The Late Century French Noble Constructed By Odo Of Cluny

However, an argument contradicting this idea lies in the persona of Richard, Duke of York, who was the King’s closest adult male relative and the most famous and influential of the great magnates in 1450. Also before 1453 York was heir presumptive. He was descended from Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York and fourth son of Edward III on his father’s side. On his mother’s side he was descended from Lionel of Clarence, Edward’s second son. York’s close blood relationship to the king could admit him to the throne. Not only did he claim the descent from King Edward III, but also claimed to the throne. The Battle of St. Albans is the straightforward proof of it. He evidently felt that he had a sense of duty and a right to play a fundamental role in government. Richard was an obvious threat to Henry’s kingship: unlike the last one he was a competent politician, a distinct warrior and a father of healthy sons. In other words, his power of personality harmonized his goal, which by 1450s, had come to embrace the crown of England.

Literature of the Middle Ages can not be discussed without acknowledging the undeniable importance of chivalry. Chivalry in relation to the middle ages is defined as “the code of conduct adhered to by Medieval knights with gallant knightly values including honor, bravery, courteousness and honesty.” This key characteristic is essential in defining an ideal knight as well as his expectations. A knight must live by a chivalric code in which he becomes indebted to the people, his fellow knights, and most importantly, his lord. No other knight displayed more of a devotion to upholding the code then Lanval of Marie de France’s lai “Lanval.” Lanval demonstrates his chivalric nature in essential every action from maintaining comitatus amongst the

Richard’s political ambition is revealed through his strategic calculations based on the order of birth in his York family which puts him third away from the throne. Ahead of him is his elder brother, George Clarence, a barrier which will have to eradicate. His brother, King Edward, is another political barrier, by simply being alive, in power and equally by being the father of the two young princes . Richard’s creates a political mistrust between his two

A successful monarchy relies upon a stable leader who is concerned with the satisfaction of those he rules over. Henry Bolingbroke the IV in Shakespeare's Henry the IV Part I follows a trend set by his predecessor in Richard II of self-indulgence and neglect of his kingdom. These leaders worry about the possibility of losing their kingdom or their soldiers to other nobles who were also concerned more with obtaining a higher position rather than governing. The king must also be wary of his own life, something that was once revered and guarded closely by other nobles. Wars once fought for gaining or protecting land are overshadowed by personal battles fighting for the position of king.

Even though they associate themselves through contradictory manners, they demonstrate what a prince should avoid when ruling. After receiving the crown, Macbeth rules with characteristics that belong to a tyrant which created fear in his people. In Act 3, Scene 6, Lennox refers to MacBeth as a tyrant, “His presence at the tyrant’s feast” (Shakespeare 115). At this point, the lords have become to hate him. This foreshadows his downfall according to Machiavelli, “...one of the most efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people, for he who conspires against a prince always expects to please the by his removal” (1). He can also be compared to Antoninus, a Roman emperor who killed so many people that in return he was killed. A prince who commits “such-like deaths, which are deliberately inflicted with a resolved and desperate courage, cannot be avoided...because any one who does not fear to die can inflict them”(4). This suggested by Machiavelli that he should rule so that his state respects him with a healthy dose of fear but has surpassed that showing the lordes resentment.

During this period in French history, the nobility was starting to gain power and prestige, and this power presented the king with a problem: he needed to have strong nobles to strengthen his realm by extension. However, he still had to maintain power and his position of supremacy. Richelieu posits that the king must maintain a firm system of punishments and rewards:”Punishments and rewards are two quite necessary elements in the conduct of states. It is an ordinary allegation, but more true, and often repeated by all men, that rewards and punishments are the two most important tools of government available in a realm.” This system played on the honor obsession the nobility had, and strengthened the kingship at the same time. If one helped the king, they were rewarded with more honor and a higher position; if they resisted, they lost everything. This strengthened the kingship as well. Those he rewarded would be assets to the kingdom, while those he punished would serve as warnings to those who considered resisting.

King Henry IV must also contend with his son, Prince Hal, who’s not the honorable prince he had hoped him to be. He feels it is “an honorable spoil” not to have “a son who is the theme of honor’s tongue,” when he learns of Northumberland’s son Hotspur’s victories, which, should be “a conquest for a prince to boast of” (1.1.74,80, & 76). Pangs of jealousy strike Henry’s heart caused by the differences between his son and Northumberland’s. So much so, he wishes “it could be proved that” someone, or something, “had exchanged in cradle clothes, their sons at birth” (1.1.85-87).

In the Medieval Period, knights dedicated their lives to following the code of chivalry. In Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur, a number of characters performed chivalrous acts to achieve the status of an ideal knight. Their characteristics of respect for women and courtesy for all, helpfulness to the weak, honor, and skill in battle made the characters King Arthur, King Pellinore, and Sir Gryfflette examples of a what knights strove to be like in Medieval society. Because of the examples ofchivalry, Le Morte d’Arthur showed what a knight desired to be, so he could improve theworld in which he lived.

In King Lear, Shakespeare portrays a society whose emphasis on social class results in a strict social hierarchy fueled by the unceasing desire to improve one’s social status. It is this desire for improved social status that led to the unintentional deterioration of the social hierarchy in King Lear. This desire becomes so great that Edmund, Goneril, Reagan and Cornwall were willing to act contrary to the authority of the social hierarchy for the betterment of their own position within it. As the plot unfolds, the actions of the aforementioned characters get progressively more desperate and destructive as they realize their lack of success in attaining their personal goals. The goals vary, however the selfish motivation does not. With

Pierre de La Primaudaye thought nobility needed self-worth before such nobility were to even be inherited; he said you need to contribute to the family name [Doc 2]. Villagers of Mondeville in a testimony to the Parlement that nobility isn’t a perfect breed they shouldn’t hold such prestige over other people, saying that Pierre Morin believed his noble status gives him the right to mistreat anyone who is not royal or noble [Doc 3]. Henry, Prince of Condé spoke about the current nobility buying their way into offices, saying that there is no reward for virtue or tradition of family since all power now belongs to favors, alliances, kinship, and money [Doc 4].

The French Nobility has been around since the beginning of the Roman Empire. Similar to the Romans, the French organized their state around the nobility and the clergy, not taking into account the massive amount of commoners. The Third Estate was finally created centuries later to help bring order and give common people their own place within society. Charles Loyseau and Isabelle de Charriere are two prime sources that compare French nobility during the 17th and 18th century, leading up to the French Revolution. Charles Loyseau, both a jurist and legal scholar evaluates French society in his writing A Treatise on Orders. In the writing of his treatise, Loyseau describes the “social anatomy of France” in an

The idea of social status is one that assumes a pivotal role in Middle Age European culture. Social status was, in essence, a tool used by society to differentiate and label the population into their appropriate classes. Therefore, the elite would mingle with other members of their class, and the poor would associate themselves with other poor people. Social status had almost a sacred aura surrounding it. Obtainable only by rite of birth, it was not given out nor obtained overnight. Everyone respected the caste system and one’s position in it, and because of the respect for social status, the nobles received the respect of other noblemen, middle class merchants, peasants, and anyone

This line of examination, however, raises the question of how one actually defines noble merit or what merits one to be considered part of the nobility. Loyseau visits history in order to gain context on the situation. He notes that at the formation of the Kingdom, two distinct groups were present who translate to the nobility and commoner distinction. These were the Franks and Gauls according to Loyseau and the

Richard II is an authoritative and greedy king of England, and he is living in a period of transition that medieval knights who are swearing total loyalty to a king has been disappearing and an aristocracy starts to gain a power for their own good. However, Richard II keeps believing the power of kingship, and he also is too confident himself. He overestimates his authority and power; furthermore, he ignores the periodical change. Therefore, he speaks confidently how firm his position as king is to the people in Wales, but his attitude changes when he suffers a defeat by Henry Bolingbroke that he

In the opening scenes, Shakespeare displays to his audience the affluent society of Illyria, where aristocracy is its major component, festivity is the social norm, and leisure is the way of life. Orsino and Olivia, elegant and wealthy members of the nobility, are at the center of people’s discussion—they seek love; Sir Toby and Sir Andrew, the rich knights ranked high in the social hierarchy, “care not for good life” (II.iii.34)—they seek pleasure. However, the Illyrian society of aristocratic customs and sense of licence is established upon the laborious work of those who are excluded from the indulgence in festivity, and whose financial ability and social status do not afford this social liberation.