WI a defeated lord is forced to become a monk but later decides to leave?

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Particularly in the reign of Charlemagne but also across much of the Middle Ages (AFAIK anyway) it was common for political rivals, such as the family of a defeated lord, or even that lord himself (King Childeric III being the best example) to be forced to take the vows and become a monk, with the assumption that they wouldn't leave the walls of the monastery ever again and thus pose no more threat to the victorious power.

If the monk decided that they were going to leave the monastery to challenge the once-victorious lord for their claims again (perhaps because that lord has been defeated by another rival and has subsequently lost some of his power), there is nothing in the Rule of St Benedict saying that they can't (Chapter 29 allows for monks who have left to return, implying that leaving is permitted).

So is the act of leaving (IIRC a monk leaving is on the permission of the abbot) akin to a modern prison escape with the king playing the role of the police and the ex-monk the criminal? Or is there a requirement (through an oath or otherwise) between the king and abbot to ensure he never gives permission to leave? Or is the king more likely to simply ignore the breakout until his old rival starts openly challenging him again? (After all, if the monk leaves so he can grow cabbages for a living the king has little reason for concern).

Are any of these alternatives totally unrealistic?

- BNC

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Particularly in the reign of Charlemagne but also across much of the Middle Ages (AFAIK anyway) it was common for political rivals, such as the family of a defeated lord, or even that lord himself (King Childeric III being the best example) to be forced to take the vows and become a monk, with the assumption that they wouldn't leave the walls of the monastery ever again and thus pose no more threat to the victorious power.

If the monk decided that they were going to leave the monastery to challenge the once-victorious lord for their claims again (perhaps because that lord has been defeated by another rival and has subsequently lost some of his power), there is nothing in the Rule of St Benedict saying that they can't (Chapter 29 allows for monks who have left to return, implying that leaving is permitted).

So is the act of leaving (IIRC a monk leaving is on the permission of the abbot) akin to a modern prison escape with the king playing the role of the police and the ex-monk the criminal? Or is there a requirement (through an oath or otherwise) between the king and abbot to ensure he never gives permission to leave? Or is the king more likely to simply ignore the breakout until his old rival starts openly challenging him again? (After all, if the monk leaves so he can grow cabbages for a living the king has little reason for concern).

Are any of these alternatives totally unrealistic?

- BNC

I'm not sure about with the guys, but with the girls (at least in one case this happened), the younger daughters were stuffed into a convent to prevent them or their heirs claiming the inheritance. One French noblewoman (the duchesse d'Epernon (born comtesse de Candale, d'Astarac et de Bénauges) and her husband did so to her younger sister, Françoise). When the duchesse died, Françoise left the convent and started a law suit to get back the lands that she regarded as hers (IDK if she was successful though, but she lived nearly 50 years longer than her sister, so I imagine she might've got something back.)

Also, wasn't there a rule that said vows taken under duress were invalid (or did that only exist later? Or am I confused and there was no such rule?)

 

[desmirelle]

Joining a monastery or convent was a privilege, as was becoming a monk or nun. Most women put into convents by families who preferred the lesser dowries commanded by the convent to that of finding a husband for a younger (or deformed, ugly older) daughter were allowed to remain within the convents as novices. If they 'discovered' a vocation or calling to commit themselves to the order, they were allowed to take vows and become a nun. I imagine the younger daughter mentioned above remained a novice.

If the man never takes the 'final' step and disavow the world, he could leave with the permission of the abbott or local bishop; so, yeah, a man forced to retreat to a monastery (to keep his head) could leave - in theory. However, going into the monastery was seen more seriously when done by men than women (period sexism rearing its ugly head); women were seen as needing men's guidance. Men were supposed to know their own minds. It would hurt the man's secular reputation to be forced into a monastery, limiting his ability (remember, any relatives that might support him in our worldview would be divvying up his property and lands for the good of their own offspring) to stage a successful return to his old position.

Oh, until the reformation, church ruled the monasteries and convents, the King could appeal to Rome, but that's about it. The noble or King who put the man in the monastery could return him "at the request" (I'm not saying the request had to be made, mind you) of the Abbott or Bishop, but he was not legally allowed to do anything to the man (save take him back to a monastery) without the permission of the church.

 

[Kaze]

There is Maelgwn Gwynedd. Maelgwn was a warlord that ruled parts of the British Isles off and on repeatedly - accused by many of being a tyrant, murder, rapist, and incestious. Maelgwn was forced to abdicate by Cerdic (Keredic), his successor; and Maelgwn entered a monastery and became a monk. He came out of retirement in 541 and ruled Britain in a triumvirate of three co-dukes, of whom he was one. There was even rumors in some circles that while he was still in the monastery, he was secretly supporting bandits to subvert the rule of Cerdic.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Also, wasn't there a rule that said vows taken under duress were invalid (or did that only exist later? Or am I confused and there was no such rule?)

There's nothing in the Rule of St Benedict explicitly saying that, but considering how many times a monk-to-be has to listen and agree to the Rule it's probably impossible to actually force them to make that 'final step' (a king is unlikely to waste their time travelling down to whatever monastery four or five times to hold a sword to the person's head).

Everything else I've read about medieval oaths (which isn't much admittedly) seems to suggest that what you are saying is more a custom than a written law.

It would hurt the man's secular reputation to be forced into a monastery, limiting his ability (remember, any relatives that might support him in our worldview would be divvying up his property and lands for the good of their own offspring) to stage a successful return to his old position.

What about the children of kings that were also forced into the monastery? Would their reputation be harmed the same way (assuming they know about the claim)?

- BNC

 

[desmirelle]

There is Maelgwn Gwynedd. Maelgwn was a warlord that ruled parts of the British Isles off and on repeatedly - accused by many of being a tyrant, murder, rapist, and incestious. Maelgwn was forced to abdicate by Cerdic (Keredic), his successor; and Maelgwn entered a monastery and became a monk. He came out of retirement in 541 and ruled Britain in a triumvirate of three co-dukes, of whom he was one. There was even rumors in some circles that while he was still in the monastery, he was secretly supporting bandits to subvert the rule of Cerdic.

The "parts" of the British Isles he ruled are now called "Wales". So that makes him:

The exception that proves the rule? (I notice he had to share power once released, so a semi-exception. A true exception would be ruling alone.)

You were only as good as your word back then. Few could read and fewer write (ironically, many of these were priests and monks), so your word was your bond. Vows were serious things then. And there were levels of monkhood, just as there were levels within the convent. Many wealthy women took 'vacays' from marriage in convents, they obviously didn't become nuns.

Children of kings forced into monasteries? If the daughter of King Whosit is in a convent, she's open to being kidnapped and the varlet claiming power in her father's name (this is, of course, presuming King Whosit had no sons); but a son might find it hard to raise an army when he's spent his life among men of God. (Maelgwn obviously was not raised in a religious order.)

And it still hurts a man's secular reputation to be FORCED to do anything. Even if he overcomes it and finds two dudes of like mind and rules. And @Kaze, please give me a reference for more info on Maelgwn, he sounds interesting.

 

[BlueFlowwer]

I suddenly imagine a scenario where a victorious Henry Tudor stuffs a defeated Richard III in a monastry after Bosworth....

 

[water123]

To be fair, unless we're talking an old HRE claimant got out and is gathering an army, the pope isn't gonna care. Like. At all. Especially in the Late Medieval and Renaissance periods where the popes were too corrupt to even handle official church business, much less listening to some spat over who owns some random patch of land in Cornwall.

 

[Kaze]

The history of Maegwyn is rather limited. What I posted is what is known about him - except for the fact that the Justinian Plague came to Britain. The Plague and internecine warfare removed the other Triumvirate leaders leaving him in charge until he died alone locked in his own fortress.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I suddenly imagine a scenario where a victorious Henry Tudor stuffs a defeated Richard III in a monastry after Bosworth....

Potential TL idea?

- BNC