Human sexual life in the Middle Ages. Medieval animators The man who made kings laugh in the Middle Ages

The Middle Ages are a time when most of the countries of Europe and Asia were ruled by the most cruel rulers. They had an inexorable thirst for dominion, a strong character and indomitable cruelty towards everyone around them.

The Middle Ages are the most difficult and controversial period in human history. For many of us, it is associated with the fires of the Inquisition, torture and tyranny. Take a look at the most bloodthirsty rulers from the times of bloody wars and great discoveries.

1. Genghis Khan (1155-1227)

The famous commander and founder of the Mongol Empire, who managed to unite all the Mongol tribes and conquered China, Central Asia, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. His style of government was characterized by excessive cruelty. Genghis Khan is credited with massacres of civilians in the countries he conquered. One of the most famous examples is the extermination of the aristocrats of the Khorezmshah state.

2. Tamerlane (1370-1405)

Central Asian Turkic commander and founder of the Timurid Empire, for whom Genghis Khan was his role model. His campaigns of conquest were characterized by extreme cruelty towards the civilian population. By order of Timur, about 2,000 residents of the city he captured were walled up alive. On the territory of modern Georgia, 10,000 people, including women and children, were thrown into the abyss in one day. And one day, to punish the rebels, Tamerlane organized a massacre and ordered the construction of high minarets from 70,000 severed heads.

3. Vlad Tepes (1431-1476)

He is also Vlad Dracul - a Romanian prince who served as the prototype for the main character in Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula. His methods of government were characterized by extreme imbalance and cruelty. About 100,000 people became victims of the prince, and all of them were subjected to painful torture. Having summoned 500 boyars, Tepes ordered them all to be impaled and dug in around his chambers. And one day the despot ordered the hats of foreign ambassadors to be nailed to the heads because they did not take them off when entering the prince.

4. Ferdinand II (1479-1516)

King of Castile and Aragon, known as the creator of the Spanish Inquisition, which killed between 10 and 12 million people. During his reign, 8,800 people were burned at the stake. Many Spanish Jews were forced to leave the country or were forced to be baptized.

5.Tomas Torquemada (1483-1498)

Known as the Grand Inquisitor during the Spanish Inquisition, he established tribunals in cities and finalized and compiled 28 articles as a guide for other inquisitors. During Tomas Torquemada's tenure as Grand Inquisitor, torture was permitted to obtain testimony. He was personally responsible for the deaths of about 2,000 people at the stake.

6. Selim I the Terrible (1467-1520)

The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire is known for his inhuman cruelty. In the first two years of his reign alone, more than 40 thousand civilians were executed.

7. Enrique I (1513-1580)

The King of Portugal became famous for his cruel treatment of Jews and heretics. On his orders, the first auto-da-fé (public burning of Jews) took place in Lisbon in 1540. During Enrique's reign, the auto-da-fé was held several times as a solemn religious ceremony, including the burning of heretics.

8. Charles V (1530-1556)

Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, after a quarrel with the Pope, decided to take Rome by storm. As a result of this massacre, 8,000 city residents died in one night.

9. Henry VII Tudor (1457-1509)

The King of England, who created an emergency tribunal called the Star Chamber. The number of victims of this organization was in the thousands. Sophisticated torture forced many people to commit suicide rather than fall into the hands of executioners.

10. Henry VIII Tudor (1509-1547)

An English king who was excommunicated by the Pope from the Catholic Church. In response, Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church and proclaimed himself its head. This was followed by brutal repressions in order to force the English clergy to the new order. During the reign of Henry VIII, 376 monasteries were destroyed in England. More than 70 thousand people became victims of the tyrant. The king also went down in history thanks to his numerous marriages and public executions of his wives.

11. Queen Mary I (1553-1558)

The Queen of England is better known as Bloody Mary, the daughter of the odious King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. After the death of her father, Mary I began the restoration of Catholicism. She became famous for her cruel policies towards Protestants, subjecting them to mass burning at the stake. During the few years of her reign, hundreds of innocent people became victims of her violence. Bloody Mary was so hated that the day of her death was celebrated as a national holiday.

12. Catherine de Medici (1519-1589)

Queen and Regent of France. This woman with particular cruelty led the mass terror against the Huguenots, which she also organized. During the famous St. Bartholomew's Night on August 24, 1572, about 3 thousand people were killed in Paris alone, and throughout France the number of victims reached 10 thousand. People called Catherine de Medici the Black Queen.

13. Ivan the Terrible (1547-1584)

Russian Tsar Ivan IV, nicknamed the Terrible, went down in history as the most cruel ruler in Rus'. His sophisticated tortures are written in chronicles. The king held feasts amid the screams of people who were torn to pieces by specially trained bears. Ivan the Terrible introduced the oprichnina and for seven years, turmoil, famine and devastation reigned in the Moscow state. The number of victims of the despotic king reached 7 thousand people. In addition, Ivan the Terrible was cruel to his own wives and children. In 1581, he beat his pregnant daughter and killed his son Ivan when he tried to intercede for his sister. The story tells of the unprecedented cruelty of Ivan the Terrible during the massacre of residents of Novgorod accused of treason. For many days in a row, adults and children were brutally tortured and thrown from the bridge into the river. Those who tried to swim out were pushed under the ice with sticks. The question of the number of victims of this massacre still remains controversial.

14. Elizabeth I (1533-1603)

Queen Elizabeth I of England, heir to Henry VIII, became famous for her cruelty towards vagrants, passing a law according to which they were hanged en masse without trial “in whole rows.”

You may know that some medieval rulers were killed in battle or died by an assassin's knife. But, you know, you're talking about a king who died of uncontrollable laughter or an emperor who was pulled 25 km through the forest by a deer.

Below is a list of the top 10 strangest deaths of medieval rulers.

Martin I the Humane (King of Aragon and Sicily)

Martin I died due to indigestion and uncontrollable laughter. According to legend, when his jester entered the bedroom. Martin asked where he was, the jester replied: “I was in the vineyard, there was a deer hanging from a tree by its tail, as if he was being punished for stealing figs.” The king began to laugh uncontrollably until he died. True, before the jester appeared, the king ate a roast goose alone, which could have been the real cause of death.

George Plantagenet (1st Duke of Clarence)

George Plantagenet, the hot-tempered brother of Kings Edward IV and Richard III, was found guilty of treason and executed. According to some reports, he asked to be drowned in a large barrel of sweet wine - Malvasia.

Basil I the Macedonian (Emperor of Byzantium)

While hunting, the 75-year-old emperor accidentally caught his belt on the antlers of a deer, which allegedly dragged him through the forest for 25 km. Hearing the screams, one of the servants caught up with the deer and cut the belt, but instead of thanks, the servant was suspected of trying to kill his emperor. He was sentenced to death and executed shortly before the ruler died from injuries received while hunting.

Henry I Beauclerk (King of England)

Seventh place on the list of the strangest deaths of rulers is taken by Henry I Beauclerc. After a successful hunt, the English king decided, against the advice of his doctor, to eat a plate of lampreys. That evening he poisoned himself and died soon after.

Henry II (Count of Champagne, King of Jerusalem and Cyprus)

Henry II, like all the rulers on this list, died absurdly, falling from the window of his palace in Acre. Most chroniclers suggest that the Count of Champagne was leaning on the window railing. The railing gave way and he fell to the ground. The servant, supposedly a dwarf, tried to save his master, but fell out with him, landing on top. There is an opinion that if the dwarf had not fallen on him, perhaps Henry II would have remained alive.

Adrian IV (Pope)

According to one legend, Adrian IV took a sip of wine and began to choke, the reason being a fly floating in his glass. In other words, he simply choked on a fly. Also, the only Englishman on the papal throne suffered from chronic tonsillitis (inflammation of the tonsils), which contributed to his death.

According to another source, Adrian IV died from an attack of “angina pectoris.”

Llywelyn ap Gruffydd (ruler of Powys)

In fourth place in the ranking of the strangest deaths of rulers is Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, who died while trying to escape from the Tower. It is said that he used a homemade rope made from clothing, but the rope broke and Gruffydd fell 27 meters to the ground.

Sigurd Eysteinsson (Earl of Orkney)

After killing Mormar Moray, Earl Sigurd tied his severed head to his saddle and went home. As he rode, the teeth of the “trophy” cut into the count’s leg, thereby introducing an infection into the blood that caused his death.

Philip II the Young (King of France)

The son of the French king Louis VI was riding with friends along one of the streets of Paris, the young king’s horse tripped over a black pig that suddenly jumped out and fell. Philip II flew forward and horribly crushed his limbs. He died without regaining consciousness a day later.

Flavius ​​Zeno (Byzantine Emperor)

According to one version, Emperor Flavius ​​Zeno lost consciousness while heavily intoxicated. His wife Empress Ariadne got confused and declared that Zeno had died. But, already in the coffin, Zeno woke up and began to scream. The guards immediately reported the screams coming from the coffin to Ariadne, but she was deliberately in no hurry to open the sarcophagus. The coffin was opened only when the emperor suffocated.

Why did fairy tale fairies wear high caps? When was the hood reunited with the clothing? How do women's jewelry help archaeologists? And what does the word “kokoshnik” actually mean?

At all times, headdresses were always present in the costumes of women of all nations. They not only protected from adverse weather and natural conditions, but also sent others important information about the owner. Let's figure out how the fashion for “clothing” for the head developed, and what exactly people in Europe and Rus' could learn from it. And also how European ladies lost Christian modesty and turned to secular madness.

Medieval fashion in Europe

In Europe, at first, hats served practical purposes: they were supposed to provide protection from the sun and provide warmth in the cold. These were straw hats and fur or canvas hats and caps. But very quickly “clothing” for the head began to play a symbolic role. And it started with women's hats.

In the 10th-13th centuries, European women's fashion was dominated by the Christian idea of ​​humility and submission: it was believed that representatives of the “weaker sex” were spiritually weaker than men, and therefore could not resist the devil. To get some kind of protection, they wore closed headdresses (caps), which carefully hid their hair, neck and even part of their face from prying eyes. In addition, women had to walk with their eyes and heads down. Married women emphasized their dependence on their husband by covering their heads - they were, as it were, an addition to him, and therefore were not supposed to look independent and open.

But in the 13th century, the ladies of the court rebelled against the Christian tradition of humility and submission, because they increasingly took part in big politics (in England, France and Spain, by this time several autocratic queens had already been on the throne). They decided to get rid of excessive modesty and introduced the ennen (aka atur) into fashion. This headdress allowed others to see not only the woman’s face and neck, but also half of the top of her head and even the back of her head. At the same time, eyebrows and hair in these places were completely shaved off. The ennen is a tall cap made of starched fabric, to which was attached a veil that hung to the floor. The height of the cap indicated the origin of the woman - the higher it was, the more noble the lady: princesses wore meter-long hats, and noble ladies were content with 50-60 cm. Compared to the previous fashion, it looked open and relaxed, but a little... crazy. In medieval fairy-tale images, fairy sorceresses appear in these caps of incredible height - apparently, the artist wanted to emphasize their “elevation” above ordinary people.

Men did not lag behind women: they wore tall hats in the shape of a truncated cone. This trick helped them appear no shorter than the ladies. Those who did not have a complex because of their height wore various hats, berets or a balzo hat, which looked like a Saracen turban.

The female ennen and its many variations were at the height of Burgundian fashion until the 15th century, when the escoffión and horned cap gained popularity. The first is a golden mesh that was worn on the head over braids twisted over the ears. The second one looked like a forked atur, covered with fabric on top. These headdresses were lavishly and expensively decorated with gold, silver, pearls and precious stones, and cost a fortune. The horned cap may now seem like a strange fashion trend, but even then women wearing them often became victims of ridicule and condemnation from the church, which saw this headdress as the “haven of the devil.” But medieval fashionistas apparently liked to wear horns - after all, this fashion lasted for about a century.

In the 15th century, a hat with a brim became popular among noble men, which until then was considered part of the clothing of peasants. Moreover, it turned into a symbol of nobility and nobility: representatives of noble families and entire cities placed it on their coat of arms.

Commoners at this time wore ordinary caps with frills, headscarves and straw hats. And peasants and townspeople often wore a hood with a long shlyk (end) and blades that covered the shoulders and had a jagged cut. During the Renaissance, this hood became an attribute of jesters. The hood “grew” onto the jacket or cloak somewhere in the 15th century, when it was replaced by a hat and beret.

The Renaissance created new ideals. Luxury, wealth and sensuality came into fashion, and with them complex hairstyles, hats and berets that exposed the face, neck and hair. And Christian humility and the tradition of covering one’s head moved further and further into the past over time, and never returned to European fashion.

Medieval fashion in Rus'

In Rus', since ancient times, the traditional hairstyle for women was a braid: one for girls and two for married women. There are many beliefs associated with women's braids, for example, it was believed that loose women's hair attracts evil spirits, and therefore they should be braided.

A mandatory rule for Slavic women was to cover their heads with ubrus or povoy - a sheet of fabric. Even unmarried girls could only open the top of their heads. Ubrus or povoy was considered a symbol of purity, nobility and humility. Therefore, to lose one's head covering (to lose one's hair) was considered the greatest disgrace.

In ancient times, women wore a wooden or metal hoop over the ubrus, and temple and forehead rings, plaques and pendants were attached to it. In winter, they wore a small hat with fur, over which they put on a special headband (headband), richly decorated with embroidery and pearls. In each city and village, decorations and embroidery patterns were so different from each other that modern archaeologists use them to determine the territories of settlement of Slavic tribes.

Since the 12th century, chronicles have mentioned such headdresses as kika, povoinik, magpie and many others that had a similar structure. These headdresses looked like a crown (sometimes with horns) covered with cloth. They were made from birch bark and richly decorated with beads and embroidery. These headdresses hid the braids underneath, and also hid the woman’s forehead, ears and back of the head from prying eyes. Their structure and decorations could tell others everything they needed to know about a woman: where she came from, what her social and marital status was. These smallest “identifying” features of jewelry have not reached us, but everyone knew about them before. From the 13th to 15th centuries, commoners increasingly replaced them with headscarves, but in some regions these headdresses lasted until the 20th century.

Surprisingly, in the public consciousness the famous kokoshnik became a symbol of Russian folk costume only in the 19th century. The name of this headdress comes from the old Russian word kokoshka - hen, hen. This headdress was part of a festive outfit, and in the old days only married women could wear it. Like no other headdress, it emphasized feminine beauty and nobility. In remote provinces, the kokoshnik existed until the end of the 19th century. But at the beginning of the 20th century, he unexpectedly returned and entered the wardrobe of fashionistas... all over Europe! Made in a new way, the Russian kokoshnik was the wedding dress of European brides in 1910-20.

Unfortunately, these beautiful headdresses existed in high society only until the era of Peter the Great, when folk customs and traditions were replaced by European ones. And along with them, modesty and nobility disappeared from women's fashion.

The characteristics of a medieval king are important not only for understanding the era, but also because the rulers of states with a republican structure or a democratic form of government will often perform the same functions or embody the same image. The king under the feudal system is the image of God, Rex imago Dei. This aspect, naturally, has been blunted since the 19th century, but modern European leaders often retain such privileges as the right of pardon or personal legal immunity, which are consequences of this idea of ​​​​the ruler as a sacred person. Note that medieval kings performed three functions of power, that is, they combined all three functions of Indo-European ideology, which determines the functioning of society through the division of its members into three categories. The king embodies the first function, the religious one, because although he himself is not a priest, he deals with the very essence of this function - he administers justice. He is also the supreme ruler in the sense of a second function - military, since he is of noble birth and a warrior himself (the President of the French Republic is still the supreme commander, although this is a political function rather than a military one). Finally, the king embodies a third function, which is somewhat more difficult to define. This function, which the medieval formulation associates with labor, in fact implies concern for the prosperity and beautification of the state. That is, the king is responsible for the economy and prosperity of his kingdom, and for him personally this function means the obligatory manifestation of mercy, in particular the generous distribution of alms. It can be assumed (although this side of the matter is not so obvious) that the third function obliged the king to also be a philanthropist in a certain sense: for example, the task of building new churches arose from it.

In addition, the medieval king had to have authority in the field of knowledge and culture. John of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres, defining monarchy in his famous 1159 treatise Polycraticus, takes up the idea expressed in 1125 by William of Malmesbury: “Rex illiteratus quasi asinus coronatus” (“An illiterate king is nothing more than a crowned ass”). .

During the feudal era, the role of the king underwent other important changes. What he inherited from Roman law and Roman history was the division of power into two categories: auctoritas (authority) and potestas (power), defining respectively the nature of royal power and the means by which the king could carry out his role. Christianity added another component, namely dignitas, characterizing certain rights in the ecclesiastical sphere and royal dignity. During the feudal period, perhaps as a reaction, there was a revival of Roman law and a renewal of the Roman concept of majestas in relation to the new kings. It allows us to define two royal rights of that time: the first of them, the right of pardon, we have already mentioned, and the second, even more important, the right to protection from crimen majestatis, from lese majeste. However, the medieval king was not an absolute monarch. Historians have questioned whether he was a constitutional monarch. This also cannot be asserted, since there was no text that could be considered as a constitution; The closest thing to it - while being a very original document - was probably the Magna Carta (Magna Carta), a document that the nobility and church elite imposed on the English king John the Landless (1215). This text remains an important milestone towards the establishment of constitutional regimes in Europe. The most precise way to formulate the most important feature of medieval royal power is this: to be a king meant to accept certain contractual obligations. During the ritual of anointing and coronation, the king took oaths to God, the Church and the people. The first two “agreements” lost their meaning in the course of the historical process, but the third, innovative formulation will also become a kind of stage on the way to the accountability of the authorities to the people or the institution that represents them. Finally, in the feudal era, the king, both in theory and in practice, was entrusted with a dual mission associated with the concepts of justice and peace. “Peace” in this sense can be translated as “order,” understood, however, not only as a calm earthly life, but at the same time as movement along the path of salvation. One way or another, with feudal monarchies, the Christian world is on the path to what we today call a state of law. Another fact, less significant in the sense of the long-term development of Europe: the feudal monarchy was an aristocratic monarchy, and since the king was the first in nobility of birth, the nobility of blood was legitimized. Today, descent is not taken so seriously, but in the Middle Ages this factor guaranteed the stability and continuity of royal power, legitimizing the existence of royal dynasties. In addition, in the Kingdom of France, from the end of the 10th to the beginning of the 14th century, sons were born to French kings. Only in 1316, when the problem of succession to the throne arose, would the exclusion of women from the throne be made a formal rule and called, recalling the ancient custom of the Salic Franks, “Salic law.”

So, it was precisely the fact that royal power was associated with certain obligations that determined the further development of feudal monarchies in the long-term European perspective. The 12th century was great age of justice. First of all, and this has already been discussed a lot, there is a process of revival of Roman law, but in addition, there is an active development of canon law, which begins with the “Decree” (c. 1130–1140), compiled by the monk Gratian of Bologna. Canon law recorded not only the influence of Christianity on the spirit and apparatus of jurisprudence, but also the role of the Church in society, and in addition, innovations that arose in justice as society developed and new problems emerged, for example, changes in the economy and new forms of marriage.

Upon the accession of the Duke of York to the throne, he received permission to be called Lord David of Derry-Moir, after the name of the estate which his mother bequeathed to him when she died; This estate was located in Scotland, in a large forest, where the crag bird lives, with its beak hollowing out a nest for itself in the trunk of an oak tree.

James II was a king, but he claimed to be a military leader. He loved to surround himself with young officers. He willingly showed himself to the people on horseback, wearing a helmet and cuirass, with a huge flowing wig falling from under the helmet onto the cuirass; in this form he resembled an equestrian statue, personifying war in all its meaninglessness. He liked young Lord David's graceful manners. He even had something like gratitude towards this royalist for the fact that he was the son of a republican: it was not useful to renounce a rebel father at the beginning of a court career. The king made Lord David of Derry-Moir his bed-man, with a salary of a thousand livres.

It was a big promotion. The bed keeper sleeps in the same room with the king, on a bed that is placed for him next to the royal bed. There are twelve bed guards, and they take turns guarding the king.

Lord David was, in addition, appointed chief equerry, whose duty it was to supply oats for the royal horses, for which he received another two hundred and fifty livres a year. Under his command were five royal coachmen, five royal postillions, five royal grooms, twelve royal footmen and four royal porters. He had charge of the six race-horses which the King kept at Haymarket, and which cost his Majesty six hundred livres a year. He was the sovereign master of the royal dressing room, which supplied the ceremonial suits of the Knights of the Order of the Garter. The royal doorkeeper, the bailiff of the black rod, bowed to him to the ground. Under James II, this position was occupied by the Cavalier Dupp. Lord David was shown every sign of respect by the king's clerk, Mr. Becker, and the parliamentary clerk, Mr. Brown. The English court was a model of splendor and hospitality. Lord David presided over the feasts and receptions among twelve nobles. He had the honor of standing behind the king on “days of offering,” when the king donates a golden bezant, byzantium, to the church, and on “days of order,” when the king puts on the chain of his order, and on “days of communion,” when no one takes communion except the king and princes of the blood. On Holy Thursday, he brought twelve poor people to the king, to whom the king gave as many silver pennies as he was old, and as many shillings as he had been reigning for years. When the king fell ill, it was Lord David's duty to summon the two highest dignitaries of the church who were to look after the king, and not to allow doctors to see him without the permission of the council of state. In addition, he was a lieutenant colonel of the Scottish regiment of the king's guard, the same one that plays the Scottish march.

In this rank he participated in several campaigns and acquired well-deserved fame as a brave warrior. He was a strong, well-built man, handsome, generous, with a noble appearance and excellent manners. His appearance matched his position. He was tall and of high birth.

Derry-Moir was already one step away from receiving the title of groom of the stole, which would give him the right to present the king with a shirt, but for this he had to be a prince or peer.

Making someone a peer is a serious matter. This means creating a peerage and thereby creating envious people. This is mercy, and by showing mercy to someone, the king gains one friend and a hundred enemies, not counting the fact that the friend later turns out to be ungrateful. James II, for political reasons, had great difficulty granting his subjects the dignity of a peer, but he passed it on willingly. The transferred peerage does not cause excitement. This is done simply in order to preserve the noble name, and such a transfer had little impact on the lords.

The King had no objection to introducing Lord David of Derry-Moir into the House of Peers, as long as it was the result of a transfer of the peerage. His Majesty was waiting for the right opportunity to make David Derry-Moir, Lord "of courtesy", a Lord in right.

This opportunity presented itself.

One fine day it became known that various events had happened to the old exile, and the main one was that he had died. Death is good because it forces us to talk at least a little about the deceased. They began to talk about what they knew (or rather, they thought they knew) about the last years of Lord Linnaeus’ life. Obviously, these were guesses and inventions. If we are to believe these stories, which are undoubtedly completely unfounded, Lord Clancharlie's republican feelings became so intense towards the end of his life that he married - the strange obstinacy of an exile! - on the daughter of one of the regicides, Anne Bradshaw - the name was given with precision - who died giving birth to a child, a boy, who was supposedly, if all this was true, the legitimate son and heir of Lord Clancharlie. This information, very vague, was more like rumors than facts. For England at that time, everything that happened in Switzerland was as distant as for present-day England what is happening in China. Lord Clancharlie was supposedly fifty-nine years old when he married, and sixty when his son was born; they said that he died a short time later and the boy was left an orphan. Well, it's possible, of course, but unlikely. They added that this child was “good as day,” as they say in fairy tales. King James put an end to these absolutely unfounded rumors by most graciously declaring one fine morning David Derry-Moir to be the sole and undisputed heir of his illegitimate father, Lord Linnaeus of Clancharlie, "for lack of legitimate children and since the absence of any other relationship and issue has been established" - a charter stating this was entered into the registers of the House of Lords. By this charter the king recognized in Lord David Derry-Moir the titles, rights and privileges of the late Lord Linnaeus of Clancharlie, on the sole condition that Lord David should marry, on her coming of age, the maiden, who was at that time still an infant of a few months' age, and whom the king, for unknown reasons, made her a duchess while still in the cradle. However, these reasons were well known.

The little bride was called Duchess Josiana. In England at that time there was a fashion for Spanish names. One of Charles II's illegitimate children was named Carlos, Earl of Plymouth. It is possible that the name Josiana was a contraction of two names - Joseph and Anna. Or maybe there was a name called Josiana, just like there was a name called Josiah. One of Henry II's close associates was named Josiah du Passage.

It was to this little duchess that the king granted the peerage of Clancharlie. She was a peeress awaiting her peerage: her future husband was to become a peer. This peerage consisted of two baronies: the barony of Clancharlie and the barony of Henkerville; In addition, the Lords of Clancharlie, as a reward for some military feat, were highly awarded the title of Sicilian Marquises of Corleane. As a general rule, peers of England cannot bear foreign titles; however, there are exceptions - for example, Henry Arundel, Baron Arundel-Wardur, was, like Lord Clifford, an Earl of the Holy Roman Empire, of which Lord Cowper was a prince; the Duke of Hamilton bears the title of Duke of Chatellerault in France; Basil Feilding, Earl of Denbigh, in Germany bears the title of Count of Habsburg, Laufenburg and Rheinfelden. The Duke of Marlborough was the Prince of Mindelheim in Sweden, just as the Duke of Wellington was the Prince of Waterloo in Belgium. The same Duke of Wellington was the Spanish Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo and the Portuguese Count of Vimeira.

In England already in those days there existed, as they still exist today, noble estates and non-noble estates. These lands, castles, burghs, leases, fiefs, manors, allods and fiefs of the Peerage of Clancharlie-Henkerville were held temporarily by Lady Josiana, and the king declared that as soon as Lord David Derry-Moir married Josiana, he would become Baron of Clancharlie.

In addition to the Clancharlie inheritance, Lady Josiana also had her own fortune. She owned large estates, part of which was once donated to the Duke of York by Madame sans queue [Madame without further definition (French) (Madame is the title of the eldest daughter of the French king, the daughter of the Dauphin and the wife of the king's brother.). Madame sans queue simply means Madame. This was the name given to Henrietta of England, the first woman of France after the queen.

Lord David, who had prospered under Charles and James, continued to prosper under William of Orange. He did not go so far in his commitment to Jacob as to follow him into exile. Without ceasing to love his rightful king, he had the prudence to serve the usurper. However, Lord David was, although not very disciplined, an excellent officer; he changed his land service to naval service and distinguished himself in the “white squadron.” Lord David became, as they called then, captain of a light frigate. In the end, he emerged as a completely secular man, covering up his vices with graceful manners, a bit of a poet, like everyone else at that time, a good servant of the king and the state, an indispensable participant in all festivities, celebrations, “small royal appearances”, ceremonies, but did not avoid and battles, a rather obsequious courtier and at the same time a very arrogant nobleman, short-sighted or sharp-sighted, depending on the circumstances; honest by nature, respectful towards some and arrogant towards others, sincere and sincere at first impulse, but capable of instantly putting on any disguise, perfectly taking into account the bad and good mood of the king, blithely standing in front of the tip of the sword aimed at him, according to to one sign of His Majesty, ready to heroically risk his life absurdly, capable of any antics, but invariably polite, a slave of etiquette and courtesy, proud of the opportunity to bend the knee before the monarch on solemn occasions, a cheerful, brave, sincere courtier in appearance and a knight at heart, a man still young despite his forty-five years.