Charles Martel: the Hammer of Francia. (686-741)

Whenever we turn our eyes to the Carolingean dynasty, it's most common that we have in mind Charlemagne, who, reasonably so, was responsible for most of his military conquests in High Middle Ages. Not very behind him, though, it was his grandfather, Charles Martel, who was also encharged for shaping the country we know as France, but in his days had another name: Francia. Like Charlemagne in a few generations later, Charles was also a religious man and his military skills were the cause why the islamics never conquered Francia, in the beginning of their retreat to Middle West.

But his life was hardly easy from the beginning. Charles Martel (Deustch: Karl Martel) was born in 686. His father was Pepin II of Herstal and possibly his mistress, sometimes acknowledged as his second wife, a noblewoman named Alpaida, in days where poligamy was tolerated, and which might explain that assuming Charles was illegitimate, perhaps is not the ideal. Regardless of his situation, he was the son of the Mayor of Austrasia, located in the eastern Frankish kingdom. The Mayor was a position of officers who encharged of managing the king's household before becoming guardian to minor kings. However, even when those reached majority, the Mayors still:

"(...) acted as chief officer of the government in his name. And as several of the young kings, even when they were old enough to rule, gave less attention to business than to pleasure, the mayors continued to do all the business, until at last they did everything that the king ought to have done. They made war, led armies in battle, raised money and spent it, and carried on the government as they pleased, without consulting the king."

 "(...) It meant the mayor of leader of the palace, eventually evolving into the role of king. At the time of Charles' birth, the Merovingian line of kings was failing. The Mayor overshadowed the king, reducing the actual king (in this case, Dagobert III) to little more than a figurehead. Pepin II had absolute power to include control of the treasury and the dispensation of offices."

Having been perceived how great being a Mayor was, it's almost no surprise to tell that this position would be disputed between Charles and the first wife of his father, on behalf of their eight-year-old son after Pepin's death. In fact, at his deathbed, he was convinced by Plectrude to give his position as Mayor transferred to their young son. Although part of the nobility of Austrasia had accept it, the noblemen of Neustria refused Theudoald as the new Mayor, especially since Plectrude would act as regent until his majority. As a result, a Civil War would implode and Charles Martel was imprisoned in Cologne within a year by Plectrued, who feared that his figure would rise uprisings all over Francia, which eventually came to happen, but he managed to escape from this imprisonment after obtaining the support of the Austrasian nobility. Consequently, Charles self proclaimed as Mayor of Francia.

This Civil War was marked by two important battles that would leave an important impression into the young Charles Martel. The first, as we known the Battle of Cologne, was the first and possibly only defeat of Charles in his whole life. This happened because he did not gather enough men to beat the army of Neustrians, otherwise known as western Franks, joined by their Germanic allies named Frisians. 

The second was the Battle of Amblève, in another Frankish region named Austrasia, a decisive battle where Charles used innovatives methods alongside his allies to defeat the Neustrians and Frisians rivals, led by King Chilperic II, mayor Ragenfrid and the Duke of Frisians, Radbod. As we can see in the next paragraph:

"Charles caught up with the retreating Neustrian Army near Malmedy at the Battle of Ableve and completely routed them. This battle would prove Martel innovative on the battlefield, something that would mark him in future conflicts."

"He appeared where his enemies least expected him, while they were marching triumphantly home and far outnumbered him. He also attacked when least expected, at midday, when armies of that era traditionally were resting. Finally, he attacked them how they least expected it, by feigning a retreat to draw his opponents into a trap. The feigned retreat, next to unknown in Western Europe at that time--it was a traditionally eastern tactic--required both extraordinary discipline on the part of the troops and exact timing on the part of their commander. Charles, in this battle, had begun demonstrating the military brilliance that would mark his rule."

As a result of the intern conflit, he "restored centralized government in Francia and began the series of military campaigns that reestablished the Franks as the undisputed masters of all Gaul." Little by little, Charles started an union over the Frankish reunion, especially by seizing lands or being acknowledged as the overlord of some otherwise independent duchies. It's also remarked that feudalism had its beginning under his command. It must be remembered as well that Charles was no king of the Franks just yet, despite rulling the region as if he was one. Once his internal matters were resolved, or the most important of these anyway, he was acknowledged as Mayor, Prince and Duke of Francia. 

As for his relationship with the Church, it was general good. He was, in fact, a :

"great patron of Saint Boniface and made the first attempt at reconciliation between the Papacy and the Franks. The Pope wished him to become the defender of the Holy See and offered him the Roman consulship. Martel refused the offer"

Where foreign policy is concerned, Christiniaty in general was concerned with the advance of the empire of the Islamics. Compared to Byzantinum's, or perhaps in response to it, the Islamics have not only enlarged in matters of territory, but their ambitions pushed it forward into Western Europe. After their conquest in the Iberian Peninsula, the Islamic turned their eyes to the Franks, believing this to be an easy conquest as it was a spread belief that the Frankish kings did absolutely nothing. But they would be proved wrong. 

"Charles' attention was called to foreign conflicts, and dealing with the Islamic advance (...) was a foremost concern. Arab and Berber islamic forces had conquered Spain (711), crossed the Pyrenees (720), seized a major dependency of the Visgoths (721-725), and after intermittent challenges, under Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, the Arab Governor of al-Andalus, advanced toward Gaul and on Tours, "the holy town of Gaul": in October 732, , the army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by Al Ghafiqi met Frankish and Burgundian forces under Charles in an area between the cities of Tours and Poitiers (...), leading to a decisive, historically important Frankish victory known as the Battle of Tours (...), ending the "last of the great Arab invasions of France", a military victory termed "brilliant" on the part of Charles."

Had this Battle of Tours, very important in the Frankish History because of the victory of Charles Martel, a different result, it's certain to say Christianity would be all converted to Arabs and fall into their domain. As we can understand it better below:

"The Battle of Tours (...) was fought on October 10, 732 between forces under the Frankish leader Charles Martel and a massive invading Islamic army led by Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman, near the city of Tours, France. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed. This battle stopped northward advance of Islam from the Iberian peninsula, and is considered by most historians to be of macrohistorical importance, in that it haltd the Islamic conquests, and preserved Christianity as the controlling faith in Europe, during a period in which Islam was overruning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires."

There are estimatives that the Frankish army defending Gaul were between 15,000 and 75,000; whilst the Muslims had around 60,000 and 400,00 in cavalry, though these numbers can be lesser than it is thought. Whatever the certain number is, what is commonly believed by most accounts is that the entire Muslim army was present at the Battle. 

After the victory at the Battle of Tours was granted on the Franks' side, Charles turned against "fellow Christian realms, establishing Frankish control over Bavaria, Alemannia, and Frisia, and compelling some of the Saxon tribes to offer tribute."

In his personal life, there is little to be known, except that he was possibly married twice. The first to a noblewoman named Rotrude of Treves with whom he had five children before her death in 724: Hiltrude, Carloman, Landrade, Auda, and Pippin the Younger. After Rotrude's death, he was married to Swanhild, with whom he had a son Grifo. It's also said that he had some mistresses, named Ruodhaid, who produced four children: Bernard, Hieronymus, Remigius, and Ian.

In general words, we understand the political aspects of Charles Martel as Mayor, Prince and Duke of Franks as the emerging of a realm more unified and a monarchy more centralized, modelling the characteristics that would shape politics later better developed in the reigns of Hugh Capet, Philippe IV and Louis XII. "The responsibilities of the knights of court, and so in the development of the Frankish system of feudalism" were also observed throughout the period of Charles Martel as main governor of Francia, being its sovereign in all but name. Lastly,

"from 737 until his death in 741, Charles focused on the administration of his realm and expanding his influence. This included subduing Burgundy in 739. These years also saw Charles lay the groundwork for his heirs' sucession following his death. When he died on October 22, 741, his lands were divided between his sons Carloman and Pippin III. The latter would father the next Carolingian leader, Charlemagne. Charles' remains were interred at the Basilica of St Denis near Paris."

The strong administration that marked his reign would be followed by Pepin, who, at first, reigned together with his brother Carloman, but once he sought a religious life to live, becoming a monk, Pepin solely ruled as Pepin III. As the son that would succeeded him in turn, Pepin continued to spread his father's legacy in what France would later be.

Bibliography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel

https://www.boundless.com/world-history/textbooks/boundless-world-history-i-ancient-civilizations-enlightenment-textbook/the-middle-ages-in-europe-9/the-carolingian-dynasty-45/charles-martel-and-pepin-the-short-974-17581/

http://study.com/academy/lesson/charles-martel-biography-battle-of-tours.html

http://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=academy&s=char-dir&f=martel

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03629a.htm

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/tours.html

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswarsto1000/p/tours.htm

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/remembering-the-crusaders-charles-the-hammer-martel-the-hero-of-the-age/

http://www.authorama.com/famous-men-of-the-middle-ages-11.html

William de Warenne: The Lion of Scotland (1143-1214)

We begin the last month of the year with William of the House of Dunkeld, first of his name to rule over Scotland from 1143 until his death in 1214. He, who was known as the lion of the Scots after his life, was a contemporary of another lion: the king of England, Henry II, and his sons, Richard I and John. Perhaps if he was not a contemporary of the Plantagenets, the Angevin Emperors, William I of Scotland would be luckier? A question we might never get the answer. 

William, who received the nickname "the Lion" after his death because of his association in using a lion in his flag and preferred to be identified as "William de Warenne", was born circa 1143 as the second son of Henry of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon, son of King David I of Scotland, and Ada de Warenne. We've had no access to William's education, and what we know of him is after 1165, the year he succeeded his older brother Malcolm IV as King of Scotland and crowned at Scone Abbey on 24 December that same year. In comparison to his late brother, William was:

"powerfully built, redheaded and headstrong. He was an effective monarch whose reign was marred by his ill-fated attemps to regain control of Northumbria from the Normans."

From the beginning, as we can perceive from the quote above, William attempted to regain the earldom of Northumbria that his brother Malcolm IV was forced to give to Henry II of England under the threat of invasion. This would be a point of William's reign where he had based many of his decisions in taking the earldom back, probably because he looked back at the reign of his grandfather, David I. But, in reality, David of Dunkeld was only lord of half of the English lands because he took advantage from the Civil War between Matilda and Stephen.

Nonetheless, the refusal of Henry II in giving William the earldom leaded to the complications of the Anglo-Scottish relations. Where government is concerned, William was energetic and stubborn. In one of his -almost- constant conflicts with England, he is support to have:

"(...) recklessly charged the English troops himself, shouting: "Now we shall see which of us are good knights!". He was unhorsed and captured by Henry's troops led by Ranulf de Glanvill and taken in chains to Newcastle, then Northampton, and then transferred to Falaise in Normandy. Henry then sent an army to Scotland and occupied it. As ransom and to regain his kingdom, William had to acknowledge Henry as his feudal superior and agree to pay for the cost of English army's occupation of Scotland by taxing the Scots. The church of Scotland was also subjected to that of England. This he did by signing the Treaty of Falaise. He was then allowed to return to Scotland. In 1175, he swore fealty to Henry II at York Castle."

As a result of the signing of this Treaty, Henry II chose William I a wife, this being a great-granddaughter of King Henry I of England. Her name was Ermengarde de Beaumont, with whom he had four children, Alexander II and three girls who were married into English aristocracy. By the time they were married, William was in his 40's and, despite having sired a few illegitimate children with two mistresses -or more-, he remained faithful to Ermengarde. They were married thus at Woodstock Palace, Oxfordshire. His faithfulness might be explained based on his fondness of the Norman chilvaric culture that was a trending back then: in fact, he had brought to his court constantly young knights, with great festivities and tournments. William also did not speak Gaelic or English, but French instead. It is also why he used his maternal surname, for he felt more connected with his Norman connections than to those of his father's. 

However, to many Scots this treaty represented one of its worst ways of humiliations so, consequently, revolts broke out. One of them came from the descendants of Duncan II, but it was severely repressed, and eventually agreements were dealt in order to favour both parts. Relations with England were marked by these tensions caused by the ambitions of the monarchs from both countries. Yet, where William is concerned, we must remember that he:

"(...) had an agressive personality- ambitious, headstrong and driven by an obsessive crusade to recover the earldom of Northumberland, which Malcolm had been forced to concede to Henry II in 1157. It would prove to be the driving force of his long reign and not surprisingly a cause of tension with Henry II. After persistently failing to persuade Henry to just give it back, William angered him further by making overtures to his great rival, Louis VII of France. Impressively, William was responsible for a legendary display of Plantagenet rage on Henry's part:

"On a certain day when King Henry was at Caen, and was eagerly conducting the affair that he had with the king of Scotland, he broke out in insulting language against Richard de Hamez, who seemed to be speaking to some extent in the king of Scotland's favour. And the king, roused to his usual fury, flung his cap from his head, put off his belt, threw far from him the mantle and clothes that he had on: removed with his own hands the silken coverlet that was over the couch: and, sitting as it were in a manure-heap, began to chew the stalks of straw." [John of Salisbury to Thomas Becket]

When Henry II was succeeded by his oldest surviving son, Richard I, Anglo-Scottish relations were hardly improved, with Richard refusing the earldom to William. He, however, did not support John's rebellion against Richard and when John became king, with the continue decline of having the earldom restaured, William threatened to support Arthur of Brittany's claims to the English crown, Despite the constant tensions and threatenings from both sides, William would never get the earldom he so desired.

Nonetheless, though his reign was mainly marked by tensions with Scottish earls and English kings, it must be remembered that it was under William's reign that the famous Auld Alliance with France was established. Considering also Scotland as a whole country, economy was satisfying and relations with the Church were good also, with the Pope claiming that the Church of Scotland was a "favourite daughter" of Rome. In other words:

"He [William] threw himself into government with energy and diligently followed the lines laid down by his grandfather, David I. Anglo-French settlements and feudalization were extended, new burghs founded, criminal law clarified, the responsibilities of justices and sheriffs widened, and trade grew. Arbroath Abbey was founded (1178), and the bishopric of Argyll established (c.1192) in the same year as papal confirmation of the Scottish church by Pope Celestine III."

Also:

"William's long reign was an important one for the growing nation state in Scotland. John of Fordun's moniker of 'the lion of justice' is perhaps a little strong, but royal justice was now spreading further over Scotland and with more central control than ever before. William himself  presided over cases and Scottish law codes tended to match the law codes coming out of England, where Henry II was introducing major reforms. William also oversaw improvements to Scotland's economy, fouding various new burghs (i.e market towns), levying customs duties at seaports and overseeing a transition to a money economy (rather than just bartering goods) thanks to a significant improvement in Scottish mints, which were now equal in value to English coins and so viable abroad."

It is said, according to a legend, that in 1206 he cured a case of a child with scrofula by the touch of his hands whilst blessing the child. Six years later, in December 12th, William died, at Stirling Castle. He would be buried at Arbroath Abbey, which was founded by him to honour, some say, Thomas Beckett, and was succeded by his only son Alexander II, who reigned in Scotland from 1214 until his own death in 1249.

Bibliography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Lion

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/dunkeld_9.htm

https://rexfactor.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/william-the-lion-1165-1214/

http://www.timeref.com/people/hpr383.htm

https://thehistoryjar.com/tag/william-the-lion/

http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/E0036924109000869

http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/william-i-king-of-scots-the-lion/

http://www.scottish-history.com/origins5.shtml

Mary of Habsburg: Queen of Hungary & Governor of the Netherlands (1505-1558)

                               

On today's blog, we will be discussing the life of one of the children of Queen Joanna of Castile, unfairly known as Juana la Loca (English: Joanna the Mad) due to her said attack of madness, and her husband, Philippe the Handsome, the Habsburg son of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I who was known for being a prince with very good features... and also for his infidelities. Their offspring had lots of Queens, Kings and Emperors, of those, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V being the most famous and his sister Eleanor, twice consort for two kings of distant countries: Portugal, in her first marriage, and France, in her second.

But today the topic is about one of Queen Joanna's less spoken children, Mary of Habsburg, who was not only Queen of Hungary but a Governor of the Netherlands on behalf of her brother, Charles. So who was this woman, well spoken by Erasmus  whose beauty we can attest by her portraits above? What were the greatest achievements whilst a politician? That is precise what we intend to find out next.

After facing very difficulties in labour, with her life in risk, Queen Joanna of Castile finally gave birth to her third daughter, whom she named Mary (Spanish: Maria). The archduchess, known then as Mary of Austria, was born in Brussels on 15 September, and would be sent at an early age to be educated at the court of her paternal aunt, Margaret of Austria, after the mental breakdown of her mother around 1506. Earlier that year, before her depart, her grandfather, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, negotiated to have her married to an unborn heir to the crown of Hungary.

After she was placed under the care of Margaret of Austria, alongside her siblings Isabel, Eleanor and Charles, the alliance with Hungary was confirmed upon the birth of the heir Louis, and "when she was eight years old, Mary left Margaret of Austria's court at Mechelen and traveled to Maximilian's court in Vienna in preparation for the conclusion of his proposed alliance."

To reinforce this alliance with Hungary, a sister of Louis, Anne, was offered the hand of either the two brothers of Mary, who turned out to be Ferdinand. So Anne was also sent to Maximilian's court to be educated alongside Mary and there:

"(...) the fourteen-year-old Anne knelt next to Maximilian, renounced her title as "empress" and was married by proxy to Maximilian's grandson. Following this ceremony, the "little queens", now sisters-in-law, were sent to Innsbruck."

What we know about Archduchess Mary's education is that she received a very good education from excellent tutors. Her grandfather also encouraged her hunting activities, an habit she would still practice, though her passion were much more like culture, music and arts, as seen in the paragraph below:

"That year [1516], Mary's father-in-law died, making Louis and Mary king and queen of Hungary and Bohemia. Mary moved to Innsbruck, where she was educated until 1521. Maximilian encouraged her interest in hunting, while childhood lessons prompted an interest in music. This passion would later be demonstrated during her tenure as governor of the Netherlands."

Once her marriage was celebrated on 11 December 1520, and the next year she departed to Hungary, it was then during the period afterwards when the royal couple was blessed in Buda, that she and Louis fell in love. At first, because of her youth, Mary held little influence at court, but it was not too soon until she surrounded herself with German and Dutch influences, which "formed the base for the interests of the House of Habsburg" and made use of her authority by putting to an end factions that divided court. As we can perceive next:

"By 1524, (...) the new queen had negotiated considerable influence and authority for herself, and by 1525, in a "spectacular coup", she gained even more when she assumed control of one powerful political faction and put down the threat, for the moment, of another. A friend wrote to the humanistic scholar Erasmus expressing the hope and regret of many: "If she could only be changed into a king, our affairs would be in better shape."

Often, Mary and Louis were seen riding and hunting when they were not busy trying to contain Hungary from the political threats coming from the Ottoman Empire. Hungarian nobility was quite a problem from the weak Louis, who had "inherited the crown of a country whose noblemen were fighting among themselves and against the peasantry." It is no surprise to understand that, consequently, the country was very divided and that made easy to Ottoman Empire break in. Louis eventually leaded the army against the Ottomans, and though he was close to a victory, he slipped from his frightened horse and died drowned after the Battle of Mohács.

Following the death of her husband, whom she would mourn for the rest of her life, Queen Mary sought her brother, Ferdinand, recently elected King of Bohemia, to alert him about the Hungarian defeat and...

"sending him a warning: 'I fear the Turk will not stop at my lord brother's borders.' Shortly thereafter, an urgent message was sent to the archduke, urging him to come immediately to Hungary's aid--until he could arrive, troops were requested to support Mary 'so that the kingdom does not fall away from us entirely and Your Serene Highness can the better come into Hungary with her help'."

As a result, the Queen Dowager was chosen to be the regent on behalf of Ferdinand, though this was done against her will. Nonetheless, as dutiful as she was, she "spent the following year working to secure the election of Ferdinand as King of Hungary." There was an attempt of resigning, but her request was denied at least until summer of 1527, when he assumed the crown.

Subsequently,

"Hungary was divided into three parts: Ottoman Hungary- a part of the Ottoman Empire, Royal Hungary- ruled by Mary's brother Ferdinand, and Eastern Hungarian Kingdom- ruled by John Zápolya."

In the next year, her aunt Margaret suggested a marriage to King James V of Scotland, of which Mary refused, claiming that, for having loved her husband, she would not be capable of loving again, so she had no wishes for another marriage. Another brother of Mary, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, Charles, proposed Frederick of Bavaria instead, who had unsuccessfully tried to court Eleanor, Mary's sister, years before. But again Mary refused.

Ferdinand, by 1528, offered the position of regent in Netherland, but Mary declined, claiming that "such affairs need a person wiser than I am", though he would persist in drawing her to politics especially after communicating the death of their aunt, Margaret of Austria the year after, leaving the post of Governor of the Netherlands vacant. Thus, this was offered by Charles V to his sister, who reluctantly thought about whether was wiser to decline or accept.

"As her biographer Jane de Iongh states Mary's dilemma, on the one hand she could remain a queen "without a country, without a crown, without money", but with some measure of independence. On the other, she could assume the regency of the Netherlands which offered action, responsibilities, and power--but no independence.

 In her response of 29 January, Mary agreed to take over the regency for Charles. In October, she was invested with the power to uphold the law, to receive petitions, to supervise legislation  and finances, to command the army, and to head the various governors of the provinces: "In short, she received the right to perform everything that could serve to maintain the sovereign's authority and the welfare of the country."

As Governor of the Netherlands, Mary was a sole ruler, even though she was so on behalf of her brother, the Emperor, who, as he told herself, could not always be in every place, so he trusted in the members of his family to play this role. However, it was observed that many female rulers were either unmarried or widows who masculinized themselves in order to hold authority. With Mary this was no different. Because of that, she is often seen as "authoritarian" unlike her charismatic aunt, who was much praised for her beauty and intelligence.

But was she really "authoritarian"? She was forced to deal with several rebellions, had her complaints and asks for help ignored by her brother Charles, and saw no other way but to declare war against France. In a world where power was largely associated to strenght and this latter, to men, Mary eventually masculinized herself, as she would later say that because of her gender she was hardly taken seriously by her counterparts or even by Charles.

In matters concerning their nieces Dorothea and Christina who, after the death of their mother, Isabella, Queen of Denmark, were under the care of Margaret, they were sent to Mary's after Margaret's past away. At her court, they were educated and Mary also helped in planning their marriages for...

"Charles, like his Habsburg grandfather, decided to follow the course of "happy Austria" in using marriage to effect in arranging political alliances."

In here we find one more time conflicts between Mary and Charles; though it is true that, in one hand, he relies on her and trusts in her capacibility in reigning on his behalf, on the other, he values above all opinions his own and not of those he trusts. For example: Mary argued with her brother that Christina was far too young to consummate her marriage with the duke of Milan, providing him with religious and social arguments how against she was with this act, but he ignored. She then delayed it, claiming first Christina to be sick, before going to some part of Netherland to resolve the matter, until she could do so no longer for Christina had reached the age of 12, as we can see in the following paragraph:

"At this, Mary of Austria responded, for once, as her biography notes, abadoning 'the humble attitude of modest pupil' which she had adopted with her brother and speaking with a 'conviction and a confidence in her own judgment that cannot have escaped Charles despite the careful terms in which her letter was couched':

I reply to Your Majesty...only to unburden my conscience... and to warn you of the difficulties I think I discern... I am of the opinion that it contravenes the law of God and all reason to have her marry so young, before she is twelve years old... I hold it not only contrary to God's command, but I am moreover convinced that you may endanger her life, should she become pregnant before she is altogether a woman. It has often happened that in such cases neither the mother nor the child has survived the birth.

Monseigneur, I am aware that I have said more about this matter, and that I express myself more clumsily, than is desirable. I beg you to forgive me, for my conscience and the love I bear the child compel me to it." 

Christina was not long married when, some years later, she returned a widow to her aunt's court. At this year, she received a propose from King Henry VIII of England, a match that Mary great disapproved and used all of her will to  disencourage it, in spite of Charles' insistances. With Henry VIII's excommunication, however, she managed to convince her brother.

What it may seem stubborness for some and determination for others was a cause for disagreement of the two siblings for long years, but, in spite of them, it is assumed that, though she was not his favourite sister, they were fond of each other and had mutual respect. But it must be remembered that he left Mary in a charge she was unwilling to take from the beginning, despite her sense of duty led her to do the art of government well, and ignored her pleadges for help. She faced difficulties that often made her try to resign, receiving always a decline on the part of Charles. And that is how we understand why she is unfairly seen as "authoritary".

But unlike other contemporaries, like Henry VIII of England or François I of France, she did try to use peace as a mean to achieve her goals, especially within her family. When Charles V abdicate his Holy Roman Empire crown and intended to pass to his son, she had to mediate it for Ferdinand was protesting over the matter. Her relationship with Philippe, her nephew, though, was no better than the one she had with Charles, though it may be assumed that even with Charles she had a better one. It is probably a cause why she wrote a long letter explaining the reasons for resigning one more time. Despite the protests of her brother and her nephew, for apparently she excelled in governing Netherlands for the Spanish Crown, she had her request finally granted.

Mary joined her recently widowed sister Eleanor and returned to Castile, despite fearing to live in a country she was never introduced to its language and costume. So she then flew from Ghent with Eleanor and Charles and was very devasted when they came to die in 1558. But before he died, Charles had requested his sister to be Governor once more, a promise she came to make and was ready to fulfill, but she was too weak and feverish and died in October that same year.

What we learn about Mary, at least in our humble point of view, is the other way her strenght worked. She did not prosecute Protestants, though in a moment she was forced to do so by Charles' command and slight threat of distrusting a member of his family if any of them did so, she was a patron of musicians and arts, a supporter of Reinassacence. A woman of her days, for she believed women should not take part where it doesn't concern them and was always a pious royal, she nonetheless used her heart to do what was expected and yet could and would stand for herself and those she cared, and it is not because she had no scandals in her lifetime that she should be less remembered than some of her siblings.

Bibliography:

http://www.monstrousregimentofwomen.com/2015/07/mary-of-austria-heart-to-do-anything.html

http://www.liquisearch.com/mary_of_hungary_governor_of_the_netherlands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Hungary_(governor_of_the_Netherlands)

Catherine of Braganza: A Portuguese Loving and Brave Queen of the British (1638-1705)

The subject of our blog today is about this consort who is, unfortunately, neglected in counterpoint to her predecessors. Who was Catherine of Braganza, the only Portuguese Infanta to be crowned Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland? It is true that we count a Castilian consort amongst the British Kings (Eleanor of Castile, as the wife of King Edward I, excluding the Castilian princesses who were married to princes like John of Gaunt) and an Aragonese, Catherine of Aragon, before the union of Spain. Then the future Philippe II of Spain is married to Queen Mary Tudor.  Even with the next dynasty, the Stuarts, we see no Portuguese consort until the restoration, when Catherine is married to King Charles II, and no other after their deaths. 

But Catherine of Braganza was more than just the sweet wife of a womanizer monarch. Their own relationship was, against all odds,  one of full of affection. After his death, she returned to Portugal, where she acted as regent to her brother and then to her nephew. She was a fortress for all, a clever and pious woman who introduced the habit of drinking tea to the British people. Currently, british historiography has been trying to open to new perspectives of the impact Catherine left during the time she reigned as Queen next to Charles Stuart. 

Born Catarina Henriquetta de Bragança at the Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa, she was the second daughter of the then 8th duke of Bragança, John, and his spouse Luísa of Guzmán. By the time of her birth, Portuguese was struggling for independence against Spain, as it was under the Spanish domain ever since King Philippe II united the Iberian Peninsula. Eventually, John became King John IV of Portugal, accepting the throne and declaring independence of Spain for good. Many european countries were relucting to acknowledging it: for example, France abandoned the treaty with Portugal and the struggle with Spain would still remain for a while.

Despite this, Catherine had a happy childhood in Lisbon, where she was raised at a convent that stayed very near to the royal palace. Her mother, Queen Luísa, supervised the education of her children, and Catherine was no exception. What we also know, aside of her quiet childhood, is that "her upbringing was said to be sheltered and made her a person of strong faith and devotion."

With her father becoming king of Portugal, and upon the death of her older sister Joanna, Catherine's status as Portuguese Infanta was very valuable so her mother:

"(...) first contemplated a marriage with Louis XIV of France. When that didn't materialize, she turned to England. A secreet meeting was set up with her ambassador and King Charles II. The Portuguese offered Charles Tangier which could be used as a base for trade in the Mediterranean, Bombay, a gateway for trade with India, free trade with Brazil and the East Indies and an enormous amount of cash, £300,00. After a year  of negotiations and overcoming doubts over him marrying a Catholic princess, Charles announced he would marry Catherine of Braganza before Parliament on May 8, 1661."

As for Charles II, before he was invited to come back to England, there had been few prospects as his consort. Luckily, situation favoured for his side once it was stabilized and the choice fell on Catherine of Braganza, especially because she'd bring a huge dowry to the already in debt british sovereign. Nonetheless, by all accounts the:

 "(...) marriage between the newly restored King of England and the Portuguese Infanta took place in Portsmouth on the 21st of May 1662. As St Thomas's, the parish church of Portsmouth, was still heavily damaged from the English Civil War, the only suitable venue for a royal wedding was the "Domus Dei". (...) The wedding service, however, is believed to have taken place in the Governor's Presence Chamber and not the chapel itself [4]. Besides a considerable dowry of some 2 million Portuguese Crowns, England also gained the North African port of Tangiers, trading privileges in the East Indies (...)."

It is said that they had two ceremonies: one, secret, followed the Catholic rites according to the new Queen's insistence; and the other followed the Protestant ones. Later, on 30 september 1662 the:

"(...) married couple entered London as part of a large procession, which included the Portuguese delegation and many members of the court. There were also minstrels and musicians, among them ten playing shawns and twelve playing Portuguese bagpipes, those being the new Queen's favourite instruments. The procession continued over a large bridge, especially designed and built for the occasion, which led into the palace where Henrietta Maria, the Queen Mother waited, along with the British court and nobility. This was followed by feasting and firework displays."

And although her good, quiet, pious nature she developed thanks to the days she spent in the convent had pleased the Queen Mother, the effect it had on her husband was little. Despite the good beginning they apparently shared, with Charles having no complaints of his wife, he had mistresses, one of them the most famous being Barbara Villiers. She apparently demanded to be included in the retinue of ladies of the Queen. At first, Catherine was not aware of the liasion and permitted it, but once she found about it, she tried to dismiss. This was reason to the strangement between them until she was forced to accept her husband's mistress.

In fact, "Catherine worked hard on her public image of being a pious image (but she also loved to party), and conveyed the message that she was still the queen". This would prove useful as the king started to rely on his wife, and, as their relationship developed into a loving one, the king would constantly stand by her side, especially when she was accused of poisoning him in what was known as "Popish Act":

"Technically British monarchs were not supposed to be practicing Catholics (...) but she practiced her religion anyway. She was definitely in danger of treason, though, when she was accused of planning to poison the king along with other conspiracies. King Charles didn't believe the accusations against his wife and ignored suggestions to divorce her. He said: "She could never do anything wicked, and it would be a horrible thing to abandon her."

The divorce was suggested not only as a result of Catherine failing in producing a male heir after three miscarriage, but because of the concern that the crown would be passed to James, who, by then, was converted to Catholicism. Nonetheless, it seemed this did not make them strained, but attached one another as was already mentioned, to the point that whoever offended the Queen would be at least banished from court or be sent away, as it was the case of Barbara Villiers.

The nature of their relationship has been often discussed through controversies of whether he did love her or not, after all, it is not uncommon to wonder so due to the common concept of love. But here are some situations that prove how kind and loving King Charles was towards his wife, despite the extra marital affairs that made the Stuart king known for his love of women.

"On one occasion, she (Catherine) felt ill during the night when he was in bed with her. He got up to fetch her a basin, but she was sick in the sheets before he returned. Not until he had himself cleaned and dried her, and changed the sheets, did he call her women to help, and repaired to his own room, even then returning three times to see how she was before he finally went to sleep. (Masters 1979, 75-76)."

Also:

"In 1663, she fell seriously ill and almost died. The King remained by her side, seemingly devoted to her. In her delirium she kept asking where her children were. Charles reassured her and his attentiveness seemed to restore her. When she recovered she couldn't walk and was temporarily deaf but she eventually overcame these disabilities. In 1665, plague in London caused the court to move to Oxford and it is likely Catherine miscarried in February 1666. She suffered another miscarriage in 1668 and again in June 1669."

That being said, Catherine is remembered for introducing the tea into the British lands, or at least making a habit having it, since Samuel Pepys, a 17th century writer, mentions the drink before Catherine's arrival.  As the next paragraph points it out:

"She started a fashion for drinking tea, which became associated with the queen as well as changing consumer habits. In one poem of tea, Edmund Waller wrote 'the best of queens and best of herbs we owe/ to that bold nation which the way did show': thinking of Portugal and how assets and trading links with Portugal could help to create new opportunities in England. But the actual parts of Catherine's dowry, the ports that were coming from Catherine's dowry, like Bombay, gave England a presence in India and provided a new platform for the East India trading company."

But her habits were not limited in making drinking tea fashionable at court. In fact, although the court of Charles II is often associated to the reproduction of francophone's influences, Queen Catherine managed to, through her fondness of dance, insert some Italian styles in music and fashion. Another of her habits involved playing cards, which left Protestants perplexed, because she did so on Sunday's. She also:

"enjoyed dancing and took great delight in organising masques. She had a great love for the countryside and picnics; fishing and archery were also favourite pastimes. In a far cry from her convent-days the newly liberated Catherine displayed a fondness for the recent trend of court ladies wearing men's clothing, which we are told, "showed off her pretty, neat legs and ankles"; and she was even reported to have considered leading the way in wearing shorter dresses, which would show off her feet."

Plus, Catherine:

"(...) may have introduced the use of forks as well. She did not get involved with English politics but closely followed developments in Portugal. In 1665, she started building a religious house east of St. James which was completed in 1667 and became known as The Friary." 

In general words, we understand that, although she failed in what was expected concerning the main role of a consort -which was providing a male heir to the king- she nonetheless was wise by holding the crown in times her position as queen was constantly defied by the mistresses of her husband and to what extent did her Portuguese habits and her own piety contributed to be an easy target to Protestants courtiers.

After Charles's death in 1685, James Stuart became King James II of England and VII of Scotland. With him, Catherine held the prestigious position of Queen Dowager, and kept good relations with him. She also witnessed the Glorious Revolution, where her niece through marriage, Mary, deposed her father James alongside her husband William of Orange. They would reign jointly as Queen Mary II and King William III. The relations Catherine of Braganza held with them were respectfully, but some odd involving money and other religious misunderstandings leaded her to return to Portugal, as we see next:

"Catherine's current chamberlain worked closely with the now dowager-queen. He took the blame for Catherine's actions when Mary II found out that Catherine forbade the chapels of Somerset House to say prayers for King William. William once tried to get Catherine out of Somerset House, but Catherine reminded him she was protected with certain rights. It took Queen Mary to talk through things with Catherine. Finally it was agreed upon that it would be best if she returned to Portugal."

Whether these events actually happened or were merely misunderstandings is beyond of us to figure them out, but the idea that Mary disliked her aunt Catherine can at least be put aside. It must be remembered that even though this is the end of 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century, the Protestant Reformation that ecloded almost 200 years earlier still had its effects. Tensions between Protestantism and Catholicism still happened, and the English people would difficultly accept a monarch of the latter religion.

Perhaps the reason they tolerated Catherine, or at least embraced her as Queen, unlike what had happened to her predecessor, is possibly explained by the fact she lacked heirs and the possibility of educating them to Catholicism. So if there was a main reason that could be pointed to Catherine's return to her homeland is this one.

But even still, when she did so, she returned as a wealthy widow and held regency in Portugal on the behalf of her brother and then her nephew. When this latter's mother died, it was Catherine who helped him to get out of depression and acted as mothern figure. Furthermore, she:

"(....) ruled over military campaigns and was highly effective in running the country. She was to govern to great acclaim until her death on December 31, 1705. She is buried in the Royal Pantheon of the Braganza Dynasty and her name is highly respected to this day in Portugal."

Biography:

http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/behind-the-scenes/blog/very-royal-wedding-charles-ii-and-catherine-braganza

http://loyaltybindsme.blogspot.com.br/2012/07/did-charles-ii-love-catherine-of.html

http://herstoryline.com/2014/09/23/keeping-up-appearances-catherine-of-braganza-charles-iis-underestimated-wife/

http://stuarts-online.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/royal-marriage.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Braganza

http://www.marryingcultures.eu/research/catherine-braganza

http://www.queensroyalsurreys.org.uk/queen_of_reg/catherine.html

https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2012/08/30/catherine-of-braganza-queen-of-england/

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/11/nyregion/here-s-to-queen-catherine-who-gave-queens-a-name.html

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/stuart_29.html

Philippe IV Capet: The Iron King of France (1268-1314)

Philippe IV of France, from the Capetian Dynasty, is not only known as le Bel (in English: the handsome) for his good-looking features, but as well as le Roi de Fer (English: the iron king) for his harsh measures that marked his reign, as was the case of the burning of the Knights of Templar and the conflits with the Pope. In order to understand him, both as person and as monarch, we bring to this blog his royal figure, with special considerations that he was, above all, a medieval man.

The grandson of St Louis IX of France, Philippe of Capet was born in Fontainebleau as the second son of his father Philippe III and his first wife, Isabella of Aragon. At the age of three, his mother died and a few years later, when he was six, his father was remarried to a woman named Marie de Brabant, whom apparently preferred the company of her own children (one of them, Margaret, later married as the second consort, though never crowned, of King Edward I of England) than of her step children. Louis, Philippe's older brother, then died, thus making him presumptive heir to the French crown. It was rumoured that Marie had taken part on the death of Louis, perhaps poisoning him herself, but this was never confirmed. 

In general, Philippe had had little contact with his father, though in his youth, around the age of 15, 16, he followed his father in his campaign against the region of Aragon. What we know is that he was tutored by Guillaume d'Ercuis, a man of his father's trust. And at the age of 17, when Philippe III died in his 40's, Philippe rises as Philippe IV of France.

Soon he earned the nickname of 'Le Bel' because he was a blond king with blue eyes, but what we know of his personality can be measured by the harsh attitudes that could have marked him as tyrant by some historians. It is with some reason that, as previously said, Philippe was also known as the iron king of France.

On this blog, we intend to approach two of the most important aspects that marked his reign: the fall of the Templars and the friction with the Catholic Church. In the Middle Ages, it is important to remember that religion is what makes society work, so naturally it is an element that is connected with others such as politics. All this to say that these aspects mentioned are connected and, more indirectly, to the war against England, France's traditional enemy.

In truth, let's start with this incident between the two countries. Edward Plantagenet, as duke of Aquitaine, was a vassal of the king of France. It is apparent that he has been summoning the king of England and this was never present to attend the ceremony as the vassal he was. Relations of vassals and overlords marked those medieval days and, as we can see, Philippe IV took them very seriously. What happened next was what turned into quite some diplomatic incident: Edward sent English ambassadors and his own brother, Edmund, to ease the situation, but the men were sent away rudely as Philippe said he was not summoning Edward as king, but as vassals. Complications increased as the disputes amongst the lands followed, and, despite the promises of delivering the English lands in return to French possessions, Philippe actually managed to fool Edward. War was, then, a result of this, and it was not until a marriage between Isabella, Philippe's daughter, to Edward's son and heir, future Edward II, that the peace treaty was sealed.

As a consequence of this long war against England, economy fell and custs worsened. Not to mention the bad habit of Philippe in spending money, although it should be said that Philippe had already inherited the debits of his father. So he turned his attentions straight to the powerful Church, in hopes to get the money he needed, and that is precisely how we connect this struggle with the papacy to the fall of Templars. And all started with the prison of his long-time enemy, the bishop of Pamiers, as we can see next:

"In 1301, Philip arrested Bernard Saisset,, the bishop of Pamiers. Although the principal charges against the biship involved treason, Saisset was also accused of being a manifest heretic. He had spoken, so it was charged, against the sacrament of penance and mantained that fornication committed by people in holy orders was not a sin. He had also asserted that Pope Boniface VIII had acted against truth and justice in canonisign Philip's grandfather, Louis IX, who was residing in Hell."

Another bishop, Guichard of Troyes, was arrested, under the accusation of "using black magic to bring about the death of Philip's wife, Queen Jeanne, in 1305." Apparently, the man had "conjured up the Devil" and was a heretic who committed murdering and sodomite, amongst of being "the son of an incubus that impregnated his mother." 

All these imprisonments came after the decision of taxing the Church, which would spark the tensions between the Pope and the French Crown. Specially because:

"(...) he saw this as a break from tradition. The Church had never subjected to taxes from kings before. He also viewed taxation as a challenge to the power of the church. Pope Boniface considered the Christian Church to be the supreme authority on Earth. Pope Boniface believed that by taxing the Church, King Philip was saying that he was more powerful than the Church. Pope Boniface issued an official ruling, known as a papa bull, called Clericis laicos, which said that governments could not tax the church or church officials without prior approval from the Pope. He compared the taxes to an attempt to enslave the church. He also threatened that any king, emperor, feudal lord, or anyone else who tried to tax the church would be subjected to excommunication."

The king in return:

"(...) had the papal bull burned. Boniface then issued another bull called Unam sanctam in which he proclaimed that popes were the supreme authority on earth and that kings were obligated to follow the orders of the pope. He then excommunicated Philip. King Philip sent an army led by Guillaume de Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna, which surprised Pope Boniface at his vacation home in Anagni. Boniface was beaten and briefly imprisoned. He died soon after he was released."

With the death of Boniface, Clement V rose to the papacy and, as pro-French, he even moved to Avignon, in a crisis that would be perpetuated for a while. And even though he favoured the French interests, Clement V did not escape the tensions between the Catholic Church and the Iron Crown of France. To the point that they involved the Templars, as we notice, especially because of the depts of Philippe IV. Seeking a way to have not only the french monarchy strenghtened and independent of papacy, but also from the dependency of the powerful order, he:

"(...) arrested en masse in October 1307, (...) accused of denying Christ and spitting on his image during their reception into the order. (...) The order was dissolved in 1312 by Pope Clement V while its grand master went to the stake in 1314."

But, to be seen as the leader of Christendom, Philippe would play with the medieval mentality of those days, which was marked by the recently defined notion of supernatural, a consequence of the religious thought of then. After all, as an unged monarch, how could he be deceived? The King of France would not lie to his subjects, regardless how unpopular his economic measures could have been in the past. So what we can say is that:

"By making the charges religious in nature, Phillip would be seen not as an avaricious thief, but as a noble servant of God. For (...) most of the arrested Templars subsequently recanted their confessions and proclaimed to Church officials that their statements were made under the pain of torture and threat of death. To intimidate the remaining Templars, Phillip ordered 54 of the knights to be burned at the stake in 1310, for the sin of recanting their confessions."

According to Bernard Délicieux, a Franciscan, the king "was useless to his subjects, less a king than a pig who wanted nothing else than to be always with his wife." Earlier in his reign, Philippe was seen as both from his supporters and enemies as cold. His rival, the already mentioned bishop of Pamiers, compared the french monarch to a statue.  And yet, it must be remembered that, years before this event involving the Templars, a result of the economic crisis which, in turn, was a consequence of the war against England, the Jews and the Lombars were expelled from the realm, in hopes to acquire their profit in order to save the French debt. 

So what can be observed of Philippe IV's reign? He was, indeed, a tyrannical king, one who used religion to alienate his subjects in order to have his goals achieved. Philippe was a strong king in every manner, seemed to have been, although corrupt, a dutiful and conscious monarch. But, behind all of these measures, the construction to solidify his power is, in fact, the great curtain he used to encover the weakness left by his predecessors. In other words, we can observe that:

"His reign was a balancing act amidst a host of other power actors: great lords, churchmen, town governments, village communities, and his own nascent bureaucracy. The actual business of governing was messy and carried on in the face of obstructionism, foot-dragging, and endless petty and sometimes not so petty, challenges." 

It is no wonder then to see how easily Tywin Lannister, the head of the House of Lannister on the tv show "Game of Thrones", based on the homonimous series of books, was inspired in the figure of this Capetian monarch. Both men were dutiful, and yet corrupt: to strenghten their power, they had nothing to stand on their way, gold being the cause of all the iron hand they commanded their armies and governments. The love Tywin Lannister had for his late wife, Joanna, can arguably compared to the one Philippe felt for his Joanne, if we take what the Franciscan Bernard Délicieux said, of never leaving the company of his wife. There are, indeed, many parallels between these men, which can make Philippe, for better or worse, an interesting historical character behind the power. His sudden death was believed to be a punishment from God after the burning of the Templars. Whether this is true or not, what we might never know is what really caused his death. Philippe left three sons, all of those kings, but who left no descendancy. In turn, those of his brother, Charles, would inaugurate the beginning of the rule of a new house, the House of Valois, in France.

In general view,  we can end this post with a view of the reign of Philippe Capet:

"as J.R. Strayer has put it, Philip was a sort of 'constitutional' king who tried to conform to the traditions of the French monarchy and the practices of the French government. As far as possible, he governed the realm through a well-established system of courts and admnistrative officials. He always asked the advice of responsible men: he was influenced by that advice in working out the details of his general policy. He tried to stay at least within the letter of the law; he tried to observe the customs of the kingdom. When he had to beyond established custom he always sought to justify his action and to obtain the consent of those who were affected."

Bibliography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_IV_of_France

http://blog.templarhistory.com/2010/03/philip-iv-1268-1314/

http://www.dummies.com/education/politics-government/king-phillip-iv-pope-clement-v-and-the-fall-of-the-knights-templar-part-ii/

http://biography.yourdictionary.com/philip-iv

http://historymedren.about.com/od/pwho/fl/Philip-IV-of-France.htm

http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/templars-curse-king-france/

http://www.medievalists.net/tag/king-philip-iv-of-france/

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/this-day-in-jewish-history/.premium-1.732433

http://www.nnet.gr/historein/historeinfiles/histvolumes/hist06/historein6-given.pdf

http://www.wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/MarkLowry.pdf

https://misterzoller.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/popesvskings_philipboniface.pdf

https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/the-feud-between-the-french-king-philip-iv-and-catholic-pope-boniface-viii

https://www.academia.edu/4120353/_A_Heresy_of_State._Philip_the_Fair_the_Trial_of_the_Perfidious_Templars_and_the_Pontificalization_of_the_French_Monarchy_in_Journal_of_Medieval_Religious_Cultures_39_2_2013_p._117-148

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_of_Brabant,_Queen_of_France

Giovanni, 2nd Duke of Gandia: A Brief Story About The Forgotten Borgia (1474-1497)

It is true that the first names that come to our minds whenever the infamous last name 'Borgia' is mentioned, are often la bella Lucrezia, her fiercy brother Cesare and, naturally, their father, Pope Alexander VI. In pop culture, we have seen these three portrayed in movies and series, the most recent of them entitled "The Borgias", which helped in expanding their fame as the most corrupt family of Christianity to the lay people, especially by spreading the false rumour of whether Lucrezia and Cesare were actually lovers.

But, if by one side, in a positive observation, this explosion of the Borgias could culminate in curiosity that could be satisfied by an attempt of understanding who they were as historical persons and human beings; by the other, to few this curiosity will lead to another brother that was not rewarded with the same eager and feisty that characterized both Lucrezia and Cesare. So our question is: who was the real Giovanni Borgia? Was he just as fierce and temperamental as Cesare or was he another man of his time, but added with the flames of the Renaissance of the 15th century that many find such embodiment in the figure of Lucrezia? Perhaps he was a mid-term? It is in our hopes to enlight about this forgotten duke of Gandia and his contribution for Italy towards the end of Middle Ages.

Unfortunately, we come to find very little about him on the internet in general. But even with few informations, we can, nonetheless, try to sketch his way of life. Giovanni, probably born around the year of 1476, was born to the then Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, before his rising as Pope Alexander VI, and one of his many mistresses, Vannozza dei Cattanei. Apparently he was the first son of Borgia, and although named Giovanni, he would be also known as Juan, the equivalent of his Italian name in Spanish.

There is nothing about his early life or youth, but according to one of the several biographies written about his younger sister, the infamous Lucrezia Borgia, it seemed Giovanni, who was created 2nd duke of Gandia, was his father's favourite for a while.

He was married to Maria Enriquez de Luna, who was the betrothed of his deceased older half-brother Pedro Luis, and with her, the couple had:

"...three children: twins Juan de Borja y Enriquez (known as Juan Borgia, father of Francis Borgia, 4th Duke of Gandía), who became the 3rd Duke of Gandía, and Francisca de Jesús Borja, who became a nun at a convent in Valladolid. The younger Juan was the father of Saint Francis Borgia. Their third child, Isabel de Borja y Enriquez, was born after her father was killed: she grew up to be abbess of Santa Clara in Gandia."

No further information could be reached concerning Giovanni Borgia's life in general, whether be in English or Spanish, except one about his death. Throughout history, when the Borgias constituted a dubious fame of how corrupt they could have been, whenever our duke of Ganida was remembered amongst his two famous siblings, the already mentioned Lucrezia, and Cesare Borgia, it was so because this latter was reportedly to have murdered him. If not by him, Cesare was suspicious of at least having sent someone to take the life of his own brother. The cause? Some can be argued, but never with certain.

In the next paragraphs we can have a better idea of how Cesare was related to Giovanni's murder, and also how this sad event occurred.

"The story goes that on that very same afternoon, he and Cesare had eaten supper with their mother Vanozza in her country villa at Monte Martino dei Monti and they returned as night was falling. As they reached the bridge leading to the Castel Sant Angelo, Juan told his brother that he would leave him there as he needed to go somewhere on his own. Despite protestations that the streets of Rome were too dangerous for a man who had as many enemies as Juan did, all Juan would do is send a groom back to his rooms to fetch his light armour, and that he would meet the groom at the Piazza Judea. And as Cesare, and his cousin also named Juan Borgia (the younger) took the leave, Juan turned his mule towards the Ghetto. As he rode away, a masked man appeared behind him and they rode off together."

It also continues, stating that:

"Juan's disappearance was not reported until the next day but the Pope, Juan and Cesare's father was not overly worried. After all Juan was known for his amours. But as the day wore on and Juan still did not appear he [the Pope] began to panic, (...) sent for Cesare and demanded to know where Juan was. Cesare told his father what he had heard from the groom, And Pope Alexander, mad with terror, demanded a search to be made."

Apparently, a body was spotted at the river Tiber by a man named Giorgio Schiavi, who told the authorities that he gave little importance to the matter only because he was used to see bodies being constantly thrown at the river. So following this statement, the men who were sent after Giovanni:

"(...) were ordered to search the river and promised a reward. Around midday, a fisherman brought up the body of a young man, fully clothed, with his gloves stillon and a purse hung from his belt carrying 30 ducats. He was covered in stab wounds, 9 counted in total across his neck, head body and legs. It was Juan Borgia."

He was later taken to Castel Sant Angelo, where he was cleaned before the funeral procession began at the Church of Santa Maria del Apolo. The Pope did not, reportedly, show at it because he was too understandably distressed to attend the ceremony, having shut himself for a few days. And when he returned to the public, he apparently announced solemnly his son's death and from that moment on, rumours spread across Rome and all Italy, questioning who had reasons to kill Giovanni Borgia.

At first, the Orsinis, a traditional and one of the most powerful families of Italy in those days, were the suspects, before going straight to Cesare Borgia. The reason? Mainly jealousy, the desire to inherite his brother's lands or perhaps to run away from his duties to the Church. Nevertheless, others who were seen as suspicious included another old Italian aristocratic family: the Sforzas. After the failure that the marriage of Lucrezia to the son of that family came to, there would be bad blood between the families and suddenly they could have good reason to vanish with Giovanni.

Whoever committed the murder we will never know. A week later, though, the Pope stopped with the investigations. The reason for that it will never be clear, but historians believe he might have come to find the truth and preferred to be discret in dealing with it. It could be a possibility. What it is sad is that there is so little about this character, shadowed by the fame of his siblings. Perhaps the only thing he could do to match them was to be part of a tragic end, a controversy that would always be part to the components of the infamous Borgia dynasty.

Bibliography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Borgia,_2nd_Duke_of_Gandia

http://loyaltybindsme.blogspot.com.br/2012/06/death-of-juan-borgia.html

http://www.kleio.org/en/history/famtree/vip/buch2-318/

. 

Tsar Alexander II Romanov: The Liberator Of Russia (1818-1881)

To celebrate this blog's first anniversary, we go back straight to Russia's monarchy. This time, the topic is about Tsar Nicholas II's grandfather, Alexander II Romanov. Like his son and grandson, Alexander II too met the misfortune of being a victim to the extremists who took his life away. Because of the communism that came to replace the monarchy system, turning Russia to the republic of soviets, the deeds of Alexander II that earned him the nickname the Liberator were thus overshadowed. And, as it happened before to other monarchs, we humbly come here in an attempt to bring back to the public knowledge this Russian figure, once very popular and loved amongst his subjects. 

So who was he? For a start, the future Emperor of all Russias was born Alexander Nikolaevich (Russian: Aleksander Nikolaevich) on April 29th (in Russia's old calendar the date was April 19th) as the oldest child of Tsar Nicholas I and his consort, Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna (née princess Charlotte of Prussia). At a young age, the Tsaverich was placed under an exemplar education, for:

"Nicholas I was determined that his son should be brought up by the finest teachers and instructors, even if their views clashed with his own. When he appointed Vasily Zhukovsky as personal tutor to the heir, the poet allegedly told the Russian autocrat that he would raise Alexander not as a regimental commander, more at home in the barracks or on the parade ground, but as a future enlightened monarch."

Indeed the heir of Nicholas I would receive an excellent education. He learned not only his maternal language, Russian, but soon could also speak and write in French, German, English and Polish. His other subjects included mathematics, physics, geography, history, political economy, statistics and law. It is said Alexander developed an appreciation for art. As he grew, Alexander's education was soon moved to the First Military Academy. There, he would:

"(...) led the exact same existence as the other cadets, appearing for roll call, participating in manoeuvres, marching on the parade-ground, hiking in full ammunition, sleeping on straw in the open air, and eating out of the common bowl (...). Carl Merder, a battle officer and the tsaverich's other tutor, wrote that Alexander commanded a platoon as an officer for the first time on 9 June 1832 and "performed his duties well". On 30 June, he took part in an imperial review, and the emperor "indicated his complete satisfaction"."

 Despite having been reported that the tsaverich would rather have a quiet home with a peaceful family, he always embraced his sense of duty. He also had an advantage of being better prepared to the throne than his predecessors and even his successors. Either way, it wasn't too soon before he was ackwnoledged for his skills as "brave horseman and a cool and composed warrior". Those were displayed during the Caucasian War, a conflict under his father's reign that would not achieve peace until the first years of Alexander as tsar, years later. For that participation at the said conflict, he was "awarded the Order of St George (fourth class) for his heroism".

In his private life, when Alexander was circa twenty one years old, he payed a visit to Queen Victoria of United Kingdom, who was only a year younger than him and was a British sovereign for two years already back then. What resulted of this meeting was, apparently, a little more than just friendly relations as we can see in the next excerpt:

"During his month-long visit, Alexander and Victoria reputedly fell in love. They went for horse rides together at Windsor, danced at balls in Buckingham Palace and once, at the theatre, Alexander visited Victoria in her box alone for over half an hour. The tsaverich hold his aide-de-camp, Colonel Simon Yurievich, that he was in love with Victoria and convinced that she felt the same way about him. Yurievich spoke with the Queen's former governess and confidante, who said that Victoria had already told her of her similar feelings for Alexander. When Tsar Nicholas I heard of the romance, he ordered his son to return to Europe. Alexander was told that a marriage was impossible, as he would have to give up the Russian throne to become a British prince consort."

It was, thus, at the German courts that Alexander would find his bride at least. Her name was Maximiliane Wilhelmine Auguste Sophie Marie of Hesse-Darmstadt, or as popular she was known, Marie of Hesse-Darmstadt. She later followed Russian rites, as consorts normally did, which was converting to the Ortodox Church of Russia and adopting a Russian name. Marie was now Maria Alexandrovna. Apparently, the two were very in love with one another, despite the controversy concerning Maria Alexandrovna's parentage: it was rumoured that her mother's children were fruit of her relationship with a lover, but even so the Grand Duke of Hesse acknowledged the two who reached adulthood, Maria and Alexander. It was apparently a happy relationship, despite Maria's poor health and her eight pregnancies that constantly left her away from court, which colaborated for her husband having some mistresses. The most famous of them was a 18 year old princess, Catherine Dolgoroky, with whom he had three children and was married only a month after Empress Maria's death, a relationship that caused quite some comotion at those days.

In March 2 1855, upon the death of Nicholas I, Alexander rose to the Russian throne as Tsar Alexander II of all Russias. He was 36 years old and by then, as already mentioned, a very prepared and highly educated sovereign, if compared to many of his relatives. He would later be compared to Peter the Great because of his political and social measures that marked his reign. Alexander also had the advantage for knowing most part of his country, since, whilst a tsaverich, he went on tour for six months throughtout Russia, being the first of the Romanovs for visiting Siberia.

One of his main measures was to diminish censorship, a trace of his antecessor's reign, which gravely reported those who dared to criticize government, this being an extreme offense; and Alexander instead gave freedom of speech, allowing independent press to flourish. He also reformed education, by creating new programmes concerning universities. Of his father, the new tsar also inherited a very fierce war, known as Crimea war, which was formed in a coalition by Britain, France and Ottoman Empire. This would come to an end with the treaty of Paris, but by then Russia lost its supremacy in territories in general. Nonetheless:

"The disastrous outcomes of the Crimean War prompted the tsar, Alexander II, to consider reforms, particularly the abolition of serfdom. By bringing an end to this medieval concept, in effect a form of bonded slavery, Alexander hoped that agricultural production could be modernised and made more efficient. This would assist the transformation of Russia from a backward agricultural economy into a modern industrial and capitalist economy. The idea of bringing an end to serfdom was hardly new. It had been suggested several times before but was always resisted by the conservative land-owning nobility, who benefited from the profits and status generated by serfdom."

This abolition of serfdom, followed by Bulgaria's independence, was:

"tackled boldly, taking advantage of a petition presented by the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces and, hoping that their relations with the serfs might be regulated in a more satisfactory way (...) he authorized the formation of committees "for ameliorating the condition of the peasants" and laid down the principles on which the amelioration was to be effected."

 It was an important decision that the Tsar took independently of his advisors. He sent a letter to the Governor-General of Lithuania, where he suggested that "the landed proprietors of other provinces might express a similar desire." But, unlike the expectations of the sovereign, the popular reactions to this measure were not at all suportive. What can possibly explain this reaction from the Russians, is the fact they were long tied to this activity, which means that probably a better way of doing would be in a slower rhythm. Like countries that were long bound to slavery, such as Brazil, whose liberty of slaves in 1888 was partly the cause for the fall of Brazilian monarchy in the next year, Russia's mentality was not prepared to embrace measures that, despite favouring them, were input quite quickly, breaking chains from a day to other. It is known that "extreme" measures in both countries should have been done slowly, for no social mentality changes from a day to another. In fact, this abolishment of serfdom would cause the rise of a party that was supposedly supported by the general public's opinion, named as the People's Will, whose integrants would attempt at least four times to murder the Emperor before succeeding it in 1881.

And though this abolishment was the very main reason why the Tsar was popular recalled as the Liberator of Russia, other reforms were also part of his reign such as: 

"Larger cities were given governmental assemblies similar to those of the villages. The Russian court system was reformed, and for the first time in Russian history, juries, or panels of citizens called together to decide court cases, were permitted. Court cases were debated publicly, and all social classes were made equal before the law. Censorship (or the silencing of certain opinions) was eased, which meant that people had more freedom of speech. Colleges were also freed from the rules imposed on them by Alexander's father Nicholas I"

He also "ordered the reformation of the army and navy, the implementation of new legal processes and an overhaul of the penal code". But, unfortunately for Alexander, as it happened to all Europe during his lifetime, in Russia also was marked by extreme ideas both from left and right political sides. Nonetheless, he managed to rule over them all. In fact, we can summon Alexander II's reign by these next general words:

"In foreign policy, Alexander sold Alaska to the United States in 1867, fearing the remote colony would fall into British hands if there were another war. He sought peace, moved away from bellicose France when Napoleon III fell in 1871, and in 1872 joined with Germany and Austria in the League of the Three Emperors that stabilized the European situation. Despite his otherwise pacifist foreign policy, he fought a brief war with Turkey in 1877-78, pursued further expansion into Siberia and the Caucasus, and conquered Turkestan. Although disappointd by the results of the Congress of Berlin in 1878, Alexander abided by that agreement. Among his greatest domestic challenges was an uprising in Poland in 1863, to which he responded by stripping that land of its separate constitution and incorporating it directly into Russia. Alexander was proposing additional parliamentary reforms to counter the rise of nascent revolutionary and anarchistic movements when he was assassinated in 1881."

What probably would have been the best political measure under his reign, the said Loris Melikov constitution were not to be followed by his son, Alexander III. In fact, in 1881, the liberal deeds of his father would be removed and once more, Russia were to return to iron hands. A great contrast to the last Romanov rulers, in a small scale of comparison, though far from being an ideal monarch to such a great empire, this should not, nevertheless, be the impact left in historians in general, especially by those greatly influenced by any sort of ideology. 

It is, more than never in the present days, to be taken by such a political view whenever it is due to review the accomplishments and faults of monarchs in general. But, whilst a balance should never pend to one side alone, history itself should ponder that, were not for the sovereigns who indeed worked for the people, many countries would have never reached their main point. This is why it is important to look back at Alexander II's reign and understand his notorious reforms for a country that was not prepared mentally to receive them. Looking comparatively through the reigns of his son and grandson, this can be confirmed, possibly because the advisors that surrounded Alexander III and Nicholas III were not well prepared for the task in bringing monarchy and the people to the common concern of Russia's welfare, and this can be suggested to have caused the later revolutions, as Russia was governed by extreme mentalities that did not know how to handle opposition without taking in arms to destroy what went against their supposed belief to what was better for the empire.

This, again we come to reassure, has nothing to do in pondering whether Alexander II was perfect, the best, the greastest emperor of all Russias, but to rather provoke a reflection of his faults and his qualities, which form any human being regardless their social status, and wonder why should his deeds be left of history in general and, as we have said regarding other monarchs discussed on this blog, why there is so little discussion around this figure. Alexander II died in 13 March 1881, surrounded by controversies, both in domestic affairs and outside them, but, for better or worse, later respected by his subjects.

Bibliographies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Alexandrovna_(Marie_of_Hesse_and_by_Rhine)

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/russia1.htm

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/czar-alexander-ii-assassinated

http://russiapedia.rt.com/prominent-russians/the-romanov-dynasty/alexander-ii-liberator/

http://www.rusartnet.com/biographies/russian-rulers/romanov/tsar/alexander-ii

http://www2.sptimes.com/Treasures/TC.2.3.17.html

http://www.notablebiographies.com/A-An/Alexander-II.html

http://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/reform-and-reaction-in-russia/