 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture Dear Jim Yes, the political process is infinitely messy - which is one reason why I suspect so much importance always attaches to form and precedence. I'm seeing this in a much more clearly defined and detailed context in my present employment on early modern survival of ancient hunting rights. Those elevated to, inheriting, or buying into higher levels of British society in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are going to impressive lengths to prove their claims to titles and, what's crucial to them, the rights which go with them. Not only rights in terms of closeness to seats of power, but also rights that come from landed possessions: the rents but also the franchises, liberties and perquisites, and powers of patronage, hospitality and condescension. Even at the level of demesne lordship, antiquarians were employed to trace back lineage and the descent of rights which went with lordship five, six, seven hundred years. (And yes, also to obfuscate and elide where necessary, not to say invent.) Again, it's possible to see from an early modern perspective how the baronial Honors (of which Richmond was a prominent example) were still among the most richly endowed sources of such wealth and power in England, just as they clearly were in the middle ages. This is one reason why the Tudor and Stuart kings were anxious to appropriate and/or resuscitate them. Certainly in the early modern period, as surely it must have been the case in earlier centuries, the Honors were living entities, large organisations responsible for managing lands and peoples, collecting revenue and dispensing favours. What's different, of course, is that the early modern aristocrats in Protestant-governed England don't have recourse to saints to bolster their claims and status. They do the next best thing, of course, which is to appropriate and dominate chancels and side chapels with their extravagant monuments to family, fame, and title. Casting a long eye from my employment on 'Forests and Chases of England and Wales, c. 1500 to c. 1850', I was interested in André-Yves' reference to the installation of Carmelites at Ploermel. As I understand it, the significance of Carmelite devotion centres around the meanings of 'karmel' in relation to both forest as wilderness and woodland as plenty. Can André-Yves tell us how much is known about the use of Brocéliande for hunting? It also strikes me, in relation to Armel's dragon and remembering also Sam Riches' gendered dragons of St George, that Brocéliande is associated with Melusine, but one thing at a time... Best wishes Graham **************************************** Dr Graham Jones St John's College (University of Oxford) Oxford OX1 3JP Tel: +(0)1865 280146 (with voice-mail) e-Mail: [log in to unmask] Honorary Visiting Fellow University of Leicester Centre for English Local History e-Mail: [log in to unmask] Web: http://www.le.ac.uk/elh/grj1 **************************************** -----Original Message----- From: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Bugslag Sent: 07 January 2005 01:34 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [M-R] Religious dedications: St Armel medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture > 1. Brittany and the Honor of Richmond. Henry was exiled at the court > of the duchy of Brittany for fourteen years from 1471 (aged about 14) > to 1485. He was Earl of Richmond, the title he had inherited from his > father (though de jure it was forfeit to the Crown as a result of the > Tudors™ defeat). The Honor (later the Earldom) of Richmond was in the > hands of Dukes or Counts of Brittany or members of their families from > the late eleventh to the mid-fourteenth century. Five of the Dukes of > Brittany in the twelfth and thirteen centuries were also Earls of > Richmond. Dear Graham, One of those early five "dukes" was Pierre Mauclerc, or Pierre of Dreux, whom Philip Augustus married to Alix de Thouars, the heiress of the county of Bretagne, in an attempt to absorb Bretagne into the French domain. The English crown used the earldom of Richmond as a "carrot" to lure him to pay homage to England rather than France (considered as treason in France). And the English records also consistently style him as "duke" of Brittany, while in French eyes, he was only a count (this changed at the end of the 13th century, when Bretagne was elevated to a French peerage). The relation was, at the very least, politically fraught. No idea how that was playing out in the 15th century though. Cheers, Jim Bugslag ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html