#a sideline into my desire to write a paper about eleanor cobham as the monstrous feminine

[heartofstanding]

I was browsing a pop history book and it claimed that Humphrey was in love with Jacqueline of Hainault. Is there any evidence at all for that? Was Humphrey's marriage to her just about politics?

So... this got long. And it took a long time to write because everytime I tried to read through it, I ended up adding more. But I'm leaving it alone now. I'm sorry, I just have a lot of feelings about Jacqueline.

The summary version is: I don't think we should see their marriage as primarily a love match. I don't think we should see it is being primarily motivated by Humphrey's greed and ambition either. There isn't any really surviving evidence for how they saw each other - the marriage might have been just politics, it might have been companionable, it might have been loving (though I'd push for a wider definition of "loving" than just "romantic love").

It really annoys me the way that historians all tend to view Jacqueline as, first and foremost, a tragic romantic heroine who is let down by her useless and philandering husbands (John, Duke of Brabant and Humphrey), rather than, you know, a medieval noblewoman whose inheritance rights were attacked and undermined by her male relatives and who was, ultimately, a victim of the patriarchal power structure that meant her right to inherit her father's lands and titles was constantly under threat.

A brief history of Jacqueline before Humphrey: she was the only child of William of Bavaria and Margaret of Burgundy, Duke and Duchess of Bavaria, Count and Countess of Holland, Zeeland and Hainault. Her father made efforts to have Jacqueline's status as his heir safeguarded during his lifetime, including marrying her to Jean, Duke of Touraine, Charles VI of France's son, which would mean French support for her succession. Unluckily, Touraine died in April 1417, possibly by poison, and William died the month later. William's younger brother, John the Pitiless, left his ecclesiastical career to claim he, not Jacqueline, was the rightful heir of Holland, Zeeland and Hainault. In effort to forestall her uncle's effort and possibly to garner Burgundian support (the marriage is generally accepted to have been made on the advice of her mother and her brother, John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy), Jacqueline married John, Duke of Brabant. Unfortunately, Brabant turned out to be worse than useless.

Brabant was unpopular within his own lands, was seen as weak and as ruled by his favourites. The marriage required papal dispensation, which was granted and then revoked and then granted again. Brabant pawned Jacqueline's lands to John the Pitiless without Jacqueline's consent. Brabant also inferred with her household, dismissing her attendants despite her protests. Yet historians, even reputable ones, often characterise the failure of their marriage in personal terms. It was, they say, a case of a "domestic or sexual" incompatibility. It seems she left him because of a bit more than an "domestic or sexual" issue, doesn't it?

Historians also discuss her marriage to Humphrey in domestic terms. It was a love match or a seduction of one by the other, and it broke down because Humphrey left her for another woman. There's also a trend to read the Hainault campaign purely in terms of Humphrey having a policy of self-aggrandisement and getting into a pissing competition with Burgundy... which also tends to erase Jacqueline from the struggle for her own lands and reduce her down to a Bad Idea for England. And, yes, the marriage was bad for the English but unless you want to contort yourself into knots, Jacqueline was the wronged party. It was her rights that were being attacked and undermined and her rights that Humphrey was asserting. It's perhaps not the most progressive, feminist or moral position to assume that because it was Bad For England, it was an immoral action on Humphrey's side. We end up with a situation where even progressive historians seem to think she had no role in the Hainault campaign, which was just a pissing competition between Humphrey and Burgundy, and, more importantly, her rights should've been thrown in the toilet because it was Bad For England.

Another side effect is making Burgundy look like an innocent victim who deserves praise for calling Humphrey out on his bullshit when it's really more of a case of the kettle calling the pot black except it turns out that the kettle ended up bullying, blackmailing and waging war against three of his female relatives (Elisabeth of Görlitz, Margaret of Burgundy (his aunt), and Jacqueline) to force them to sign over their lands to him. If Humphrey had delusions of self-aggrandisement and was a dick, Burgundy was just a more successful self-aggrandising dick who built an empire out fucking over his vulnerable female cousins and aunt. Jacqueline, not England, not the English conquest of France, not Bedford, not Humphrey, not the Beauforts, not Brabant and certainly not Burgundy, is the victim in this story.

After Brabant pawned her lands to her uncle, Jacqueline repudiated him and fled to England, after being granted refuge by Henry V. She arrived around February 1421, was granted a monthly income of £100 and was given the honour of becoming Henry VI's godmother when he's born in December that year. So from the start of Jacqueline's time in England, she was being treated as an important political figure. In Jacqueline's ODNB entry, Martyn Atkins says that Henry V "evidently saw her as a thoroughly useful ally".

It's unlikely that Henry V did this all out of the goodness of his own heart. It's not the sort of thing he's known for. Given that he had previously offered his two youngest brothers as prospective husbands to Jacqueline when Jean, Duke of Touraine had died and given that Jacqueline was seeking an annulment of her marriage to Brabant, I think that Henry was at least considering a marriage alliance between her and one of his brothers. It might even have been an unofficial or secret agreement between them - Henry would give her refuge if she married one of his brothers when the annulment came through. Wim Blockmans and Walter Prevenier suggest Henry saw an opportunity to establish "a new English influence" on the continent through marrying Humphrey to Jacqueline. David Rundle suggests that Henry saw giving refuge to Jacqueline as a way of putting pressure on Burgundy - however, Rundle doesn't seem to think the marriage to Humphrey was Henry's plan but rather Humphrey's continuation of Henry's policy. Regardless, having one of his brothers as Jacqueline's husband would bring Holland, Zeeland and Hainault under English influence, undercut Burgundy's power in the Low Countries and perhaps reduced England's dependence on Burgundy during the conquest of France.

And it's possible that had Henry lived, things would have turned out very different for Jacqueline. Henry would have been King of France by the end of 1422 (albeit as a contested title) and been able to more effectively pressure the pope to annul Jacqueline's marriage instead of several noblemen lobbying the pope for different outcomes. As king, Henry may have been able to control Burgundy better than John, Duke of Bedford did as regent. Henry would have also been an authority Humphrey would've listened to, so if the marriage became too risky or dangerous, Henry could have called Humphrey off. While in hindsight it looks like a bad decision, Jacqueline and Humphrey's marriage alliance may well have been successful in an alternate universe.

But why Humphrey? Why not John, Duke of Bedford who has the reputation of being the more sensible and steady brother? It might have already been decided that Bedford would marry one of Burgundy's sisters (he married Anne of Burgundy after the Treaty of Amiens in 1423 but it seems discussions were underway during Henry's lifetime) and thus was not "free" to marry Jacqueline. As the elder brother, he was the more prestigious groom and thus a better choice to show Burgundy Henry was taking their alliance seriously and would favour Burgundy over Jacqueline. Alternatively, Humphrey may have simply gotten along better with Jacqueline than Bedford did. They might have fallen in love.

But we don't know what went on. We don't even know when they married and while I think it's likely Henry V was seriously considering marrying Jacqueline to Humphrey, that's just supposition. Reasonable supposition maybe, but still supposition. If Henry didn't intend for them to marry, the decision came from them and there may have been pragmatic as well as political reasons at play as well as the personal.

Henry's death probably should have made them reassess their position. But I think it could have only cemented Jacqueline's. Her interest seems to have been in securing her inheritance, not being Mrs Humphrey of Lancaster or Duchess of Gloucester. Without Henry V in her corner, however conditional his support was, marriage to Humphrey was perhaps her last and greatest chance to assert her rights. It's also possible that Jacqueline felt herself vulnerable following Henry's death. She might have feared the English would consider imprisoning her or handing her over to Burgundy to secure his allegiance and sought to protect herself. For his part, Humphrey may well have chosen to marry Jacqueline and pursue her lands to fulfil his dead brother's policies - we know that he did present himself as a guardian and follower of Henry V's policies, long after it was wise, so it's not exactly a leap to see his marriage to Jacqueline motivated by the same reason. Henry V granted her refuge and honours for a reason, even if we don't know what that reason was.

We know little about the personal relationship between Jacqueline and Humphrey. Blockmans and Prevenier suggest Jacqueline saw Humphrey as "an attractive sexual and political alternative to the misery of her previous marriages, neither of which may have even be consummated" - but that is largely speculation. As I said, he might have been the best choice available for Jacqueline. The Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund, supported John the Pitiless, Burgundy supported Brabant, and even if a papal dispensation could be got (considering she'd already married his brother), the Dauphin (later Charles VII of France) was busy contesting his own right to inherit. England was the closest power she could turn for assistance and Humphrey was the highest-ranked noble she could marry. He might have been a personally attractive groom as well but I think Jacqueline was more moved by his political strength.

Jean de Waurin says that Jacqueline and Humphrey "concluded together" to write a letter to Burgundy during the Hainault campaign and we can take that as evidence that Humphrey was working with her and had trust in her, but that's more political than personal. They did not have children, though there were rumours of a pregnancy at one time. Given that Jacqueline did not have children in any of her four marriages and Humphrey did not father legitimate children in his two marriages (at least that we know of; it's possible that miscarriages and stillbirths went unrecorded), it's impossible to tell whether their childlessness signifies anything more than fertility troubles for one or both of them.

Another piece of evidence is the copy of Jean Froissart's Poems (Paris: BnF, MS.fr. 831) that Humphrey owned around the same time as his marriage to Jacqueline. On the flyleaves are notes written in his own hand. Some refer, affectionately, to Jacqueline: "Cest bien saison a Jaque de Bavarie (it's a good time/season for Jacqueline)". But others read "plus laide nya Jaque de Bavarie (there is no one uglier than Jacqueline)". Obviously, we don't know the context in which Humphrey wrote these things - it might've been an inside joke - but just looking at it... it's not exactly Husband of the Year material.

There's also his adultery. David Rundle identified Jeanne de Warigny as a prospective lover based on the fact that in the same page as Humphrey declared no one was uglier than Jacqueline, he also wrote, "plus belle nya my waryny (there is no one more beautiful than [Jeanne de] Warigny)". And, of course, there's Eleanor.

Jacqueline's reaction to Humphrey's adultery is unknown. She may have viewed it pragmatically, she may have been upset by it, she may have not cared. Depending on her own views on sex, childbearing and Humphrey himself, she might have even been relieved. There is some argument that a man's adultery was normalised at their level of society, given that marriages at that level of society were political, not personal, and that, as cis men, their infidelities would not disrupt the line of succession through a false paternity event. Jacqueline had a fair few illegitimate half-siblings whom she was close to. On the other hand, chroniclers, when writing about a nobleman's adultery, nearly always asserted the victimhood and distress of his wife - though there are some arguments that these accounts were nearly always attached to a broader, more political critique and reflect more the chronicler's dislike than how his wife really felt.

Humphrey and Jacqueline's marriage is nearly always depicted ending in domestic terms. He grows disillusioned with Jacqueline, he takes up with her lady-in-waiting and then abandons her. Blockmans and Prevenier say that Jacqueline's "explosive personality ... appears to have alienated" Humphrey, in addition to the difficulties to the Hainault campaign. They also describe his departure as abrupt but I believe there's some argument by English historians that Humphrey always intended to return to England when he did.

Two accounts from the Low Countries, attributed to Dirck Pauw, depict Humphrey as retreating disconsolate and disappointed upon the realisation that their marriage was unlawful because her marriage to Brabant was valid, their marriage was thus unlawful and based on a deception and Jacqueline was thus an adulteress and bigamist. Pauw's earlier work, Chronicon Hollandie, is more sympathetic to Jacqueline, saying she was misled about her marriage to Brabant, while the Hystoria de comitatu is less sympathetic, presenting Jacqueline as being the misleader and framing her behaviour as a betrayal of Humphrey. In England, Polydore Vergil, while stating that Humphrey was moved by love for Jacqueline or greed for her lands and asserting that Jacqueline returned to John, Duke of Brabant when she didn't (at the time of the annulment, Brabant was dead and buried anyway), ultimately frames the dissolution of their marriage in the very image of domesticity, the nagging wife:

[after their marriage was annulled] Jacobina clung to her former husband [Brabant], not against Gloucester’s will, since he was governed by righteousness, and had already grown tired of the woman’s nagging.

Jean de Waurin also gives a domestic account of their parting, where Humphrey is accedes to a request that Jacqueline stay only after he garners promises and solemn oaths she'll be protected. Then, Waurin reports:

...the said duke of Gloucester departed from the duchess, his wife, and they took leave of one another, but you may well think and believe that it was not without pitiable and dolorous tears and groanings according to the manner customary with ladies, especially when they love well their husbands or friends.

But Waurin also includes a reference to Humphrey taking back Eleanor Cobham back to England with him. Waurin doesn't explicitly say Humphrey was having an affair with Eleanor and preferred her to Jacqueline but it's pretty well implied:

And the said duke of Gloucester took back to the land of England Eleanor Cobham, a very noble damsel and of grand lineage, whom he afterwards married as you will hear, and who had come with lady Jacqueline, the duchess, his wife, to the country of Hainault by way of diversion, as young damsels are desirous of seeing new countries and foreign regions for she was also marvellously fair and pleasing, and showed herself of good disposition in various places.

More pointedly, there's John of Amundesham's account of 1427-1428 parliament, where a group of London women came to parliament to give letters to Humphrey, the archbishops and the other lords present:

The tenor of these letters was to reproach the duke of Gloucester on account of his refusal to rescue his wife from her effective imprisonment by the duke of Burgundy. Rather, as his love for her had grown cold, he was inclined to leave her in captivity, and he was holding himself for another in adultery and quite publicly so, to the ruin of himself, of the realm and of the strength of the institution of marriage.

Here, Humphrey's abandonment of Jacqueline is depicted in very domestic terms. It is affront to all wives, it is an affront to all women and injures the very institution of marriage. It is the good wives of London who seek a corrective for his behaviour. Humphrey's apparent refusal to rescue his wife is credited to his emotional state, rather than the politics of offending a vital ally - he doesn't love Jacqueline anymore and openly lives in scandalous sin. It also bears noticing that English source didn't have the same doubts about the validity of Jacqueline's marriages that continental sources express.

Similar sentiments are found in an anonymous poem written not too long after this event. The "Complaint for My Lady of Gloucester and Holland" is presented as being written by a member of Humphrey's household and his voice as but one of many, both old and young, high and low, crying out for Jacqueline's return. The duke's household is disordered, led astray by a figure who is almost certainly meant to represent Eleanor Cobham, and Jacqueline's hoped-for return is depicted as the return of a good and efficient lady and wife who will set the household to rights, drive away the corrupting influences and uplift the just who have longed for her return:

þeyre truwe names shal beo knowe Affterwardes with goddes grace Whane blake mystes / ar leyde lowe And clere trouth shall shewe his face Wychches bawdes / away tenchace fflaterieres and al raskayle Ageynst trouth . þat may not vayle [Their true names shall be known Afterwards with God's grace When black mists are laid low And clear truth shall show his face Witches, bawds are driven away Flatterers and all rascals Again truth, they may not hide Nb. "bawds" most likely is used in the earlier sense of one who procures prostitutes for others (i.e. pimps) rather than referring to prostitutes/harlots themselves]

I want to talk about the Eleanor figure a little because it's striking how she is constructed as this inhuman, even monstrous, figure who is leading the good duke astray with her magical wiles. She is said to resemble a mermaid, enchantress and sorceress and is termed as a false Circe - she is, in other words, an unnatural figure associated with magic, pride and sexual looseness. She is also accompanied by "a gret route / Of wychches" and the description of their "courage serpentyne" further dehumanises them and renders them monstrous - Debbie Felton notes the tendency of Greek monsters, like Medusa, Scylla and the Hydra to have serpentine. These witches - also likened to sirens - employ all their power and might, incantations, song, medicines and potions:

To make him strange / and beo forsworne Vn to þat goodely fayre pryncesse [To make him [Humphrey] strange and be foresworn Unto that goodly fair princess [Jacqueline]

It's striking, too, that unlike the London women's petitions, blame here is redirected away from Humphrey onto the Eleanor figure. She has used magic to make him unlike himself. But she will be banished, along with her witches, sirens and bawds, with Jacqueline's return.

Most historians know magic isn't real and have had the benefit of some feminism. So instead of blaming Eleanor's magical spells, the image that dominates is a marriage breaking down because Humphrey abandoned Jacqueline to hook up with her ambitious lady-in-waiting and her mysterious womanly wiles. It's rather odd seeing the way that people describe the differences between Eleanor and Jacqueline. Jacqueline was "dull" (there is no way to know that, what we know of her life suggests she was a fighter - and honestly, the impression I get is that Dutch historians have a very different view of Jacqueline (cf. Blockmans and Prevenier's "explosive personality" remark)). Eleanor was "a strong and ambitious woman, a striking contrast to the Duke's first wife". I just... what part of Jacqueline's life makes you think she was weak and unambitious?

Jacqueline did have some hand in creating this image of a good, loving wife victimised by her husband. She wrote letters to both Humphrey, Henry VI and to the English parliament, recounting her woes, asserting their duties to her and appealing for help. In one letter to Humphrey, she appealed "for help to your sorrowful creature, if you do not wish to lose me forever. I have hopes you will do this, for I am fully prepared to accept death for love of you, so much does your noble dominion please me". In others, she refers to herself as "the most sorrowful woman, the most lost", "the most betrayed [woman] alive" and as a "sorrowing woman, discomforted and left to bear the displeasures, annoyances, impoverishments and oppressions that I have for so long a time endured without help or comfort" . She accuses Humphrey of having "banished [her] wholly from [his thoughts]".

These letters depict Jacqueline's distress clearly. It's possible that she did love Humphrey and that his abandonment was an emotional and political blow. And in some ways, you can see why Polydore Vergil referred to her "nagging", why she has the image of a piteous, weeping woman who must be dull next to an accused witch. There's no doubt that Jacqueline was distressed by Humphrey's abandonment or that she was greatly wronged.

But it's also possible that the references to love weren't a genuine admission of romantic attachment but the employment of rhetoric. C. Marie Harker describes these letters as using "stock phrases of victimized womanhood", noting that Jacqueline presents herself as engaging in wifely supplication and that Jacqueline "well understood the strategic value of publicly-perceived feminine virtue". As Humphrey's wife, Jacqueline had ostensibly deeper claims to Humphrey's loyalty than a political ally. She was able to refer to the bonds of marriage and love between husband and wife to lay claim to these loyalties, to require his action. They may have been intended to guilt Humphrey and the parliament into action.

Because, in reality, the real reason for Jacqueline's abandonment was politics.

The Hainault campaign threatened to derail the Anglo-Burgundian alliance at a point when it was vital to English hopes in France. If Henry V had been willing to offend Burgundy or defend Jacqueline, Bedford wasn't. Possibly, he couldn't afford to. And, in the end, appeasing Burgundy and keeping him onside mattered more than Jacqueline to England and to Bedford.

Nor did Humphrey completely abandon Jacqueline either. According to Waurin, she was to return to England with Humphrey but didn't after a request from her mother and "nobles and corporations of the good towns of the said country of Hainault" to remain in Mons. Humphrey in one account was said to have left his treasure behind with her. Once back in England, he continued to send her military aid but this was undercut by resistance from Bedford and parliament. What assistance Humphrey did send wasn't enough and was further undermined by someone on the English side informing Burgundy of troop movements (according to Waurin, at least). Furthermore, Humphrey's return from Hainault to England saw him immediately embroiled in a feud with Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester which may have resulted in Humphrey believing that he left England again, he would return to find his position further undermined.

In some ways, events simply overtook them. Some of Jacqueline's letters begging for Humphrey's assistance and return were captured before they could be sent. Humphrey's letter urging Jacqueline to flee arrived after she had been captured by Burgundy. She subsequently escaped and continued to resist Burgundy's forcible takeover of her lands. Her appeals seem to have been for aid against Burgundy, not aid in returning to England. Possibly, she felt that to return to England would mean surrendering her claims.

It's almost hilarious how close Ruth Putnam (in the only English book-length biography of Jacqueline, published in 1904) comes to getting it when she suggests "Winchester and Bedford used Eleanor [Cobham] as a tool to work an end demanded by the exigencies of English foreign policy" - i.e. Eleanor was a honeypot to keep Humphrey from helping Jacqueline. It's almost as if their marriage faced bigger problems than Eleanor!

By the time the pope announced his decision on Jacqueline and Humphrey's marriage in January 1428, it had been six years since Jacqueline had sent off for an annulment from Brabant. The pope's belated judgement was that her marriage to Brabant was legal, her marriage to Humphrey thus invalid (though, this was the time of the papal schism and one out of the three popes still thought it was valid - though not the one that the English followed). According to one account, the pope's ruling stated that though Brabant was dead (he died in April 1427), Jacqueline could not legally marry Humphrey again. There is no explicit evidence for how they reacted to the news.

Humphrey appears to have married Eleanor almost straight away; I suspect his main reaction was relief. Whatever he felt for Jacqueline, the marriage caused him severe political problems and his failure to properly aid Jacqueline damaged his reputation. It had also exposed Eleanor to criticism and made her into a scapegoat, which also exposed his inability to protect his concubine and maintain control of his household. It probably also made him an unappealing groom on the medieval marriage market should he have tried to find a bride of a similar social rank to himself, particularly if there were still doubts about the validity of his marriage to Jacqueline. As Jacqueline's marriage to Brabant showed, the pope could grant and then revoke permission and then grant it again.

For Jacqueline, the annulment marked the end of English support in her struggle and she appeared to accept the weakness of her position. On 3 July 1428, she signed the Treaty of Delft with Burgundy, maintaining nominally Countess of Holland, Zeeland and Hainault while Burgundy administered her lands. If she died childless, he would inherit - and he, of course, included a clause stating she needed his permission to marry.

There is a romantic legend that, in 1432, Jacqueline secretly married Frank van Borssele in contravention of this clause and when Burgundy found out, he imprisoned Borssele and forced Jacqueline to surrender her titles and lands in return for Borssele's freedom. Because she was in love, in true love at last, Jacqueline duly does so and she becomes a good wife for Borssele before dying tragically a mere two years later.

This has largely been debunked. Borssele's imprisonment is now believed to have occurred because Burgundy was jealous and suspicious of his power and influence. The Treaty of Delft did not satisfy Burgundy and he continued to undermine Jacqueline's position until she signed the Treaty of the Hague in 1433, surrendering her titles and lands to him in exchange for the income of several estates. Possibly, this also included his permission to marry and in 1434, she married Borssele. They did not have children and Jacqueline died two years, generally assumed from tuberculosis. Reportedly, she married him for love.

Sources:

Martyn Atkins, "Jacqueline [Jacqueline of Bavaria], suo jure countess of Hainault, suo jure countess of Holland, and suo jure countess of Zeeland (1401–1436), princess", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004, updated 2006)

Wim Blockmans and Walter Prevenier, The Promised Lands: The Low Countries Under Burgundian Rule, 1369-1530, trans. Elizabeth Fackelamn, ed. Edward Peters, (University of Pennsylvania, 1999)

Marc Boone, "Jacqueline of Bavaria in 1425, a lonely princess in Ghent?", The Ricardian: Journal of the Richard III Society, vol. 13 (2003)

Margreet Brandsma, "Riches and power? Princely widows in the Burgundian period. The case of Margaret of Burgundy (1374-1441), The Medieval Low Countries 5 (2018)

Eleanor P. Hammond, "Lydgate and the Duchess of Gloucester", Anglia 27 (1904)

C. Marie Harker, “The Two Duchesses of Gloucester and the Rhetoric of the Feminine”, Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques, vol. 30, no. 1 (2004)

Renée Nip, "Conflicting roles: Jacqueline of Bavaria (d. 1436), countess and wife" in Saints, scholars and politicians : gender as a tool in medieval studies: festschrift in honour of Anneke Mulder-Bakker on the occasion of her sixty-fifth birthday, ed. Mathilde Van Dyk and Renée Nip (Brepols, 2005)

Ruth Putnam, A Mediaeval Princess (G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1994)

David Rundle, "Good Duke Humfrey: Bounder, Cad and Bibliophile", Bodleian Library Record, xxvii ([2015] for 2014)

Valerie Vancken, "United in revolt and discourse: urban and noble perceptions of 'bad government' in fifteenth century Brabant (1420-1)", Journal of Medieval History (2017)

Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (1555 version): A hypertext critical edition, ed. and trans. Dana F. Sutton (2005; last updated 2010)

Jean de Wavrin, A Collection of the Chronicles and Ancient Histories of Great Britain, Now Called England: Volume 3: From AD 1422 to AD 1431 ed. Edward L. C. P. Hardy (Cambridge University Press, 1891, digital version 2014)

#sorry i just have a lot of feelings about jacqueline #asks #vol au vending machine #text posts #jacqueline of hainault #humphrey duke of gloucester #eleanor cobham #henry v #this post has everything: a vent about jacqueline's current reputation #a sideline into my desire to write a paper about eleanor cobham as the monstrous feminine #a callout post for philip the good #philip the good my arse #reassessing humphrey's relationship with jacqueline... #of course it is also super long #anyway this is done so now the other asks i have in my inbox can be looked at