A few days ago, I posted a poem from Anne Neville’s point of view. Today this poem has to do with her husband. This is from my point of view. I’m viewing how people think Richard III is a cash grab.
The Money King
Let’s have peace
Let’s agree
He’s good
For your economy.
Richard 3—
England’s Money King!
©Sarah Patten, 2019
Portrait of Richard III of England
(Public domain)
Guess which writer I was thinking of when writing this poem!
To a Once Admired Author From a Reader
I like the story
The way it was.
Don’t try to add glory
To the tale because
The magic fades away.
I mean…seriously-
Don’t I get any say
In events I imagine
In pre and post series?
Nope!
You just added again!
©Sarah Patten, 2019
We are blessed to lots of information—true and false—about England’s most controversial monarch, Richard III. Way less is known about his queen, Anne Neville. I personally believe he would have never sat on the throne if they hadn’t married. I think she definitely provided encouragement. Anyway, since we don’t have tons of information about her, I like to wonder what she would have us know. Then I write some of those parodies. (Click here to read her inspirational pamphlet.)
Here’s a poem I wrote about her possible feelings when she got married to Richard, who was then the Duke of Gloucester.
©Sarah Patten, 2019
If their lives had crossed paths, would there have been any chance that they’d get together? Yes, yes, YES!
First of all they were the same religion. I’ve concluded that in all marriages—you better have the same standards.
Marie-Antoinette and Louis remind me of the couples that knew each other in high school and went to some of the same church functions, but hooked up after graduation. They became adults, noticed, and took a strong interest in each other.
Click here to read a more detailed analysis of this couple.
Featured image:Marie Antoinette, Emperor Maximilian and Louis XVI by Josef Hauzinger Josef Hauzinger public domain.
Catherine and Charles’ marriage didn’t end in divorce, but it wasn’t exactly a success. The man had many mistresses before and during their marriage, but the couple stayed on somewhat good terms.
Would Charles’ character had been different if he hadn’t had access to so many women? If he lived today, would he had signed up for an addiction recovery program?
Catherine had admirers herself. One man got fired from her service for getting too close with her. After Charles’ death, there were rumors she had a relationship with a Frenchman who had served her for years.
Maybe the mothers would still have played an important part in matchmaking; only this time it would be for everyday life, not making alliances between two countries. The mothers of this couple were both Catholics. Charles’ mother was happy when her decided to marry a good, Catholic girl.
Once again, religion is an important factor. Charles declared himself a Catholic at the end of his life, which is what Catherine had been her whole life.
I don’t know if they would have picked each at an ordinary party, but their marriage probably would have been better if they hadn’t been in high positions where they had opportunities to interact with questionable characters and temptations.
Featured Image: Charles II of England and Queen Catherine of Braganza (Dutch engraving, 3rd quarter of the 17th century)
Michal and David were both at the royal court, and David was working his way to have power—for which Michal was used. But what if Israel hadn’t wanted kings—would they have gotten married? It’s hard to say since they were from different tribes, and usually tribes of Israel stuck with their own. However, marrying into other tribes still occurred.
When it came to martial rules, though, Israel’s number one was “marry in the covenant.” They had the same religion, and that’s huge. Say that somehow they got “arranged.” Would the marriage have worked?
If they weren’t royal there would have been more privacy. Michal and David would have spent more time together. There wouldn’t have been much competition—if any—with other wives. The two would have had a better chance of having a family together.
Let’s fast-forward to today. There’s still much controversy around royal marriages. I will tie in Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew. The couple divorced, but Sarah still gives flowing reviews of her ex in public. In one interview, she said their marriage would have worked out if they had been “in normal life.”
Let’s say Michal and David had lived in a “normal life”—would their marriage have worked? I strongly believe it would have.
Featured image: David and Michal by Virginio Grana, 1865
If you’re married, you probably do have an arranged marriage. Single or not, I bet you know couples who do.
Arranged means something that is already set up. School, church, church activities, blind dates, online dating, etc….lots of people have met their spouses that way. These types of situations are arrangements that put you in a position where you can develop relationships. The way I see it, is that arranged marriages require time and agency.
I mentioned in the previous post why I think Peter’s wife went with him on his missions. A lot of my opinion is based on the following scripture:
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5)
The context: In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul refers to Cephas—also known as Peter—of having a wife. Paul is on one of his missions this time while Peter is serving elsewhere.
I further wonder if she got martyred—was she near Peter during his crucifixion? Was she also a victim of Nero’s wrath against the Christians? For sure, she felt the power of Christ with her husband in their house, and they’re home together now.
In my last post, I compared my parents to Aquila and Priscilla, and now I wish to compare my parents to Simon Peter and his wife. I believe that Mrs. Peter went with her husband on his missions—just like my mom and dad have gone together. Long before their missions, though, both couples took care of the wives’ mothers. This act is brave and selfless as well as good preparation to share the loving teachings of Jesus Christ. Perhaps it’s one of the best preparations. One memory that left a lasting impression on me was my dad driving Grandma to early morning appointments.
Because of such memories, I feel a connection to the story of Jesus healing Simon Peter’s mother-in-law.
And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.
And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them” (Matthew 8:14-15).
I’m in awe when I read this passage. I feel a warmth and inspiration that I can’t really explain.
Further reading:
Alice
Matthew 8; Mark 1; Luke 4
Featured Image from painting Christ Healing the Mother of Simon Peter’s Wife by John Bridges.
Lately, I’ve been thinking of the missionary couples, Priscilla and Aquila, found in the New Testament. Like my parents, they used their personal home for missionary opportunities as well as made journeys to other places.
Before my parents took off, I went along with them to visit a couple (the wife is my mom’s cousin) who had served two missions and are presently involved in helping people near their home to come unto Christ. This couple welcomed me and my parents into their home, offered words of encouragement, and gave us chocolate pudding cake with ice cream. Their hospitality is reminiscent of my parents. Priscilla and Aquila too would be proud!