Cleopatra I: The Syrian Queen of Egypt (c.204 BC-176 B.C)

As we have been studying the figures of the past that have left their contribution to history and the shaping of the societies they lived in, admittedly we have been motivated by our curiosity to understand how they have worked in periods as Middle Ages, where it is very little discussed once there is a wrong concept about the said period when people mistake it to be the 'Dark Ages'. That being said, most recently we have asked ourselves of the period before Middle Ages and consequently the rise and formation of states as we know now.

So, on this day, we turn our eyes to Ancient Egypt, whose royal representations are best reminded in the figures of Cleopatra VII, Tutankhamon, aside of a few others that some readers might bear their names in mind. The dynasty of the Ptolemaic is probably the most famous of all the dynasties that reigned over the vast empire of Egypt, directly related to the infamous Alexander the Great, a Greek conqueror who claimed to be the son of God Apollo and whose legacies are still perceptible to this day in vast places of Europe. 

As we know, Cleopatra VII was his most famous descendant whose name and lifetime are still the object of discussions. However interesting she could have been, the fact she was the eight of her dynasty to bear that name led to question ourselves: who was the first Cleopatra? What can it be said regarding her history? Did she leave a significant inheritance for those who followed her reign? So many questions to be asked, indeed, but with so many few bibliographies to answer them! Nonetheless, this did not stop us in hoping to bring to life this formidable lady, whose name certainly was remarkable enough for being suceeded by the next generations.

Cleopatra the First was born around the year 204. As we have said, there are few informations about her, but we do know that she was a daughter of the King of the Syrian Empire named Antiochus III the Great. It is said she had two brothers, but we don't know their names. Another aspect of Cleopatra's life that reached us is that she was married to Ptolemy V, King of Egypt, around 193 BC when she was ten years of age. The reason for this marriage can be seen below:

"In 197 BC, Antiochus III had captured a number of cities in Asia Minor previously under the control of the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt. The Romans supported the Egyptian interests, when they negotiated with the Seleucid king in Lysimachia in 196 BC. In response, Antiochus III indicated his willingness to make peace with Ptolemy V and to have his daughter Cleopatra I marry Ptolemy V. They were betrothed in 195 BC and their marriage took place in 193 BC in Raphia. At that time Ptolemy was about 16 years and Cleopatra I about 10 years old. Later on, Egypt's Ptolemaic kings were to argue that Cleopatra I had received Coele-Syria as her dowry and, therefore, this territory again belonged to  Egypt. It is not clear if this was the case. However, in practice, Coele-Syria remained a Seleucid possession after the Battle of Panium in 198 BC."

As a result of the dowry matter, Egypt was neutral when Syria and the Romans were in a political struggle between one another.  As for Cleopatra, she received the nickname "the Syrian" due to her origins, and also, 

"As part of the Ptolemaic cult she was honoured with her husband as Theoi Epiphaneis. In line with ancient Egyptian tradition, she was also named adelphe (=sister) of Ptolemy V. A synod of priests held at Memphis in 185 BC transferred all honours that Ptolemy V had received in 196 BC (written on the Rosetta stone) to his wife."

Unfortunately for us, we have not found accounts concerning those events and the gap between them so it is difficult to even picture the sensations and thoughts of this queen. However, one can only speculate that she must have been aware of her position and thus understood the duties and responsibilities coming as a result of such by being married to the King of Egypt.

Whether was the case, Ptolemy V for some reason was preparing to go to war against his consort's brother, the new king of the Syrian empire, when he died. He left three children with Cleopatra: Ptolemy VI, Cleopatra II and Ptolemy VII. As for the former, she served as his regent until her death, around 176 B.C

What we know of Cleopatra as regent is that she prevented the upcoming war with the Syrian Empire and that she apparently "ruled equitably, keeping peace with Syria while doing nothing to alienate Rome, and thereby kept Egypt free of invasion." Also,

"she was the first Ptolemaic queen to be a sole ruler of Egypt. This can be concluded from date formulas on the papyri written in the years from 179 BC to 176 BC, where Cleopatra I is called Thea Epiphanes and her name is written before that of her son. She also minted her own coins [...]."

Perhaps it is safe to say that Cleopatra I was a formidable woman, leaving thus a legacy that likely inspired the women of the next gerations. Unfortunately, her story is short and with few informations, but one may hope that someday this changes.

Bibliography:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_I_Syra

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Cleopatra-I-Syra

-http://emilykq.weebly.com/blog/cleopatra-i

John of Gaunt, Duke Of Lancaster: The Duke Who Fathered the Wars of Roses (1340-1399)

Today's post will be about a character that, though part of nobility, was no king nor emperor, even less a grand duke, like some of the male royals we have spoken before. He was, however, just as important as those who held the said titles. To the British History in particular, John of Gaunt left his mark in it not only as the wealthiest son of the remarkable king Edward III, but as well as the key character of the event that followed his death, the Wars of the Roses. He was not only the father of Henry Bolinbroke, who'd usurp Richard II's crown to become King Henry IV, but as well as the ancestor to the next generation of kings that played a great part in the conflict that torned the Plantagenet Dynasty in between the Houses of York and Lancaster, as well as the one whose blood would unite them afterwards through the dynasty of the Tudors. In order to propose a discussion about John's deeds during his lifetime and how he was seen in it and after his death, he is thus the topic of our blog.

John Plantagenet was the fourth son of King Edward III of England and his consort, Queen Philippa of Hainault, whom we have recently discussed. He was born on 6th March, 1340, at a city of Flandres, known as Ghent (adapted to English as Gaunt), hence why he is known as John of Gaunt. By the time of his birth, "King Edward III and his wife were in Flanders to formally receive homage from the Count of Flanders and to have Ghent, Ypres and Bruges proclaim Edward III King of France."

What we know regarding his childhood is that John "grew up in the household of his elder brother Edward, Prince of Wales [the Black Prince] where he received his knightly training." He was, during this period of his life, accepted into the Order of the Garter after the Earl of Kent Thomas Holland's death. His first experience in battlefield occurred at the age of ten, alongside Prince Edward, at the naval Battle of Winchelsea. Nine years later, John would be granted his own troops to lead during a campaign in Normandy.

When he was also nineteen, John married his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, sole heiress of her father, Henry Duke of Lancaster. She was 14 and it seemed to have been a loving relationship. Until her death, around the age of 23, she would give John eight children, of whom only three would reach adulthood: Philippa, future Queen of Portugal, Henry Bolinbroke, future Henry IV of England, and Elizabeth, Duchess of Exeter. This match brought excellent results for both sides, since King Edward expected to arrange great marriages for his children and, upon the death of Blanche's sister, the heritance would enrich John, and she, in turn, would be marrying into royalty. As a result, John became Earl of Lancaster, later created Duke, so that way he

"was the rightful lord and master of over one third of the lands of England, and employed a number of troops large enough to compose a small private army. But even his lack of formal office and his powerful status as a nobleman did not stop the public outcry about many of his policy decisions."

What we know next, however, concerns his ambitions after Blanche's death, when we are presented explicitaly towards his ambitions. To many, it surprises how a powerful and wealthy duke as John drives his powerful desires outside England and France, directing it instead to Castile and Portugal. The enterprise which he was first part of was when he joined forces with Prince Edward to aid Peter the Cruel of Castile in his struggle for power, whilst the French supported Peter's enemies. This quest would prove fruitless as Peter eventually would turn his back to his English allies only to end up murdered by his half illegitimate brother Enrique de Trastamara. As we can see below:

"[...] the ambition of the Duke -who had taken an active part in the war carred on by his brother, Black Prince, for the restoration of Peter, King of Castile & Leon- induced him to direct his views towards Constance, the elder of the two daughters of that monarch, then lately slain by his illegitimate brother, Henry of Transtamara, his successor under the title of Henry II."

As a result of these foreign policies, poorly covering the War of the 100 years that continued to go on, and partly a consequence of the disaster that this campaign turned out to be, John married the oldest daughter of the late King of Castile, Constance. On her behalf, he claimed the kingdoms of Castile and Leon, in the hopes of becoming king himself. This would prove pointless and it was later agreed, upon the birth of Catherine, John and Constance's only daughter, that she would marry John and thus become Queen herself.

"In 1372, the Duke married this princess [Constance] and thus assumed the regal style of those kingdoms. These titular honours were ascribed to him in the writs of summons to Parliament from that year until 1386, when, by an arrangement with King John I of Castile & Leon, the son and successor of Henry, Catherine, the only daughter of the Duke of Lancaster by Constance, was betrothed to Henry, Prince of Asturias, his heir-apparent, and the crown settled upon the issue of that alliance."

Consequently,

"For sixteen years the pursuit of his kingdom was the chief object of John's ambition. No doubt he hoped to achieve his end, when he commanded the great army which invaded France in 1373. But the French would not give battle, and though John marched from Calais right through Champagne, Burgundy and Auvergne, it was with disastrous results; only a shattered remnant of the host reached Bordeaux."

 So,

 "[...] The disastrous Spanish enterprise led directly to renewed war between France and England. In August 1369 John had command of an army which invaded northern France without success. In the following year he went again to Aquitaine, and was present with the Black Prince at the sack of Limoges. Edward's health was broken down, and he soon after went home, leaving John as his lieutenant."

Despite playing a distant part from English policies, this would change considerably upon the death of his brother, the Prince of Wales, in 1376. It is when "the duke of Lancaster acquired a marked ascendency in the councils of the infirm monarch, his father." On that sad occasion, King Edward, no more the young and strong man he once was, begins to ail. So John becomes the regent. It is said, however, that "his administration of public affairs is [...] to have been stained by several acts of violence."

Upon King Edward III's death in 1377, he is succeded by his grandson, Prince Richard, who becomes Richard II. In truth, John continued to be the power behind the throne. As we can see in the following paragraphs:

"From 1374 until 1377, John was effectively the head of the English government due to the illness of his father and elder brother, who were unable to exercise authority. On June 8, 1376, at the age of 45, John's eldest brother and heir to the throne, Edward, Prince of Wales (the Black Prince) died at the age of 45. The heir to the throne became Edward's only surviving child, nine-year-old Richard. A year later King Edward III died and was succeded by his ten-year-old grandson as King Richard II. At King Richard II's coronation, John acted as High Steward, carried the Sword of Mercy, and carved at the coronation banquet."

Hence, John "continued to govern the kingdom during the minority of his nephew, Richard II, by whom, in 1389, he was created Duke of Aquitaine." Here we will see that his rise of power preoccupies his enemies, and that some of his policies, as the clash with the Church upon 'supporting' the "heretic" Wycliffe, were growingly impopular. As we can better understand following the paragraph below:

"The duke's politics were opposed by the chief ecclesiastics, and in resisting them he had made use of Wycliffe. With Wycliffe's religious opinions he had no sympathy. Nevertheless when the bishops arraigned the reformer for heresy John would not abandon him. The conflict over the trial led to a violent quarrel with the Londoners, and a riot in the city during which John was in danger of his life from the angry citizens. The situation was altered by the death of Edward III [...]. Though his enemies had accused him of aiming at the throne, John was without any taint of disloyalty. In his nephew's interests he accepted a compromise, disclaimed before parliament the truth of the malicious rumours against him, and was reconciled formally with his opponent."

Nevertheless, John was the main target during the Peasant's Revolt. It was an event important to understand what would happen half a century later. Though in this particular riot, we have the lower class in riots against heavy taxation, the complaints as to the 'man behind the throne', as if Richard II was John's puppet reflects the dissatisfaction people would have when Henry VI was surrounded by his favourites decades later, although on this case John was not Richard's regent. As we see below:

"[...]The main target of the angry revolt was not the young king. 'It became clear... that it was John of Gaunt whom the common people chiefly blamed, despite his lack of formal office, for the military failings and financial exactions of government' which inspired the revolt. One of the most detailed accounts of the Peasants' Revolt comes from Walsingham's chronicle, in which he is again bitterly critical of Gaunt. Although Walsingham's opinion seems biased and particularly spiteful, 'there is no reason to suppose that this part of his chronicle is not a fairly accurate reflection of the views of many of his contemporaries. The violent attacks on John of Gaunt in 1377, when the Londoners paraded his arms reversed, an during the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, when his palace of the Savoy was sacked,  show that feeling against him ran high."

Where the suspicious of the authority behind the throne lies, as we have said before, Sean Rocke¹ claims that:

"The people wanted to know to whom they were loyal, and whose authority was supreme: the King, or his powerful and unloved uncle behind the throne. This request epitomizes the 14th century preoccupation with issues of succession and legitimacy. However, these issues were not only characteristic of the 14th century. These very ssues would continue to influence politics and public opinion through the Wars of the Roses into the Tudor dynasty with its obsessions over legitimacy."

Whether he was genuinely guilty or not of those complaints, we understand by his actions that he was, not only a man of his days, but one whose ambitions rather led to foreign expeditions than to deal directly with domestic affairs. He was loyal to his family and fought for and next to it, which might be considerable to analyze if compared to others in his position that, blood or not, would not think twice before seizing the crown, as it was the case of Henry IV to Richard II and, ironically, to Edward IV to Henry VI years later.

And whilst we have an unfavourable view of John from the point of view of his rival, which could have also reflected a general view regarding his character as the quote above explained, there was also a more disposition opinion of John of Geoffrey Chaucer. In his eyes,

"Gaunt was no power-hungry villain wanting in the wings; indeed, 'there were better sides to his nature. Chaucer praised him as 'tretable/Right wonder skilful and reasonable', a genuine, courtly, chivalrous man who reflected the ideals of the Order of the Garter, another facet of the 14th century world that Gaunt reflects."

It can be suspected that such praise of the duke of Lancaster moves to the extreme opposite of that written by Walsingham, but to limit a character as this Plantagenet prince as good or evil is to forget that human beings in general had their flaws and qualities. Perfection does not exist, however tempting it is to look back and find glamurous the past. Nevertheless, impopular or not, towards the end of his years, John was created Duke of Aquitaine by King Richard II when he returned of his foreign excursions, avoiding being implicated in conspiracies against his nephew's throne.

In his final years, John married for the third time to his long time mistress, Katheryn Swynford née de Roet, whose sister was married to the poet Geoffrey Chaucer. It seems that, although Katheryn was raised at court and later served Blanche of Lancaster by being the governess of Philippa and Elizabeth, the signs of a romantic liaison between them supposedly began some time later before John's marriage to Constance of Castile. When John and Katheryn married, their children, having the surname Beaufort due to their birth at a French castle of this name, were legitimized by Richard II and Pope himself, although Henry IV would exclude them from inheriting the throne.

What then can be said of John's character?  He was, as said before, a product of his days. A courtly man, fond of poetry and arts, a knight who valued honour and dignity, which we can see by the loyalty to which he attached himself to the crown. When Richard II ascended to the throne, many preferred John to have been king instead of having another boy king on the throne (the last being King Henry III, who inherited the throne at age of nine), but he declined. He did not pursuit it, rather trying to settle, though unsuccessfully, himself as king of Castile. An ambition that was placed on two of his daughters that were crowned in Castile and Portugal, whose descendants are living until these days. After all,

"through his actions, 'the duke had shown himself an unyielding defender of the prerogative: he had stood by the crown in the difficult earlier years' and it would have been a major character change for him to be the villain portrayed by Walsingham and whose arrest and execution the peasant rebels demanded in 1381."

When searching for this post, we came across with positive views of him. Why does he inspire charisma to certain extent? Could he have prevented the illfated events that would lead to a tragedy which marked the next century in bloodshed? For this latter question, we have no answer. It is difficult to make predictions when every action led to that moment, as it was meant to be. As for the former, in terms of being the

"source of the Lancastrian and Tudor family lines, Gaunt was a literal father figure for the kingdom in later years, and Shakespeare's characterization of him as such shows that two hundred years later, his indirect influence was at least as strong as the influence he held as the counselor to the king. John of Gaunt led an unusual life, retaining almost unprecedented power and wealth, amassing a long list of titles, and vacillating between the positions of respected counselor and dangerous scapegoat for much of his political career. Some contemporary records give an image of a man greedy for a kingdom that he never attained, but this image is contradicted by Chaucer's insights, along with the evidence of Gaunt's consistent loyalty to the crown."

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and Aquitaine, died on 3 February 1399 at Leicester Castle, in England, aged 58. He was buried alongside his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, at Old St Paul's Cathedral in London. Through his first wife, John was the grandfather of Henry VI; through his third wife, he was the grandfather of Cecily Neville, mother of Kings Edward IV and Richard III; aside of being the great-grandfather of Margaret Beaufort, mother of King Henry VII. In Portugal, he is the ancestor of the House of Orléans-Braganza, and is a common ancestor for most of the European houses of the present monarchy.

Bibliography:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Gaunt

-http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_34.html

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-of-Gaunt-duke-of-Lancaster

-http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/death-john-gaunt

-https://historytheinterestingbits.com/2015/09/20/the-complicated-love-life-of-john-of-gaunt-2/

-http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/john-of-gaunt-1st-duke-of-lancaster/

-http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/gaunt.htm

-https://www.harlaxton.ac.uk/academics/downloads/honors/RockeSean-Gaunt.pdf¹

-http://www.britannia.com/bios/royals/jgdklanc.html

Ivan Vasilyevich IV: The Terrible Tsar Of Russia (1530-1584)

On today's post we turn our eyes again to the Russian monarchy. This tsar, a contemporary fellow king to others as Catherine de' Medici and her sons in France, Elizabeth Tudor in England, Phillip of Habsburg in Spain, is one of the most infamous of the House of Romanov. His name is Ivan and he is known for being such a "terrible" sovereign in terms of personality and as politician. However, it is our intention to question how terrible was he as person and as a monarch, so we hope to at least present a discussion to better enlight his historical figure.

Ivan IV was born Ivan Vasilyevich in 1530 as the first of two children of Basil III and Elena Glinskaya. Not much is known about his childhood in matters of education, but his early years were not the happiest one for someone of his position. Ivan was only three when his father died and ascended to the throne as Ivan IV. After a struggle against his uncle, his mother Elena became regent for four years before her own death, which is said to have been caused by poison.

"Once Basil died the boyars took over Russia, denying Ivan's right to the throne. Ivan's mother then with other trusted boyars took over the ruling party. Elena was able to successfully rule Russia for four years, until she died suddenly in 1538, apparently from poisoning, leaving eight-year-old Ivan an orphan."

This would prove to have dangerous consequences in Ivan when shaping the young tsar's character:

"Ivan's brutal behavior later on in life is testimony to his never having forgotten nor forgiven the childhood indignities he had suffered. The boyars would only pay attention to him when his presence was required at a ceremony. As the rivalry in the Palace for the power of Russia escalated into a bloody feud, Ivan witnessed horrible things. Living in poverty he watched and heard murders, beatings, and verbal and physicial abuse regularly. The boyars alternately neglected or molested him; Ivan and his deaf-mute brother Yuri often went about hungry and threadbare. Incapable to strike at his tormentors, Ivan took out his terrible frustrations on defenseless animals."

It would not be until 1543 that Ivan responded the ill treatments to him and his brother directed by violence. According to the next paragraph,

"On December 29, 1543 Ivan surprised his boyars by calling them to a meeting. He condemned them for their neglect of him and the nation, and denounced them for their misconduct. Prince Andrew Shuiksy, the leader of the boyars was thrown to a pack of hungry hunting dogs as an example to the others. After this, the boyars conceded that their rule had ended and that Ivan had complete power. [...] Ivan soon married Anastasia Romanova-Zakharyna-Yurueva. Anastasia bore him six children of whom only two survived infancy."

We will speak briefly of this marriage and it's offspring in the next paragraphs. For now, however, we must understand how significant was when Ivan finally managed to hold power for himself, despite being contested that he did so after he practiced the idea of divine right. A first step to this can be observed in his own coronation, when he took the title of "Tsar" instead of Grand Prince, as we can see in the following excerpt:

"On 16 January 1547, at age sixteen, Ivan was crowned with Monomakh's Cap at the Cathedral of the Dormition. He was the first to be crowned as 'Tsar of All The Russias', hence claiming the ancestry of Kievan Rus. Prior to that, rulers of Muscovy were crowned as Grand Princes, although Ivan III the Great, his grandfather, styled himself 'tsar' in his correspondence. Two weeks after his coronation, Ivan married his first wife Anastasia Romanovna [...] who became the first Russian tsaritsa."

There was a symbolic meaning before the self entitlement as Tsar of all the Russias. Apparently,

"The new title symbolized an assumption of powers equivalent and parallel to those held by former Byzantine Emperor and the Tatar Khan, both known in Russia sources as Tsar. The political effect was to elevate Ivan's position. The new title not only secured the throne, but it also granted Ivan a new dimension of power, one intimately tied to religion. He was now a "divine" leader appointed to enact God's will, as 'chuch texts described Old Testament kings as 'Tsars' and Christ as the Heavenly Tsar'. The newly appointed title was then passed on from generation to generation [...]."

From that moment on, a government was formed as the council was appointed by the tsar. Despite the principle of divine representative in earth, Ivan did not rule exactly alone. He is "believed to have governed with the aid of a talented group of advisers [...]." What can be surprising for many is that Ivan was an effective ruler, at least in the first half of his reign. He did implant important measures for Russia as we will see next. One of which was the law code, which he not only revised but also reformed.

"In 1550, Ivan announced a reformed code of laws and a new system for justice, the Sudebnik. Criminal acts now were clearly defined, and punishments were prescribed for each. In addition, judges who were appointed by Moscow, would share their benches with representatives elected by local populations, in an effort to curb the practice of corrupt judges that sold justice to those who could afford it. Now magistrates would, at least in theory, enforce the laws equally, without discrimination against persons of low status."

Ivan, aside of having implanted local police officers in order to prevent crimes, established

"a standing army (the streltsy), [...] the Zemsky Sobor (the first Russian parliament of the feudal Estates type) and the council of the nobles [...], and confirmed the position of the Church with the Council of the Hundred Chapters [...] which unified the rituals and ecclesiastical regulations of the whole country. He introduced local self-government to rural regions, mainly in the northeast of Russia, populated by the state peasantry."

In 1553,  the first printing press reached Russia, being introduced upon Ivan's orders. It would not last, however, after a few religious books were published for it angered the conservative writers who did not see this "improvement" with good eyes. Though not doing nothing in favour of the printing press, Ivan IV apparently held books written by Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Mstislavets, the first Russian printers, who were forced to seek exile in Lithuania to avoid prosecution.

It did surprise us to see a side of Ivan that few propose to discuss it. A man fond of arts, Ivan not only was a great supporter of them but was, apparently a poet himself.  Also, "his Orthodox liturgical hymn, Stichiron No. 1 in Honor of St Peter, and fragments of his letters were put into music by Soviet composer Rodion Shchedrin."

In terms of diplomacy, Ivan had a good relationship with England, with Anglo-Russian relations being traced to the reign of King Edward VI, around 1551,

"when the Muscovy Company was formed by Richard Chancellot, Sebastian Cabot, Sir Hugh Willoughby and several London merchants. [...] In 1553, Richard Chancellor sailed to the White Sea and continued overland to Moscow, where he visited Ivan's court. Ivan opened up the White Sea and the port of Arkhangelsk to the Company and granted the Company privilege of trading throughout his reign without paying the standard customs fees. Muscovy Company retained the monopoly in Russo-English trade until 1698."

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, relations continued, though of one part it was focused to commerce, and the other, military alliance. By then, Ivan was facing problems concerning military and political issues. He also engaged with other Orthodox leaders.

"In response to a letter of Patriach Joachim of Alexandria asking the Tsar for financial assistance for the Saint Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula, which had suffered from the Turks, Ivan IV sent in 1558 a delegation to Egypt Evalet [...]"

In terms of religion, the tsar a religious, pious man which did not difer to his contemporaries as King Edward VI of England or Queen Catherine de' Médici in France years later. He used of burning and other sadistic methods to execute those who had different religious concepts of his. Those were the correspondent of the "torments of Hell, consistent with Ivan's view of being God's representative on Earth with a sacred right and duty to punish, [...] inspired by the model of Archangel Michael with the idea of divine punishment."

Looking back to the domestic affairs, it is said that his temper worsened after the death of his first wife, the first tsarina Anastasia. His discontent and grief were shown in public, it is said, when he hit his head. It is apparently from that moment onwards that he begins to be the terrible monarch he would later be remembered. For

"the first wave of persecutions targeted primarily the princely clans of Russia, notably the influential families of Suzdal. Ivan executed, exiled or forcibly tonsured prominent members of the boyar clans on questionable accusations of conspiracy. [...] In 1566 Ivan extended the oprichnina to eight central districts. Of the 12,000 nobles there, 570 became oprichniks, the rest were expelled."

It is suggested that the serfdom system that would mark Russia throughout the next centuries began in his reign. A better explanation is seen below:

"The country's vast lower class, the peasants, also saw their lot worsened during Ivan's reign. Much of the land turned over to the military servicemen had been state land worked by free peasants. The system gradually turned many peasants into serfs, bound to the land they tilled. In 1581 Ivan even issued an edict forbidding some peasants on service lands from moving."

As complicated it is to make a judgement of this act, it must be remembered that peasants who did not work were unseen with bad eyes during the 16th century. Even in England of the 17th century, Lord Cromwell would send to execution thousands of men who were "merely vagabonds". And much less trustable is to divide the Tsar's reign according to the perceptions of what was good or bad. Putting aside his personal character and what was the cause of the problems in his personal life that certainly led to his misconduct which turned Ivan into a dubious historical character, we have only brought facts of his reign in days that were burned by religious differences as a result of the Protestant Reformation.

The murder of his son and heir after an argument he had with his daughter-in-law, in which resulted a miscarriage that made the prince discuss with Ivan, certainly is not excusable for the eyes of our days and those of theirs. Yet, it does not compete to us to have it as a single subject to explore Ivan's reign as Russia's sovereign. In fact, the websites here consulted were mostly concerned about drawing out his policies, though some of which produced judgement of value that we hope to avoid by writing about this monarch regardless of our opinion about him.

Therefore, to end it, we can tell that Ivan's heritance to Russia after he died in March 18 1554 in consequence of a heart attack, was that he not only "altered Russia's governmental structure", but he established "the chracter of modern Russian political organisation".

"Ivan's creation of the Oprichnina, answerable only to him, not only afforded him personal protection but curtailed the traditional powers and rights of the boyars. Henceforth, Tsarist autocracy and despotism would lie at the heart of the Russia state. Ivan bypassed the Mestnichestvosystem and offered positions of power to his supporters among the minor gentry. The Empire's local administration combined both locally and centrally appointed officials; the system proved durable and practical, and sufficiently flexible to tolerate later modification."

A curiosity about Ivan is that in 1963, when the Soviets found the graves of Ivan and his sons,

"chemical and structual analysis of his remains disproved earlier suggestions that Ivan suffered from syphilis, or that he was posioned by arsenic or strangled. At the time of his death he was 178 cm [...] and weighed 85-90 kg. His body was rather asymmetrical and had a large amount of osteophytes uncharacteristic of his age; it also contained excessive concentration of mercury. Researchers concluded that while Ivan was athletically built in his youth, in his last years he had developed various bone diseases and could barely move. They attributed the high mercury content in his body to the use of ointments for joints healing."

Ivan IV was also much compared to the dictator Stalin and would be studied with suspicious eyes until nowadays. He is too, like Henry VIII of England, remembered for depousing more than three wives, managing to make seven consorts, though some of these marriages are disputed. Whatever the case, Ivan IV was succeeded by his second son, Feodor I.

Bibliography:

-http://academic.mu.edu/meissnerd/ivan-terrible.htm

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-the-Terrible

-http://madmonarchs.guusbeltman.nl/madmonarchs/ivan4/ivan4_bio.htm

-https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-8-Wives-of-Ivan-The-Terrible

-http://historycooperative.org/paranoid-proactive-story-ivan-terrible/

Princess Isabel of Brazil: The Empress Who Never Was (1846-1921)

In our previous posts concerning the royals that helped to shape history in whatever context we have approached, we have acknowledged that history repeats itself in wherever part of the globe that monarchy (in such specific context) is or could be found. Looking to the tropics, Brazil's own history concerning the royals that left their marks in it, could not be different.

On today's post, we will discuss the lifetime of this Brazilian princess who could have been the first Empress of the tropics, in a charge that her contemporary Queen Victory would later occupy as Empress of India, had the coup d'état that replaced the old system of monarchy for republicanism, been prevented.

To those who are more familiar with Princess Isabel, she is most remembered for signing the Aurea Law, which granted freedom to all of the slaves in one of the last countries to abolish slavery. This particular deed granted the princess the nickname of "The Redemptress", but other than that historians have been questioning her role as regent during the times where her father, Emperor Pedro II, had been absent for reasons of health or for visiting friends and fellow monarchs in Europe; and the extent of her importance to Brazil's history. Whatever is the ideology one believes, it must be understood that every historical character is important for the construction of history. To deny that, is to undermine their relevance for History itself. Being a minor character or not, it is our duty to the figures they were to find out until what extent did their path as privileged persons crossed to History maker.

And to our princess, the Empress who never was, this could not be different. She had in her royal blood ancestors as Maria Theresa the Holy Roman Empress (who was also another subject to this blog), Louis XIV of France, Philippe II of Spain and even Henry VII Tudor through Mary, Queen of Scots. Not to mention the line of the Braganças of Portugal and Orléans of Spain.

Isabel, christened Isabel Cristina Leopoldina Augusta Micaela Gabriela Rafaela Gonzaga of Orléans-Braganza, was born on 29 July 1846 at the Palace of Saint Christopher [Portuguese: Paço de São Cristóvão] as the second child and first daughter of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil and his consort, Empress Maria Theresa of the Two Siciles. Before her birth, Isabel had an older brother named Alfonso, but he died at a tender age. After Leopoldina's birth, another brother was born, Pedro, but he did not live infancy.

It is said that Isabel's childhood was a happy one, once her mother, Empress Theresa (whose life we have already discussed on this blog, as well as of Emperor Pedro II's) always did her best in provide a happy and safe background accordingly to the social expectations of the 19th century towards their gender, which reflects the morality that marked this particular time in History. After the death of Pedro in 1850, Isabel's position rose as the presumptive heiress to the Brazilian empire. However, such position much concerned her father, since those were days that women were not expected to be the chief of state, though in 19th century England the same cannot be said of Queen Victoria. The next paragraph, thus reinforces what the Emperor thought of the whole situation:

"The Emperor's words revealed his inner conviction. After learning of the death of his son Pedro in 1850, he wrote: 'This has been the most fatal blow that I could receive, and certainly I would not have survived were it not that I still have a wife and two children whom I must educate so that they can assure the happiness of the country in which they were born.' Seven years later, in 1857, when it was more than clear that no more children would be born, the Emperor wrote: 'As to their education, I will only say that the character of both the princesses ought to be shaped as suits Ladies who, it may be, will have to direct the constitutional government of an Empire such as Brazil."

Despite of the fondness he undoubtedly had for his daughters, much of the Emperor's words reflect the common sense that was for the male-dominating society of those days in having male heirs. As historian Roderick J. Barman claims

"[...] the Emperor [...] although he valued D. Isabel as his daughter, he simply could not accept or perceive her in cold reality as his successor or regard her as a viable ruler.  The main reason for this behaviour was his attitude toward the female gender. "Pedro II believed, as did most men of his day", says Barman, "that a single woman could not manage life's problem on her own, even if she possessed the powers and authority of an empress."

As a result, Isabel's education was, perhaps, more fitting for a consort rather than a sole Empress. She was educated in "Portuguese and French literature, astronomy, chemistry, the history of Portugal, England and France, drawing, piano, dancing, political economy, geography, geology and [...] philosophy" She would be also fluent in French, English and German. It is also said that her father, the emperor himself, taught his daughters Latin.

Politics were not included in Isabel's education and hardly there were any approach of her father to introduce her to the matters of state. She was not taught about diplomacy nor was presented to the tasks that a presumptive heir should. Such neglection is explained not for the lack of fondness towards his daughter, but because the emperor was the product of a society dominated by male costums. Perhaps she would have been more acceptable amongst the rural nobility and more of the elite conservative had she been better acquainted with the role of a future Empress balanced with one of religious consort. It is said that Isabel

"[...] 'accepted women as dependent and obedient, and indeed her mother's and her governess's behavior did not justify anything else.' She 'did not lack powers of observation and a certain shrewdness, but she was very accepting of existance as it was and certainly not given to pondering the justification of existence for the established order'. All this meant that Isabel would not attempt a 'position in life autonomous of her father', even less rival him."

Isabel's character as adolescent was subject of comparisons to that of her father's in the same age. Apparently, she had a dispersive attention to things that did not hold her attention for longer than necessary and "a tendency to take a cheerful view of life". The princess was also "not afraid to speak her mind, and [...] held strong views." Physically, she was said to have been short, blond hair and blue eyes. She had no eyebrows and was a little overweight. When Gaston, Count of Eu, first saw her and Leopoldina, he described the sisters to be "ugly".

Although arranged as political match, it would develop to a love relationship. Isabel much relied on her loved husband, and this would be seen with some suspicious by the Brazilians, whom the prince of the royal house of France grew to be very attached to, as seen here:

"Isabel married French prince Gaston d'Orléans, through an arranged marriage in 1865. Although the prince initially described Isabel as ugly, they developed a strong attachment, and by all accounts they had a happy and loving marriage until their deaths (she in 1921, he in 1922). Likewise, he seemed to love Brazil, and he even fough for Brazil in the Paraguayan War."

Once this war which the Empire of Brazil fought against Paraguay after a diplomacy disaster committed by the latter ended, we come to Isabel's regency. As the next paragraph attests:

"Isabel played an important symbolic role during the first regency. Brazil had been gradually moving towards abolition of slavery for some time; as early as the 1820s, in constitutional debates for the new empire, some politicians spoke out against the institution. Mounting pressure from the English led to Brazil's formal abolition of the slave trade in 1850 (though illegal trade continued). After the Paraguayan War, however, the abolition movement really accelerated; during the war, many slaves and ex-slaves fought, often gaining numerous awards for their conduct on the field, and to return to slavery was an obvious problem. [...] In 1871, Brazil passed the Law of Free Birth, declaring that any child born to a slave woman after 28 September 1871 [...] would be free. Although Viscount Rio Branco wrote the law and Brazil's parliament passed it, it was Princess Isabel's signature that made the law the rule of the land. It would not be the last time her name was directly tied to the abolitionist movement."

Many historians nowadays disdainly question the extent of Isabel's support to the abolitionist cause. There are evidences that one of the reasons she did not openly embraced the movement was for fear to cause a negative impact to the majority of the supporters of monarchy, which were the owners of slave. This is a complex relationship that over 200 years had shaped Brazil during it's days as Portugal's colony and, in a similar situation in the Russia of Tsar Alexander II where putting serlfdom to an end resulted in his assassination, it should be careful when dealing with it. Isabel was not prepared for her charge, never she was taught to the role expected for the daughter of an Emperor as Pedro II and, to her disavantadge, many suspected she was a puppet of her husband, the french Prince Gaston. Many Brazilians saw her religious character and devotion to the Catholic Church with not good eyes, for they feared France and Rome would govern the country upon Pedro II's death when Isabel ascended as Empress. Isabel's piety is, here, not associated with kindness and support to a long cause of the abolishment of slavery, but rather a pawn of the Church. It did not help her side that she was associated "with ultramontanism, which emphasied the authority of the Church over the government."

After this first period of regency, Pedro II excluded her from government, which must have been a sort of relief for her as, according to "Castelo de Papel" by historian Mary del Priore, she distressed easily with tasks she was not only unprepared to take but disliked it much doing so. Nevertheless,

"a second period of regency began in 1876. This regency was marked with illness [for Gaston and Isabel], as well as fraud and intrigue within the government and public strife. Isabel and Gaston retreated intro private life as this disaster, even spending three years living in Paris."

However, it is her third and last time as regent that would mark not only Princess Isabel's position as presumptive heiress to the imperial crown but all of Brazil's history as well. She was once again forced to assume regency when Pedro II fell in 1888. When this happened,

"[...] conservatives were in power in parliament, and were still resisting total abolition. However, by this point, Isabel allegedly felt slavery's time was fast coming to an end. In 1888, she appointed a new government, led by João Alfredo Correia da Oliveira, also from the conservative party. The new government quickly introduced a law abolishing slavery in May of 1888; it passed the Chamber of Deputies (by a count of 83-9) before going to the Senate, which also passed the law. On May 13, 1888, Princess Isabel, who suddenly became known as A Redentora, or "The Redemptress", signed the "Golden Law", making Brazil the last country in the western hemisphere to abolish slavery."

Yet, this act was a final blow for Brazilian's monarchy to fall. Republican sayings were already a trend in the country, though supported mostly by militaries, in spite of Pedro II's high popularity. Freedom of speech was, against expectations if observed in countries as Russia whose tsars forbade to speak ill of them, granted and news based in France's liberté, egalité et fraternité were spread (which is, historically speaking, hardly something new, but certainly gained a new refresh in this particular context). As it was said before, however, abolishing slavery was an act that affected all of the country, whose economy still largely relied on slaves and was in the beginning of "changing" it to immigrants.

Isabel's role in it has been minimized, but only because it is failed to observe that by the late 1870's, monarchy was more likely being shaped to be the head of the government than an active system that once was. As a regent, and one very inexperienced, she had to please both struggling sides: the liberals and the conservatives. It is also claimed that she was willing to give the vote for the women, something which would not happen until 1930's, and that she had set free many of her own slaves, taking those who escaped of their masters to her house, aiding them thus. It was also rumoured that Pedro II saw it coming and was more to a "republican" than a monarch. Whatever the case, 1889 came and, regardless of the high level of popularity of Princess Isabel and her father, the Emperor, a coup d'état occurred and the royal family was forced to live in exile.

"Isabel spent the rest of her days in exile in France. Although the Brazilian government lifted the ban on the royal family traveling to Brazil in 1920, Isabel's worsening health made any chance of a return to her birthplace impossible, and in 1921, she died at the age of 75. In 1953, however, her remains (along with those of her husband) were repatriated, and in 1971, they were buried alongside those of Isabel's parents in the cathedral in Petrópolis, the imperial center of Brazil."

Whatever that were the myths and the truths that surrounded this gracious figure, we are at least thankful that in our present days we find more biographies concerning her historical character, discussing with far more details than those here presented. So that way different perspectives can rise to propose more discussions about this woman who did so much to Brazil and yet, likely because of republicanism, is left in the corner of history books.

Bibliography:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel,_Princess_Imperial_of_Brazil

-https://americasouthandnorth.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/get-to-know-a-brazilian-princess-isabel/

-http://international.loc.gov/intldl/brhtml/br-1/br-1-5-3.html

-http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/july-29-1846-birth-of-isabel-princess-imperial-of-brazil/