Robert Bartlett

Blood Royal

I think the material in the book has relevance to issues beyond medieval Europe. For instance, anyone interested in family structures and family strategies could find useful comparative material here. It is quite clear that what constitutes “a family” has varied from period to period and from place to place. Such changes are visible over the medieval period itself. I have a discussion of adoption, for example, which was a common practice in the Roman Empire but relatively rare in western Europe in the Middle Ages. Rare but not unknown. This left me quite uncertain about what was going on, and I do not disguise that in the book. Again, the whole book explores what were the boundaries between the private and public. In a world where political power was transmitted through families, it is tempting to describe this as “public power in private hands”, especially when compared to the modern western world, where a sharp line is drawn—the President of the United States or a European Prime Minister can legitimately transmit property but not office to their children. In the medieval period boundaries were different. And another general theme of the book is the uncertainties of history, as illustrated by the many counterfactuals that crop up in the dynastic world: Castile and France could have become one country; there might have been a large kingdom called Burgundy between France and Germany; all the Scandinavian countries might have been one permanently, as they were temporarily. Given the rise of nationalism in recent decades, it is important to note that countries come and go.

The path to this book was a long one. I started teaching medieval history in the 1970s and over the years covered a large number of topics, some of which resulted in books (on trial by ordeal, medieval colonialism, Norman and Angevin England, and the cult of the saints, among others), but the dynastic nature of political power was something that cropped up again and again, and, of course, needed to be explained to students (as well as to myself). And among the historical documentaries I have written and presented for British television is a three-part series called “The Plantagenets” and this naturally involved thinking about what a dynasty was, and what were the dynamics of such a political system. So, when I received an invitation from Trinity College Dublin to give a series of lectures on a medieval topic of my choice, “dynasties’ came to mind. And I always accept invitations from Trinity College Dublin.

Editor: Judi Pajo

Blood Royal

Blood Royal

Robert Bartlett Blood Royal: Dynastic Politics in Medieval Europe Cambridge University Press 672 pages, 6 x 9 inches ISBN 978 1108490672

Available here →

The rest of this thread

1

In a nutshell

November 18, 2020

2

The wide angle

November 18, 2020

3

A close-up

November 18, 2020

Robert Bartlett

Robert Bartlett

Robert Bartlett is Bishop Wardlaw Professor of Mediaeval History Emeritus at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, a CBE, and a Fellow of the British Academy. He grew up in South London, received his university education at Cambridge, Oxford, and Princeton, taught earlier at the universities of Edinburgh and Chicago, and has held fellowships in America, Germany, and Israel. His books include The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950-1350, which won the Wolfson Literary Prize for History, as well as Blood Royal: Dynastic Politics in Medieval Europe, which is featured in his recent Rorotoko interview.

Pull this thread

pulls againstpulls alongside

Where medieval kings had many partners and every child could inherit, violence was high but dynasties almost never died out.

Against EP · States punish violators of international law badly, so they violate it with impunity when benefits exceed costs. On: The territorially bounded sovereign state remains the natural unit of political order

Against MB · The European debt crisis has normalized the nationalist right, moving its rhetoric into center-right and even left discourse. On: The territorially bounded sovereign state remains the natural unit of political order

Alongside PW · The Holy Roman Empire endured a millennium precisely by not becoming a centralized national monarchy. On: The territorially bounded sovereign state remains the natural unit of political order

Alongside WB · Border walls built since 1989 are theatrical props performing a sovereignty that is draining away. On: The territorially bounded sovereign state remains the natural unit of political order

Alongside RS · The Puerto Rican commonwealth is a borderland state, a distinct political form, so statehood and independence are false alternatives. On: The territorially bounded sovereign state remains the natural unit of political order

Alongside CB · There were more sovereign states in 1825 than there are today. On: The territorially bounded sovereign state remains the natural unit of political order

Nearby TB · Twelfth-century Europe had no government, only lordship.

Nearby EM · Women found it easier to rule Europe's old kingdoms after 1300 than to lead its modern republics.

See the whole map on Explore →

Know something the rest of us don't?

Most threads on Rorotoko begin with our invitation. Any thread can begin with a proposal: you write it with the same prompts every thread answers, and we review it.

Propose a thread →

No paywalls. No selling your data.

Support this awesome independent project.

or shop the merch →