King John and Royal Control in Ireland: Why William de Briouze had to be Destroyed
This article re-examines King John’s persecution and eventual destruction of his former friend, William de Briouze, a signal example of John’s tyranny on the eve of Magna Carta. Approaching the episode from the transnational perspective of the two men involved, the study uncovers the roots of their dispute in King John’s attempts to introduce English-style royal rule to Ireland. Desperate to extract what he could from his insular possessions following the loss of Normandy in 1204, John’s attempts to increase his authority in Ireland provoked a violent response from its greatest magnates in 1207. John lost this lesser-known baronial revolt, but the most prudent of his barons soon came to terms with him. Not so William de Briouze, who, we are told had his Irish honour of Limerick seized for refusing a summons to court. From that point Briouze’s fall was sudden and violent. King John hounded him across England and Wales, forcing him into a desperate rebellion and exile in Ireland. But 1207 had shown the limit of John’s power, and Briouze was sheltered for two years by his fellow Irish magnates. King John’s expedition to Ireland in 1210 was to finish the business of 1207, and firmly stamp English royal control on Ireland.increase his authority in Ireland provoked a violent response from its greatest magnates in 1207
Quelle: http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/129/540/1051?rss=1
William Cecil Slingsby, Norway, and British Mountaineering, 1872-1914
Using the example of William Cecil Slingsby (1849–1929), one of the leading British alpinists active before 1914, this article reassesses late-Victorian and Edwardian mountaineering. It is particularly concerned with the motivations of mountaineers: what drew individuals such as Slingsby to the heights of Norway and elsewhere? Engaging with recent trends in scholarship, the article argues that interpretations which assign priority to aggressively masculine and imperialistic factors can be problematic. As Slingsby’s example shows, climbing was closely associated with a particular form of manliness throughout the period between the 1870s and the Great War, but the performance of this manliness involved embracing a cheerful domesticity as well as valorising robustly male derring-do and toughness in adversity. As for imperialist motivations, by the late nineteenth century these mattered less than might be thought, even to mountaineers who—like Slingsby—were ardent imperialists. A second and important aim of this article is to shed light on British cultural interactions with Norway. In his day, Slingsby was perhaps the best-known Englishman in Norway, and he was certainly one of the leading promoters of Anglo-Norwegian exchange in Britain. His mountaineering was importantly connected to the ethnic and philological ties he and other contemporaries (such as W.G. Collingwood) discerned between the two countries. Finally, the article also seeks to draw attention to Slingsby himself, a figure about whom almost nothing has been written by professional historians, despite his significance as a mountaineer and the existence of a considerable body of archival evidence relating to his life.
Quelle: http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/129/540/1098?rss=1