The Happy Homemaker

I went to the doctor today after feeling like garbage for the past few days. I have a bladder, sinus, and ear infection. I will be in la la land for the next few days!!! I will shave my legs and rainbows will come out and then I will fly over the Beatles singing “Strawberry Fields” “we love you ya ya ya ya!!!!”

I am sad to announce that my genealogy blog is down. It has a bug in it and I can’t fix it. I am still writing about history, though not exactly family history. I am writing a blog about 13th and 14th century Europe my favorite period of history. I was real inspired after my trip to London. I put it on blogger since blogger is easier to handle. Here is my blog Medieval Winter

When I studied European history in the past and in school I would kind of skip through the 13th century. I read a little about William the Conqueror, sometimes Henry I, skip to Eleanor of Aquitaine, blah blah blah to Henry VIII. Sure I knew the Kings in between but only the names and maybe a fact here or there.

Then I went to Westminster Abbey. It was rebuilt by Henry III. I knew a little about Henry III. I knew he was considered a weak king and was ruled by his wife and was the son of King John. There was so much more to him though.

His favorite saint was Edward the Confessor. I saw Edward the Confessor’s tomb and the altar near it. I saw the tomb of Henry III and even touched it. Now he is one of my favorite Kings.

Not only did Henry III rebuild Westminster Abbey, but he also rebuilt the Tower of London. Many of the towers that stand today were built during his reign. He was pious and spent most mornings in prayer and had mass daily. He prayed to Edward the Confessor every day and every night and tried to live his life like the saint. He refused to wear fancy clothing preferring to wear simple fashions. (It is worth noting that at this time the influence of St. Francis of Assisi was great.) Henry III fed 500 paupers a day and made sure to take care of widows and orphans. He was devoted to his children and faithful to his wife.

The death of Michael Jackson made me think of Henry III. Henry didn’t have much of a childhood either. His father was a tyrant and his mother was kind of wild. Henry III had just turned 9 years old when he became King of all England. England was in the middle of a war. Prince Louis of France (later Louis VIII) attacked England and King John fled losing the crown jewels right before dying from food poisoning. Henry was quickly crowned. Louis VIII went back to France. Henry’s mother married another man when he was 13 and had a new family in France. Henry III was close to his brother and sisters in England as well as the illegitimate ones his father had with other women. He was tall and thick, a big man, who had a drooping eye lid. He didn’t have any lovers in his youth. He was like many men who grew up powerful and constantly waited on. I notice men like that either do not care for women at all or treat women like possessions. He was too pious and would pray all day and visit shrines rather than flirt with the women at court. His family members were his closest friends. He didn’t marry until he was 29 years old to the beautiful artistic and ambitious Eleanor of Provence. She ruled his life along with her greedy relatives.

He made his barons and his people angry by putting relatives and in-laws in powerful positions that were long held by old baronial families. He wanted to be surrounded by his own “yes men” and spend money on his projects as he saw fit. He greedy in-laws and relatives just wanted power and money and used this weakness to their benefit. The King was in tremendous debt. The people revolted against him and for fifteen months even set up a kind of Parliamentary government that was led by the barons. Henry III was one of the most unsuccessful kings of his time. He was also the first one who was king as a child. Edward I learned to be a better King from his father’s mistakes. He kept his barons too busy in Scotland and Wales.

I wonder if someone like Henry lived today would he spent an enormous amount of money on mansions and personal theme parks. Isn’t it sad that our “royalty” are musicians who were previously the lowest class of society?

I have had a lot going on and I am still struggling through my allergies. I did get to see some good movies with the kids.

The first is Fred Claus. I thought this movie was going to be stupid but it was actually very good. Paul Giamatti is an excellent Santa Claus. All of the actors did a great job and I think that is why the movie is good. I think it would have been better if I was watching it during Christmas. It is perfectly safe for children and is a great feel good Christmas movie.

The second is The Tale of Despereaux. I highly recommend this movie. It is told like a fairy tale with princesses, castles, kings, knights, and adventurers except the knight is a mouse who saves the day. The animation is impressive and the story is captivating. This movie is for all ages. My daughter read the book and watched the movie twice and still loves it.

Last night I watched the movie An American Carol and I highly recommend it. The movie is funny and thoughtful as the same time. It is done by David Zucker who did the Naked Gun movies so you can kind of imagine the humor. There were some serious moments. My favorite was the George Washington scene.

I would not recommend the movie for small children who might repeat certain words. Other than that the movie is great. Oh yeah, Chris Farley’s brother is in it.

It is amazing that when an official insane person kills an abortion doctor they become an anti-abortion activist and are made to represent the anti-abortion movement when they are truly certifiably a nut case. An 88 year old man, James Von Brunn, with obvious insane traits like paranoia is said to represent the far right. (as a Nazi sympathizer that would actually make him far left- Nazi means National SOCIALISM and was a form of fascism. Private business exists with government oversight. )(bail outs anyone?) He also believed in 9/11 conspiracy theories and is an anti-Semite while Conservatives tend to be pro-Israel.

So why do isolated nut jobs get called “domestic terrorists” but when there is a Muslim that engages in a very organized kind of terror, with a wealthy international network, and murderers who are definitely NOT insane we are constantly reminded that these are EXTREMISTS and do not represent ALL OF ISLAM.

I am anti-abortionist and kind of Conservative (more Libertarian) and the anti-abortionist Conservatives I hang out with are the most tolerant people I know. I am even married to a man from a Muslim country and I eat spicy Indian food. (not just meat and potatoes) We are pro-Israeli and believe that mankind cannot play God and decide whether or not a baby lives or dies. As for Capital punishment the criminal made the choice to break the law full knowing that Capital punishment might be the consequence so in my mind they made that decision on their own. I did not have to play God. Before you make it seem like anti-abortionist Conservatives should be represented by James Von Brum or Scott Roeder first make sure you make Osama Bin Laden represent all Muslims or Andrew Cunanan represent all gays.

Not like anyone missed my posts anyway! Well, I read a neat article about what would happen in America became like Europe. I think it was meant primarily as a joke as he writer complained about not having any ice in his drink or paying to go to the bathroom. It was the comments that were interesting though. A lot of the comments were written by people who lived in Europe for a time and their insights were far more interesting than the writers.

Most people agreed that the standard of living is higher in the United States. That is my own opinion of the USA vs. Asia. I went to London and visited a local’s flat but I don’t consider myself knowledgeable enough to really make a conclusion on Europe yet. I will say that the urban lifestyle seems to be similar in many countries. London, Seoul, New York, Chicago all have similarities: cramped living, expensive housing, bad smells, homeless people everywhere. Seoul is different in that everything besides housing is cheap and the city is very homogeneous. New York has huge sections of Muslim population like London and many other large cities. There was a neighborhood where I used to go shopping in Queens where I felt strange that I didn’t cover my hair. There are places in Washington D. C. where you have to pay to go to the bathroom. I remember in Honolulu walking 30 minutes trying to find a public bathroom. I had a similar problem in London, but a security guard let me use the toilet at the Economist building. I heard Londoners complaining about people not being able to speak English and would joke openly about the tourists unable to speak English. I made a similar comment in DC and got shocked looks by the lady in her Chanel sunglasses sipping her Starbucks coffee. Living in NYC was lonely for me as few spoke English and I really didn’t have the chance to study Urdu or Tibetan in school for those of you who make fun of monolingual Americans. The food was awesome though!

I can’t really judge a nation unless I see their suburban/rural life. American rural and suburban life is highly developed. There may not be museums or theaters but if you live in the suburbs or country you can actually afford to visit the “city” every so often to get your culture because you aren’t taxed to death. I cook international food at home and there are even Chinese restaurants deep in the heart of the country. There fast food restaurants and Super Walmarts where you can buy any kind of food you want. There are parks and gas stations every few miles. You can buy as much land as you are able to and build the house you want with few regulations (this is in the Southern US, I heard places like California are different) Your house will get electricity, gas, phone service and even satellite service. You can fly a Confederate flag on your property if you want and country schools even have prayers and sermons preached at their graduations. If you don’t want a rural life it is easy to change. You just have to work and study hard and you can be like Abraham Lincoln or Jimmy Carter if you want to. College is too expensive. There are many ways around the expense. If you study hard you can get a scholarship. You can join the military. You can study your first two years at a community college and transfer to a nice four year University. (though Liberals seem to look down on people who do that for some reason) Your lifestyle in the country is completely dependent on your choices. That is why very independent thinking develops out in the country. You get to hear interesting conversations on Libertarianism and detailed information on the Civil War and the Constitution whereas in the city you hear more blanket statements like “the North was good, the South bad”

That brings me to my next point. Why was the South bad? Was it simply because of slavery? Slavery was at the top of the list of bad from the South. Where did their racial theories come from? Europe? The South also tried hard to copy feudalism from where- Europe and the southern Aristocrats made sure to tell you of their -what? European aristocratic heritage. The boys of the wealthy were sent to where- Europe to study and the Southern Aristocrats tried to be as what? - European as possible. Study Southern vs. Northern American literature of the 19th century and you see Southerners being more influenced by European literature way more than the Northerners.

Here is what Mark Twain had to say on the influence of the European writer Sir Walter Scott-

“Then comes Sir Walter Scott with his enchantments, and by his single might checks this wave of progress, and even turns it back; sets the world in love with dreams and phantoms; with decayed and swinish forms of religion; with decayed and degraded systems of government; with the sillinesses and emptinesses, sham grandeurs, sham gauds, and sham chivalries of a brainless and worthless long-vanished society. He did measureless harm; more real and lasting harm, perhaps, than any other individual that ever wrote. Most of the world has now outlived good part of these harms, though by no means all of them; but in our South they flourish pretty forcefully still. Not so forcefully as half a generation ago, perhaps, but still forcefully. There, the genuine and wholesome civilization of the nineteenth century is curiously confused and commingled with the Walter Scott Middle-Age sham civilization; and so you have practical, common-sense, progressive ideas, and progressive works; mixed up with the duel, the inflated speech, and the jejune romanticism of an absurd past that is dead, and out of charity ought to be buried. But for the Sir Walter disease, the character of the Southerner– or Southron, according to Sir Walter`s starchier way of phrasing it– would be wholly modern, in place of modern and medieval mixed, and the South would be fully a generation further advanced than it is. It was Sir Walter that made every gentleman in the South a Major or a Colonel, or a General or a Judge, before the war; and it was he, also, that made these gentlemen value these bogus decorations. For it was he that created rank and caste down there, and also reverence for rank and caste, and pride and pleasure in them. Enough is laid on slavery, without fathering upon it these creations and contributions of Sir Walter. ”

The rebel yell and cross burning actually come from old Scottish (European) customs romanticized by Sir Walter Scott. Books and books on the superiority of the southern Aristocrat exist with material from primarily European sources. What made the South so bad? It clung to Europe desiring to bring back a romantic ideal of feudalism.

What is the North and West of today doing but clinging to Europe and a Romantic ideal of Socialism?

I am reading about the scandals of the early 1300’s trying to understand what happened. I just could not visualize what was going on. That is because I was trying to interpret 14th century history in a post- modern way which is impossible. Ideas of family life and even privacy and “rights” were different back then.

I read the book which defines the Medieval Noble family. The noble family most closely resembles a corporation more than a family in the sense that we think of it. Their banners and crests were like a very sophisticated brand name. I kind of saw a little of that in England. Streets to this day have a royal emblem to denote that the Queen owns that property and a royal symbol in a store window meant that this store was popular with a member of the royal family. Anyways back to the Medieval, the clan of this certain crest would try to acquire more assets and connections through friendship and marriage. The head of the “corporation” was the Lord. The second in command was his wife who was responsible for the domestic realm and for giving birth to an heir.

Edward II was a terrible CEO of the Plantagenet Limited. His father had protected the corporations interests in Gascony and the expanded into Wales. He tried to take over the Scotland as they had trouble finding a worthy CEO. Best to try a takeover when a business is down. That is until William Wallace became a worthy stockholder. Later the Bruce Company took over Scotland.

So Edward II didn’t have much talent in the family business. He wasn’t much into war and liked gardening and building walls. He sounds a lot like King George III in a way. Edward II was way more corrupt and just plain nasty compared to George III. Think about if Paris Hilton suddenly became CEO of the Hilton Hotel Corporation. Edward like to party, gamble, watch naked dancers, and hunt with his brat pack of boys, Perrot, Gilbert De Clare, and Roger Mortimer (yes Roger was a friend in the beginning). They would rather be planning a party, hunt in the woods Abercrombie and Finch style, or fight in a tournament than fight a war against the wild Scots. The boys almost were convicted as being traitors when they fought a tournament rather than join their king and Lord in battle against the Scots.

Edward II defied his “board” and made Piers de Gaveston his Co-CEO. He left him in charge of Plantagenet Limited while he made a deal with Capet Limited over in Paris. He married the daughter of the CEO of both Capet and Navarre. Nice job Edward!! Bad job with picking Piers who was like the mail boy and put him in charge over those way more qualified to run the company. Piers was also rude and forced the more qualified barons to bow to him. He was nasty and gave them dirty nicknames like Mr. Burst Belly and Whoreson. (he was 30 years old by the way . . .) He even wore the clothes of a CEO rather than a board member. Edward II returned to London with his new bride Isabella who was expecting to take her role as #2 in the corporation. She was pushed aside for Edward’s choice- Piers who even had the nerve to wear purple, a color only for those who are CEOs!

After Piers was murdered, Isabella finally got to enjoy being #2 in the land for a while. That was until Hugh Despenser and his wife, Edward’s niece, took her place once again! Hugh’s wife even had rule of a lot of the Domestic sphere, Isabella’s job. She had enough! In revenge she got her OWN favorite and Edward’s former friend Roger Mortimer on her side and organized a surprise takeover. Edward and Hugh were FIRED (and then executed). The Despenser women were FIRED!!! Isabella made her son CEO in name only while she and Roger acted as co-CEOs. She ran the company just as badly as her husband and when her son grew older he fired her and her boyfriend and he took full power. Edward III ruled way more successfully and made the Plantagenet name respected again.

Edward II made a huge mistake of breaking tradition and putting a favorite (lover?) above the kingdom’s interests. Henry VIII kind of did the same thing with Anne Boleyn and her friends. Edward IV with his wife who was not royal. Henry III did something similar with his wife’s relatives.

We got through the remodeling anything else can wait until later. Now we are focusing on cleaning the house and carpeting it.
I am also trying to get my house now ready for the move. That is difficult because I am sick with a bad cold and Aron is being sooo rotten! I also had a rough time with Victoria. We forgot to set the alarm and I was on cold medication so I woke up late. We still had enough time to make it to school though. Victoria goes with our neighbor. I told her I would pack her lunch and backpack so she could concentrate on getting dressed, etc. I packed her backpack and her lunch and went up to tell her and SHE WAS STILL IN BED!!! She had two minutes to catch her ride. She got dressed and brushed her teeth, hair etc and I gave her a snack to eat. (I packed extra food in her lunch too) The neighbors were waiting. I told Victoria to hurry but she wanted to wear a specific sweater. AAAAAHHHHHHHH. The neighbor girl was knocking on the door. Victoria would not budge. I took her out of the house but then she sat on the step. The neighbors were losing patience and so was I. Let’s just say I was in tears when she left.

I know I am moving soon to my new house yet I haven’t blogged much about it. I guess that is because I think about it all day and the blog is where I relax and vent.

I am happy about my new home. I am surprised at the work my husband does. He has turned that place into a beautiful home for our family. You can really see the love there. That is my husband’s love language. Over the top projects for those he loves. I would take that over flowers any day. I knew my husband and I were good for each other, but I kind of forgot why we make a great match. He loves to plan things for me like planning my future career I will probably never have or plan beautiful trips and homes for me. I love that because I am so unorganized and horrible at details. He loves it when I comfort him when he is down or stressed (which is often) because I have a talent for seeing the big picture when he is drowning in details. He talks like a jerk sometimes but when you think about, I do get spoiled in the end. If I had a maid my life would be perfect since my husband is nt good at helping with chores. Oh well, my kids are getting older now so they should help out more and more. (right?)

After years of marriage we finally love and accept each other. It took a near tragedy to do it, but I am glad things turned out better than I could ever imagine. I think it was because I went to the temple.

I will send pictures of my home soon. This project really helped my husband and I work together so the home will always be a special place for me.

Of course we all know that Edward II has a bit of a reputation. He was considered a terrible king and a homosexual who had a weakness for spoiling his favorites. Edward was the only son the Edward I “the Hammer of the Scots” and Eleanor of Castile whose other sons had died young. They had several daughters, some a bit spoiled and stubborn who remained close to their baby brother Edward. Edward’s mother died when he was still a child and his father was gone a lot either fighting the Scots, fighting in Wales, or fighting with France. Edward spent most of his childhood ignored yet spoiled by those in charge of him. He was allowed to stay up until late in the night and have friendships with the most common people. He collected strange animals and had a lion and a camel that he took everywhere with him. He probably enjoyed the hunt as one of the first books about hunting was written by someone in his own household. He loved to pray with monks and enjoyed thatching roofs, building walls, and gambling with his friends into the late of night while a band of Italian musicians played in the background.

In this spoiled, fatherless childhood he developed strong friendships. His first major friendship was with Piers Gaveston, a Gascon who came to England around 1300. Edward I thought the young knight to be a great companion for his young son who didn’t quite get the hang of knightly chivalry. Who better than the virtuous chivalric Gascon? He never expected that his son would worship the man and call him “Perrot”. Dearest brother Perrot won all of Edward’s attention and love and was given expensive gifts. It is still not known if they were 100% lovers. Both Perrot and Edward II had illegitimate children possibly around the same time. Edward had a son named Adam for example. Of course, the modern idea of homosexuality did not exist until the late 19th century. The homosexual act was a sin or weakness, not an identity.

The “brothers” also married near the same time. Perrot married Edward’s niece, Margaret, in 1307. (his other niece was married to Hugh le Despencer and it was known that these nieces were very close to Edward) Edward married the young Isabella, princess of France in 1308. Perrot had a daughter with Margaret in January 1312 named Joan. Edward had a son with Isabella, Edward III 9 months later at Windsor Castle in November 1312 a month after poor Perrot was executed.

What is interesting is about the time that Perrot and Edward became close, Perrot was exchanging passionate letters to Edward’s cousin John of Brittany, the Duke of Richmond. Perrot calls him his dearest relative. According to John of Canterbury, writing about the affair in 1309 (after Perrot was sent to Ireland) the two called each other “father and son”. This went on during the height of Perrot’s power about the time when Edward left him regent while he went to France to pick up his young 12 year old bride Isabella. Perrot was the best dressed and the wealthiest man in England to the hatred of the English Barons.

What was going on among Perrot, the Duke of Richmond, and Edward. The Duke of Richmond was nearly 20 years older that Perrot and Edward. I can’t find a lot of information about him except that I know he never married. I also do not know his relationship to Edward whether or not they were close.

Why were Edward’s favorites also were the spouses of his favorite nieces from his sister, Joan? Something strange is going on in this family. Was someone taking advantage of the young prince while he received almost no parental supervision growing up? Did he later pass on this abuse to his young nieces at the same time their husbands were taking advantage of the King? What was going on here? Is this just my modern mind seeing things that weren’t there in 14th century England?