tealin | Reading

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/sibylla-in-jerusalem.html

When Thierry of Alsace, the Count of Flanders, made his third pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1157, he took his wife, Sibylla of Anjou. They had been married for over 15 years and had several children who went on to successful careers.

In Jerusalem at the time was Queen Melisende, the Queen of Jerusalem after the death of her father, Baldwin II. Melisende was the second wife of Fulk of Anjou, which made Melisende Sibylla's stepmother (and made Sibylla's father King of Jerusalem jure uxoris ("by right of [his] wife").

Baldwin had four daughters, the youngest of whom, Ioveta, was the abbess of the Benedictine Convent of St. Lazarus in Bethany, an abbey founded by Melisende so that Ioveta could be its abbess. The abbey was founded on the reputed site of the tomb of Lazarus. (see illustration)

Thierry assisted against the Muslims in the siege of Shaizar in northern Syria. The siege fell apart because Thierry argued with Raynald of Châtillon over which of them would take command of the town. Which of the two men was being the more difficult is not easy to know, but Raynald later was killed for his lack of respect.

Sibylla was housed with Ioveta in Bethany while her husband was away fighting. The two women were close in age and became good friends, so much so that Sibylla chose to stay in Jerusalem when Thierry went home, leaving him to see to the raising of their children.

Sibylla became a nun at Ioveta's abbey. She died in Bethany in 1165 and was buried at the abbey.

Sibylla was a great supporter of Queen Melisende, the first female ruler of Jerusalem, who deserves to have her story told. We will start that tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/sibylla-in-jerusalem.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/sibylla-of-anjou.html

When Fulk V of Anjou married his daughter Sibylla (c. 1112 – 1165) to William Clito, a grandson of William the Conqueror, it seemed like a match with much potential. Unfortunately, King Henry I of England, who had invaded Normandy and taken it from his brother Robert Curthose (William Clito's father), objected and convinced Pope Calixtus II to annul the marriage on the grounds of consanguinity.

William Clito's fate was covered here, but what happened to Sibylla? She was not even a teen when the marriage took place and still not a teen when it was annulled a year later. Her dowry was the County of Maine (which came to her through her mother), so she would have been not an inconsequential match for someone else. She did not re-marry until 1134 at the age of 22, when she was wedded to Thierry, Count of Flanders.

In a curious twist, had Sibylla remained married to William Clito, she would have become Countess of Flanders sooner: Louis VI of France helped William get the position (against objections from people like Thierry). In fact, it was opposition to William by Thierry's forces that led to William's wounding and death in 1128. Thierry succeeded him as count. (Thierry was already married at the time, but his wife, Margaret of Clermont, died in 1132.)

Thierry had one daughter by Margaret, but several children with Sibylla. When Thierry went on the Second Crusade, Sibylla was left as regent in Flanders. During this time, Count Baldwin IV of Hainaut thought it was a good time to attack Flanders, but Sibylla was ready for him. She plundered Hainaut in a counter-attack. In response, Baldwin attacked the territory of Artois. It took the Archbishop of Rheims to negotiate a truce. (Still, when Thierry returned from overseas in 1149, he took revenge on Baldwin.)

Their children were Philip I, who became Count of Flanders; Matthew of Alsace who became the Count of Boulogne; Margaret, who married Baldwin of Hainaut's son, Count Baldwin V of Hainaut; Gertrude of Flanders, who married Humbert III, Count of Savoy. There was also a daughter Matilda, who became abbess of Fontevrault, and a son Peter who was slated to become bishop of Cambrai but was never consecrated.

The illustration shows her with her husband on the facade of the Holy Blood Basilica in Brugge. She was not buried in Brugge, or even in Europe, however, but on the southeastern slop of the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem. How that came about, and how she abandoned her husband and children, is a story for tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/sibylla-of-anjou.html

andreasdeja_feed

Posted by Andreas Deja

http://andreasdeja.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-new-york-times-1996.html

I remember the day after this article appeared in the New York Times (almost 30 years ago), several colleagues at the studio pointed out to me what a big deal it was to be published "above the fold". I had never heard the term.

Having your photo at the top of the page was a major deal. Following the massive success of The Lion King, Disney animators had become crucial company assets, sparking intense media and public interest in the artists behind the animated hit films.

As I mentioned numerous times before, it was a tremendous honor to be a part of Disney Animation during the Renaissance era. As animators we were respected and celebrated, and we all appreciated this very much.

http://andreasdeja.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-new-york-times-1996.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-death-of-william-clito.html

So King Henry I of England managed to get the marriage of William Clito and Sibylla of Anjou annulled in 1124 through the help of Pope Calixtus II. Henry did not want Clito allied with the powerful Fulk of Anjou, and also wanted to spite William who was in a position to make a claim on Henry's kingdom as well as Normandy.

In England, Henry named a new heir and had his barons swear an oath of loyalty to her: his daughter the Empress Matilda (empress because she was married to Holy Roman Emperor Henry V).

In Normandy, a rebellion favoring William rose up. King Louis VI of France supported William, but Henry of England persuaded his son-in-law Henry V to cause trouble on France's eastern border, which divided French forces so they could not help William when England's forces defeated the rebellion at the Battle of Bourgthéroulde in March 1124.

Then Charles the Good, Count of Flanders, was killed in 1127, and Louis managed to get William Clito elected as the new count. Henry challenged this and ordered his vassal Stephen of Blois to attack Flanders, a move which was unsuccessful. Other claimants to William's title caused non-stop trouble, despite William having powerful allies.

One claimant was Thierry of Alsace, a cousin of Charles the Good (their mothers were both daughters of Robert I, Count of Flanders, mentioned here as Robert the Frisian). Thierry with an army of 300 mounted men-at-arms and 1,500 infantrymen besieged Axspoele, an estate held by an ally of William, on 19 June 1128. William brought 450 men-at-arms the next day, positioning two-thirds of his army on a hill where they could easily be seen. Thierry's cavalry decided to attack what looked like an equal number of opponents. After some serious fighting, William feigned a retreat and led the cavalry into an ambush where the rest of his men were waiting on the other side of the hill. Thierry's battle-weary men were now facing fresh fighters.

Thierry's cavalry was crushed, Thierry's infantry panicked and fled and were followed by William's men.

William then besieged Thierry at Oostkamp in West Flanders. Thierry retreated to the city of Aalst, where William also besieged him. William Clito sustained a wound from a Flemish foot soldier (see illustration). The wound turned gangrenous, and William Clito died on 28 July 1128. On his deathbed he wrote to Henry, requesting forgiveness for William's followers, which was granted.

Of course, when Henry died, Stephen of Blois seized the throne instead of staying true to his oath to Matilda and started a civil war called The Anarchy, but that's all been covered before.

In the middle of William's troubles, he remarried, this time in 1127 to Joanna (or Joan) of Montferrat, who died in 1128. What happened to Sibylla of Anjou, William's first wife? She remarried many years after the events related here, and lived until 1165. Let's follow her story tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-death-of-william-clito.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-story-of-william-clito.html

When William the Conqueror died, he had already made his wishes clear about the division of his lands. His older son, Robert Curthose, became Duke of Normandy, a large and prosperous province on the continent. A younger son, William Rufus, became king of England. A third surviving son, Henry, was left with nothing, but when Rufus died suddenly Henry raced to take the kingdom, becoming Henry I.

So the older son got a duchy and the younger son a kingdom. In 1106, King Henry I conquered Normandy from Robert. Robert Curthose had a son, William Clito, who pressed a claim to Normandy after his father died, but Henry wanted to give Normandy to his own son, William Adelin.

King Louis VI of France and William Clito were opposed to Henry's assertion of authority over Normandy. Battles and alliances took place over a few years with Henry always coming out on top. William Clito spent some time flying "under the radar." Then something happened that gave him a chance to re-assert his claim.

William Adelin died in the White Ship tragedy.

Henry had no more male heirs. Worse, William Adelin was supposed to marry Matilda, the daughter of Fulk V of Anjou, and Fulk wanted the dowry back (several castles and towns between Normandy and Anjou). Henry wouldn't give up those places, and so Fulk married another daughter, Sibylla of Anjou, to a young man who was 18, popular, and had recent experience in military campaigns—none other than William Clito. The two were married in 1123.

Henry strongly objected to this, and wrote to Pope Calixtus II to complain that William and Sibylla were too closely related for the marriage to be appropriate, due to the laws of consanguinity. Calixtus annulled the marriage, an action which was objected to by the bride's father until Calixtus excommunicated him and placed Anjou under interdict.

This is the event that I mentioned in yesterday's post: that the papal legate was allowed into England by Henry later after eight legates were refused as a quid pro quo because the papacy had done Henry the favor of annulling the marriage.

The marriage was done, but Clito was not. Tomorrow I'll tell you what happened and about his death some years later. The illustration is his seal when Louis made him Count of Flanders.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-story-of-william-clito.html

andreasdeja_feed

Posted by Andreas Deja

http://andreasdeja.blogspot.com/2026/02/student-sketches.html

More sketches I drew as a student at the Zoo Duisburg in Germany, around 1978. My art university did not offer any animal drawing classes, so I was on my own. But I really enjoyed sketching at the zoo. Of course you have to get used to comments from by-standing kids like: Are you an artist? Or: My uncle draws much better than you.

These are all Indian elephants, except for one sketch, which depicts an African one. You better spot it and let me know.....

http://andreasdeja.blogspot.com/2026/02/student-sketches.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/giovanni-of-crema.html

When Pope Honorius II wanted to resolve a dispute in England between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, he sent Giovanni of Crema as his papal legate.

England had refused to allow papal legates on the island for a long time, preferring the relationship between the king and the Archbishop of Canterbury to manage religious decisions. During the reign of King Henry I (reigned 1100 - 1135) he refused eight papal legates prior to Giovanni.

Giovanni stopped at Rouen and sent a letter dated 1 June 1124 to Henry, asking permission to cross the English Channel. He did not receive the permission he sought until 1125. His first mission was to go to Scotland and hold a council to tell the Scottish bishops they were subject to the Archbishop of York. This mission was unsuccessful.

Giovanni held a council at Westminster Abbey (pictured above in its earlier days) on 9 September 1125. It was attended by Archbishop of Canterbury William of Corbeil, Archbishop of York Thurstan of Bayeaux, and about 20 bishops and 40 abbots. Many reforms were declared regarding simony and priestly celibacy, but the issue of primacy between the archbishops was avoided. Instead, Giovanni invited both William and Thurstan to return to Rome with him and meet with the pope.

The three traveled to Rome, but even then Honorius was wary about making a hard and fast decision about the two English offices. One decision Honorius made was that the Bishop of St. Andrews, which was the Roman Catholic diocese of Scotland, would be subject to the Archbishop of York.

Whether York or Canterbury could overrule the other as archbishop was avoided, but Honorius said York would be subject to Canterbury not because Canterbury was somehow more important thanYork but in Canterbury's role as papal legate to England and Scotland. On the other hand, Canterbury could not demand an oath of obedience from York.

Papal legates making demands did not sit well with England (possibly not with anyone), and a rumor spread about Giovanni. Roger of Hoveden's history includes a story from historian Henry of Huntingdon (c.1088 - c.1157) that Giovanni was caught in bed with a woman. Giovanni was suspended from his cardinal position but then restored by Honorius. The rumor of the woman in his bed might explain that.

Why was Giovanni allowed into England after so many papal legates had been refused? Maybe the king wanted the archbishop rivalry resolved and didn't want to anger anyone by doing it himself. Some think it was a quid pro quo situation because of an action taken by the previous pope, Calixtus II. Let's look at that situation tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/giovanni-of-crema.html

andreasdeja_feed

Posted by Andreas Deja

http://andreasdeja.blogspot.com/2026/02/prophetic.html

I've been looking through some work I did during my time as an art student. I remember once having had a dream about a crazy cartoon rabbit. In the morning I drew these poses.

Years later.....Roger Rabbit.

And these sketches from imagination remind me of "you know who".....

http://andreasdeja.blogspot.com/2026/02/prophetic.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/honorius-and-conflicts-part-4.html

Bernard of Clairvaux was concerned (as just about everyone for several centuries) about the relationship between religious and secular authority and the supremacy of one over the other. Bernard's preaching and devotion inspired the Bishop of Paris, Stephen of Senlis, to try to eliminate the influence of the French kings in the appointment of clergy.

The French king at the time was Louis VI (reigned 1108 - 1137), called "Le Gros" because over time he gained so much weight he could no longer ride into battle (see illustration). Louis was not against religion—his chief advisor was Abbot Suger—but he maintained the tradition of having some say over his bishops. In response to Stephen opposing Louis' authority, Louis seized Stephen's wealth.

Stephen's goal of Church reform (making it independent of the king) also motivated the Archbishop of Sens, Henri Sanglier. Louis in retaliation charged Henri with simony (selling clergy positions for money) and tried to remove him from his position. Bernard's letter to Honorius requested that the pope intercede with Louis on behalf of Stephen of Senlis and Henri Sanglier. Louis was trying to fill bishop and priest positions in Tours as well, after Honorius had just appointed Hildebert of Lavardin to be Archbishop of Tours.

Honorius did not take as hard a line with a king as he had with abbots (see here and here). When the French bishops banded together to place the diocese of Paris under interdict (denying all residents of the diocese from receiving any of the sacraments of the Church), Louis protested to Honorius. Honorius lifted the interdict to save the residents of Paris from this punishment. This took pressure off of Louis to change his ways.

This "soft on crime" approach disgusted Bernard of Clairvaux, who expressed himself to Honorius. Honorius stuck to his guns, however, advising Stephen of Senlis to reconcile with Louis. Honorius must have had some words with Louis, because Louis stopped interfering with Archbishop Henri.

Honorius was also involved in English affairs, particularly in the debate over the Archbishoprics of Canterbury and York: did one have supremacy, or did they have equal authority? Thurstan of Bayeaux in York was pushing his claim, and Honorius wrote to him saying that the pope would settle the matter personally.

By "personally" he meant he would send a papal legate with the authority to act on the pope's behalf. Cardinal Giovanni of Crema went to England and convened a council at Westminster and...you know, this is going to get complicated, because England had been denying entrance to papal legates for years, so why did Giovanni of Crema get in? And what about Scotland? Did York have jurisdiction over Scotland? Let's save all that for tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/honorius-and-conflicts-part-4.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/honorius-and-conflicts-part-3.html

After making a deal with Roger II of Sicily, Pope Honorius II turned his attention back to focusing on monasteries he felt were too powerful and independent. The abbot of Monte Cassino had been dealt with, but there was another abbot who was acting up improperly, Pons of Melgueil.

Pons (c.1075 - 1126) was the seventh abbot of Cluny, but had been ousted in 1122. Pons had been a mediator at the Concordat of Worms that resolved the Investiture Controversy. While abbot, he had continued the building of the great abbey church of Cluny. This became "Cluny III" (pictured) and was the largest Christian church for the next 200 years.

During the Investiture Controversy, when Holy Roman Emperor Henry V marched on Rome in 1118, Pope Gelasius II fled Rome and found safety at Cluny. While there, he (supposedly) declared that he should be succeeded as pope by either Archbishop Guy of Vienne or Pons. Guy of Vienne became Pope Calixtus II, and was followed by Honorius.

Pons may have been bothered by having papal ambitions that went nowhere. In 1122 his monks at Cluny charged him with extravagance. The Archbishop of Lyon and the Bishop of Mâcon had also complained about him spending money too lavishly. Calixtus summoned him to Rome, where he resigned as abbot and made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. In 1123 he was back in Italy and started a small monastery of his own.

He then decided to reclaim his position as abbot of Cluny. He managed to gather some mercenaries and marched to Cluny in 1125 where he pushed out Abbot Hugh II of Cluny. He occupied the monastery and melted down some of the treasures there to pay his mercenaries, who remained in the area, harassing the monks and nearby villagers.

Honorius heard what was happening and sent a papal legate to excommunicate Pons and order him to Rome. Pons was deposed by Honorius in 1126 and put in prison where he died. At Cluny he was succeeded by Peter the Venerable.

Then Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to Honorius, asking him to get involved in a dispute between Louis VI of France and the French bishops. Honorius was all too glad to get involved, but that's a story for tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/honorius-and-conflicts-part-3.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/honorius-and-conflicts-part-2.html

On July 1127, William II, Duke of Apulia, died without an heir, and Roger II of Sicily (pictured) raced to the peninsula to take control of Apulia and Calabria.

Roger claimed that William had left him the lands in exchange for a favor Roger had done him. Pope Honorius II, however, claimed that William had deeded his territories to the papacy. Honorius did not want Roger getting a foothold in Italy, and rushed to prevent it.

Roger was already occupying Apulia, and sending gifts to Honorius, asking to be recognized as the rightful ruler of Apulia. Roger knew that the pope desired land as much as anyone, and offered to hand over a couple of locations, one in Campania and one in Apulia itself.

But Roger on the mainland would have created a unified Norman presence in southern Italy, and Honorius did not want any more northerners around. After all, the events that led to his election as pope involved a fight between Italians and northerners. Some of the smaller Norman rulers in southern Italy were also wary of Roger's power, and did not necessarily want him to become so powerful that he controlled them. They allied themselves with the pope.

Honorius threatened to excommunicate Roger, and then went through with it in November 1127. Roger returned to Sicily, but only to gather reinforcements. Honorius took the time to make an alliance with Robert II, the new prince of Capua, and preached a Crusade against Roger.

Roger returned in May 1128, harassing some papal strongholds but avoiding the papal forces directly until July. Even then, with the armies facing each other across a river, he did not engage, but waited to see if the alliances the pope had made would last through a long staring contest. Turns out some of the others blinked first, deciding to throw their lot in with Roger after all.

Honorius understood that he was losing strength, and sent two advisors to negotiate with Roger. The result was that Honorius would recognize Roger as Duke of Apulia, and Roger would take an oath of faith and homage to the pope. Honorius himself traveled to meet Roger on a bridge in Benevento, establishing peace between the Kingdom of Sicily and the Papal States.

Honorius now had time to turn to some of the other areas that he felt needed correction. He had only the previous year clashed with the abbot of Monte Cassino, one of the most famous Benedictine monasteries. He was about to cash with an abbey that also fell into the category of one of the most famous: Cluny. We'll look into that next time.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/honorius-and-conflicts-part-2.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/honorius-and-conflicts-part-1.html

Pope Honorius II (pictured) was aggressive about doing what he felt was right for the Church, which sometimes meant taking to task religious figures and orders. He distrusted the long-standing (established in 529CE) and widespread Benedictines. Although he favored newer orders like the Augustinians and Cistercians, and he formally recognized the new Templars, he felt some Benedictines needed to be disciplined.

This may have stemmed from his dislike of a single man, the abbot of Monte Casino, Oderisio di Sangro. When Honorius was still Lamberto Scannabecchi, the cardinal-bishop of Ostia, he had asked Oderisio for permission for Lamberto's entourage to stay at the church of Santa Maria in Pallara (on the Palatine Hill in Rome; it has since been renamed to San Sebastiano al Palatino). Oderisio refused the request.

In 1125, after Lamberto became pope in a very unorthodox manner, Oderisio refused a request for financial support, and mocked Honorius' peasant origins. Honorius heard that Oderisio was enriching himself instead of improving Monte Cassino, publicly called him a thief and no monk, and summoned Oderisio to Rome. Oderisio refused to come to Rome. In total he refused three papal summons. Honorius deposed him as abbot in 1126.

Oderisio ignored the decision and continued acting as abbot, so Honorius excommunicated him. Oderisio ignored the excommunication, and fortified the monastery because he knew what was coming: papal soldiers. The townspeople of Cassino took matters into their own hands, choosing to side with their pope, and forced their way into the monastery and Oderisio out of office. The monks elected as abbot the dean of the monastery, Niccolo.

Honorius was not satisfied with this. He declared Niccolo's election improper (he was one to talk), and appointed another person to run Monte Cassino, which angered the monks. Supporters of Oderisio and Niccolo fought each other. Eventually Honorius managed to get Oderisio to step down. He excommunicated Niccolo to keep him out of the way. Honorius appointed the provost of a monastery at Capua, Seniorectus, to be abbot of Monte Cassino in September 1127. He also asked the monks to swear an oath of loyalty to the papacy, but that was a step too far for them.

With Monte Cassino settled down, Honorius had another conflict he just had to get himself involved in that cropped up a few months before the installation of Seniorectus. South of Monte Cassino, the Duke of Apulia died with no heir, and there was a scramble to occupy Apulia and Calabria. The man who tried to take over was about to run into papal problems. We'll see who won that conflict tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/honorius-and-conflicts-part-1.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/pope-honorius-ii.html

After his atypical election in December 1124, Pope Honorius II got to work clashing with Holy Roman Emperor Henry V over Henry's claim to territory in Italy. Henry said that Matilda of Tuscany had left her lands to him. Henry began appointing his own vicars throughout the area in opposition to what the papacy and the towns wanted, completely ignoring the terms of the Concordat of Worms that left investing clerics to the Church rather than secular authority.

Fortunately for the papacy, Henry V died on 23 May 1125, but a new conflict arose. Henry left no heir and nominated his nephew, Duke of Swabia Frederick Hohenstaufen as the next emperor. The papacy did not want an expansion of Hohenstaufen power, however.

The clerics chose another, Lothair of Supplinburg, Duke of Saxony, as the next Holy Roman Emperor. Lothair wrote to Honorius requesting the pope's confirmation, an act of obedience to papal authority that pleased Honorius. One of Lothair's advisors was Norbert of Xanten, founder of the Premonstratensian Order (also called Norbertines).

Honorius also had to deal with barons in southern Italy who were harassing farmers and travelers. The papal armies had to take over several towns to suppress and arrest barons, laying siege to their castles, etc.

The illustration shows him formally accepting the new order called the Templars, in 1128. There were other religious groups and figures whom he felt needed correction, however, so he turned his attention from dealing with secular authorities to various religious figures and groups. I'll tell you about them tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/pope-honorius-ii.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-election-of-pope-honorius-ii.html

Lamberto Scannabecchi was born on 9 February 1060 in a rural community. He entered the priesthood and became the archdeacon of Bologna. He gained the attention of Pope Urban II who named him a cardinal in 1099. Urban's successor, Pope Paschal II, made Lamberto cardinal bishop of Ostia in 1117. (Cardinal bishops are senior members of the Church who advise the pope.)

When Pope Gelasius II was driven from Rome in 1118 by Holy Roman Emperor Henry V, Lamberto accompanied him and was even with Gelasius at his deathbed. Lamberto was part of the group that elected Pope Calixtus II, becoming his close advisor.

Lamberto was sent to Henry V as papal legate to argue against the emperor's right to the Investiture of prelates. The Concordat of Worms (see illustration) in 1122—the agreement between the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire that bishops and abbots would be appointed by the Church and not the secular authority—owes its result to the efforts of Cardinal Lamberto.

Urban and Paschal had expanded the number of Italian cardinals. Calixtus (originally Guy of Burgundy) had also named several cardinals, mostly French and Burgundian. The two groups did not trust each other. Each group turned to Roman noble families for support.

The Italian cardinals found it with the Pierleoni family who had gained a reputation as protectors of the popes. Urban II had died in a Pierleoni manor. The northern group found support from the Frangipani family. Upon Calixtus' death (13 December 1124), the two families agreed that an election should happen in three days, which was canon law. The Frangipani wanted Lamberto as their candidate, but the local people wanted Theobaldo Boccapecci, the Cardinal-Priest of Sant'Anastasia.

The election took place, and the majority vote went to Theobaldo. He chose the name Celestine II, but just as he was donning the papal red mantle and Te deum was being sung to start his investiture, Frangipani supporters burst into the chamber, attacked and wounded Theobaldo, and declared Lamberto as Pope Honorius II.

Theobaldo was willing to resign, but the Pierleoni clan would not accept Lamberto as pope. Days of debate, fighting, and attempts to bribe supporters followed. Eventually the supporters of Celestine accepted his willingness to resign, leaving Lamberto as the only claimant.

Honorius, in what may have been a planned bit of theater to smooth things over with the city, resigned the position because of the inappropriate manner in which he became pope. He was immediately elected unanimously by the assembled cardinals and invested on 21 December 1124.

What kind of pope was he? We'll find out tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-election-of-pope-honorius-ii.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-premonstratensians.html

Arguably one of the longest names for a Holy Order, the name comes from The Order of Canons Regular of Prémontré, called so because the Order was found in 1120 in Prémontré near Laon by Norbert of Xanten. They were also known as Norbertines and White Canons.

Norbert was a friend of Bernard of Clairvaux, who favored very strict rules for monasteries. In Prémontré Norbert established a monastery with 13 companions, essentially following the Rule of St. Augustine but adding new rules promoting even greater austerity.

The order was formally approved by Pope Honorius II and grew quickly: by 1126 there were nine houses. In 1143 the Order reached England, and were soon in Scotland where they had the support of the dynasty of Fergus of Galloway.

The first Premonstratensian saint was Evermode of Ratzeburg (died 1178), a companion of Norbert and the Bishop of Ratzeburg. His lifelong goal was the Christianization of the Wends, Slavs inhabiting what is now northeastern Germany. Another was Frederick of Hallum (died 1175), known for intense piety throughout his life and for miracles taking place at his tomb after his death. Ludolph of Ratzeburg (died 1250) disagreed with and was imprisoned and beaten by Duke Albert I of Saxony, dying because of his treatment. There is a legend that a soldier with an arrowhead embedded in his head was able to remove the arrow and survive only after praying to Ludolph.

The Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII was the first big blow to the success of the Order, which had 35 houses in England at the time. The Reformation and the French Revolution were also difficult times for them. By the 19th century they were almost extinct as an Order, with a few houses existing in Germany.

In 1893, some Norbertines from Germany came to the United States to minister to Belgian immigrants in Wisconsin, starting the first Premonstratensian abbey in the New World. By the start of the 20th century, however, there were 20 monasteries. Today there are almost 100 monasteries, including abbeys for women, around the world.

The Order was sanctioned by Pope Honorius II, whose name has been woven throughout this blog. Tomorrow I'll give him his own entry. See you then.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-premonstratensians.html

denise posting in

dw_news

Back in August of 2025, we announced a temporary block on account creation for users under the age of 18 from the state of Tennessee, due to the court in Netchoice's challenge to the law (which we're a part of!) refusing to prevent the law from being enforced while the lawsuit plays out. Today, I am sad to announce that we've had to add South Carolina to that list. When creating an account, you will now be asked if you're a resident of Tennessee or South Carolina. If you are, and your birthdate shows you're under 18, you won't be able to create an account.

We're very sorry to have to do this, and especially on such short notice. The reason for it: on Friday, South Carolina governor Henry McMaster signed the South Carolina Age-Appropriate Design Code Act into law, with an effective date of immediately. The law is so incredibly poorly written it took us several days to even figure out what the hell South Carolina wants us to do and whether or not we're covered by it. We're still not entirely 100% sure about the former, but in regards to the latter, we're pretty sure the fact we use Google Analytics on some site pages (for OS/platform/browser capability analysis) means we will be covered by the law. Thankfully, the law does not mandate a specific form of age verification, unlike many of the other state laws we're fighting, so we're likewise pretty sure that just stopping people under 18 from creating an account will be enough to comply without performing intrusive and privacy-invasive third-party age verification. We think. Maybe. (It's a really, really badly written law. I don't know whether they intended to write it in a way that means officers of the company can potentially be sentenced to jail time for violating it, but that's certainly one possible way to read it.)

Netchoice filed their lawsuit against SC over the law as I was working on making this change and writing this news post -- so recently it's not even showing up in RECAP yet for me to link y'all to! -- but here's the complaint as filed in the lawsuit, Netchoice v Wilson. Please note that I didn't even have to write the declaration yet (although I will be): we are cited in the complaint itself with a link to our August news post as evidence of why these laws burden small websites and create legal uncertainty that causes a chilling effect on speech. \o/

In fact, that's the victory: in December, the judge ruled in favor of Netchoice in Netchoice v Murrill, the lawsuit over Louisiana's age-verification law Act 456, finding (once again) that requiring age verification to access social media is unconstitutional. Judge deGravelles' ruling was not simply a preliminary injunction: this was a final, dispositive ruling stating clearly and unambiguously "Louisiana Revised Statutes §§51:1751–1754 violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution", as well as awarding Netchoice their costs and attorney's fees for bringing the lawsuit. We didn't provide a declaration in that one, because Act 456, may it rot in hell, had a total registered user threshold we don't meet. That didn't stop Netchoice's lawyers from pointing out that we were forced to block service to Mississippi and restrict registration in Tennessee (pointing, again, to that news post), and Judge deGravelles found our example so compelling that we are cited twice in his ruling, thus marking the first time we've helped to get one of these laws enjoined or overturned just by existing. I think that's a new career high point for me.

I need to find an afternoon to sit down and write an update for

dw_advocacy highlighting everything that's going on (and what stage the lawsuits are in), because folks who know there's Some Shenanigans afoot in their state keep asking us whether we're going to have to put any restrictions on their states. I'll repeat my promise to you all: we will fight every state attempt to impose mandatory age verification and deanonymization on our users as hard as we possibly can, and we will keep actions like this to the clear cases where there's no doubt that we have to take action in order to prevent liability.

In cases like SC, where the law takes immediate effect, or like TN and MS, where the district court declines to issue a temporary injunction or the district court issues a temporary injunction and the appellate court overturns it, we may need to take some steps to limit our potential liability: when that happens, we'll tell you what we're doing as fast as we possibly can. (Sometimes it takes a little while for us to figure out the exact implications of a newly passed law or run the risk assessment on a law that the courts declined to enjoin. Netchoice's lawyers are excellent, but they're Netchoice's lawyers, not ours: we have to figure out our obligations ourselves. I am so very thankful that even though we are poor in money, we are very rich in friends, and we have a wide range of people we can go to for help.)

In cases where Netchoice filed the lawsuit before the law's effective date, there's a pending motion for a preliminary injunction, the court hasn't ruled on the motion yet, and we're specifically named in the motion for preliminary injunction as a Netchoice member the law would apply to, we generally evaluate that the risk is low enough we can wait and see what the judge decides. (Right now, for instance, that's Netchoice v Jones, formerly Netchoice v Miyares, mentioned in our December news post: the judge has not yet ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction.) If the judge grants the injunction, we won't need to do anything, because the state will be prevented from enforcing the law. If the judge doesn't grant the injunction, we'll figure out what we need to do then, and we'll let you know as soon as we know.

I know it's frustrating for people to not know what's going to happen! Believe me, it's just as frustrating for us: you would not believe how much of my time is taken up by tracking all of this. I keep trying to find time to update

dw_advocacy so people know the status of all the various lawsuits (and what actions we've taken in response), but every time I think I might have a second, something else happens like this SC law and I have to scramble to figure out what we need to do. We will continue to update

dw_news whenever we do have to take an action that restricts any of our users, though, as soon as something happens that may make us have to take an action, and we will give you as much warning as we possibly can. It is absolutely ridiculous that we still have to have this fight, but we're going to keep fighting it for as long as we have to and as hard as we need to.

I look forward to the day we can lift the restrictions on Mississippi, Tennessee, and now South Carolina, and I apologize again to our users (and to the people who temporarily aren't able to become our users) from those states.

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-milevsko-nail.html

In the Czech Republic is the town of Milevsko, first mentioned in records in 1184, placed at the intersection of two important trade routes. In 1187 a Premonstratensian monastery was built there. The monastery was burned down in 1420 by Hussites, a Czech Christian movement influenced by John Wycliffe and reformer Jan Hus.

The monastery was rebuilt in 1581 as a manor house, but returned to the Premonstratensians as a monastery in 1622.

In the summer of 2020, beneath the monastery's St. Giles Church, a secret cavity was discovered. One theory is that the space was used to protect treasures from the impending attack by the Hussite soldiers. One researcher states that the Hussites destroyed church records, so knowledge of the secret cache was lost over time.

In the space was a wooden box decorated with a gold cross and the letters "IR" signifying "Iesus Rex," "Jesus King." Radiocarbon dating and an examination of the box reveals that it was made from larch wood grown in Israel between 1290 and 1394CE. The lid of the box as made of oak that was dated to between 260 and 416CE.

Inside the box was a six-centimeter iron nail. The assumption is that it was one of the Holy Nails used to crucify Jesus. There is a Celebration of the Holy Nail every 13 September where it can be seen in its new setting, the cross seen above in the illustration.

That ends for now our exploration of the Arma Christi and Holy Nails. Next we're going to find out what Premonstratensians are all about.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-milevsko-nail.html

dailymedieval_feed

Posted by Daily Medieval

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-holy-nails.html

The Catholic Encyclopedia says "The question has long been debated whether Christ was crucified with three or with four nails." [link] Given how many can be found around the world, maybe it was more.

Depictions of the Crucifixion in the 13th century started routinely showing three nails (prior to that, and in the opinion of several Church Fathers, there was one in each foot): one through the overlapping feet and one each in the hand (biologically more appropriate would be in the wrist: the bones of the hand could not support the weight of a body).

Shortly after converting to Christianity and becoming caesar and emperor, Constantine sent his mother, the Empress (later saint) Helena to find the Cross and the Nails used in the Crucifixion. According to the 5th-century author of an ecclesiastical history, Socrates of Constantinople, she was led to the site of what she was seeking by a Jew named Judas Cyriacus.

The nails went in different directions. Socrates said one was made into a bridle used by Constantine, and there are many other locations that claim to have nails. There is a bridle in the cathedral in Carpentras, in Provence that is said to have a nail in it. The Cathedral of Milan also has a bridle that is said to have a nail in it.

The Basilica of Santa Croce in Jerusalem, a church in Rome, has a spike that is supposed to be one.

One was pounded into a thin band and incorporated into the Iron Crown of Lombardy. As it turns out, the band that was supposed to be the nail is made of almost pure silver. Ironically, there is no iron in the "Iron Crown."

The treasury of Trier Cathedral was sent one (see illustration) from Helena, to (supposedly) commemorate her birthplace.

Bamberg Cathedral (Germany) claims to have part of one nail.

The monastery of San Nicolò l'Arena in Catania (Sicily) has the head of a nail.

The German imperial regalia in the Homburg Palace in Vienna has a nail incorporated into a Lance which is also the Spear of Longinus.

Then, in 2020, a piece of a Holy Nail was found in the Czech Republic. I'll tell you that story tomorrow.

http://dailymedieval.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-holy-nails.html

Profile

Tealin

Tealin's Art

December 2023

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

Procrastination Device

Reading

Sibylla in Jerusalem

Sibylla of Anjou

The New York Times 1996

The Death of William Clito

The Story of William Clito

Student Sketches

Giovanni of Crema

Prophetic?

Honorius and Conflicts, Part 4

Honorius and Conflicts, Part 3

Honorius and Conflicts, Part 2

Honorius and Conflicts, Part 1

Pope Honorius II

The Election of Pope Honorius II

The Premonstratensians

Update on legal cases: one new victory! :) One new restriction :(

The Milevsko Nail

The Holy Nails

Profile

December 2023

Links

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

Most Popular Tags