Royals, people of power during the Black Death? : history
Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Log insign up
3

Royals, people of power during the Black Death?

3
Posted by1 year ago
Archived

Royals, people of power during the Black Death?

I've always been interested in the actions of royals throughout history, but there's surprisingly little information I was able to find. Especially about the Black Plague.

So my question is, how did it affect them? How did they respond? Were any royals lost to the plague? Among others.

4 comments
64% Upvoted
This thread is archived
New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast
Sort by
level 1
11 points · 1 year ago · edited 1 year ago

Here's a list of Asian and European royalty and prominent people who died of the first and most destructive wave of Bubonic plague and the effects that it had on politics.

  • Abu Sa'id Bahadur Khan: The Ilkhanate disintegrated after his death and bought civil war among rival claimants.

  • Alfonso XI of Castile: His wife took over as regent for their teenage son, Pedro, and had her husband's mistress, Leonor Núñez de Guzmán, put to death. This laid the groundwork for bad relations between Pedro and his half-brothers.

  • Erik XII of Sweden: His death without children meant that his brother, Haakon VI, became the king of Norway and Sweden.

  • Eudes IV, Duc de Bourgogne and his sister, Jeanne de Bourgogne, queen consort of France: Extremely bad news for Philippe VI of France as his wife and brother-in-law were two of his most stalwart supporters despite his humiliating loss at the Battle of Crécy. Jeanne's death caused him to seek a new bride, that alienated his sons and nobles. Eudes

  • Jeanne II of Navarre: Launched the career of her unscrupulous son, Charles II of Navarre. His refusal to pay the dowry of one of his sisters, Agnes, led to the breakdown of her marriage to Gaston III, Count of Foix. This led to the marriage being unhappy, them having only son, and said son later being killed by his own father after trying to poison him at the instigation of his maternal uncle, Charles. Charles' other antics are too long to elaborate on here, but they had a vast effect on the politics of France, England, Aragon, and Castile.

  • Jitka of Luxembourg, Duchesse consort of Normandie: Her husband remarried to Jeanne I of Auvergne and became the stepfather of her son, the duc de Bourgogne.

  • Joan of England: The would-be marriage alliance between England and Castile collapsed. Pedro I of Castile instead later married Blanche de Bourbon and his mistreatment of her led the French to back his half-brothers.

  • Leonor of Portugal, Queen consort of Aragon: Her husband, Pere IV, quickly remarried to Elionor of Sicily.

  • Margaret Wake, 3rd Baroness Wake of Liddell: Her title passed to her son, John, and after his death in 1352 to her daughter, Joan of Kent.

  • Pere II of Sicily (Maybe?) and his brother, Joan, Duke of Randazzo: Pere's son was still a toddler and Joan became regent. After the latter also died, civil war quickly broke out. In 1354, the king of Naples took advantage of the situation and invaded.

  • Yuan dynasty: Not directly, mind you, but plague on top of droughts, floods, and famine helped lead to the Red Turban Rebellion, which meant the overthrow of their dynasty by the Ming.


Later recurrences of the plague also killed:

  • Anna of Bohemia, Queen consort of England: Richard II became more unstable after Anna's death, which led to him eventually being overthrown.

  • Duarte, King of Portugal: He left his wife as regent for their young son, which provoked revolt.

  • Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March: The Mortimer Earls of March became extinct and his title and claim to the English throne passed to his nephew, Richard, 3rd Duke of York. Richard later used this claim during the Wars of the Roses and was unable to make good on it, though, his own eldest son, Edward IV, did.

  • Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond: His wife, Margaret Beaufort, was left a thirteen-year-old widow. The Lancastrian cause also lost a supporter.

  • Edward of Angoulême: Made Richard II of England the heir apparent to his ailing father and grandfather. It's almost impossible to say what kind of king Edward would have made since he died so young, but it is an interesting thought.

  • Elisabeth of Carinthia and her children, Lluís I and Constança of Sicily: The throne passed to Elisabeth's youngest son, Frederic III, who had a unremarkable reign other than restricting the rights of Jews.

  • Enguerrand VII, seigneur de Coucy: His daughter (by his first wife) and second wife began a fierce battle over the succession rights to his estate.

  • George Douglas, 1st Earl of Angus: Um, well... Saved his family the expense of ransoming him from the English? Yeah, let's go with that.

  • George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Bedford: Edward IV of England was left with only two surviving sons.

  • Gruffudd ab Owain Glyndŵr: The English had one less son of Owain Glyndŵr to worry about.

  • Henry de Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster and his wife, Isabel de Beaumont: His lands were inherited by his two daughters. After the death of his elder daughter, Maud, his vast possessions were inherited solely by his younger daughter, Blanche, and her husband, John of Gaunt.

  • Hunyadi János: Never managed to capitalize on the renown that his defeat of the Turks had brought, though his sons did.

  • Louis I of Naples: His wife, Jeanne I of Naples, became queen in her own right again.

  • Al-Mansur Ali bin Salah ad-Din, Imam of Yemen, and his son, an-Nasir Muhammad: The title of Imam of Yemen was claimed by three different candidates.

  • Marguerite of Durazzo, Queen consort of Naples: She had already retired from politics, so not much of an effect.

  • Maria, Queen of Sicily: Her husband became the sole king of Sicily and remarried to Zuria of Navarre.

  • Philippa of Lancaster, Queen consort of Portugal: Her husband and children greatly mourned her death, but otherwise... IDK.

  • Philippe I, Duc de Bourgogne: (maybe; he also could have died of a horse riding accident) Jean II of France claimed the duchy as the son of Philippe's great-aunt. It was later inherited by Jean's favorite son, Philippe le Hardi, who married the heiress of the comte of Flanders and controlled some of the wealthiest regions in France and the Holy Roman Empire.

  • Simeon of Moscow and his two surviving sons: The Grand Duchy of Moscow passed to Simeon's brother, Ivan II, a rather lackluster ruler.

  • Swantibor V, Duke of Pomerania-Stettin and his brother, Ertmar: Their father was left without heirs and the War of the Succession of Stettin began between the Dukes of Pomerania-Wolgast and the Brandenburgs. The Dukes of Pomerania-Wolgast successfully gained the title but had to acknowledge the Brandeburgs as suzerains.

  • Thomas de Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick: Thomas was one of the great English commanders during the Hundred Years' War and his death was a major blow to the English. John Chandos, another great English war leader, died a month later and the English war effort faltered.

level 1
1 point · 1 year ago

The framing story of the famous early work of stories "The Decammeron" are Italian nobility who have fled the black death in the city to take shelter in the country.

They tell each other stories to pass the time.

level 1
1 point · 1 year ago

The English court moved away from plague infested areas.

More posts from the history community
12.8k
Posted by2 days ago
Comments are locked

I am a retired pediatrician and my family’s oral historian. For more than 200 years, we have been reminded “Always remember—you’re a Madison. You come from African slaves and a president.” This guiding statement is intended to be inspiring, but, for me, it echoed with the abuses of slavery, so in 1990, I began a journey of discovery—of my ancestors, our nation, and myself. I traveled to Lagos, Portugal, where the transatlantic slave trade began, to a slave castle in Ghana, West Africa, where kidnapped Africans were held before being shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, to Baltimore, Maryland, where a replica of a slave ship sits in a museum, to James Madison’s plantation in Virginia, where my ancestors were first enslaved on American soil, and to central Texas, where they were emancipated on the first Juneteenth. I learned that wherever slaves once walked, history tried to erase their footsteps but that slaves were remarkable people who used their inner strength and many talents to contribute mightily to America, and the world.

  • Website: www.BettyeKearse.com

  • Facebook: facebook.com/bettyekearse

  • Twitter: @BettyeKearse

  • LinkedIn: linked.com/in/bettye_kearse

Proof: https://i.redd.it/5uymy7w3l6i51.jpg

12.8k
384 comments
2.8k
Posted by1 day ago

Watching the first ten minutes of the movie Glory, surgeons in a field hospital were cutting a soldier's leg off while he was fully awake and screaming. Was this common practice and if so, why? Were there no readily available anasthetics in those days, or was this depiction embellished for modern movies?

2.8k
468 comments
2.0k
Posted by6 days ago

This question has been floating in the back of my mind for a while, and I’ve finally decided to look into it. But out of all my google searches I can’t really find a definitive answer.

In all the illustrations and pictures I’ve seen from pre-20tg century Japan, I’ve literally never seen closed toed shoes such as boots, only sandals, sometimes with socks.

Originally, I thought nothing of it, just a cultural difference, but then I saw illustrations of traditional samurai, all of which were decked out in heavy armor from head to.... ankle. No illustration or physical evidence of samurai that I’ve seen ever show them wearing closed toed shoes, something you’d think would be very important to have on an open battlefield.

So what’s the reason for this? Closed toed shoes aren’t that difficult to make, especially in comparison to some of the more elaborate designs of samurai armor I’ve seen. So why were closed toed shoes and the like so non existent in pictures and illustrations?

2.0k
206 comments
1.6k
Posted by4 days ago

I am absolutely disappointed. Why is it always the WW2 documentaries that are so willing to accept myths over historical accuracy? You know, a deep voiced English accent having narrator retelling the story of Enemy at the gates rather than what actually happened? This is unfortunately what happened with this documentary even though they cover WW2 in only one episode smh.

The episode about WW1 was interesting, learnt some new things (funny how Germany could barely affort 10 tanks and the US comes in and by the way orders thousands of FTs) but the episode about WW2 is absolutely disappointing. I don't know about you guys but to me the most interesting age of tanks is WW2 and the documentary only does one episode? ugh... Anyway, I was excited to hear something new, to learn something but nope. It was another limelight show for the Tiger and the t-34. Anything about the Czechoslovakian panzer t? Nope. Anything about the KV tanks? Nope even though they were the real hurdle for panzer divisions in the invasion of Russia. The documentary covers in detail only the Tiger, the t-34 and the Sherman with an honourable mention for the char b1. Half the tanks Germany invaded with were panzer 1 and 2s which could get easily penetrated by the shittiest bt model but no let's look at the Tiger again which wasn't even developed yet. Anything about anti-tank weapons, nope, even though they account for the most tank kills of the German armed forces.

The documentary is absolutely lacking in detail.

1.6k
310 comments
1.2k
Posted by3 days ago

I was reading about the storming of Badajoz in 1812, where British troops under the Duke of Wellington captured the castle. The battle was one of the bloodiest of the peninsular wars and the British lost many of their own in the attack. Enraged at this, they broke into houses, looted everything in sight and raped hundreds of Spanish civilians.

I'm curious as to what the factors are that lead to circumstances like this, because in my knowledge, the soldiers under Wellington were some of the most elite and well trained of the time. And I don't imagine the British considered the Spanish civilians in poor regard or anything.

1.2k
461 comments
831
Posted by4 days ago

I asked this on r/askhistorians and got no response, so I thought I’d try here. Given how little respect the US seemed to have for them, it seems odd to turn around and name states in their native languages. What was the reasoning behind it, were they trying to “make things right?” Were they named by the Native Americans themselves? Was there any backlash about it?

831
319 comments
723
Posted by4 days ago
Moderator of r/history

Do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!

To be clear:

  • Questions need to be historical in nature.

  • Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke.

723
557 comments
34
Posted by1 day ago
34
6 comments
Continue browsing in r/history
/r/History is a place for discussions about history. Feel free to submit interesting articles, tell us about this cool book you just read, or start a discussion about who everyone's favorite figure of minor French nobility is! ------------------------------------------------------------ This is a somewhat more serious subreddit compared to many others. Make sure to familiarize yourself with our rules and guidelines before participating. Thanks!
15.1m

Members

1.9k

Online


Created Jan 25, 2008