OMG… did you see that Team Rosalie is almost as big as TE and TJ!?…

Re Eleanor of Aquitaine, I’m halfway through When Christ and His Saints Slept at the moment and looking forward to meeting her there!

Miss Moppet, you are bookmarked!!! Entertainment and Games, the lightest batch of the lot, so I won’t lose you! I haven’t laughed this hard in forever — trying get teacher certification and trying to find out stuff about poor Ingeborg at the same time will do that to a woman. So did Lady Moppet get that drink with John?

Sharon, you’re portraying medieval women realistically. This is one of the things I so appreciate about your writing. Eleanor of Aquitaine was a most singular person. For us to think that the medieval period was populated by hordes of women just like her is completely fantastical. Even Joanna was not as courageous as her grandmother, else she wouldn’t have shook like a leaf after burning Llewelyn’s bed.

As for Berenguela’s physical attractiveness, no man besides her husband was likely to have ever seen enough of her physique to really judge her beauty. In an era when women were clothed from neck to ankles, and often covered their heads and throats with veils and wimples, physical beauty would be judged by movement, voice, hands, eyes and smile. I think too that most medieval monks would have been more impressed by a woman’s piety as a measure of beauty.

Writers like Sharon (and me, hopefully??) depend on their research into the available history of the events of which they write. Much of this history can be proven as pretty much ‘fact’ from researching the various independent sources (chronicles) which write of the period in question, some of which can be cross referenced. There are however, many sources that are based on ‘word-of-mouth’ stories handed down through the generations, including poems and minstrel’s tales.

I think, in an attempt to debunk too literal a following of these ‘word-of-mouth’ stories of the past, but without denigrating their value as historically valuable that I posted the following:

‘Word-of-mouth’ tales, like all stories that are ‘passed down’ through the ages with all the embellishments that they have incorporated with each telling, have to be taken with a little pinch of salt!

I lived in Africa for over 30 years. African history, from whatever tribe, is all by word of mouth, as they have no written records of events. Do you think that after multi -generations the original event is accurately told today?

Taking ourselves as an example. The Bible of the 21st century that we have today has passed through how many translations, interpretations, and slant by so called leaders of the Christian faith, be they Catholic, Greek Orthodox or Protestant? Do you think that the modern version can be believed as the authentic word of God and not that of often corrupt and prejudiced men??

Same with the Chronicles. How much dependency can be placed on those Chroniclers who were in the pay of a particular Monarch or Archbishop, writing ‘history’ as their employer wished it? Possibly, the only true record can come from the expenditure Rolls, which record the actual expenditure of the royal court and, sometimes, why the money was spent!

Very difficult for us who follow to discover the real truth in all this. I try, however, to limit myself to what can be’ proven,’ by comparing different chronicler’s interpretations of the same events and from reading the books of Historians, much more learned than I.

None of this is meant as a criticism. I am new to the art (science?) of historical research, but already, I have found so much conflicting ‘evidence,’ that I have become something of a sceptic. This scepticism is somewhat amplified when reading ‘word-of-mouth’ history from over 700 years ago!

Same with the Chronicles. How much dependency can be placed on those Chroniclers who were in the pay of a particular Monarch or Archbishop, writing ‘history’ as their employer wished it? Possibly, the only true record can come from the expenditure Rolls, which, written by poor clerks, recorded the actual expenditure of the royal court and, sometimes, why the money was spent!

Very difficult for us who follow to discoverthe real truth in all this.I try, however, to limit myself to what can be best ‘ proven,’ by comparing different chronicler’s interpretations of the same events and from reading the books of Historians, much more learned than I.

None of this is meant as a criticism of your post. I am new to the art (science?) of historical research, but already I have found so much conflicting ‘evidence,’ that I have become something of a sceptic!! This scepticism iis amplified somewhat, when reading history based on ‘word-of-mouth’!