History of Medieval England - Thursday 6th Period:Discussion 5: Royal Infighting in the 12th Century

[prof-methos.livejournal.com]

Professor Pierson stands at the front of the class and launches right into the discussion...

[[OOC: OCD threads are coming up!!]]

Don't forget to sign up for your part in the trial.

Comments

Re: QUESTION 1: Stephan and Matilda

[aka-vala.livejournal.com]

"I can't see how. I'd think you'd just have to work at making sure the most capable person was put in charge. Maybe by giving up on the straight bloodline sucession and having each ruler pick a protege while still alive to suceed them when they died like seemed to work really well for the Romans in next week's Western Civ lecture, which I actually learned a lot in writing up.

"You know, pick your brightest young person, teach them the job, and then adopt them or at leat make it clear to everyone that they were next in line. Because just betting that your oldest son will be the best choice is is no basis for a system of government! pretty much a gamble, right? Not to mention if they end up fighting a stupid civil war just because there was no handy son around."

Re: QUESTION 1: Stephan and Matilda

[prof-methos.livejournal.com]

Methos grinned wryly at her. "A lot of people at the time quite agreed with you. The irony was there was a blood heir who was extremely capable. Henry I's bastard son Robert of Gloucester was a well-respected man at court and in the country. Considering that Henry I's own father was illegitimate, it makes very little sense to historians why Henry did not simply name Robert his heir when Henry's legitimate son died.

"To give Robert credit, he fought tirelessly on behalf of his half-sister Matilda, and was one of the few that never switched sides."

Re: QUESTION 1: Stephan and Matilda

[aka-vala.livejournal.com]

"Well then that's just stupid on henry's part. I suppose you have to have someone bright on the throne in the first place to kick things off, huh?"