Sparked by what LiR asked I start a thread about the relation between France and England from the conquest by William the Conqueror 1066 till the end of the 100 year war in 1453. And that in fictional and non fictional novels.

I promised yesterday to search for novels on that subject that I commented on this forum. And I am sure that I commented in 2016 about Eleanor of Aquitaine, but the search function don't give anything about it. And my statistics go only back to jan.2019...
So I had to search it again on internet and as I had all the novels from the local library Bruges I can hire them again.

About Eleanor from Alison Weil...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7076074-captive-queen
https://www.amazon.com/Eleanor-Aquitaine-Ballantine-Readers-Circle/dp/0345434870
http://alisonweir.org.uk/

Kind regards, Paul.

Addendum to the previous message.

During my life I came from time to time in contact with English history...
One of the first times during a "retraite" in a Catholic college in Belgium. A friar telling, instead of the not so popular religious stories, about the crusades and a Richard Lionheart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England
his captivity by the HRE emperor, who asked a big ransom from the Angevin empire. And he was located by his minstrel, who song outside a song that only he and the king knew and the king answered so that they knew that it was him inside. The friar could tell that so compelling that we nearly "hung on his lips" (aan zijn lippen hingen) and each time after each session we were yearning for the next episode and that during the three days of our retraite.
And then about the malicious perfide king John. The "Jan zonder Land" (John without land).

And then later start of the Fifties the Robin Hood with if I recall it well Errol Flyn...again the perfide John and the hero of Richard Lionheart returning to his country after captivity, adding to the stories of the friar of some years before...I think I can find the film back on youtube...
But later I learned that he was not the historical pictured misfit, but rather a competent king working for the good of his country. What think the honourable members of the board?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England
 
And later came Jean Anouilh and Thomas Becket and Henry II their father
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II_of_England

And then I read in 2016 the Eleanor of Alison Weil: "the captive queen" and the stories "fell all on their place"
Was it the author and she studied it all in depth as she wrote also a non-fiction about Eleanor, but I read about Eleanor busy with her own strong sexuality. I have to reread the novel to know the exact mentionings.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7076074-captive-queen

Kind regards from Paul.

At sometime in a hospital I read Georgette Heyer's ' My Lord John' on the youngest son of Henry Bolinbroke,  he who became the King Henry IV of England, which I found rather interesting as the author seemed to make a serious attempt - against my bias - at creating a realistic picture of a late medeival prince, who was trained in war against the Scots, and then also in diplomacy against/with the French.

I have later discovered an interest in the evolution of the Netherlands - nowadays BENELUX as well as Northern France and parts of Germany - just a reading list from wiki so far, but it may become a serious nerdship if I don't take care.

I was quite surprised when I learned that Georgette Heyer wrote serious historical novels, Nielsen (though I had known of the fact before reading your above post).  For a long time I was only aware of her as a writer of Regency romances - alright for a light read but not really serious stuff.

As I did some further research for novels as LiR asked, I learned that the Plantagenets covered the whole one hundred years war.
A good survey I find the following essay:
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/history/the-hundred-years-war-fought-between-two-royal-houses-for-the-french-throne-the-house-of-valois-and-thehouse-of-plantagenet-s
It don't work search in this site under:
The Hundred Years' War, fought between two royal houses for the French throne, the House of Valois and the House of Plantagenet, started in 1337 and ended in 1453.
And I wanted to start with Philippa Gregory...
"God beware mij" they translate in English!!! with Válgame Dios, perhaps "heaven help me"?
if I hadn't first read this thread for the first time:
https://reshistorica.forumotion.com/t23-philippa-gregory-historian-or-bodice-ripper
And I wanted to go further with Sharon Kay Penman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Kay_Penman
Hope she don't receive such a ...as I read the wiki, she seems at least on the first sight better than Philippa..

As I read that all about historical novels not sticking to history, I will look at the real history...
And of course our Burgundian states (the later Benelux) were also involved
https://www.britannica.com/topic/house-of-Plantagenet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Plantagenet

And I read also in 2016 a book about the Pastons Letters about the last phase of the struggle among the Plantagenets: The war of the roses
And I commented it overhere. Blood and Roses by Helen Castor.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/oct/23/featuresreviews.guardianreview6
And there seems to be another that I didn't read:
https://www.amazon.com/Pastons-Family-Roses-Person-Singular/dp/1843831112

Kind regards from Paul.

Concerning English armies in France, this is from the Italian poet Petrarch

“In my youth the English were regarded as the most timid of the uncouth races; but today they are the supreme warriors; they have destroyed the reputation of the French in a succession of astonishing victories, and men who were lower even than the wretched Scots have crushed the realm of France with fire and steel.” 

Tim of Aclea wrote:

Concerning English armies in France, this is from the Italian poet Petrarch

“In my youth the English were regarded as the most timid of the uncouth races; but today they are the supreme warriors; they have destroyed the reputation of the French in a succession of astonishing victories, and men who were lower even than the wretched Scots have crushed the realm of France with fire and steel.” 

Tim,

I didn't saw the black text, but now with quoting it, it is all there. Thank you for Petrarca's quote. Yes those valorous Englishmen, still today...wanted to give a nowadays example, but restrained from it, as it is perhaps a bit childish from me...

Kind regards from Paul.

Petrarch "“In my youth the English were regarded as the most timid of the uncouth races; but today they are the supreme warriors; they have destroyed the reputation of the French in a succession of astonishing victories, and men who were lower even than the wretched Scots have crushed the realm of France with fire and steel.”

Sorry Paul and others, I had forgotten the problems with posting on Nordmann's site of copying from Word or other documents.

I would also ask Paul why not end the period starting in 1066 with the loss of Calais during Queen Mary Tudor's reign rather than with the end of the 100 Years War, for Elizabeth I was the first monarch since Harold Godwinson not to hold territory on the Continent.

regards

Tim

Tim, I think the date of the period may be down to a question I asked.  I mentioned something about being interested in the Norman and Plantagenet periods, perhaps from the French side (with the caveat that some of the "English" lands in France were under the suzerainty of lords of independent fiefs on mainland Europe which hadn't actually become part of France then).  As everyone knows the Normans and later the Plantagenets held land in (what is now) France before they held England.

Tim of Aclea wrote:

Petrarch "“In my youth the English were regarded as the most timid of the uncouth races; but today they are the supreme warriors; they have destroyed the reputation of the French in a succession of astonishing victories, and men who were lower even than the wretched Scots have crushed the realm of France with fire and steel.”

It’s a quotation which is often repeated verbatim by many writers in the English language but nearly always out of context. The translation itself is also questionable. The Latin text reads:

'Adolescentulo me, Britanni, quos Anglos sive Anglicos vocant, omnium barbarorum timidissimi habebantur; nunc, bellicosissima gens, Gallos diu belli gloria florentes stravit tam crebris insperatisque successibus, ut qui modo vilibus Scotis impares fuerant, praeter miserabilem et indignum summi regis casum, quem sine suspirio meminisse non possum, sic regnum omne igni ferroque contriverint, ut mihi nuper illuc iter ex negotio agenti, vix persuaderi posset regnum illud esse quod videram; sic ubique solitudo infelix et moeror et vastitas, sic ubique horrida et inculta arva, sic dirutae desertaeque domus nisi quae, cinctae arcium moenibus aut urbium, evasissent, sic demum locis omnibus Anglorum moesta vestigia et recentes foedaeque cicatrices gladiorum extabant.'

I’d translate that as:

'In my youth, the Britons who are called Anglos or English, would have been included among the most timid of all the barbarians. Now this most warlike of people, with their unrelenting successes have brought low and rattled the long-flowering military glory of the French who now barely measure up even to the feeble Scots. And that’s quite apart from the pitiable and highly unworthy story of the king which can not be recalled without a sigh. Thus the kingdom is all wasted by fire and steel. I travelled there lately on a diplomatic mission and could hardly believe that it was still the same country as everywhere was solitude, misfortune, sadness and waste. Everywhere was horrid and uncultivated dry land and ruined and abandoned houses save only those within strong ramparts or towns. Those last locations being spared the dismal trail of the English and the recent awful scarring wrought by their swords.'
 
2 things are worth noting here. This first is that Petrarch is comparing the ‘vilibus Scotis’ to the French rather than to the English (as in the other translation). The second is that the rest of the passage is not particularly flattering towards the English, depicting them as mere brutes wreaking havoc.
 
The significance of this is that, despite being ‘the father of humanism’, Petrarch was nevertheless still a human and given to the occasional bout of Francophobia in his writings. Outbursts which he would often later regret. He had a love/hate relationship with France as it was the country where he had made his name as a rediscoverer of the classics. His celebrated ascent of Mont Ventoux (one of the first recorded examples of recreational mountaineering) also took place there. But France’s claim to be the heir to Rome and the home of the papacy being in Avignon were 2 things which particularly rankled with Petrarch being a proud Italian.

The ‘bellicosissima gens’ excerpt is taken from a letter by Petrarch on military organisation and is a case in point. It shouldn’t be seen so much as a bigging-up of English martial prowess as more an exercise in goading the French. Let’s not forget that when referring to ‘omnium barbarorum’ he also included the French in this. The letter is a discourse on military affairs which takes examples dating back to the Punic Wars and up to the modern times (i.e. the Fourteenth Century). The barb about the ‘vilibus Scotis’ (which is given right at the beginning of the letter) is quite literally a hook to wind up and then wind in the French reader and keep him reading.

The letter is dated February 1360 and was addressed to Petrum Pictavensum (Pietro di Poitiers or Pierre le Bercheure) an old acquaintance of Petrarch’s from his time in Avignon. Petrarch sent Pierre a second letter 18 months later in September 1361 on the topic of Fortune and Luck. It’s almost as though Petrarch regrets having sent the first letter (or at least the trolling part of it) as the second letter is consequently full of praise for the 22-year-old Dauphin Charles:

'regem ipsum primogenitumque eius, illustrem Normannorum ducem, ardentissimi spiritus adolescentem'

'the aforementioned king’s first-born son, the illustrious Duke of Normandy, a youth of the most ardent spirit'

A reversal of fortune for France had occurred in the 18 months between his writing of the letter on military organisation and the subsequent letter on fortune. The Dauphin’s father, Jean le Bon had taken on Edward, the Black Prince at Poitiers in 1356 and, despite outnumbering him 2 to 1, had managed not only to lose the battle but also get himself taken prisoner. This was a major humiliation and an almost identical scenario to a battle 10 years earlier in 1346 in which a Scottish army had been defeated at Neville’s Cross and the Scottish king David taken prisoner by a much smaller English force on behalf of Queen Philippa while her husband King Edward was away campaigning at Crécy. The comparison of the French to the Scots in Petrarch’s first letter, therefore, needs to be seen in this light.



(Stylised depiction of Philippa of Hainault leading English forces to victory over the Scots at Neville’s Cross in 1346. She didn’t actually attend the battle herself but it did seem for a while that King Edward didn’t need to bother taking the field himself as his wife and son were managing just fine by themselves.)

In 1360 however, despite his father being a captive of the Plantagenets, the Dauphin Charles had called King Edward’s bluff and had played hardball demanding that the exorbitant Treaty of London of 1359 be cancelled and renegotiated. The ploy worked as Edward’s forces and coffers were exhausted (as Charles has rightly guessed) and a subsequent (and much more sober) Treaty of Brétigny was agreed in May 1360 which somewhat took the gloss of the Black Prince’s victory at Poitiers. And so just as had happened before, and as would happen again, seemingly spectacular and heady Plantagenet victories on the battlefield, nevertheless, kept being put into cool perspective by the enormous weight, wealth and attritional reality of Capetian France.  

Tim of Aclea wrote:

why not end the period starting in 1066 with the loss of Calais during Queen Mary Tudor's reign rather than with the end of the 100 Years War, for Elizabeth I was the first monarch since Harold Godwinson not to hold territory on the Continent.

That's a common misapprehension. Following the massacre of Wassy in March 1562, in which scores of French protestants had been massacred following an altercation with forces loyal to François de Guise (uncle of Mary Queen of Scots), a civil war broke out in France between catholics and protestants. The latter group had strongholds in Lyons, Orleans and Rouen among others. Elizabeth sent an army to assist the protestant Huguenots commanded by Ambrose Dudley (brother of her favourite Robert, earl of Leicester). The force arrived in Le Havre (or ‘Newhaven’ as the English called it) in October just as (unbeknownst to them) Elizabeth was taken ill with smallpox. They made no attempt, however, to move on to Rouen then under siege by catholic forces. Consequently Rouen fell and the English settled in for the winter in Le Havre.

Come the spring they were still ensconced in the town and again made no attempt to move out. The Huguenots in Normandy then realised that the English had arrived under false pretences and had no intention of becoming involved in the war of religion. Elizabeth’s real objective was to use Le Havre as a bargaining chip with a view to exchanging it for Calais which had been captured by François de Guise (on behalf of King Henri) only 4 years earlier.
 
In March, feeling tricked and betrayed and with a peace deal from the regent Catherine de Médicis on the table, the Huguenots now joined forces with their catholic compatriots to evict the English from the Norman port. This they achieved after a siege which ended on 31 July 1563 when the English finally evacuated the town by sea 496 years, 10 months and 4 days after William had set out from the same coast to invade England.



(A young Elizabeth at her coronation. In the early years of her reign she had sought to uphold the territorial claims in France of her Tudor and Plantagenet ancestors.)

Vizzer,

thank you very much for this essay from which I learned a lot, especially as I am interested in the period and the actors. And did already a lot of research about it.
That's really the in depth research that one needs.

And also a lesson for the historians that whatever source can be biased by the author of the source, even as you prove, depending on the time the author writes it the bias can change due to circumstances and altering his attitude.

PS: 
Because you mentioned "Philippa of Hainaut"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_of_Hainault
I remembered "Jacqueline de Hainaut".

As I already mentioned on many threads the royals of Europe were one big family even up to their nearly extinction in 1918. (and later too, but no royals anymore)
As I read a novel about Jaqueline (four husbands) What a woman...
I had already sought a lot about the time of her life...yes Hainaut, France, England, Holland...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline,_Countess_of_Hainaut
And the novel that I read:
https://www.amazon.com/anneaux-dor-French-Suzanne-Chantal-ebook/dp/B078KNWF8H
A bit too much fiction as some "supernatural" (in my opinion), but nevertheless thanks to this novel I did the research about the real history and the circumstances of that history...

And I was nearly sure that there was a family link between the two...
That was the start of a painstaking search as the "royal" relations between two women in history seem not to be a priority...
At least I found here what I already supposed and in a not expected source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Quesnoy

Conclusion: 
Margaret II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_II,_Countess_of_Hainaut
was the grand-mother of Jacqueline of Hainaut (Jacoba of Bavaria)?

And as Margaret II was the sister of Philippa of Hainaut:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_of_Hainault
was Philippa the grand-aunt of Jacqueline?

Kind regards, Paul.