One of the most dramatic episodes of the reign of Queen Urraca I of León and Castile was the assault she suffered in Santiago de Compostela during the urban revolt of 1117. The incident, described most fully in the Historia Compostellana, illustrates the instability of the early twelfth century and the fragile balance between royal authority, episcopal power, and urban political movements in medieval Galicia.¹
The uprising originated in growing hostility toward Archbishop Diego Gelmírez, whose ambitious political program and fiscal policies had generated considerable opposition among segments of the urban population and the Galician nobility. Seeking to restore order and reaffirm royal authority, Queen Urraca entered Santiago accompanied by a relatively small retinue, apparently expecting that her presence would calm the unrest.² Instead, she became the target of popular violence.
According to the Historia Compostellana, the crowd surrounded the queen shortly after her arrival. She was forcibly pulled from her horse, struck, insulted, and publicly humiliated. The chronicler further relates that her garments were torn while the mob threatened her life, presenting the episode as an unprecedented attack upon the sacred dignity of an anointed monarch.³ Only through the intervention of loyal supporters was Urraca able to escape. The chronicle records that she briefly sought refuge in the church of Santa María do Camiño before leaving the city under protection.⁴
Although the Historia Compostellana remains the principal narrative source, modern historians approach its account critically. The work was produced within the circle of Archbishop Gelmírez and was intended in part to justify his political actions. Consequently, while the occurrence of the assault is generally accepted as historical, some of the more dramatic details may reflect literary embellishment designed to emphasize both the dangers confronting the queen and the necessity of episcopal leadership during the crisis.⁵
Footnotes
Historia Compostellana, ed. Emma Falque Rey (Turnhout: Brepols, 1988), II.25–29.
Bernard F. Reilly, The Kingdom of León-Castilla under Queen Urraca, 1109–1126 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), pp. 165–169.
Historia Compostellana, II.28: "Reginam de equo detraxerunt... vestimenta eius scindentes" ("They dragged the queen from her horse... tearing her garments.").
Historia Compostellana, II.28–29.
Simon Barton, The World of El Cid: Chronicles of the Spanish Reconquest (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), pp. 189–191; Bernard F. Reilly, The Kingdom of León-Castilla under Queen Urraca, pp. 168–170.
“We know about this period largely through the letters Philip wrote to them from Portugal. The infantas wrote to their father regularly, but after reading their letters, Philip burned them. He instructed his daughters to burn his as well, but the girls disobeyed, and Catalina took her father’s letters with her to Turin, where they survive to this day. From these letters, we can often deduce or guess what the girls had written in theirs, since he often commented on their letters and responded to the topics they had addressed. Philip’s letters to his daughters provide us with insight not only into the girls’ daily lives but also into their relationship with him.
Even from afar, Philip remained well informed about his daughters’ activities; famously obsessive and micromanaging, he tried his best to control what they did. Yet he was also an affectionate and caring father who missed them and was interested in what they were doing. He encouraged them to write often, asking questions that he expected them to answer and thanking them for responding to everything that he had written. For the girls, writing was a means to reach out to their father, whom they in turn missed.
In his letters, Philip described his activities in Portugal, indicating not only his own preferences but also what he thought infantas would enjoy hearing about. He told them about his visits to monasteries, often with Archduke Albert, and the religious services that they attended there: a sermon, sung mass, vespers. He would often comment on the monastic buildings, the views from the monasteries, and especially the gardens. On one occasion, he stated that he intended to copy the plans for a garden he had seen, apparently to imitate it in Spain. In turn, the infantas told him about religious services at the Descalzas, where they were living, and about their trips to Aranjuez, Aceca, El Pardo, and the Escorial. Catalina wrote to him that there were citrons (cidras) in Aranjuez, and Philip responded that he was happy to hear it. He asked for news on the progress of the construction of the palace in Aranjuez, wondering if the fountain was operational, if the chapel was finished and the altarpiece in place, and if the clock was running. Several times, Philip commented that he envied their ability to visit these places, mentioning that what he missed most about Aranjuez was the song of the nightingales. He described in detail a trip he had taken by boat, noting that he had done so to make them envious. These exchanges reveal that the king and his daughters connected over their mutual love of gardens and the outdoors, as well as their religious devotion. (..)
Edible gifts, especially with a particular connection to the giver, fostered affection at a distance. On at least one occasion, the infantas sent Philip apricots, which unfortunately did not survive the trip: he described them as having arrived unrecognizable. He noted that he was especially sorry because the apricots had come from one of the garden trees close to the infantas’ window, which made the gift even dearer to him. In return, Philip sent his daughters a box of horticultural items: sweet limes (limas dulces), Spanish limes (limoncillos), roses, and blossoms from a lemon or orange tree. He told them to try the limes and write to tell him whether in fact they were sweet, because he had never seen any so big and thought they were probably lemons. He also explained that he sent the roses and the blossoms to show them what grew in Lisbon, adding that he had seen violets but no jonquils, which apparently were grown in Spain. He also sent them beads from the Indies, Agnus Dei, rosaries, and pardon beads (perdones) given to him by the papal legate. (..)
Personal matters also figure prominently in Philip’s letters, which tell us that the king knew his daughters well and did not shy away from sensitive subjects. For example, in October 1581, he told Catalina to be careful with her cheek, because he knew how often it swelled. To Isabel’s report of a nosebleed, Philip replied that she would probably continue to have nosebleeds until she began to menstruate. Two months later, congratulating Isabel on her fifteenth birthday, he added that she had not yet become a woman, which would suggest that his daughter had still not had her first period. (..)
His letters also reveal their shared fund of knowledge. When Philip mentioned Badajoz, the city where Queen Anna had died, he commented that he would rather not remember “such a bad place.” He had no need to say more, because the girls would have understood his reference. All of these allusions suggest the intimacy between father and daughters, and the ease with which they communicated. Philip reassured them that he missed them and their siblings; he asked the girls to tell their half-brother that he was sending him an elephant and would give him books of paintings upon his return to Spain. As he told his daughters, “I would like to see all of you in more than just portraits.”
Once their father returned to Madrid, they resumed the monarch’s festive court life, interacting regularly with the empress and many aristocrats. In Catalina’s last few years in Madrid, she and Isabel gradually assumed roles usually given to the queen and took over many activities that Anna of Austria had once organized. They often joined their father in his excursions outside Madrid, as they did in November 1583 when they spent many days in the royal hunting lodge of El Pardo, enjoying frequent walks with him. In May 1584, the French representative at the Spanish court, Pierre de Ségusson, lord of Longlée, reported that the infantas and the prince were in Aranjuez with their father, where they spent mornings walking in the gardens and afternoons making boat excursions and hunting. “From morning to evening, their highnesses never lose His Majesty from view,” Longlée related, “and it is a company that he [Philip] loves greatly.” In the years between Philip’s return from Portugal and Catalina’s departure for Savoy, the girls spent many hours with him – Khevenhüller reported in July 1584 that the infantas were always with the king – once again enjoying the life they had shared with him in the 1570s.”
Magdalena S. Sánchez, Infanta: The Short, Remarkable Life of Catalina Micaela
Though heir to the throne, Pedro I of Castile grew up isolated with his mother. María of Portugal, neglected and humiliated by Alfonso XI’s open devotion to Leonor de Guzmán, withdrew from courtly life to Seville. There, she and her son lived in relative obscurity, deprived of royal favor and surrounded by a small household of loyal Portuguese attendants, including clerics and ladies-in-waiting from her homeland. The queen and her son had limited access to royal revenues, confirming their reduced circumstances. The Chronicle of Alfonso XI and Ayala’s Chronicle imply that royal resources were concentrated on Leonor and her children.
Meanwhile, Leonor de Guzmán and her sons dominated the court. Alfonso XI entrusted them with positions of power and even allowed them to accompany him on military campaigns. While his half-brothers were showered with titles, lands, and honors, the legitimate heir remained distant from the centers of power. This precarious duality — two royal households, one legitimate but disregarded, the other illegitimate but dominant — created the tension that would later erupt into civil war.
Pedro’s upbringing in this restricted household deprived him of the courtly education and political apprenticeship normally afforded to royal heirs. The young prince grew up watching his mother’s humiliation and sensing, even as a child, that the honors and affection of his father were reserved for the illegitimate line. The boy who would be king was raised in the shadow of another woman’s children. When Pedro was only fifteen, King Alfonso XI died of plague during the siege of Gibraltar. The sudden death of the powerful king left a vacuum — and the long-suppressed queen and her son finally emerged from obscurity.
Do you know that Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York's wife Isabella is likely to have an affair with a man from the Howard family and gave birth to the Earl of Cambridge, Richard? Isabella's will was made with Edmund's consent, which may indicate that although Edmund did not want his property to go to Richard, he did not hate their mother and son. Perhaps they were just colleagues who had to have children together
I'm not quite sure I'm following your ask. I think you're asking about Isabel (or Isabella) of Castile, Duchess of York and the assertion that Richard, Earl of Cambridge was a son born from her adulterous liaison? However, the man she was accused of having an affair with was not a member of the Howard family but John Holland (or Holand), Earl of Huntington. Huntington was the son of Joan of Kent and Thomas Holland and thus half-brother to Richard II. Huntington was married to Elizabeth of Lancaster who was the sister of Henry IV, which would have been made things awkward (to say the least) when Richard II was deposed. Huntington was killed during the Epiphany Rising which aimed to restore Richard to the throne. .
Jenny Stratford recently published work arguing that the affair did not take place and that Cambridge was legitimate, as far as we can tell. I'll talk you through the evidence and her arguments against it below the cut.
Thomas Walsingham's commentary on Isabel
Thomas Walsingham wrote that Isabel was:
A lady of sensual and self-indulgent disposition, she had been worldly and lustful; yet in the end by the grace of Christ, she repented and was converted. By the command of the king she was buried at his manor of Langley with the friars, where, so it is said, the bodies of many traitors had been placed together.
Stratford points out that Walsingham got the date of her death wrong, placing it two years after her death occurred, which suggests he was probably not well-informed about his life. She suggests that the image of emerges from Isabel's will contrasts sharply against the image Walsingham provides:
The duchess herself emerges in a favourable light. In face of her husband’s debts, the arrangement to provide an income for the seven-year-old Richard by transferring to Richard II most of her jewels and plate, her personal chattels, was eminently practical. It limited the possibility of claims by the duke’s creditors, while grants previously made to Isabel were subsequently reassigned to fund the annuity. These provisions seem very unlikely to indicate that young Richard was illegitimate, any more than a gap of twelve years between the age of the oldest and youngest of the duchess’s three living children was necessarily significant. The duke’s will drawn up a decade after Isabel’s death speaks of his devotion to her.
It's also worth noting that Walsingham has something of a reputation for misogyny and for being unreliable - we now know that some of his assertions about Alice Perrers's background are groundless and serve to make her appear worse than she was, while Anna Duch argued that he effectively erased Anne of Bohemia from his account of Richard II's reign. He is also full of vitriol for Agnes Launcekrona and Katherine Swynford so it seems to me that we should treat his claims on women with great scepticism.
John Shirley's comments on Chaucer's Complaint of Mars
Forty years after Isabel's death, a scribe named John Shirley wrote an afterword on Geoffrey Chaucer's Complaint of Mars that linked it to a scandal involving "the lady of York" and John Holland. Connected with Walsingham's commentary, it's generally been taken as evidence that they had an affair.
Stratford argues that the Shirley's commentary is likely a garbled reference to the affair between Constance of York (Isabel's daughter) and Edmund Holland, Earl of Kent (John Holland's nephew) which the resulted in the birth of an illegitimate daughter, Eleanor. Following Kent's death, Eleanor claimed claimed her parents had married clandestinely before Kent married Lucia Visconti and that she was his rightful heir but her claims were rejected. Historians have suggested that Kent might have considering marrying Constance before the revelation that she had been involved in a plot against Henry IV meant he distanced himself from her.
Additionally, J. D. North argued that the astronomical framework contained within Complaint of Mars could have only applied to the year 1385 and aligns it with the beginning of the affair between Elizabeth of Lancaster and Huntington. Elizabeth had been married to John Hastings, heir to the earldom of Pembroke, in 1380 when she was 16 and Hastings was 8. However, the marriage was annulled in 1386 and Elizabeth soon after married Huntington on 24 June 1386. It is frequently asserted that Huntington and Elizabeth had embarked on an affair that resulted in a pregnancy, leading to the hasty annulment of Elizabeth's first marriage and her second marriage to Huntington though it isn't clear when their first child was born, though it was in 1386 or 1387. It may be that John Shirley's reference to the affair between "the lady of York" and Huntington may actually be referring to Huntington's affair with Elizabeth of Lancaster.
It may even be that the reference represents a garbled combination of the two affairs - Constance of York and Edmund Holland, Elizabeth of Lancaster and John Holland - recorded decades later. It might be noteworthy in this regard that Elizabeth and Huntington's first child was also named Constance (both Constances were named after Isabel's sister, Constanza or Constance of Castile), which would add to the confusion).
The wills of Cambridge's father and older brother.
The argument that Richard, Earl of Cambridge was illegitimate is based around the lack of reference to Cambridge in the wills of his father and older brother, where it is assumed that this represents that Cambridge was effectively, though not legally, disowned.
His brother, Edward 2nd Duke of York's will was written after Cambridge had been executed as a traitor for his role in the Southampton Plot. His lack of reference to Cambridge may simply be because Cambridge was dead and could not be a beneficiary. There may have also been concern that any reference to Cambridge, such a request for prayers for his brother's soul, could result in suspicion of Edward's own loyalties. From the surviving evidence, Edward also seems to have had a close relationship with Henry V so Cambridge's treason may well have driven a wedge between the brothers. In short: there are a lot of reasons why Edward might have avoided referencing Cambridge explicitly that were far more relevant to the circumstances his will was written in.
Stratford notes that "a testator may not include all his bequests in his will", which would apply to both Dukes of York. Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York left "nothing in the will to any of his three children" (my emphasis). He did, however, ask to be buried "near his beloved Isabel, formerly his companion". In short, there is no reason to presume Cambridge's exclusion was due to his being informally disowned by his father due to the adultery of his mother. York's will provides no support to the idea that he had a fraught relationship with Isabel, either.
Isabel's will makes special provision for Richard, Earl of Cambridge.
Isabel's will asked Richard II for provide an annuity of 500 marks for Cambridge against the surrender of her jewels and plate until appropriate lands could be found to furnish him with an income. This has led to the belief that Cambridge would not be supported by his father and brother and, in combination with the above, that this was because he was illegitimate.
Most of this is based on the transcript of her will published in Testamenta vetusta, which is a shortened extract of the full document which didn't include Isabel's many bequests to her husband (if you read something that claims Isabel left York nothing, the author is working from the abridged will, not the full text). Stratford's study is on the original will in its full form. As noted in your ask, Isabel required and received the permission of her husband to make this will. Stratford also notes that some of those mentioned in the will are Edmund, Duke of York's officers who also appear in his will, "strongly suggesting that the duke and the leading members of his familia were in full agreement with its provisions". In short, the idea that York was refusing to acknowledge or provide for Cambridge seems somewhat illogical given his involvement and the involvement of his officers in Isabel's will which was primarily concerned with providing for Cambridge.
Stratford argues that what the will represents is an effort by Isabel and York to provide for Cambridge "while protecting as far as possible the incomes of her husband and his heir."
The principal purpose of Isabel’s will was to provide for their youngest child, Richard, then aged seven. Edmund gave his wife full powers to dispose of her horses, jewels, robes, the furnishings of her chamber, and her other chattels. She made a number of bequests, notably including books, but offered the majority of her valuables to Richard II if he would agree to provide her younger son, his godson (filiol), with an income of 500 marks per year for life. If the king did not so wish, Isabel’s oldest son, then earl of Rutland, was invited to do so on the same terms.
At the time Isabel was drawing up her will, York was heavily in debt following his Portuguese expedition, had difficulty obtaining money due to him from the Crown, and didn't have lands commensurate with his status. York's executors were still struggling to pay his debts eight years after his death and when his eldest son died in 1415, the duchy of York remained bankrupt for twenty years. Stratford notes that the money raised by Isabel's jewels and plate would "circumvent claims on the duke by his creditors".
John Holland gave Isabel a gift.
Isabel's will mentions a "sapphire and diamond brooch" given to her by John Holland, Earl of Huntington which has been taken as evidence of their affair. Sometimes she is also said to have been given a gold cup and a chaplet of white flowers by Huntington, though Stratford points out the brooch is the only item actually said to have been given to her by Huntington and is one of three gifts from named donors (the others was a "little" gold tablet given to her by John of Gaunt and a gaming board of jasper from Leo of Armenia).
Firstly, while gifts of jewels to us seem to be strictly or largely romantic gestures, this very much wasn't the case within the Middle Ages, where the exchange of jewels was a normal part of aristocratic life, albeit serving an important function. We know that medieval nobles frequently exchanged gifts, including items they had been given by others, and it is a pure speculation to assume that Isabel "treasured" the brooch or even that she kept it because it was Huntington who had given to her. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that it was identified through the designation as a gift given to her by Huntington.
Secondly, if this is evidence of their affair which produced Cambridge, it's very odd that she didn't leave Huntington's gift to Cambridge but to her eldest son, Edward, who was York's acknowledged son and heir whose legitimacy has never been doubted.
Isabel left bequests to Holland.
Isabel left her Bibles and "the best fillet I have" to John Holland. Some have argued that this is unusual enough because Holland was the only person she gave gifts to who wasn't a "close member" of her family.
Outside of her husband and three children, Isabel also left bequests to Richard II, Anne of Bohemia, John of Gaunt and Eleanor de Bohun, Duchess of Gloucester, and Stratford groups with Eleanor as a member of Isabel's "wider family" and says it is credible they were friends, not lovers. The extent that Holland isn't a "close" member of her family can be debated: he was married to her niece (Elizabeth of Lancaster) and the half-brother of her nephew (Richard II).
Stratford says that Isabel may have made the bequest to Huntington in hope that that he would influence Richard II and John of Gaunt (who was Huntington's father-in-law and and close ally in the 1380s and named as an executor in Isabel's will) to ensure that the annuity she sought for Cambridge would become a reality.
Furthermore, Stratford suggests that the "best fillet" (which was probably a collar) may have been intended for Elizabeth of Lancaster, Huntington's wife. If so, this would rather point away from it being a memento from their affair.
There were a ten-year gap between Cambridge and his siblings.
The other main piece of evidence put forward is the large gap between Constance of York (b. c. 1375) and Cambridge (b. c. 1385). The supposition usually goes that having had two children (Edward, 2nd Duke of York was born c. 1373), Isabel and York had grown tired of each other's company and didn't have sex again, Isabel then embarked on an affair with Huntington that, some ten years after Constance's birth, left her pregnant and York allowed the child to be brought up as his son but refused to provide for him.
The problem with this scenario is that it is effectively a complete invention. The idea that York and Isabel were at odds is based around the idea of the affair and the speculation Cambridge was illegitimate. York never repudiated Isabel nor officially disowned Cambridge as a bastard. There are many possible reasons why there was such a large gap - fertility issues, miscarriages, bad luck, personal decisions, religious reasons (i.e. choosing to adopt a chaste marriage). Constance's birth may have been particularly difficult and York and Isabel decided not to chance sexual intercourse or to use the contraceptive methods available to them only to slip up. It's also possible that they may had other children who died too young to leave evidence behind and that the large gap between children wasn't that large in reality. After all, it seems we know very little about the births of their children, even the years are uncertain.
I know this is all speculative but so is the argument that they fell out. The point is that we don't have evidence to explain why beyond speculation.
Conclusion
A lot of the arguments for the affair based on tenuous links and are often based on the assumption that the affair was a historical fact and that Walsingham's comments on Isabel are an objective and reasonable account of her character. So the evidence that shows us a connection between Isabel and Huntington is often assumed to be evidence of a sexual relationship.
Take the brooch. It seems to be read as the equivalent of a man buying his lover an emerald necklace or diamond earrings. Except we know that the exchange of valuable jewels as gifts was a common aspect of medieval noble life that performed a vital function that very frequently had nothing to do with romantic or sexual feelings. We know, for example, that Henry VI gave Eleanor Cobham a brooch - it does not follow that they were therefore having an affair or that Henry harboured romantic feelings for his aunt.
That the brooch was mentioned in Isabel's will also tells us nothing. We don't know how she felt about it, only that she singled it out to be passed onto her eldest son (not Cambridge). It may be that she wanted him to have it because of he had admired it and, if it was a feminine piece, may have intended to give it onto his wife when he married. It's quite unremarkable that a medieval individual would identify a piece through noting who had given it to them and is not proof of romantic attachment. Isabel also mentioned gifts given to her by John of Gaunt and Leo of Armenia - should we assume she had affairs with them too?
On a similar note: that Isabel left items to Huntington is taken as proof of their romantic liaison. The bequest? Her best fillet (probably a collar, according to Stratford), which may well have been intended for Elizabeth of Lancaster, and her Bibles. They were likely valuable items but hardly proof of romantic involvement - such bequests were very common and would be utterly remarkable without the context of Shirley's commentary on their relationship.
It seems to me that there is good good reason to believe that John Shirley's commentary on Complaint of Mars, written decades after Isabel's death, may not have been about Isabel at all. She isn't named in the commentary and we have no clear, explicit evidence of this affair outside of the commentary itself. I think it was a garbled recollection of either Isabel's daughter, Constance of York's affair with Edmund Holland, Earl of Kent or of John Holland's affair with Elizabeth of Lancaster. We have clear, contemporary evidence of both these affairs - the existence of Constance's and Kent's daughter and this daughter's attempt to inherit Kent's estates, the annulment of Elizabeth's marriage to Hastings and her marriage to Huntington.
The evidence cited as "proof" of their affair is really nothing of the sort. Isabel's will attempted to provide for Cambridge in the face of York's (comparatively) small income and large debts. Huntington was a beneficiary but hardly the only one and not a particularly unusual choice. He gave Isabel a gift that was in keeping with the social custom of their class and time. York's will mentioned none of his children and he did not officially disown Cambridge. The lack of reference to Cambridge in his brother's will is easy to understand given it was written after Cambridge had been executed for treason. We have no real evidence of discontent between Isabel and York - he was obviously involved in the writing of her will and he requested burial with her in his own. Nor is there any account that records discord between them or separation, like we do for John of Gaunt and Constanza of Castile. York was buried with Isabel, as he had requested, and on their joint tomb-monument are Huntington's coat of arms (amongst many others). It seems very strange to me that York was so utterly furious about Isabel's adultery that he refused to provide for Cambridge, forcing Isabel to beg the king to provide for him, yet he chose to be buried with her, he chose as his second bride Huntington's niece, Joan Holland, and he chose to add the coat-of-arms with the man she had betrayed him with on their tomb monument (which was probably constructed sometime between 1393 and 1399). I don't think this picture holds up.
Walsingham did criticise Isabel for being "worldly and lustful" but Walsingham calling a woman a slut is pretty par for the course for him and he got facts of her life wrong. Nor does he report anything she actually did to deserve such a reputation. In others: scepticism is clearly needed. None of this adds up to very much. It isn't until Shirley wrote his commentary, decades later, that we find any reference to their affair. The rest are things that would be entirely unremarkable without Shirley's commentary directing us to see it as a romantic gesture.
Of course, the fact is that we can't prove she didn't have an affair and that Shirley was really referring to a more evidenced scandal. Proving a negative is hard. Even if we located, exhumed and DNA-tested the bodies of Cambridge, York and Huntington, we might confirm that Cambridge was really York's son (or Huntington's or the son of an unknown man) but we wouldn't be able to prove that Isabel didn't have sex with Huntington at some point in her life. We don't have evidence for every single time a medieval individual had sex and so we can't definitively rule out the possibility that an affair did occur. All we can say is the actual surviving evidence doesn't support the narrative that Isabel had an affair.
It's probably worth noting that Kathryn Warner also read Isabel's full will and still accepts the narrative of Isabel's infidelity, though she argues Cambridge should be given the benefit of the doubt where his illegitimacy is concerned. Personally, I find Stratford's reading of the will more credible than Warner's. I don't think the evidence cited as proof of Shirley's claim is actually evidence of an affair but the existence of a typical relationship between medieval nobles working as normal. Warner seems to contradict herself at times* and she doesn't seem to have been interested in questioning whether Isabel did or did not have an affair. I also think Stratford's extensive work on medieval manuscripts and the inventories of John, Duke of Bedford and Richard II lends credence to her claims.
Works Referenced
Jenny Stratford, "The Bequests of Isabel of Castile, 1st Duchess of York, and Chaucer’s ‘Complaint of Mars’", Creativity, Contradictions and Commemoration in the Reign of Richard II: Essays in Honour of Nigel Saul, eds. Jessica A. Lutkin and J. S. Hamilton (The Boydell Press 2022)
Jenny Stratford, "Isabel [Isabella] of Castile, duchess of Yorkunlocked
(1355–1392)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (published 2022, updated 2023)
J. D. North, Chaucer's Universe (Oxford University Press 1988)
James P. Toomey (ed.), "A Household Account of Edward, Duke of York at Hanley Castle, 1409-10", Noble Household Management and Spiritual Discipline in Fifteenth-Century Worcestershire (Worcestershire Historical Society 2013).
John Evans, "XIV. Edmund of Langley and his Tomb", Archaeologia, vol. 46, no. 2, 1881
Kathryn Warner, John of Gaunt: Son of One King, Father of Another (Amberley 2022)
(also looked at the ODNB entries for York, Cambridge, Huntington and Elizabeth of Lancaster).
* After mentioning the brooch given to Isabel by Huntington, Warner states: "Isabel did not not mention other gifts she had received from anyone else". In an earlier chapter, Warner says "The 1392 will of Isabel of Castile, duchess of York and countess of Cambridge, reveals that Levon [Leo of Armenia] gave her a ‘tablet of jasper’ during this visit, which she bequeathed to John of Gaunt". Warner also repeats this within the chapter dealing with Isabel's will: "and ‘a tablet of jasper which the king of Armonie [King Levon of Armenia] gave me’ to John of Gaunt". How can Huntington's brooch be the only gift from anyone mentioned in her will when we've been told (twice) that Isabel's will includes a reference to a tablet of jasper gifted to her by Leo of Armenia? Additionally, Warner's arguments seems to be drawn from the preconceived notion that Isabel did have an affair so any evidence connecting her to Huntington must be evidence of the affair, regardless of how limited the evidence is - this is quite surprising, since it goes against one of her arguments against reading Isabella of France and Roger Mortimer's relationship as a love affair.
So I get a lot of questions about what nobles actually do or how much they own or why a certain title is higher than another. Understanding the complexities of nobility and their hierarchy can be a bit of a head twister but hopefully this will help you out. Just for the moment we will be focusing on European Titles because I can't fit all the titles into one post. Forgive my shitty doodles. The diagrams mark out where the particular noble would rule.
Archduke/Archduchess
These titles have two meanings. In the latter half of the Austrian Empire, it was used to denote senior members of the Royal family such as children and siblings. It is also a non Royal title given to someone who rules an archduchy, a large portion of land with in the kingdom. They are in charge of the archduchy, ensuring it runs smoothly. They are referred to as Your Grace.
Grand Duke/Grand Duchess
The Grand Duke is probably the trickiest of all these titles as there is a dual meaning. A Grand Duke can rule a state as a sovereign like in Luxembourg or they can rule a Grand Duchy (a large portion of land within a kingdom) like the Grand Dukes of Russia. The Grand Duke was below the Archduke and their lands may be smaller. They are in charge of ruling their Grand Duchy, upholding the monarch's laws in their name. They are referred to as Your Grace.
Duke/Duchess
The Duke is the highest rank in most European nations. The Duke rules a large portion of the kingdom- called a Duchy- which you can think of as a county/state. The Duchies are often awarded by the monarch to their children who are not the heir. The Duke is charge with running that portion of land by order of the monarch, handling the over all business of that piece of the Kingdom. Dukes are referred to as Your Grace. There was only one Duke per Duchy.
Marquess/Marchioness
A Marquess is the next rung down from Dukes. The Marquess is in charge of a portion of land within a Duchy which is called a Marsh which lays near a border. The Marquess is solely responsible for the running of that portion of land. The Marquess is called The Most Honourable (Insert name), the Marquess of XYZ. There could be multiple marquesses in a Duchy if it was near a large border.
Earl/Count/Countess/Compte/Comptesse
An Earl/Count Rules over an Earldom, which is a section of a Duchy but it has less importance than a Marsh ruled by the Marquess. The Earl/Count is the third highest ranking within the Duchy. Often it was the subsidiary title of the heir of the Dukedom, so the eldest son/daughter of the Duke would be the Earl. The Earl/Count of X is addressed as Lord X for example, the Earl of Grantham, is called Lord Grantham. There could be multiple Earls/counts per Duchy.
Viscount/Viscountess/Viscompte/Viscomptess
Viscounts are the Earl/Count's second in command, ruling a portion of land with the Earldom. They handled the judiciary matters of their lands and their barons. Viscounts were addressed as the Right Honourable (insert name) Viscount of XY. Viscounts can also be used as a subsidiary title for the son of a Earl. When Thomas Boleyn was made Earl of Wiltshire, his son George was made Viscount Rochford. There might be multiple Viscounts in a Duchy.
Baron/Baroness
The Baron is the lowest of ranks in the nobility pyramid. Before the mid-medieval period, almost all nobles were labelled as Barons. They ruled over a portion of the land under the Duke, the Earl and Viscount. There were always a huge force of barons with in the Duchy. They handled the minor local disputes of their lands, collecting taxes and monies owed. If they faced a larger issue or crime, they would pass it up to the next ranking noble the Viscount and then it could travel all the way up to the Duke. The Baron of Townville were referred to as as Lord Townville.
Margaret of Austria was warmly welcomed in Spain despite a certain clash of cultures. The seventeenth-century Jesuit author Pedro Abarca, in his Reyes de Aragon, wrote that although Margaret was allowed all her habitual servants, freedom and diversions, she was warned not to treat grandees ‘with the familiarity and openness usual with the houses of Austria, Burgundy and France but with the gravity and measured dignity of the kings and realms of Spain’.
Princess Margaret charmed them all with her wit, intelligence and looks, especially the eighteen-year-old John, who fell passionately in love with her. The wedding ceremony took place on 3 April 1497 in Burgos Cathedral. Six months later Prince John was dead of an unspecified wasting illness, although some attributed his waning strength to the ardour of the young couple. Pedro Martir had written to Queen Isabella in July suggesting that they should not be allowed to spend so much time together, but this advice had not been taken.
Margaret had become pregnant early on in the marriage but she miscarried her child and plunged into intense grief. Her court poet Jean Lemaire, in Couronne Margaritique, later wrote that she endured a labour of twelve days and nights without food or sleep. Margaret told her father that Queen Isabella never left her and that she would have died were it not for her mother-in-law’s care. Ferdinand and Isabella wrote to Maximilian that Margaret was ‘as strong and full of courage as you would wish her to be and we try to console her . . . we have and will have as much care of her as we would have if her husband were alive’.
Margaret of Austria now had no real role in Spain, any more than she had had in France after Charles VIII abandoned her. Again, however, Margaret stayed for a time in her new country. After her husband's death Margaret became so popular that she was often obliged to wait in the fields under the shade of the olives till night fell, as she dared not enter the towns and cities by day, because the people pressed with affectionate tumult round her litter to see her face, crying aloud that they wished for her alone, for their lady and princess.
Her departure was delayed while her father-in-law and her father haggled over her dowry, her future marriage possibilities, her best deployment in the ongoing tug-of-war with France, and finally over the route and timing of her journey. But early in 1499 – crossing by land the France of which she had once been called queen – she returned to Flanders. Nineteen years old and once again cheated of married life.
Isabella of Castile and Margaret of Austria
Sources:
Sylvia Barbara Soberton, Golden Age Ladies: Women Who Shaped the Courts of Henry VIII and Francis I
Amy Licence, Catherine of Aragon: An Intimate Life of Henry VIII's True Wife
Eleanor E. Tremayne, The First Governess of the Netherlands Margaret of Austria
19 June 2014 | Princess Leonor, Princess of Asturias, King Felipe VI of Spain, Queen Letizia of Spain and Princess Sofía appear at the balcony of the Royal Palace during the King's official coronation ceremony in Madrid, Spain. The coronation of King Felipe VI is held in Madrid. His father, the former King Juan Carlos of Spain abdicated on June 2nd after a 39 year reign. The new King is joined by his wife Queen Letizia of Spain. (c) Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
This is labelled there as unknown lady! When it is clearly Mary I as princess. Pri.Agl. Agl like Angliae?-latin for England
It is definitely her cross pendant with three pearls hanging, clearly her face, and she also tended to hold her hands this way in many portraits.
But obviously this is a copy and it has some innacuracies, few addons as well. Especially shape of her black dress seems off, as if somebody decided to just make up shape of her torso from scratch.
This is how i would imagine it was meant to look like:
Perhaps with black cloth girdle, hidden around waist by hands.
I looked further and italian webpage to do with same 2021 auction, has actually labelled it as RITRATTO DI MARIA I TUDOR.
Portrait of Mary I Tudor. I take it back, they know who it is!
I searched for Mary's portraits in Spain, Austria, Netherlands, USA...but Italy really nope...but that is my mistake. The assumption that portrait in 500 years couldnt travel to completely different part of Europe is simply unwise of me.
PS: Have you ever seen this one before, am i only one unaware of it?
Danish Royal Family - A portrait of then Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark before he headed to Christiansborg Palace early to become King. (Photo taken by Dennis Stenild) | January 14, 2024
