Author Topic: Catherine de Medicis  (Read 55406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

umigon

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #105 on: September 04, 2005, 05:37:30 PM »
I also think this has nothing to do with religion, but the same could apply to you, Michael, always defending non-Catholic parties (Catherine's supposed evilness in this case or Elizabeth I great political view when she executed Mary Stuart).


Catherine had blood on her hands the same way Coligny had. The same way everyone had in those days. Your posts are offensive for any non-fanatical member of these forums. Who is revising history here?


By the way, is there anything wrong in being a Catholic? I already wrote in another post that I am not a particularly religious people (I don't need to give any more details) but of course you are free to believe whatever you want. I am in no need to give you any excuses for the History I have studied. You want to go on and on posting the same account of witnesses without understanding that that point had already come through... well, go on then!

umigon

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #106 on: September 04, 2005, 06:02:29 PM »
Now lets talk a little about Catherine's private life, here is the complete list of her children:

1. FRANÇOIS II DE FRANCE. Born François de Valois (16/1/1544,Fontainebleau-5/12/1560, Orleans), he was known as Franchot by the members of his family. He married Mary Stuart (1542-1587), Queen of Scotland, in 1558 and died without issue. Reigned: 1559-1560.



2. ÉLISABETH DE FRANCE. Born Élisabeth de Valois (13/4/1546, Fontainebleau-3/10/1568, Madrid), Diane de Poitiers called her Elise, but her mother refused to call her by that nickname and called her Élisabeth.She married Felipe II of Austria (1527-1598), in 1559 and had three daughters: Isabel Clara Eugenia, Catalina Micaela and Juana.



3. CLAUDE DE FRANCE. Born Claude de Valois (12/11/1547, Fontainebleau-21/2/1575, Nancy), she was called Claudette by her family. She married Duke Charles III of Lorraine (1543-1608) in 1559. They had 9 children: Henri, Chrétienne, Charles, Antoinette, Anne, François, Catherine, Élisabeth Renée and Claude.



4. LOUIS DE FRANCE. Born Louis de Valois (3/2/1549, Saint-Germain-en-Laye-24/10/1550, Fontainebleau). Died young.

5. CHARLES IX DE FRANCE. Born Charles Maximilien de Valois (27/6/1550, Saint-Germain-30/5/1574, Vincennes), he was known as Charlet. He married Elisabeth of Austria (1554-1592) in 1570. They had one daughter, Marie-Ysabel. Charles also had a bastard son, Charles de Valois, by his mistress Marie Touchet. Reigned: 1560-1574.




6. HENRI III DE FRANCE. Born Alexandre-Edouard de Valois (19/9/1551, Fontainebleau-2/8/1589, Saint Cloud), he was known as Sandrin. Changed his name in 1563 to Henri Alexandre Edouard. Married Louise de Lorraine (1553-1601) in 1575. Died without issue. Reigned: 1574-1589.



7. MARGUERITE DE FRANCE. Born Marguerite de Valois (14/5/1553, Saint-Germain- 27/3/1615, Louvre), she was known as Margot. She married King Henri III of Navarre (1553-1610, Bourbon dynasty) in 1572. Her marriage was annulled in 1599 and she died without issue. Queen consort of France: 1589-1599.



8. FRANÇOIS DE FRANCE. Born Hercule de Valois (18/3/1555, Saint-Germain - 10/6/1584, Thierry), he was known as Hercule, Benjamin or 'mon tout petit' (like 'my little thing') because he was a small child, and he wouldn't be taller when he grew older. Changed his name in 1563 to François-Hercule. Died unmarried and without issue.



9. JEANNE DE FRANCE. Born Jeanne de Valois (24/6/1556, Fontainebleau - 25/6/1556, Fontainebleau). Died young. Twin sister to Victoire.

10. VICTOIRE DE FRANCE. Born Victoire de Valois (24/6/1556, Fontainebleau - 17/8/1556, Amboise). Died young, twin sister to Jeanne.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by umigon »

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #107 on: September 04, 2005, 06:15:45 PM »
Thank you, Umigon, for assembling and posting the information of the infamous Catherine's children. For some reason,  "Hercule" intriques me. I would like to know more about him in particular. He actually looks like someone I know !

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #108 on: September 04, 2005, 09:13:29 PM »
Quote


And, yes, I'm Catholic. And this has nothing to do with it   :D.


Well if you think I believe that, then I have Bridge in Brooklyn for sale, interested in buying it?

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #109 on: September 04, 2005, 09:20:45 PM »
Quote
I also think this has nothing to do with religion, but the same could apply to you, Michael, always defending non-Catholic parties (Catherine's supposed evilness in this case or Elizabeth I great political view when she executed Mary Stuart).


Catherine had blood on her hands the same way Coligny had. The same way everyone had in those days. Your posts are offensive for any non-fanatical member of these forums. Who is revising history here?


By the way, is there anything wrong in being a Catholic? I already wrote in another post that I am not a particularly religious people (I don't need to give any more details) but of course you are free to believe whatever you want. I am in no need to give you any excuses for the History I have studied. You want to go on and on posting the same account of witnesses without understanding that that point had already come through... well, go on then!



Well then tell me why you admire her, be specific, tell me what GREAT things she did for France, and the world, what an elightened monarch she was, pre-massacre.

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #110 on: September 04, 2005, 09:31:19 PM »
Quote
You consider it offensive that I say a pious person might die for their religion? Then you are being a little hypersensitive, IMHO.



Ridiculous.....If someone wants to die for their religion go ahead, be my guest, but don't expect me to pity them.  I consider it offensive that a woman who plans and executes a government organized & supported massacre gets defended for doing it, as it was us or them.  Now I can see going after Coligny or the leaders, in an effective way of jailing them or her usual methods of poison, however, to undertake a massacre of the entire opposition, because of a difference in a matter of faith is beyond my comprehension, and again it perplexes me how anyone can defend this morally indefensible act, and the woman who planned it, and watched with feigned horror from the safety of her palace at the murder in the streets.   Just like New Orleans today with the hurricane, you cannot defend the indefensible, and no action led to tragedy and anarchy.   In this case the government planned the massacre and it led to anarchy, so is either less responsible for their actions???  NO, they are not.

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #111 on: September 05, 2005, 02:16:41 AM »
Well I’m Church of Scotland! Thought I’d better get that over with.

It’s dangerous to imagine that only monsters or evil people plan, instigate or participate in massacres. The Bartholomew story repeats itself thoughout history – think of Rwanda, or the massacres which took place a couple of years back in Gujarat, India. If we think that these events are solely the results of the actions of “evil” people, how can we hope to avoid them in the future?

Therefore I think it’s a legitimate discussion to look into Catharine’s “reasons” behind the decisions she made, and to make an assessment of what her aims were, what her overall strategy was to achieve these ends (if any), and whether her short term decision-making tended to further or reverse her long-term planning (and perhaps achieved the reverse of what she intended.

I’ve been looking at Catharine’s first years in power. Umigon says that her aims were to preserve the crown for her family. I don’t think this can have been an issue to start off with, as Catharine’s sons were in the fortunate and relatively rare position of having no realistic rivals to the throne. The brothers and Henry of Navarre were all children, and under her control. Basically her aims at this point were to strengthen royal power and make sure that no group of nobles (the Guise or the Bourbons) achieved too much power for themselves.

Her policy was therefore to play them of against each other, and she used the religious issue to appear to be a neutral broker. As such she came quite well out of the 1563 crisis, during which the royal family had been held to ransom by the Guise. The Edict of Toleration of that year allowed that Protestants and Catholics had right of worship. This was Catharine’s idea to keep both sides happy.

Why didn’t the Edict of Toleration work? Maybe it was doomed from the start (but on the other hand it seemed to work quite well under Henry IV, much later). However Catharine didn’t help one bit when she went to the Spanish border in 1565 to meet her daughter, the Queen of Spain. In the heat of the moment she agreed to support the Spanish king’s measures against the Protestants in the Netherlands and thus alienated the Protestants at one stroke.

This is one example of her political ineptness. If her long term strategy was religious toleration, why throw it all out of the window two years later? It makes it look as if the toleration was also just a short-term fix to get her out of a mess. Such manoeuvring lost her the trust of the Catholics as well – they didn’t know which side she was on!

The lack of a clear policy and the consequent escalating climate of insecurity must surely be one of the factors which led to the tragedy of St Bartholemew.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bell_the_cat »

umigon

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #112 on: September 05, 2005, 04:54:31 AM »
Quote


Well then tell me why you admire her, be specific, tell me what GREAT things she did for France, and the world, what an elightened monarch she was, pre-massacre.



I'll tell you, then. She was an intelligent and cultivated woman, who had read the Classics, Machiavelli and was in touch with the new humanistic ideas. Because she brought refinement into France, a country that was still medieval in some aspects (no forks, bad-manners at the table, no personal hygiene...). Because she learnt to survive since she was a small child, because death was around her and starting with her parents, following with her children and finishing with the Guises, nearly everyone who was ever close to her died before she died. Because she believed in peace and tried to stablish many treaties of cult freedom (the 1563 Treaty was not the last one) in a moment in which most monarchs would have simply executed their religious-political enemies (Felipe II, Elizabeth Tudor...). Beacuse she maintained the Crown for her family in the middle of seven civil wars, because she was no religious fanatic in a time when it was quite 'à la mode'. And finally, because she did things every male monarch did in a world in which women weren't suppose to have that strenght .


Satisfied?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by umigon »

umigon

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #113 on: September 05, 2005, 05:06:33 AM »
Quote
Thank you, Umigon, for assembling and posting the information of the infamous Catherine's children. For some reason,  "Hercule" intriques me. I would like to know more about him in particular. He actually looks like someone I know !



He was brought up away from Court with his sister Margot. They went to visit their mother and siblings from time to time but their contact with the rest of the family wasn't much. Then they were also separated. Hercule went to live at Court when he was 8, for the long journey Catherine had planned for the Court in order to give propaganda to her young son, King Charles IX. In that journey, and because Catherine's astrologists had said that the Valois dynasty would finish with her children, she had decided that her children Alexandre and Hercule should change their names, in order to have a more French name if they were to succeed to the throne. Alexandre was then called Henri and Hercule was called François, although Catherine continued to call him Hercule until his death.

He was very small and not very intelligent. Living at Court with Margot, who joined them, he became her best friend and confident and together they plotted against Charles IX, Catherine and, on top of all, against Henri (whom they hated because they were jealous of him and Margot had probably been his lover).

From 1572 onwards, Hercule's life was a succession of plots and flights to his domains. He persisted in his intention of invading the Spanish Netherlands and becoming their new King. However, in the regions he conquered he left so many dead people and destroyed so many crops that the Flemish wanted the return of the Spaniards, which they achieved. He had also the ambition, fed by his mother, of marrying Queen Elizabeth Tudor. In 1581 he even went to London to seek for her hand for a couple of months. Elizabeth didn't dislike him (he was 22 years her junior!), but the great politician in her decided that she couldn't marry him (he was not only a foreign prince, but also a rebelious one). But Elizabeth continued to play the game until Catherine, realising Henri III would never had children and that Hercule was his heir she decided to search a Spanish infanta (her grandaaughters) for her youngest son.

The issue of the infanta never went far - Felipe II ahd said he wanted no more affairs with the Valois family - and Hercule died, having reconciled with his hated brother in 1584.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #114 on: September 05, 2005, 10:04:57 AM »
I have decided that something needs to be made clear here. I'm going to say this once, so I hope everyone listens.

From the start, this thread has been controversial. Certain posters argue in Catherine's favour, others against her. There is no problem in this - this is what a Discussion Board is all about.

However, on the subject of the St Bartholemew's Day Massacre, I think enough has been said unless a new poster wishes to give his/her opinion (in which case they are more than welcome). But among the current posters, everything that can be said, has been said. Further discussion will cause further aggresive agument and unpleasantness.

Already this topic has deviated onto relgion, always a contentious issue. This board is about royalty - religion need not and should not be discussed here, especially the religious beleifs of certain posters and it's 'relevancy' to their posts.

There are plenty of people here with a wealth of knowlege and curiousity, and really have something to contribute, and I am NOT about to allow their discussion to be hindered by posters who think this is an ideal place to argue about religion.

Naturally posters may and, I'm sure, shall disagree with each other, but I respectfully ask you to do this is polite terms.

The Forum Admin has assured me that I speak with his full authority. I  trust I made myself clear. Anyone who has any issues or disagreements with what I have said here, feel free to pm me.

Prince_Lieven (moderator).

Now, back to Catherine de Medici . . .
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Prince_Lieven »
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #115 on: September 05, 2005, 11:11:58 AM »
I forgot to thank Umigon for the wonderful portraits of  Catharine's children. I agree with Robert that Hercule is the most intriguing (perhaps because it is a great picture). Hercule really looks as if he could do with a couple of months in boot camp! A juvenile delinquent if ever I saw one. Claude looks a bit tired, not surprising given her many children.

A bit trivial I know, but I know Prince_Lieven likes this kind of thing:
was Victoire the first royal baby to be called Victoria? There were lots after her, but I can't think of any before.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bell_the_cat »

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #116 on: September 05, 2005, 11:13:57 AM »
Which Victoire?
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #117 on: September 05, 2005, 11:30:47 AM »
Hercule was only 29 when he died ? Anyone know what caused his early demise?

Offline trentk80

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #118 on: September 05, 2005, 11:43:58 AM »
Quote
Which Victoire?


Catherine's youngest daughter, who died when she was only 2 months old.
Ladran los perros a la Luna, y ella con majestuoso desprecio prosigue el curso de su viaje.

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: Catherine de Medicis
« Reply #119 on: September 05, 2005, 11:59:57 AM »
Hercule died of tuberculosis, like his brother Charles.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bell_the_cat »