I Get The Feeling D&D Really Didn’t Want Bran To Be King, But Did So Because It Was In George’s Outline.

She was always on this downward path. She’ll probably burn cities to the ground in the books too, should GRRM ever finish them. 

“Dragons are the nuclear deterrent, and only Dany has them, which in some ways makes her the most powerful person in the world. […] You can have the power to destroy, but it doesn’t give you the power to reform, or improve, or build.”

without a doubt the best genre of fiction is "small town murder mystery"

Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire and other heroines of the French wars of religion

Between 1562 and 1598, France was torn by civil and religious conflicts between the Catholics and the Protestants. During this period, women distinguished themselves as spies, propagandists, political leaders or negotiators. Some of them even fought weapons in hand.

Agrippa d’Aubigné tells in his Universal history of Marie de Brabançon, widow of Jean de Barres, lord of Neuvy. In October 1569, the lady found herself besieged in her home by the king’s lieutenant who had 2,000 men and two cannons. She personally defended the most dangerous breach with a pike in her hand. Shamed by her example, her soldiers fought bravely. Observers recounts that they saw her defending the breach several times with her weapon. She nonetheless had to surrender in mid-November, but was allowed to walk away freely by the king’s command. Another lady noted for her military acumen was Claude de la Tour, dame de Tournon who defended her city against the protestants in 1567 and 1570. They couldn’t, however, breach her defense and had to leave.

Ordinary women also found themselves on the frontline. The city of La Rochelle was besieged between 1572 and 1573 and the townswomen fought in the defense. Brantôme tells that the besiegers saw a hundred women dressed in white appearing on the walls. Some of them performed support functions while others wielded weapons. Their bravery was confirmed by another account who tells that the women acted as “soldiers or new amazons” and that their courage led a street in La Rochelle to be called the “Ladies’ Boulevard”. Agrippa d’Aubigné similarly shows the women fighting with sword and gun. Brantôme adds that he heard that one of these women kept at home the weapon with which she fought and that she didn’t want to give it to anyone.

Another valiant lady was Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire (c.1528/30-1588) who came from a prestigious military family. She married the lord of Miremont, gave birth to three daughters, but was widowed and had to defend her lands. Agrippa d’Aubigné tells that Madeleine led a troop of 60 cavaliers against her enemy Montal, lieutenant of the king. When she fought, Madeleine charged ahead of all others, with her hair unbound in order to be recognized by both friends and foes. In 1575, Montal lured Madeleine and her troops away from the castle and planned to seize the place. The lady returned, charged at the enemy and routed their cavalry. Montal was wounded in the ensuing fight and died a few days later.

Letters written by Madeleine have been preserved and reveal another aspect of her character. They show a modest, polite woman, who cared for her husband’s illegitimate children and treated them like her own. 

Bibliography:

Arnal J., “Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire”

Bulletin de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de la Corrèze

D’Aubigné Agrippa, Histoire universelle

Lazard Madeleine, “Femmes combattantes dans l’Histoire universelle d’Agrippad’Aubigné”

Pierre Jean-Baptiste, De Courcelles Julien, Dictionnaire universel de la noblesse de France

Viennot Elianne, “Les femmes dans les « troubles » du XVIe siècle”

Henri III deserves better than his reputation.

@microcosme11​ who was interested in knowing more about Henri III.

                                                 ***

Henri III was the last Valois king of France (19/09/1551-02/08/1589) and certainly among the kings whose reputation was the most tarnished. You could say it was trashed by the black legend his enemies quickly wove around him: weak, effeminate, cowardly, treacherous, immoral… This is how he was depicted for centuries. For decades now, however, historians have worked to rediscover a misjudged king and rehabilitated a complex personality who was at odds, in many ways, with the expectations of his century. Henri III had above all a high idea of royal authority, and a modern conception of the state. In particularly difficult circumstances, he managed to avoid the wreck of the monarchy.

This post will try to be a quick summary of the circumstances of his reign, of his real qualities and personality, of the origin of the “black legend”, and of his legacy as a king.

When the future Henri III was born, he wasn’t destined for a crown. He was indeed the fourth son of Henri II and Catherine de Medici. Titled Duke of Anjou, he was given a thorough and refined education, as befitted a true prince of the Renaissance. His master Amyot, the most reputed of his time, was able to cultivate qualities that would make Henri a brilliant and eloquent prince “ one of the best speakers of his era.”

Henri was also Catherine’s favorite child. He was good looking, smart, fashionable, an excellent swordsman. Aged only 16, he became Lieutenant General of the Kingdom, and he would soon prove his valor in the battlefield in Jarnac and Moncontour. Elected King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lituania under the name Henryk Walezy, his reign wouldn’t last long - his brother Charles IX died without an heir and Henri immediately left Poland for France.

He was crowned on February 13, 1575, and two days later married the beautiful and smart Louise de Vaudémont, a princess of Lorraine, close to the famous and very influent House of Guise.

France was then in a very difficult situation. The Kingdom was divided and devastated by the wars of Religion. The warring parties were backed by foreign powers and France’s political and economical condition suffered.

In the late XVIth century, the great lords of the Kingdom still acted like sovereigns of their own in many ways - the feudal order hadn’t yet given way to the future absolutism (which would be the later creation of Richelieu and Louis XIII IMHO, in reaction precisely to the Great Lords’ excessive capacity for nuisance). Henri III couldn’t afford to overtly dismiss or displease them.

He had to stand up to three main parties: the Malcontents, the Protestants (leader: Henri, King of Navarre, his distant cousin), and the Catholics (led by the House of Guise). He knew that the restoration of peace and concord meant he had to get into everybody’s good graces- a perilous proposition in such times. His whole life, Henri would have to find a balance. Nobody would be grateful for that. Mindful of his duty and his role as a mediator in the kingdom, he worked to establish the royal authority as effectively sovereign.

He would find enemies everywhere.

He was well spoken, soft spoken, elegant and well mannered: he would be mocked as weak and effeminate. He was clever and always favored diplomacy over shows of brute force: he would be despised for it and depicted as an immoral, cowardly prince. He wasn’t as easily accessible as his predecessors: the Great lords didn’t like that. When he got closer to the Guise, to appease the most radical Catholics, the Protestants rebelled. When he leaned towards Henri de Navarre, the League reacted violently. The balancing act harmed his reputation.

With the help of his ever present mother Catherine, he initiated a rapprochement with Henri de Navarre while supporting his brother’s (François, Duke of Alençon) plans in the Spanish Netherlands: Protestants and Catholics coming together to face a common enemy (the Habsburgs) ? Excellent. That’s a lesson Henri IV would remember.

Henri III was, in spite of his rather frail health, a hard worker. In 1584, after seven years of relative peace, strenghtening of the royal authority, and an intense legislative work, he was still childless - and his brother and heir François d'Alençon died of tuberculosis.

This was a great upset in the game.

Because the new heir was Henri de Navarre - leader of the Protestant party. Which of course was unacceptable for the Catholic opinion. Paris, who chose the Ligue, was dangerously agitated.

What a stroke of luck for Henri de Guise!

What was named then “La Guerre des Trois Henri” opposed three parties, not two. Although he was apparently allied to the ultra Catholics Guise, Henri III took care not to burn his bridges with the Protestants. The Habsburg support of Henri de Guise wasn’t to his taste, and he didn’t like the ambitious Duke. And if Navarre (whom he esteemed) was to lose entirely, Guise would become too powerful.

Guise was the first to move; exasperated by the King’s caution, the Duke entered Paris in open defiance of the King, with the population cheering him on. Fearing a coup d'Etat, the King sent his own troops to Paris, and what happened was the famous “Journée des Barricades” (Barricade Day), on 13 May 1588.

What happened next ? Henri III took a terrible decision: for the peace of the Kingdom, for France to subsist as a State, for his authority to be maintained, Henri de Guise was to disappear. And there was a way to lure him: afraid that the King would sign peace with Navarre, Henri de Guise went to negotiate with Henri III in Blois. On December 23, Henri III had Henri de Guise assassinated by his own Guard, as well as his brother the Cardinal de Lorraine.

Was the King’s opinion and attitude unclear before ? That’s cleared now. But as for peace ? Never. The powerful Ligue lashed out in rage . The hatred was open. There were outloud calls of Death to the Tyrant.

Henri III would never see the Ligue destroyed: on the 1st August 1589, a fanatic monk by the name of Jacques Clément would stab him to death.

“This King was a good prince, if he’d met a better century”, would write the chronicler Pierre de l'Estoile upon his death. In spite of his peculiar personality and the outburst of hatred he aroused, Henri also showed his qualities.

He had been raised in a humanist background and would protect the world of literature (Montaigne, Du Perron, Desportes); he was rather to be found working in his office with his ministers rather than on the battlefield. Although, when he had to, he was steadfast and brave in battle.

He was smart and usually able of compassion towards his adversaries.

He had faith, and his misfortunes made him find a refuge there. We know he even went on a spiritual retreat into a monastery for a while.

His contemporaries described him as a man who loved women - which was overlooked because he never granted any of his lovers a title of official mistress. He had for Marie de Clèves, Princess of Condé, a platonic, but deep passion, and the depth of his mourning after she brutally passed away in 1574, stunned the Court.

He married Louise de Vaudémont for her charm and her wit rather than for politics.

But in spite of this, the image we’ve had of him for centuries is indissociable from his “mignons” - effeminate youths clad in excentric outfits and wasting their time in frivolous games. He was painted as homosexual (and therefore despicable) based on pamphlets written by radical leaguers, radical calvinists, Malcontents. The high nobility didn’t appreciate his “new ways”, the refining of clothes and manners, the new court practices. The Ligue used against him a virulent propaganda, along with calls to rebellion and real campaigns of calumnies. And when he died, the change of dynasty didn’t allow for a better, more impartial image to be offered. Queen Louise and the Duchess of Angoulême tried in vain to dispell this ambiguous image. The real culprits were'nt even be punished (Jacques Clément however perished).

And yet. He was the one who wanted concord and national unity in a country torn by wars of religion (he lived four of them). His long and unthanked political action allowed Henri IV to end half a century of cruel civil war.

Was he weak ? It is true he bowed to the many pressures of the Great lords. But he always took back control.

Cowardly ? He wasn’t vainglorious. And he proved his personal courage, in the battlefields of his youth as well as at the time of his death (he fought off his killer).

Frivolous and immoral ? He loved pleasures, arts, and feasts. But he also was anxious about his soul and salute.

In the difficulties he had to face, he managed to rule and to leave France a considerable legislative body of work (Code Henri III).

What are some positive aspects of his reign ?

He launched loans to stabilize finances, he reduced the taille (tax), ensured the protection of cities, created offices, taxed luxury, taxed the clergy, revived the textile industry, revised farm leases, created fines for fraudsters, created a body of health officers and an assistance service for the needy and the orphans; he undertook the administrative reorganization of the kingdom, maintained the unity of France by overcoming the worst of wars, both civil and religious, and retained royal legitimacy through a regular transmission of power to Henri IV.

He held on his principle of royal authority and modern conception of the State. He maintained.

I agree with Pierre de l’Estoile.

“Décrié”: condemned, castigated, reviled.

Sources:

Wikipedia

https///www.histoire-pour-tous.fr/histoire-de-france/1481-henri-iii-le-dernier-des-valois.html

Pierre Chevallier: Henri III, roi shakespearien, 1985

Michel Pernot : Henri III, le roi décrié, 2017

Jean-François Solnon: Henri III: un désir de majesté, 2001

Alessandro de’ Medici Alessandro de’ Medici, called “Il Moro” (“The Moor”), was born in the Italian city of Urbino in 1510. His mother was an African slave named Simonetta who had been freed. Alessandro’s paternity is uncertain. Most sources name Lorenzo de’ Medici, ruler of Urbino. But Alessandro might also have been the son of Pope Clement VII, the brother of Lorenzo II who became the head of the Medici family after Lorenzo’s death. Clement VII chose the nineteen-year-old Alessandro to become the first Duke of Florence in 1529. Pope Clement at that time was at odds not only with the Florentines who had driven out the Medici family in 1497, but also with the emperor Charles V. To solidify the allegiance that the papacy owed to the Holy Roman Empire, Alessandro was named Duke of Florence and promised the emperor’s daughter Margaret. With the help of Charles V, Clement could restore the rule of the Medici family in Florence in 1530 and make Alessandro the first reigning Duke. Supported initially by the best families, Alessandro became an absolute prince, overthrowing the city’s’ republican government. According to most historians the young duke’s reign did not begin very well. His arrogant personality, the bad behavior of his entourage, and his licentiousness – with both women and feasting – soon gave Alessandro an unsavory reputation. In addition, he made some highly unpopular political decisions including limiting the number of remunerative positions in his government. This decision alone forced many patrician families to go into exile and become enemies of his rule.  Alessandro’s situation grew worse when his protector and benefactor Clement VII died in 1534. In response he took more repressive measures against his enemies, probably due to his growing fear of them and uncertainty of his support. Meanwhile, resistance against Alessandro’s reign grew among the exiles and even his cousin Ippolito plotted against the Duke. When Ippolito died unexpectedly in 1535, speculations arose that Alessandro had poisoned him. In June 1536, however, Charles V visited Florence and married his daughter to Alessandro, consolidating the Duke’s position. Nonetheless one year later, Alessandro was murdered by his own cousin Lorenzino, who fled to Venice and was hailed among the exiles as the “New Brutus.” Sources: T.F. Earle and K.J. Lowe, Black Africans in Renaissance Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); J.A. Rogers, World’s Greatest Men of Color, Volume II (New York: Macmillan, 1972).

when talking about sansa supposedly not being a sympatheic character in AGOT, I don't think antis really understand they're not making the point they think are (like those who think sansa is only kind because of courtesy rather than it being like Ned's "lord face" and seperate from her kindness as a person) a sympatheic character isn't necessarily someone who is good or to root for - one example is Tyrion. His backstory makes him a sympatheic but that doesn't make him a hero.

Yes, exactly. Sympathetic isn’t defined by whether or not you are a nice person, but by whether you are attracting the liking of others (in this case: The readers).

Tyrion is a villain, but he is clearly written for people to find him sympathetic in spite of this. My favourite example of is Glokta from Joe Abercrombie’s First Law who is a horrible, horrible person, but readers still sympathise with him because of his backstory, his painful disabilities and his dry sense of humor (... that sounded like a description of Tyrion too, actually).

If Sansa isn’t sympathetic in AGoT, it’s because GRRM didn’t write her to be someone the readers sympathize with - And he did that very deliberately by POV trapping her and pitting her against other characters that he clearly wrote to be immediately liked, and by giving her flaws that people don’t usually associate with fantasy protagonists (or really it’s just one of her flaws; the touch of snobbery).

The thing is, though, that GRRM seems to have taken great pains to write her in a way that doesn’t make most readers immediately fall for her, while at the same time never making her not nice. He didn’t have to use a POV trap in Arya I; he could have just made Sansa behave badly towards her. He could have included Sansa when Arya thinks of Jeyne calling her “horseface”. He didn’t have to make such an effort to show the Arya-Sansa conflict as so clearly rooted in society’s expectations and the teachings of Septa Mordane. He could have written Sansa taking Joffrey’s side at Darry Castle instead of having her pretend she forgot to avoid taking sides. He didn’t have to spend literally all of Sansa’s chapters dropping hint after hint about how nobody ever answers her critical questions, or how Ned’s interactions with Arya was teaching Sansa the lesson that disobedience wasn’t as big an offence as she thought.

He might have overdone it a bit, because even after 3 more books of Sansa clearly being written to be sympathetic, people are still refusing to believe that they were initially fooled, and are looking for signs that she was a horrible person all along, blowing every flaw that she has out of proportion to be right.

But the point is that GRRM might not have tried to write AGoT Sansa as sympathetic, but he never wrote her as not a nice person, or with any irredeemable flaws; clearly intending to develop her further in the following books.

The fact that a lot of us still found her sympathetic in AGoT in spite of this, I suppose says something about how much you related to her, or how much effort was put into analyzing the text and understanding Sansa’s motivations on the first read. I know that a lot more people who initially didn’t care for her found her sympathetic when they went back to read AGoT again, looking at Sansa with different eyes and trying to see past GRRM’s smoke screen.

So, no. They really aren’t making the point they think they are making. I also don’t really know why they are trying to make it in the first place tbh. Their point seems to be the usual stuff; that Sansa isn’t nice, isn’t a main character, is supposed to become a villain. But as I recall that quote, GRRM even goes on to say that Sansa becomes more sympathetic as the story progresses.

So I suppose I don’t really see how the point they are trying to make would get them what they want either.

My Montage Of Lost Things…

Florence + the Machine “Prayer Factory”

hi, sorry to be a bother, but i was wondering if u knew any alternatives to Philippa Gregory?? I really want to get into Tudor history and I love historical fiction but I've heard so much criticism of her work xx

Unfortunately a lot of period books are going to be steeped in a certain level of creative license which sacrifices historical details to the ideal or romanticised effect. Most major Tudor writers – Weir, Plaidy, Gregory - are guilty of this. Personally I can look past this and enjoy the content for its historical setting and loose interpretation, but if that is a deal breaker for you there are a slim number of authors who will likely appeal to you. If you are disinterested in Gregory, I would recommend Alison Weir and Jean Plaidy. Their novels are chock full in historical references and are of a similar style to Gregory.  As I understand it their’s are more credible, the exception being Weir tends to take a biased standpoint, and Plaidy is more of a story-writer than she is a historian.

You’ve probably already heard of Hillary Mantel’s Wolf Hall series. I read its entirety and enjoyed it, but there are errors strewn through it. On the opposite end, Adrienne Dillard’s works tend to be more true to history and from what I’ve gathered the author herself is an all-around good person. I highly enjoyed The Raven’s Widow as opposed to Gregory’s interpretation to Jane Boleyn.  Olivia Longueville is also a recommended author. Sharon Kay Penman, Ken Follett, Katharine Longshore, Diane Haeger, and Margaret George all have interesting and well-researched reads. I loved the Autobiography of Henry VIII by George. It reads fantastically.

I hope this helps! Enjoy your summer reading. 

If I didn’t know better, I’d say this was King Evan Peters. These two actors do look pretty similar. 

All hail His Grace, Aegon, Second of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm.

HOUSE OF THE DRAGON | 1.09 The Green Council