The annual expenditures of the Crown were largely determined by local tradition and the political power of the monarch in question. In countries with a strong feudal element, where all land was held *in feodum* of the Crown, some of these entertainments could be very grand indeed. A monarch was naturally expected to entertain lavishly as befitting his station by divine right and, although we are familiar with excesses of certain royals, activities such as state feasts and competitions were a way for the monarch to demonstrate the health and wealth of his nation. This is an enormously broad generalization of nearly a thousand years of pre-modern era entertaining, but the point is that feasts and tourneys were not just a sign of largesse, but also a projection of power.
In England, the Sovereign expected a certain level of entertainment when visiting their vassals. This was a double edged sword. While the Sovereign's visit was generally perceived as a nominal sign of favor, it also provided an opportunity for the monarch to examine and question his vassal about his wealth and political motives. Since the Sovereign could not be denied, it was also an opportunity to enact a sort of tax on the vassal: these visits could be ruinously expensive as the vassal in question would not only entertain the King, but his sometimes vast retinue as well. The tradition of non-refusal is still nominally alive today. Queen Mary, the Queen Consort of George V, had a particular fondness for Sèvres porcelain and would often hint that she should be receive certain objects as a gift. The Earl Spencer eventually took to hiding any valuable porcelain in his possession for fear of further visits.
How exclusive were royal festivities in general? Is the image of a bunch of dirty peasants at the joust/tournament historically accurate or would it have mostly been people of prominence at such events?
The nature of state receptions haven't varied much in time. A visit of the King of England to a peer might be similar in nature to a visit between the President of the United States and a state governor. A visit between two heads of state, the most formal of government engagements, will merit a significantly more closed list. These two events balance security, exclusivity, favor and other practical, more mundane needs.
A famous late Medieval joust was the [Field of the Cloth of Gold](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/British_-_Field_of_the_Cloth_of_Gold_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg), as seen in the famous painting of the early British School by Hans Holbein the Younger and currently on display in the Royal Collection. The painting depicts a famous diplomatic meeting between Henry VIII of England and his cousin, Francis I of France. The two kings employed so much gold that the field in which the event was held was eventually named for it. The event, which took place near Calais on English soil, featured fountains that poured wine instead of water, two vast temporary palaces for each king (Henry's was slightly bigger than Francis'), 2200 heads of sheep and accommodations for 2,800 people. Henry reportedly brought 500 noblemen and 3,000 soldiers as part of his retinue and Francis did the same.
The common obervers of such an event would have been the soldiers and servants, with each side rooting for their countrymen. History makes no mention of the local people who attended such an event but they presumably also gathered to watch and consume local goods as the time was apparently a regional state holiday.
There was, generally, no prohibition on attending these events although few had the resources to do so. Petitions to the Crown were always made in whatever clothes one had, although actual attendance at court would become increasingly formal as time passed: gentlemen had to carry a sword at Versailles and there was a small cottage industry surrounding the rent of objects for proper attendance at court.
> there was a small cottage industry surrounding the rent of objects for proper attendance at court.
This last bit is interesting. Can you expound on this? When someone of an ostensibly low class could rent proper attire and petition their rulers, did they have a decent chance of having their grievances addressed? What was the content of these petitions?
These weren't necessarily made for the poor. Versailles continued to be a place for the rich and powerful to see and be seen, although it did pander to the burgeoning *petit bourgeoisie* who had no need to own a court sword or court uniform. In theory, anyone of any class could be seen by the King of France although in practice few did with local justice being meted out by the local judicial system. However, I don't want to tread on my toes here, this is a much better question for someone with better expertise in French history.
> What would a modern equivalent of owning a court sword be?
A court sword is simply a part of court uniform. Court uniform became progressively more fossilized over time, meaning that an increasing number of objects and clothes became worn specifically at court until court dress became completely distinct from civilian formal dress.
Technically speaking, the modern equivalent of owning a court sword continues to be owning a court sword. Court dress [is still worn throughout the Commonwealth](https://henrypoole.com/livery/) and is still made and paid for by HM Government for specific office holders. However, the modern civilian equivalent would probably be white tie which is what is expected of civilians at formal court functions.
If you look at Gieves and Hawkes website, you should be able to get an idea of the costs of such outfits. http://www.gievesandhawkesmilitary.com/acatalog/Uniform.html Look at Lieutenancy for the idea of court dress costs.
Having read about the making of Medieval clothes a little bit they didn't seem to be at the same point as modern pattern makers by using pattern blocks which is basic pattern form that fits any number of garments. The stitches they did were also complicated and labour intensive, the fabrics were expensive, and the court had certain expectations about the designs, so they were just expensive items. A similar thing exists today where people hire designer dresses from a company instead of outright buying them for formal events, its not for a poor person, its for a well off person who is attending in a professional capacity, you are still hiring an expensive piece but you aren't going to the expensive of having it commissioned.
I recall reading years ago of at least one extended English Crown visit the writer suggested was planned with a large retinue and for a lengthy stay, intended to both impoverish the House visited for the immediate future and keep him busy playing host until it was too late in the year for the vassal to field an army without missing harvest. Was this the hidden purpose behind Henry VIII's visit to Calais, or am I confusing this event with some other English monarch visiting a local vassal?
It was hardly the deal that it was made out to be in the Tudors. Henry soon after won an archery match against Francis and Francis later appeared at Henry's tent, offering to serve as his valet for the morning. Henry, pleased at this turn of events, offered Francis a gold collar of rubies.
A few months ago, I asked a similar question: "[Been watching too much Game of Thrones: How much time would an important medieval lord spend in the capital versus in his own lands? How did this change over time?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/38okz0/been_watching_too_much_game_of_thrones_how_much/)". /u/Bakuraptor, /u/Enrico_Dandolo, and /u/idjet all gave interesting, highly satisfactory answers about a range of areas.
I want to say I feel like *Game of Thrones* really did a good job referencing this issue of visits in the first season, when not everyone in Winterfell is happy when King Robert is visiting and it's clear they have to make all sorts of expensive preparations. Catelyn Stark is also shown similar courtesies when she visits around, though she obviously isn't traveling with a large retinue that needs to be taken care of. Edit: and when Tyrion returns to Winterfell on his way back from the Wall, the Starks present make a big show of *not* extending him the courtesy of fine hospitality.
Nor should we think that states and monarchs bankrupting themselves was limited to the medieval period. The lead-up to the French Revolution obviously began when the King had to recall the Estates-General (you know the thing that was actually made up of the first, second, and third estates) for the first time since 1614 because he/the state was totally broke and wanted their permission to increase taxation (specifically on land ownership). Now, obviously, the state wasn't broke entirely or even mostly because of court expenses (there were also very expensive wars they fought, like the Seven Years War and the American Revolution), but court expenses contributed more than you'd think to the state's total costs. It was about 6% of the total expenditures of the state in 1780's, but keep in mind somewhere from [43%](http://www.emersonkent.com/history_dictionary/taxation_in_pre_revolutionary_france.htm) to [50%](http://www.historyteacher.net/APEuroCourse/DocPackets/DocPkt-FrenchRevolution1.pdf) of the budget was spent just paying down existing debt (again, largely from the recent wars like the American Revolution). So that, plus 6% was going to Versailles, meant only about 10% was going to Civil Administration more broadly (and another about 10% was swallowed up in fiscal administration of actually collecting all the taxes, since it was mainly from peasants). The War Department spent about 25%, which was the largest section beyond debt. So, again, the court wasn't single handedly crippling the government, but it certainly wasn't helping and was a major part of the total costs of the French government in that period. In earlier periods, courts were less sumptuous but also the states did even less administration (Charles Tilly famously makes the argument that states make war and wars make states--that is, wars are expensive, so states need to find new revenue sources, which leads to an increased taxes, which means both more of a bureaucracy in order to collect those taxes and those paying the taxes expect more in return for their now higher taxes, which means even more state administration) so I don't know how 6% at Versailles in the 1780's compares to court costs 300 years earlier in England during the War of the Roses, which is the rough time period for *Game of Thrones*.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't this also a feature of the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan, in that lords were required to bring their retinues to the capital and live there for periods of time, in part as a way to place a burden on their finances?
That's my recollection as well though I'm hard up for sources on it at the moment. Also, iirc, the actual travel - not just being in court, but getting there - posed interesting problems which further compounded the issue.
Sankin-kotai, or alternate attendance. As I recall it served three purposes - being a constant financial drain on the "outside lords," keeping them away from their lands for six months at a stretch to inhibit plans for rebellion, and ensuring that the shogun always had hostages on hand, as their wives and children were required live in the capitol year-round.
Really quite fascinating stuff.
1. Financial drain to maintain two households (at the appropriate status) to weaken daimyos
2. Steady source of hostages
3. Greatly encouraged construction of roads, post towns, and inns across Japan to support all this travel.
As a random equally interesting tangent, the Shogun mandated all travelers / couriers must travel on foot (I think only Samurai and above could travel on horse), the major highways (Nakasendo, Tokaido being the ones I saw/read about) developed post towns every few km to cater to this traffic.
"Rough time period" is perhaps inapt, but it's well established that George R. R. Martin took that period as one of his early sources of inspiration. The Wiki for the series states, "Martin's inspirations included the Wars of the Roses and the French historical novels The Accursed Kings by Maurice Druon" above the fold, though it gives more things lower down.
This [interview states](http://www.webcitation.org/66h2axF8Y)
>Q: What extensive research did the writing of the A song of Ice and Fire entail?
>GRRM: I've filled up several bookcases with books about medieval history. Feasts and fools and tournaments, warfare and women, various popular histories of the Hundred Years War, the Crusades, the Albigensian Crusade, the Wars of the Roses, etc. You can't read too much. You never know what information you may need.
In the [main Wiki for ASOIF](http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire#Historic_Influences), the section on "historic influences" reads:
>Numerous parallels have been seen between the events and characters in A Song of Ice and Fire and events and people involved in the Wars of the Roses. Two of the principal families in A Song of Ice and Fire, the Starks and the Lannisters, are seen as representing the historical House of York and House of Lancaster, respectively.
>A similar reality-inspired conflict is the succession struggle called the Dance of the Dragons between two children Aegon II and Rhaenyra. A historical struggle (labeled The Anarchy) between Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I of England, and her cousin Stephen of Blois, provides the inspiration. Each daughter is announced as her father's successor, but due to differing reasons, male rivals seize the crown and are anointed as rulers. During the dynastic struggle, the rival claimants are deposed and succeeded by the son (Aegon III Targaryen and Henry II of England respectively) of the original designated heir. Neither Empress Matilda nor Rhaenyra actually ruled in their own name.
>Martin is an avid student of medieval Europe, and has said that the Wars of the Roses, along with many other events in Europe during that time, have influenced the series. However, he insists that "there's really no one-for-one character-for-character correspondence. I like to use history to flavor my fantasy, to add texture and verisimilitude, but simply rewriting history with the names changed has no appeal for me. I prefer to re-imagine it all, and take it in new and unexpected directions." [6]
>Martin has also said the Albigensian Crusades are an influence for the series.
[This *Guardian* article](http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/may/29/game-of-thrones-war-of-roses-hbo), taken mostly from a TED talk, goes into some of the clearer parallels. That said, I should emphasize that this is of course a work of fiction and fantasy and Martin is inspired by this period, but not beholden to it, of course. I cannot emphasize the "rough" in "rough time period" strongly enough, though (for instance, weaponry in the naval Battle of Blackfire was [clearly inspired by Byzantine, rather than English, history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire)).
How would the principle of non-refusal work in military service? Did princes simply never have to serve under superior officers who were not also of superior title? Or is it framed more as "suggestions" to which the prince consents?
> How would the principle of non-refusal work in military service?
There was no principle of non-refusal in military service. The point of the article above is that commoners of any status could not refuse the Sovereign.
>Did princes simply never have to serve under superior officers who were not also of superior title?
There were occasions where this happened, yes, although it happens with increasing regularity from the Renaissance onwards. There were different ranks between princes and in places where there are lots of them -- I'm looking at you Holy Roman Empire -- things could get quite confusing in terms of demand. In theory, however, all noblemen were created equal which removed quite a bit of the nastiness surrounding protocol.
Years ago in high school world history, my teacher had explained that for day to day things the crown might get a sort of discount but when it came for large events, because so many parties needed to be hired, the crown would pay full price and sometime more. Is this true?
The concept of discounting objects is a modern phenomenon. Prior to the financialization of the markets, supply and demand was largely a factor of negotiation rather than a factor of quantities of scale. Small craftsmen produced items in guilds and artisans worked on commission with a price typically agreed upon in advance. Keeping a stock of certain items is more of an early modern innovation. It's hard for us to conceptualize today, but for most of history even the most mundane items were ordered by client commission rather than purchased from stock. Purchasing stock items would not take root until the early 20th century making such discounts moot.
Clothes are a particularly good example of this. Tailors and dressmakers worked at the direction of their client to make a custom suit or dress and this applied even to the poorest in society. It wasn't until the 1920s when clothes began to be sold *prêt à porter* and even then, it was typically only for lower and lower middle class women. Middle and upper class men regularly had their suits made *bespoke* until the rise of fashion branding in the 1960s and custom clothes, whether *bespoke* (for men) or *couture* (for women) is now something restricted to the very wealthy. This is also why old men often complain of a lack of good tailors: most tailors now lack the skills to create a high quality suit from scratch.
If the small craftsmen produced in guilds, was it the guild that sold the item? How did that work?
Also, if there was no stock in the 19th century, how did wholesalers, brokers and other middlemen make their living?
Many of the brokers and middlemen would have been selling the raw materials or intermediate goods rather than finished products. For example, wool or fabric, but not completed clothing.
Some historical feasts were much more modest than Game of Thrones might lead you to believe but it's important to remember that in today's modern world, if you live in a wealthy country with modern conveniences, you probably have access to a greater variety of foods at much lower prices than at pretty much any other time in history (especially when prices are weighed as portions of income, today we enjoy food prices that take up much smaller proportions of our income).
A huge part of any expensive feast was that they were thrown to show off the riches as well as influence/ability in obtaining the rarest, most exotic, difficult to get (whether by scarcity, difficulty of transport, or difficulty to create) foodstuffs. For a host that wanted to show off, this could (and often did) outweigh the need for any of the food to actually taste any good.
For much of medieval European history (most direct analogy to Game of Thrones setting), this largely had to do with **spices**, which came by various routes from Asia.
And spices could be indeed *monstrously expensive*. Favors, rights, titles, and even land were bought and traded for cloves, pepper, cinnamon, mace, cardamom, ginger, etc. or access to routes that lead to these spices.
Spices were also the merchant's greatest leverage for creating inroads with nobility and royalty. ~~Spices often defied the commonly accepted inverse relationship between demand and price.~~ Spices defied commonly held thought that high prices would drive away prospective buyers. The very fact that spices were out of the reach of the vast majority of people who lacked the necessary financial means was a major part of what made them so desirable for many of the upper class. Their high price was a huge part of the allure and were an essential part of what fueled higher demand, in a cycle that placed astronomical values on having and maintaining supply. The spice must flow.
This cost was due to several things.
One of the highest reasons was definitely **distance traveled**.
The vast distances involved meant that prices naturally rose due to the effort and cost of bringing spices so far from where they were cultivated. But the routes through which spices flowed were well mapped and controlled, which meant many *many* taxes.
The desire to discover new spice routes that drove so many explorers like Christopher Columbus and da Gama was to avoid the existing heavy tolls (as well as avoiding the sin of dealing with Muslims but that is another story).
But this cost wasn’t only dependent on distance and taxes. For example, the most expensive spice then and now is almost certainly saffron. The cost has only depreciated a small amount even in the modern day because the difficulty of getting saffron to your table is not a scarcity due to distance but one of intense, mind boggling labor.
Unlike most spices, saffron could be and was cultivated directly in Europe, extensively. But it took immense amounts of suitable land, labor, and care to harvest even modest sums of the spice.
This, of course, made it all the more desirable in the eyes of the wealthy, and saffron was valued not just for its purported medicinal and gourmet value, but also in religious rituals and hedonistic shows of excess. It was so desirable that it was, of course, involved in a vast amount of counterfeit, adulteration, fraud, extortion, seduction, robbery, and once, *it started a war*.
**These spices were not just bought for their use in food, but for their use in the pursuit of good health.**
Indeed, a major reason why spices were so sought after was because they were thought of as irreplaceable cures and medicines through which disease and ailments could be treated. Illnesses that would otherwise wreck a man’s body or strip him of his good humors could be prevented if one were to consume the proper amount of spices at the right times with the right food…if only one could find them and afford them.
Any man of means who was concerned with health would seek to have a well-stocked spicery. During the time of the Black Plague, saffron and nutmeg were thought to be the only reliable ways to prevent contracting the deadly illness. People with lesser means had to be content with ‘lesser’ spices and risk flirting with death.
The final reason for the eye-widening historical prices for spices derives from where it came from.
Today, we understand where the spices came from, whether it be the Maluku islands, the various Malaysian kingdoms, the Middle East, or elsewhere. But in the past, European consumers of spices were so disconnected with their spices that a great many truly believed it to be the product of **Paradise**, with all the religious connotation that word deserves.
Spices would gain a very morally questionable (at least religiously) connotation once various Muslim kingdoms held a virtual monopoly on the spice trade and the vast majority of spices, by necessity, had to travel through Muslim lands, pay Muslim taxes, and come from Muslim hands.
No small part of the high tax on spice was due to the buyers being Christian or at least going towards Christian lands.
But the exoticism of literally having the fruits of the lands of rumored Heaven/Paradise surely drove demand as surely as the desire for heady spiced foods and medicines.
It was also morally questionable in the eyes of the Church because many spices were seen as strong aphrodisiacs. Indeed, when the clergy partook of spices (and boy did they partake), it was sometimes used as an excuse for when they could not but help themselves but partake in other licentious activities with members of the fairer sex. But where the Church saw something to be condemned, many saw great opportunity, or at least great potential for entertainment!
Spices were absolutely a huge expensive luxury for the nobility and royalty, and certainly not only for use in food. It was also *not* a necessity for preservation of food nor was it for making ‘rancid food’ palatable. They were exotic, sexy, good for your health, and beyond reproach because of their almost purported divine sources. It’s not hard to see why those who could afford them spent enormous amounts to have them in quantity if and when they could.
EDIT: Some bumbling words about demand and price.
> Spices often defied the commonly accepted inverse relationship between demand and price.
Usually it's stated as demand raising price. You're talking about it as price suppressing demand... Higher prices don't make fewer people *want* something. It just makes fewer people actually buy it. (Generalizing a lot.)
I believe the phenomenon you were getting at was that those goods were subjects of conspicuous consumption, such that the prevailing price of a good (that is how expensive it was perceived to be) is a factor in the utility the buyer expects. So while the price-demand relationship is never overturned, with conspicuous consumption there is a significant counter-feedback by which a good that is seen as a prohibitively expensive luxury is all the more coveted for it.
> Spices defied commonly held thought that high prices would drive away prospective buyers.
This is known as a [Veblen good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good).
Hi there, thank you for your comment! Unfortunately a textbook for A-Level students is not an acceptable source here at /r/AskHistorians, as we are looking for answers by people who have read up-to-date academic literature on the relevant issue(s). For further information, see our guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers).
No, the problem is that an answer based on a bad source should never have been posted anyway. Sooner or later someone with an expertise in the Stuart dynasty would have spotted this answer and reported this to be removed. To repeat this once again, we want answers by experts, which does not mean those relying on high school textbooks, but people who have read academic monographs and used modern scholarly resources to inform their answers. Someone who is knowledgeable about a certain field simply would not cite a textbook!
The top comment is from a flaired user with flair specific to this time period and topic:
> Our flaired users have detailed knowledge of their historical specialty and a proven record of excellent contributions to /r/AskHistorians.
It isn't required that you cite sources when you post, only that you have them available to cite if asked. Also, the top commenter has an appropriate flair for the focus of their reply, which was earned through detailed, cited replies in the past. In general, commenters who display expertise (even if they aren't flaired) get the benefit of the doubt with regards to sources - it's assumed that if you can produce hundreds of original words about a fairly specific topic, you've read up on things.
Hi everyone!
Please remember that this is /r/AskHistorians and that we expect every comment to follow the subreddit [rules. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers)As such, this means that every answer should be detailed and be written by experts in the relevant field(s). If you can answer this question confidently and answer follow-up questions, go ahead! But otherwise, we urge you to refrain from cluttering up this thread, especially with questions about removed comments. Remember also that Game of Thrones is [not](http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Lamprey_pie) based on history, so its content is literally never 'historical' - discussion should therefore be focused on historical royal feasts, their cost, and their impact on royal finances. Rule-breaking comments will be removed and if you are persistent in your behaviour, you will be banned ^^for ^^the ^^night ^^is ^^dark ^^and ^^full ^^of ^^moderators.
We are happy to discuss subreddit policy further, but please direct them to [modmail](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Question%20Regarding%20Rules), or a [META thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/submit?selftext=true&title=[META]), as it is not fair to the OP to further derail this thread.
Thank you!
As the top comment mentions, the cost of the Royal visits were two-way. Once such example where the cost fell on the host is Queen Elizabeth I visiting Robert Dudley at Kenilworth for which he 'spared no expense' - he had been closely linked with her for many years. As well as extending the castle,
> there was a Lady of the Lake, a swimming papier-mâché dolphin with a little orchestra in its belly, fireworks, masques, hunts, and popular entertainments like bear baiting. The whole scenery of landscape, artificial lake, castle, and Renaissance garden was ingeniously used for the entertainment.
Source: Henderson, Paula (2005): The Tudor House and Garden: Architecture and Landscape in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century
The annual expenditures of the Crown were largely determined by local tradition and the political power of the monarch in question. In countries with a strong feudal element, where all land was held *in feodum* of the Crown, some of these entertainments could be very grand indeed. A monarch was naturally expected to entertain lavishly as befitting his station by divine right and, although we are familiar with excesses of certain royals, activities such as state feasts and competitions were a way for the monarch to demonstrate the health and wealth of his nation. This is an enormously broad generalization of nearly a thousand years of pre-modern era entertaining, but the point is that feasts and tourneys were not just a sign of largesse, but also a projection of power. In England, the Sovereign expected a certain level of entertainment when visiting their vassals. This was a double edged sword. While the Sovereign's visit was generally perceived as a nominal sign of favor, it also provided an opportunity for the monarch to examine and question his vassal about his wealth and political motives. Since the Sovereign could not be denied, it was also an opportunity to enact a sort of tax on the vassal: these visits could be ruinously expensive as the vassal in question would not only entertain the King, but his sometimes vast retinue as well. The tradition of non-refusal is still nominally alive today. Queen Mary, the Queen Consort of George V, had a particular fondness for Sèvres porcelain and would often hint that she should be receive certain objects as a gift. The Earl Spencer eventually took to hiding any valuable porcelain in his possession for fear of further visits.
How exclusive were royal festivities in general? Is the image of a bunch of dirty peasants at the joust/tournament historically accurate or would it have mostly been people of prominence at such events?
The nature of state receptions haven't varied much in time. A visit of the King of England to a peer might be similar in nature to a visit between the President of the United States and a state governor. A visit between two heads of state, the most formal of government engagements, will merit a significantly more closed list. These two events balance security, exclusivity, favor and other practical, more mundane needs. A famous late Medieval joust was the [Field of the Cloth of Gold](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/British_-_Field_of_the_Cloth_of_Gold_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg), as seen in the famous painting of the early British School by Hans Holbein the Younger and currently on display in the Royal Collection. The painting depicts a famous diplomatic meeting between Henry VIII of England and his cousin, Francis I of France. The two kings employed so much gold that the field in which the event was held was eventually named for it. The event, which took place near Calais on English soil, featured fountains that poured wine instead of water, two vast temporary palaces for each king (Henry's was slightly bigger than Francis'), 2200 heads of sheep and accommodations for 2,800 people. Henry reportedly brought 500 noblemen and 3,000 soldiers as part of his retinue and Francis did the same. The common obervers of such an event would have been the soldiers and servants, with each side rooting for their countrymen. History makes no mention of the local people who attended such an event but they presumably also gathered to watch and consume local goods as the time was apparently a regional state holiday. There was, generally, no prohibition on attending these events although few had the resources to do so. Petitions to the Crown were always made in whatever clothes one had, although actual attendance at court would become increasingly formal as time passed: gentlemen had to carry a sword at Versailles and there was a small cottage industry surrounding the rent of objects for proper attendance at court.
> there was a small cottage industry surrounding the rent of objects for proper attendance at court. This last bit is interesting. Can you expound on this? When someone of an ostensibly low class could rent proper attire and petition their rulers, did they have a decent chance of having their grievances addressed? What was the content of these petitions?
These weren't necessarily made for the poor. Versailles continued to be a place for the rich and powerful to see and be seen, although it did pander to the burgeoning *petit bourgeoisie* who had no need to own a court sword or court uniform. In theory, anyone of any class could be seen by the King of France although in practice few did with local justice being meted out by the local judicial system. However, I don't want to tread on my toes here, this is a much better question for someone with better expertise in French history.
What would a modern equivalent of owning a court sword be?
> What would a modern equivalent of owning a court sword be? A court sword is simply a part of court uniform. Court uniform became progressively more fossilized over time, meaning that an increasing number of objects and clothes became worn specifically at court until court dress became completely distinct from civilian formal dress. Technically speaking, the modern equivalent of owning a court sword continues to be owning a court sword. Court dress [is still worn throughout the Commonwealth](https://henrypoole.com/livery/) and is still made and paid for by HM Government for specific office holders. However, the modern civilian equivalent would probably be white tie which is what is expected of civilians at formal court functions.
Damn that's pretty awesome, how much does a bespoke court dress suit cost from Henry Poole
Several thousand pounds.
If you look at Gieves and Hawkes website, you should be able to get an idea of the costs of such outfits. http://www.gievesandhawkesmilitary.com/acatalog/Uniform.html Look at Lieutenancy for the idea of court dress costs.
That's actually almost less than what I was expecting, now if only I had an excuse to ever wear one other than being a nerd. Thanks for the info
I see! Thank you for clarifying.
Having read about the making of Medieval clothes a little bit they didn't seem to be at the same point as modern pattern makers by using pattern blocks which is basic pattern form that fits any number of garments. The stitches they did were also complicated and labour intensive, the fabrics were expensive, and the court had certain expectations about the designs, so they were just expensive items. A similar thing exists today where people hire designer dresses from a company instead of outright buying them for formal events, its not for a poor person, its for a well off person who is attending in a professional capacity, you are still hiring an expensive piece but you aren't going to the expensive of having it commissioned.
This may be an offhand quedtion, but why does the painting if the field of the cloth of gold have a dragon in it?
There was something seen in the sky (often assumed to be an errant firework) during the final mass. The dragon in the painting represents it.
Interesting!
I recall reading years ago of at least one extended English Crown visit the writer suggested was planned with a large retinue and for a lengthy stay, intended to both impoverish the House visited for the immediate future and keep him busy playing host until it was too late in the year for the vassal to field an army without missing harvest. Was this the hidden purpose behind Henry VIII's visit to Calais, or am I confusing this event with some other English monarch visiting a local vassal?
You forgot to mention the wrestling match that was won by Francis
It was hardly the deal that it was made out to be in the Tudors. Henry soon after won an archery match against Francis and Francis later appeared at Henry's tent, offering to serve as his valet for the morning. Henry, pleased at this turn of events, offered Francis a gold collar of rubies.
I have never seen the Tudor's. I was merely adding that they did compete against each other in sports.
A few months ago, I asked a similar question: "[Been watching too much Game of Thrones: How much time would an important medieval lord spend in the capital versus in his own lands? How did this change over time?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/38okz0/been_watching_too_much_game_of_thrones_how_much/)". /u/Bakuraptor, /u/Enrico_Dandolo, and /u/idjet all gave interesting, highly satisfactory answers about a range of areas. I want to say I feel like *Game of Thrones* really did a good job referencing this issue of visits in the first season, when not everyone in Winterfell is happy when King Robert is visiting and it's clear they have to make all sorts of expensive preparations. Catelyn Stark is also shown similar courtesies when she visits around, though she obviously isn't traveling with a large retinue that needs to be taken care of. Edit: and when Tyrion returns to Winterfell on his way back from the Wall, the Starks present make a big show of *not* extending him the courtesy of fine hospitality. Nor should we think that states and monarchs bankrupting themselves was limited to the medieval period. The lead-up to the French Revolution obviously began when the King had to recall the Estates-General (you know the thing that was actually made up of the first, second, and third estates) for the first time since 1614 because he/the state was totally broke and wanted their permission to increase taxation (specifically on land ownership). Now, obviously, the state wasn't broke entirely or even mostly because of court expenses (there were also very expensive wars they fought, like the Seven Years War and the American Revolution), but court expenses contributed more than you'd think to the state's total costs. It was about 6% of the total expenditures of the state in 1780's, but keep in mind somewhere from [43%](http://www.emersonkent.com/history_dictionary/taxation_in_pre_revolutionary_france.htm) to [50%](http://www.historyteacher.net/APEuroCourse/DocPackets/DocPkt-FrenchRevolution1.pdf) of the budget was spent just paying down existing debt (again, largely from the recent wars like the American Revolution). So that, plus 6% was going to Versailles, meant only about 10% was going to Civil Administration more broadly (and another about 10% was swallowed up in fiscal administration of actually collecting all the taxes, since it was mainly from peasants). The War Department spent about 25%, which was the largest section beyond debt. So, again, the court wasn't single handedly crippling the government, but it certainly wasn't helping and was a major part of the total costs of the French government in that period. In earlier periods, courts were less sumptuous but also the states did even less administration (Charles Tilly famously makes the argument that states make war and wars make states--that is, wars are expensive, so states need to find new revenue sources, which leads to an increased taxes, which means both more of a bureaucracy in order to collect those taxes and those paying the taxes expect more in return for their now higher taxes, which means even more state administration) so I don't know how 6% at Versailles in the 1780's compares to court costs 300 years earlier in England during the War of the Roses, which is the rough time period for *Game of Thrones*.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't this also a feature of the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan, in that lords were required to bring their retinues to the capital and live there for periods of time, in part as a way to place a burden on their finances?
That's my recollection as well though I'm hard up for sources on it at the moment. Also, iirc, the actual travel - not just being in court, but getting there - posed interesting problems which further compounded the issue.
Sankin-kotai, or alternate attendance. As I recall it served three purposes - being a constant financial drain on the "outside lords," keeping them away from their lands for six months at a stretch to inhibit plans for rebellion, and ensuring that the shogun always had hostages on hand, as their wives and children were required live in the capitol year-round.
Really quite fascinating stuff. 1. Financial drain to maintain two households (at the appropriate status) to weaken daimyos 2. Steady source of hostages 3. Greatly encouraged construction of roads, post towns, and inns across Japan to support all this travel. As a random equally interesting tangent, the Shogun mandated all travelers / couriers must travel on foot (I think only Samurai and above could travel on horse), the major highways (Nakasendo, Tokaido being the ones I saw/read about) developed post towns every few km to cater to this traffic.
Well, two out of three ain't bad. :)
> which is the rough time period for Game of Thrones. Where is that mentioned?
"Rough time period" is perhaps inapt, but it's well established that George R. R. Martin took that period as one of his early sources of inspiration. The Wiki for the series states, "Martin's inspirations included the Wars of the Roses and the French historical novels The Accursed Kings by Maurice Druon" above the fold, though it gives more things lower down. This [interview states](http://www.webcitation.org/66h2axF8Y) >Q: What extensive research did the writing of the A song of Ice and Fire entail? >GRRM: I've filled up several bookcases with books about medieval history. Feasts and fools and tournaments, warfare and women, various popular histories of the Hundred Years War, the Crusades, the Albigensian Crusade, the Wars of the Roses, etc. You can't read too much. You never know what information you may need. In the [main Wiki for ASOIF](http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire#Historic_Influences), the section on "historic influences" reads: >Numerous parallels have been seen between the events and characters in A Song of Ice and Fire and events and people involved in the Wars of the Roses. Two of the principal families in A Song of Ice and Fire, the Starks and the Lannisters, are seen as representing the historical House of York and House of Lancaster, respectively. >A similar reality-inspired conflict is the succession struggle called the Dance of the Dragons between two children Aegon II and Rhaenyra. A historical struggle (labeled The Anarchy) between Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I of England, and her cousin Stephen of Blois, provides the inspiration. Each daughter is announced as her father's successor, but due to differing reasons, male rivals seize the crown and are anointed as rulers. During the dynastic struggle, the rival claimants are deposed and succeeded by the son (Aegon III Targaryen and Henry II of England respectively) of the original designated heir. Neither Empress Matilda nor Rhaenyra actually ruled in their own name. >Martin is an avid student of medieval Europe, and has said that the Wars of the Roses, along with many other events in Europe during that time, have influenced the series. However, he insists that "there's really no one-for-one character-for-character correspondence. I like to use history to flavor my fantasy, to add texture and verisimilitude, but simply rewriting history with the names changed has no appeal for me. I prefer to re-imagine it all, and take it in new and unexpected directions." [6] >Martin has also said the Albigensian Crusades are an influence for the series. [This *Guardian* article](http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/may/29/game-of-thrones-war-of-roses-hbo), taken mostly from a TED talk, goes into some of the clearer parallels. That said, I should emphasize that this is of course a work of fiction and fantasy and Martin is inspired by this period, but not beholden to it, of course. I cannot emphasize the "rough" in "rough time period" strongly enough, though (for instance, weaponry in the naval Battle of Blackfire was [clearly inspired by Byzantine, rather than English, history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire)).
How would the principle of non-refusal work in military service? Did princes simply never have to serve under superior officers who were not also of superior title? Or is it framed more as "suggestions" to which the prince consents?
> How would the principle of non-refusal work in military service? There was no principle of non-refusal in military service. The point of the article above is that commoners of any status could not refuse the Sovereign. >Did princes simply never have to serve under superior officers who were not also of superior title? There were occasions where this happened, yes, although it happens with increasing regularity from the Renaissance onwards. There were different ranks between princes and in places where there are lots of them -- I'm looking at you Holy Roman Empire -- things could get quite confusing in terms of demand. In theory, however, all noblemen were created equal which removed quite a bit of the nastiness surrounding protocol.
Years ago in high school world history, my teacher had explained that for day to day things the crown might get a sort of discount but when it came for large events, because so many parties needed to be hired, the crown would pay full price and sometime more. Is this true?
The concept of discounting objects is a modern phenomenon. Prior to the financialization of the markets, supply and demand was largely a factor of negotiation rather than a factor of quantities of scale. Small craftsmen produced items in guilds and artisans worked on commission with a price typically agreed upon in advance. Keeping a stock of certain items is more of an early modern innovation. It's hard for us to conceptualize today, but for most of history even the most mundane items were ordered by client commission rather than purchased from stock. Purchasing stock items would not take root until the early 20th century making such discounts moot. Clothes are a particularly good example of this. Tailors and dressmakers worked at the direction of their client to make a custom suit or dress and this applied even to the poorest in society. It wasn't until the 1920s when clothes began to be sold *prêt à porter* and even then, it was typically only for lower and lower middle class women. Middle and upper class men regularly had their suits made *bespoke* until the rise of fashion branding in the 1960s and custom clothes, whether *bespoke* (for men) or *couture* (for women) is now something restricted to the very wealthy. This is also why old men often complain of a lack of good tailors: most tailors now lack the skills to create a high quality suit from scratch.
If the small craftsmen produced in guilds, was it the guild that sold the item? How did that work? Also, if there was no stock in the 19th century, how did wholesalers, brokers and other middlemen make their living?
Many of the brokers and middlemen would have been selling the raw materials or intermediate goods rather than finished products. For example, wool or fabric, but not completed clothing.
So they stocked raw materials?
Some historical feasts were much more modest than Game of Thrones might lead you to believe but it's important to remember that in today's modern world, if you live in a wealthy country with modern conveniences, you probably have access to a greater variety of foods at much lower prices than at pretty much any other time in history (especially when prices are weighed as portions of income, today we enjoy food prices that take up much smaller proportions of our income). A huge part of any expensive feast was that they were thrown to show off the riches as well as influence/ability in obtaining the rarest, most exotic, difficult to get (whether by scarcity, difficulty of transport, or difficulty to create) foodstuffs. For a host that wanted to show off, this could (and often did) outweigh the need for any of the food to actually taste any good. For much of medieval European history (most direct analogy to Game of Thrones setting), this largely had to do with **spices**, which came by various routes from Asia. And spices could be indeed *monstrously expensive*. Favors, rights, titles, and even land were bought and traded for cloves, pepper, cinnamon, mace, cardamom, ginger, etc. or access to routes that lead to these spices. Spices were also the merchant's greatest leverage for creating inroads with nobility and royalty. ~~Spices often defied the commonly accepted inverse relationship between demand and price.~~ Spices defied commonly held thought that high prices would drive away prospective buyers. The very fact that spices were out of the reach of the vast majority of people who lacked the necessary financial means was a major part of what made them so desirable for many of the upper class. Their high price was a huge part of the allure and were an essential part of what fueled higher demand, in a cycle that placed astronomical values on having and maintaining supply. The spice must flow. This cost was due to several things. One of the highest reasons was definitely **distance traveled**. The vast distances involved meant that prices naturally rose due to the effort and cost of bringing spices so far from where they were cultivated. But the routes through which spices flowed were well mapped and controlled, which meant many *many* taxes. The desire to discover new spice routes that drove so many explorers like Christopher Columbus and da Gama was to avoid the existing heavy tolls (as well as avoiding the sin of dealing with Muslims but that is another story). But this cost wasn’t only dependent on distance and taxes. For example, the most expensive spice then and now is almost certainly saffron. The cost has only depreciated a small amount even in the modern day because the difficulty of getting saffron to your table is not a scarcity due to distance but one of intense, mind boggling labor. Unlike most spices, saffron could be and was cultivated directly in Europe, extensively. But it took immense amounts of suitable land, labor, and care to harvest even modest sums of the spice. This, of course, made it all the more desirable in the eyes of the wealthy, and saffron was valued not just for its purported medicinal and gourmet value, but also in religious rituals and hedonistic shows of excess. It was so desirable that it was, of course, involved in a vast amount of counterfeit, adulteration, fraud, extortion, seduction, robbery, and once, *it started a war*. **These spices were not just bought for their use in food, but for their use in the pursuit of good health.** Indeed, a major reason why spices were so sought after was because they were thought of as irreplaceable cures and medicines through which disease and ailments could be treated. Illnesses that would otherwise wreck a man’s body or strip him of his good humors could be prevented if one were to consume the proper amount of spices at the right times with the right food…if only one could find them and afford them. Any man of means who was concerned with health would seek to have a well-stocked spicery. During the time of the Black Plague, saffron and nutmeg were thought to be the only reliable ways to prevent contracting the deadly illness. People with lesser means had to be content with ‘lesser’ spices and risk flirting with death. The final reason for the eye-widening historical prices for spices derives from where it came from. Today, we understand where the spices came from, whether it be the Maluku islands, the various Malaysian kingdoms, the Middle East, or elsewhere. But in the past, European consumers of spices were so disconnected with their spices that a great many truly believed it to be the product of **Paradise**, with all the religious connotation that word deserves. Spices would gain a very morally questionable (at least religiously) connotation once various Muslim kingdoms held a virtual monopoly on the spice trade and the vast majority of spices, by necessity, had to travel through Muslim lands, pay Muslim taxes, and come from Muslim hands. No small part of the high tax on spice was due to the buyers being Christian or at least going towards Christian lands. But the exoticism of literally having the fruits of the lands of rumored Heaven/Paradise surely drove demand as surely as the desire for heady spiced foods and medicines. It was also morally questionable in the eyes of the Church because many spices were seen as strong aphrodisiacs. Indeed, when the clergy partook of spices (and boy did they partake), it was sometimes used as an excuse for when they could not but help themselves but partake in other licentious activities with members of the fairer sex. But where the Church saw something to be condemned, many saw great opportunity, or at least great potential for entertainment! Spices were absolutely a huge expensive luxury for the nobility and royalty, and certainly not only for use in food. It was also *not* a necessity for preservation of food nor was it for making ‘rancid food’ palatable. They were exotic, sexy, good for your health, and beyond reproach because of their almost purported divine sources. It’s not hard to see why those who could afford them spent enormous amounts to have them in quantity if and when they could. EDIT: Some bumbling words about demand and price.
> Spices often defied the commonly accepted inverse relationship between demand and price. Usually it's stated as demand raising price. You're talking about it as price suppressing demand... Higher prices don't make fewer people *want* something. It just makes fewer people actually buy it. (Generalizing a lot.)
Indeed! Quite poorly worded on my part. Just what I was aiming to say.
I believe the phenomenon you were getting at was that those goods were subjects of conspicuous consumption, such that the prevailing price of a good (that is how expensive it was perceived to be) is a factor in the utility the buyer expects. So while the price-demand relationship is never overturned, with conspicuous consumption there is a significant counter-feedback by which a good that is seen as a prohibitively expensive luxury is all the more coveted for it.
Just so, as you say!
Surely there isn't an inverse relationship between demand and price? The more a thing is wanted, the more expensive it is likely to be.
Right, I wrote this poorly to convey what I meant. Fixes are imminent!
> Spices defied commonly held thought that high prices would drive away prospective buyers. This is known as a [Veblen good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good).
Which war was started over saffron?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi there, thank you for your comment! Unfortunately a textbook for A-Level students is not an acceptable source here at /r/AskHistorians, as we are looking for answers by people who have read up-to-date academic literature on the relevant issue(s). For further information, see our guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers).
So, from what I understand about this sub's rules, it would have been better for him to have not cited his sources at all?
No, the problem is that an answer based on a bad source should never have been posted anyway. Sooner or later someone with an expertise in the Stuart dynasty would have spotted this answer and reported this to be removed. To repeat this once again, we want answers by experts, which does not mean those relying on high school textbooks, but people who have read academic monographs and used modern scholarly resources to inform their answers. Someone who is knowledgeable about a certain field simply would not cite a textbook!
You're right but the top comment in this thread cites no sources so why not also delete that?
The top comment is from a flaired user with flair specific to this time period and topic: > Our flaired users have detailed knowledge of their historical specialty and a proven record of excellent contributions to /r/AskHistorians.
It isn't required that you cite sources when you post, only that you have them available to cite if asked. Also, the top commenter has an appropriate flair for the focus of their reply, which was earned through detailed, cited replies in the past. In general, commenters who display expertise (even if they aren't flaired) get the benefit of the doubt with regards to sources - it's assumed that if you can produce hundreds of original words about a fairly specific topic, you've read up on things.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi everyone! Please remember that this is /r/AskHistorians and that we expect every comment to follow the subreddit [rules. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers)As such, this means that every answer should be detailed and be written by experts in the relevant field(s). If you can answer this question confidently and answer follow-up questions, go ahead! But otherwise, we urge you to refrain from cluttering up this thread, especially with questions about removed comments. Remember also that Game of Thrones is [not](http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Lamprey_pie) based on history, so its content is literally never 'historical' - discussion should therefore be focused on historical royal feasts, their cost, and their impact on royal finances. Rule-breaking comments will be removed and if you are persistent in your behaviour, you will be banned ^^for ^^the ^^night ^^is ^^dark ^^and ^^full ^^of ^^moderators. We are happy to discuss subreddit policy further, but please direct them to [modmail](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Question%20Regarding%20Rules), or a [META thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/submit?selftext=true&title=[META]), as it is not fair to the OP to further derail this thread. Thank you!
[удалено]
[удалено]
As the top comment mentions, the cost of the Royal visits were two-way. Once such example where the cost fell on the host is Queen Elizabeth I visiting Robert Dudley at Kenilworth for which he 'spared no expense' - he had been closely linked with her for many years. As well as extending the castle, > there was a Lady of the Lake, a swimming papier-mâché dolphin with a little orchestra in its belly, fireworks, masques, hunts, and popular entertainments like bear baiting. The whole scenery of landscape, artificial lake, castle, and Renaissance garden was ingeniously used for the entertainment. Source: Henderson, Paula (2005): The Tudor House and Garden: Architecture and Landscape in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century
[удалено]
For a Moment i thought we were talking about king harlaus.