Anne of Great Britain: The Last Stuart Queen (1665-1714)

Motivated by the recent popular tv show based on a series of books named "Outlander", we questioned ourselves about the extent of the facts that led the Hanovers to deal with two Stuart pretenders, one known as the 'old pretender' was named James, this being the son of exiled King James II of England and VII of Scotland; and then his son, named Charles, commonly associated as 'Bonnie Prince Charlie'. Thinking of this, we considered writing a small series connecting two dynasties and their struggle for the crown of Britain. Does it sound familiar for the reader? Indeed it does, or at least should be, for England has quite a history involving royal cousins battling against each other for the possession of its crown. From Matilda days to Queen Anne's, wars were fought for different reasons yet for the same desire in governing a very resourceful and respected country whose tradition remains admirable even to the present days.

Bearing in mind that when the word queen and England are associated in one sentence where its history is concerned, those are very associated to Anne's Tudor predecessors, the most famous being Mary I and, more often, to Elizabeth I. In fact, it is with the latter that Anne would be inspired to, which can be quite an irony if one sees that Anne is the great-great granddaughter of Elizabeth's deadly rival, Mary, Queen of Scots. But, as we will see following the next paragraphs, not only would Anne adopt Elizabeth Tudor's personal motto "Semper Aedem" ("Always the Same"), as she too were to live a rivalry with a sister named Mary and, mostly important to understand not only today's post about Anne as Queen but on the following posts concerning the Hanovers as upcoming Britain's new dynasty, a bittersweet refusal in acknowledging Sophia of Hanover as her heiress. Comprehending that this queen has unfairly not been the subject of many studious or at least capturing the attention of the public eye, we attempt to bring Anne Stuart back to life in the hopes that her deeds make her as inspiring as woman and her queenship as admirable as were her predecessors Mary and Elizabeth and even afterwards when Victoria reigned for quite a while. A link between women as Matilda, Elizabeth, Anne and Victoria we are amused to find is that they all were the "last" of their lines and yet what they left for England and perhaps for Europe to some extent still remains nowadays.

Every story has a beginning. This could not be different. By the time Anne was born, she was hardly the heiress her parents and all of England were expecting for. Bear it in mind that by 1665, her uncle Charles Stuart was on the British throne as King Charles II. He, in turn, was the son of the ill fated King Charles I, who, like his grandmother before him Mary of Scotland, lost his head accordingly to the English laws of treason. When Charles II was invited to return to England, he was already acknowledged as sovereign of Scotland by being the second of his name to wear its crown. In a previous post, we have written about Charles' reign from a different perspective when we wrote about his consort, the forgotten Queen Catherine, the Portuguese Infanta of the House of Braganza. So that way, with Charles II on the throne and well married by then, James, Anne's father, was entitled as Duke of York and was already the father of another girl, Anne's oldest sister named Mary. Until their growth, neither were expected to assume the throne for Charles II was proving to be very healthy, in the lack for a better word, since he fathered more than a few illegitimate children, though none by his lawful wife.

Whatever were the circumnstances of Anne's birth, she was born at St James's Palace, located in London, on the 6 February 1665. She was the fourth child of James, then Duke of York, and his first wife, Lady Anne Hyde. Of the children the Duke and his wife had, only Anne and her oldest sister, Mary, survived adulthood. Throughout her life, Anne suffered of a poor health and we see the first signs of it as a child, when she "suffered from an eye condition, which manifested as excessive watering known as 'defluxion'". As a result, she spent her early years in France to receive treatment for her health, first at the household of her paternal grandmother, the Dowager Queen Henriette Marie, until the death of the latter, and then to the household of her aunt, the Duchess of Orléans, Henriette Anne. But the duchess too would die soon and it was then that Anne would return to England, where she shared a household with Mary.

By this time, Charles II, seeing that he would lack heirs to succeed him, had his eyes to his nieces and began to provide their marriages. But first, he'd see they were to receive an Anglican education as Anne and Mary settled household at Richmond Palace where they were raised as Protestants. Bishop of London, Henry Compton, would be Anne's own preceptor. As a result of such Anglican education, Anne would grow "distrustful of Catholics and 'popery' which would further complicate the family situation, when before his remarriage, the Duke of York converted to Catholicism." It would far from help his cause when reaching the throne that James married a Catholic princess named Mary of Modena. Though it was generally accepted that James would succeed Charles, it was, quite ironically, expected that Mary of Modena would not give James a male heir otherwise things would go quite complicated. Nonetheless, despite this apparent tension, Anne did get well along with James, who was said to be a caring and loving father, and her stepmother. 

Following Mary's marriage to Prince of Orange William, in an event which Anne could not attend due to an attack of smallpox, it was arranged for Anne to marry a Danish prince, the younger brother of King Frederick III of Denmark named George. Before that, however, it was apparently expected that the Elector of Hanover, also named George, would marry her when he "visited London for three months from December 1680, sparking rumours of a potential marriage between them." 

The apparent decline of George of Hanover's part in marrying Anne is, some would say, partly the reason of her great dislike towards the House of Hanover and why she would stubbornly refuse to acknowledge him as her heir, reflecting also the rivalry Anne would later engage to her cousin Sophia, who was the daughter of Elizabeth Stuart, known as the Winter Queen of Bohemia. Elizabeth, whom we have also spoken on this very same blog, was in turn the daughter of King James VI, hence why the Hanovers were the closest Protestants heirs to the British throne by the time of Anne's death. But, by now, what matters is to understand the arrangement that would bring England and Denmark close together again (a reminder that James VI's consort was a Danish princess, Anne). As we can see below:

"Bishop Compton officiated at the wedding of Anne and George of Denmark, on 28 July 1683 in the Chapel Royal. Though it was an arranged marriage, they were faithful and devoted partners."

By this time, the future Sarah Churchill entered Anne's retinue and became chief lady of bedchamber. Their early friendship would endure for quite some years ahead still and would provide to be an important key role during Anne's reign as a queen. For now, Anne was mostly concerned with her handsome husband, though some would address him as a "chronic asthmatic", "nonentity", and even regarding him as dull, but with pleasant manners. Whatever the case, Anne and George were devouted to each other and, despite George's special affection for wine, they would get along just fine. 

Finally, towards the year of 1685, King Charles II died without legitimate heirs. This would thus make James, then Duke of York, as King James VII of Scotland, the II of England and Ireland. His ascension would give the English protestants cause for concern due to the fact that 

"[...] James began to give Catholics military and administrative offices, in contravention of the Test Acts that were designed to prevent such appointments. Anne shared the general concern and continued to attend Anglican services. As her sister Mary lived in the Netherlands, Anne and her family were the only members of the royal family attending Protestant religious services in England. When her father tried to get Anne to baptise her youngest daughter into the Catholic faith, Anne burst into tears. "The Church of Rome is wicked and dangerous", she wrote to her sister. [...] Anne became estranged from her father and stepmother as James moved to weaken the Church of England's power."

Because his daughters were still James' heirs, 

"[...] people were accepting of him, because his Catholicism was seen as a temporary abhorrence. This would all change in 1688, when Anne's half-brother James was born to Mary of Modena. He would, of course, be raised as Catholic, the religion of his parents. This was unacceptable to a Protestant clergy and nobility. Rumours began to fly immediately that the child was not a Prince, King James' son had died, and the baby of a peasant brought in to take his place. Although there were many witnesses, Anne was not among them, and she wrote to her sister Mary saying she would never be satisfied the child was really her brother."

Despite this sense of strangeness before the birth of a prince, the very unwanted heir, which is a very irony in great contrast to figures of the past who were in desperate need of male heirs as was the case of Henry VIII, must it be written here though in short paragraphs the birth of Prince James and why it's so important to understand how his birth reflected the fears of a society that, by then, was still cultivating the wars of religion that began to spread amongst all Europe from the century before with Luther and other reformists contesting Catholic Church's corruption and among other things they thought well to reform, in a movement that led to what was called Protestantism. This being said, there was the fear in most Englishmen's minds of what the rule of a Catholic could do to England. With the benefict of a century and half, Queen Mary I's reign would not be seen with eyes of understanding people that what she did was a result of her beliefs that other European monarchs that stood for Catholicism shared. No one would remember the positive politics concerned to Mary Tudor, because her image, from Elizabethan age on, maculated by the Protestant perspective that a Catholic sovereign that burns heretic is nothing but the image of devil spreading evil and terror to a holy and sacred land. The most "refreshing" memory to the Englishmen was to the image of the beheaded king Charles Stuart, whose flirtations to Catholicism and an arrogant queen who refused to take Anglican rites out of respect for her beliefs, led, amongst other reasons, to a Civil War. 

So as James Francis Edward was born on 10 June 1688, "a Catholic succession became more likely" and set such a public alarm that eventually the crisis culminated in an event we now know by the name of "Glorious Revolution", where the English and Scottish Parliaments invited Mary and her husband William of Orange to take the crown as the true Protestant heirs to the lands. As seen below:

"In January 1689, a Convention Parliament assembled in England and declared that James had effecitvely abdicated when he fled, and that the thrones of England and Ireland were therefore vacant. The Parliament or Estates of Scotland took similar action, and William and Mary were declared monarchs of all three realms. The Bill of Rights 1689 and Claim of Right Act 1689 settled the succession. Anne and her descendants were to be in the line of succession after William and Mary, and they were to be followed by any descendants of William by a future marriage. On 24 July 1689, Anne gave birth to a son, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, who, though ill, survived infancy. As King William and Queen Mary had no children, it looked as though Anne's son would eventually inherit the Crown."

As for James VII, it is recorded that his reaction of the event that led him to exile in France alongside his son and wife, was of disappointment. He recalled that he was forsaken by his own daughters. But apparently, Anne would manage to make peace with her father laterwards.

Anne's relationship with William and Mary worsened after this, as they saw with no good eyes the relationship Anne had with Sarah Churchill, due to the heavy influence this latter had on the princess. For this reason, Mary and Anne were constantly in personal battles and they would not reconcile until Mary was dead. When William realized he was not only rulling solely but also lacking heirs, he sought for a reconciliation with his sister-in-law and Anne regained her position, was once more visited by courtiers and held a court of her own.

She would finally become queen on 8 March 1702, and was very popular. It is said that

"[...] in her first speech to the English Parliament, on 11 March, she distanced herself from her late Dutch brother-in-law and said, "As I know my heart to be entirely English, I can very sincerely assure you there is not anything you can expect or desire from me which I shall not ready to do for the happiness and prosperity of England."

She did something that Elizabeth Tudor did closely in the last century, when the Tudor queen appealled by the English pride to distance herself from the foreign rule of Mary Tudor's Spanish blood and her Spanish husband. Also, by adopting Elizabeth I's personal motto "Always the Same", as we have mentioned before, it makes us question how far did Anne admire her Tudor cousin and what were the lessons Elizabeth might have taught this Stuart Queen. But this can only be speculated.

One of Queen Anne's first actions as sovereign was to reward the Marlborough's by granting great offices and positions to Sarah and her husband, the latter growing to be an excellent general during the wars England would win within a few years. Following it, Anne was crowned on St George's Day, 23 April 1702. It is said that "[...] afflicted with gout, she was carried to Westminster Abbey in an open sedan chair, with a low back to permit her train to flow out behind her."

The matter of the Queen's poor and deteriorate health would constantly provoke discussions. In politics especially, now that we witness the rise of two political parties: the Whigs, defended by the late king William III, and the Tories, the latter being favoured by the Queen. Both would sustain the inheritance issue and whilst the Whigs supported the Hannovers, it can be possible to state that were Jacobites (a latin name for James, this was used for those who supported James Francis Edward as heir to the English throne) amongst the Tories. It is claimed that to James it was offered the position of an heir had he converted to Anglicanism, which he refused. By then, when this proposal was offered, James was already proclaimed as James III of England and VIII of Scotland as Louis XIV of France acknowledged him. As we can see below:

"Upon the death of James II in 1701, the French king Louis XIV proclaimed James King of England. James's adherence to Roman Catholicism caused the English Parliament to pass a bill of attainder against him in 1701. In 1708 the Pretender set out in French ships to invade Scotland, but he was driven away by the British before he could land. He distinguished himself fighting in the French army in the War of the Spanish Sucession (1701-14). In 1714 he refused to accept suggestions by Robert Harley and Viscount Bolinbroke that he renounce Roman Catholicism and become Anglican in order to be designated Queen Anne's heir to the throne of England."

This was the beginning of a struggle between Stuarts and Hannovers that would only end circa of thirty years after Queen Anne died. In the meanwhile rumours were being spread that Anne herself was more than willing in having her half-brother to the British throne due to the fact she refused to invite the Hanovers to land in England, she was forced to deal with more important matters as her health. The Queen had never a strong health ever since she was born and to worse things, she not only was pregnant for eighteen times, but most of those times she miscarried or gave birth to stillborn children. As we briefly mentioned in the paragraph above, Anne had one son to survive infancy and his name was William. But he too died at the age of 11, which much caused her grief and led her household to commemorate his death every date he passed away. As seen below:

"It is widely believed that the reason behind Queen Anne's miscarriages and stillborn children is because she suffered from Antiphospholipid Syndrome, an immune disorder that turns the body against itself. It is also widely known that Queen Anne suffered with chronic illnesses, most notably gout, which was even so extreme she had to be carried in to her coronation. It could be argued that this illness, as well as the Monarch's excessive drinking, led to the ultimely death's of her young children."

Like her cousin Elizabeth before her, due to the lack of heirs, Anne must have felt pressed to constantly appoint an heir and though she eventually agreed that Sophia of Hanover and her heirs would do so, she would not discuss the matter and even so rivalries between the two houses remained. Some claim that Anne felt pleased that the proud Sophia did not make to inherite the crown herself. Whatever the case, this would only present a great issue to James Francis Edward in the future.

In terms of the politics of her reign, it is characterized by three councillors she trusted the most. Those were the names of Marlborough, at least before his fall, whose wife Sarah Churchill was then in good terms with the Queen; Godolphin and Robert Harley. After all, 

"Between them, the three held most of the important political position in the land and between 1702 and 1704 they worked with the Earl of Nottingham [Secretary of State] while the War of Spanish Succession was being fought. Marlborough, via his wife Sarah, advised Anne onf successful government: the Queen must maintain her powers of appointment and that the Queen should administer patronage through a non-party manager."

One important aspect of Anne's domestic politics in her reign is the union of Scottish and English Parliaments that resulted in the Great Britain, which made Scotland and England one kingdom under her realm. Although mostly Scottish nationalists and others blame Queen Elizabeth I for passing the English throne to King James VI of Scots, it was not until Queen Anne's reign that these two realms would be united under one sole crown. It is said that, in spite of opposition, Anne was a "consistent and ardent supporter of union" and even "attended a thanksgiving service in St. Paul's Cathedral" when she achieved her main goal.

As a result, 

"The union of England and Scotland, which Anne fervently supported, created Europe's largest free trade area. The political and diplomatic achievements of Anne's governments, and the absence of constitutional conflict between monarch and parliament during her reign, indicate that she chose mininsters and exercised her prerogatives wisely."

Another aspect of her reign that is just as important as the Union Act was the development of two partisans that constituted in Anne's reign but would grow in influence and power with the Hanovers. This system was divided in Tories, who "were supportive of the Anglican church and favoured the 'landed interest' of the country gentry", while the Whigs "were aligned with commerical interests and Protestant Dissenters." Due to her religious nature, Anne was more inclined to support the Tories. 

In other words, what can be said of Anne's reign is summoned in one paragraph as we see in the following excerpt:

"Her reign would last twelve eventful years, in which we would see the Acts of Union between Scotland and England, the War of Spanish Succession, and an attempted invasion by her half-brother, the Catholic James Stuart. Anne is also the last British monarch to deny Royal Assent to a Parliamentary bill. Her health declined further throught the years, especially after the death fo her husband in 1708. Already seriously afflicted with gout at her accession and unable to walk, by 1713, the concerns for her health were very serious. She was ill several times throughout the year, eventually recovering until she had a stroke on July 30th, 1714. Anne died the next day, aged forty-nine."

As for Anne's character, whilst it certainly had its faults, was certainly marked by a deeply religious nature, which led us to believe that in terms of Succession, she would not pass the crown for her brother so easily as we wrote concerning the rumours over the matter in paragraphs above. But this does not mean we must exclude such possibility. It appears that in her final years, she felt somewhat remorse for the actions done in past, and believed that the reason why she had no surviving children was God punishing her for it. Perhaps a reconciliation was attempted and that Bolinbroke's proposal for James to change religion in order to accept the crown was her idea. We might never know. It is almost certainly that she favoured her brother as successor rather than passing to a house she held bitter grudges over the years. But one might suspect that even still religion and good sense drove her to what her ministers eventually believed to be a wise choice, and yet whose results we will see in the following posts.

Anne was buried in the Henry VII chapel on the South Aisle of Westminster Abbey, being put to rest next to her husband and children on 24 August. Sophia of Hanover, who rumour has it hoped to have see written in her tomb 'Queen Sophia of Britain', had died two months prior, which some might say this giving Anne's pleasure for knowing it there would be no Queen Sophia to succeed her. Yet, like it happened a century earlier between Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth Tudor, Anne's crown would go to her rival's son, George, the Elector of Hanover, who was now King George I of Great Britain, Ireland and France.

Bibliography:

-http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/death-queen-anne/

-https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2014/07/18/queen-anne-of-great-britain-a-guest-post-by-samantha-arbisi-hanson/

-http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/stuart-england/queen-anne/

-http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/stories-of-the-stuarts-queen-annes-18-pregnancies-47524

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anne-queen-of-Great-Britain-and-Ireland

-https://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=anne

-http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Queen-Anne/

-http://historythings.com/queen-anne-first-monarch-great-britian/

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Edward-the-Old-Pretender

-http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/death-queen-anne/

Nzinga, the Warrior Queen of Ndongo and Matamba (1583-1663)

 

Motivated by the recent posts concerning the sovereigns that compounded the royals that governed Egypt in different times of its History, we began to ask ourselves about other royals that left their own marks in the realms they ruled throughout Africa's continent. Following that curiosity, we leave Ancient Egypt behind, at least for now, in order to move quite some milleniuns ahead to speak of this formidable queen who resisted bravely the Portuguese. So who was she? And what exactly were her deeds? Why is her name associated to the resistance against the Portuguese who by then were part of the powerful Spanish empire?

For a start, Nzinga was born in the year of 1583 as the daughter of ngola (which was the title used for a sovereign, equal to 'king', for example) named Kia Samba and his wife, Guenguela Cakombe. We are not certain whether she was the oldest or the youngest of Kia Samba's offspring, but what we do know is that Nzinga had two sisters and a brother, the latter being the heir of Ndongo's throne. Apparently, she receives this name because

"[...] her umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck [...]. It was said to be an indication that the person who had this characteristic would be proud and haughty, and a wise woman told her mother that Nzinga would become queen one day."

In terms of her education, it is said that she was well educated in diplomacy and tride. She could also write, read and speak Portuguese very well and practiced archery, aside of enjoying hunting trips. The development of such skills are possibly the result of the favour she enjoyed of her father, as she recollected it laterwards. This favour was an indicative of the shaping of her skills as a "true politician, [...] true military and intellectual genius.", as she attended her father's council meetings, thus witnessing how "he governed his kingdom", sometimes even following him at war.

The political context that characterized Ndongo, later attributed the name of Angola by the Portuguese, can be better explained below:

"Around the turn of the 17th century, the independent kingdoms and states of the Central African coast were threatened by the Portuguese attempts to colonize Luanda (Luanda, today the capital of Angola, was founded in 1576). Portugal sought to colonize the region in order to control the trade in African slaves, and attacked many of their old trading partners to further this goal."

Also, by 1622 the Portuguese "invited Ngola (king) Mbande to attend a peace conference there to end the hostilities with the Mbundu. Mbande sent his sister Nzinga to represent him in meeting with Portuguese Governor João Correia de Souza". But even with Nzinga's skills as diplomat, when she arranged a peaceful treaty between two parts, it did not prevent the actions of Portugal's government in breaking into Ndongo and slaving its people once they were captured and taken prisoners once Portugal did not honor the treaty. As a result, Ngola Mbandi, Nzinga's brother and king, committed suicide. It was a difficult period for Ndongo, subdued by the Portuguese forces, but until Nzinga became their queen, some changes in the political scenario were expected.

Nzinga became queen in 1623, when she was forty-one years of age. Apparently, "she forbade her subjects to call her Queen. She preferred to be called King, and when leading an army in battle, dressed in men's clothing.". It is also said that when she took the control of her country, she firstly became regent for her nephew Kaza before having him murdered, some claiming so by her own hands. At first she styled herself Lady of Andongon (Portuguese: Senhora de Andongo), but "in a letter of 1626 she now called herself 'Queen of Andongo' (Rainha de Andongo), a title which she bore from then on." Rumour has it that when she attended meetings with Portuguese governors or other diplomats, she took favourites with her and these were curiously dressed in woman's clothes.

Whatever the case was,

"As the new sovereign of Ndongo, Nzinga re-entered negotiations with the Portuguese. At the time, Ndongo was under attack from both the Portuguese and neighboring African aggressors. Nzinga realized that in order to achieve peace and for her kingdom to remain viable, she needed to become an intermediary. She allied Ndongo with Portugal, and was baptsided as Ana de Souza Nzinga Mbande with the Portugal colonial governor serving as her godfather. By doing this she acquired a partner in her fight against her African enemies, and ending Portuguese slave raiding in the kingdom."

Her conversion to Catholicism in 1622 was indeed more an instrument to a change of political alliances, since it was more advantageous for Nzinga, or Ana as she was now called, to attempt an approach to Portugal and by peaceful means to stop the slave raiding rather than follow her brother's path and rebel at any sight. At first, she was not very Catholic, but because she was respectful towards the priests and jesuits that there went, she was respected for it.

However hard were her attempts in making peace with Portugal through this conversion, again the arrangement was broken when

"Portugal betrayed Ndongo in 1626, and Nzinga was forced to flee when war broke out. Nzinga took over as ruler of the nearby kingdom of Matamba, capturing Queen Mwongo Matamba and routing her army. Nzinga then made Matamba her captial, joining it to the kingdom of Ndongo."

She also "offered sanctuary to runaway slaves and Portuguese-trained African soldiers. She stirred up rebellion among the people still left in Ndongo, now ruled by the Portuguese. Nzinga also reached out to the Dutch and invited them to join troops with her." By then, she had no other option but swift alliances, since Portugal constantly broke the deals and peaceful treaties she attempted to forge to protect her people. By 1627, the Queen

"[...] led her army against the Portuguese, initiating a thirty-year war against them. She exploited European rivalry by forging an alliance with the Dutch who had conquered Luanda in 1641. With their help, Nzinga defeated a Portuguese army in 1647. When the Dutch were in turn defeated by the Portuguese [...] Nzinga continued her struggle against the Portuguese. Now in her 60s she still personally led troops in battle. She also orchestrated guerilla attacks on the Portuguese which would continue long after her death and inspire the ultimately successful 20th century armed resistance against the Portuguese that resulted in independent Angola in 1975."

During this time of war against the Portuguese, Nzinga was

"respectful of priests when they were captured by her, and she permitted Portuguese prisoners and Christian Africans to have sacraments. Following the peace treaty of 1657, she became very pious, according to the Capuchin witnesses Gaeta and Cavazzi and Gaeta at least regarded her as a model Christian."

Afterwards, what we know as the result of this long time war against the Portuguese was, eventually, a deal with the Church in which she once again converted to Catholicism. A treaty with Portugal was signed but with no prospects of victory by the side of Nzinga, however resistant she was throughtout those long years she reigned as Queen of Ndongo and Matamba. Finally,

"This great African Amazon Warrior Queen died in 1663 fighting for her people at an old ripe age of eighty-one, which was followed by the massive expansion of the Portuguese slave trade."

Nzinga is until nowadays remembered as a political leader of strong personality who resisted Portugal's colonization which only ended in 1975. As already discussed, her deeds as warrior and sovereign inspired the next generations and left a mark in her country that should be remembered by historians still in our present days.

Bibliography:

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

-https://afroetic.com/2011/11/19/who-was-queen-ann-nzingha-of-ndongo/

-http://www.tidridge.com/uploads/3/8/4/1/3841927/collapse_of_the_kingdom_of_kongo.pdf

-http://www.amazingwomeninhistory.com/anna-nzinga-mbande-fearless-africa-queen/

-http://www.blackpast.org/gah/queen-nzinga-1583-1663

-https://afrolegends.com/2013/03/18/queen-nzingha-great-queen-of-angola/

Ptolemy Lagides of Egypt: The General Who Founded A Dynasty (367-283/2 B.C)

On our previous post we have spoken of Cleopatra I of Egypt, based in our guiding question concerning the ancestor of Cleopatra VII. This curiosity, however, led us to the idea of going further in finding out, or at least in proposing a discussion, about the royals that ruled Ancient Egypt and who left their marks in History.

Having that in mind, Ptolemy Lagides the first of the Ptolemaic Dynasty is the subject of the post today. It's true that he is best reminded for fathering a dynasty whose most famous member is the already mentioned Cleopatra VII, and for being the general who well served Alexander the Great. But what can it be said of his deeds? What was his legacy to Egypt?  

In truth, we know nothing regarding Ptolemy's childhood or his education. Even about his parents there is not much certainty about their identity. What we can tell, following the bibliography here consulted, is that he was possibly related to the Macedonian  Argead dynasty. As we can see below:

"Ptolemy's mother was Arsinoe of Macedon, and while his father is unknown, ancient sources variously describe him either as the son of Lagus, a Macedonian nobleman, or as an illegitimate son of Philip II of Macedon (which, if true, would have made Ptolemy the half-brother of Alexander), but it is possible that this is a later myth fabricated to glorify the Ptolemaic dynasty. Ptolemy was one of Alexander's most trusted generals, and was among the seven somatophylakes (bodyguards) attached to his person. He was a few years older than Alexander and had been his intimate friend since childhood."

In the next paragraph, there seems more certainty regarding Ptolemy's life by bringing another perspective, though not very different from the one before:

"Ptolemy was the son of the nobleman Lagus, a native of the Macedonian district of Eordaea whose family was undistinguished until Ptolemy's time, and of Arsinoe, who was related to the Macedonian Argead dynasty. He was probably educated as a page at the royal court of Macedonia, where he became closely associated with Alexander. He was exiled in 337, along with other companions of the crown prince. When he returned, after Alexander's accession to the throne in 336, he joined the King's bodyguard, took part in Alexander's European campaigns of 336-335, and in the fall of 330 was appointed personal bodyguard [...] to Alexander [...]"

What had led him to exile, however? It seems that Ptolemy, after Alexander's father defeated the Greeks, 

"advised Alexander to invernet in a marriage alliance concluded by Philip between his son Arridaeus and the daughter of the satrap of Caria, Pixodarus. The result of Alexander's intervention was a disaster and the Macedonian king ordered Ptolemy to give his advise henceforth outside Macedonia. The exiled man did not return until Alexander hd become king in the autumn of 336"

Following this misguided event, Ptolemy's military career however began to scalate when he directly participated in the situations described next:

"In this capacity he captured the assassin of Darius III, the Persian emperor, in 329. He was closely associated with Alexander during the advance through the Persian hughland. As a result of Ptolemy's successful military performance on the way from Bactria (in northeastern Afghanistan) to the Indus River (327-325), he became commander (trierarchos) of the Macedonian fleet on the Hydaspes (modern Jhelum in India). Alexander decorated him several times for his deeds and married him to the Persian Artacama at the mass wedding at Susa, the Persian capital, which was the crowning event of Alexander's policy of merging the Macedonian and Iranian populations."

For Ptolemy, the apparent genuine loyalty he showed Alexander now collected it's fruits in a surprising twist of destiny. Although we cannot know his personal thoughts about the events of his personal and public life, by his actions we understand he was a man who comprehended and absorbed well how the world worked back then. He was ambitious and intelligent and he did used well of his marriages, though we have nothing that can confirm if a sentiment of affection was felt by both parts at the time he married his wives throughout his lifetime.

Whatever happened to his first wife, probably being sent away, his next one was an Egyptian one. This was a sign of Ptolemy's attempt to court the "local population", and the beginning in what would be his "conquest" to Egypt. But, before we get there, we must get back to what had happened after Alexander the Great's death and the consequences that led Ptolemy directly to Egypt.

As we know, and as it has previously been discussed in the former paragraphs, Ptolemy was a great commander under Alexander III's military battles and conquests. His skills in battlefields, as well as with strategies, were very formidable and it is no wonder how Ptolemy soon became a general under the said king's command. He was, as we said before, very loyal to Alexander. As a result, with the support of Philip III Arrhidaeus and the infant Alexander IV, Ptolemy "through the Partition of Babylon, he was appointed satrap of Egypt [...]; the former satrap, the Greek Cleomenes, stayed on as his deputy."

Also,

"By custom, kings in Macedonia asserted their right to the throne by burying their predecessor. Probably because he wanted to pre-empt Perdiccas, the imperial regent, from staking his claim in his way, Ptolemy took great pains in acquiring the body of Alexander the Great, placing it temporarily in Memphis, Egypt. Ptolemy then openly joined the coalition against Perdiccas".

It seems that Perdiccas suspected of Ptolemy's ambition in having the Egypt's throne for himself and began to provide measures to prevent this to happen. Therefore, 

"In 321 BC, Perdiccas attempted to invade Egypt only to fall at the hands of his own men. Ptolemy's decision to defend the Nile against Perdiccas's attempt to force it ended in fiasco for Perdiccas, with the loss of 2000 men. This failure was a fatal blow to Perdiccas' reputation, and he was murdered in his tent by two of his subordinates. Ptolemy immediately crossed the Nile, to provide supplies to what had the day before been an enemy army. Ptolemy was offered the regency in place of Perdiccas; but he declined. Ptolemy was consistent in his policy of securing a power base, while never succumbing to the tempation of risking all to succeed Alexnader."

During this period where he managed to hold Egypt under his control, Ptolemy went to war. As a result, he occupied regions as Cyrenaica, Cyrupus, Syria and the province of Judea. He prevented Antigonus One-Eye, master of Asia's ambition to extent too far by joining a coalition against him. Revolts as one that happened in Cyrence were subdued. After all this, must be added that he won over the Egypt population, and this can possibly be related to the marriage with his second wife, though the match did not last too soon for Ptolemy remarried a third time, this time to Berenice, granddaughter of Cassander, son of Antipater.

"After naming himself king, Ptolemy's first concern was the continuing war with Antigonus, which was now focused on the island of Rhodes. In 1304 Ptolemy aided the inhabitants of Rhodes against Antigonus and was accorded the divine title Soter (Saviour), which he was commonly called from that time. The dissolution of Alexander's empire was brought to a close with the battle near Ipsus in Asia Minor in 301."

Though wars is what we know best of Ptolemy, where his rule as Egypt's pharaoh, a title which he attributed himself, is concerned, we can observe a swift change of policies. Ptolemy opted for peace treaties through marriages he arranged for his daughters in alliances that brought him wisely more benefit than going to wars as he did in the past. In addition, 

"In 290 he made his wife Berenice queen of Egypt and in 285 (possibly on June 26) appointed his younger son Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who was born to Berenice in 308, co-regent and successor. The provision for the succession, which was based on examples from the time of the pharaohs, made possible a peaceful transition when Ptolemy died in the winter of 283-282."

In the next paragraph, we have a better comprehension of Ptolemy's legacy for Egypt as we see below:

"Ptolemy won over the Egyptians through the establishment in Memphis of the Serapis cult, which fused the Egyptian and Greek religions; through restoration of the temples of the pharaohs, which had been destryoed by the Persians; and through gifts to the ancient Egyptian gods and patronage of the Egyptian nobility and priesthood. [...] He founded the Museum (Mouseion), a common workplace for scholars and artists, and established the famous library at Alexandria. Besides being a patron of the arts and sciences, he was a writer himself. In the last few years of his life Ptolemy wrote a generally reliable history of Alexander's campaigns. Although it is now lost, it can be largely reconstructed through the extensive use made of it later by the historian Arrian."

Some even might say that Ptolemy supported a mathematician named Euclid, "but found Euclid's seminal work the Elements too difficult to study, so he asked if there were an easier way to master it." In terms of his character, Ptolemy was 

"Shrew and cautious, [...] had a compact and well-ordered realm to show at the end of forty years of war. His reputation for bonhomie and liberality attached the floating soldier-class of Macedonians and other Greeks to his service [...];  nor did he wholly neglect conciliation of the natives. He was a ready patron of letters, founding the Great Library of Alexandria."

As a heritance to the next generations, Ptolemy, who rose very high from a general to one of the greatest conquerors History came to know to a king whose dynasty would far from being left behind Alexander III's own deeds (though not always by comparable acts of geniously warfare state) left a military state, sometimes perceptible in "iron" managements. His son and grandson would be obliged to deal with wars to foreign kingdoms, but his dynasty would endure for the next three centuries.

Finally, it can be said that

"The early Ptolemies were occupied with the economic exploitation of Egypt, but, because of the lack of first-hand information, the details of Ptolemy's participation in the process cannot be determined. It is certain, however, that discrimination against the Egyptians took place during his reign. The only town he founded was Ptolemais in Upper Egypt. He probably placed Macedonian military commanders alongside the Egyptian provincial administrators and intervened unobtrusively in legal and financial affairs. In order to regulate the latter, he introduced coinage, which until that time was unknown in Egypt."

Bibliography: 

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

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ptolemy-I-Soter

-http://www.livius.org/articles/person/ptolemy-i-soter/

-https://upclosed.com/people/ptolemy-i-soter/

-https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Ptolemy-I-Soter2-Rise-to-Power.pdf

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/