So one of Margaret's closest friends and confidants will wed the future Earl of Arundel that was the historical guy who along with his companions took the power from Edward II and banished Gaveston, while Gaveston himself will arrive soon in this story...
Yep.
Edmund Fitzalan, 2nd Earl of Arundel - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
VV (rip) when I asked if he thought Edmund could marry a Scottish lady, he said "Yeah. Mary Bruce would be a good candidate" without me mentioning her by name, so you know he approves, wherever he is now.
Well I’m sure that this can only end up well 🙃
Sigh… I miss him too. The marriage is sensible yeahEdmund Fitzalan, 2nd Earl of Arundel - Wikipedia
VV (rip) when I asked if he thought Edmund could marry a Scottish lady, he said "Yeah. Mary Bruce would be a good candidate" without me mentioning her by name, so you know he approves, wherever he is now.
Good chapter @pandizzy. We cannot have the issues of OTL between Edward II and Piers Gaveston, no favoritism for him, the only favorite Edward needs is Queen Margaret 😤😤😤.
Whether favouritism is an issue depends entirely on what the king himself does. Having his own CoA displayed at the king’s wedding instead of the queen’s was simply impossible unless the King himself was alright with it. A king needs a creature of his own in order to have a personal enforcer. It’s problem though if said enforcer who is meant to solve problems for you turns into a problem instead due to outrageous behaviour. As long as Edward is sensible with how much love he showers Gaveston,and reigns him in when he crosses the line, it might not turn out the way it did. If Edward himself was the problem all along, there could easily be a Piers De Bruce, Piers Neville, Piers de Beauchamp etc.Different person, same result. Which was the case with the replacement of Gaveston with the Despensers.It’s also worthwhile to note that a corrupt minister under an incompetent king may turn out to be a hyper-competent minister under a competent king, vice versa.
Will you still miss him when you find out he told me Edouard and Margaret's children should be known as 'of Wales' while their dad isn't king of England yet?
Yeah, I would… Although it’s not the most fortunate take that one
But when Ned does become king i assume the kids will be known as "of England and Scotland"
Ahem. Joanna I of Castile and Philip of Austria's children were named 'of Austria', even the one born during her mother's reign, baby Catherine.
There is a case to be had that they should be known as 'of England' since that's where their paternal grandfather rules (Philip of Austria, for example, never ruled Austria himself since first his grandfather than his father were alive and Maximilian outlived his only son). But VV said it should be either 'of Wales' or 'of England' beyond the whole 'of Birthplace' in which case it should be of Edinburgh, for example, for a child born in Edinburgh.
I agree. Either birthplace - John of Gaunt, for example, or father's title - of Wales for the Prince of Wales 's children. Just think of George, Charlotte and Louis when the Queen died. They went through three appellations in a day!
There is a difference between the house (always the paternal one) and the title…
When was 'Of Aragon' used as a house name for Catherine of Aragon and her siblings. The family was from Castile.
All the male line descendants of Ferdinand I of Aragon used the “of Aragon” as house name (like the descendants of Alfonso V of Aragon in Naples, illegitimate but recognized, who were all “of Aragon“ or “of Aragon - x” not “of Castile” or “Trastamara”).
