Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0007
Benedict G. E. Wiedemann
In the first decades of the thirteenth century, Popes Innocent III and Honorius III found themselves bound to support the succession of three young kings—Henry III of England, James I of Aragon, and Frederick II of Sicily. Although a supposed feudal right of wardship has often been supposed to have motivated the popes, actually, papal letters changed and altered their justifications for papal solicitude depending on the circumstances of the time. In practice, papal involvement in these royal minorities was reactive: the pope replied to petitions he received. Consequently, papal mandates and instructions were often variable and even contradictory. Papal instructions—rather than being a medium for a centralized papal will to be expressed—were more often the means through which local power struggles were fought.
{"title":"Wardship","authors":"Benedict G. E. Wiedemann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"In the first decades of the thirteenth century, Popes Innocent III and Honorius III found themselves bound to support the succession of three young kings—Henry III of England, James I of Aragon, and Frederick II of Sicily. Although a supposed feudal right of wardship has often been supposed to have motivated the popes, actually, papal letters changed and altered their justifications for papal solicitude depending on the circumstances of the time. In practice, papal involvement in these royal minorities was reactive: the pope replied to petitions he received. Consequently, papal mandates and instructions were often variable and even contradictory. Papal instructions—rather than being a medium for a centralized papal will to be expressed—were more often the means through which local power struggles were fought.","PeriodicalId":320423,"journal":{"name":"Papal Overlordship and European Princes, 1000-1270","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117153984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0009
Benedict G. E. Wiedemann
Papal overlordship of rulers continued to have importance in the later thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and even up to the eighteenth century. Papal authority, papal lordship, was always most useful as a tool; as a tool to legitimize the conquest of the New World in the fifteenth century; as a tool to legitimize the conquest of the Canary Islands in the fourteenth century. Throughout this book, the recurring theme has been that petitioners—especially kings—got the most out of papal lordship because, through such lordship, they were able to instrumentalize and weaponize papal authority. The relationships between popes and kings were built and constructed mutually, not imposed by an over-mighty papal monarchy.
{"title":"Epilogue","authors":"Benedict G. E. Wiedemann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0009","url":null,"abstract":"Papal overlordship of rulers continued to have importance in the later thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and even up to the eighteenth century. Papal authority, papal lordship, was always most useful as a tool; as a tool to legitimize the conquest of the New World in the fifteenth century; as a tool to legitimize the conquest of the Canary Islands in the fourteenth century. Throughout this book, the recurring theme has been that petitioners—especially kings—got the most out of papal lordship because, through such lordship, they were able to instrumentalize and weaponize papal authority. The relationships between popes and kings were built and constructed mutually, not imposed by an over-mighty papal monarchy.","PeriodicalId":320423,"journal":{"name":"Papal Overlordship and European Princes, 1000-1270","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129766959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0005
Benedict G. E. Wiedemann
In the early thirteenth century a new formal relationship between popes and kings appeared: kings might now be papal ‘vassals’ (vassalli) and their kingdoms ‘fiefs’ (feuda). Such language appeared in King John of England’s surrender to Pope Innocent III in 1213 and thence spread to other kingdoms, including the kingdom of Man, through a network of courtiers at the papal curia, all of whom had connections with the English royal court. The development and construction of these relationships was a two-way process in which both kings and popes participated; such relationships were not enforced on unwilling rulers by an over-mighty papal monarchy.
{"title":"Vassalage","authors":"Benedict G. E. Wiedemann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"In the early thirteenth century a new formal relationship between popes and kings appeared: kings might now be papal ‘vassals’ (vassalli) and their kingdoms ‘fiefs’ (feuda). Such language appeared in King John of England’s surrender to Pope Innocent III in 1213 and thence spread to other kingdoms, including the kingdom of Man, through a network of courtiers at the papal curia, all of whom had connections with the English royal court. The development and construction of these relationships was a two-way process in which both kings and popes participated; such relationships were not enforced on unwilling rulers by an over-mighty papal monarchy.","PeriodicalId":320423,"journal":{"name":"Papal Overlordship and European Princes, 1000-1270","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121635687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0002
Benedict G. E. Wiedemann
In the eleventh century, the language and forms of papal–royal relationships were not abstractly theorized, nor were the consequences and implications of the language considered. As arguments about royal investiture of bishops became more important in the later eleventh century, papal investiture of secular rulers—hitherto unproblematic—fell out of fashion. If kings should not invest bishops, then why should popes invest princes? Kings who had been invested in the eleventh century, such as the Norman rulers of Sicily and southern Italy, would instead, in the twelfth century, be crowned by an archbishop. Rulers who received their realms ‘from the pope’s hand’, such as the kings of Aragon, would not do so after 1122.
{"title":"Investiture","authors":"Benedict G. E. Wiedemann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"In the eleventh century, the language and forms of papal–royal relationships were not abstractly theorized, nor were the consequences and implications of the language considered. As arguments about royal investiture of bishops became more important in the later eleventh century, papal investiture of secular rulers—hitherto unproblematic—fell out of fashion. If kings should not invest bishops, then why should popes invest princes? Kings who had been invested in the eleventh century, such as the Norman rulers of Sicily and southern Italy, would instead, in the twelfth century, be crowned by an archbishop. Rulers who received their realms ‘from the pope’s hand’, such as the kings of Aragon, would not do so after 1122.","PeriodicalId":320423,"journal":{"name":"Papal Overlordship and European Princes, 1000-1270","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125548612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0008
Benedict G. E. Wiedemann
Alongside the new terminology of fiefs and vassals, the thirteenth century saw the arrival of a new idea: that the pope might be able to depose vassal-kings by virtue of his authority as the kings’ temporal lord. Such an idea lurked behind the arras during the disputes between Emperor Frederick II and Popes Gregory IX and Innocent IV, and was then formalized when the kingdom of Sicily was given to Charles of Anjou. This right of confiscation was, however, never exercised, indicating the unwillingness of the papacy to use the coercive power supposedly given to it through feudal relationships with secular rulers.
{"title":"Confiscation","authors":"Benedict G. E. Wiedemann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Alongside the new terminology of fiefs and vassals, the thirteenth century saw the arrival of a new idea: that the pope might be able to depose vassal-kings by virtue of his authority as the kings’ temporal lord. Such an idea lurked behind the arras during the disputes between Emperor Frederick II and Popes Gregory IX and Innocent IV, and was then formalized when the kingdom of Sicily was given to Charles of Anjou. This right of confiscation was, however, never exercised, indicating the unwillingness of the papacy to use the coercive power supposedly given to it through feudal relationships with secular rulers.","PeriodicalId":320423,"journal":{"name":"Papal Overlordship and European Princes, 1000-1270","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125314751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0006
Benedict G. E. Wiedemann
When Innocent III proclaimed a Crusade against heretics in the south of France, it led, eventually, to the deposition of the count of Toulouse, Raymond VI. One of Raymond’s territories—the county of Melgueil—had an ancient (though vague) relationship with the papacy. The bishop of Maguelone used this relationship to justify his own possession of the county (granted to him, at his request, by the pope). In the process the bishop and the other claimants to the county established that Melgueil was a papal ‘fief’ (feudum)—a term not applied to the county before. Once the bishop had taken possession, he instrumentalized papal authority to build up his power against both internal and external enemies.
{"title":"State-Making","authors":"Benedict G. E. Wiedemann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"When Innocent III proclaimed a Crusade against heretics in the south of France, it led, eventually, to the deposition of the count of Toulouse, Raymond VI. One of Raymond’s territories—the county of Melgueil—had an ancient (though vague) relationship with the papacy. The bishop of Maguelone used this relationship to justify his own possession of the county (granted to him, at his request, by the pope). In the process the bishop and the other claimants to the county established that Melgueil was a papal ‘fief’ (feudum)—a term not applied to the county before. Once the bishop had taken possession, he instrumentalized papal authority to build up his power against both internal and external enemies.","PeriodicalId":320423,"journal":{"name":"Papal Overlordship and European Princes, 1000-1270","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114985435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：