eleanor, known as the Fair Maid of Brittany. She was to remain a prisoner for the rest of her life. She died in 1241, during the long reign of John's son, Henry III.

The Loss of the Angevin Empire

Hugh de Lusignan, the slighted fiancee of Isabella of Angouleme had sought redress from his overlord Phillip Augustus, who promptly summoned John to the French court to answer for his actions. John refused to comply and accordingly, Phillip, acting under feudal law, claimed those territories ruled by John as Count of Poitou and declaring all John's French territories except Gascony forfeit, he invadedNormandy. Chateau Gaillard, Richard's impregnable castle, fell to the French after a long siege in 1203, it was followed by the rest of Normandy. John, his resources exhausted, was forced to flee the smoking rubble of his father's once great French Empire.
Eleanor of Aquitaine entered the Abbey of Fontevrault, where she took the veil. She died there on 1st April, 1204, aged eighty-two, a remarkable age for the time. Eleanor had slipped into a coma, according to the annals of Fontevrault she 'existed as one already dead to the world'. She was buried at Fontevrault beside the tombs of the husband who had imprisoned her and whom she had hated and her beloved and favourite son, Richard.

Welsh Affairs

Llywelyn the Great
In 1205 whilst he was fighting to recover his French territories, the King married his illegitimate daughter, Joan, then aged around fifteen, to Llywelyn the Great, or Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of Gwynedd (circa 1173-1240) An astute political manipulator, Llywelyn then did homage to John for all his Welsh possesions. Joan was John's daughter by a mistress known only as Clemence.
In 1209 Prince Llywelyn accompanied John on his campaign into Scotland. Llywelyn went on to steadily increase his influence in Wales and conquered southern Powys in 1208. John became concerned at the growth of his son-in-law's power and viewed it as a theat to his own authority in the province. When Llywelyn attacked the lands of the Earl of Chester in 1210, John threw his support behind the latter.
The king marched into Wales with an army, receiving the support of many of the other Welsh princes, he marched toward Deganwy. Llywelyn's army employed the classic guerilla tactic of retreating to the hills, and taking the supplies with them. John had made no provision for supplying Deganwy Castle by sea, and was therefore forced to return to England or face starvation.
John returned to Wales within three months, with a well provisioned army, crossing the River Conway, he encamped on the Menai Strait, penetrating deep into the heart of Gwynedd. Llywellyn sent his wife, Joan, John's daughter, to sue for peace. The king imposed humiliating terms on his son-in-law, and annexed the area of North Wales known as the Four Cantrefs, installing Gerard d'Athée and two other mercenary captains into the southern marches.
Llywelyn capitalized on growing Welsh resentment against John, and led a revolt against him, which received the blessing of Pope Innocent III. By 1212 Llywelyn had regained the Perfeddwlad and burned a castle erected by John at Ystwyth.
Llywelyn's revolt delayed John's planned invasion of France, Llywelyn formed an alliance with John's enemy, King Phillip Augustus of France, later allying himself himself with the discontented English barons who were in rebellion against him. In 1215 he marched on Shrewsbury and captured the town with little resistance. Over the following three years Llywelyn extended his power base into South Wales, becoming without doubt the single most powerful figure in Wales.
John's daughter, Joan died in 1237 at Garth Celyn and Llywelyn suffered a paralytic stroke later in the same year. He died at the Cistercian Abbey of Aberconwy, his own foundation, on 11th April, 1240 and was buried there. His stone coffin was later removed to the parish church of Llanwrst, where it can still be seen.

Magna Carta

Magna CartaThe King turned his attention to administration and justice in England, having inherited some of his famous father's administrative ability and restless energy. Pope Innocent III was annoyed at John's interference in the election of an Archbishop of Canterbury in 1205, a quarrel ensued, resulting in England being placed under an interdict, no church services could be held for six years. In 1209, the difficult John himself was excommunicated. The English barons were entering into plots against him, and John wisely made peace with the Pope. In May, 1213 he agreed to hold England as a fief of the papacy.
Eventually, John was met with the full force of his baron's grievances, they demanded their "ancient liberties" and the renewal of Henry I's Coronation Charter.
King JohnFaced with an armed revolt which may have cost him his kingdom, the king was forced into compliance. At Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15th June 1215, he signed the historic Magna Carta or Great Charter. The Charter curtailed royal power in matters of taxation, justice, religion and foreign policy.

The Death of John

Disputes with the barons, however, continued and they again rose in rebellion, they incurred the aid of Phillip Augustus of France, who sent his son, the Dauphin Louis (later Louis VIII), to attack England in support of the barons. While retreating before this incursion, King John attempted to avoid East Anglia, which was rebel territory and safely negotiated a route around the Wash, his baggage train, however, famously lost his treasure, including the Crown Jewels, in The Wash, due to an unexpected incoming tide.
Aggrieved and depressed at the loss, mourning his ill fortune and suffering severely from dysentery, he was carried to Newark Castle in a litter and a physician was sent for. He consoled himself with a "surfeit of peaches". John's condition worsened rapidly and he died at Newark on the wild stormy night of 18th October, 1216, leaving England in a state of anarchy and civil war. Rumours abounded at the time that the king had been poisoned. Matthew Paris was later to comment that "Foul as it is, Hell itself is defiled by the presence of John". Despite his obvious failings, evidence exists that John was not as bad as his posthumous reputation would seem to suggest.
King John was buried at Worcester Cathedral by the shrine of his favourite saint, the Saxon, St. Wulfstan, becoming the first of the Angevin kings to be buried in England. He was succeeded by his nine year old son who became Henry III. King Henry III later raised an effigy over his father's tomb.
When John's body was exhumed in 1797, he was found to have been buried in a damask robe and wearing gloves with a sword in his hands. The skeleton was measured at five feet, six inches and a half inches.

Isabella of Angouleme

Three years after his death, King John's widow, Isabella of Angouleme, married the fiancee of her youth, Hugh de Lusignan and they produced a large family.

The tomb of Isabella of Angouleme at Fontevrault Abbey

Isabella of Angouleme
Isabella died in 1246 and as an act of contrition for misdeeds, was buried, of her own violition, in the churchyard at Fontevrault. Her son, King Henry III, on a later visit to Fontevrault, was shocked that she had been buried outside the Abbey. He ordered that her body be translated into the Abbey itself, where she was finally laid to rest by his grandparents, Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine.


Copied from HERE .... 

DNA Project on ROLLO ....


So there is a company Explico, that is trying to do a DNA project on Rollo to discover which of the two stories (Denmark's & Norway's) is true ....

The latest news is .....

- In Normandy, in our search for famous historical figures, closed in the lead on the patriach of William the Conqueror, the great Viking giant Rollo, in order to solve a close to thousand  year old riddle about his origin. To be continued..

Prior to that the announced they were opening his grave ....

November 2012
We are currently planning our goals and projects for 2013. They include DNA collections in the Caucasus mountains, the opening of graves in Normandy (Rollo) and Italy (Hauteville family), and more research done on our projects on the Black Sea shore, the Easter Island, the search for the lost Greenland Vikings and their settlements in America, and several interesting projects in Spain.

April 2012  
Here is an update on our Rollo project: After a long awaited meeting with the French Cultural Department in Paris, we have received confirmation to go on with the project but we are looking still at some more months of processing.

This project has been going on now for a few years.  It'll be interesting to find out what they discover!

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Vikings (the series) on History Channel




The History channel has a series that started this year called VIKINGS ...  finding out more about my Viking heritage, I'm interested.   I managed to get ahold of the first season...    I checked to say if they are replaying any episodes, and I didn't see any.   It has been picked up for a 10 episode Second Season...  The first season had 9 episodes.  

Vikings is a Canadian-Irish historical drama television series, written and created by Michael Hirst for the television channel History.[1] It premiered on March 3, 2013 in the United States and Canada.
Filmed in IrelandVikings is inspired by the tales about the Viking Ragnar Lodbrok, one of the best-known Norse heroes and notorious as the scourge of France and England. It portrays Ragnar as a Viking farmer who pioneers the first daring raids into England with the support of fellow warriors, his brother Rollo, and his wife, the shieldmaiden Lagertha.
On April 5, 2013, History renewed Vikings for a ten-episode second season.[2]
(wikipedia)

I'm going to watch it and check it out.  When I get the chance....

The House of Normandy

My line is as follows Rollo & Poppa to William I "Long Sword" and Sprota, to Richard I "the Fearless" and Gunnora, to Richard II "the Good" and Judith de Rennes, Robert "the Magnificent" and Herleve Falaise, to William "the Conqueror"  and Matilda Flanders, to his son Henry "Beauclerc" King of England and Matilda, to their daughter Matilda and her husband Geoffrey V Plantagenet, to their son Henry II King of England and his wife Eleanor (whom two of her sisters are in other lines as my whatever Great Grandmothers) ... to their son John "Lackland" King of England and his wife Isabella of Angouleme....  ...  so almost everyone ...



ROLLO OR ROLF THE GANGER (r. 911-925)

The ancestors of William the Conqueror and England's line of Norman kings had Norwegian Viking roots. The founder of the line, Rollo or Rolf the Ganger, was a Viking raider chief, who was born in 850, at Maer, Nord-Trondelag, Norway, the son of Ragnvald 'the Wise' Eysteinson and his second wife, Hiltrude (Ragnhild) Hrolfsdottir.

Rolf was granted the region of Normandy by Charles the Simple, King of France, in 911, at the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, in exchange for feudal alliegiance and conversion to Christianity at which he took the baptismal name of Robert. He was baptized in a fountain fed by a spring named in honor of Saint Clair. Rolf took as his second wife Popee, the daughter of the Berengar of Rennes, the previous Lord of Normandy, the marriage produced six children:-

(1) William I 'Longsword' ( 901-0942)

(2) Robert (c. 903-)

(3) Crespina (c. 905-)

(4) Gerlatta (c.907-)

(5) Kathlin (c.909-)

(6) Adela (c.911-962)

Rolf died at Notre Dame at Rouen, Normandy in 925.

WILLIAM LONGWORD (925-942)

William succeeded his father as ruler of Normandy in around 928. He was faced with opposition early in his reign. He was married twice, firstly to Sprota (Adela) of Senlis, a daughter of Hubert, Count of Senlis and Vermandois which produced issue:-

(1) Richard "the Fearless" of Normandy

(2) Raoul D'Ivry

He was married for a second time in 935 to Luitgarda of Vermandois, a niece of his first wife Sprota.

<
In 939 William Longsword became involved in a conflict with Arnulf I of Flanders. He was killed on December 17, 942 by Arnulf's supporters in the course of a meeting to discuss the conflict. An anonymous poet wrote the Planctus , lamenting his death.


RICHARD I, THE FEARLESS (r. 942- 996)

Richard, the eldest son of William Longsword was born at Fecamp in France in 933. He was still a young boy when he succeeded as ruler of Normandy on the death of his father in 942. Richard's mother was a Breton concubine bound to William Longsword by a Danish marriage. After William died, Sprota became the wife of Esperleng, a wealthy miller. Normandy was siezed by Louis IV of France and Richard taken into confinement, from which he eventually escaped and regained Normandy. He was responsible for introducing the feudal system into his domains.

He was married firstly in 960 to Emma of Paris (died 962), the daughter of Hugh Capet, King of France, from which marriage there was no issue and secondly to his mistress Gunnor of Crêpon, to legitimate their 8 children:-

The Dukes of Normandy
(1) Richard II "the Good", Duke of Normandy (966)

(2) Robert, Archbishop of Rouen, Count of Evreux, died 1037.

(3) Mauger, Earl of Corbeil, died after 1033

(4) Robert Danus, died c.989

(5)Emma of Normandy (c.985-1052) married(i)Ethelred II of England (ii)King Canute

(6)Maud of Normandy, married Odo II, Count of Blois, Champagne and Chartres

(7)Hawise of Normandy (b. ca. 978), d. 21 February 1034. m. Geoffrey I, Duke of Brittany

(8)Beatrice of Normandy

Richard 'the Fearless' died at Fecamp on 20 November, 996 of natural causes.


RICHARD II THE GOOD (r. 966-1027)

Richard II of Normandy was born on 23 August, 963, the eldest son of Richard I and Gunnor de Crepon. He suceedded his father in 966. His reign saw a peasant revolt and major reform of the monasteries. Following an English attack on the Cotentin, Richard attempted to improve Normandy's relations with England through marrying his siter Emma to King Ethelred II of England.

Richard marrried twice, firstly in 996 to Judith (982-1017), daughter of Conan I of Brittany, this marriage produced six children:-

(1) Richard (c. 997), Duke of Normandy

(2) Robert (999), Duke of Normandy

(3) William, a monk d. 1025

(4) Adélaide, m. Renaud I, Count of Burgundy

(5) Eleanor or Judith m. Count Baldwin IV of Flanders

(6) Matilda, d. 1033

He was married secondly to Poppa of Envermeu, by whom he had two sons:-

(1) Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen

(2) William , count of Arques

Richard died on 28 Aug, 1027 of natural causes.


RICHARD III(r.1027)

Richard III was born in 997 and suceeded his father as Duke of Normandy in 1027. He was married to Adela of Contenance (1009-1063) daughter of Robert II of France. The marriage produced two daughters:-

(1) Alice of Normandy

(2) Agnes d'Evreux

After a short reign of only a few months he died in mysterious circumstances, some suspected his brother Robert to be responsible for his death.


ROBERT II THE DEVIL

Robert the Magnificent otherwise known as Robert the Devil was born around the year 1000, the second son of Richard the Good of Normandy and Judith of Brittany. Robert gave aid to both the French King Henry I, and the his English royal relatives of the Saxon House of Wessex. He gave refuge to his cousins Edward (later Edward 'the Confessor') and Alfred, when they where exiled under the Danish Kings of England.

Robert had two children by his mistress Herleva or Arlette, the daughter of Fulbert a tanner of Falaise:-

(1) William the Conqueror (1028-1087)

(2) Adelaide of Normandy (1030-c. 1083),m. (i)Enguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu (ii)Lambert II, Count of Lens (iii)Odo II of Champagne

Although they had a long relationship, the gap in their social standing rendered marriage out of the question and Herleve was married off to one of Robert's vassals, Herluin, a knight. From this marriage, Herleve produced two further sons, Robert, who later became Count of Mortain and Odo, destined to become Bishop of Bayeux

Duke Robert embarked on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem early in 1035 and died at Nicaea on the return journey. Robert II was succeeded by his illegitimate son William, who was to go down in history as William the Conqueror.

William the Conqueror

ROBERT II CURTHOSE (r.1089- 1106)

Robert was the oldest son of William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders and was born circa 1051. His nick-name of Curthose, meaning short clothing was apparently acquired when his father teased him as a child for having short legs. Although he rebelled against his father in his lifetime, he succeeded to the Dukedom of Normandy on the Conqueror's death in 1087. England was left to the third son, William Rufus. Robert was married to Sybilla, daughter of Geoffrey of Brindisi, Count of Conversano, by whom he had a son:-

(1) William Clito, Count of Flanders, (born October 25, 1102)

Robert Curthose took part in the First Crusade, to finance his involvement, he pawned Normandy to his brother. On the death of William II in 1100, the English throne was siezed by the youngest of the Conqueror's sons, Henry I, leading Robert to launch an unsuccessful invasion of England to retake the crown. Henry invaded Normandy in 1105, capturing it from his brother. Robert was taken captive at the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106 and was to spend the rest of his life as Henry's prisoner. Willliam Clito died as a result of wounds acquired at the Siege of Aalst in 1128, marking the end of Robert's line. Robert himself died at Cardiff Castle in 1134 in his eighties.

William Rufus

Henry I

Matilda

Henry II

Richard IV of Normandy, I of England, 'the Lionheart'

John

Source: HERE

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Some Viking History


Vikings and Normans

A third German influence on Medieval Europe was the Vikings, and their successors the Normans . Actually, the word "Viking" refers to an occupation, that is slipping up little streams and creeks --viks-- to plunder unsuspecting villages. The people commonly called Vikings were the Norse, a Scandinavian sea faring people from Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. In effect, they were the Germans who stayed behind, as many of the German tribes can be traced back to Sweden and Denmark. The same population pressures that caused the tribes to leave Scandinavia several centuries before the birth of Christ, continued. In the meantime, the Scandinavians perfected their ship building technology and produced a light, swift sailing ship that could also use oars to good effect. This, the Viking long ship, was originally intended for trade. The Vikings were, basically, traders. But they were also fierce warriors and soon noted that many of the places they came upon in Europe were wealthy, and undefended. By the late 8th century, Viking ships came to raid first, and trade if the locals were too well armed. The 8th century was a period when Europe was still getting itself organized after the demise of Roman rule in the 5th century. While Charlemagne might control most of France and Germany, he did not have enough troops available to deal with the Vikings.

Indeed, it's questionable if the Romans would have been able to deal with the Vikings. Interestingly enough, the Romans did have, at times, serious problems with large scale piracy in the Meditteranean. In the 1st century BC, they launched a major military campaign to conquer the areas the pirates were using as bases. The Vikings were fiercer than any of the Meditteranean pirates and their home bases were far to the north in Norway and Denmark. No Roman army or fleet had ever attempted to operate that far north. The Romans did not like the north European Winters and generally did not try to occupy lands so afflicted. We'll never know how the Romans would have dealt with Vikings, but it's an interesting issue to speculate about.

What eventually stopped the Viking raids, in the early 10th century, was the unification of Norway, and the earlier establishment of Viking settlements in the lands that they had previously just plundered during the warm weather. The Vikings set up housekeeping in three main areas, the Normandy region of France, eastern England, and eastern Ireland. The Irish settlements had no impact on later European history, but the English, and particularly the French ones, did.

Britain (Britannia to the Romans) was one of the more thinly populated and distant Roman provinces. Less than a million Celts were romanized over three centuries before the last Roman legion left in the early 5th century The romanized Britons (who still spoke Celtic languages, as well as Latin ) continued to be raided by the Picts and Celts from Scotland and Ireland. Having depended on professional Roman soldiers for centuries, the Britions were unable to deal with these raids and in desperation called in Germans (Saxons, Jutes, and Angles, for the most part) from northwestern Germany and Denmark (areas still known as Saxony and Jutland, the Angles living in the '"angle" between the two) to help them out. This turned out to be a big mistake, because the Germans were so impressed by the place that they went back for their families (and more warriors) and came back to take Britain for their own. In the process, most of Brittania became England (from "Angleland"). The Germans drove out some of Celtic Britons (who fled to places like Cornwall, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and Brittany) and mixed in with the rest to produce the English, who spoke a German dialect that has evolved into modern English. The Germans were pagans, and the Christian Britons had little success in converting them. That would come later when missionaries from Rome arrived. The Jutes, Angles, and Saxons established seven kingdoms and proceeded to quarrel among themselves.

Just as the Germans were settling down in their new British homes, along came the Viking raids, from the late 7th century into the early 10th century. The Vikings soon found the area quite livable and Danish settlers moved into the northeastern areas and began carving out their own kingdom during the 9th century, a matter which greatly eased the Viking pressure on Britain, since the local Vikings objected to having their newfound lands devastated by the occasional visitors from Vikingland. During the 10th century, one king (a German-English fellow) named Alfred the Great (reigned 871-899) united most of England.

The Vikings also found Ireland easy pickings. Ireland, not a very prosperous or densely populated (about 300,000 people) place, received several thousand Viking settlers, who were soon absorbed into the native Celtic population.

While some Vikings were establishing themselves in Britain and Ireland, another group did the same in the coastal region of France, around the mouth of the river Seine. In effect, the Vikings in this region allowed themselves to be bought off by the king of France. These Vikings had quite a bit of leverage. Beginning in 896 they had sailed up the Seine and laid siege to Paris several times and were constantly expanding the area they pillaged. The French kings, even Charlemagne, were unable to stop the plundering. When the French noted the increasing number of Viking settlements along the coast, they feared the worst. But the Vikings were wearying of the raids. French defenses were becoming more effective and Viking losses were increasing. So a deal was struck in 912. The French would recognize the Vikings possession of the land they had already settled (plus a bit more) and make the Viking leader, one Rollo, a French noble. In return, the Viking duke would convert to Christianity, acknowledge the French king as his overlord and, protect France against wilder Vikings. Thus was born Normandy.

The Normans were quick to become French, particularly since they were a minority in their new dutchy and a disproportionate number of the new people were young male Vikings who took local women for wives. After a few generations, the Norwegian language and customs were fading fast and the Normans were French. But they were French with a difference. While their language and other habits may have changed, the Normans were still, like all Vikings, supreme opportunists. Then William, the duke of Normandy in the 1060s, talked his way into a claim on the English throne. The king of Norway was doing the same thing. An English noble, Harold, also thought he had a lock on the crown once the king died. When the king, Edward the Confessor did die, in 1066, Harold defeated the king of Norway's invading army, but was in turn defeated by duke William and his invading Normans.

Meanwhile, for several generations, some footloose Normans had been drifting into Italy. By the time duke William was taking England, other Norman lords were making their own conquests in southern Italy and Sicily, clearing out the Byzantines, Lombards, and Moslems. These Normans established a kingdom which would endure until the mid-19th century, covering southern Italy and called the kingdom of Naples and Sicily. This was done with papal encouragement, as the Normans not only subdued the Lombards and expelled the Greeks and Arabs from Italy, but served as a useful balance against the Italian nobles who had designs on the pope's lands. As with England, the Normans in Italy eventually went native and became Italians.

So it was the Vikings who settled in France who proved the most successful. Nowhere is this better illustrated than the manner in which the Norwegian-French William, duke of Normandy, conquered all of England and established a line of kings and queens that is still on the throne. This feat was carried off little more than a hundred years from the time that the first Viking settlements were established in France. The Vikings who had settled in France, now speaking French and called Normans, had come a long way from thinly populated (200,000 people) and rather poverty stricken Norway. They had carved out a nice piece of property for themselves in northwestern France early in the 10th century, taken England in the mid-11th century, and now they ruled some two million people in England and France, while some of them had gone to Italy in the 1th century and built yet another kingdom (with another million people) in southern Italy and Sicily. Not bad for a bunch of sea raiders.

The Vikings (Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes) had done much with little. Taking a unique boat design (their "long ships") and a lust for travel and combat, they laid waste to large areas of Ireland, England, France, Spain, Germany, and Russia, even raiding Persia and parts of North Africa. The total population of Scandinavia barely reached a million during this period, and only a few percent of these would be off raiding in any one year. Yet in the century or so of their raiding and pillaging, they ended up taking control of vast territories containing millions of people.

The Vikings went in all directions. They discovered Iceland in 860, and began colonizing it in 874. Their descendants are still there. Greenland was discovered in 982, and colonized in 1000. Shortly thereafter, North America was also discovered, but settlements did not last long. While Iceland was supporting some 50,000 people by 1000, Greenland's population never rose above 3,000 and the North American venture never panned out, the few settlers being largely drawn from the Iceland and Greenland settlements. When the Northern hemisphere's climate turned cold again beginning around 1300, the Greenland colony lost touch with the motherland and graducally died out. Only the Eskimos could survive in the arctic conditions which prevailed there, as the Vikings needed a longer warm season for their grain crops.

What is most ironic about this is that, a thousand years before the Viking raids began, the tribes that would become known as the Germans, also left Scandinavia (Denmark and Sweden) It was quite an exodus, both the first one and the later one. Europe was never the same after the Germans and Vikings went south.

Source of the entire article: HERE

Thursday, October 3, 2013

Back to Rollo and Poppa....

I first mentioned my 35 x Great Grandfather Rollo Rolf in this blog ..... Introduction to Rollo "Duke of Normandy" .......... and the confusing union of "more danico" of which he had with his wife/mistress/concubine Poppa de Bayeux.

Poppa de Bayeux, was the "captured" wife of Rollo.  She was (thought to be) the daughter of a count named Berenger, captured at Bayeux by Rollo in 885 or 889.  Speculation claims her as the daughter of Berengar II of Neustria.

(from Wikipedia) Poppa of Bayeux was the mistress or wife[1] (perhaps by more danico)[2] of Norman conqueror Rollo. She was the mother of William I, Duke of Normandy, and Gerloc. Chronicler Dudo of Saint-Quentin relates that she was the daughter of a count named Berenger, captured at Bayeux by Rollo in 885 or 889. This has led to speculation that she was the daughter of Berengar II of Neustria. A statue of Poppa stands at Place de Gaulle in Bayeux.
ROLLO ROLF STATUE
French: translation to English:  
WE REMAIN MASTERS AND LORDS - 25 July 885
Statue of Rollo in Rouen. There are two bronze replicas of this statue : one at Ã…lesund (Norway) and the other one at Fargo, North Dakota

Now, Rollo has some questionable linage also, as I stated in the last blog about him.   To make things more simple and less long winded ....  this is the short version.

Rollo Rolf was baptized Robert.   He is sometimes called "Robert I" to make it "less confusing" with his descendants.  HOWEVER; his Great-Great Grandson is also known as "Robert I" so in serious less confusing fashion, I will just call him Rollo.

Rollo was of Norwegian and Danish descent.  He was a Norse Nobleman.   He is also known to be the founder and first ruler of the Viking principality.

There are two versions of this linage ...

Denmark claims Rollo was the son of a King of Denmark.  This King had two sons, Rollo and Gurim. Upon the death of said King, Rollo was expelled and his brother Gurim was killed.

Norway fights that his name is Ganger Hrolf "Hrolf the Walker" ...  the son of Rognvald Eysteinsson, Earl of More, in western Norway.  Hrolf found "foul" of the Norwegian King, Harald Fairhair, and became Jarl in Norway.  The nickname "the Walker" or "Ganger" in Norse, came from being so big that no horse could carry him.

I already talked about Poppa ...  Rollo had another wife.  He next married Gisela, daughter of Charles III "the Simple," King of France. They had no children.
14th century depiction of the marriage of Rollo and Gisela (2nd wife or first wife with Poppa as mistress)

This bit of information came from HERE ....
Rollo, also called Rolf or Rou, French Rollon, Old Norse Hrólfr   (born c. 860—died c. 932), Scandinavian rover who founded the duchy of Normandy.
According to later Scandinavian sagas, Rollo, making himself independent of King Harald I of Norway, sailed off to raid Scotland, England, Flanders, and France on pirating expeditions. Early in the 10th century, Rollo’s Danish army attacked France, and he established himself in an area along the Seine RiverCharles III the Simple of France held off his siege of Paris, defeated him near Chartres, and negotiated the treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, giving him the part of Neustria that came to be called Normandy; Rollo in return agreed to end his brigandage. He gave his son, William I Longsword, governance of the dukedom (927) before his death. Rollo was baptized in 912 but is said to have died a pagan.
And this came from HERE ....

Vikings in France: 9th - 12th century

As elsewhere in northwest Europe, Viking raids on the coast of France gradually evolve into settlement. During the last decades of the 9th century, Danes are in possession of the territory round the lower reaches of the Seine. Early in the 10th century they are joined by a Norwegian who has already distinguished himself adventuring in Scotland and Ireland. His name is Hrölfr. He is known in western history as Rollo the Ganger.

Rollo becomes leader of the Seine Vikings and by 911 he is strong enough to besiege the French city of Chartres. The siege ends when the Frankish king, Charles III, agrees at St. Clair-sur-Epte to grant Rollo feudal rights over the territory round Rouen.

The Viking word for a Scandinavian is Northman, which in medieval French becomesNormand. Rollo the Viking and his successors, rapidly expanding their territory beyond his original feudal grant, are known therefore as Normans. Their dukedom, in its larger boundaries, becomes and remains Normandy.

Rollo's descendants rule Normandy for two centuries, until the male line dies out in 1135 with the death ofHenry I. Meanwhile they have become keen Christians (Rollo is baptized, though his son William I is the first Norman duke fully committed to the religion). But they lose nothing of their Viking restlessness, which finds expression inadventures outside Normandy.

Read more:http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=eic#ixzz2giiUwQMo

And this from HERE ....

Raids along the Seine[edit]

In 885, Rollo was one of the lesser leaders of the Viking fleet which besieged Paris under Sigfred. Legend has it that an emissary was sent by the king to find the chieftain and negotiate terms. When he asked for this information, the Vikings replied that they were all chieftains in their own right. In 886, when Sigfred retreated in return for tribute, Rollo stayed behind and was eventually bought off and sent to harry Burgundy.[a]
Later, he returned to the Seine with his followers (known as Danes, or Norsemen). He invaded the area of northern France now known as Normandy. In 911 the Vikings under Rollo again launched an attack on Paris before laying siege toChartres. The Bishop of Chartres, Joseaume, appealed for help, which were answered by Robert, Marquis of NeustriaRichard, Duke of Burgundy and Manasses, Count of Dijon. On 20 July 911, at the Battle of Chartres, Frank forces defeated Rollo despite the absence of many French barons and also the absence of the French King Charles the Simple.[4]

The Principality of Normandy[edit]In the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte (911) with King Charles, Rollo pledged feudal allegiance to the king, changed his name to the Frankish version, and converted to Christianity, probably with the baptismal name Robert.[5] In return, King Charles granted Rollo land between the Epte and the sea as well as parts of Brittany [b] and according to Dudo of St. Quentin, the hand of the King's daughter, Gisela, although this marriage and Gisela herself are unknown to Frankish sources. He was also the titular ruler of Normandy, centered around the city of Rouen. There exists some argument among historians as to whether Rollo was a "duke" (dux) or whether his position was equivalent to that of a "count" under Charlemagne.

According to legend, when required to kiss the foot of King Charles, as a condition of the treaty, he refused to perform so great a humiliation, and when Charles extended his foot to Rollo, Rollo ordered one of his warriors to do so in his place. His warrior then lifted Charles' foot up to his mouth causing the king to fall to the ground.[6]
After 911, Rollo stayed true to his word of defending the shores of the Seine river in accordance to the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. However, he also continued attacks on Flanders.
After Charles was deposed by Robert I in 922, Rollo considered his oath to the King of France at an end. It started a period of expansion westwards. Negotiations with French barons ended with Rollo being given Le Mans and Bayeux and continued with the seizure of Bessin in 924. The following year saw the Normans attack Picardy.
Rollo began to divide the land between the Epte and Risle rivers among his chieftains and settled there with a de facto capital in Rouen. Eventually[when?] Rollo's men intermarried with the local women, and became more settled as Normans.[clarification needed]



He is buried here ....  at Rouen Cathedral ....





Grave of Rollo of Normandy, duke of Normandy, at the cathedral of Rouen, Seine-Maritime



Maps

Rouen


Friday, September 13, 2013

Puritan Explanation

So ... While dealing with the Richard Platt and more so Mary Wood conspiracy to drive me clinically insane....   I was looking at a bio and say that for both of them, there was a spot for religion and it read like this .

Religion: Puritan

Simple and straight to the point of course...  but I was like..... eh, it was actually a religion!?   Maybe I'm just naive ... or stupid, but I thought Puritan was more so in reference to early settlers ... maybe I knew that it was a religion as it was a reference to them wanting to break away from the ways of the English Church... but I really thought it was more of a reference to early settlers breaking away ...

Do you know what I mean?

I just thought "Puritan English" as in my label of such, was in reference to early American settlers...

So I thought, huh ...... I want to learn more about this.....

So I found this HERE .....

Puritanism in New England


For a much more extensive description than appears on this brief page, see the works listed in the  Selected Bibliography on Puritanism.
DefinitionsThe term "Puritan" first began as a taunt or insult applied by traditional Anglicans to those who criticized or wished to "purify" the Church of England. Although the word is often applied loosely, "Puritan" refers to two distinct groups: "separating" Puritans, such as the Plymouth colonists, who believed that the Church of England was corrupt and that true Christians must separate themselves from it; and non-separating Puritans, such as the colonists who settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who believed in reform but not separation. Most Massachusetts colonists were nonseparating Puritans who wished to reform the established church, largely Congregationalists who believed in forming churches through voluntary compacts.  The idea of compacts or covenants was central to the Puritans' conception of social, political, and religious organizations.
 BeliefsSeveral beliefs differentiated Puritans from other Christians. The first was their belief in predestination. Puritans believed that belief in Jesus and participation in the sacraments could not alone effect one's salvation; one cannot choose salvation, for that is the privilege of God alone. All features of salvation are determined by God's sovereignty, including choosing those who will be saved and those who will receive God's irresistible grace. The Puritans distinguished between "justification," or the gift of God's grace given to the elect, and "sanctification," the holy behavior that supposedly resulted when an individual had been saved; according to The English Literatures of America, "Sanctification is evidence of salvation, but does not cause it" (434). When William Laud, an avowedArminian, became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, the Church of England began to embrace beliefs abhorrent to Puritans: a focus on the individual's acceptance or rejection of grace; a toleration of diverse religious beliefs; and an acceptance of "high church" rituals and symbols.According to Samuel Eliot Morison's Oxford History of the American People, the Puritans "were deeply impressed by a story that their favorite church father, St. Augustine, told in his Confessions. He heard a voice saying, tolle et lege, 'Pick up and read.' Opening the Bible, his eyes lit on Romans xiii:12-14: 'The night is far spent, the day is at hand; not in carousing and drunkenness, not in debauchery and lust, not in strife and jealousy. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts therof'" (62).
Covenant 
 or  Federal 
Theology 
and the New 
England Way
The concept of a covenant or contract between God and his elect pervaded Puritan theology and social relationships. In religious terms, several types of covenants were central to Puritan thought.The Covenant of Works held that God promised Adam and his progeny eternal life if they obeyed moral law. After Adam broke this covenant, God made a new Covenant of Grace with Abraham (Genesis 18-19).
Covenant of Grace. This covenant requires an active faith, and, as such, it softens the doctrine of predestination. Although God still chooses the elect, the relationship becomes one of contract in which punishment for sins is a judicially proper response to disobedience. During the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards later repudiated Covenant Theology to get back to orthodox Calvinism. Those bound by the covenant considered themselves to be charged with a mission from God.
Covenant of Redemption. The Covenant of Redemption was assumed to be preexistent to the Covenant of Grace. It held that Christ, who freely chose to sacrifice himself for fallen man, bound God to accept him as man's representative. Having accepted this pact, God is then committed to carrying out the Covenant of Grace. According to Perry Miller, as one contemporary source put it, "God covenanted with Christ that if he would pay the full price for the redemption of beleevers, they should be discharged. Christ hath paid the price, God must be unjust, or else hee must set thee free from all iniquitie" (New England Mind 406).
For more information, see also the following works suggested by EARAM-L members:
  • Perry Miller's "The Marrow of Puritan Divinity" in Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge:  Harvard UP, 1956): 48-98.
  • Emory Elliott, Power and the Pulpit in Puritan New England
  • Charles Lloyd Cohen, "Covenant Psychology" in God's Caress: The Psychology of Puritan Religious Experience (Oxford and New York: Oxford UP, 1986)
  • John von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought (Atlanta, GA:  Scholars Press, 1986)
  • Darrett Rutman, American Puritanism
  • David Hall, The Faithful Shepherd
  • David Hall, The Antinomian Controversy
  • Sargent Bush, The Writings of Thomas Hooker
  • Michael McGiffert, "Grace and Works:  The Rise and Division of Covenant Divinity in Elizabethan Puritanism,"Harvard Theological Review 75.4 (1982): 463-502.
  • Amy Schrager Lang, Prophetic Woman

  • Janice Knight, Orthodoxies in Massachusetts
The New 
England Way
The concept of the covenant also provided a practical means of organizing churches.  Since the state did not control the church, the Puritans reasoned, there must be an alternate method of of establishing authority. According to Harry S. Stout, "For God's Word to function freely, and for each member to feel an integral part of the church's operations, each congregation must be self-sufficient, containing within itself all the offices and powers necessary for self-regulation.  New England's official apologist, John Cotton, termed this form of church government 'Congregational,' meaning that all authority would be located within particular congregations" (The New England Soul  17). Cotton's sermon at Salem in 1636 described the basic elements of this system in which people covenanting themselves to each other and pledging to obey the word of God might become a self-governing church.  Checks and balances in this self-governing model included the requirement that members testify to their experience of grace (to ensure the purity of the church and its members) and the election of church officials to ensure the appropriate distribution of power, with a pastor to preach, a teacher to "attend to doctrine," elders to oversee the "acts ofspiritual Rule," and a deacon to manage the everyday tasks of church organization and caring for the poor (Stout 19).  The system of interlocking covenants that bound households to each other and to their ministers in an autonomous, self-ruling congregation was mirrored in the organization of towns.  In each town, male church members could vote to elect "selectmen" to run the town's day-to-day affairs, although town meetings were held to vote on legislation.
Thus the ultimate authority in both political and religious spheres was God's word, but the commitments made to congregation and community through voluntary obedience to covenants ensured order and a functional system of religious and political governance.  This system came to be called the Congregational or  "New England Way." According to Stout, "By locating power in the particular towns and defining institutions in terms of local covenants and mutual commitments, the dangers of mobility and atomism--the chief threats to stability in the New World--were minimized. . . . As churches came into being only by means of a local covenant, so individual members could be released from their sacred oath only with the concurrence of the local body. . . . Persons leaving without the consent of the body sacrificed not only church membership but also property title, which was contingent on local residence.  Through measures like these, which combined economic and spiritual restraints, New England towns achieved extraordinarily high levels of persistence and social cohesion" (23). 
Church 
Membership
Unlike Anglican and Catholic churches of the time, Puritan churches did not hold that all parish residents should be full church members. A true church, they believed, consisted not of everyone but of the elect. As a test of election, many New England churches began to require applicants for church membership to testify to their personal experience of God in the form of autobiographical conversion narrativesSince citizenship was tied to church membership, the motivation for experiencing conversion was secular and civil as well as religious in nature. God's covenant that bound church members to him had to be renewed and accepted by each individual believer, although this could be seen as a dilution of the covenant binding God and his chosen people.
The 
Half-Way 
Covenant
The children of first-generation believers were admitted to limited membership in the Congregational church, on the grounds that as children of the elect, they would undoubtedly experience conversion and become full members of the church. Not all underwent a conversion experience, however, thus leaving in doubt the future of their children, the grandchildren of the original church members. Drafted by Richard Mather and approved in 1662, the Half-way Covenant proposed that second-generation members be granted the same privilege of baptism (but not communion) as had been granted to the first generation. According to Norman Grabo, "This encouraged individual congregations to baptize the infant children of church members but not to admit them to full membership until they were at least 14 years old" and could profess conversion. "The partaking of the Lord's Supper became a lure to struggling half-way members to discover their right to full membership and a public sign of the purest in the congregation."
Richard, and, later, Increase Mather supported it, as did Edward Taylor; but Solomon Stoddard from Northampton argued that, according to the Half-Way Covenant, no man was permitted to partake of the Lord's Supper until he had certain knowledge and assurance of salvation; without this knowledge, attendance at the sacrament was damning.  Stoddard said that no man could know he was saved with absolute certainty; thus all well-behaved Christians should be admitted to the sacrament in hopes that they might secure saving grace or be converted by it. (Grabo 32)
The 
Plain Style
The plain style is the simplest of the three classical forms of style. In choosing the plain style, Puritan writers eschewed features common to the rhetoric of the day; they declined to stuff their sermons with the rhetorical flourishes and learned quotations of the metaphysical style of sermon, believing that to be the province of Archbishop Laud and his followers. The Puritan sermon traditionally comprised three parts: doctrine, reasons, and uses. According to Perry Miller in The New England Mind,
    "The Anglican sermon is constructed on a symphonic scheme of progressively widening vision; it moves from point to point by verbal analysis, weaving larger and larger embroideries about the words of the text. The Puritan sermon quotes the text and "opens" it as briefly as possible, expounding circumstances and context, explaining its grammatical meanings, reducing its tropes and schemata to prose, and setting forth its logical implications; the sermon then proclaims in a flat, indicative sentence the "doctrine" contained in the text or logically deduced from it, and proceeds to the first reason or proof. Reason follows reason, with no other transition than a period and a number; after the last proof is stated there follow the uses or applications, also in numbered sequence, and the sermon ends when there is nothing more to be said. The Anglican sermon opens with a pianissimo exordium, gathers momentum through a rising and quickening tempo, comes generally to a rolling, organ-toned peroration; the Puritan begins with a reading of the text, states the reason in an order determined by logic, and the uses in an enumeration determined by the kinds of person in the throng who need to be exhorted or reproved, and it stops without flourish or resounding climax" (332-3).

  • In a similar manner, Puritans preferred the plainness of the Geneva Bible to the rich language of the King James version.