text_chunks:
 Edward's forces on 31 October 1321, Margaret, Baroness Badlesmere and her children were sent to the Tower, and 13 of the Leeds garrison were hanged. By January 1322, Edward's army, reinforced by the Despensers returning from exile, had forced the surrender of the Mortimers, and by March Lancaster himself had been captured after the Battle of Boroughbridge; Lancaster was promptly executed, leaving Edward and the Despensers victorious. Hugh Despenser the Younger was now firmly ensconced as Edward's new favourite and together over the next four years Edward and the Despensers imposed a harsh rule over England, a "sweeping revenge" characterised by land confiscation, large-scale imprisonment, executions and the punishment of extended family members, including women and the elderly.This was condemned by contemporary chroniclers, and is felt to have caused concern to <mask> as well; some of those widows being persecuted included her friends. <mask>'s relationship with Despenser the Younger continued to deteriorate; the Despensers refused to pay her monies owed to her, or return her castles at Marlborough and Devizes. Indeed, various authors have suggested that there is evidence that Hugh Despenser the Younger attempted to assault <mask> herself in some fashion. Certainly, immediately after the Battle of Boroughbridge, Edward began to be markedly less generous in his gifts towards <mask>, and none of the spoils of the war were awarded to her. Worse still, later in the year <mask> was caught up in the failure of another of Edward's campaigns in Scotland, in a way that permanently poisoned her relationship with both Edward and the Despensers. <mask> and Edward had travelled north together at the start of the autumn campaign; before the disastrous Battle of Old Byland in Yorkshire, Edward had ridden south, apparently to raise more men, sending <mask> east to Tynemouth Priory. With the Scottish army marching south, <mask> expressed considerable concern about her personal safety and requested assistance from Edward.Her husband initially proposed sending Despenser forces to secure her, but <mask> rejected this outright, instead requesting friendly troops. Rapidly retreating south with the Despensers, Edward failed to grasp the situation, with the result that <mask> found herself and her household cut off from the south by the Scottish army, with the coastline patrolled by Flemish naval forces allied to the Scots. The situation was precarious and <mask> was forced to use a group of squires from her personal retinue to hold off the advancing army whilst other of her knights commandeered a ship; the fighting continued as <mask> and her household retreated onto the vessel, resulting in the death of two of her ladies-in-waiting. Once aboard, <mask> evaded the Flemish navy, landing further south and making her way to York. <mask> was furious, both with Edward for, from her perspective, abandoning her to the Scots, and with Despensers for convincing Edward to retreat rather than sending help. For his part, Edward blamed Lewis de Beaumont, the Bishop of Durham and an ally of <mask>, for the fiasco. <mask> effectively separated from Edward from here onwards, leaving him to live with Hugh Despenser.At the end of 1322, <mask> left the court on a ten-month-long pilgrimage around England by herself. On her return in 1323 she visited Edward briefly, but was removed from the process of granting royal patronage. At the end of 1324, as tensions grew with <mask>'s homeland of France, Edward and the Despensers confiscated all of <mask>'s lands, took over the running of her household and arrested and imprisoned all of her French staff. <mask>'s youngest children were removed from her and placed into the custody of the Despensers. At this point, <mask> appears to have realised that any hope of working with Edward was effectively over and begun to consider radical solutions. Invasion of England
By 1325, <mask> was facing increasing pressure from Hugh Despenser the Younger, Edward's new royal favourite. With her lands in England seized, her children taken away from her and her household staff arrested, <mask> began to pursue other options.When her brother, King Charles IV of France, seized Edward's French possessions in 1325, she returned to France, initially as a delegate of the King charged with negotiating a peace treaty between the two nations. However, her presence in France became a focal point for the many nobles opposed to Edward's reign. <mask> gathered an army to oppose Edward, in alliance with Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, whom she may have taken as a lover. <mask> and Mortimer returned to England with a mercenary army, seizing the country in a lightning campaign. The Despensers were executed and Edward was forced to abdicate—his eventual fate and possible murder remains a matter of considerable historical debate. <mask> ruled as regent until 1330, when her son, Edward deposed Mortimer in turn and ruled directly in his own right. Tensions in Gascony, 1323–1325

<mask>'s husband Edward, as the Duke of Aquitaine, owed homage to the King of France for his lands in Gascony.<mask>'s three brothers each had only short reigns, and Edward had successfully avoided paying homage to Louis X, and had paid homage to Philip V only under great pressure. Once Charles IV took up the throne, Edward had attempted to avoid doing so again, increasing tensions between the two. One of the elements in the disputes was the border province of Agenais, part of Gascony and in turn part of Aquitaine. Tensions had risen in November 1323 after the construction of a bastide, a type of fortified town, in Saint-Sardos, part of the Agenais, by a French vassal. Gascon forces destroyed the bastide, and in turn Charles attacked the English-held Montpezat: the assault was unsuccessful, but in the subsequent War of Saint-Sardos <mask>'s uncle, Charles of Valois, successfully wrested Aquitaine from English control; by 1324, Charles had declared Edward's lands forfeit and had occupied the whole of Aquitaine apart from the coastal areas. Edward was still unwilling to travel to France to give homage; the situation in England was febrile; there had been an assassination plot against Edward and Hugh Despenser in 1324—the famous magician John of Nottingham had been hired to kill the pair using necromancy—and criminal gangs were occupying much of the country. Edward was deeply concerned that should he leave England, even for a short while, the barons would take the chance to rise up and take their revenge on the Despensers.Charles sent a message through Pope John XXII to Edward, suggesting that he was willing to reverse the forfeiture of the lands if Edward ceded the Agenais and paid homage for the rest of the lands: the Pope proposed <mask> as an ambassador. <mask>, however, saw this as a perfect opportunity to resolve her situation with Edward and the Despensers. Having promised to return to England by the summer, <mask> reached Paris in March 1325, and rapidly agreed a truce in Gascony, under which Prince Edward, then thirteen years old, would come to France to give homage on his father's behalf. Prince Edward arrived in France, and gave homage in September. At this point, however, rather than returning, <mask> remained firmly in France with her son. Edward began to send urgent messages to the Pope and to Charles IV, expressing his concern about his wife's absence, but to no avail. Edward instructed <mask> to come home in September, but she expressed concern the young Despenser would try to kill her upon her arrival, or the Earl of Richmond.She also feared her own husband might attempt to have her killed. For his part, Charles replied that the, "queen has come of her own will and may freely return if she wishes. But if she prefers to remain here, she is my sister and I refuse to expel her." Charles went on to refuse to return the lands in Aquitaine to Edward, resulting in a provisional agreement under which Edward resumed administration of the remaining English territories in early 1326 whilst France continued to occupy the rest. Meanwhile, the messages brought back by Edward's agent Walter de Stapledon, Bishop of Exeter and others grew steadily worse: <mask> had publicly snubbed Stapledon; Edward's political enemies were gathering at the French court, and threatening his emissaries; <mask> was dressed as a widow, claiming that Hugh Despenser had destroyed her marriage with Edward; <mask> was assembling a court-in-exile, including Edmund of Kent and John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond. <mask> surrounded herself with mostly exiles, among them her rumored lover Roger Mortimer. Roger Mortimer, 1325–1326

Roger Mortimer was a powerful Marcher lord, married to the wealthy heiress Joan de Geneville, and the father of twelve children.Mortimer had been imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1322 following his capture by Edward during the Despenser wars. Mortimer's uncle, Roger Mortimer de Chirk finally died in prison, but Mortimer managed to escape the Tower in August 1323, making a hole in the stone wall of his cell and then escaping onto the roof, before using rope ladders provided by an accomplice to get down to the River Thames, across the river and then on eventually to safety in France. Victorian writers suggested that, given later events, <mask> might have helped Mortimer escape and some historians continue to argue that their relationship had already begun at this point, although most believe that there is no hard evidence for their having had a substantial relationship before meeting in Paris. <mask> was reintroduced to Mortimer in Paris by her cousin, Joan, Countess of Hainault, who appears to have approached <mask> suggesting a marital alliance between their two families, marrying Prince Edward to Joan's daughter, Philippa. Mortimer and <mask> may have begun a physical relationship from December 1325 onwards. If so both <mask> and Mortimer were taking a huge risk in doing so—female infidelity was a very serious offence in medieval Europe, as shown during the Tour de Nesle Affair—both <mask>'s former French sisters-in-law had died by 1326 as a result of their imprisonment for exactly this offence, and their alleged lovers had been brutally executed. <mask>'s motivation has been the subject of discussion by historians; some believe that there was a strong sexual attraction between the two, that they shared an interest in the Arthurian legends and that they both enjoyed fine art and high living.One historian has described their relationship as one of the "great romances of the Middle Ages" in spite of the fact that they are reputed to have murdered her husband. They also shared a common enemy—the regime of Edward II and the Despensers. Taking Prince Edward with them, <mask> and Mortimer left the French court in summer 1326 and travelled north to William I, Count of Hainaut. As Joan had suggested the previous year, <mask> betrothed Prince Edward to Philippa of Hainault, the daughter of the Count, in exchange for a substantial dowry. She then used this money plus an earlier loan from Charles to raise a mercenary army, scouring Brabant for men, which were added to a small force of Hainaut troops. William also provided eight men-of-war ships and various smaller vessels as part of the marriage arrangements. Although Edward was now fearing an invasion, secrecy remained key, and <mask> convinced William to detain envoys from Edward.<mask> also appears to have made a secret agreement with the Scots for the duration of the forthcoming campaign. On 22 September, <mask>, Mortimer and their modest force set sail for England. Seizure of power, 1326

Having evaded Edward's fleet, which had been sent to intercept them, <mask> and Mortimer landed at Orwell on the east coast of England on 24 September with a small force; estimates of <mask>'s army vary from between 300 and around 2,000 soldiers, with 1,500 being a popular middle figure. After a short period of confusion during which they attempted to work out where they had actually landed, <mask> moved quickly inland, dressed in her widow's clothes. The local levies mobilised to stop them immediately changed sides, and by the following day <mask> was in Bury St Edmunds and shortly afterwards had swept inland to Cambridge. Thomas, Earl of Norfolk, joined <mask>'s forces and Henry of Lancaster—the brother of the late Thomas, and <mask>'s uncle—also announced he was joining <mask>'s faction, marching south to join her. By the 27th, word of the invasion had reached the King and the Despensers in London.Edward issued orders to local sheriffs to mobilise opposition to <mask> and Mortimer, but London itself was becoming unsafe because of local unrest and Edward made plans to leave. <mask> struck west again, reaching Oxford on 2 October where she was "greeted as a saviour"—Adam Orleton, the Bishop of Hereford, emerged from hiding to give a lecture to the university on the evils of the Despensers. Edward fled London on the same day, heading west towards Wales. <mask> and Mortimer now had an effective alliance with the Lancastrian opposition to Edward, bringing all of his opponents into a single coalition. <mask> now marched south towards London, pausing at Dunstable, outside the city on 7 October. London was now in the hands of the mobs, although broadly allied to <mask>. Bishop Stapledon failed to realise the extent to which royal power had collapsed in the capital and tried to intervene militarily to protect his property against rioters; a hated figure locally, he was promptly attacked and killed—his head was later sent to <mask> by her local supporters.Edward, meanwhile, was still fleeing west, reaching Gloucester by the 9th. <mask> responded by marching swiftly west herself in an attempt to cut him off, reaching Gloucester a week after Edward, who slipped across the border into Wales the same day. Hugh Despenser the Elder continued to hold Bristol against <mask> and Mortimer, who placed it under siege between 18–26 October; when it fell, <mask> was able to recover her daughters Eleanor and Joan, who had been kept in the Despenser's custody. By now desperate and increasingly deserted by their court, Edward and Hugh Despenser the Younger attempted to sail to Lundy, a small island just off the Devon coast, but the weather was against them and after several days they were forced to land back in Wales. With Bristol secure, <mask> moved her base of operations up to the border town of Hereford, from where she ordered Henry of Lancaster to locate and arrest her husband. After a fortnight of evading <mask>'s forces in South Wales, Edward and Hugh were finally caught and arrested near Llantrisant on 16 November. The retribution began immediately.Hugh Despenser the Elder had been captured at Bristol, and despite some attempts by <mask> to protect him, was promptly executed by his Lancastrian enemies—his body was hacked to pieces and fed to the local dogs. The remainder of the former regime were brought to <mask>. Edmund Fitzalan, a key supporter of Edward II and who had received many of Mortimer's confiscated lands in 1322, was executed on 17 November. Hugh Despenser the Younger was sentenced to be brutally executed on 24 November, and a huge crowd gathered in anticipation at seeing him die. They dragged him from his horse, stripped him, and scrawled Biblical verses against corruption and arrogance on his skin. He was then dragged into the city, presented to Queen <mask>, Roger Mortimer and the Lancastrians. Despenser was then condemned to hang as a thief, be castrated, and then to be drawn and quartered as a traitor, his quarters to be dispersed throughout England.Simon of Reading, one of the Despensers' supporters, was hanged next to him, on charges of insulting <mask>. Once the core of the Despenser regime had been executed, <mask> and Mortimer began to show restraint. Lesser nobles were pardoned and the clerks at the heart of the government, mostly appointed by the Despensers and Stapledon, were confirmed in office. All that was left now was the question of Edward II, still officially <mask>'s legal husband and lawful king. Death of Edward, 1327

As an interim measure, Edward II was held in the custody of Henry of Lancaster, who surrendered Edward's Great Seal to <mask>. The situation remained tense, however; <mask> was clearly concerned about Edward's supporters staging a counter-coup, and in November she seized the Tower of London, appointed one of her supporters as mayor and convened a council of nobles and churchmen in Wallingford to discuss the fate of Edward. The council concluded that Edward would be legally deposed and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.This was then confirmed at the next parliament, dominated by <mask> and Mortimer's followers. The session was held in January 1327, with <mask>'s case being led by her supporter Adam Orleton, Bishop of Hereford. <mask>'s son, Prince Edward, was confirmed as Edward III of England, with his mother appointed regent. <mask>'s position was still precarious, as the legal basis for deposing Edward was doubtful and many lawyers of the day maintained that Edward II was still the rightful king, regardless of the declaration of the Parliament. The situation could be reversed at any moment and Edward II was known to be a vengeful ruler. Edward II's subsequent fate, and <mask>'s role in it, remains hotly contested by historians. The minimally agreed version of events is that <mask> and Mortimer had Edward moved from Kenilworth Castle in the Midlands to the safer location of Berkeley Castle in the Welsh borders, where he was put into the custody of Lord Berkeley.On 23 September, <mask> and Edward III were informed by messenger that Edward had died whilst imprisoned at the castle, because of a "fatal accident". Edward's body was apparently buried at Gloucester Cathedral, with his heart being given

masks: Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella Isabella


text_chunks:
 in a casket to <mask>. After the funeral, there were rumours for many years that Edward had survived and was really alive somewhere in Europe, some of which were captured in the famous Fieschi Letter written in the 1340s, although no concrete evidence ever emerged to support the allegations. There are, however, various historical interpretations of the events surrounding this basic sequence of events. According to legend, <mask> and Mortimer famously plotted to murder Edward in such a way as not to draw blame on themselves, sending a famous order (in ) which, depending on where the comma was inserted, could mean either "Do not be afraid to kill Edward; it is good" or "Do not kill Edward; it is good to fear". In actuality, there is little evidence of anyone deciding to have Edward assassinated, and none whatsoever of the note having been written. Similarly, accounts of Edward being killed with a red-hot poker have no strong contemporary sources to support them.The conventional 20th-century view has been that Edward did die at Berkeley Castle, either murdered on <mask>'s orders or of ill-health brought on by his captivity, and that subsequent accounts of his survival were simply rumours, similar to those that surrounded <mask> Arc and other near contemporaries after their deaths. Three recent historians, however, have offered an alternative interpretation of events. Paul Doherty, drawing extensively on the Fieschi Letter of the 1340s, has argued that Edward in fact escaped from Berkeley Castle with the help of William Ockle, a knight whom Doherty argues subsequently pretended to be Edward in disguise around Europe, using the name "William the Welshman" to draw attention away from the real Edward himself. In this interpretation, a look-alike was buried at Gloucester. Ian Mortimer, focusing more on contemporary documents from 1327 itself, argues that Roger de Mortimer engineered a fake "escape" for Edward from Berkeley Castle; after this Edward was kept in Ireland, believing he was really evading Mortimer, before finally finding himself free, but politically unwelcome, after the fall of <mask> and Mortimer. In this version, Edward makes his way to Europe, before subsequently being buried at Gloucester. Finally, Alison Weir, again drawing on the Fieschi Letter, has recently argued that Edward II escaped his captors, killing one in the process, and lived as a hermit for many years; in this interpretation, the body in Gloucester Cathedral is of Edward's dead captor.In all of these versions, it is argued that it suited <mask> and Mortimer to publicly claim that Edward was dead, even if they were aware of the truth. Other historians, however, including David Carpenter, have criticised the methodology behind this revisionist approach and disagree with the conclusions. Later years
<mask> and Mortimer ruled together for four years, with <mask>'s period as regent marked by the acquisition of huge sums of money and land. When their political alliance with the Lancastrians began to disintegrate, <mask> continued to support Mortimer. <mask> fell from power when her son, Edward III deposed Mortimer in a coup, taking back royal authority for himself. Unlike Mortimer, <mask> survived the transition of power, remaining a wealthy and influential member of the English court, albeit never returning directly to active politics. As regent, 1326–1330

<mask>'s reign as regent lasted only four years, before the fragile political alliance that had brought her and Mortimer to power disintegrated.1328 saw the marriage of <mask>'s son, Edward III to Philippa of Hainault, as agreed before the invasion of 1326; the lavish ceremony was held in London to popular acclaim. <mask> and Mortimer had already begun a trend that continued over the next few years, in starting to accumulate huge wealth. With her lands restored to her, <mask> was already exceptionally rich, but she began to accumulate yet more. Within the first few weeks, <mask> had granted herself almost £12,000; finding that Edward's royal treasury contained £60,000, a rapid period of celebratory spending then ensued. <mask> soon awarded herself another £20,000, allegedly to pay off foreign debts. At Edward III's coronation, <mask> then extended her land holdings from a value of £4,400 each year to the huge sum of £13,333, making her one of the largest landowners in the kingdom. <mask> also refused to hand over her dower lands to Philippa after her marriage to Edward III, in contravention of usual custom.<mask>'s lavish lifestyle matched her new incomes. Mortimer, in effect her first minister, after a restrained beginning, also began to accumulate lands and titles at a tremendous rate, particularly in the Marcher territories. The new regime also faced some key foreign policy dilemmas, which <mask> approached from a realist perspective. The first of these was the situation in Scotland, where Edward II's unsuccessful policies had left an unfinished, tremendously expensive war. <mask> was committed to bringing this issue to a conclusion by diplomatic means. Edward III initially opposed this policy, before eventually relenting, leading to the Treaty of Northampton. Under this treaty, <mask>'s daughter Joan would marry David Bruce (heir apparent to the Scottish throne) and Edward III would renounce any claims on Scottish lands, in exchange for the promise of Scottish military aid against any enemy except the French, and £20,000 in compensation for the raids across northern England.No compensation would be given to those earls who had lost their Scottish estates, and the compensation would be taken by <mask>. Although strategically successful and, historically at least, "a successful piece of policy making", <mask>'s Scottish policy was by no means popular and contributed to the general sense of discontent with the regime. Secondly, the Gascon situation, still unresolved from Edward II's reign, also posed an issue. <mask> reopened negotiations in Paris, resulting in a peace treaty under which the bulk of Gascony, minus the Agenais, would be returned to England in exchange for a 50,000-mark penalty. The treaty was not popular in England because of the Agenais clause. Henry, Earl of Lancaster was amongst the first to break with <mask> and Mortimer. By 1327 Lancaster was irritated by Mortimer's behaviour and <mask> responded by beginning to sideline him from her government.Lancaster was furious over the passing of the Treaty of Northampton, and refused to attend court, mobilising support amongst the commoners of London. <mask> responded to the problems by undertaking a wide reform of royal administration and local law enforcement. In a move guaranteed to appeal to domestic opinion, <mask> also decided to pursue Edward III's claim on the French throne, sending her advisers to France to demand official recognition of his claim. The French nobility were unimpressed and, since <mask> lacked the funds to begin any military campaign, she began to court the opinion of France's neighbours, including proposing the marriage of her son John to the Castilian royal family. By the end of 1328 the situation had descended into near civil war once again, with Lancaster mobilising his army against <mask> and Mortimer. In January 1329 <mask>'s forces under Mortimer's command took Lancaster's stronghold of Leicester, followed by Bedford; <mask>—wearing armour, and mounted on a warhorse—and Edward III marched rapidly north, resulting in Lancaster's surrender. He escaped death but was subjected to a colossal fine, effectively crippling his power.<mask> was merciful to those who had aligned themselves with him, although some—such as her old supporter Henry de Beaumont, whose family had split from <mask> over the peace with Scotland, which had lost them huge land holdings in Scotland—fled to France. Despite Lancaster's defeat, however, discontent continued to grow. Edmund of Kent had sided with <mask> in 1326, but had since begun to question his decision and was edging back towards Edward II, his half-brother. Edmund of Kent was in conversations with other senior nobles questioning <mask>'s rule, including Henry de Beaumont and <mask> Vesci. Edmund was finally involved in a conspiracy in 1330, allegedly to restore Edward II, who, he claimed, was still alive: <mask> and Mortimer broke up the conspiracy, arresting Edmund and other supporters—including Simon Mepeham, Archbishop of Canterbury. Edmund may have expected a pardon, possibly from Edward III, but <mask> was insistent on his execution. The execution itself was a fiasco after the executioner refused to attend and Edmund of Kent had to be killed by a local dung-collector, who had been himself sentenced to death and was pardoned as a bribe to undertake the beheading.<mask> Vesci escaped punishment, despite having been closely involved in the plot. Mortimer's fall from power, 1330
By mid-1330, <mask> and Mortimer's regime was increasingly insecure, and <mask>'s son, Edward III, was growing frustrated at Mortimer's grip on power. Various historians, with different levels of confidence, have also suggested that in late 1329 <mask> became pregnant. A child of Mortimer's with royal blood would have proved both politically inconvenient for <mask>, and challenging to Edward's own position. Edward quietly assembled a body of support from the Church and selected nobles, whilst <mask> and Mortimer moved into Nottingham Castle for safety, surrounding themselves with loyal troops. In the autumn, Mortimer was investigating another plot against him, when he challenged a young noble, William Montagu, during an interrogation. Mortimer declared that his word had priority over the king's, an alarming statement that Montagu reported back to Edward.Edward was convinced that this was the moment to act, and on 19 October, Montagu led a force of twenty-three armed men into the castle by a secret tunnel. Up in the keep, <mask>, Mortimer and other council members were discussing how to arrest Montagu, when Montagu and his men appeared. Fighting broke out on the stairs and Mortimer was overwhelmed in his chamber. <mask> threw herself at Edward's feet, famously crying "Fair son, have pity on gentle Mortimer!" Lancastrian troops rapidly took the rest of the castle, leaving Edward in control of his own government for the first time. Parliament was convened the next month, where Mortimer was put on trial for treason. <mask> was portrayed as an innocent bystander during the proceedings, and no mention of her sexual relationship with Mortimer was made public.Mortimer was executed at Tyburn, but Edward III showed leniency and he was not quartered or disembowelled. In retirement, 1330–1358

After the coup, <mask> was initially transferred to Berkhamsted Castle, and then held under house arrest at Windsor Castle until 1332, when she then moved back to her own Castle Rising in Norfolk. Agnes Strickland, a Victorian historian, argued that <mask> suffered from occasional fits of madness during this period but modern interpretations suggest, at worst, a nervous breakdown following the death of Mortimer. <mask> remained extremely wealthy; despite being required to surrender most of her lands after losing power, in 1331 she was reassigned a yearly income of £3000, which increased to £4000 by 1337. She lived an expensive lifestyle in Norfolk, including minstrels, huntsmen, grooms and other luxuries, and was soon travelling again around England. In 1348, there were suggestions that she might travel to Paris to take part in peace negotiations, but eventually this plan was quashed. She was also involved in the talks with Charles II of Navarre in 1358.As the years went by, <mask> became very close to her daughter Joan, especially after Joan left her unfaithful husband, King David II of Scotland, who was imprisoned by her brother in the Tower of London at the time where she visited him once. Joan also nursed her just before she died. She doted on her grandchildren, including Edward, the Black Prince. She became increasingly interested in religion as she grew older, visiting a number of shrines. She remained, however, a gregarious member of the court, receiving constant visitors; amongst them appear to have been her friend Marie de St Pol, Countess of Pembroke, and her cousin Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster. King Edward and his children often visited her as well. She remained interested in Arthurian legends and jewellery; in 1358 she appeared at the St George's Day celebrations at Windsor wearing a dress made of silk, silver, 300 rubies, 1800 pearls and a circlet of gold.She may also have developed an interest in astrology or geometry towards the end of her life, receiving various presents relating to these disciplines. <mask> took the nun's habit of the Poor Clares before she died on 22 August 1358 at Hertford Castle, and her body was returned to London for burial at the Franciscan church at Newgate, in a service overseen by Archbishop Simon Islip. She was buried in the mantle she had worn at her wedding and at her request, Edward's heart, placed into a casket thirty years before, was interred with her. <mask> left the bulk of her property, including Castle Rising, to her favourite grandson, the Black Prince, with some personal effects being granted to her daughter Joan. Cultural depictions

Literature and theatre
Queen <mask> appeared with a major role in Christopher Marlowe's play Edward II (c. 1592) and thereafter has been frequently used as a character in plays, books and films, often portrayed as beautiful but manipulative or wicked. Thomas Gray, the 18th-century poet, combined Marlowe's depiction of <mask> with William Shakespeare's description of Margaret of Anjou (the wife of Henry VI) as the "She-Wolf of France", to produce the anti-French poem The Bard (1757), in which <mask> rips apart the bowels of Edward II with her "unrelenting fangs". The "She-Wolf" epithet stuck, and Bertolt Brecht re-used it in The Life of Edward II of England (1923).Film
In Derek Jarman's film Edward II (1991), based on Marlowe's play, <mask> is portrayed (by actress Tilda Swinton) as a "femme fatale" whose thwarted love for Edward causes her to turn against him and steal his throne. In contrast to the negative depictions, Mel Gibson's film Braveheart (1995) portrays <mask> (played by the French actress Sophie Marceau) more sympathetically. In the film, an adult <mask> is fictionally depicted as having a romantic affair with the Scottish hero William Wallace. However, in reality, she was nine years old at the time of Wallace's death. Additionally, Wallace is incorrectly suggested to be the father of her son, Edward III, despite Wallace's death being many years before Edward's birth. Issue
Edward and <mask> had four children, and she suffered at least one miscarriage. Their itineraries demonstrate that they were together 9 months prior to the births of all four surviving offspring.Their children were:

 Edward III, born 1312
 John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, born 1316
 Eleanor of Woodstock, born 1318, married Reinoud II of Guelders
 Joan of the Tower, born 1321, married David II of Scotland

Arms

Ancestry

<mask> is descended from Gytha of Wessex through King Andrew II of Hungary and thus brought the bloodline of the last Anglo-Saxon king of England, Harold Godwinson, back into the English royal family. See also
 <mask> Baker
 Hundred Years' War
 Vita Edwardi Secundi

Notes

Sources
 Ainsworth, Peter. (2006) Representing Royalty: Kings, Queens and Captains in Some Early Fifteenth Century Manuscripts of Froissart's Chroniques. in Kooper (ed) 2006. Boutell, Charles. (1863) A Manual of Heraldry, Historical and Popular. London: Winsor & Newton.Carpenter, David. (2007a) "What Happened to Edward II?" London Review of Books. Vol. 29, No. 11. 7 June 2007.Carpenter, David. (2007b) "Dead or Alive." London Review of Books. Vol. 29, No. 15. 2 August 2007.Doherty, P.C. (2003) Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II. London: Robinson. .
 Ewan, Elizabeth. "Braveheart." American Historical Review. Vol. 100, No.4. October 1995. Given-Wilson, Chris. (ed) (2002) Fourteenth Century England. Prestwich: Woodbridge. Holmes, George. (2000) Europe, Hierarchy and Revolt, 1320–1450, 2nd edition.Oxford: Blackwell. Kibler, William W. (1995) Medieval France: an Encyclopedia. London: Routledge. Kooper, Erik (ed). (2006) The Medieval Chronicle IV. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lord, Carla.(2002) Queen <mask> at the Court of France. in Given-Wilson (ed) (2002). Mortimer, Ian. (2004) The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, Ruler of England 1327–1330. London: Pimlico Press. Mortimer, Ian. (2006) The Perfect King: The Life of Edward III, Father of the English Nation.London: Vintage Press. .
 Myers, A. R. (1978) England in the Late Middle Ages. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Neillands, Robin. (2001) The Hundred Years War. London: Routledge. Sumption, Jonathan. (1999) The Hundred Years War: Trial by Battle.Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press. Weir, Alison. (1999) Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy. London: The Bodley Head. Weir, Alison. (2006) Queen <mask>: She-Wolf of France, Queen of England. London: Pimlico Books. .External links

 Heidi Murphy <mask> of France (1295–1358), Britannia biographical series

|-

1295 births
1358 deaths
13th-century French people
14th-century French people
14th-century English people
13th-century French women
14th-century English women
14th-century French women
14th-century women rulers
Duchesses of Aquitaine
Edward II of England
English rebels
English royal consorts
Founders of English schools and colleges
French princesses
French expatriates in England
French Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns
House of Capet
Irish royal consorts
Nobility from Paris
Philip IV of France
Poor Clares
Regents of England
Women in 14th-century warfare
Women in medieval European warfare
Women in war in France
Daughters

masks:
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Joan of
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella de
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella de
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Geoffrey the
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella


text_chunks:
William A<mask> (born February 13, 1926) is an American sportscaster, educator and author. Originally from Muskogee, Oklahoma, he has retired to Durham, North Carolina after a long residence in Richardson, Texas. In 2002, he was inducted into the Texas Radio Hall of Fame. Personal
During World War II, <mask> served in the United States Navy from 1943 to 1946 aboard the USS Rixey and USS LCI(G)–439 (Landing Craft Infantry – Gunboat) as a Signalman. <mask>'s ships participated in five invasions: Marshall Islands, Guam, Leyte, Luzon and Okinawa. He is included in the List of notable surviving veterans of World War II. <mask> first attended college at Northeastern State College in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, after the war.He then earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Denver in 1949 and a master's degree from North Texas State University in Denton, Texas in 1966. <mask>'s Granddaughter Emma Tiedemann is the play-by-play voice of the Portland Sea Dogs in Portland, Maine. Career
<mask> is best known as a play-by-play radio announcer for baseball, football, basketball and wrestling. He was also a news reporter for Dallas, Texas television station KRLD, covering the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963. He and fellow reporters George Phenix, Wes Wise and Bob Huffaker wrote When the News Went Live about their experiences during that time. <mask> also wrote,  Play-by-Play: Tales from a Sportscasting Insider, about his experiences in sportscasting. He enjoyed a stint as a sports anchor at KVIL radio station in Dallas-Fort Worth during the 1970s and 80s, alongside longtime morning host Ron Chapman.<mask> also spent over 35 years teaching new generations of sports broadcasters in the University of North Texas's Radio/TV Department. He was also recognized by the University of Texas at Dallas Athletic Department for his involvement with their live game broadcasts. Play by Play
In his 60+ year career, <mask> provided play-by-play broadcasting for several minor league teams: First, the Muskogee Giants of the Class C Western Association, then the Dallas Rangers (Triple A baseball) from 1959 to 1964, and the Dallas-Fort Worth Spurs (Texas League baseball) from 1965 to 1971. He then moved up to broadcast for major league baseball's Texas Rangers (major league baseball) in 1972 (with Don Drysdale) and Chicago White Sox in 1974. <mask> also provided play-by-play for University of North Texas (known as North Texas State College until 1961, and North Texas State University from 1961 to 1988) football and basketball from 1959 to 1994. <mask>'s first broadcasts for professional teams began with the Dallas Texans (American Football League) in 1960 with Charlie Jones, then for the Dallas Cowboys (National Football League) from 1966 to 1971. Initially, <mask> provided color commentary with Jay Randolph in 1965 for the Cowboys, then became the play-by-play announcer when Randolph moved to St. Louis the following year.In the 1980s, <mask> broadcast Southwest Conference football and basketball for Mutual Radio. In the 2000s, he assisted Mike Capps with play-by-play for Round Rock Express minor league baseball of the Texas League (currently in the Pacific Coast League,) and for three years with Scott Garner of the Frisco RoughRiders of the Texas League. While at KRLD-AM/TV in Dallas, he served seven years as color commentator for CBS Radio's annual broadcasts of the Cotton Bowl Classic college football game. <mask> is also noted for calling the "Ice Bowl," the NFL championship game between the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers in 1967, along with the Cowboys' second Super Bowl appearance in January, 1972. Wrestling
During his time at UNT, he called games involving Kevin Adkisson and Steve Williams, who both became professional wrestlers under the names Kevin Von Erich and Stone Cold Steve Austin, respectively. He also was the announcer in 1959 at UNT when Abner Haynes broke the color line in Texas and later became a star with the second incarnation of the Dallas Texans (American Football League). <mask> provided play-by-play announcing for the internationally acclaimed World Class Championship Wrestling (WCCW,) based in Dallas, from 1982 to 1987.Telecasts were originally shown on Dallas-Fort Worth station KXTX, Channel 39. <mask> became a wrestling announcer in the 1950s in Muskogee, Oklahoma during the course of broadcasting all area sports for local radio station KMUS. By the late 1950s, <mask> had relocated to Dallas and began calling televised wrestling matches at the Dallas Sportatorium and in the studio for KRLD-TV (present day KDFW-TV,) Channel 4. In early 1976, <mask> took over announcing duties for the long-running Saturday Night Wrestling program on KTVT, Channel 11, in Fort Worth, when original announcer Dan Coates retired. Awards
 Texas Sports Hall of Fame (2020 inductee)
Texas Radio Hall of Fame (2002 inductee)
 University of North Texas Athletic Department Hall of Fame
 Texas Baseball Ex-Pro's Baseball Hall of Fame
 Oklahoma Sports Museum, Guthrie, Oklahoma: The <mask>ins Award
 Texas Intercollegiate Press Association Hall of Fame, April 2009
 University of Texas-Dallas Athletic Department Hall of Honor, 2011
 Namesake of the Bill <mask> Press Club at the University of North Texas's Apogee Stadium, awarded in 2012
Muskogee High Athletics Hall of Fame (2014)

Bibliography
 When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963. Play-by-Play: Tales from a Sportscasting Insider

References

1926 births
American Football League announcers
American radio sports announcers
Chicago White Sox announcers
College basketball announcers in the United States
College football announcers
Dallas Cowboys announcers
Living people
Major League Baseball broadcasters
National Football League announcers
North Texas Mean Green football
Writers from Muskogee, Oklahoma
People from Richardson, Texas
Professional wrestling announcers
Sportswriters from Texas
Texas Rangers (baseball) announcers
United States Football League announcers
United States Navy personnel of World War II
United States Navy sailors

masks:
. Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Bill Teeg
Mercer


text_chunks:
<mask> is a Belarusian journalist, anarchist activist, blogger, and political prisoner. He was released in 2015 and became in involved in the 2020 Belarusian protests. He was arrested by authorities and is currently again a political prisoner. Biography
<mask> was born on August 23, 1988, in Brahin. He graduated from the BSU College of Law. After graduating from college, he was enrolled in the 3rd year of the Faculty of Law of BSU, but didn't study there. He left BSU, entered the European Humanities University at the political science department (he studied in absentia; at the time of his arrest he was a 2nd year student).He worked in a collection firm, where he acted as a journalist, lawyer and programmer at the same time. He also became a member of the Belarusian anarchist movement. In May 2011, <mask> was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison in a maximum security colony for participating in attacks on government buildings. In February 2015, Dedok was sentenced to an additional year in prison under Article 411 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus. After his release, he continued his social and political activities, took up journalism and research in the field of political science. Arrest and prison sentence
Before his arrest, Dedok, according to himself, was an activist unknown to the general public. His name appeared in the media for the first time only in connection with his arrest.<mask> <mask> was detained on September 3, 2010, as a suspect in the case of the attack on the Russian Embassy in Minsk on the night of August 31. The law enforcement bodies of Belarus arrested the young man for three days and placed him in a temporary detention center. Failing to collect a sufficient amount of evidence that would confirm <mask>'s involvement in the case, law enforcement agencies extended the term of his detention, but in a different case – an attack on the House of Trade Unions. However, when the accusation of his participation again did not receive sufficient evidence, <mask> was detained for the third time as a suspect in the case of an attack on a Belarusbank branch. After that, when all possibilities for detention were exhausted, they began to ascribe other illegal actions to Mikola, in particular, theft and hooliganism. On September 24, 2010, having already served more than 20 days under arrest, <mask> <mask> was accused of participating in an unauthorized rally near the General Staff of Belarus, and on October 1 he was charged under Article 339, part 2 – "hooliganism." On May 27, 2011, the Zavodskoy Court of Minsk sentenced Dedok to 4 and a half years in a high security prison.<mask> was held in the so-called "anarchist case" together with Igor Olinevich (sentenced to 8 years) and Alexander Frantskevich (sentenced to 3 years). At the trial, Dedok did not admit his guilt and later in prison refused to sign a petition for pardon addressed to the president. While imprisoned, on September 13, 2011, <mask> <mask> married Valeria Khotina in the Mogilev colony. In October 2011, the Viasna Human Rights Centre and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee recognized those convicted in the "anarchist case", including <mask> <mask>, as political prisoners. <mask> was taken under the patronage of Sari Essayah, member of the European Parliament from Finland, in November 2011. In prisons No. 15 and 17 of Shklov, <mask> received more than 10 penalties for various far-fetched violations.By a court decision on December 5, 2012, the conditions of serving the sentence were changed to stricter ones – he was transferred from prison No. 17 in Shklov to prison No. 4 in Mogilev. In November 2014, a new criminal case was opened against Dedok under Article 411 for "willful disobedience to the requirements of the administration of the correctional institution". Five days before the end of his term on February 26, 2015, the Leninsky District Court of Mogilev sentenced <mask> Dziadok to 1 year in a strict regime prison, under Article 411 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus for "malignant disobedience to the demands of the administration". Grandpa was charged with 16 violations of the regime in places of detention. For each of these 16 violations, <mask> had already been punished in a disciplinary order, having received a reprimand of from 5 to 10 days in a punishment cell.After the conviction, he wrote an open letter to the press, in which he criticized Art. 411 of the Criminal Code as inhumane and repressive. On May 12, 2015, <mask> was transferred to prison IK-9 in Gorki, where out of the first 50 days of his stay, he spent 42 days in a punishment cell "for violation of the sentence serving regime" and "refusal to work". To draw attention to the unbearable conditions of detention, on May 20, 2015, Dedok was forced to inflict cut wounds on his stomach and arms. On June 24, 2015, Manuel Sarrazin, Member of the German Bundestag and representative of the Alliance 90/The Greens parliamentary group in the European Parliament, took over the "patronage" of the political prisoner <mask> <mask>. On August 22, 2015, Alexander Lukashenko pardoned six political prisoners – <mask> <mask>, Igor Olinevich, Nikolai Statkevich, Yevgeny Vaskovich, Artem Prokopenko and Yuri Rubtsov. The report notes that the decision to pardon was made in accordance with the "principle of humanism".After release
After his release, <mask> <mask> returned to the European Humanities University under the International Politics and Economics program, which he graduated from in 2019. He is a member of the anarchist movement. He works as a journalist for the Novoe Vremya newspaper, writes for other publications, maintains a number of blogs on social networks and a channel in the Telegram messenger, as well as a Radix video blog on "revolutionary political analysis, social struggle and anarchism in Belarus." He has written several books. Since October 2019, he has been a fellow of K. Kalinowski's master's degree program and a student of Polish language courses at the Center for Language and Polish Culture of the Maria Skłodowska-Curie University. Continued persecution
On March 25, 2017, <mask> <mask> was detained in Minsk and taken to the Partizanskiy ROVD, and then to the Center for Isolation of Offenders. On the same day, he was taken with a head injury to the emergency hospital, accompanied by police.After 4 days spent in the hospital, <mask> was escorted to court, where he received 10 days of arrest under Articles 23.34 (Violation of the procedure for holding mass events) and Art. 23.4 Administrative Code (Disobedience to police orders). 2018
On June 30, 2018, along with 17 other anarchists, he was detained by a special forces group SOBR and employees of the GUBOPiK during the dispersal of an informal meeting of anarchists in a forest near Krupki. According to <mask> himself, he spent five hours in handcuffs with his face to the ground. Dziadok appealed to law enforcement agencies with a request to initiate a criminal case against employees of the GUBOPiK for abuse of office. On July 12, 2018, <mask> was detained near his house by riot policemen, when he was going to the trial of journalist Dmitry Galko. He was taken to the Frunzensky District Department of Internal Affairs, and then to the Frunzensky District Court, where he received a fine of 10 basic units under Art.17.10 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus. "Demonstration of Nazi symbols". The reason for initiating an administrative case was a post on Facebook condemning Nazism. On December 27, 2018, <mask> was fined by the Frunzensky District Court of Minsk in the amount of 40 base units under Article 17.10 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus. He was accused of distributing extremist products: posting on his Facebook page an illustration depicting the symbols of the Misantropic Division (an international association of neo-Nazi groups), which was included in the republican list of extremist materials by the court of the Central District of Minsk. But <mask>'s post was directed precisely against Nazism: “The picture from July 2016 is an illustration for a post in which I criticize people for standing next to the Nazis (!!!). Photos are driven to confirm their words.Do you understand the charm of the whole situation? Indeed, how can Nazism be condemned when any illustrative material can be retroactively outlawed? If we proceed from the GUBOPiK's information, then we should judge, for example, those who broadcast military newsreels on television, employees of the Belarusian television who show Nazis and do not retouch them,” he explained his position. The case was heard by judge Maria Erokhina. 2019
<mask> <mask> became a defendant in a high-profile scandal involving the Russian media. The reason was seven articles in the Novy Chas newspaper, where Dedok works, dedicated to Chechen political and military leaders, in particular, Shamil Basayev. In the 2017 article "Basayev: Your Great Russian dream – sitting up to your throat in shit to drag everyone else there ...", dedicated to the 11th anniversary of the murder of the field commander, <mask> <mask> presented Basayev as an ambiguous personality, from which, however, "they make a monster from hell".In January 2019, two years later, the Russian media drew attention to it, criticizing and condemning the author of the article, <mask>, as well as Alena Anisim, who is the head of the Belarusian Language Association and the founder of the newspaper "Novy Chas". From the point of view of a number of media outlets, the publication is a “glorification of terrorists". The article on the Belarusian pro-Russian website Teleskop, which started the information attack, was rewritten and supplemented by dozens of Russian media outlets. A number of pro-Russian Belarusian media, as well as a member of the Bureau of Belarusian Left Party Sergei Voznyak and Liberal Democratic Party leader Oleg Gaidukevich, also joined in the persecution. In turn, a number of Belarusian mass media spoke out in defense of Dziadok and Anisim, in particular Belarusian Partisan and Nasha Niva. The authors of the Teleskop website sent statements to the Ministry of Information and the Procurator, demanding that Novy Chas and Mikola Dziadok be brought to justice. Veteran of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia Oleg Ivannikov appealed to the Procurator of the Chechen Republic and personally to Ramzan Kadyrov with a request "to initiate an inspection of the publication of the newspaper Novy Chas".However, none of these appeals had legal consequences for <mask> Dziadok or the newspaper Novy Chas. On March 4, 2019, <mask> was detained near the Frunzensky District Court of Minsk, immediately after he was fined under Art. 17.11 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus "Distribution of extremist materials" for a post on social networks. <mask> spent more than 2 days in a temporary detention center, after which the judge of the Central Court of Minsk Victoria Shabunya sentenced him to a fine of 25 basic units for participating in the action "Freedom for political prisoners". On June 10, 2019, in the Frunzensky District Court, Judge M. Erokhin found <mask> <mask> guilty of "public demonstration and distribution of extremist materials" and sentenced him to a fine of 50 basic units (1,275 rubles or 624 dollars). According to the court ruling, Nikolai posted on the Vkontakte social network a post with four extremist letters "ASAV". The blogger himself was not present at the trial and did not decide to appeal the decision to a higher court.On September 16, 2019, the Frunzensky District Court again convicted <mask> Dziadok for using the abbreviation "ACAB" in the social network "Vkontakte", and imposed a fine on him in the amount of 40 basic units. The trial was conducted by judge E. V. Pisarevich. "You can endlessly look at three things: how the fire burns, how the water flows, how the GUBOPiK fights my social networks..." – the blogger commented on this judgment on his page. 2020
On January 9, 2020, the Frunzensky District Court convicted <mask> Dziadok under Article 23.34 for participating in an unauthorized action in defense of the independence of Belarus in Minsk on December 21, 2019. The fine was 50 basic units. The trial was conducted by judge A. V. Busheva. On March 19, 2020, <mask> <mask> was detained by police officers on charges of minor hooliganism (17.1.Administrative Code of the Republic of Belarus). The activist was taken to the Center for Isolation of Offenders and accused of putting an anti-police inscription on the wall of the dormitory. The next day, when the activist was taken to the Moskovsky district court of Minsk, it turned out that on the day of the inscription, <mask> <mask> was outside Belarus, which is stamped in his passport. The case was sent to the Moscow District Department of Internal Affairs in Minsk for revision, and later terminated for lack of corpus delicti. On November 12, 2020, he was detained by employees of GUBOPiK in an apartment in the village of Sasnovy of the Asipovichy District. During the arrest, pepper gas was used, and Dziadok was severely beaten. The arrested in the framework of a criminal case on "violation of public order" (Art.342 of the Criminal Code) was forced to appear on camera for the video of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. After the arrest, he was taken to Minsk to GUBOPiK, where was tortured: siloviki kept him pressed with his head to the floor, beat him with a truncheon and a Taser, strangled, and threatened to rape. Then he was taken to the detention center Okrestina, later was transferred to SIZO No. 1 in Minsk. In detention, the activist was deprived of sleep, heat, food, and contact with the outside world. On November 24, by a joint statement of 11 organizations, including the Viasna Human Rights Centre, the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, he was recognized as a political prisoner. On January 15, 2021, godparenthood for the political prisoner was undertaken by Tamara Funiciello, member of the Federal Assembly (Switzerland).In March 2021, the Investigative Committee of Belarus opened new criminal cases against the political prisoner on calling for the seizure of power (part 3 of article 361 of the Criminal Code) and illegal actions in relation to combustible materials (part 1 of article 295-3 of the Criminal Code). Awards
In May 2017, he received the Ales Korol Award in the category "Best Social and Political Material" for the article "Тунеядские протесты и перспектива Майдана" in the Novy Chas newspaper. In December 2017, he received the Francisk Alekhnovicha Award for the best work written in captivity (the book "Цвета параллельного мира"). In May 2018, he received the Ales Korol Award in the category "Best Social and Political Article" for the article "Тюрьма и воля: культурный обмен". Bibliography
 "Untouchables in prison hierarchy" — 2016 — social caste hierarchy in the Belarusian prison system
 The decision making in Hamas — 2016
 «Цвета параллельного мира» — 2017
 «Народные моджахеды: Муджахедин Хальк» — 2019
 Territorial achievements of IS outside Middle East — 2019
 «Теория интерсекциональности: анархистская критика» — 2020

References

External links
 Mikola Dziadok's page on the website of the Viasna Human Rights Centre

1988 births
Belarusian anarchists
Belarusian dissidents
Belarusian journalists
Political prisoners according to Viasna Human Rights Centre
Belarusian writers
Living people
People from Brahin District
People from Gomel Region
Belarusian political prisoners

masks:
Mikola Dziadok
Mikola Dziadok
Dziadok
Mikola
Dziadok
Mikola
Mikola
Mikola
Dziadok
Mikola
Mikola
Dziadok
Mikola
Dziadok
Dziadok
Mikola
Mikola
Mikola
Mikola
Mikola
Dziadok
Mikola
Dziadok
Mikola
Dziadok
Mikola
Dziadok
Dziadok
Mikola
Dziadok
Dziadok
Dziadok
Mikola
Dziadok
Mikola
Dziadok
Dziadok
Mikola
Dziadok
Mikola
Mikola
Dziadok
Mikola
Mikola
Mikola
Dziadok
Mikola
Dziadok


text_chunks:
<mask> (26 August 1800 – 6 December 1872) was a French naturalist and a leading proponent of spontaneous generation of life from non-living materials, and as such an opponent of Louis Pasteur's germ theory. He was the father of <mask> (1833–1894), a professor of comparative anatomy. From 1828 he was director of the Rouen Jardin des Plantes. Later, in 1838, he became professor at the School of Medicine at Rouen. His major scientific work Hétérogénie was published in 1859. He also wrote a layperson's encyclopedia The Universe, published in 1870, which gives an overview of the sciences, but in which Pouchet ridicules Louis Pasteur's theories (calling them panspermism) and atomic theory. In 1847, Pouchet effectively launched the study of the physiology of cytology.In 1848, he was elected as a member to the American Philosophical Society. Early career

<mask> was born in Rouen, France, on August 26, 1800. His father was a respected manufacturer in Rouen. In 1827, Pouchet received his M.D. in Paris, and later became the director of the Rouen Museum of Natural History. He also held a chair at one of the local medical preparatory colleges in Rouen in the field of zoology, and in 1843, he received the Legion of Honour. In 1830, botanists A.Rich.ex DC. published
Pouchetia, a genus of flowering plants from Africa, belonging to the family Rubiaceae. It was named in Felix's honour. Pouchet had extensive experience in the field of traditional biology before the debate, where his main interest was animal generation. In the 1840s, he published two scientific articles. Both publications seemed to contradict his eventual support of spontaneous generation. In these publications, he believed that in the animal kingdom, generation happened through eggs that existed before fertilization.He also demonstrated reservations in spontaneous generation by supporting the beliefs of Christian Ehrenberg. Ehrenberg believed that infusoria had complex organ systems while other protozoologists, like Fèlix Dujardin, believed that infusoria were simple organisms that could appear spontaneously. Pouchet did not seem very interested in spontaneous generation during this time, and instead studied ovule production and menstruation. Debate with Pasteur

<mask> was 60 years old while Louis Pasteur was 37 years old when the heart of the debate about spontaneous generation began. Their opinions on generation originated from two competing theories. Pouchet believed in heterogenesis, which assumed that new living organisms came from inanimate objects, such as air. The parents of these new organisms were not the same species as the new organism.Pasteur supported the germ theory that said microorganisms arose from germs and those microorganisms came from parents of the same species. He supported the idea that germs were mostly everywhere, including things like air and those germs explained the appearance of microorganisms on different inanimate things. It is unclear why Pouchet shifted his interest to spontaneous generation, but in December 1858, Pouchet presented results to the French Academy of Sciences of two experiments he conducted that he claimed supported the notion of spontaneous generation. He said that his results were the opposite of Theodore Schwann’s results that demonstrated spontaneous generation did not exist. Schwann observed that after heating oxygen in a vessel, which was thought to be important for spontaneous generation, no microorganisms grew. He said that this was a result of the germs in the oxygen or air being destroyed by the heat. Pouchet claimed that when he did Schwann's experiment, microorganisms did grow, and thus germs in the air did not produce microorganisms.His experiments did not receive a positive reaction from the academy. Most of them thought his experiments were conducted poorly and that he did not effectively control for the intrusion of germs. The debate between the two men was not very public or intense at first. Pouchet received a letter from Pasteur on February 1859 that said that Pasteur respected his belief in spontaneous generation but did not agree with his evidence. Pasteur held the same belief of the academy and thought that Pouchet's experiments did not support spontaneous generation because his experiments were contaminated with germs. Pouchet took the criticism from the academy and tried to revise his experiments. However, this time, Pasteur took a stronger and more specific stance about his new experiments.He critiqued the fact that Pouchet again did not control for germs and that his flasks were contaminated by the dust in the mercury that was in his lab. Despite the criticism, Pouchet published his famous book Hétérogénie ou traité de la génération spontanée in 1859, which publicized his support of spontaneous generation. He claimed that his views of spontaneous generation were not like that of the older views of spontaneous generation that were labeled as atheistic, but were rather in agreement with the orthodox scientific and religious beliefs of the time. Pouchet claimed that it was the eggs of adult organisms that were spontaneously generated, not the adult organisms themselves. On January 30, 1860, the French Academy of Sciences declared that it would give out a prize for detailed and precise experiments that expanded on the subject of spontaneous generation. Pasteur decided to partake in this competition to combat Pouchet's support of spontaneous generation. He designed an experiment to deny the notion of spontaneous generation.He thought that if spontaneous generation were true in which air itself could cause generation, then all sterile swan neck flasks that were later exposed to air would generate microorganisms. If the germ theory were true, then he believed some of the sterile swan neck flasks would generate microorganisms when exposed to air and some would not because germs are distributed unevenly in air. Pasteur's results supported the germ theory and he showed them to the French Academy of Sciences. Pouchet rejected Pasteur's results because he thought that the atmosphere did not have enough germs to support these results; therefore, the microorganisms that were generated in his vessels were still not from germs. The French Academy of Sciences viewed Pasteur's experiments and observations as sophisticated and viewed Pouchet's experiments as ambiguous and unrefined. Along with this and due to the religious climate of this time, Pasteur had an advantage because his view that only life produces life was aligned with the views of the church. Pouchet eventually dropped out of the competition in November 1862 and Pasteur was awarded for his studies on spontaneous generation.History of science in the Middle Ages
Pouchet also wrote a history of science during the Middle Ages, which he titled Histoire des sciences naturelles au moyen age, ou Albert le Grand et son epoque considere comme point de depart de I'ecole experimentale. As the subtitle makes clear, the work centres on Albertus Magnus, the 13th century Dominican friar who was famous for his work on botany and astrology. In the work, Pouchet divides the history of Western science into three epochs: Greek, Roman and Christian. This was part of a general rewriting of Western intellectual history to mythologise it as a single inevitable progress towards the modern age. Pouchet also wrote a work titled L'univers: les infiniment grands et les infiniment petits, which detailed the richness of the earth's life forms within the context of the divine universe as a whole. References

"Felix Archimede Pouchet" Britannica article
 Obituary in:

External links

1800 births
1872 deaths
People from Rouen
French botanists
French biologists
French physiologists
Germ theory denialists
Recipients of the Legion of Honour

masks:
Félix Archimède Pouchet
Georges Pouchet
Pouchet
Pouchet


text_chunks:
<mask> (died 9 May 480), also known as just <mask>, ruled as Roman emperor of the West from 24 June 474 to 28 August 475. After losing power in Italy, <mask> retreated to his home province of Dalmatia, from which he continued to claim the western imperial title, with recognition from the Eastern Roman Empire, until he was murdered in 480. Though that distinction is most often awarded to <mask>' successor in Italy, Romulus Augustulus (475–476), <mask> is regarded by some historians as the last western Roman emperor, being the last widely recognised claimant to the position. A native of Dalmatia, <mask> began his career as the semi-autonomous governor of the province, succeeding his uncle Marcellinus, a prominent general, as  ('master of troops') of Dalmatia. After the death of the western emperor  Anthemius (467–472), who had been appointed by the eastern emperor Leo I (457–474), as well as Anthemius' successor Olybrius (472), Leo sought to assert his authority in the west, granting <mask> command of an army in December 473 to attack Italy and depose Glycerius (473–474), who had been proclaimed emperor by the Burgundian king Gundobad. <mask> left for Italy in the spring of 474, backed by Leo's successor Zeno, and landed with his army at Portus, near Rome. <mask> swiftly deposed Glycerius and was crowned western emperor in Rome on 24 June 474.He was the last emperor to be crowned in the city until Charlemagne in the ninth century. Whether the original intention of the invasion was to install <mask> as western emperor is unclear, but in any event, he was quickly recognised as the legitimate western emperor by Zeno. Nepos worked to restore the prestige and authority of the western empire, though mostly unsuccessfully. He may have repelled a Visigothic attack on Italy and managed to once more reduce the Burgundians into foederati. <mask> focused most of his attention on reasserting imperial control and authority in Gaul, but the western empire could no longer project enough strength to halt Visigothic conquests in the region. The failure to defeat the Visigoths in Gaul and Zeno's brief overthrowal in Constantinople by the usurper Basiliscus, weakened Nepos' already shaky position in Italy. In 475, <mask>' newly appointed magister militum Orestes revolted and marched on Ravenna, capital of the western empire.Unable to deal with Orestes' forces, <mask> fled back to Dalmatia and two months later, Orestes proclaimed his young son Romulus Augustulus as emperor. Although no longer in control of Italy, <mask> never renounced his claim to the western empire and continued to be recognised as the legitimate western emperor by the eastern empire. In 476, the barbarian general Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus and became the first king of Italy. <mask> repeatedly petitioned Zeno, who by then had defeated Basiliscus, for help in regaining control of Italy, though all he achieved was nominal recognition by Odoacer, who minted coins in <mask>' name but otherwise mostly ignored him. In 480, <mask> was murdered by two of his generals, Ovida and Viator, perhaps in Diocletian's Palace, possibly while planning an expedition of his own to recover Italy. Background

Geopolitical background

The idea that the Roman Empire had grown too large to efficiently be managed by one emperor, and was more appropriately governed by two co-ruling emperors, had become established by the time of emperor Diocletian (284–305) in the late 3rd century. Throughout the fourth century, various different divisions were made, until the empire was firmly and permanently divided into western and eastern spheres of imperial administration from the death of emperor Theodosius I (379–395) in 395 onwards.Though modern historians typically use the terms Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire to describe the new political situation, the Romans themselves never considered the empire to have been formally divided, still viewing it as a single unit, although most often having two rulers rather than one. The Western Roman Empire, more rural than the east, with fewer people and a less stable economy, and prone to an increasing number of Germanic barbarian invasions and settlements, experienced catastrophic decline throughout the 5th century. In 410, the Visigoths under Alaric I had sacked Rome and in 455, the last western emperor of the Theodosian dynasty, Valentinian III (425–455), was deposed and murdered. That same year, Rome was sacked again for the second time in less than fifty years, this time by the Vandals under Gaiseric, who captured Valentinian's widow, Licinia Eudoxia, and two of his daughters, Eudocia and Placidia. The Western Roman army gradually became increasingly reliant on barbarian mercenaries. After Valentinian's murder, the most powerful barbarian generals, such as Ricimer, became politically dominant, ruling through proclaiming puppet emperors. In the time between the death of Valentinian and the accession of <mask>, a period of less than twenty years, seven different emperors ruled the west and effective imperial control was only exercised in Italy, Raetia and some regions of Gaul.Ancestry and family

<mask> was a native of the Roman province of Dalmatia. Dalmatia, although politically, economically and geographically oriented towards the Western Roman Empire, had formally been under the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire since 437, when the western emperor Valentinian III had ceded it to the east. In practical terms, the province was often more or less autonomous. <mask> was the son of Nepotianus (died 465), a general who served under the western emperor Majorian (457–461), and the nephew of the  ('master of troops', a high-ranking military officer) Marcellinus (died 468), being the son of one of Marcellinus' sisters. <mask> may have been part of a prominent local Roman family in Dalmatia. This is supported by memorial inscriptions from four roughly contemporary individuals; Aelia Nepotes, Aelia <mask>, another <mask> and Nepotes, having been identified from Dalmatia. <mask>' uncle Marcellinus was a prominent late Roman general, having fought the Vandals in several campaigns and playing a notable role in momentarily fending off Vandal attempts at controlling Sardinia.In 461, after the murder of emperor Majorian by Ricimer, Marcellinus appears to have planned to invade Italy to depose Ricimer's puppet emperor Libius Severus (461–465), but he was dissuaded from this course of action by the eastern emperor Leo I (457–474). <mask> married a Roman noblewoman whose name is not recorded, but who was related to the eastern empress Verina, possibly a niece of Leo I.

Marcellinus had by the time of his death been a semi-autonomous governor in Dalmatia and after his death, <mask> inherited this position. <mask> is first attested on 1 June 473, when he is described as , although it is possible that he had held that rank ever since Marcellinus' death. <mask> might have held this position until he became emperor in 474, by which point he had also become a patrician. Appointment
After the death of the western emperor Anthemius (467–472) as well as his successor Olybrius (472), who had not been recognised in the east, Leo I, the sole remaining Roman emperor, maintained that he had the right to select the new western emperor. At first, Leo did not act on this right, perhaps because he had no suitable candidates to promote or because of the violent end of Anthemius, who had been previously appointed by Leo I. In March 473, the Burgundian king Gundobad, nephew of Ricimer, appointed the  (commander of the palace guard) Glycerius as western emperor.Angered by this, Leo appointed <mask> as the commander of an army to attack Italy and depose Glycerius. Why Leo waited so long to appoint <mask> is not known, but by this time the winter meant that <mask> could not take action against Glycerius for a few months. By appointing <mask> to lead the invasion, Leo not only sought to assert his authority in the west, but perhaps also hoped to rid himself of a possible rival in the east. After the political situation in Constantinople had stabilised sufficiently in the aftermath of Leo I's death on 18 January 474, <mask> left for Italy in the spring of 474, with the backing of the new eastern emperor Zeno. Reign

Emperor in Italy (474–475)

<mask> and his force landed at Portus, near Rome, where he was promptly proclaimed , per the procedure preceding elevation to the rank of  (emperor). On 24 June, having deposed Glycerius, <mask> was proclaimed the western Augustus in Rome. Nepos thus accomplished the exact intervention into Italy that had been planned by his uncle Marcellinus some years prior.<mask> was the last emperor to be crowned in Rome until the coronation of Charlemagne in 800. Glycerius put up no resistance against <mask>, and his life was spared, being consecrated as bishop of Salona, the provincial capital of Dalmatia. It is not clear if <mask> becoming emperor had been the eastern plan, but in any event he was swiftly recognised as the legitimate western emperor by Zeno. Few records of <mask>' reign survive and little is known of his activities. He is known to have issued coins throughout Italy, such as at Rome, Ravenna and Mediolanum. Coinage minted in northern Gaul in his name indicates that his rule was accepted by the Roman general

masks:
Julius Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Julius Nepos
Julius Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Julius Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos


text_chunks:
 Syagrius, who ruled a more or less autonomous province of his own there. Nepos also issued symbolic coins of Zeno and his junior colleague Leo II, indicating his close ties and gratitude to the eastern court.Nepos worked to restore imperial prestige. Through his initial efforts, a Visigothic attack on Italy appears to have been repelled and the Burgundians were once again made into foederati (barbarian allies of the empire). It appears that <mask> mainly directed his efforts to attempting to restore and consolidate imperial authority in Gaul. The remaining imperial territories in Gaul were at the time being invaded by Euric, king of the Visigoths, who hoped to take control of the province Aquitania Prima. To combat the threat, <mask> appointed Ecdicius, a son of the former western emperor Avitus (455–456) as patrician and magister militum. Per the surviving writings of contemporary Gallo-Roman authors, such as Sidonius Apollinaris, <mask>' accession was enthusiastically accepted in the remaining imperial possessions in Gaul. Ecdicius successfully managed to relieve a Visigothic siege of Arles in 474, but he was less successful in 475 as there simply was not enough remaining military resources to achieve victory.Even after Ecdicius had proven unable to defeat the Visigoths, the threat of imperial invasion made Euric willing to negotiate with Nepos. In the spring of 475, <mask> sent as his ambassadors to Euric a group of Roman bishops, which included Epiphanius of Pavia, who had previously brokered peace between Ricimer and emperor Anthemius. Although Epiphanius and his delegation apparently achieved peace, a second delegation was sent later in 475, consisting of the bishops Leontius of Arles, Faustus of Riez, Graecus of Marseilles, and Basilius of Aix, possibly tasked with working out the concrete terms of the peace treaty. The Romans in Gaul, including Sidonius Apollinaris, were shocked to learn that the peace had involved ceding the Auvergne region to the Visigoths in turn for them leaving the rest of what remained under imperial control in Gaul alone. <mask>' failure to actually defeat the Visigoths, combined with Zeno being overthrown in Constantinople in early 475 by the usurper Basiliscus, weakened <mask>' position, which had been shaky in Italy from the very beginning. In his foreign policy <mask> also had to deal with the Vandals, who ruled North Africa, and their renewed and increased pirate attacks throughout the Mediterranean. Because of the weak position of the western empire, there was little else Nepos could do than to recognise the Vandal rule over the territories they had already taken in Africa and throughout the Mediterranean, such as the islands of Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearics, as well as parts of Sicily.After the failure of the Nepos' politics in Gaul, <mask> dismissed Ecdicius and replaced him as  with Orestes, a distinguished officer who had once served as  (secretary) to the Hunnic king Attila. <mask> tasked Orestes with again leading an army against the Visigoths, and against the Burgundians, who were rebelling, in southern Gaul. Orestes' army included many foederati ally troops, and Orestes learnt that they were upset with the emperor, who had refused their requests to be granted land. With the backing of this army, Orestes betrayed <mask>' orders and instead marched on Ravenna, the capital of the western empire. Hoping to maintain control, <mask> recalled Ecdicius from Gaul, but he was unable to arrive in time. On 28 August 475, Orestes entered Ravenna with his army and <mask> escaped across the Adriatic Sea to Salona in Dalmatia, having ruled in Italy for only 14 months. On 31 October, Orestes proclaimed his young son, Romulus Augustulus, as emperor.Exile in Dalmatia (475–480)

Little is known of <mask>' later activities in Dalmatia due to the scarcity of surviving sources. <mask> never renounced his claim to the western empire, and continued to be recognised in the east instead of Romulus Augustulus. Throughout his time in exile, <mask> hoped to regain control of Italy. On 4 September 476, Romulus Augustulus was deposed by the barbarian general Odoacer, who became the first king of Italy. Odoacer sent Romulus' western imperial regalia to Zeno in the east, and swore allegiance to him, ruling without further imperial successors in the west. Odoacer considered the Roman Empire from this point on as only requiring a single emperor, ruling from Constantinople. At the same time, an embassy from Nepos arrived in Constantinople, congratulating Zeno on regaining Constantinople from Basiliscus and requesting his assistance in restoring <mask> to power in Italy.Zeno responded to the ambassadors sent by Odoacer, members of the Roman Senate, that they had killed one east-supported emperor (Anthemius) and driven one out (<mask>) and that they would do well in receiving <mask> back as their ruler. Zeno also stated that Odoacer would do best in receiving the rank of patrician, which he had requested, not from Zeno, but from the legal western ruler, <mask>, although Zeno promised to grant the rank if <mask> would not. Zeno also urged Odoacer to accept <mask> back as emperor in Italy. Although Zeno, and Verina, who remained influential at court, officially supported <mask>' restoration and continued to regard him as the western emperor, he was not granted the necessary military support or funding to retake Italy. Odoacer only nominally accepted <mask>' rule, minting coins in the names of <mask> and Zeno in Italy and perhaps providing Nepos with a pension, and in practice ignored him. In 477 or 478, <mask> again petitioned Zeno to help him retake Italy. Also in 477, some of the remaining imperial possessions in southern Gaul rebelled against Odoacer, probably intending to fight for the restoration of Nepos.Zeno received embassies from both Odoacer and Gaul, but was forced to support Odoacer given that supporting the Gallic rebels against Odoacer would have amounted to declaring war on Odoacer, which Zeno was not prepared to do. In 479, <mask>' hopes may have been ignited when Theodoric, the king of the Ostrogoths, offered to pledge his troops to fight for <mask>' claim. <mask> was murdered on 9 May 480, at his villa near Salona, possibly the same building as Diocletian's Palace, by members of his retinue, the  Ovida and Viator. It is possible that the former emperor Glycerius, whom Nepos had deposed, also played a leading role in the murder, possibly as the instigator. If Glycerius was not the instigator, it is possible that the murder was caused by <mask> in 480 actively beginning to prepare his forces for a real attempt at recovering Italy militarily, and that his supporters in Dalmatia were unwilling to embark on such an adventure. Though the chroniclers of the time wrote of <mask>' violent and unexpected death, it was given little attention and no actions were taken against his murderers for quite some time. Only in late 481 or 482 did Odoacer invade Dalmatia and put Ovida, who had become the ruler of the province, to death, using <mask>' murder as a convenient pretext to conquer the province for himself, a move that was indirectly acknowledged by the eastern empire given that there was no attempt to stop him.After <mask>' death, Odoacer recognised Zeno as his new suzerain and Zeno did not appoint a new western emperor, becoming the first proper sole Roman emperor of the entire empire since the death of Theodosius I in 395 (though he continued to only formally control the eastern provinces). Legacy
<mask>' successor in Italy, Romulus Augustulus, is typically regarded as the last western Roman emperor, though several historians argue that this distinction is better applied to <mask>, given that he continued to rule in Dalmatia with the imperial title and the full recognition, albeit not full military support, of the eastern empire until he was murdered in 480. Romulus Augustulus by strange coincidence shares the name of both the founder of Rome (Romulus) and its first emperor (Augustus), which may, in addition to being the last western emperor to rule Italy, have contributed to him being viewed as the last emperor over <mask>. <mask> shares a similar coincidence, in that he shares his first name, <mask>, with <mask>, Augustus' adoptive father and predecessor as authoritarian ruler of the Roman state. By the time of <mask>' death in 480, the Western Roman Empire was gone and <mask> had, in the words of the Roman historian Ralph W. Mathisen, become an "unwanted anachronism"; a hindrance to Odoacer who wished to expand into Dalmatia himself and an embarrassment to Zeno, who could not offer him his full support. Though his death was seen as marking the end of the line of emperors in the west, it was barely acknowledged at the time. By the 6th century, eastern Roman historians no longer recognised <mask>' reign in Dalmatia from 475 to 480 as a legitimate continuation of his imperial reign: the 6th-century eastern historians Marcellinus Comes, Procopius and Jordanes all considered Romulus Augustulus to have been the last western emperor.Notes

References

Bibliography

5th-century births
480 deaths
5th-century Christians
5th-century murdered monarchs
5th-century Roman emperors
Deaths by stabbing in Croatia
House of <mask>
Murdered Roman emperors
Year of birth

masks:
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Julius
Julius Caesar
Nepos
Nepos
Nepos
Leo Nepos