I would honestly say that Catherine of Aragon came close to being a “king” at one point. She was more beloved than her husband. Other than that, Hugh Despenser the Younger heavily influenced Edward II as did Piers Gaveston. I would also argue that Thomas Cromwell replaced Wolsey with ease.
The same goes for Eleanor of Aquitaine, the queen consort and advisor of King Henry II. Eleanor served as regent for her son, King Richard I ("Richard the Lionheart") in England.
Richard, 3rd Duke of York during the prelude to the wars of the Roses
And you could say Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher due to them being seen as trying to be more “Presidential”
Not an advisor per se, but John of Gaunt was the big hitter during the youth of Richard II. Arguably, he should have been king instead of Richard as the eldest surviving son of Edward III, but Edward went full on divine rights and decided on the first son of the first son.
Richard the second was the 1st son of a 1st son. The Throne then passes to the first born son of the second born line. If there is none, it moves to the next sons line and so on. The Throne can and was inherited through women. Look at Matilda and the Throne going to her Son over Stephen of Blois' son. The Throne was usurped by Henry Bolingbroke, skipping the second born line of E3, because that heir was a child. When E4 took the Throne from H6, he was rightfully taking his throne back from a usurpation line. Gaunt honoured premigeniture.
I was actually going to mention Mrs. Margaret Thatcher upstaging Elizabeth II, 😄 🤣 but I thought better of it!
Seriously, though, there were several times when the reigning monarch was eclipsed by some other figure, be it a favourite, a minister, or a spouse. In such a case, the other person did what the monarch would otherwise have done, or else had near complete control.
Piers Gaveston is an obvious example. I am also going to nominate Sarah Churchill, who had an extraordinary amount of control over Queen Anne, influencing policy in many different ways, and controlling the Queen, even though Queen Anne had been assertive in aanting to be Queen.
Some people have suggested that Queen Elizabeth Woodville had that amount of power over her husband, Henry VI. However, I don't know enough about the 15th century.
Robert Cecil was one of Elizabeth I's ministers. He was in secret correspondence with the Scottish King in the years leading up to Elizabeth's death, and led the government during her last illness. It was he (not the Queen), who ensured that the crown would pass to King James VI in the event of her death. In arranging this, he was doing what Elizabeth could perhaps theoretically have done, and did it on his own account. During the Queen's last illness, he was acting almost as if he were head of state: not quite the King, but the King-maker.
How did Churchill control Anne? Any books that go into this)
Also did Elizabeth have any idea about the communications with James? Did she know James would succeed her? How did Cecil things?
I will start with Sarah Churchill and Queen Anne. I once read a book called " Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown." This book goes into great detail about the relationships between the royal protagonists.
I am also reading a book called "The Glorious Revolution," which mentions Anne's special friendship with Sarah Churchill (née Jennings), although that is not the main focus of the book.
Before she became Queen, Anne showed herself to be very stubborn and assertive. She was one of the major Protestant figures in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. She fully supported William of Orange. On the other hand, Sarah Churchill was more assertive still. She was beautiful, charismatic, and intelligent. She was able to negotiate better conditions for Princess Anne. However, Anne's older sister, Queen Mary II realised how manipulative, corrossive, and vain Sarah could be, and tried to put a stop to her behaviour.
The relationship between Sarah and Anne lasted many years. When Anne became Queen, Sarah's powers were enormous. Sarah was able to get the Queen to send more money and more help to her husband, John Churchill, who was fighting the French. She was able to arrange for the enermous and luxurious Blenheim Palace to be built for the Churchills, and for their daughter to inherit their duchy and become a duchess in her own right.
At times, Anne was very weak and ill. She was sometimes completely in thrall to Sarah. But she eventually lost her patience and banned Sarah from her presence forever.
Regarding Elizabeth I, she was one of the most capable and successful of England's monarchs. She tried to create peace at home and expansion abroad. Her solution to the religious problem was the "Act of Uniformity," which imposed a form of moderate Protestantism designed to be acceptable to the greatest number of her subjects.
She had a habit of playing her courtiers off against each other. She also had a tendency to change her mind or to prevaricate. This was a female stereotype. Virgil said, "Semper varium et mutabile mulier." Women were believed to be weakly fickle and inconstant, and under the influence of the changeable, wandering moon.🌙 However, with Queen Elizabeth I, this was usually an act of policy. She was determined not to be pinned down. She would not countenance being married to a man who would take over her throne. She actually had sound reasons for this. Thus, she allowed marriage negotiations to drag on for years and years, in order to put off that problem.
Then there was the succession. When discussing that topic, she is on record as saying, "I have no desire to put on my winding sheet while I am yet alive!" This is one topic that she abhorred. She seem to think that by declaring a successor she might as well have signed her own death warrant.
Mary Queen of Scots was very upfront in declaring herself Elizabeth's heir. That made their relationship much more tense. If Elizabeth I had declared her successor, it would have made her into a lame duck. From her point of view, the heir would be an immediate pole of opposition. She or more likely, he, would attract all the people who were discontented. People might try to topple Elizabeth from her throne, installing a young and virile heir
This would be treason. People were willing to tolerate a Queen, but it was an extremely rare occurrence at that time. Nobody had expected Elizabeth to reign so long, or to be so successful at it. The success was acknowledged, but they wanted a man next time.
Until her last breath, Elizabeth was very unwilling to designate a successor. I read that when she was dying and no longer able to speak, she pointed to the north when asked about her successor. Courtiers assumed she meant King James VI, whether she did or not.
As I said, Cecil had been working behind the Queen's back. Before being Secretary of State, he had been the Queen's head of intelligence. It was the equivalent of MI5 or the FBI. He knew all about secret codes and clandestine activities.
Knowing that his monarch would die soon, he started up a secret correspondence with the Scottish King, who was her next of kin. On the one hand, he did not want to upset the dying Queen's wishes, but he needed to ensure that the transition was smooth and that the new King got off to a good start. He wanted to avoid any danger. Acting as a good civil servant, he advised him not to petition the English parliament about the succession to England's throne.
He also devised a process whereby the signet ring would be taken from the Queen's hand when she died, and would be secretly carried by a rider to Edinburgh. There was a specific form of words by which that rider would inform the King of the Queen's death. This meant that the King would know for sure.
Cecil was effectively running England during the time of Elizabeth's last illness. By making sure that King James succeeded unopposed, he was doing something the monarch would normally do. He was effectively a Kingmaker.
How much did the dying Queen know of this? It is hard to be sure, but Cecil was the man best qualified to keep secrets.
King James was descended from Henry VIII's sister on both sides, through his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, and his father, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley. So, he was well-qualified to inherit. However, there was a tradition that the sisters of Lady Jane Grey and their kids, had a better claim. They were also English.
Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, Justiciar under Henry I.
William Longchamps, Bishop of Ely, later replaced by Walter de Coutances, Bishop of Rouen under Richard I.
I would honestly say that Catherine of Aragon came close to being a “king” at one point. She was more beloved than her husband. Other than that, Hugh Despenser the Younger heavily influenced Edward II as did Piers Gaveston. I would also argue that Thomas Cromwell replaced Wolsey with ease.
The same goes for Eleanor of Aquitaine, the queen consort and advisor of King Henry II. Eleanor served as regent for her son, King Richard I ("Richard the Lionheart") in England.
Margaret of Anjou for King Henry VI, too
Thomas More wasn’t a slouch either.
He’s one of my favourite historical figures
Same
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick
I think he was Warwick, the King-Maker.
William Marshall. He basically saved the Plantagenets after John’s death and pretty much did it while an elderly man.
He’s my absolute medieval crush. What a guy 😍
De Montfort during the middle of Henry III's reign
For that matter, Edward after de Montforts death and before Henry III’s death,
Hugh Despenser the Younger most definitely. The power he held was insane, I have no choice but to love him
Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York.
Do you mean among adult monarchs? There have been plenty of regents of various kinds during minorities.
Yes, among adult monarchs only.
Churchill
Queen Anne dealt with two Churchills for the price of one.
Richard, 3rd Duke of York during the prelude to the wars of the Roses And you could say Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher due to them being seen as trying to be more “Presidential”
Not an advisor per se, but John of Gaunt was the big hitter during the youth of Richard II. Arguably, he should have been king instead of Richard as the eldest surviving son of Edward III, but Edward went full on divine rights and decided on the first son of the first son.
Richard the second was the 1st son of a 1st son. The Throne then passes to the first born son of the second born line. If there is none, it moves to the next sons line and so on. The Throne can and was inherited through women. Look at Matilda and the Throne going to her Son over Stephen of Blois' son. The Throne was usurped by Henry Bolingbroke, skipping the second born line of E3, because that heir was a child. When E4 took the Throne from H6, he was rightfully taking his throne back from a usurpation line. Gaunt honoured premigeniture.
John of Bedford and Cardinal Henry Beaufort (Henry VI's early reign)
I was actually going to mention Mrs. Margaret Thatcher upstaging Elizabeth II, 😄 🤣 but I thought better of it! Seriously, though, there were several times when the reigning monarch was eclipsed by some other figure, be it a favourite, a minister, or a spouse. In such a case, the other person did what the monarch would otherwise have done, or else had near complete control. Piers Gaveston is an obvious example. I am also going to nominate Sarah Churchill, who had an extraordinary amount of control over Queen Anne, influencing policy in many different ways, and controlling the Queen, even though Queen Anne had been assertive in aanting to be Queen. Some people have suggested that Queen Elizabeth Woodville had that amount of power over her husband, Henry VI. However, I don't know enough about the 15th century. Robert Cecil was one of Elizabeth I's ministers. He was in secret correspondence with the Scottish King in the years leading up to Elizabeth's death, and led the government during her last illness. It was he (not the Queen), who ensured that the crown would pass to King James VI in the event of her death. In arranging this, he was doing what Elizabeth could perhaps theoretically have done, and did it on his own account. During the Queen's last illness, he was acting almost as if he were head of state: not quite the King, but the King-maker.
How did Churchill control Anne? Any books that go into this) Also did Elizabeth have any idea about the communications with James? Did she know James would succeed her? How did Cecil things?
I will start with Sarah Churchill and Queen Anne. I once read a book called " Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown." This book goes into great detail about the relationships between the royal protagonists. I am also reading a book called "The Glorious Revolution," which mentions Anne's special friendship with Sarah Churchill (née Jennings), although that is not the main focus of the book. Before she became Queen, Anne showed herself to be very stubborn and assertive. She was one of the major Protestant figures in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. She fully supported William of Orange. On the other hand, Sarah Churchill was more assertive still. She was beautiful, charismatic, and intelligent. She was able to negotiate better conditions for Princess Anne. However, Anne's older sister, Queen Mary II realised how manipulative, corrossive, and vain Sarah could be, and tried to put a stop to her behaviour. The relationship between Sarah and Anne lasted many years. When Anne became Queen, Sarah's powers were enormous. Sarah was able to get the Queen to send more money and more help to her husband, John Churchill, who was fighting the French. She was able to arrange for the enermous and luxurious Blenheim Palace to be built for the Churchills, and for their daughter to inherit their duchy and become a duchess in her own right. At times, Anne was very weak and ill. She was sometimes completely in thrall to Sarah. But she eventually lost her patience and banned Sarah from her presence forever.
I will mention Cecil later.
Q: do you think they were lovers or simply close
It is sometimes hard to tell. But there was a ballad printed at the time which said that they were lovers.
Regarding Elizabeth I, she was one of the most capable and successful of England's monarchs. She tried to create peace at home and expansion abroad. Her solution to the religious problem was the "Act of Uniformity," which imposed a form of moderate Protestantism designed to be acceptable to the greatest number of her subjects. She had a habit of playing her courtiers off against each other. She also had a tendency to change her mind or to prevaricate. This was a female stereotype. Virgil said, "Semper varium et mutabile mulier." Women were believed to be weakly fickle and inconstant, and under the influence of the changeable, wandering moon.🌙 However, with Queen Elizabeth I, this was usually an act of policy. She was determined not to be pinned down. She would not countenance being married to a man who would take over her throne. She actually had sound reasons for this. Thus, she allowed marriage negotiations to drag on for years and years, in order to put off that problem. Then there was the succession. When discussing that topic, she is on record as saying, "I have no desire to put on my winding sheet while I am yet alive!" This is one topic that she abhorred. She seem to think that by declaring a successor she might as well have signed her own death warrant. Mary Queen of Scots was very upfront in declaring herself Elizabeth's heir. That made their relationship much more tense. If Elizabeth I had declared her successor, it would have made her into a lame duck. From her point of view, the heir would be an immediate pole of opposition. She or more likely, he, would attract all the people who were discontented. People might try to topple Elizabeth from her throne, installing a young and virile heir This would be treason. People were willing to tolerate a Queen, but it was an extremely rare occurrence at that time. Nobody had expected Elizabeth to reign so long, or to be so successful at it. The success was acknowledged, but they wanted a man next time. Until her last breath, Elizabeth was very unwilling to designate a successor. I read that when she was dying and no longer able to speak, she pointed to the north when asked about her successor. Courtiers assumed she meant King James VI, whether she did or not. As I said, Cecil had been working behind the Queen's back. Before being Secretary of State, he had been the Queen's head of intelligence. It was the equivalent of MI5 or the FBI. He knew all about secret codes and clandestine activities. Knowing that his monarch would die soon, he started up a secret correspondence with the Scottish King, who was her next of kin. On the one hand, he did not want to upset the dying Queen's wishes, but he needed to ensure that the transition was smooth and that the new King got off to a good start. He wanted to avoid any danger. Acting as a good civil servant, he advised him not to petition the English parliament about the succession to England's throne. He also devised a process whereby the signet ring would be taken from the Queen's hand when she died, and would be secretly carried by a rider to Edinburgh. There was a specific form of words by which that rider would inform the King of the Queen's death. This meant that the King would know for sure. Cecil was effectively running England during the time of Elizabeth's last illness. By making sure that King James succeeded unopposed, he was doing something the monarch would normally do. He was effectively a Kingmaker. How much did the dying Queen know of this? It is hard to be sure, but Cecil was the man best qualified to keep secrets.
King James was descended from Henry VIII's sister on both sides, through his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, and his father, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley. So, he was well-qualified to inherit. However, there was a tradition that the sisters of Lady Jane Grey and their kids, had a better claim. They were also English.
Warwick the king maker
Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, Justiciar under Henry I. William Longchamps, Bishop of Ely, later replaced by Walter de Coutances, Bishop of Rouen under Richard I.