History: King Philippe IV of France; a turning-point in French history

King Philippe IV was one of the most energetic mediaeval kings of France, but also one of the most controversial, and, in terms of his impact on the history of his country, could be considered one of the most disastrous.

   He came to the throne in 1285 whilst still a teenager, succeeding his rather insignificant father, who had been completely overshadowed by his own illustrious father, the famous Louis IX, Saint Louis, the mighty crusader, and the only French monarch ever to be canonised. But Philippe IV was an entirely different character, whose reign would be dominated by a series of violent and sensational events.

  Philippe's main problem was that he was eternally short of money, which led to some of the most crucial events of his reign. In 1296 he levied a tax on the French clergy, leading to a confrontation with the Pope, Boniface VIII, a scholarly but domineering and aggressive personality. In 1303 Boniface issued the decree "Unam sanctum", which specified that unconditional submission to the papacy was absolutely necessary for salvation, and prepared to excommunicate Philippe himself. This could not be tolerated, and that September a French force led by Philippe's leading minister Guillaume de Nogaret arested Benedict at his home in Anagni outside Rome. Popular protests soon freed the Pope, but Boniface did not recover from the ordeal and died soon afterwards. (The great poet Dante detested Boniface, and in his "Inferno", written at the time, condemned him to hellfire)

  The next Pope Benedict XI, was dead within a year, following which a Frenchman, Bertrand de Got, was elected Pope as Clement V. But he never set foot in Rome, eventually settling in Avignon, and at no stage showed himself strong enough to stand up to King Philippe. For most of the century, all the Popes were Frenchmen, living in Avignon rather than Rome.

  King Phippe's financial worries continued. In 1306 he suddenly turned against the Jewish community, seizing their wealth and expelling them all from France. But his next step was to prove enormously controversial.

  The Templar Knights were a vastly wealthy Order, but seemed to lack any clear function after the final loss of the Holy Land to the Moslems. In 1307, in a sudden coup, all the Templars in France were arrested and accused of a variety of offences ranginng from sodomy to devil-worship, and their riches seized. Interrogation under violent torture organised by Nogaret soon produced a series of confessions, including from Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master of the Order. Many of the kings of Europe were quick to follow Philiipe's example. Edward II of England was initially doubtful about the confessions, but was told that was because he wasn't torturing them enough! Pope Clement must also have had his doubts, but made not the slightest effort to save the Templars. 

  In March 1314 Jacques de Molay and another leading Templar, Geoffrey de Charnay, were put on display in Paris to make a full public confession of their crimes; but, doubtless to Philippe's surprise, they revoked their earlier confessions and proclaimed that all the charges were false and the Knights entirely innocent. This could not be tolerated, and so a few days later the two Templars were burnt at the stake in the centre of Paris. It was said that, from the flames, Jacques de Molay cursed King Philippe, prophesying that the king, the Pope and Nogaret would all die within the year, and that Philippe's line would soon come to an end.

  But before that could happen, the French court was shaken by a most appalling scandal. King Philippe had three married sons; Louis, Philippe and Charles; and now two of his daughters-in-law were convicted of adultery! (The third, Philippe's wife, was found guilty only of assisting them). The girls were sentenced to life imprisonment, and their lovers, two young squires, were hideously executed. 

People must have wondered whether the curse of the Templars was already operating, and this suspicion could only have grown when Nogaret, Pope Clement and finally King Philippe himself all died before the year was out. The King was only 46 years old. And now things got far worse.    

    Ever since the beginning of the monarchy under the Capetian family. three centuries earlier, the throne of France had always passed seamlessly from father to eldest son, and this dynastic stability had enabled the kings to centralise the government and increase royal prestige, check the power of the great nobles and defend the country against invaders. King Phillipe would have expected this to continue, since he left three grownup sons. But as it happened, Louis, Philippe and Charles each reigned briefly in turn and all had died by 1328, without any of them managing to produce a surviving male heir, though there were daughters. So what should be done? 

   The great nobles of France assembled to find a solution. Lawyers conveniently discovered an ancient tradition that they called the "Salic Law", dating from the Dark Ages, that no woman could succeed to the throne. Therefore it was decided to pass the kingship to a cousin, the Count of Valois, who now succeeded as Philippe VI, thereby founding the Valois dynasty.

But Philippe IV had also had a daughter, Isabella, who had been used as a diplomatic tool to help patch up a prolonged dispute with King Edward I of England by marrying Isabella to his son and heir, who succeeded as Edward II in 1307. But Edward proved to be useless as a king (most famously being defeated by the Scots at Bannockburn in 1314), and also appears to have been bisexual; allowing great wealth and power to fall into the hands of handsome favoutites. In 1327 he was overthrown by Queen Isabella, "the she-wolf of France" and her lover, Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, and, according to legend, was shortly afterwards gruesomely murdered in Berkeley castle. The two of them then ruled England until, three years later, Isabella's young son, now Edward III, managed to capture and execute Mortimer (but he seems to have forgiven his mother, who lived peacefully until her death in 1358).

(Here Queen Isabella is visiting her brother, King Charles IV of France)

Once he had established himself, Edward III went on the offfensive. He denounced the Salic Law as nonsense, arguing that, as the only grandson of Philippe IV, the throne of France should be his. Thus began the "Hundred Years' War" which reduced France to utter ruination. Was this indeed the curse of the Templars in operation? 

.........................................................................................

The French writer Maurice Druon wrote a very entertaining series of historical novels about all this: "Les Rois Maudites", translated as "The Accursed Kings". The first, about Philippe IV, is called "The Iron King". Recommended!

Stories: The return

    Although it was many years since he had been there, he could see clearly in his mind’s eye the little seaside town that he and his wife used to visit: the broad sweep of the beach, where the tide always seemed to be out (he had never had a decent swim there), the unpretentious hotel where we always stayed, the shops, and their favourite café. Now he was alone, but he was going there again.

   He remembered the villages they drove through on the way; the crossroads where, more than once, they had taken the wrong turning; the railway station on the outskirts. And now he was there at last.

   He was delighted to say that it was all just as he remembered. The tide, of course, was out, but there were the rocks at the left-hand end of the beach, and on the far end, the trees where they used to go for walks. The café was in the same place, and so was the curio shop. He was delighted to discover one innovation: a small bookshop. That would provide something to keep him occupied while he waited for his wife: she had not arrived yet, but he was sure that, if he waited long enough, she would come. 

Happy Christmas!

 

.This is a  6th-century mosaic of the Three Kings, from the basilica of St. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna. Note that already the men whom St Matthew's gospel only calls "wise men from the east" have already acquired names, but that the notion (seen in many later nativity scenes) that one was a European, one a Syrian and one an African still lay in the future.

History: Problems of dating

 Many of us will remember the debate from 25 years ago as to whether the millennium should begin on January 1st 2000 or 2001; opinion being overwhelmingly in favour of the former. This debate was ultimately dependent on the work of a 6th century monk called Dionysius Exiguus - or, in English, little Dennis.

  The Bible is notoriously short of dates, and Dionysius was commanded by the Pope to calculate the date of the birth of Jesus. Using Roman sources, Dionysus estimated that the Nativity occurred near the end of the year 753 years after the foundation of Rome, and that Year One should thus begin on January 1st a few days later. There was, therefore, no Year Zero. From his calculations we derive what used to be called dates A.D. and B.C. and  what are now, presumably for reasons of political correctness, labelled as C.E. and B.C.E.

 (Incidentally, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to tell us at what time of the year Jesus was born, but it always seemed appropriate the the Holy Child should be born at the winter solstice, having been conceived at the spring equinox - the Feast of the Annunciation, when the archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary, on March 25th. This was when the new year started in England until the calendar was reformed in the 18th century, and it is still when the financial year starts - March 25th, plus 11 days added for reasons we won't go into here - and also the astrological year, which starts with Aries the Ram in mid-March)

(Another incidentally: it has always surprised me that the church went to these lengths to calculate a date for the nativity, but has never been interested in establishing a date for the Crucifixion. It shouldn't have been too difficult for Paul, or Luke, or some other early follower of Jesus, to estimate a date - the 18th years of the Emperor Tiberius, perhaps? - but they were not historians in the sense that the term is understood now.) 

Having established a date for the Nativity, later scholars used the Old Testament to count backwards in order to calculate a date for the creation of the world. The most famous estimate was by Archbishop Ussher in late 17th century Britain, who calculated that the world was created just 4,000 years before the Nativity (starting on October 23rd, incidentally: I'm not sure why). But not everyone agreed with this: the Russian church, for instance, dated the creation more than 1,000 years earlier.

Unfortunately, as centuries passed and knowledge of Ancient Roman history increased, it was realised that Little Dennis had go his sums slightly wrong. This was hardly his fault, until Julius Caesar reformed it after his victory in the civil war, the Roman calendar was a dreadful mess, with far too few days in a year of just 10 months. Caesar instituted a new calendar, with a year of 365 1/4 days, starting on January 1st, leap years and inserting two extra months: July & August (which is why September, October, November and December, which by their names should obviously be the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months, are actually the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th)

Dennis's mistake remains visible today, in the story of the Three Kings in St Matthew's gospel. The problem is that they meet King Herod; and in the corrected Roman dating. Herod died in 4 BC. How to reconcile this? it couldn't be done! So Archbishop Ussher's only solution was to date the creation, not at 4,000 BC but at 4,004 BC: a date still believed by American fundamentalists to this day!   

Cricket: Amanjot Kaur's catch helps win the world championship for India!

 The defining image of the women's ODI cricket world cup final between India and South Africa was the juggling catch that Amanjot Kaur took to dismiss Laura Wolvaardt, the South African captain. This was the crucial moment in ensuring a win for India, making them world champions for the first time, and on home soil!

There is a charming history behind this catch. Amanjot came from a poor family who couldn't afford to buy her a cricket bat, so her father, who was a carpenter, made her one himself! And now he can feel that all his efforts were justified, and he has been featured as a hero on Indian media. Isn't that a  heartwarming story?

 

You can view the catch in realtime at:-  

https://www.icc-cricket.com/tournaments/womens-cricket-worldcup-2025/videos/amanjot-s-juggling-catch-removes-wolvaardt-cwc25

Postscript: The victorious Indian women have been richly rewarded by their state governments. I have no idea exactly what "11 lakhs of rupees" to each of them is worth, but it sounds like a vast amout of money! 

History: Musings on patriots and patriotism

Doctor Johnson in his famous Dictionary, written in the mid-18th century, defined the word "Patriot" as follows:-

  "Patriot: One whose ruling passion is love of his country. It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government".

   Johnson's biographer James Boswell also records Johnson as saying, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". How did all this come about?

The words "Patriot" and "Patriotism" are derived from the Latin "Patria": the motherland. I cannot find any use of these words in British political discussion before the early 18th century, when they arise from the nature of Parliamentary politics. After the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-9, Parliament met every year, there were frequent general elections, and it soon became apparent that no government could survive unless it commanded a majority in the House of Commons. Politicians competed for votes there, and the vitally important issues at stake (war and peace, taxation, the succession to the throne, religious toleration) meant that rival political parties soon developed there, and have continued ever since.  

  At the same time, however, older notions persisted. The government was still the King's government, in fact as well as in constitutional theory, for monarchs were still personally supportive of their ministers; and how could you be in organised opposition to the King's government without automatically opening yourself to accusations of treason? The concept grew up of "His Majesty's loyal opposition": that a political party could oppose the measures enacted by a government without being hostile to the Crown or the constitution. Probably the last openly disloyal opposition were the Jacobites, who wished to overthrow the Hanoverian dynasty and replace it with the exiled Stuarts, and rose in rebellion in 1715 and 1745; but in the 1790s opposition politicians were accused by government propagandists of being republican supporters of the French Revolution. Even without these extremes, it was widely considered that opganised opposition to the government (as distinct from criticism of individual measures) was contitutionally dubious.

  In this context, it was essential for any opposition to be more "patriotic" than the government: to claim that the government was leading the country towards disaster, and was probably also guilty of corruption whereas the opposition leaders could offer better and more honest policies. (To a great extent, this still apples!) In the 1730s, the ministry of Sir Robert Walople was faced with severe criticism from a group of young policians, William Pitt and his friends, whom he scornfully dubbed the "Boy patriots". This is the first use of the term that I have been able to find. 

 Later, in the 1760s, the early governments of George III were subjected to widespread allegations of corruption and unconstitutional behaviour. Once again, it was the opposition who claimed to be the true patriots. Doctor Johnson, a Tory who had been given a govenment pension and an honorary degree from Oxford by the new regime, reacted with scorn to these attacks; hence his double-edged definition.  

   One wonders what he would have made of current disputes: especially the widespread use of the Union Jack and the St. George's Cross by those hostile to the ministers!   

My novel!

My historical novel, set in mid-18th century England, has been published on Amazon Kindle! Have a look at it and tell me what you think!