1-2+Morelle+T.

Wiki post # 1 Monday, March 25, 2012 Prompt: Eleanor and Louis were betrothed to each other later than was typical of betrothals during 12th century. Why was this? Why wasn’t Eleanor betrothed as a younger child? What does this tell us about her family? Why wasn’t Louis betrothed at a young age?

Two rich families, one with great wealth and status, and one with a great amount of land. One with a daughter, and one with a son. So why wouldn’t both of their marriages be arranged very early in their lives to protect the family wealth and status? The story starts a generation before Eleanor and Louis, with Eleanor’s father and grandfather. If they were wise, they would’ve had her betrothed shortly after she was born, but you will learn that they are very proud and very conceited, and they simply did not believe they were ever going to die, this day came, as you can imagine and so Eleanor was married to the prince of France. But certainly a prince would be betrothed as an infant as well, so why not prince Louis? Here’s why, Prince Louis had an older brother, the oldest son in any royal family was obviously heir to the throne and all the family wealth. So his brother was betrothed and all was in place, until Louis’s brother died in a horse accident. So now, Louis was the next and only heir to the throne, so he was married to Eleanor, because her family had lots of land, together, they had royalty, money and land, the perfect arrangement it seemed to their fathers, but how long can a marriage remain a political arrangement before things start to unravel? “Marriage is a land contract not a love match” (Konigsburg 70 ).

Prompt: Consider our current EQ: To what extent can a person’s decisions and/or actions change his/her life and the lives of others? How has this been reflected in the behaviors, choices, and/or actions of Eleanor and Louis thus far?

I defiantly believe that a persons decisions can greatly affect their life and the lives of others, but in this book, the main characters hold strong political positions, so I believe it makes their decisions that much more important. This book talks about the way Eleanor, in the beginning, sort of intimidated Louis, he felt as if she had such a strong personality that he had to prove he was a strong king. But he did this by making rash and totally unfair decisions, he burned down a city and killed 1300 people, and he almost had the hands of all his war prisoners cut off, luckily, Abbot Suger helped change his decision. “It would’ve been a shame on all the Capets if you had not gone to Poitiers and talked him out of that” (Konigsburg 32). But I think this book is an amazing example of how important your decisions are, especially when you’re in a position of power. Always think through your decisions, even though they might not seem important at the time, looking back you could really regret not taking a second glance.

Wiki Post # 2 Thursday, March 29, 2012 Discuss the idea of Divine Justice and why Abbot Bernard thinks Geoffrey died because of this. IF Divine Justice DOES exist, how does it connect with our EQ: To what extend can a person's decisions and/or actions change his/her life and the lives of others?

 Divine Justice, in a way is like a form of Karma: If you do something good, it will come back to you, but also, if you do something bad, that will come back to you to. Abbot Bernard thinks that Geoffrey died because of Divine Justice because he took the king’s steward prisoner, and when given the opportunity to release him and lift his ban from the church, Geoffrey chose to keep him, and Abbot Bernard thinks that it is an outrage for anyone to treat a steward of the king in this way. After he leaves the court and lets go of the prisoner, he died of a fever. Abbot Bernard thinks because he acted in a disrespectful way to the king and the church, that divine justice caused his death, his wife, however, does not believe that it was divine justice because he died after he let the prisoner go, and was forgiven, and welcomed back into the church, so if he was forgiven, there was nothing to repay. “Abbot Bernard thinks that it was Divine Justice, but I don’t think it was” (Konigsberg 84). Assuming that divine justice does exist, a persons decisions and choices can greatly affect their lives. If you make a bad choice, or treat another person badly, it’s going to come back to you, and affect you in a negative way.

Why were Eleanor and Matilda against Thomas being archbishop? Why was Henry for it? What do you think could be the outcome?

 Eleanor and Matilda didn’t want Thomas Beckett to be the Archbishop of Canterbury for two apparent reasons. The first was that Eleanor thought that it would just make another ruler who was more of a monk than a ruler, and the second was that Matilda knew that Thomas Becket was a conscience man, and he given the choice, he would choose to serve God, not Henry, and then he would have too much power. But king Henry wasn’t thinking about these things, he saw a problem with the law. The problem was, that all the law in England was universal for everyone, but it the same was not true for the church. Any lowly clerk is exempt from the English law and tried by the church. In order to make the law //totally// universal, he wanted to have someone who held important status in the church and the government, to combine the two laws. The outcome of this, however, is exactly as Matilda thought; Thomas resigned as Chancellor when he was appointed bishop. “I was right. Becket choose to serve God” (Konigsberg 117). Sometimes people who you think will always be faithful, end up having altered motives and ruining what you thought was a perfect plan.

Wiki Post #3 Wednesday, April 4, 2012 Consider the EQ: To what extent can a person;s decisions and/or actions change his/her life or the lives of others? Now, how do Eleanor and Kin Henry's methods of teaching differ? How do their methods connect to the EQ and affect the lives of young Henry and Richard? Be specific in your responses and discuss BOTH characters.

Eleanor and King Henry definitely had different teaching methods with their sons. Eleanor wanted Richard to learn, and be independent and self-reliant, so she taught him the things he needed to know, but more importantly, she let him do those things, she knew that he couldn't learn how to be a good ruler unless he knew how to perform the tasks of one. So she let him hold court and collect taxes as if he was the ruler, so that when she was gone, she knew that she could trust him to rule in a way that she would be proud of. I think her teaching method came mostly from her love of Aquitaine. Eleanor loved Aquitaine and wanted her people to be in good hands, so if that meant that she would have to share her duties with her son, she wouldn't be prideful, she would do the best she could to make sure Richard was as prepared as possible. On the other hand, King Henry cared more about his title and reputation than he did about England. "That is only part of the reason, children. Your father will not let you rule because he considers himself to be the greatest puppeteer in all of England" (Konigsburg 146)He didn't care so much about who was going to rule when he was gone, he just wanted to be in charge and have all the glory. So he made young Henry his secretary of sorts, he sent him on little jobs that held no importance whatsoever, and this bored Henry, and eventually he got a little angry with his father, and all this extra time he had led to worse things. If he was actually ruling the country he probably would not have cared to fight his brother Richard, he wouldn't have had enough time. And then he wouldn't have died so early. So I definitely think that Eleanor and King Henry's teaching methods and the choices they made affected their lives and their sons'.

Consider the Courts of Love established by Eleanor and Marie. Also consider the articles rea in class based on the rules of courtly love(the web quest ). How have those rules affected how men treat women today? When/where do we see these played out the most?

These rules definitely set the stage about what is exceptable for men. But in todays society, some women don't consider it mandatory to be treated in these ways. But in some places, these rules are still practiced, for ex ample, in the south, it is more likely for men to be holding doors and saying yes ma'm and no ma'm and treating women with respect. " The male must be polite, he must be neat, he must regard his lady-loveas smeone above earthly temptation, as someone too frail to be exposed to the roughness of life, as someone to protect, as someone who must be helped to sit at table, as someone whose delicate ears must not hear naughty words, as someone to tip one's hat to" (Konigsburg 134) Also, in the very beginning of a relationship, it's easy to act like this all the time and to have the woman on a high pedestal, but when you're married and you have children to take care of, it becomes much more difficult. You have to deal with real life and it's not always a fairytale. But also I think that older couples definitely are an example of how men should treat their wives, these older couples, especially in the south, lived in times where it wasn't just recommended, but required for men to treat women with an extreme amount of respect and love. And they still feel the same way about their wives now.