We Live Better Than Medieval Royalty
It's an almost common phrase, "We live better than a king of old!"
Ok, let's do some a lot of searching and see if that's true in any sense at all BUT first ...
Some definitions ...
"We all"
Almost exclusively this is white, middle-class / middle-level, in the top 10-15%, sort of people.
Also, European or of European descent, i.e. those that think being a medieval king is a thing to emulate.
"live"
Doing our general stuff but not one-off things like wars, marriages, and deaths.
Think of it as the life we live on a Tuesday afternoon.
"better"
Hmmm, I think this is a combination of ease, ability, availability, and cost.
"Medieval"
The medieval period, also known as the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages, began around 476 A.D. and ended between 1400 and 1450. The term was first used by 15th-century scholars to describe the time between their own time and the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
"royalty"
Absolutely thinking of Richard I Coeur de Lion ('The Lionheart') (r.1189-1199); yes they were all kings in the medieval period, a right royal boys club. Oh, Matilda (r. 1135-1154), I can't quite work out if she was actually queen ... ah:
.. the Empress's attempt to be crowned at Westminster Abbey collapsed in the face of bitter opposition from the London crowds. As a result of this retreat, Matilda was never formally declared Queen of England, and was instead titled "Lady of the English" (Latin: domina Anglorum).
[source: Wikipedia: Empress Matilda]
House of Wessex - some wonderful names amongst this lot:
- Alfred the Great 886 – 899 (son of Æthelwulf of Wessex)
- Edward the Elder 899 - 924 (son of Alfred the Great)
- Ælfweard 924 (son of Edward the Elder)
- Æthelstan 927 - 939 (son of Edward the Elder)
- Edmund I, the Magnificent 939 - 946 (son of Edward the Elder)
- Eadred 946 - 955 (son of Edward the Elder)
- Eadwig All-Fair 955 - 959 (son of Edmund I)
- Edgar the Peaceful 959 - 975 (son of Edmund I)
- Edward the Martyr 975 - 978 (son of Edgar the Peaceful)
- Æthelred the Unready 978 - 1013 (son of Edgar the Peaceful)
- Sweyn Forkbeard 1013 - 1014 (son of Harald Bluetooth)
- Æthelred the Unready 1014 - 1016 (son of Edgar the Peaceful)
- Edmund Ironside 1016 - 1016 (son of Æthelred the Unready)
- Cnut the Great 1016 - 1035 (son of Sweyn Forkbeard)
- Harold Harefoot 1035 - 1040 (son of Cnut the Great)
- Harthacnut 1040 - 1042 (son of Cnut the Great)
- Edward the Confessor 1042 - 1066 (son of Æthelred the Unready)
- Harold Godwinson 1066 (son of Godwin of Wessex)
- Edgar Ætheling 1066 (son of Edward the Exile)
[source: Wikipedia: List of English monarchs]
The Norman Kings of England in the Middle Ages
- William the Conqueror 1066 - 1087 (son of Robert the Magnificent)
- King William Rufus 1087 - 1100 (the second son of William the Conqueror)
- King Henry I 1100 - 1135 (William Rufus' brother)
- Queen Matilda (daughter of King Henry I replaced by her cousin King Stephen)
- King Stephen 1135 - 1154 (nephew of Henry I)
The Plantagenet Kings:
- King Henry II 1154 - 1189 (grandson of Henry I)
- King Richard I 1189 - 1199 (third son of Henry II)
- King John 1199 - 1216 (fifth son of Henry II)
- King Henry III 1216 - 1272 (son of John)
- King Edward I 1272 - 1307 (son of Henry III)
- King Edward II 1307 - 1327 (son of Edward I)
- King Edward III 1327 - 1377 (son of Edward II)
The Royal Houses of Lancaster and York:
- King Richard II 1377 - 1399 (grandson of Edward III, son of the Black Prince)
- King Henry IV 1399 - 1413 (grandson of Edward III, son of John of Gaunt)
- King Henry V 1413 - 1422 (son of Henry IV, born in Monmouth, Wales)
- King Henry VI 1422 - 1461 (son of Henry V)
- King Edward IV 1461 - 1483 (youngest son of Edward III )
- Edward V - One of the little Princes in the Tower
- King Richard III 1483 - 1485 (uncle of Edward V)
And then Henry Tudor who became King Henry VII starting the Tudor Age.
It's a lot of men over a lot of years, so I'm taking King Richard I as my mid-point and if in doubt he's gonna represent all of those before and after him.
Ok, so now we know what we're talking about when we say, "We live in times that Medieval Kings would be so jealous about." But, do we? Do we have lives that royalty would find astounding and beg to live the life you have?
- Accommodation
- Getting fed and watered
- Being clean and healthy
- Not being naked
- Freedom to live life
- Knowing stuff
Accommodation
If they needed somewhere solid to lay their head Kings got to live in castles, or in other peoples places / palaces when trundling around their country. Sometimes, when the King was known to be coming they even built a whole new house for them.
For several centuries the kings of England had no fixed abode, let alone in London, and the whole court moved from place to place, usually staying at the grandest house in each county for a month or two. Some rich noblemen built whole palaces hoping the king would come and stay, because making a good impression on the king would set them up for life. Some of these grand houses survive, and their tour guides can tell you whether the king ever arrived or not.
[source: Quora]
Ok, on the one hand that sounds pretty bloody awesome - roam the country and having all your stuff (coz it all came with you, everything including the bed), and staying in any house you fancied. On the other hand, not actually having a place of your own, hmmm ... but then I s'pose it for the Kings everything is yours anyway. This is better than today.
What was it like inside these fancy noble households though?
Let's take 'the Medieval Palace', as it's known these days, which is made up of St Thomas’s Tower, the Wakefield Tower and the Lanthorn Tower at the Tower of London:
St Thomas’s Tower was built by Henry III’s son, Edward I, between 1275 and 1279. The Wharf that now separates this tower from the Thames had not been built then, so Edward’s building looked out directly on to the river. His royal barge could be moored beneath the great archway, below the royal apartment, which in later centuries became known as Traitors’ Gate.Records describe the royal accommodation inside St Thomas's Tower as a 'hall with a chamber'. The first large room – the hall - has been left unrestored. This was where the King could dine and entertain. Remains of the hall’s original 13th-century fireplace, a garderobe (lavatory) wall and a picturesque vaulted turret still survive.Edward I’s bedchamber in St Thomas’s Tower has been reconstructed using replicas based on original 13th-century furnishings. They may seem a little bright to modern eyes, but they are based on evidence gleaned from real medieval objects, illuminated manuscripts of the period and antiquarian drawings.The room shows the King’s bed, close to the fireplace for warmth, but allowing him a view of the little ‘chapel over the water’, mentioned in 13th-century records. The wall paintings are based on the floral ‘pointing’ described in accounts for Edward’s mother’s chamber at the Tower.
[source: Historic Royal Palaces]
Compared to what most people (you and me), this is pretty bloody basic. Yes the bed was ok, the fire was always roaring, and the wall paintings were cute. It's no modern house though is it, secure, electric lights, heat pump, taps, sofas, TV ... no, our houses today are much much better than medieval kings.
Us 1 - 0 Kings
Getting fed and watered
Banquets, feasting quaffing of ale, friends (and enemies) at large tables with music and much raucousness. We've seen the Hollywood version of how Kings ate and drank, but really, is this true?
Ok, so a few myths to bust:
Medieval people had no table mannersWhile food was eaten with hands, spoons, and knives (forks weren’t popular in most of Europe until the seventeenth century – they were considered “too Italian” and effete), then, as now, eating was a communal activity, and (since people most often shared plates and cups) was not enjoyable if your companion had no manners. Entire treatises were written on correct etiquette, and encouraged things such as offering the best of the food on your plate to the lady, wiping your fingers on cloth, and wiping your mouth before taking a sip from your shared cup, so that you did not leave a slick of oil on top of the wine.
Darn, no quaffing then. And ...
People used spices to cover up the taste of rotten foodI suppose this might have been useful when there was very little food to be had (although, in that case, why would you have expensive spices hanging around?), but it was by no means the norm. Most people at this time were involved in agriculture – they knew when food was good and when it wasn’t. There was little point in eating food that had gone bad, since it was risking making yourself dangerously sick, or worse. It is much more likely that spices, if used for camouflage, were used to make staple foods more interesting (much like ketchup).
[source for both: Medievalists.net: Medieval Myth-Busting at the Movies]
However, if the medieval meal you’re imagining looks a little bit like a modern wedding, you’re not too far off. Ok, wow, that is cool - more at Medievalists.net: Let’s Eat! Banquets in the Middle Ages.
Food
Yes, yes Mike, but are they having curry, can they get a Nandos, what about a good hearty Sunday lunch? Do they even have breakfast?
Our English word “lord” comes from the Old English word hlaford, which literally translates to “loaf ward” (halfweard), or someone who is a food guardian or protector. This speaks to the major responsibilities a lord owed his peasants: that is, to make sure they were fed and protected in return for their work. Because of this, a castle full of people would be fed together, although not every day would have been a banquet day.At the table, you would have seen goblets or cups and pitchers; bowls, if there was a soup or stew; spoons for soup or stew; and trenchers (the equivalent of plates) made of either stale bread, wood, or metal, depending on the wealth of the household. Dishes like cups, pitchers, and bowls would have been made of horn, wood, leather, metal, or possibly glass, again, depending on the wealth of the household. Serving dishes would be placed on the table (by servants) from which people got (or were served) their portions. Cups and trenchers were shared, and people ate with their fingers, or with the eating knives they carried on their belts.
Kings, knights, monks, peasants – everyone in the Middle Ages ate bread.The Middle Ages would see white bread made from wheat become the preferred taste – medieval physicians even recommended it as being the healthiest – but poorer peoples would bake darker breads made from oats or rye.
Besides being food, medieval people often used bread as their plates: known as trenchers, these were breads that were cut into thick flat slices. Then other foods like meats or thick sauces would be served on top of them. Once the meal was finished, the bread could then be eaten, or, if you were wealthy or generous enough, was given to the poor or animals.
Ok, so bread is a BIG deal - it's a plate you eat, love it.
Seems meat was mostly, not exclusively, a Kingly thing, however veggies, everyone had them and a lot of different ones, nice.
As it turns out, kings in the medieval period ate mostly plants, with meat served as occasional treats for feasts and other celebrations. A study from researchers at Cambridge University found that the wealthiest, most powerful people in society during these times ate mostly vegetarian diets.
Ok, yes. but I can't let go of the Hollywood vision of tables and tables MEAT, so, let's see what types of meat were Kings chomping down on a daily basis?
Wealthy people had many choices of things to eat and drink. The best cuts of meat went to the rich people. They drank wine from France and they enjoyed pepper, spices and other luxuries from the East. Those who could afford it would eat white bread made with refined wheat. The rich ate fresh fish and pork whilst the less well-off ate preserved versions of these meats – ham and bacon.
“The popular view has always been of a big social divide between the elites and the peasants,” he says. “But their diet was the same. It shows on normal days they were mostly eating bread and vegetable stew. And once in a while they would come together for a nice spread or a barbecue. So [it was] an early form of flexitarianism.”
[source: Smithsonian Magazine: New Research Suggests England’s Early Medieval Rulers Had a Veggie-Based Diet]
Birds like chickens, geese, and ducks were kept. On special occasions the wealthy ate swan and peacock. Beef and venison were well liked, so was pork. Meat was more expensive and therefore more prestigious and in the form of game was common only on the tables of the nobility and poachers. The most prevalent butcher's meats were pork and chicken and other domestic fowl. Beef, which required greater investment in land, was less common.Cod and herring were mainstays among the northern populations, and dried, smoked or salted made their way far inland. A wide variety of other saltwater and freshwater fish were also eaten - castles generally had their own fishponds.Mustard was a favourite ingredient.Medieval people liked fish and fresh meat that was not salted yet. Meat was salted in huge wooden vats so that the food would not spoil. Salt was expensive but large quantities were bought every year.Before 1100 honey was the only way to sweeten food because spices were expensive because they came from the Far East. Herbs were used to season food and make remedies for the ill. Crusaders brought new foods like raisins, dates, and figs to Europe. A type of refined cooking developed in the late Middle Ages that set the standard among the nobility all over Europe. Common seasonings in the highly spiced sweet-sour repertory typical of upper-class medieval food included verjuice, wine and vinegar in combination with spices such as black pepper, saffron and ginger. These, along with the widespread use of sugar or honey gave many dishes a sweet-sour flavor.Almonds were very popular as a thickener in soups, stews, and sauces, particularly as almond milk.Olive oil was a ubiquitous ingredient around the Mediterranean, but remained an expensive import in the north where oil of poppy, walnut, hazel and filbert was the most affordable alternative. Butter and lard, especially after the terrible mortality during the Black Death, was used in considerable quantities in the northern and northwestern regions.
[source & much more info: Life In A Medieval Castle: Medieval Food]
Right, I'm letting it go. Yes, Kings had access to meat of all sorts but they weren't going wild with meat and eating every deer in the forest each day. Fish seems to have been a big deal as well. Yes, there were days when a great banquet was had, everyone was invited, and the more "Royal" you were, the more "noble" the closer to the King you sat but farmers could be amongst the 300 enjoying the celebration.
Drink
What did the King (not) quaff, oodles of French wine, more beer than a village, a flatwhite coffee?
Water - no-one drunk the water, FALSE!
Ultimately, the narrative that medieval men and women chose to drink ale over water was indeed a myth, but it did have some weight. As the quality of water declined, they continually chose to substitute water for ale, until movements to source cleaner drinking water arose.
Essentially, about 90 percent of people during the Middle Ages could walk on over to the nearest stream for some refreshing H2O whenever they were thirsty.
Ale
In medieval England, ale was an alcoholic drink made from grain, water, and fermented with yeast. The difference between medieval ale and beer was that beer also used hops as an ingredient. Virtually everyone drank ale. It provided significant nutrition as well as hydration (and inebriation). The aristocracy could afford to drink wine some of the time as well, and sometimes the poor could not even afford ale, but in general ale was the drink of choice in England throughout the medieval period.
Mead
Mead or honey wine is an alcoholic beverage, made from honey and water via fermentation with yeast. Its alcoholic content may range from that of a mild ale to that of a strong wine. It may be still, carbonated, or sparkling; it may be dry, semi-sweet, or sweet. Depending on local traditions and specific recipes, it may be brewed with spices, fruits, or grain mash. It may be produced by fermentation of honey with grain mash; mead may also be flavoured with hops to produce a bitter, beer-like flavour.Beer
[A relatively late introduction to the UK, around the 1350s] In England, the Low Countries, northern Germany, Poland and Scandinavia, beer was consumed on a daily basis by people of all social classes and age groups.Wine
Wine was commonly drunk and was also regarded as the most prestigious and healthy choice. Unlike water or beer, which were considered cold and moist, consumption of wine in moderation (especially red wine) was, among other things, believed to aid digestion, generate good blood and brighten the mood.Spiced / mulled wine
Spiced or mulled wine was not only popular among the affluent, but was also considered especially healthy by physicians. Wine was believed to act as a kind of vaporizer and conduit of other foodstuffs to every part of the body, and the addition of fragrant and exotic spices would make it even more wholesome. Spiced wines were usually made by mixing an ordinary (red) wine with an assortment of spices such as ginger, cardamom, pepper, grains of paradise, nutmeg, cloves and sugar. These would be contained in small bags which were either steeped in wine or had liquid poured over them to produce hypocras and claré.
[source: Life In A Medieval Castle: Medieval Food]
So, there ya have it, a limited but nice set of drinks available. Oh, and maybe some brandy.
What do we think, do we eat and drink better than a medieval King?
I'd say that we're pretty even in the food department, they seemed to have a good healthy set of seasoned foods to choose from and could get it onto their tables pretty easily. We have more choice, maybe it's easier for us as normal people to go get it but the King isn't doing that anyway, the servants do that. As for drinks, theirs are pretty basic so I'm gonna chalk it up to us
I'd say that we're pretty even in the food department, they seemed to have a good healthy set of seasoned foods to choose from and could get it onto their tables pretty easily. We have more choice, maybe it's easier for us as normal people to go get it but the King isn't doing that anyway, the servants do that. As for drinks, theirs are pretty basic so I'm gonna chalk it up to us
Food: Us 1 - 1 Kings
Drink: Us 1 - 0 Kings
Running total: Us 3 - 1 Kings
Being clean and healthy
We have running hot and cold water, all sorts of products and items in our clean society. If this doesn't keep us clean and healthy we have health services that are designed to help us get there. What about King Richard I and all those that came before and after him, sure they might only bathe once in a blue moon, their teeth were falling out, bacteria would get them at any time, but they worse some amazing garbs. Let's find out.
Cleanliness - "He must be a king… he hasn't got shit all over him."
Bathing
Let's see what the Kings got up to.
Personal hygiene did exist in the Middle Ages – people were well aware that cleaning their face and hands was a good idea – health manuals from the period note that it was important to get rid of dirt and grime. They also explained that it was important to keep the entire body clean.Medieval writers saw bathing as a serious and careful activity. One medical treatise, the Secreta Secretorum, has an entire section on baths.[A King] could afford to have a private bath, and would use a wooden tub that could also have a tent-like cloth on top of it. Attendants would bring jugs and pots of hot water to fill the tub.Records from medieval England show that its kings often enjoyed these baths. When King John travelled around his kingdom, he took a bathtub with him and had a personal attendant named William who handled it. Meanwhile, in 1351 Edward III paid for taps of hot and cold water that went straight to his bathtub at Westminster Palace.Royalty throughout Europe often entertained guests with baths, often trying to impress each other with how luxurious they could make it.Only when the Middle Ages came to an end, did people stop bathing.
As for the King, it's not just a tub and hot water:
In John Russell’s Book of Nurture, written in the second half of the fifteenth century, he advises servants that if their lord wants a bath they should:"... hang sheets, round the roof, every one full of flowers and sweet green herbs, and have five or six sponges to sit or lean upon, and see that you have one big sponge to sit upon, and a sheet over so that he may bathe there for a while, and have a sponge also for under his feet, if there be any to spare, and always be careful that the door is shut. Have a basin full of hot fresh herbs and wash his body with a soft sponge, rinse him with fair warm rose-water, and throw it over him."He adds that if the lord has pains or aches, it is good to boil various herbs like camomile, breweswort, mallow and brown fennel and add them to the bath.
Oh, and if you are the King you are definitely bathing a lot, "If they had lots of money, or say, were a Lord or Lady in a castle, they’d ‘top and tail’ (the face, underarms, and nether regions) at least twice a day."
Don't forget that whilst water was not on tap as it is for us, it:
... was available in villages from nearby springs, rivers, lakes, wells and cisterns. Indeed, most settlements had developed where they had precisely because of the proximity of a reliable water source. Castles might be situated for the same reason and were provided with additional water from masonry-lined wells sunk into their interior courtyardsAs most people ate meals without knives, forks or spoons, it was also a common convention to wash hands before and after eating. Soap was sometimes used and hair was washed using an alkaline solution such as the one obtained from mixing lime and salt. Teeth were cleaned using twigs (especially hazel) and small pieces of wool cloth. Shaving was either not done at all or once a week unless one was a monk, in which case one was shaved daily by a brother. As medieval mirrors were still not very large or clear, it was easier for most people to visit the local barber when required.
Fascinating stuff eh. Hygiene was a thing, it wasn't all sitting around in mud, or having a bath once a year coz you're the King. I think we're generally more hygienic because we know about viruses and the like, but, for the knowledge back then, not too bad for our Medieval Kings.
Ha ha ha, before we move on, the following was mentioned a few times, dirty monks!
Notably, the one section of medieval society that embraced poor hygiene was the clergy. For the medieval religious, parasites (both those that afflicted the living and those that consumed the dead) were a popular focus for contemplation, since they served as an important reminder of the frailties of the flesh.
[source: loads of places, look it up ...]
So, these viruses and bugs, it comes from all the shit everywhere, yes?
Toilets
In medieval Europe, people sometimes used devices called “gomphus” or a “gomph stick”, as well as a “torche-cul” or “torchcut”. The gomph sticks were sponges on a stick, basically. It looks like something you’d use to clean a toilet, rather than a backside. The term “torche-cul” was anything used to wipe the bottom, like straw, moss, or leaves.
Well, you gotta clean eh ... bet the King wasn't gomph-ing himself though, read on ...
The royals had the privilege of hiring chambermaids, or a “groom of the stool.” Whenever the king or queen had to go to the bathroom, they would do it on plush velvet box called the “close stool”. Once they were done, their servant would come in and dispose of the waste. Even though this was a disgusting job, this was actually a highly coveted servant’s position, because it meant that they were in close proximity to the king. They would often become good friends with their Groom of the Stool, because they needed someone to talk to. In a lot of ways, the position was almost like a therapist, listening to the king during his morning poop. These men were even given the title of “sir”, and had a portrait painted of them.
Chamber pots were used by women to collect waste overnight. When they were finished, the contents would be thrown over balcony/out the window with the accompanying words of “garde loo” which is French for “watch out for the water.” Muck-rackers were hired to help keep the streets walk-able.
Healthiness
Ok, what do we know about Medieval doctors - um, they didn't know anything, it was all magic and guesswork, people generally died after a visit, and there were leeches. I dunno, maybe that's wrong but we must, surely, be in a lot better situation than a Medieval King.
It seems to be all about:
The Four Humours:
- phlegm
- blood
- yellow bile
- black bile
If the humours stayed in balance then a person remained healthy, but if there was too much of one humour then illness occurred.
Medical treatment was available mainly to the wealthy, and those living in villages rarely had the help of doctors, who practiced mostly in the cities and courts. Remedies were often herbal in nature, but also included ground earthworms, urine, and animal excrement.
[source: Annenberg Learner: Health]
So it's either blood letting, use of 'medicines', or ya physical surgery - here's a bunch.
The King has a Physician, top of the pile in the Medieval medicine industry.
Only the very wealthy would receive the ministrations of a Middle Ages Physician who would have received an education at one of the Universities.
The two most distinct groups within the medical practitioners of the medieval period were the physicians and the master surgeons. Both groups claimed higher levels of knowledge than other practitioners though only physicians had a university education. The requirement of a medical degree to be considered a physician meant that there were very few physicians in England in the medieval period compared to the other medical practitioners. Master Surgeons were not necessarily more skilled technically than the barber-surgeons, but distinguished themselves on the basis of prestige and wore similar long robes to physicians despite not being university educated.
I can't really find anything specific to being a King and health, ultimately they had the luxury of having their Physician attending them in their own 'home', but when it came down to it it was the four Humours, blood letting, medicines, and sawing bits off (maybe with speficially made bits of metal if required).
Wealthy patients sent their urine to their physician to make sure that they were not falling ill. This method of diagnosis (uroscopy) fitted the Theory of the Four Humours. For example, very white urine was a sign of too much phlegm in the body.
As we suspected we definitely live a cleaner more hygienic lifestyle, however it was definitely not all mud and shit for most Medieval people and absolutely not for the King. You know what, the King has a better time of it in the toilet than we do ... someone to sort it all out for you, everything, come on that's luxury that we're not getting these days no matter who you are. As for general health and medical malarkey we are obviously in an ever improving situation than a Medieval King even if they did get their own Physician at their beck and call.
Cleanliness: Us 1 - 0 Kings
Toilets: Us 0 - 1 Kings
Healthiness: Us 1 - 0 Kings
Running total: Us 5 - 3 Kings
Not being naked
As for clothing, if you can imagine it we, today, can have someone somewhere make it.
And a Medieval King was no different - for this section I'm not gonna give you endless quotes from multitudes of websites because, in a nutshell, without putting too fine a point on it, Kings were dressed sumptuously, way way better than you or I. Need proof, have at any of these links:
In fact their clothes were not just fine, coloured, embroidered, hand made, bespoke, and lahverly, they were exclusive and you and I weren't even allowed to wear clothes like them, we were banned by law!
Laws dating back to the Romans restricted ordinary people in their expenditure. These were called Sumptuary Laws. The word Sumptuary is derived from the Latin word for expenditure.English Sumptuary Laws were imposed to curb the expenditure of the people. Sumptuary laws might apply to food, beverages, furniture, jewellery and clothing. These Laws were used to control behaviour and ensure that a specific class structure was maintained. Penalties for violating Sumptuary Laws could be harsh - fines, the loss of property, title and even life.The first record of sumptuary legislation is an ordinance of the City of London in 1281 which regulated the apparel, or clothing, of workman. These related to workers who had working clothes supplied by their employer as a part of their wages.The second record of sumptuary legislation occurred during the reign of King Edward II (1284-1327) related to food expenditure. The next records of sumptuary legislation occurred during the reign of King Edward III (1312-1377). King Edward III passed these Sumptuary Laws to regulate the dress of various classes of the English people, promote English garments and to preserve class distinctions by means of costume, clothes and dress.The sumptuary legislation of 1336 attempted to curb expenditure and preserve class distinction. One of acts stated the following:"no knight under the estate of a lord, esquire or gentleman , nor any other person, shall wear any shoes or boots having spikes or points which exceed the length of two inches, under the forfeiture of forty pence."The sumptuary legislation of 1337 was designed to promote English garments and restrict the wearing of furs. English Sumptuary legislation passed in 1363 included the following:
- Women were, in general, to be dressed according to the position of their fathers or husbands
- Wives and daughters of servants were not to wear veils above twelve pence in value
- Handicraftsmen's and yeomen's wives were not to wear silk veils
- The use of fur was confined to the ladies of knights with a rental above 200 marks a year
- The wife or daughter of a knight was not to wear cloth of gold or sable fur
- The wife or daughter of a knight-bachelor not to wear velvet
- The wife or daughter of an esquire or gentleman not to wear velvet, satin or ermine
- The wife or daughter of a labourer were not to wear clothes beyond a certain price or a girdle garnished with silver
- Cloth of gold and purple silk were confined to women of the royal family
- The importation of silk and lace by Lombards and other foreigners were forbidden
These Sumptuary Laws distinguished social categories and made members of each class easily distinguished by their clothing
What about getting their clothes all smelly, no washing machines for them, or was there?
Another important cleaning practice was laundry. People in the Middle Ages would wash their clothes regularly and hang them outside to dry. They used soap made from ashes and animal fat to wash their clothes and would beat the dirt out of them with sticks. Laundry was done in a large wooden tub, often near a river or stream, to make the washing and rinsing process easier.
Of course the King ain't doing this himself, but his clothes were being washed properly, and likely on a fairly regular basis as he trundles around the country.
Delicate outer garments might be brushed and perfumed, but undergarments and household linens were frequently laundered. Advice books suggested that underwear should be changed every day, and household accounts are scattered with payments to washerwomen. Large rivers often had special jetties for the use of washerwomen: London’s was known as ‘La Lavenderebrigge’.
[source: Aeon: Medieval parasites]
One last thought about Medieval Kings and clothes, actually maybe "Kings" of the modern age, did they even have to dress themselves or where people appointed to do it for them? Well, yeah, there were always people to dress the King, Esquires in Ordinary of the King's Body, often abbreviated to Esquires of the Body, would be "attendant upon the king's person, to array and unray him, and to watch day and night" to be ready to help the King because "no man else [is] to set hands on the king". Over time this became a group activity but yeah, basically the King would be dressed by someone else.
[source: Wikipedia: Esquire of the Body]
Clothes: Us 0 - 1 Kings
Cleaning Clothes: Us 1 - 1 Kings
Getting Dressed: Us 0 - 1 Kings
Running total: Us 6 - 6 Kings
Wow, big comeback by the Medieval fellas, two more sections to go and it's all to play for ...
Freedom to live life
We can walk out of the house, go almost anywhere we want ($ allowing), speak to anyone we want, watch (almost) any entertainment we want, read any (almost) books we want ... seems we have freedoms to be and exist exactly how we want. Remember our definition of "we" - Almost exclusively this is white, middle-class / middle-level, in the top 10-15%, sort of people. Also, European or of European descent, i.e. those that think being a medieval king is a thing to emulate.
But then, this is a bloody King we're talking about, surely they can do all that and then some?
Seems like it was normally an early start to the day at 6am for everyone and especially the religious King - not all were quite as religious though - get dressed, and off for Mass at 8am.
The King is both a title but also a job, there's stuff to do. Part of the reason for the King and the whole retinue to travel the country was to meet and greet the nobles of the area who are looking after that part of the country for them. They also had to resolve local issues - whether personally or through a council - spent at least part of their day addressing concerns from commoners, though some kings and queens welcomed this contact more than others.
King Louis IX, would sit beneath a tree in a park after mass and listen to complaints from commoners.Many medieval kings, however, did not directly hear grievances in person. King Edward I of England, for example, preferred that his subjects submit petitions in the form of written documents, something that poor, illiterate subjects couldn't do. From records kept of the petition process, the majority were submitted by people of considerable status.
Oh, and gotta share the divinity:
Since monarchs liked to claim divine favour, English and French kings and queens said they had the power to cure people. The ritual of "Touching for the King's Evil" invited a succession of people suffering from scrofula to approach the king or queen. The monarch would then touch the afflicted person and theoretically cure them. Monarchs usually performed the ritual in conjunction with religious occasions like Easter or Christmas. In France, touching for the king's evil eventually became a coronation ritual for new monarchs.
Of course the real meetings were with other nobles as well as foreign Ambassadors, and Knights.
In England, these meetings could make or break a king's tricky relationship with the nobility. King John clashed so spectacularly with the landed elite that they rebelled and forced him to sign the Magna Carta to safeguard their rights.
Other kings handled the nobility with more finesse - King Edward I frequently called parliaments to address nobles, clergy, and civic leaders.
There then followed a lunch, way more than a sausage roll and a cup of coffee as we now know, after which the King would be joined in his court by a large number of people.
There one might find several kinds of foreign ambassadors, noblemen, and knights, of whom there was often such a crowd, both foreign and from his own realm, that one could scarcely turn around…There he received news from all sorts of places, perhaps incidents and details of his wars, or the battles of others, and all such matters; there he arranged what should be done according to what was proposed to him, or promised to solve some matter in council, forbade what was unreasonable, accorded favours, signed letters with his own hand, gave reasonable gifts, promised vacant offices, or answered reasonable requests. He occupied himself with such details as these for perhaps two hours, after which he withdrew and retired to rest for about an hour.
3pm-ish and finally the King can let his hair down (don't you dare King!) and do something he actually likes as Medieval royals punctuated their days with plenty of downtime. Royal hunts were popular throughout the Middle Ages and often included large segments of the court. Members of the royal family also enjoyed falconry, a largely aristocratic sport open to men and women alike.
... the king would spend his time in three social settings: one where he was seen and interacted with the general public, another where he would be with his relatives and courtiers, and finally when he was on his own (although his servants would probably be always with him or nearby). Much of his role would be to appear among both the commoners as well as in his court when he would be met by various officials. Brauer comments:
"The reason behind this procedure was not so much to correct the deficiencies of a pre-modern society—from the point of view of the modern administrative state, only a fraction of the problems can be solved if the head of the state handles them in person—but to communicate justice to the subjects. The message would be as follows: Justice is possible, the king is acting ad hoc like the wise King Solomon; he is the highest judge of the kingdom and yet still takes the matters of his lowest subjects into his own hands."
[source: Medievalists: The Daily Life of a Medieval King]
I can't find anything about Kings and sex apart from how it was often political and designed to bring other Royal Houses closer together. If you wanna know about what Medieval sex was all about check out the Medievalists.net's Sex in the Middle Ages.
There's one thing that Medieval Kings could do, and often did, that we mere mortals of the 21st Century could never do - declare war, and for some even fight in those very wars.
Freedom, this is a really rough one. Within the rules and boundaries of being the King he had quite a lot of freedom, probably way more than I do these days. Even the ability to just go out anywhere and talk to anyone that you and I have but Kings weren't "allowed to" they probably wouldn't see as a lack of freedom, the King just didn't need/want/care to do that. I think we have gained in power and caught up with the Medieval Kings but, war. They take it still.
Running total: Us 7 - 7 Kings
Knowing stuff
It's the final round, who is best at "knowing stuff", from formal education, informal teaching, and knowing things about the world around them by just knowing them (the Sun is a star for instance).
Formal Education
As future leaders within the kingdom and abroad, princes and princesses received an education befitting a royal. In childhood, the future King Edward III of England studied everything from etiquette to jousting.Royal princes and princesses alike received an education from various tutors - but that doesn't mean they learned the same things. Princes received military training, for example; consequently, their sisters and wives were sometimes better read than they were.
One example of a king who struggled with the challenges of ruling was Henry VI of England. Henry was a highly educated king, who had been groomed for his role from an early age. He was a gifted scholar, with a deep knowledge of theology and philosophy. However, he lacked the skills necessary for ruling effectively. He was indecisive and easily influenced by others, which led to political instability and ultimately to civil war.
In general it seems the King was well educated and trained:
The education of medieval kings was a complex and multifaceted process, involving a range of skills and knowledge. From an early age, kings were taught the physical, intellectual, and diplomatic skills necessary for ruling effectively. As they grew older, their education became more focused on the practical skills of government and administration, as well as the arts and sciences.
Let's whip through the facts of the universe' type knowing - we win. Of course we win, the final King of the Medieval ages, King Richard III died in 1485, 539 years ago! We have a plethora of facts at our fingertips that simply wasn't available back then.
Street smarts, what did Medieval Kings know more / better than we do?
BEST ANSWER IMHO, you are transferred back to the medieval times:
His modern skills are of little use in a medieval English village. The peasants don't care about numeracy or crazy ideas, they want somebody who can slaughter a pig or plough a field.He has great difficulty communicating with the locals. Have a look at Shakespeare or Chaucer's English, and compare it to the modern version. Remember that pronunciation has changed as well as vocabulary and grammar. He is completely ignorant of local customs and manners, and likely to offend people by accident. (He can probably learn the basic language and customs in a few months, if he lives that long.)
He hasn't memorised the formula for gunpowder, and vague memories of high school chemistry sound like nonsense to the locals. Biology is equally useless. How many of us can identify penicillin mold in the wild, and distinguish it from the hundreds of other molds which will just give you a nasty fungal infection?
He doesn't have the connections to become Royal Military Engineer or Chief Treasurer. This is not a society with a strong interest in scientific and technological progress. Technological change over the span of a human lifetime is almost undetectable; new ideas are suspicious at best, heresy at worst.
He is vulnerable to diseases of the past which have no vaccines (bubonic plague), or against which modern people are not commonly vaccinated (smallpox). One of them may kill him rather quickly.
John's best bet is to find a monastery and stay there. The monks have some degree of charity towards wandering halfwits who can barely communicate -- and make no mistake, this is how John will come across at first. Once the monks get to know him, they may value his more unusual skills, especially his ability to read and write.At worst, John may end up as an unskilled labourer on a farm. At least his good general health gives him a head start, unless he catches some unpleasant disease or bandits burn the village.
[source: World Canadian Bandit @ World building: What could an average modern human achieve in medieval times?]
Ok, so our knowledge won't be of much use back then, but what about the King and what they knew. It's hard to find actually, but my overall feeling is that they knew a lot but would've struggled sending a text message.
Ok, here's some things that King (and most Medieval people knew) that we seem to believe they didn't:
- People knew the planet was a sphere as far back as ancient Greece (12th to 9th centuries B.C.), and had relatively complex astronomical and planetary knowledge by the time Christopher Columbus made his voyage to the Americas in 1492.
- One 2019 study, for example, used DNA from bones in a Black Death cemetery in London to reveal a more diverse city than previously thought. The analysis of 41 people revealed seven different places of origin, people of African ancestry, and people with dual white European and black African heritage.
- Though the Catholic Church taught that homosexuality was sinful, attitudes toward same-sex desire varied. Historians point to evidence of gender nonconformity and close same-sex relationships in medieval artwork and literature.
- Some women became leaders in war, musicians, scientists, scribes, and political power players—though education was still off-limits to most women.
The age produced everything from the first eyeglasses to mechanical timekeeping, the heavy plow, and moveable type—three inventions that would enable the Industrial Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment. Gunpowder weapons revolutionized warfare forever, while mapmakers managed to create astonishingly accurate maps of the world.
And that’s just Europe. During the thousand-year span of medieval times, China perfected the compass and invented navigation. African kingdoms at the height of their power engaged in complex trade, while civilizations flourished across the Americas. The Islamic world “was the envy of the world” for centuries because of its advanced learning, culture, science, medicine, and statecraft, writes historian Rabia Umar Ali.
I dunno, street smarts, about the same as now but maybe for different stuff.
Formal education: Us 0 - 1 Kings
Street smarts: Us 1 - 1 Kings
Running total: Us 7 - 8 Kings
A win for medieval Kings
Ok, wow, I honestly thought we were gonna easily live better lives than the medieval Kings but no, they have pipped us at the post and, like so much of the Medieval times the phrase, "We live better than Medieval Royalty" is not true.
Comments
Post a Comment
Be kind