Catherine de Medicis

[Arianwen]

I'll have to think about this one.

Is it really the situation she was in? And even if it was, wasn't she to blame (with her inconsistent policy and possible involvement in botched assassination attempt) for things having escalated to such a fever pitch?

Is it really the situation she was in? I don't know. I haven't read Starkey on the issue, so I'm not sure what evidence he found of a plot by Coligny, but while Starkey isn't perfect and occasionally irks me, he's generally a VERY reputable historian. That at least gives me pause and makes me desperate to read his work on the subject and view his evidence.

Did she believe that's the situation she was in? Again, I don't know, but she could either stand by her son, or lose her family when the public outcry arose and the Protestants took retribution. Because this WAS a time of retribution. Both sides butchered each other, and there was already a lot of talk against the Royal Family for the attempted assassination of Coligny. I think what matters most is whether Catherine FELT that was her choice, her family or innocent people. If to her, that was the choice, that's how she should be judged, on her own perception of the situation. Why do we read as many books as we can find on a given subject? Each author has his/her own bias, and reading several opinions gives us the most balance. It's the same when looking at a person's reaction to a situation. Some say Catherine had no choice, some say she was cold-bloodedly responsible for what happened, I say there was an in-between, that she chose her children over people she didn't know. A choice, yes, but it seems a fairly natural one, and I don't presume to judge.

The botched assassination attempt...yeah, I'd say that was her fault, but also the fault of Maurevel, the assassin, and de Guise. Catherine did what she could to stop the damage, going and visiting Coligny along with the king, and as for her 'inconsistent' policy, it was generally that of making peace between the two sides, but a few times, she just didn't THINK. Like going to visit Élisabeth/Isabel at the Spanish border. To me, that's the act of a mother who wants desperately to see her daughter and doesn't think of anything else. Then, she comes home and gets the backlash. Felipe was urging her to root out Protestantism, she refused. She went for tolerance before violence. Then, the massacre happened. Her efforts didn't stop in 1572, either. She kept trying for peace, she kept advocating tolerance, and she kept forgiving her children whatever their betrayals. I say to even START to judge Catherine, we have to look at her entire life and what she did from her husband's death until her own as the force behind the throne.

As usual, just my tuppence. Awesome questions, though, bell_the_cat. Archibald Douglas was an interesting character himself, so I love your username.

Regards,
Arianwen

[Arianwen]

I can't say I watched it for Isabelle Adjani.   I was really bored, and just stumbled across it - very fortuitious!

I think I found the book first, when I was looking for something else. I was rather young at the time, but the film had just come out, so a profile shot of Isabelle Adjani was on the cover, in her wedding garb. Upon reading it, I found that Isabelle became my visualisation of Margot, and when I tracked down the film, I fell in love. God, I'd kill to look like her...lol The movie shocked me, but it was seeing how horrible the massacre was, and realising just what both sides of my family experienced, as well as thousands of other people. Let's just say it brought it home in a way that reading accounts hadn't been able to do, and for that alone, I applaud the director, for not being afraid to take those risks and show the horror with the beauty.

Regards,
Arianwen

[bell_the_cat]

As usual, just my tuppence. Awesome questions, though, bell_the_cat. Archibald Douglas was an interesting character himself, so I love your username.

Regards,
Arianwen

Thanks Arianwen - you've almost persuaded me!

Another hard question though. Do you think that if Catherine had been better at public relations there would have been a chance of keeping the peace between the two sides, or was it an enterprise doomed to failure from the start? I've had some training in "mediation"/conflict management and believe me, it seems to be generally a thankless task. It usually ends up with the fighting parties turning on the person who is trying to get them to agree!

In order to succeed the mediator has to gain the respect of both partners - and must be open about any predisposition they may have towards either party. Otherwise there is a complete meltdown, as happened with Catherine. I agree with you about the Bayonne meeting, it must have looked so bad!

I'm glad someone else likes Archibald. The choice of username is because of my surname in "real" life which is the same as the place where he acquired the soubriquet! I'm planning to do Margaret of Denmark on the Stuart "Queen Consorts" thread shortly, so he should show up there. Stay tuned!

[Arianwen]

Thanks Arianwen - you've almost persuaded me!

Wow...I take that as a high compliment!

Another hard question though. Do you think that if Catherine had been better at public relations there would have been a chance of keeping the peace between the two sides, or was it an enterprise doomed to failure from the start? I've had some training in "mediation"/conflict management and believe me, it seems to be generally a thankless task. It usually ends up with the fighting parties turning on the person who is trying to get them to agree!

In order to succeed the mediator has to gain the respect of both partners - and must be open about any predisposition they may have towards either party. Otherwise there is a complete meltdown, as happened with Catherine. I agree with you about the Bayonne meeting, it must have looked so bad!

Usually being the in-between myself, I know how thankless it is, and how you usually get turned on. I think at that point, NO ONE could have kept both sides in order, and the only reason Henri IV achieved any sort of peace was based on the work Catherine had done before him. The Catholics and Protestants just hated each other TOO much, and the Protestants had done just as much violence and butchery as the Catholics. For the most part, I think Catherine was great with public relations, but she made a few stupid moves, like the Bayonne meeting, occasionally putting her children above the good of the country, etc. That makes me lean toward the efforts being doomed, but 'doomed' doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be made regardless. As my daddy is fond of saying, 'Every good deed is a drop of water in the bucket. One screw up, and you kick the bucket over to start over.' Every time Catherine took any kind of mis-step, all her good deeds were forgotten, and she had to practically start over. I think Catherine was Catholic, but less fervently Catholic than most believe. I always got the impression she was more open-minded than she was ever given credit for, and she really wanted peace between ALL her subjects.

I'm glad someone else likes Archibald. The choice of username is because of my surname in "real" life which is the same as the place where he acquired the soubriquet! I'm planning to do Margaret of Denmark on the Stuart "Queen Consorts" thread shortly, so he should show up there. Stay tuned!

Fantastic! Do many people get the reference?

Regards,
Arianwen

[Prince_Lieven]

Fantastic! Do many people get the reference?

Regards,
Arianwen

This person certainly didn't . . .  

[umigon]

I can see you've written quite a lot! I thought 'La Reine Margot' was a good film, although not always historically accurate, but at least partially faithful to what happened and what was the Court like at the times of the last Valois Kings.

About the rumours concerning Catherine's poisons, it was just that, a rumour. It is unproven and almost unlikely that she ever posioned anyone. About Jeanne d'Albret's death, she was very ill with tuberculosis when she was in Paris and she had already signed her son's marriage contract with Margot. Why could anyone want to kill her? Jeanne died of tuberculosis, as the autopsy proved after she died!

[Prince_Lieven]

You're quite right Umigon. In those days, when any important person died of any sort of illness people cried 'poison!!'  

[Mgmstl]

Actually, Diane just raised the daughter, her namesake. The mother was an Italian Henri II had dallied with while away from her, and Diane agreed to take her in along with her two daughters from her first marriage. Considering those two daughters were with a man in his sixties or seventies, I get the feeling Diane's fertility wasn't long-lived, or they were taking precautions.

Regards,
Arianwen

Sorry Arianwen, I no longer post on ANY of the threads moderated by the biased Prince Lieven, and her coteriere of sycophants who admire and fawn & fall over any bloodthirsty monarch who wore a crown.

In fact Catherine and her entire story revulses me, there is something just so inherently evil about this woman.  Just my opinion, however, on this thread it doesn't count, unless you are fawning over her.

[Arianwen]

Sorry Arianwen, I no longer post on ANY of the threads moderated by the biased Prince Lieven, and her coteriere of sycophants who admire and fawn & fall over any bloodthirsty monarch who wore a crown.

In fact Catherine and her entire story revulses me, there is something just so inherently evil about this woman.  Just my opinion, however, on this thread it doesn't count, unless you are fawning over her.

Michael, you know I believe you're entitled to your opinion, and I know how hard it is being in the minority. Your opinion DOES count, as much as anyone else's. To be perfectly frank, I was offended when you told Silja her being Catholic made her automatically biased, as the same argument could be turned on me because I'm Catholic. As I said, an entire branch of my family was wiped out that night in Paris, so being Catholic certainly doesn't mean I see the massacre as justifiable. I even said that I agreed with you that the 70,000 number was most accurate, there are just some points I disagree on, and that's because we're different people and see things through other eyes.

I consider you a friend, but so too is PrinceLieven (male, by the by), and I hate feeling as I am now, forced to choose between two people I respect. People were upset by the aggression you showed, Prince had to act, and did so with FA's full backing. No one person was targeted at first, either, until posters started getting offended and/or insulted and asking that action be taken. We're really lucky this thread wasn't locked by FA. As a moderator myself, I understand how hard it is to make certain judgement calls, and I hate having to come down on people, but sometimes, it has to be done. For as much offense as you took to posters calling Protestants 'heretics' when trying to explain the 16th century viewpoint, some of us were just as offended when Catholic opinions were brushed aside with insults and accusations of bias.

All I'm trying to say, to everyone here, is that there's a middle ground, that we don't have to rip each other to shreds, and the sooner we learn that everyone's opinion has equal value, the better.

Regards,
Arianwen

[Kimberly]

Definitely, and very violent. BTW, I thought the woman who played Margot's maid or friend or something, with the frizzy hair, was very good, but I didn't really understand her role . . .

S he was Margot's great friend and confidante- The Duchess de Nevers. She was also the lover of Annibal, Comte de Coconas,( friend of Le Molle) They were the ringleaders of a botched escape and were beheaded for treason.Their embalmed heads were rumoured to have been taken to Margot and the Duchess- who kept them to mourn their lost lovers.

[Mgmstl]

Michael, you know I believe you're entitled to your opinion, and I know how hard it is being in the minority. Your opinion DOES count, as much as anyone else's. To be perfectly frank, I was offended when you told Silja her being Catholic made her automatically biased, as the same argument could be turned on me because I'm Catholic. As I said, an entire branch of my family was wiped out that night in Paris, so being Catholic certainly doesn't mean I see the massacre as justifiable. I even said that I agreed with you that the 70,000 number was most accurate, there are just some points I disagree on, and that's because we're different people and see things through other eyes.

I consider you a friend, but so too is PrinceLieven (male, by the by), and I hate feeling as I am now, forced to choose between two people I respect. People were upset by the aggression you showed, Prince had to act, and did so with FA's full backing. No one person was targeted at first, either, until posters started getting offended and/or insulted and asking that action be taken. We're really lucky this thread wasn't locked by FA. As a moderator myself, I understand how hard it is to make certain judgement calls, and I hate having to come down on people, but sometimes, it has to be done. For as much offense as you took to posters calling Protestants 'heretics' when trying to explain the 16th century viewpoint, some of us were just as offended when Catholic opinions were brushed aside with insults and accusations of bias.

All I'm trying to say, to everyone here, is that there's a middle ground, that we don't have to rip each other to shreds, and the sooner we learn that everyone's opinion has equal value, the better.

Regards,
Arianwen

Arianwen, I personally don't believe that Umigon was speaking from anything other than personal opinion when calling protestant's heretics, that is MY opinion.
Again, you can hide behind that " I am speaking from a 16th century perspective", all you want, but from a 21st century perspective I say bull.

While you may have been offended by what I said, I speak from the perspective that very few people can judge fairly or non biased, when faced with these issues, and those that can are extremely exceptional.

When you have people defending the actions of that woman and her massacre by saying "she had to do it" or"I see why she did it" or "she had to defend her children" that 70 -100,000 people had to die for her children is sick, I think they are hiding behind a bigger issue.  Just my opinion.

I wasn't damning all Catholics.  However not being a religious person, actually not believing in religion at all, I find the protestant religions just as bad.   I feel this coterie of crown worshipping sycophants that seem to have started to inhabit here, with innocuous thread titles, such as "fav royal"  "least fav royal" etc..., they would find an excuse for the actions of any dictator or person wearing a crown that was descended from Charlemagne.  Some of these people and their actions are indefensible in my point of view, and one of them is Catherine de Medici.

[umigon]

Arianwen, I personally don't believe that Umigon was speaking from anything other than personal opinion when calling protestant's heretics, that is MY opinion.
Again, you can hide behind that " I am speaking from a 16th century perspective", all you want, but from a 21st century perspective I say bull.

While you may have been offended by what I said, I speak from the perspective that very few people can judge fairly or non biased, when faced with these issues, and those that can are extremely exceptional.

When you have people defending the actions of that woman and her massacre by saying "she had to do it" or"I see why she did it" or "she had to defend her children" that 70 -100,000 people had to die for her children is sick, I think they are hiding behind a bigger issue.  Just my opinion.

I wasn't damning all Catholics.  However not being a religious person, actually not believing in religion at all, I find the protestant religions just as bad.   I feel this coterie of crown worshipping sycophants that seem to have started to inhabit here, with innocuous thread titles, such as "fav royal"  "least fav royal" etc..., they would find an excuse for the actions of any dictator or person wearing a crown that was descended from Charlemagne.  Some of these people and their actions are indefensible in my point of view, and one of them is Catherine de Medici.

Nothing to do with my personal opinion so... you have been longing for it: here it is: I laugh at your intolerant ideas and posts. From my point of view I0ve always tried to have a friendly discussion with everyone - you included- and I even sent a PM to you in order to keep a friendly argument. (PM that, by the way, never received a response). You keep insulting me... so I think I have no other option than laughing at your stubborn hatred of people who do not think or feel like you. Might just be my opinion, the opinion of a mortal being - just as your are- but you are always offensive even though people don't mean to offend you, as was my case, you keep "atacking" us...


You said there was nothing more to say about this issue... well, you've said much more that I could stand. Please, stop it, it's not pleasant anymore. Thanks

Gonzalo


P.S. I never in my life wrote a 'fav royal' thread, so I really don't know what you are talking about...Sorry if I "offend" YOU...

[Angie_H]

I've always been interested in Catherine de Medici.

Correct me if I am wrong in this but didn't Diane de Poitiers get a venereal  disease from Francis I which she in turn gave to Henry II which is one of the reasons why his children weren't in the best of health?

Didn't Hercule get small pox as a child that scarred his face?

And didn't Catherine at one time bring Nostradamus to the palace to make predictions regarding her family and he said he saw a ring of blood around Mary Stuart's head?

[umigon]

1. Nope, Francis I and Henry II were both very probably infected with Syphillis, but Diane de Poitiers never slept with Francis! Sorry to disappoint you, I know the story about father and son sleeping with the same woman seems very interesting!

2. Yes, Hercule suffered from small pox. But this ddidn't stop Queen Elizabeth Tudor of thinking that he was handsome enough to be her husband!


3. Yes, Catherine was a friend to many astrologers, and Nostradamus was probably the one she liked the most with the Italian Ruggieri. Yes, he said that about Mary Stuart and predicted many other things, like Henry II's fate...

[lady]

I like the Claude picture, I had never seen it before.