Italian history: Well, remember Fritz bitching about how current day Italians are so unworthy successors to both the Romans and Renaissance Italy? While the ancient world is technically regarded as its own thing in histioriography, I think there is an emotional connection felt between Roman and Italian history even today.
Oh, sure, there's continuity! I was only saying that if you asked me for the most interesting century of Italian history, it wouldn't occur to me to include the Romans in the pool of candidates, and while I can't be 100% sure the guy from across the pond and a hundred years ago had the same categories I do, it would make a lot of sense of how he can flat out assert that the Renaissance is the most interesting without even considering antiquity. Especially if he's operating in a Dark Ages - Renaissance - Early Modern - Modern framework.
(Well: current day. I was there the last time 20 years ago, sob.)
Eleven for me, also sob. I've been dying to go back.
HOWEVER. Venice certainly stood for more than trade
Which is why I said "not historically but historiographically"! And having at least studied the Florentines, I know exactly how much time they spent in Rome arguing with popes.
The good idea: given FW's inquiry to his Protestant Pastors about whether or not a father can force his daughter to marry, it occured to me that it's surprising this argument wasn't used more often when trying to get an annulment/divorce in either religion.
Well, in the first place, I think it makes more sense in the Catholic religion. Protestants can get divorces, Catholics have to get annulments, which means they have to (at least most of the time--exceptions are always made) argue the marriage was invalid in the first place. (Which was Henry VIII's argument too.) In the second place, arguing that the marriage was invalid would cast doubts on the legitimacy of the children. So I can see why it's an argument of last resort, especially if there are already kids.
Most of the annulment cases I can think of are ones where the royal is trying to get an heir and wants a reason to get a new wife, and the arguments tend to go for consanguinity. Consanguinity is also easier to prove to the Pope than "She cheated" or "I didn't want to" or "We never slept together." Marguerite Louise's is an odd case where the woman really, really didn't want to get married and has proved it for years, and having a legitimate heir isn't her concern.
I wasn't familiar with Louis XII's case, so I just checked Wiki, and sure enough, they had no children whose legitimacy could be called into question, and he had to go for an annulment so he could remarry. To quote:
The annulment, described as "one of the seamiest lawsuits of the age", was not simple. Louis did not, as one might have expected, argue the marriage to be void due to consanguinity (the general allowance for the dissolution of a marriage at that time). Though he could produce witnesses to claim that the two were closely related due to various linking marriages, there was no documentary proof, merely the opinions of courtiers. Likewise, Louis could not argue that he had been below the legal age of consent (fourteen) to marry: no one was certain when he had been born, with Louis claiming to have been twelve at the time, and others ranging in their estimates between eleven and thirteen. As there was no real proof, he had perforce to bring forward other arguments.
Accordingly, Louis (much to the dismay of his wife) claimed that Joan was physically malformed (providing a rich variety of detail precisely how) and that he had therefore been unable to consummate the marriage. Joan, unsurprisingly, fought this uncertain charge fiercely, producing witnesses to Louis's boast of having "mounted my wife three or four times during the night". Louis also claimed that his sexual performance had been inhibited by witchcraft. Joan responded by asking how he was able to know what it was like to try to make love to her. Had the Papacy been a neutral party, Joan would likely have won, for Louis's case was exceedingly weak. Pope Alexander VI, however, had political reasons to grant the annulment, and ruled against Joan accordingly. He granted the annulment on the grounds that Louis did not freely marry, but was forced to marry by Joan's father Louis XI. Outraged, Joan reluctantly submitted, saying that she would pray for her former husband. She became a nun; she was canonized in 1950.
So yeah, I'm surprised ML didn't produce it sooner in her relentless campaign, but I'm not surprised it didn't get used more often by men, either men with heirs or men with easier options. (I also wouldn't be surprised if the king doesn't want to go proclaiming, "Remember when I was totally helpless?" publicly, whether or not they were actually forced.
(Fritz: we don't talk about 1730. I have a great memory right up until that year.)
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
Well, it is incredibly seamy. BTW, if you're wondering where the advantage lay for Pope Alexander VI., otherwise known as Rodrigo Borgia, in granting Louis XII his suit: an alliance, a dukedom and a bride of royal blood for son Cesare. Charlotte d'Albret, who marred Cesare Borgia, was Louis XII' niece. If you remember how even centuries later aristos like Liselotte are upset when their son marries a bastard daughter of Louis XIV (even a royal bastard is still a bastard), you can imagine that the illegitimate son of a Spanish Pope (his being Spanish upset a whole lot of Italian aristocrats way more than his being standard Renaissance corrupt) getting to marry into the French Royal family was really a major coup.
Edited 2021-06-20 07:16 (UTC)
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
I realize that this was pretty common at the time with the Popes and such, but I still find it hilarious that the Pope is doing this to get an advantage for his son. :D
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
WELP yes of course you are required to post on these things for me :D That is... well, it seems to me that it would require very little changing to become a Modern AU, let's say :P
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
Oh, sure, there's continuity! I was only saying that if you asked me for the most interesting century of Italian history, it wouldn't occur to me to include the Romans in the pool of candidates, and while I can't be 100% sure the guy from across the pond and a hundred years ago had the same categories I do, it would make a lot of sense of how he can flat out assert that the Renaissance is the most interesting without even considering antiquity. Especially if he's operating in a Dark Ages - Renaissance - Early Modern - Modern framework.
(Well: current day. I was there the last time 20 years ago, sob.)
Eleven for me, also sob. I've been dying to go back.
HOWEVER. Venice certainly stood for more than trade
Which is why I said "not historically but historiographically"! And having at least studied the Florentines, I know exactly how much time they spent in Rome
arguing with popes.The good idea: given FW's inquiry to his Protestant Pastors about whether or not a father can force his daughter to marry, it occured to me that it's surprising this argument wasn't used more often when trying to get an annulment/divorce in either religion.
Well, in the first place, I think it makes more sense in the Catholic religion. Protestants can get divorces, Catholics have to get annulments, which means they have to (at least most of the time--exceptions are always made) argue the marriage was invalid in the first place. (Which was Henry VIII's argument too.) In the second place, arguing that the marriage was invalid would cast doubts on the legitimacy of the children. So I can see why it's an argument of last resort, especially if there are already kids.
Most of the annulment cases I can think of are ones where the royal is trying to get an heir and wants a reason to get a new wife, and the arguments tend to go for consanguinity. Consanguinity is also easier to prove to the Pope than "She cheated" or "I didn't want to" or "We never slept together." Marguerite Louise's is an odd case where the woman really, really didn't want to get married and has proved it for years, and having a legitimate heir isn't her concern.
I wasn't familiar with Louis XII's case, so I just checked Wiki, and sure enough, they had no children whose legitimacy could be called into question, and he had to go for an annulment so he could remarry. To quote:
The annulment, described as "one of the seamiest lawsuits of the age", was not simple. Louis did not, as one might have expected, argue the marriage to be void due to consanguinity (the general allowance for the dissolution of a marriage at that time). Though he could produce witnesses to claim that the two were closely related due to various linking marriages, there was no documentary proof, merely the opinions of courtiers. Likewise, Louis could not argue that he had been below the legal age of consent (fourteen) to marry: no one was certain when he had been born, with Louis claiming to have been twelve at the time, and others ranging in their estimates between eleven and thirteen. As there was no real proof, he had perforce to bring forward other arguments.
Accordingly, Louis (much to the dismay of his wife) claimed that Joan was physically malformed (providing a rich variety of detail precisely how) and that he had therefore been unable to consummate the marriage. Joan, unsurprisingly, fought this uncertain charge fiercely, producing witnesses to Louis's boast of having "mounted my wife three or four times during the night". Louis also claimed that his sexual performance had been inhibited by witchcraft. Joan responded by asking how he was able to know what it was like to try to make love to her. Had the Papacy been a neutral party, Joan would likely have won, for Louis's case was exceedingly weak. Pope Alexander VI, however, had political reasons to grant the annulment, and ruled against Joan accordingly. He granted the annulment on the grounds that Louis did not freely marry, but was forced to marry by Joan's father Louis XI. Outraged, Joan reluctantly submitted, saying that she would pray for her former husband. She became a nun; she was canonized in 1950.
So yeah, I'm surprised ML didn't produce it sooner in her relentless campaign, but I'm not surprised it didn't get used more often by men, either men with heirs or men with easier options. (I also wouldn't be surprised if the king doesn't want to go proclaiming, "Remember when I was totally helpless?" publicly, whether or not they were actually forced.
(Fritz: we don't talk about 1730. I have a great memory right up until that year.)
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
Btw, I saw this, and I thought, "I'm pretty sure I'm contractually obligated to copy-paste the entire thing for
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
I realize that this was pretty common at the time with the Popes and such, but I still find it hilarious that the Pope is doing this to get an advantage for his son. :D
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages