Historians Answer Questions About Historical Royals We Should Have Asked Ages Ago

Redditor u/Kiyohara asked: What is the historical consensus on Why Elizabeth I of England did not marry? Redditor u/PlinytheHipster answered: There really wasn't just one specific reason but the broader reason is generally held to be to maintain her personal sovereignty and security. Which is a bit more complicated than "didn't want to share power." To start off very broadly, Elizabeth was by nature an extremely cautious person. In every sense. When it came to foreign diplomacy, war, money (especially money), and political appointments. Sometimes that cautiousness led to indecisiveness, which drove her council mad. So by her very nature, a huge decision like marriage was never going to be one she took on lightly. A primary concern of hers was that during this period a man was expected to dominate over his wife. A woman's property was expected to be turned over to her husband upon marriage. So, regardless of what title he had, any man she married would be expected to at the least exert a lot of influence and at the extreme become king of England, himself. This wasn't a hypothetical concern. Phillip's exact role during the reign of Mary I was a continuing problem. Contrary to perception, Mary, despite being very enamored of Phillip, was firm in her own sovereignty (Mary was as much a Tudor as her father and sister.) Phillip was titled king but he couldn't act without her consent or appoint ministers. Phillip was not pleased with the arrangement, which led to tension in the marriage. And many blamed Mary's desire to please her husband with being involved in a war against France that eventually lost Calais. Although the loss of Calais was probably a good thing in the long run, it was seen as a disaster. And her marriage was not popular. So that example was certainly on her mind. Elizabeth would want to avoid such a situation. So, choosing a husband was a very tricky matter from the outset. If she chose a foreign prince there would be endless negotiating over the terms. As there was in her many marriage negotiations. Marrying a subject may have been entertained but it was really a non-starter. Elevation of one subject above all others was a sure way to exacerbate factionalism (which was a problem in her reign.) This is even true when a king did it (Henry VIII's marriages within the realm did see the rise, and then sometimes fall, of the families connected to his wives and adjacent factional conflict.) But with a queen it was a far greater issue because of what I discussed above about a man dominating his wife. Religion was an issue. It's not as though there were no possible protestant matches. She and Eric of Sweden negotiated a possible marriage for a very long time. But marrying a Catholic wasn't necessarily an insurmountable problem. Elizabeth also had very serious marriage negotiations with the Archduke Charles of Austria that lasted years. In those it was promised he could have his own chapel for worship. Although it was definitely a concern and the more staunchly protestant subjects would have issues with it. Elizabeth's final marriage negotiation was with Francis Duke of Anjou. And she seemed to take that very seriously. In the end, it was actually Parliament that urged her not to marry him and she was reportedly livid (although this could have been a form of theater for her it's always difficult to tell with Elizabeth.) She was in her 40s at this point. And even if she could have a child it would be very dangerous. The fear of losing the Queen in favor of an infant with a French royal father was too great. There were also objections over his religion. The strict Protestant faction grew over the course of her reign (although not with her encouragement.) As talk of those negotiations suggests, it shouldn't be thought that in 1558 Elizabeth decided not to marry and then stuck with it. She considered various matches very seriously. There was another benefit to her being single. She was able to play the marriage game for the first few decades of her reign. Marrying into England was a very valuable prize to dangle in front of a prince. Elizabeth was very concerned about the prospect of Catholic powers allying against Protestant England. But for as long as she could suggest a possible alliance with one or the other she was able to prolong peace. Her most serious negotiations were with Charles of Austria, who like Phillip II was a Hapsburg, and the two successive Dukes of Anjou (Henri then Francis) both sons of Henri II of France and Catherine de'Medici. This was very effective in maintaining peace, which was very important to her. And with the exception of small expeditions she reluctantly allowed in the Netherlands and the revolts in Ireland starting in the early 1580s, Elizabeth did keep England at peace for roughly 29 years. She ended Mary's war with France in 1559 and the Spanish Armada set sail in 1588. Had she married into France or the Hapsburgs she could have been sucked into war much sooner. Had she married into Sweden her hand in marriage couldn't have been used as an alliance tool. Had she married a subject it would have brought her very little political gain at all. Elizabeth was also very aware of the potential for rival courts to form around named successors. This had happened with her while her sister Mary was still alive. A husband and, especially, a son could be direct competition. (And Mary Queen of Scots did have this issue with her husband.) The lack of succession plan certainly made people of her time very uncomfortable and uncertain. And it added a needless uncertainty when in almost every other area Elizabeth preferred stability over all else. Parliament urged her to marry in the first half of her reign and then urged her to name a successor in the later half. It can be glossed over in retrospect because the succession was very smooth. But it might not have been had she died sooner. So, it shouldn't be dismissed as a very valid concern throughout her reign. But, from Elizabeth's POV, the immediate problems that came with a potential marriage overshadowed the long-term issues of not producing an heir. Elizabeth ruled for 44 years. And her motives and the needs of her country changed over that time. Although she expressed her desire to remain single very early on, it wasn't just a random choice not to marry that she stubbornly stuck to. Really, she never found someone where the positives outweighed the risks. Or if she did ever find the right person it was Francis Duke of Anjou but her council and Parliament were opposed by then.

Redditor u/-ad-as- asked: What did the French people think about Marie Antoinette before she became the queen? Redditor u/a_mons_at_a_glans answered: Marie-Antoinette was very popular more or less up until she became Queen in 1774. The marriage between the Dauphin Louis, soon to become Louis XVI, and Marie-Antoinette was meant to consolidate the alliance between France and Austria was welcomed by the people as a promise of continued peace, if not as a coming golden age. As soon as Marie-Antoinette set foot on French soil in 1770 she made all the right PR moves. For example she asked the mayor of Strasbourg who was complimenting her in German to speak French to her, as of this day she wouldn't know any other language. At every stop along the way to Paris, she appeared smiling and was gracious to everyone. By 1774, Marie-Antoinette already had serious political and personal enemies within the court, she was apparently unable to produce an heir, and the first vicious pamphlets started appearing.

Redditor u/Hydra527 asked: How did Queen Elizabeth I go from being hell-bent on killing Mary, Queen of Scots to naming her son James as her successor? A former Redditor answered: The hostility between Catholics and Protestants played a huge role in the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. Mary, Queen of Scots was a devout Catholic, and Scotland was torn between Catholics and Protestants. This eventually led to protestant rebellion, Mary’s imprisonment, and her abdication on 24 July 1567, which meant that the 1-year-old James was now King of Scotland. Mary escaped and made it to England in 1568, and wanted Elizabeth to help her. There was an inquiry in England to determine whether Mary was responsible for the death of her late husband, Lord Danley. Mary was neither found guilty nor acquitted, and Mary was kept in English custody for 19 years. While all of this is taking place, Pope Pius V issued a papal bull titled ‘Regnans in Excelsis’ in 1570 that declared Elizabeth was not the rightful heir to the English throne. It gave any English Catholics permission to disobey her and threatened to excommunicate any Catholics who did obey Elizabeth’s orders. They didn’t need to pay taxes, obey the laws and so on. This inspired many plots to remove Elizabeth from the throne, and Mary was the focal point of many of these plots. The final of the plots was the Babington Plot which was a plan to execute Elizabeth and place Mary on the English throne. Babington wrote to Mary in code and told her what he planned to do, and she replied that she agreed. She was arrested, and put on trial for treason and sentenced to death in October 1586. It’s also important to note that while Mary was in England, it’s said that she was very vocal about her belief that she was the rightful heir and should be queen. Elizabeth reportedly did not want to execute a queen as it set a bad precedent, and it could lead to Catholic rebellion. She eventually signed the warrant of execution in February and gave it to a member of the Privy Council and reportedly asked him not to do anything with it. Mary was executed on 8 February 1587. It isn’t clear if Elizabeth wanted Mary to be executed, as after she was told that Mary had been executed, Elizabeth declared it was against her authority. When it comes to the line of succession, Elizabeth refused to name an heir throughout her reign. Elizabeth reportedly would say that the person with the most right to inherit the throne would whenever she was asked. It actually wasn’t a given that James would succeed Elizabeth. Henry VIII, Elizabeth’s father, had excluded the line of his sister Margaret (who was James’ great-grandmother) from English succession in favour of his youngest sister Mary Tudor. This was stated in his will in the event that his children all died without issue, and endorsed in the third Succession Act. It prioritized what was referred to as the Suffolk claim over any claim the Stuarts (i.e. James) would have. Despite the other claims to the English throne and Henry VIII’s exclusion of the Stuart line, James did have a strong claim. Both of his parents were descended from Henry VII through Margaret Tudor, and James was Protestant, unlike his Catholic parents. James was a foreigner, which was not ideal, though the relationship between England and Scotland was not as hostile as it had been in the past. He was also already a King, certainly helping matters. At the time of Elizabeth’s death, James was also genealogically the closest relative. One of the other likely candidates seemed to be Anne Stanley, descended from Mary Tudor. However, the family’s religion was unclear with speculation they were Catholic, her father had been approached to be involved in a Catholic plot, and her grandmother was arrested for using witchcraft to determine if Queen Elizabeth would live much longer. Elizabeth’s advisor Robert Cecil played an important role in James’ succession to the English throne. Between 1601 and 1603, Cecil secretly negotiated and corresponded with James, and all but confirmed that James would be the heir. Cecil requested that their communication be kept a secret from Elizabeth, that James not broach the subject of succession with her, and that James not seek parliamentary confirmation of his claim to the throne. Shortly before Elizabeth died in 1603, James was sent a draft proclamation of his accession by Cecil and James was declared the King of England within hours of Elizabeth’s death. It's not really clear whether or not Elizabeth ever specified that James was to be her heir, though she reportedly once said that only a king is fit to succeed a Queen. Essentially, Elizabeth never really seemed to want Mary, Queen of Scots to die or that she had any real animosity towards her cousin. She wanted to protect the throne and Mary simply being in England was a threat to that. While Elizabeth kept Mary in custody for 19 years, Mary was afforded a relatively good lifestyle even while captive, including at least 16 personal staff, private chefs, and summers spent at a spa town. If Mary had not been found to be involved in one of the many plots on Elizabeth, she likely would have remained in custody. When it came to succession, James was the logical choice and rightful heir following the rules of primogeniture (and ignoring Henry VIII’s exclusion). Elizabeth had long stated that the person with the most right to inherit would, and as James was her closest living relative, it is not surprising he succeeded her.

Redditor u/Calexbraska asked: "Bloody" Mary Tudor has the bad reputation of being brutal to her Protestant subjects. But when Elizabeth I ascended to the throne, she was similarly brutal to her Catholic subjects. Was Mary more brutal, or does she just get the moniker "Bloody" because the country is more Protestant today? Redditor u/Bodark43 answered: On one hand, Mary was actually a lenient, merciful person. She was ready to pardon Lady Jane Grey, until the Wyatt Rebellion forced her to change her mind: something that her far-bloodier father Henry VIII would not have hesitated over for a moment. Though she was certainly devout, her tally of 280 or so burnt heretics perhaps was not that great by 16th c. standards. But, on the other hand, it was substantial, considering it was done over only three years, from 1555 to her death in 1558. And it differed from previous English persecutions: they didn't kill as many people. When Archbishop William Warham went after 46 Lollards in 1511, for example, only 5 were burnt. It was typically the leaders who got the bonfire. Like Thomas Man, a wandering preacher who was burned in Smithfield in 1518. Mary went after even the lowliest, like the Colchester Martyrs, and went for them root and branch, not only burning modest tradesmen but their wives as well. That made her an easy target in John Foxe's Book of Martyrs. She was also an unsuccessful monarch, lasting only five years, leaving no heir, and losing Calais, so it was easy to cast her as a villain. And, in the tradition of winners writing the histories, of course, the end of Mary I and Catholic rule was seen as a victory for the Anglican Church. Eamon Duffy challenged that in his book, The Stripping of the Altars, ( and expanded it in his later Fires of Faith ) reasonably asking the question, why was it such a bad thing for England to have become Catholic again? And wouldn't it have been just fine, staying that way? Comparing her to Elizabeth, however, is difficult. Elizabeth had a much larger political problem with the Catholic church than Mary had with her heretics: the Pope did not regard her as legitimate (because Henry could not legally have divorced Catherine of Aragon) and said so: so she was under real threat. Her cousin Mary (of Scots) was far preferable to Catholics and the center of plots, which is why Mary eventually had to be executed. It is quite hard to separate politics, economics, and religion at this time: Mary I saw heresy as a terrible danger to her subjects' salvation. Spain's Philip II saw his elimination of heresy to be practical foreign policy, a mission handed to him by his father Charles V. But Elizabeth could be simply worried about the simple loyalty of her Catholic subjects, regardless of doctrine. The Jesuits coming into the country were trying to unseat her, and asking for assistance from the Catholic English, which they sometimes got: there was, for example, the Ridolfi Plot involving the Ear of Arundel and family. Elizabeth did not, however, go after the Catholics root and branch- plenty managed to keep a low-enough profile to survive. And she also had a very, very, long reign compared to Mary's, so you can't really just compare numbers: if she had kept Mary's pace, after 45 years she would have burned 2,240 people.

Redditor u/Ainatuoretta asked: What is the surname of Queen Elizabeth II ? Redditor u/jschooltiger answered: Inasmuch as she has a surname, it's Windsor. The current British royal house is the house of Windsor; that line succeeded the house of Hanover when Queen Victoria died and her son Edward VII succeeded her. Edward took his father's surname, being a member of the royal house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; the name of the house was changed to Windsor in 1917, under George V, as a result of anti-German sentiment in WWI. However, in normal usage, the royal family doesn't use surnames -- there's no ambiguity over which Elizabeth is queen of Britain, versus who's Elizabeth Smith or Elizabeth Stone.

Redditor u/oliksandr asked: Has the birth of twins ever complicated lines of succession? Redditor u/constanto answered: The most complicated twin heir issue that I know of in European history was with the succession of Ramon Berenguer I of Barcelona which is just a wonderful story of family murder. Ramon Berenguer's first two sons had died young, leaving one lone son (Pedro Ramon) who stood to inherit the entire county of Barcelona. This was, of course, until Ramon Berenguer kidnapped Almodis de la Marche from Toulouse (with the aid of his Muslim allies which just goes to show that Iberia was not always Christians v. Muslims) and married her even though she was still married at the time to Count Pons of Toulouse and her first husband Hugh V was still alive as well! After everyone was a bit excommunicated for that Ramon Berenguer and Almodis eventually had twin boys, the wonderfully named Ramon Berenguer and Berenguer Ramon (named after Ramon Berenguer I's father Berenguer Ramon I), and both of them would have stayed where they were in the line of succession save for the fact that Pedro Ramon suspected, probably rightly, that Almodis was plotting to have her twin sons inherit the county that was rightfully his so in 1071 Pedro Ramon conspired to have Amodis killed... unfortunately his crimes were quickly found out and he was disinherited, excommunicated, and shipped off to fight the Muslims where he died soon after. The end result of this is that the twins Ramon Berenguer and Berenguer Ramon now had to split the realm as co-heirs on their father's death, which occurred five years after their mother's in 1076. Naturally no one was terribly pleased with this arrangement and after six years of realm-sharing Ramon Berenguer II found himself full of quite a few arrows while out hunting leaving the entire county of Barcelona to his twin brother Berenguer Ramon II. The stain of fratricide never quite left Berenguer Ramon II though and he dealt with near constant civil wars and was eventually forced back into a co-rule situation, this time with his brother's son and heir Ramon Berenguer III before eventually abdicating and continuing the family trend of dying in battle against the Muslims.

Redditor u/pinknessme asked: Why is Mary Queen of Scot's death mask so dramatically different from the way she is depicted in portraits? Redditor u/intangible-tangerine answered: The National Portrait gallery in London has many authenticated images of Mary Queen of Scots, some of which do resemble the death mask much more closely. One of the formerly classic portraits of Mary QofS in her youth, is now believed to be of another person and not her. Also note that it was common practice for artists not to paint from-life but to copy a previous portrait, which may have been decades old, if you browse the NPG pages you'll find portraits made within a few years of each other where she's aged 20 years - and that's because one's a copy of an older portrait while another represents a new sitting.

Redditor u/greensweet asked: Why is Anne Boleyn's age disputed? Redditor u/milkybev answered: This was actually not an uncommon uncertainty during the Tudor era (and in predating eras) — it was only when Thomas Cromwell issued a mandate for strict parish registers in 1538 that there was a regulated and widespread record of christenings, burials, and marriages. Considering that the mandate was implemented decades after Anne Boleyn (as well as many of Henry’s other wives, in fact) was born, the uncertainty of Anne’s date of birth is likely due to poor record-keeping in general. There are, however, more specifically recorded dates relevant to the estimation of Anne’s exact age, such as when she attended boarding school, that can be placed in the social context of Tudor England to establish a likely timeline of her life — but even here the dates recorded are inconsistent. Frustrating, right? There are a few excellent arguments that people have written about Anne’s age that will be more in-depth and well-researched than what I can give, so I recommend looking here at Gareth Russel’s proposal of Anne being born in 1507, and Eric Ives’ book “The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn.”

Redditor u/SenatorArmstrong2020 asked: Why didn't anyone invade... England after [Henry VIII] was excommunicated in 1538? Redditor u/porphyrogenitaAC answered: The only powers capable of an invasion of England, France, and Charles V's empire, were bitter rivals, almost constantly at war. While there was a short window around 1538-40 when England went through a real invasion scare as France's King Francois I and Charles V signed a treaty of friendship and agreed to sever ties with England, the peace didn't hold long enough for any invasion to come about. By 1540 relations had cooled between them and in 1542 they were at war again. Basically Francois and Charles were at war so frequently that neither trusted each other enough to risk a daring attack on England which would leave them badly exposed on the continent.

Redditor u/Jewelofadog asked: Was Queen Victoria actually upset about the plight of the Irish during the Great Famine? Redditor u/chocolatepot answered: Yes, Queen Victoria was upset, although her concern was tempered. As a young princess, she was highly sympathetic to the native Irish as a whole when she learned about the historical and present oppression visited on them by her ancestors; it's been argued that her feelings were turned early in her rule by her highly influential first Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne. Ireland had been undergoing civil unrest through the 1830s due to poor crop yields and high rents charged by absentee English landowners, and when Victoria came to the throne in 1837, she came to believe that the issue was the "low Irish" (a term frequently used during this time for Irish people, particularly those that had emigrated to England, who were destitute and seen as having caused or deserving their problems through fecklessness and irresponsibility) revolting against good or at least well-intentioned local leaders. This obviously had implications for leaders farther up the chain of command! Stricter measures were taken by the government against the "low Irish, and Victoria was disinclined to visit for fear of her own safety. When the potato blight hit and destroyed two years' worth of crops, the queen urged her new PM Robert Peel to repeal the Corn Laws, which had put high import duties on foreign food and thus caused even more economic devastation when crops in the UK failed (such as with the Great Famine). She also limited the palace bread rations to a pound per person per day in order to cut down on the use of grain/flour, freeing up more to be sent to Ireland; she gave £2000 from her personal income and encouraged others to donate to the cause. However, she still retained her old prejudices, and while she was horrified at the suffering of the poor Irish, she was disdainful of those that revolted violently against their landlords for hoarding/diverting food. Eventually, the royal family did visit. The lord mayor of Dublin invited the queen to come in 1844, but the unrest (and then famine) made her and the government decide not to actually go through with it. Finally, in 1849, Victoria, Albert, and the oldest four children went on a low-budget state visit to improve relations between the Irish and stimulate trade and manufacture, which ended up costing roughly £2000 itself, canceling out her donation. Victoria and Albert were charmed by what they saw and considered it a great success - despite the desperate circumstances, there were still plenty of cheering crowds - but her itinerary was designed to keep her out of the hard-hit areas and in the long run, it did little to calm tensions. One has to wonder what might have happened if she had given Ireland the kind of patronage she gave to Scotland: would it have created a similar tourist industry and brought in more money for the region? Would there have been more sympathy on the part of the English toward the rural Irish? Would the government of Dublin have kept the statue of Albert she sent following his death, the return of which helped to make Victoria okay with neglecting Ireland for the rest of her reign? We don't know that it would have made a difference to the history of Irish separatism, but it's an interesting counterfactual to ponder.

Redditor u/SkySilver asked: Who was the first monarch? Redditor u/WedgeHead answered: The oldest monarch almost certainly lived in ancient Mesopotamia or Egypt. The oldest datable monarch that we can be certain existed historically is currently Lugalzagesi of Umma (2341-2316 BCE) who was the first city-ruler of an ancient Sumerian city to rule as hegemon over all the others. Although "kings" before him tried to accomplish this, they failed to do so, and these previous rulers were essentially just the mayors of individual cities. Lugalzagesi was later captured by, the much more famous, Sargon of Akkad (2334-2279 BCE). We know the names of many of these earlier "city-rulers" but as one moves further back in time they and their descriptions become increasingly mythological and absurd. In any case, the earliest such "city-rulers" may or may not have high priests of the city's patron deity, and the office probably corresponded with the rise of genuine cities in the mid-fourth millennium BCE (~3500). This was all in Mesopotamia. Egypt probably had "monarchs" sooner than Mesopotamia because they mostly skipped the "city-ruler" phase and jumped into a territorial state faster. The problem with Egypt is that the dates for these early kings are really messed up. We're fairly confident that even the earliest kings existed, but trying to ascertain exactly when is most unpleasant. For your purposes, the first ruler of unified Egypt is the guy you want, but the problem is that we aren't sure who he is exactly. He has typically been thought to be Menes, but he could also be Narmer, (Hor-)Aha, or the Scorpion King. Whoever it is, he is buried in one of the monumental tombs at Abydos and probably lived around 3000 BCE. All of this ignores the long tradition in Egyptian and Mesopotamian (and Biblical!) literature that describes many individuals and kings said to have lived in the hoary mists of ultra antiquity, but most archaeological and accompanying research has revealed most of the early parts of these works to be entirely artificial, composed in much later periods, and often for transparently obvious political reasons.

Redditor u/somebodyandnobody asked: Why was Marie Antoinette executed 10 months after Louis? Redditor u/breecher answered: Short answer is that Louis was the main target as the living embodiment of the French monarchy, and at that time it was a huge deal to kill a monarch for being a monarch, even for hardcore republicans, so they focused on him first, before turning to Marie Antoinette when they had accomplished their goal and set a precedent. Contrary to popular belief the revolutionaries actually stuck to a rather complex legal procedure before executing Louis XVI, it was not done on a whim or from executive order. Louis was no longer king, but as the living embodiment of the French monarchy remained a target for the republican revolutionaries. As such they engaged in a lengthy process of prosecuting him, first by taking up the question in the Convention whether it would be lawful to prosecute him at all for his actions as king, and as that passed after a lengthy debate, what kind of punishment he should receive. Despite there being a virtual civil war in France, and despite several massacres on royalists and nobles, most notably the September Massacres, it was still a huge deal to kill off the king himself. Opposition remained not just in the forces opposing the republicans but in Convention itself, and among the populace of Paris and the rest of France. So for the revolutionaries wanting to kill off the French monarchy it was important to legitimise the process as much as possible, and as such they focused on a legal argument against the king in person and his actions in supporting various incidents where his guards killed civilians in the riots occurring in the early period of the revolution. The debate on whether it was legal to prosecute the monarch became very technical and it did so with intent. With retrospective it can be questioned whether it was just to prosecute a king who had already been dethroned, and if so if it was legal to do so at the Convention instead of in a proper court of law. And these exact questions were voiced publically not just by the king's chosen defender but also by several members of the opposition in the Convent. And this is what underlines the fact of how crucial it was for the republicans to try and legitimise the proceedings as much as possible, because there wasn't 100% support in the convention itself, although there was a majority by far, for the proceedings and the execution. They succeeded and with that precedent they initiated a similar process against the queen.

Redditor u/Skoodledoo asked: Was Queen Elizabeth I always titled as the first? Redditor u/RTarcher answered: Queen Elizabeth was known simply as that until the succession of Elizabeth II. An example of this is the biography of Elizabeth I by J. E. Neale. The original title of the biography was simply "Queen Elizabeth" when it was initially published in 1934. When the book was reprinted in 1952, Neale states in his introduction that "for obvious reasons I have changed the title of this book to Queen Elizbeth I." Other publications predating Queen Elizabeth II also refer to Elizabeth I as simply "Elizabeth."

Redditor u/Masquerouge asked: Why is William the Conqueror not considered to be French? Redditor u/birdboy2000 answered: I don't think Norman and French identities in this context should be viewed as in opposition. Normandy was part of France (although its dukes becoming kings of England would later complicate that status) but it was not the entirety of France. It had distinct regional customs, it had its own dialect, it had its own army (although hardly unique regarding French regions in that era) that did the conquering, and it had its own lords who by and large (with IIRC a couple of Breton or Flemish exceptions) became England's ruling class once the conquest was completed. JFK was from Massachusetts. Massachusetts is part of the United States. Yet (to stretch this metaphor further) if JFK had been governor of Massachusetts, and led a successful invasion of Canada with the state militia, people would talk about Massachusetts' conquest of Canada, not America's, and perhaps the fact that many Massachusetts residents, including the governor at the time of conquest, were Irish-Americans would play a disproportionate role in the historiography. And this distinction between governor and president shouldn't be overlooked, unlike JFK, who was president of the whole USA, William of Normandy was never king of France. Calling William a Norman is more specific than calling him French, and given the role of that French province in the conquest, it's a specification that's often used. But that shouldn't be read to imply that he wasn't also French.

Redditor u/Chrisehh asked: What feats did Suleiman I do to achieve his title, Suleiman "the magnificent"? Redditor u/jdryan08 answered: Great question. The first thing to clarify here is that the title "Magnificent" is one that was coined by his European contemporaries, not the Turks themselves. In Turkish, his epithet is "Kanuni" or "Lawgiver" because he was credited with a consolidation of Ottoman legal authority across Muslim (and Christian) lands -- in part thanks to legal innovation and in part thanks to incredible success on the battlefield. As far as achievements, the conquests (mostly in SE Europe) stand above the others, but a close second was his patronage of the arts -- particularly monumental architecture. Suleyman sponsored the work of Mimar Sinan, who was a contemporary and close rival of Michelangelo. Sinan's architectural accomplishments during Suleiman's reign (in particular the Şehzade and Suleymaniye Mosques in Istanbul) are and were utter marvels of engineering that were admired by nearly every foreign visitor to Istanbul and were meant to meet (or even surpass) the city's other most famous architectural feat -- the Aya Sofya (Haghia Sophia). He was also well-known for cultivating the science and humanities -- to this day the Suleymaniye Library holds one of the most vast collections of Islamic manuscripts on everything from history to mysticism to medical practices.

Redditor u/dancole42 asked: Nearly everyone in the Western world knows the name "Julius Caesar" and recognizes his life as seminal to many modern civilizations. Has this been the case for 2,000 years, or is it the product of 18th/19th century neoclassical Roman weebs? Redditor u/doylethedoyle answered: Summing up Caesar's position throughout the last 2,000 years is somewhat difficult to do in simple terms, because his significance to Western culture varies from era to era. To begin with the more immediate reception of Caesar, that is in the immediate aftermath of his death, while his assassins would style themselves as liberators and freeing Rome from tyranny (Cicero goes so far as to call Caesar a tyrant and parricide of the fatherland, De Officiis 3.82f.), the people of Rome grieved and honoured Caesar as a god. This is reflected particularly in Octavian adopting the name Gaius Julius Caesar Divi Filius after Caesar's death and "ascension," and while he would go on to change his name again after assuming power, he kept the Divi Filius aspect of his name throughout. The peoples' veneration of Caesar was exploited quite cleverly by the Triumvirs in the wake of their victory against Brutus et al. at the Battle of Philippi (though whether this was opportunistic reverence or genuine veneration of Caesar is perhaps up for debate); the fifth month of the year, Quintilis, was renamed Iulius (July), and Caesar was officially venerated as the Divine Julius, with Octavian even founding a Temple of Caesar. Octavian continued to use his adoption by Caesar, and vengeance for Caesar's assassination, as justification for the moves he made in his career. His own legions were comprised of Caesar's veterans, and he continued to exploit Caesar's civic reputation to bolster his own. Even complaints about Octavian largely focussed on his reliance upon Caesar's memory. It's worth noting, though, that once Octavian became Augustus, Caesar's significance dwindled somewhat under the cult of Augustus (though this is not to say that Caesar became objectively insignificant); Augustus came to rely on his own reputation rather than that of Caesar's before him. Augustan literature in particular came to downplay Caesar in favour of revering Augustus himself; Horace, for example, drew a direct association between Caesar's triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and the origins of civil war (Carmina, 2.1.3f.), while Virgil's Aeneid drew attention to Caesar as a bellicose figure (see Anchises beseeching Caesar to lay down his arms, Aeneid 6.834f.) while depicting Caesar's bitter rival Cato as a lawgiver (Aeneid 8.670). Caesar continued to be revered throughout Imperial history, albeit at varying degrees. The month of July continued to be held in his name, of course, and the title Caesar was held by Roman Emperors throughout the period. It's perhaps worth noting, though, the significance awarded to Augustus' position over Caesar's that after the Empire's split the title of Caesar was given to sub-emperors, while the emperors themselves held the title Augustus. Imperial depictions of Caesar held him as the cure to the late Republic's numerous problems; he broke the cycle of aristocrats and do-nothings by installing a new sort of power. In short, he was seen as a turning point. Imperial historians, such as Velleius Paterculus and Appian, awarded Caesar perhaps disproportionate attention against later rulers; Cassius Dio devoted a tenth of his eighty books on Roman history to Caesar's career, despite this comprising only a short period of his work's 1,000-year coverage. By the time of the later Roman empire, however, Caesar's centrality to Roman history had diminished, and his achievements were used largely as a comparison to the superiority of writers' contemporary rulers; Caesar was no longer the turning point of Roman history, as Christianisation had seen Rome's adoption of the faith as the seminal moment of history. However, Caesar himself was not forgotten even after the fall of Rome; his name continued as a designation of the highest power, reflected in the Holy Roman Imperial title of "Kaiser" (and, later, in the Slavic title "Czar/Tsar"). Caesar, as founder of the fourth great empire of Daniel's Biblical prophecy (Daniel 2:40-43), became seen as an instrument in God's divine plan, and was thus depicted as a model of chivalric virtue and the ideal king, and was even held as a comparison for contemporary rulers to aspire to. Medieval English and French writers in particular praised Caesar for his chivalry, while German writers, who saw the Holy Roman Empire as the natural successor to Rome, held Caesar as the founder of their own empire, and depicted him as an ideal ruler from as early as the 11th century (see, for example, Archbishop Anno II of Cologne's Annolied). It's worth noting as well that Caesar continued to be held as a somewhat multifaceted hero, though; while the embodiment of chivalric virtue, he was also victim to his own hubris. Perhaps the most notable depiction of Caesar aligning with medieval ideas of the man is Dante's Inferno; as an unbaptised soul (obviously), Caesar was condemned to Limbo but was held as the one of the virtuous there (Inferno 4.123), while his murderers Brutus and Cassius are condemned to Hell to suffer alongside even the likes of Judas (Inferno 34.61-67). The Renaissance brought a rejuvenation in Caesarian reverence, particularly after the "discovery" that it was in fact Caesar himself who authored his Commentarii, which was held during the Renaissance as a key text in Latin education. The Commentarii, seen as a unique glimpse into pre-Roman Gaul, even developed into a key work in the study of Gallic history. It became a work transposed even into contemporary times; poet Giannantonio de Pandoni composed a prose piece that drew on Caesar's Commentarii as inspiration for depicting his own contemporary war between Venice and Milan (albeit without drawing direct comparison). Even Pope Pius II, who himself authored an autobiographical Commentarii, appropriated the Caesarian model by portraying himself rather explicitly in the cast of Caesar, associating his own struggles against the enemies of the Papal States with Caesar's struggles in his civil war. Writers like Petrarch and Machiavelli continued to draw on Caesar as a figure of contrasting reputation; an agent of hostility to the virtues of the Republican, but simultaneously a praiseworthy genius and chivalric ideal. Of course, his significance is also represented in Shakespeare's own plays about Caesar and the aftermath of his death; Shakespeare's depiction of Caesar suggests that the people were familiar, or at least aware, of Caesar as a historical figure. At the very least, they will have been aware of him after the fact. I will bring my answer to a close here by bringing us to Caesarian reception during the Enlightenment. In this period of philosophical advancement, Caesar was regarded as one of the emblems of absolute monarchy, representing the martial prowess and cultured education that was considered the ideal for an 18th-century ruler. He was seen, as well, as a somewhat benevolent despot; using his absolute authority to impose social reform on a nation very much in need of it. Voltaire in particular, while acknowledging Caesar's failures, held Caesar as the ideal philosopher-king. The Revolutions of the 18th century were themselves no stranger to drawing upon Caesar as a significant figure; albeit not in the positive light he'd been awarded during earlier periods. As a symbol of absolute power, he was of course seen as contrary to the ideals of the French and American revolutionaries, particularly as a warning for the dangers of a demagogue rising to power in the face of populism. Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers in particular used Caesar as a shorthand for autocratic power, and Hamilton also called Thomas Jefferson "Caesar" in warning of his potential.

Redditor u/Blaskowicz asked: The physician in the autopsy of Charles II gave some very... colorful (if not medically impossible) descriptions like "heart the size of a peppercorn" and "did not contain a single drop of blood." What was going on in these autopsies? Redditor u/BedsideRounds answered: [A caveat that this answer rests on the argument of unconscious assumptions called episteme] Carlos II died in 1700. I don't have ANY primary information about how or why the autopsy was performed, and none of the review articles (some of which are in Spanish) seem to have any information on that either. So I'll defer to someone else on why it might have been performed in early 18th century Spain. Cerda, in (Rev Méd Chile 2008; 136: 267-270) suggests that it was done because he was known as "El hechizado," which he translated as "The Bewitched" (and I think should be able to be translated at "The Cursed" as well). Because I don't have the autopsy in front of me, this is largely speculation -- but with the caveat that I've read a lot of literature from this period. The "clinical gaze" of the physician who cared for Carlos -- which would likely NOT have been who performed the autopsy, I should mention -- was not looking for disease localized in specific organs. That idea would have been completely foreign to physicians of this period. And going along with that -- in later periods, the body was opened AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to catch the transition between life and death. Even in Morgagni's time, there could be a lag to dissection, though he was aware of the effects of putrefaction. Instead, he would have been looking for evidence of fundamental imbalances -- and this is speculation, of course, since my caveat above -- but even evidence that he was "Bewitched." We have to interpret these colorful descriptions knowing full the context in which these physicians operated... And what did he die of? Most explanations have focused on his unusual genitalia and suggested some combination of renal colic, stones, and infections leading to his eventual death. However, before he died he apparently had a wasting disease and severe diarrhea. This has led some to suggest a more mundane (for the 17th century) cause of death -- TB enteritis. And now onto Part III -- generally making sense of medical history. My caveat here will be that some of this is my opinion, and on these topics I have a tendency to be quite opinionated. So I am a practicing physician (both in the US and in Botswana), so it is with great affection when I say that one of the greatest impediments to understanding medical history has been doctors themselves. For the longest time (roughly until WW2), medical history has been in the hands of its practitioners, and they largely painted a picture of gradual progress by (largely) upper class, white men. Since then, medical history (and the history of science in general -- I don't want to suggest that this is unique to medicine) has expanded dramatically. But doctors -- including the doctors who write review articles on historical topics in medical journals -- have largely not kept up with this expanded historiography. Comically, some articles on medical history read chapters from an 1890s textbook I own, with just extra content added on once the 20th century rolled through... When I was younger and starting my flirtation with medical history, I actually said something like, "I just don't GET doctors from the 18th century," in contrast to, say, Rene Laennec, who wrote his On Mediate Auscultation not even a fifty years later, but for some reason seems like it comes from fundamentally the same era as myself. The reason is, I would argue now, that Laennec and I share many fundamental assumptions about the relationship between, man, physician, disease, and nature, which are not shared with Lind. This isn't made any easier by the medical tendency to remain "ahistorical" and continue to reuse old words with new, unconsciously loaded definitions (my favorite example is "sepsis" which I've written about before on AskHistorians). I mean, some of my residents still use these and have no idea -- the best example is "bleeding diathesis"; diathesis meaning a hereditary tendency towards something, which was largely used in the debate about whether or not TB was hereditary ("a consumptive diathesis").