Author Archives: kristenleeg

Interview with Kyly Walker

Kyly Walker completed a MA (Research) at the Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Monash University in 2018, investigating how bishops asserted their authority during the reign of King Stephen of England. She is active on Twitter (@kyly­_walker), especially during conferences, and enjoys baking when she gets the time! Kyly has recently written the article “Westminster Abbey, King Stephen, and the Failure to Canonize King Edward in 1139,” which you can read in the Royal Studies Journal, Volume 5, Issue 2 (2018).

Westminster Abbey, London

Westminster Abbey. Photo by Kristen Geaman

RSJ Blog: Thanks for talking with us, Kyly! Many of us associate Westminster Abbey so closely with Edward the Confessor that it can be surprising to learn the house was not founded by him. Can you give us a little more information on the abbey’s early history?

Kyly: Thanks so much for having me! Well, when it comes to Westminster Abbey’s history, there’s the legend and then there are the facts. According to Sulcard, who wrote a history of Westminster in the eleventh century, a church was founded on the Abbey site by an unknown rich man—Osbert of Clare said it was King Sæberht of Essex—and his wife during the reign of King Æthelberht of Kent (reigned 589–616). Sulcard tells a fantastic tale of how St Peter came down from heaven and consecrated the church in the middle of the night, usurping the Bishop of London, with only a fisherman as witness. This episode was probably invented to assert that Westminster was exempt from the bishop’s authority.

There’s actually little evidence of Westminster in the historical record before the tenth century. King Offa of Essex allegedly restored the church in the early eighth century and King Offa of Mercia—of Offa’s Dyke fame—possibly granted some land. The monastery was founded in the 960s–70s, during the time of King Edgar (reigned 959–75) and St Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury. Edgar sold the land to Dunstan, who founded a monastery on the site. Edgar and Æthelred Unræd—better known as Ethelred the Unready—granted and confirmed various lands to the new monastery. It looks like the Abbey became quite successful in the early eleventh century and King Harold Harefoot (reigned 1035–40) was buried there, showing that it had become important and was connected to royalty. But Harold’s corpse was later dug up, beheaded, and thrown into a fen near the Thames on the orders of his half-brother and successor Harthacnut. So, although Westminster promoted itself as an ancient house, the Abbey would have been less than 200 years old during Stephen’s reign.

RSJ Blog: Your article mentions that some of Osbert’s devotions were very Anglo-Saxon. What were some other notable differences between Anglo-Saxon and Norman religious practices at this time?

Kyly: Wow, that’s a big question! Well, William the Conqueror justified his invasion of England—at least partially—because the English Church was degenerate. What the exact problem was isn’t certain, but it probably had a lot to do with the recent renewal that the Norman Church had undergone. The Normans had abandoned some practices that the English had not. For example, pluralism—the practice of overseeing more than one diocese or monastery—was very common in England. Stigand, the archbishop of Canterbury, was also bishop of Winchester, and Abbot Leofric of Peterborough ruled four other monasteries. Stigand kept his post for a few years, but his position was precarious, and he was deposed in 1070. Leofric died soon after the Battle of Hastings, which probably prevented him suffering a similar fate.

Until recent years, one of the major differences was seen to be attitudes towards sanctity. For a long time, it was assumed that the Normans were very skeptical about the holiness of many English saints and rejected several cults. As Susan Ridyard has shown, this was far from true, and English saints’ cults were adapted to suit a monastery’s particular situation. Nationality wasn’t an issue: the new religious hierarchy would use any tool at their disposal—including an Anglo-Saxon saint’s cult—to protect and improve their church. Some churchmen were initially cautious about certain saints venerated in their churches, the most famous being Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury. There is a story in Eadmer’s Life of St Anselm that Lanfranc doubted that one of his predecessors, St Alphege, was a saint, and had to be convinced by another future archbishop, St Anselm, that Alphege was indeed a saint, as he’d been martyred by the Danes. Lanfranc accepted Anselm’s arguments and supported and promoted the cult of Alphege and other Anglo-Saxon saints from then on.

Other differences were organizational. Under the Normans, several sees moved from rural areas to towns. The canons who served the cathedrals were organized into formal chapters and were given particular roles to perform within the chapters, such as treasurer. Small parish churches were also established at the expense of larger churches, called minsters, which had controlled larger areas (this had already begun before 1066, but the process accelerated after the Norman Conquest).

RSJ Blog: Can you tell us a little more about the forgeries that were created to help Westminster Abbey enhance its status in the early 1100s? How many were there? How similar were Westminster’s actions to that of other medieval abbeys?

Kyly: The exact number of forgeries is difficult to pin down, as scholars disagree over whether some are genuine or not, and others appear to be based on genuine documents that have been altered at a later date. There is evidence that around 40 pre-Conquest charters—mostly in Edward’s name—were either forged or tampered with. There are definitely forgeries in the names of Kings Edgar (at least one), Edward the Confessor (at least three), William I (up to ten), Henry I (around four), and even Stephen (six). Most date to the twelfth century, but a few were forged in the 1200s. Other charters were allegedly issued by Archbishop Dunstan and Pope Paschal II, and possibly by Pope Innocent II as well. Westminster’s forgers fabricated charters for other monasteries too, such as Ramsey and Coventry Abbey, so it seems their skills were well-known in monastic circles, and it was not an unusual practice. Several monasteries, with longer histories than Westminster, also created impressive portfolios of forged documents. These included Worcester Cathedral Priory, St Augustine’s Abbey at Canterbury, and Gloucester Abbey. They all faced the same problem: many of their lands and rights had been granted in the distant past, and documents confirming the monasteries’ possession of them had either never existed or had been destroyed by the passage of time. The monasteries therefore remedied this lack through forgery. Ideas about forgery were very different in the twelfth century, and the monks didn’t see their activities as wrong. They believed they were creating documents that had or should have existed. As I mention in my article, the monks were dealing with the change from “oral to written testimony,” and they did it the only way they could, by re-creating documents.

RSJ Blog: Westminster Abbey very much wanted to be seen as the premier royal site in England at this time. Were there other avenues Osbert and the monks could have pursued to accomplish this or was getting Edward the Confessor canonized the only viable option?

Kyly: Well, to gain the position it wanted as the royal site in England, Westminster needed to obtain the undivided attention of the monarchy. The Abbey was certainly understood to be the place for royal coronations, and some other occasions. Coronations were rather infrequent though and the location of Christmas events etc. was not fixed. So, it was difficult for the Abbey to develop firm ties to the king.

Establishing the Abbey as a royal dynastic mausoleum was a path that Westminster tried to follow. The monks went to a lot of effort in 1118 to have Henry I’s first wife, Matilda of Scotland, buried at Westminster Abbey. There was a family connection, as she was Edward the Confessor’s great-great niece, and at the time her son was the heir to the throne. Linking the dynasty to Edward and Westminster probably seemed like a good idea. But according to the Augustinian Priory of Holy Trinity Aldgate in London, Westminster’s monks bribed King Henry—who was out of the country—to ensure that Matilda was buried at the Abbey, which was quite possibly against her wishes. Matilda had founded Holy Trinity and so she may have wanted to be interred there; according to the Priory’s account, her body had been moved there before Westminster took possession of it. It was quite common for royal persons to be buried in the church of monasteries they had founded: William the Conqueror was interred at his foundation of St Stephen’s Abbey at Caen in Normandy and similarly Henry I was buried at Reading Abbey. Unfortunately for Westminster, Holy Trinity told the king about what the monks had done, and he wasn’t particularly happy about it. Additionally, Matilda and Henry’s son died tragically two years later, throwing the succession into question. Any plans Westminster Abbey had had to link their fortunes to Henry’s dynasty thus came to naught, and the monks’ next plan to raise the Abbey’s status was Edward’s attempted canonization.

RSJ Blog: Your article mentions that the cardinals were divided, with some supporting Matilda and some Stephen. Why did some of the cardinals support Matilda? Was it connected to her time as Empress?

Kyly: Yes, the support Matilda received from some cardinals is at least partially linked to her time as Empress in Germany. The persuasive abilities of her envoys probably had something to do with it too. Matilda’s first husband, Emperor Henry V, was involved in a huge dispute with the papacy over who had the right to appoint bishops during the 1110s–20s. The resolution of this quarrel would have involved a lot of diplomatic to-ing and fro-ing, and Matilda probably met several papal representatives at this time, whom she may have later lobbied for support against Stephen. At least two future popes—Honorius II and Innocent II—spent time in Germany as papal representatives trying to resolve the dispute. John of Salisbury’s comment that Pope Celestine II was elected with her favor suggests that Matilda kept in close contact with the papal court, to keep her hopes of ruling England alive.

RSJ Blog: Despite the failure of Edward’s canonization in 1139, did Osbert manage to increase Westminster Abbey’ status anyway?

Kyly: Yes, I think he did, but not to the extent that he planned. By linking Westminster, Edward, and the idea of a royal church, Osbert put an idea in peoples’ minds about the Abbey’s importance in London and the kingdom. Although Osbert’s actions didn’t lead to an immediate increase in the Abbey’s fortunes, they created a catalyst that later generations could capitalize on when circumstances were better.

RSJ Blog: What are you working on now?

Kyly: At the moment I’m employed outside of academia, which leaves very little time for scholarly pursuits! I’m adapting part of my MA thesis for this year’s International Medieval Congress at the University of Leeds. All going well, I’ll be starting a PhD at the University of Leeds in October, working with Professor Julia Barrow. My project looks at written expressions of authority in twelfth century bishops’ charters. I’m interested in discovering what influenced the development of this language and how it evolved throughout the century.

RSJ Blog: Thank you for talking with us!

Advertisements

Article of the Month: “The King’s Two Genders” by Cynthia Herrup

In November, the RSJ blog highlighted Ernst Kantorowicz’s magisterial The King’s Two Bodies. This month we feature one of the many excellent pieces of scholarship that build on Kantorowicz’s work.

Cynthia Herrup’s “The King’s Two Genders” was originally delivered at the North American Conference on British Studies in October 2005. It was later published in The Journal of British Studies 45 (July 2006): 493-510.

In her article, Herrup does not retread Kantorowicz’s work so much as use his concept of the dual monarchial body to explore other avenues. Herrup focuses her article on Tudor-Stuart England and argues “that it might also have been functional for rulers to inhabit an artificial body that was gendered neither exclusively male nor female, but both” (Herrup, 496).

To support this argument, Herrup develops four main points. First, she discusses language: The terms king and prince were used for male and female monarchs. She then turns to the concept of tyranny and its associations with femininity. The tyrant allowed womanly characteristics to predominate and lacked much-needed masculine self-control. Third, the existence of multiple female monarchs and the excellent scholarship devoted to them has shown how successful women rulers embodied both masculine and feminine identities. But, Herrup contends, we must also look at how male kings had to embody both genders. Fourth, scholars must look at how monarchs exercised their right to pardon the guilty; rulers had to walk a fine line between overly-masculine harshness and overly-feminine pity. All rulers needed to exercise mercy, but they had to find balance so it did not undermine their authority or make them seem too effeminate.

Herrup ends her article with an acknowledgement that more detailed research needs to be done to better support her argument that early-modern English monarchs had two genders, but she has provided a fantastic starting place for scholars interested in further exploring gender and monarchy. Herrup’s concept of the monarch, male or female, needing to embody both male and female can be used in a variety of different chronological or geographical contexts. The king’s two genders is a fascinating, clearly-presented concept that encourages fruitful research in royal studies.

The RSJ Blog even had a chance to ask Cynthia (Professor Emerita of History and John R. Hubbard Chair in British History Emerita at the University of Southern California) a few questions about this article.

RSJ Blog: How did you come up with the idea of the king’s two genders? What were you working on that inspired you to develop this concept?

Cynthia: As I was researching material for a project on pardons, I discovered that political commentators were quicker to see pardoning as a dangerous prerogative than as a reassuring safeguard, and the danger was presented as gendered. One official even praised Elizabeth I’s attitude as manly and James I’s as effeminate. That got me thinking about why pardoning was a threat, why monarchs were advised to hold it so closely, and what these ideas meant for the definition of proper rule. The two genders was my result.

RSJ Blog: The concept of the king’s two genders seems to work well for medieval and early modern England, but your article suggests this balance might have become more difficult as the realm grew larger and more diverse. How so?

Cynthia: I think that personal monarchy itself gets increasingly problematic as government becomes more diverse geographically and culturally. Moreover, as real power shifts to a prime minister and ideological political parties, the monarch becomes less important and as that happens, their personal qualities and style become less relevant. So distance and impersonal government change what people expect from their ruler and at the same time they change the ruler’s ability to hinder or help subjects individually. Monarchs remain powerful officials but are less often expected to shape government in their own image.

RSJ Blog: Any early-modern English monarchs that you think were especially unsuccessful at balancing the king’s two genders?

Cynthia: Charles I is an easy target for ‘unsuccessful’ but he does seem to have been exceptionally tone deaf. He seems never to have understood that success in monarchy means being both reliable and adaptable.

 

RSJ Blog: Thank you for speaking with us!

Full citation:

Herrup, Cynthia. “The King’s Two Genders.” Journal of British Studies 45 (July 2006): 493-510.

Interview with Christopher Mielke

Christopher Mielke is a Visiting Assistant Professor at Al-Quds Bard College for Arts and Sciences in East Jerusalem. In 2017 he was awarded a PhD in Medieval Studies from Central European University receiving a “magna cum laude” for his dissertation “Every hyacinth the garden wears: the archaeology of medieval queens of Hungary, 1000-1395.” Prior to this, he had received an MA in Medieval Archaeology from the University of Reading in 2011 and an MA in History from the University of Maryland, College Park. From 2012 to 2017, he was the host, organizer, and lead correspondent for CEU Medieval Radio (www.medievalradio.org), having interviewed over 70 guests for the biweekly program “Past Perfect!” His article “From Her Head to Her Toes: Gender Bending Regalia in the Tomb of Constance of Aragon, Queen of Hungary and Sicily,” recently appeared in the Royal Studies Journal, Volume 5, Issue 2 (2018).

crown_of_constance_of_aragon_-_cathedral_of_palermo_-_italy_2015

The Crown of Constance of Aragon. In the public domain. © José Luiz Bernardes Ribeiro

 

RSJ Blog: Hello, Chris, and thanks for talking with us! Your article on Constance’s crown was fascinating! For those of us who don’t know much about crowns, could you give us a primer on the difference between eastern/Byzantine crowns and western European crowns?

Chris: I’ll do my best! For the medieval period, royal crowns in the west tended to consist of open circlets. These circlets were usually a metal band across the brow that could be plain, studded with gemstones, or topped with decorative devices such as crosses or lilies. There are both male and female examples of this in the west. Crowns of Byzantine emperors tended to be enclosed, by contrast – there would be a circlet as a base with two bands meeting in the center.  That being said, imperial crowns do appear in the west, such as the eleventh century Reichskrone which has one band across a tall circlet. Crowns for Byzantine empresses tended to be an open band topped by triangular and circular pinnaces. These are general rules, and there are examples here and there which will contradict them no doubt, but for the thirteenth century these seem to be the main differences.

RSJ Blog: Since it seems this Byzantine-style crown was Constance’s, do you think she obtained it when she was queen of Hungary? Or were crowns of this type popular throughout the Mediterranean?

Chris: Byzantine style crowns did appear in Hungary in the 11th century (for instance the Holy Crown of Hungary) but it is very doubtful that the crown Constance was buried with came from there. By the time Constance became queen of Sicily, Byzantium’s influence in the Mediterranean was considerably reduced, but traditions die hard – there are Greek influences on other royal artifacts from this time period, such as in seals and coins. Medieval crowns in general very rarely survive in their original format, but artistic depictions of crowns from the Mediterranean world (particularly Sicily) show a strong Byzantine influence.

RSJ Blog: Why was Constance exhumed in 1491? Any hints why the people who completed that exhumation might have moved her crown?

Chris: I have no idea, in all honesty! The 1491 exhumation was done at the behest of the Vice-Regent of Sicily ruling on behalf of the King, Ferdinand II of Aragon. It could have had something to do with an Aragonese connection between the current King of Sicily and Constance’s roots, or the removal of the body could have been precipitated by something more practical, like the need for a repair. It was a grand spectacle in 1491 though, with all of the leading patricians and nobles of Sicily in attendance, and upon opening the tomb, the sight of the dazzling crown could have sparked a lot of curiosity. It is a magnificent piece and very unusual and my suggestion is that after they examined the crown, they did not wish to disturb the Queen’s body, which is why they might have later placed it in the wooden box at her feet.

RSJ Blog: Your article describes Déer’s theory as romantic. Is there any evidence left offering any clues to Constance’s and Frederick II’s marriage? Would Déer have had anything to base his romantic interpretation on (other than the crown’s placement)?

Chris: The marriage between the two was unusual for a few reasons. In the first place, the bride was at least ten or fifteen years older than the groom (who would have been about fourteen) and she had already lost a husband and a son. Frederick II had lost his mother very young as well, and many secondary historians have surmised that Constance filled an almost maternal role as his wife. Constance’s strong role in the government as regent of Sicily shows that he placed a great amount of trust in her; none of Frederick’s other wives seem to be so favored. Unfortunately, most of the details about their marriage that survive relate more to either financial or political issues, but those few details show that Frederick did rely on her in a singular manner.

RSJ Blog: Your footnotes hint that Constance’s son Henry (VII) lived an interesting life. Could you tell us more about him?

Chris: I’ll try! Henry (VII) was the eldest son of Frederick II and Constance, and he has been a difficult character to analyze. When he was in his early 20s, the younger Henry became involved in a series of wars with the other German princes and eventually against his father. By 1235, Henry had been bested by his father. He was stripped of his titles and imprisoned for the next seven years. In 1242, Henry fell off his horse – some contemporary chronicles suggested that it was a suicide. He was buried with full honors and his skeleton was exhumed in the late 1990s. An osteoarchaeological analysis revealed evidence of leprosy on his face and his feet. This raises the question as to whether or not Frederick II imprisoned his son due to acts of rebellion or whether it was the result of Henry’s illness – for symptoms of leprosy to be present on his skeleton shows that it was a very severe case which required isolation.

RSJ Blog: What are you working on now?

Chris: I have a few projects that I’m finalizing at the moment. I am in the process of publishing several interviews from my time as host of CEU Medieval Radio. I am also co-editing a volume focusing primarily on medieval women involved in the sex trade in Central and Eastern Europe. This article here on Constance was originally a part of my doctoral dissertation that never made it into the final version – but at the moment I am working on a manuscript of my dissertation to be made into a book.

Regarding work projects, I was fortunate enough to spend last year at Al-Quds Bard College in Jerusalem as a CEU Global Teaching Fellow. This year I am working at a museum in West Virginia called the Beverly Heritage Center as the Head of Programming. This year I am planning a total renovation of the exhibit we have up there in the original Randolph County Courthouse.

RSJ Blog: Thank you for talking with us!

 

Interview with Jock Phillips

Jock Phillips is a free-lance professional historian. Until 2014 he was the General Editor of Te Ara, the Online Encyclopedia of New Zealand in the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. He was previously New Zealand’s Chief Historian following 16 years teaching American and New Zealand History at Victoria University of Wellington.  He was also the founding Director of the Stout Research Centre for the study of New Zealand society, history and culture; and was the Conceptual Leader for the History exhibitions at Te Papa, Museum of New Zealand. He has published fifteen books on New Zealand history, of which the best known is A Man’s Country: The image of the Pakeha male – a history. His latest book, To The Memory, is a comprehensive illustrated history of New Zealand war memorials. Read his article on the Maori and royal tours in the Royal Studies Journal Volume 5.

IMG_9885 comp

Memorial for the soldiers of the Arawa tribe who died in World War I. Photo by Jock Phillips.

 

RSJ Blog: Hello, Jock! Thanks for participating. We often see think-pieces about the “cult of celebrity” or “celebrity worship.” Does our modern interest in celebrity provide rivals to royalty or do they benefit from our fascination? Both?

Jock: At least since the coming of mass media with newspapers, there have always been celebrities who have been rivals in popular interest for royalty. In New Zealand’s case significant indications of this have been ‘tours’ by people other than royalty; and it is revealing to list some of the tours by non-Royals which made a powerful impression.  In the 19th century tours by authors such as Mark Twain, Anthony Trollope and (a bit later) Rudyard Kipling were big news; in the early 20th century there were major tours by heroes of the British Empire such as Robert Falcon Scott and Baden Powell.  In the mid 20th century sporting heroes were much feted – there were huge crowds in Wellington to welcome the MCC ‘bodyline’ cricket team in 1933, not to mention tours by local heroes such as the 1925 Invincible All Black rugby team and the runner Jack Lovelock.  In the 1960s there were huge crowds in the streets to welcome The Beatles and The Rolling Stones; and a bit later the numbers were repeated (along with a few protestors) for the American President LBJ.  Some may argue that the plethora of mass media now – television, film and the internet besides the printed page – have increased the number of non-royal competitors for celebrity; but they have long been there.

 RSJ Blog: Why might indigenous people see the monarch as their benefactor (or “benefactress” as they termed Queen Victoria)?

 Jock: I can only really talk with any authority about the case of Maori.  For Maori the Queen was seen in positive terms because she was the other signatory to the Treaty of Waitangi; and subsequently Maori saw her as providing a protection against local white governments whom they felt had disregarded the terms of the treaty.

RSJ Blog: A number of the articles talk about “race patriotism” or “British race patriotism.” How has the British monarchy both supported and challenged these ideas?

 Jock: Most members of the British Empire regarded the monarch as the symbolic head of the Empire and therefore the purest expression of the values of the British race.  Interestingly even some Maori accepted this because it was argued that Maori were ‘honorary whites’, an Aryan people, who shared the racial characteristics of the Anglo-Saxons. But of course this was purely symbolic, because all the evidence is that some members of the royal family, most notably Edward, the Prince of Wales, during his 1920 tour, were appallingly racist towards indigenous people, especially Maori.

RSJ Blog: It seems that the monarch and the white colonizers of New Zealand saw the Maori in a more positive light than the monarch and the white colonizers of Australia saw the Indigenous Australians. Is this an accurate impression? If so, why might that be? Is it due to the Treaty of Waitangi (1840)?

 Jock: I think the main reason that white colonial powers in New Zealand including the British monarch, regarded Maori more positively and treated them with more respect than the treatment of indigenous Australians is that Maori had been very effective militarily.  From about 1500 when there was a growing Maori population and a competition for resources, a strong tradition of military achievement developed in Aotearoa.  Iwi or tribes developed who built thousands of fortified pa around the country and a cult of military prowess emerged. In the early 19th century Maori very quickly gained access to guns and through fights between iwi developed a remarkable skill in the new warfare – indeed some have argued that Maori were the first to really develop trench warfare as a response to guns. When white people arrived they quickly found that Maori were no push-over militarily, and indeed in both the 1840s and 1860s wars Maori very nearly defeated the colonizers who had to call for professional assistance from the Imperial army.  In this context the only way white people could establish a foothold in the country was to negotiate – hence they were forced into negotiating the Treaty of Waitangi.  So in my view respect for Maori came out of the barrel of a gun. The Treaty was a consequence of this respect, not the cause of it. In Australia we now know that there was more armed resistance than once believed, but it was never on the scale of Maori resistance.

RSJ Blog: How similar and different is the relationship of the British monarchs with the indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand?

Jock: I think the existence of a treaty in which the monarch was the other signatory did make a big difference.  Maori put enormous energy in the 19th and early 20th centuries into appealing to the British monarch – through elaborate welcomes when royalty toured and through numerous attempts to travel to England in order to petition the monarch. It was also true that because of their military strength Maori had to be given a place in the local political scene (Maori could vote on the same terms as Europeans from the beginning and from 1867 there were Maori seats in parliament).  This allowed them access to the local political authorities who were controlling royal tours and relations with the monarch, which indigenous Australians did not have.

RSJ Blog: Since monarchs are now generally supposed to be above politics, how can the royal family help indigenous people in their pursuit of justice?

Jock: To be honest in 2018 I do not see the royal family having much impact on the politics of member states of the Commonwealth.  However if members of the royal family respect indigenous culture and give it appropriate time and recognition, this may have some impact on local perceptions.

RSJ Blog: What is the new nationalism in late-twentieth century Australia? Was there a new nationalism in New Zealand around this time as well?

Jock: As both Australia and New Zealand emerged out of the British Empire from the 1960s, a similar new nationalism emerged.  In New Zealand’s case the old nationalism saw New Zealand as a ‘better Britain’, a country which had all the values of the British race but none of the social problems.  New Zealanders thought of themselves as the ‘most loyal’ dominion of all.  From the 1960s this view came under attack, and a new nationalism emerged which positioned New Zealand as an independent South Pacific country.  Maori and Pacific culture became more important to the identity; and in place of a role as a loyal territorial of the Anglo-American Empire, the country pushed values of international peace and regarded its anti-nuclear position as central to identity.

 RSJ Blog: Thank you for your time! How are things progressing with your work on war memorials?

Jock:  I have worked for over 30 years on studying the history of war memorials and my book on the subject, To the Memory, was finished last year; but I continue to follow up side-issues and give talks on this subject especially with the centenary of the armistice upon us.  I have now just completed a memoir about my life as a historian, Living History, which I expect to be published next year.

Modern Monarchies Around the World

The current special issue of the Royal Studies Journal is about royal tours in the modern era. While many of us who study monarchies specialize in ancient, medieval, or early modern history, there are a number of monarchies alive and well in today’s world. The maps below highlight the world’s current monarchies.

current world monarchies

Current Monarchies simplified map

The first map shows the 16 countries of the British Commonwealth that recognize the monarch as head of state (the larger Commonwealth consists of over 50 countries) and the 29 other countries with monarchs. The second map is a simplified version of the first: it provides country names but many smaller principalities were left off the map.

The 16 Commonwealth Countries with a monarch are: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and St. Lucia.

Current Monarchies in the Americas

The 10 monarchies in North America are all part of the Commonwealth.

monarchies in Oceania

A close-up of the monarchies in Oceania. All but the Kingdom of Tonga (green) are part of the Commonwealth.

 

current monarchies africa

Current monarchies in Africa are Lesotho, Morocco, and Swaziland.

current monarchies asia

The current monarchies in Asia are Bahrain, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates.

current monarchies europe

The current monarchies in Europe are Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Vatican City.

The only continents without any monarchies are Antarctica and South America. Asia and Europe are tied for the most monarchies, with 13 each.

*All maps were made using Mapchart.net, which is an extremely fun resource!

New Website for the Royal Studies Journal!

The Royal Studies Journal has moved to a new and improved website! Please visit at https://www.rsj.winchester.ac.uk/.

To help you navigate the new site, Ellie Woodacre has kindly recorded a video. Please view it here.

We have a new website because Winchester University Press has teamed up with Ubiquity Press, a leading open-access publisher. Joining forces with an established open-access publisher keeps the journal at the forefront of scholarship and streamlines access to both current and back issues.

We hope you enjoy the new website!

Conference Report from Kalamazoo

This year the Royal Studies Network and Royal Studies Journal hosted two excellent sessions on Plural/Corporate Monarchy at the 53rd International Congress on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The Congress at Kalamazoo is one of the largest gatherings of medievalists from around the world, and it features papers from a wide range of disciplines such as history, English, philosophy, religious studies, and world languages to name just a few. Medievalists from undergraduates to senior scholars enjoy the scholarship, social opportunities (including a Saturday night dance), and book discounts. Be on the lookout on the Royal Studies Network Facebook page for more information about future Kalamazoo sessions.

Below are quick summaries of our sessions, provided so that those who were unable to attend don’t miss out!

Session One:

Erin L. Jordan’s paper, “Melisende, Fulk and Corporate Monarchy in the Twelfth-Century Kingdom of Jerusalem” discussed corporate monarchy in the Latin East. Jordan argued that Melisende was a true co-ruler and when her husband Fulk tried to cut her out, she (with the support of native nobles) rebelled in 1134. The couple reconciled rather quickly because co-rule worked very well for a conquest kingdom such as that of Jerusalem. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem follows more Mediterranean patterns of monarchy where the demands of war make a partnership between the king and queen particularly useful.

Manuela Santos Silva’s paper, “The king, his wife, their children and their households: Royal power in Iberia in late middle ages” is part of a larger project investigating collective monarchy in the Iberian peninsula. Using law codes such as Las Siete Partidas and Portuguese letters and chronicles, Silva traces the answers to such vital questions as: who should be king? What is the role of the royal family in an elective monarchy? What is the role of the royal family in an inherited monarchy? Should we refer to some monarchies as “shared monarchy”?

Janna Bianchini’s paper, “Duplicate Monarchy? Kings Confirming Royal Women’s Gifts in León-Castile” focused especially on Sancha Raimúndez (1095-1159) and her many royal diplomas. The vast majority of Sancha’s surviving grants are not confirmed by her royal brother, suggesting that royal women could grant land independently. Several of the diplomas issued jointly by Sancha Raimúndez and Alfonso VII show the royal siblings acting via verbs in the first person plural (we give, we concede), which indicates a joint dominion over certain lands or rights. In a close examination of some of Sancha’s grants, Bianchini then explored the concept of “keeping while giving” that seemed to be in action with some of Sancha’s grants.

During the question-and-answer period, participants and audience members discussed the idea of a Mediterranean or “frontier” concept of rulership that relies fairly heavily on corporate monarchy. Is this a thing? Worth pondering!

Session Two:

Kristen Geaman’s paper, “Is All Monarchy Plural? A Look at Medieval Kings and Queens” took the idea of corporate monarchy beyond the Mediterranean to England. Looking specifically at intercession and the idea that a king needed/had two genders, she suggested that English monarchy could also be seen as plural because kings and queens together often embodied and enacted the performance of the king’s two genders. Intercession, in which a merciful queen tempers a vengeful (but just) king particularly showcases the monarchs working together to fulfill both kingly genders.

Anna Jagosova’s paper, “The House of Luxembourg (1309 ‒ 1442): Ruling practices in composite monarchy from gender comparative perspective” explored the charters from the many domains ruled by the House of Luxembourg to highlight the role of consorts in ruling these territories. With such disparate holdings, the regnants needed assistance, which queens could often provide. Comparing the language in extant charters, Jagosova showed that queens and kings used nearly identical language. Queens were generally especially powerful in places where they held lands, either from their dowers or morning gifts.

Abdulaziz Alqabli’s paper, “Religious Authority in the Mamluk Era 1250-1517” explored how the Mamluk sultans of Egypt used the Abbasid caliphs (who they had installed in Cairo after their defeat by the Mongols in 1258) and the ulama (religious scholars) to help legitimize their rule and prevent rebellions by the populace. The Mamluks particularly needed this support because of their slave origins. In addition to the support of religious leaders, the Maluks promoted jihad against both crusaders and the Ottomans to shore up their authority. But without the support of the Abbasid caliphs, the Mamluks likely would not have been able to rule; the official stance that the caliphs had delegated authority to the sultans solved a number of problems.

During the question-and-answer period, participants and audience members discussed the Mamluks and the importance of land/wealth as a route to power. The Luxembourg queens, rather like the “frontier” queens of the first session could exercise more power the more wealth they possessed.

Overall, the sessions emphasized the necessity of thinking about monarchy in medieval terms, rather than (as Janna Bianchini noted) “absolutist terms.” Medieval monarchs were not absolute monarchs (we will leave it to other scholars to determine whether absolute monarchs were actually absolute monarchs), and it isn’t helpful to think of them as a bunch of “the state is me” kind of people.