#Marriage of Louis XIV

[skitskatdacat63]

This is not really a question but just popping into say that I am OBSESSED with your boy king Seb au.

Is this partially because Seb is my favourite driver? Yes. Is this partially due to the fact that history and by extension, historical fiction one of my favourite things ever? Yes.

This is a really random tangent but when you mentioned the AU being loosely based on the Spanish War of Succession, I was like I recognise this but from where? I looked it up and realised that I learnt a little about it when I studied Louis XIV. This also reminded of how much I used to love making fun of Louis XIV as well.

This just struck me as I was writing this but since Fernando is based on Philip and if I remember correctly comes from Renault (basically) in this au, would that make Flavio Briatore the Louis XIV in this universe...

Sorry for the really long text - I got carried away lmao

Nooooo don't apologize!! I absolutely love long asks, and I'm so glad you like the au so much!!!! That makes me so haopy to hear 🥹 But you're so real, this au does in fact stem from my obsessions with my f1 boys and history. I'm very happy to have found a way to combine my two major interests into one thing 🤭🤭 But as I said to someone earlier today, it often feels like this AU is just a way for me to force-feed people niche history trivia LOL

Imagining Flavio as Louis XIV gave me a heart attack sjkfkflf, that man cannot and should not have that amount of power 😭 Flavio is Fernando's top advisor!! I think he works better as someone working behind the scenes, in the shadows, the little devil on Fernando's shoulder. I like to imagine he's some merchant who gained enough reputation and favor, that Fernando's father or smth was like, yeah sure you can be my son's advisor....not knowing he'd become king later on.

I think he obviously genuinely really cares for Fernando and makes decisions in his best interest but uhhhhh is not upset when it also happens to put a bit of money in his own pocket. I imagine he was like, super gung-ho about the arranged marriage, and giving fernsndo all these platitudes like "don't you think this is your best chance at being King 🥺 maybe you can find true love 🥺" but then is also making deals behind the scenes sjkfkv. Just constantly doing mental arithmetic, weighing out and balancing how much he's benefitting Fernando, and how much he's benefitting himself. Also lol, I like to imagine he tries to be all schemey with Seb, but then can't help but become endeared with him(reminds him of a younger Fernando 🤧)

[royalty-nobility]

Marriage of Louis XIV and Maria Theresa of Austria, 9th June 1660

Artist: Jacques Laumosnier (French, c. 1669 - c. 1744)

Date: 17th century

Medium: Oil on canvas

Collection: Tessé Museum, Le Mans, France

[whencyclopedia]

Anne of Austria

Anne of Austria (1601-1666), as the wife of King Louis XIII of France (r. 1610-1643), was queen consort of France and of Navarre when the Kingdom of Navarre was annexed by the French Crown. She also acted as regent for her son, King Louis XIV of France (1638-1715), during the early years of his reign.

Early Life

Anne was born in Valladolid, Spain, on 22 September 1601 to King Philip III of Spain (r. 1598-1621) and Margaret of Austria (l. 1584-1611). Her childhood was spent at the Royal Alcazar in Madrid, Spain. Growing up, Anne was constantly visiting monasteries and would soon follow in her parents' footsteps and become very religious. In 1611, Anne's mother died in childbirth, and so the responsibility of raising her younger siblings was passed down to Anne.

While a Spaniard, Anne had Austrian ancestry and was considered an Austrian Archduchess as well as a Princess of Spain and Portugal, which is why she is referred to as ‘of Austria'. Anne was described to be a very beautiful girl, even at a young age, with fair hair that could often be found in large curls, greenish-blue eyes, and an oval face. Her beauty and political position would help Anne gain the attention of many suitors.

The most successful of Anne's suitors was none other than King Louis XIII of France (l. 1601-1643), and when their betrothal was announced to the people of Paris on 18 March 1612, there were celebrations throughout the city. There were balls, banquets, and celebratory parties being hosted in the Louvre (the residence of French royalty), Fontainebleau Palace, and St. Germain. This was a political marriage, and Anne's father thought this would be a good chance to bring France into the Habsburg world; the couple married in 1615 when Anne was 14 years old.

As it would turn out, the union between Anne and Louis was very cold. Louis prioritized activities common for young men of high status, such as hunting rabbits in the garden of the Tuileries Palace, and would allow himself to fully listen and be governed by his favorite advisors in court; as such, he had almost no relationship with Anne.

Continue reading...

[planet-gay-comic]

Kings and Their Lovers

Male Kings and Their Homoromantic or Erotic Relationships from Antiquity to Modern Times History offers numerous examples of male rulers who had homoromantic or erotic relationships with other men. These connections were often complex and influenced by cultural, societal, and personal factors. Here are some remarkable examples:

Antiquity

Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) The Macedonian king and famous conqueror had a particularly close relationship with Hephaestion, his childhood friend and confidant. Plutarch described Hephaestion as "Alexander's lover." After Hephaestion's death, Alexander was inconsolable and ordered a nationwide mourning. The Persian eunuch Bagoas is also mentioned in ancient sources as Alexander's lover.

Emperor Hadrian (76–138 AD) The Roman emperor is known for his passionate relationship with the young Greek Antinous. When Antinous drowned in the Nile, Hadrian was devastated. He had his lover deified, founded the city of Antinoopolis, and erected statues of Antinous throughout the empire. These actions testify to Hadrian's deep affection and grief.

Middle Ages

Richard the Lionheart (1157–1199) Richard I of England had a close relationship with Philip II of France. Contemporary chroniclers described how the two kings "ate from the same table and drank from the same cup every night" and "slept in the same bed." Although the exact nature of their relationship remains disputed, such reports suggest a very intimate connection.

Edward II of England (1284–1327) Edward II had an intense relationship with Piers Gaveston, which chroniclers of the time described as excessively intimate. Later, he developed a similarly close relationship with Hugh Despenser the Younger. These connections led to political tensions and ultimately contributed to Edward's deposition.

Modern Times

James I of England (1566–1625) James, also known as James VI of Scotland, had several close relationships with men. Particularly notable was his connection with George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham. In letters, James called Villiers "my sweet child and wife" and "my dear Venus boy." This correspondence indicates a passionate and intimate relationship.

Louis XIV of France (1638–1715) Although the Sun King is primarily known for his female mistresses, there are indications of intimate relationships with men. The Duke of Saint-Simon reported in his memoirs of several homosexual affairs at court, including one between Louis and his brother Philippe, Duke of Orléans.

Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712–1786) Frederick had close relationships with several men, particularly Hans Hermann von Katte in his youth. Although Frederick married, the marriage remained childless and distant. Instead, he surrounded himself with a circle of close male friends and confidants.

Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845–1886) Known as the "Fairy Tale King," Ludwig II had close and presumably romantic relationships with several men. Particularly well-known are his connections to Richard Hornig, his stable master, and Paul von Thurn und Taxis. Ludwig's homosexuality was an open secret during his lifetime and contributed to the accusations that led to his dethronement.

Modern Era

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (1868–1918) Although later married, the last Russian Tsar had a close relationship as a young man with his cousin, Prince Nicholas of Greece. In letters, he described their "special friendship" and the "wonderful nights" they spent together.

These examples show that same-sex relationships among rulers were not uncommon. The nature and perception of such connections varied greatly depending on the cultural and historical context. While some relationships were lived relatively openly, others remained hidden due to societal norms and political implications or were only hinted at in documentation.

It is important to note that modern concepts of sexual orientation and identity cannot be directly applied to historical figures. Many of these rulers would not have identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual, as these terms did not exist in their time. Their relationships must be understood in the context of their respective culture and time.

Nevertheless, these historical examples offer important insights into the diversity of human relationships and show that same-sex love and affection existed even at the highest levels of power.

Text supported by GPT-4o, Claude AI

Image generated with SD1.5. Overworked with inpainting (SD1.5/SDXL) and composing.

[goodqueenaly]

since you clearly know your history, do you think aegon iv's situation with his mistresses while he was king was handled realistically? weren't official king's mistresses married off before taking on their positions because any bastard children sired needed a legal father? falena was married off but there's no mention of barba, melissa, or the other women after aegon iv ascended having husbands. i mean, obviously barba needed to be unwed so she could have a chance of becoming queen but if melissa wanted to establish herself as a non-grasping replacement, shouldn't she go get a husband so naerys, aemon, and daeron couldn't feel threatened? and even if melissa was a super nice person, how she could she remain "well-loved" at court while publicly having bastards and one of them is an albino? wouldn't her reputation be ruined if aegon iv dropped her and she remained unmarried after that?

I think the historical record is somewhat mixed on that point. Think of, for example, GRRM’s, ugh, favorite point of reference for Aegon IV, Henry VIII (yeah, I know): Bessie Blount was not married at the time she was in a relationship with the king (and conceived Henry Fitzroy with him), though she did marry after her son’s birth, while it’s entirely unclear when Mary Boleyn married relative to when she and Henry VIII had their relationship (and, of course, Henry offered to make Anne Boleyn his mistress while she was unmarried). Likewise, if we look to Charles II - another inspiration, I think, for Aegon IV, no less so because I tend to think he named Barba Bracken after Charles’ long-term mistress Barbara Villiers, Duchess of Cleveland - the record is far from one-sided: Barbara herself, for example, was married during their relationship of course, but the king’s two primary mistresses at the end of his life, Louise de Kerouaille and Nell Gwynn, were both unmarried for the whole of their lives (and as much as James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, Charles’ eldest extramarital son, might have claimed that Charles had married his mother, Lucy Walter, when the two were exiles in the Netherlands, Charles himself vehemently denied the supposed marriage, which had no evidence of its existence otherwise). Too, Louis XIV - not perhaps explicitly cited by GRRM as an inspiration for Aegon the Unworthy, but certainly a king famous for his love affairs - had both married and unmarried mistresses: while Louise de La Vallière was unmarried (and later ended her life as a repentant nun), the Marquise de Montespan did have a husband (who notoriously held a “funeral” for his wife after she became the king’s mistress); the widower King Louis did, almost certainly, end up marrying his last mistress, the similarly widowed Marquise de Maintenon. (There is also the story that when one of Louis’ early loves, Marie de Mancini, married her eventual husband, Prince Colonna, the prince was surprised to discover that his wife was a virgin, as he said he had not expected to find “innocence among the loves of kings”.) Again, these are only a very few, very limited examples, but I think it’s fair enough to say that GRRM could have felt, let’s say somewhat historically comforted by having Aegon IV’s mistresses be (mostly) unmarried women. 

In any event, I don’t think it was a necessity that Melissa Blackwood be married in order for her to be seen as unthreatening to the queen. While the details of Melissa’s life, especially her time as Aegon’s mistress, are frustratingly thin and vague based on our current knowledge, it does seem that Melissa went out of her way to curry favor with Queen Naerys, Prince Daeron, and Prince Aemon - a step that Barba Bracken almost certainly never took, if she was looking to replace Naerys as queen (and perhaps have her son Aegor replace Daeron as heir). It is also worth pointing out, of course, that in the aftermath of Barba’s, and probably more generally Lord Bracken’s and his faction’s, failed attempt to have Barba marry the king, Melissa and whatever faction was supporting her may have emphasized that Melissa had no such ambitions in order to distinguish her from the disgraced former mistress. Additionally, the fact that Melissa did not have a son with the king until a few years after their relationship began may have also served as some reassurance to the queen, Prince Daeron, and Prince Aemon: not only, perhaps, did Melissa appear not to want to replace the queen, but she had no ready would-be heir, as Barba had had, to promote in place of Daeron and strengthen her ambition to create a new royal family. 

Naturally, because we know nothing about why Melissa was sent away from court, or what happened to her after, we have no idea how her brief years as the king’s chief mistress affected her life or her socio-political prospects thereafter. I do tend to think that Melissa didn’t live a long life after leaving court, though when and how she might have died is obviously completely unclear. In any event, though, I could see where Melissa’s positive reputation, especially if she died relatively young, might have been preserved at court: the kind-hearted, widely beloved young woman, perhaps driven from the court by those no-good-very-bad Brackens who had then replaced her with a “faithless” mistress. Once King Daeron II came to the throne himself, the new king may have been even more inclined to think fondly of the woman who had treated himself and his late mother and uncle with respect and deference, where few if any other of his father’s mistresses had - “better this mistress than any other”, perhaps, to paraphrase the Queen of France on the subject of her husband’s beloved mistress, Madame de Pompadour. (Naturally as well, once Bloodraven came into power and influence, especially after the First Blackfyre Rebellion, he would likely have done much to promote the positive legend of his mother, especially in contrast to the surviving reputation of Barba Bracken - a legacy that I think will be central to the conflict of “The Village Hero”). 

It’s also worth pointing out that while King Aegon’s identified chief mistresses after his ascension seem to have been unmarried young women, this is not to say that the king probably limited his sexual liaisons during his reign only to these individuals. After all, Yandel notes in his overview of Daeron II’s reign that during Aegon IV’s rule, the men of the City Watch of King’s Landing whom the king promoted “made sure that the brothels—and even the decent women of the city—were available for Aegon’s lusts”; I think it’s probably fair to say Yandel likely included “married” in his definition of “decent”. Moreover, while Yandel identified Jeyne Lothston as Aegon IV’s chief mistress after the downfall of Bethany Bracken, the maester-author also suggested that the king “enjoyed mother and daughter together in the same bed”, after Falena Lothston (nee Stokeworth) brought young Jeyne to court (a disturbing rumor, of course, when paired with the additional suggestion by Yandel that Jeyne had been fathered by the king, not Lord Lucas). I fully expect that when we learn more about Aegon IV’s reign (especially given the, ugh, high likelihood of even more unnecessary sexual exploits to be highlighted in Fire and Blood Volume 2), Aegon’s omnivorous sexual desire, including for married women, will be underlined. 

[scotianostra]

November 21st 1673 saw King James VII marry Mary of Modena.

The daughter of an Italian Duke, Mary wanted to become an Nun but at age 11 proposals for her hand in marriage were received from James, the then Duke of York and younger brother of King Charles II. James was a widower, the love of his life, Anne Hyde, had passed away age 34 in 1671, James was a staggering 25 years older than the future King, but fear not the marriage never took place till Mary was 15.

There were problems straight away, Mary was a staunch catholic and this didn’t go down well with the Parliament, which was all protestan, they viewed Mary with suspicion, believing her to be an agent of the Pope, such was life back then. Things worsened for James and Mary when a secretary of theirs was implicated in the fictitious Popish Plot, a plan to assassinate Charles II. This led to the Exclusionist Crisis, an attempt to bar the Catholic James from ever becoming King.

In an effort to ease tensions, Charles II sent his brother and Mary away from London, with them first going to Brussels and then Edinburgh for a few years, only returning to London for brief periods, such as when Charles got sick. In 1683, they enjoyed a boost in popularity after the Rye House Plot was discovered. The Rye House Plot had sought to assassinate both Charles II and James, which prompted many people to sympathise with them. Aware of this shift, Charles invited his brother and sister-in-law back to London. Charles II died in 1685, leaving no legitimate children. His brother was crowned James II and VII.

Since getting married, Mary had suffered several miscarriages, and all of her and James’s children had been stillborn or had died young. In 1688, she gave birth to a healthy son who was named James Francis Edward Stuart. James’s two daughters from his first marriage had been raised as Protestants, despite James’s own beliefs; because of this, Protestants had hoped that one of them would succeed their father. The new child became known by many as the “warming-pan Prince”, named so because of the rumour spread that Mary’s own child had been stillborn and swapped out for a random healthy baby. This, combined with a negative response to James’s policies, led to the Glorious Revolution, which resulted in James being deposed and him and Mary living in exile in France.

Louis XIV of France presented James and Mary with Château de-Saint-en-Layne, where they resided for the rest of their lives. Mary also spent a lot of time at Versailles, where she was well-liked. In 1692, she gave birth to a daughter, Louisa, who lived until 1712. The Jacobites referred to Mary as “The Queen Over the Water”.

In 1701, James VII & II died, and his young son succeeded him to the Jacobite claim. Mary, acting as regent, pushed for her son to be recognised as King. France, Spain, Modena and the Papal States acknowledged him, but in London he was declared a traitor. Though she wanted to promote his claim, she was against him being apart from her before he was of age. She acted as regent until her son turned sixteen.

Mary spent her later years assisting and visiting convents. She died of cancer at the age of fifty-nine. She was buried in the Convent of the Visitation at Chaillot, which was later destroyed during the French Revolution.

[inky-duchess]

How much of an insult would it be for a kingdom to send as their participant in an alliance-codifying arranged marriage an obvious/known bastard? In the case of "obvious", assume that in the setting in question, there's some kind of trait that is known to never be present in the legitimate royal/noble children that is very clearly present in the bastard.

A lot of royal and noble bastards did rise high in society and would have been tasked with important things like this. Look at the illegitimate children of Louis XIV.

[mapsontheweb]

The new border between Spain and France, 1659.

via cartesdhistoire

Source: “Atlas de Historia de España”, Fdo García de Cortázar, Planeta, 2005

Within the framework of the Thirty Years' War, France declared war on Spain in May 1635. Starting in 1639, the French army invaded Roussillon, beginning with the occupation of the fortress of Salses. Richelieu fueled the revolt of the Catalans against Philip IV (started in June 1640), granting the insurgent leaders and troops the protection of French sovereignty (recognized by the insurgents in January 1641). Catalonia's return to Spanish obedience was effective only in October 1652 when Barcelona surrendered.

The fatigue produced by the French occupation, whose army was as burdensome or more burdensome than the Spanish and whose policy was more absolutist and inconsiderate than that of Olivares, alienated the population from the French, but Richelieu's move later served Louis XIV.

Indeed, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) did not put an end to the Franco-Spanish War, which ended with the defeat of Las Dunas (June 14, 1658). June 25, 1658, was the “folle journée” of neighboring Dunkirk: the city, Spanish in the morning, was taken by the French at noon and they handed it over to their ally England in the afternoon (it will be definitively French in 1662) .

The Peace of the Pyrenees (November 1659) meant the loss of Roussillon and Upper Cerdanya, with the establishment of the "dean border of Europe" between France and Spain. It also meant the definitive end of Spanish hegemony. On the other hand, one of the clauses of the treaty, which agreed to the marriage of Louis by a financially exhausted country), would later justify French interventionism in the Netherlands and, above all, would pave the way for the Spanish Crown to fall at the end of the century to the Bourbons, the current reigning dynasty in Spain.

[lemonhemlock]

I think one of the most frustrating things about both the ASOIAF/HOTD fandom is the inability for people to discuss these characters or books without projecting their own personal/modern sensibilities. I've noticed this a lot with TB so targ nation in general, but they fundamentally hate the world building and lore of a feudal medieval monarchy. They hate tradition, they hate religion, they hate the concepts of honor and duty which is why they can't or won't understand Criston's character if their lives depended on it, they hate anything that can be deemed in anyway conservative, religious, traditional lol, they hate the inheritance laws preferring males, they hate that women have to stay chaste before marriage, they hate arranged marriages, they hate the fact that people care so much about bastards and that bastards cannot inherit, etc. I could go on. Yes, from a modern perspective a lot of these things are now deemed obsolete and uncool, but there were very good reasons for these things AT THE TIME. These people just hate the entire lore that this world is based on and instead of good faith engagement with the lore, they just call anyone who uses the world/lore to logically analyze the text a sexist, misogynist, tradcath, conservative, or whatever. It boggles my mind. Why interact with media, and not just interact with it, but have entire social media accounts dedicated to their hyper fixation and borderline parasocial relationship with these characters/books if they fundamentally hate the world and hate seeing their faves lose as a result of the rules in place. I'm begging these people to go read one of the thousands of fantasy books that isn't set in a rigid feudal monarchy.

This is such a spot-on, insightful comment into how a lot of people interact within this fandom. 👏👏👏 This typology of the late stage social justice internet warrior that fundamentally refuses to engage with the historicity of the story's spatio-temporal setting, i.e. a feudal medieval monarchy of European inspiration, that predates centralization and thus absolutism. Even though Westeros is so very obviously decentralized, many fans do not realize this for some reason and pretend it's an absolute monarchy a la Louis XIV.

Many people, like GRRM, who is a prolific science-fiction writer (!), are attracted to this setting regardless, because of the pageantry (look how obsessed he is with creating house sigils and mottos), the romantic flair + the fact that it's literally the setting of fairy-tales, which inspires in the reader a world of magical possibilities. Of course, the world of ASOIAF is an attempt to shore up the 'realism' of this imagological construct, but medieval fantasy is a genre in and of itself, like there are certain flavours of societal layering and organization that are inescapable, like the rigid social structures, the political rule as the purview of the elites, the importance of religion in everyday life etc.

This is not to say that those aspects are in any way aspirational for a modern person or that we should yearn to go back to those times, only that they are merely characteristics that developed hand-in-hand with the technological advancements and the economic progress of the period. If you have a civilisation whose economy is centered on land ownership as the main source of wealth acquisition, its society is going to look a certain way. Certainly, in Westeros there are some craftsmen and merchants, but there seem to only be a handful of towns throughout the entire continent and, off the top of my head, the mention of guilds and the middle classes are few and far between in the books, so there is no concrete way of determining how consolidated the bourgeoisie is. At the same time, this is absolutely just a story and not a 1:1 recreation of those times, so these gaps are completely understandable, as there only is so much worldbuilding one man can do.

Anyway, I often see analysis or commentary being circulated, which are obviously a projection of modern sensibilities, like how there should be no king at all or the Iron Throne is evil or how Westeros should revert to being separate kingdoms because somehow the concept of unifying regions with a common cultural and religious background is automatically bad, always and with no exception. To me these are rather perplexing, but they are so wide-spread that it's not even worth it to try and open up that particular can of worms. Some of these takes don't even make sense if you expand them to their natural implications. Someone has to be the king in a medieval society; it doesn't work like some people envision this - no one chooses to rule and that's that, problem solved? How is society going to be organized then? It's doubtful that the conclusion of the last book will be anarcho-socialism. The Iron Throne consistently cuts kings who are unworthy to sit on it - it's not a symbol that the author intended to be construed as malevolent. Sure, death of the author and all that, but it's not described as mystically quasi-sentient for nothing either. Fragmenting Westeros back into individual kingdoms while maintaining the feudal structure retains the inherent unfairness and inequality of said hierarchy; it's amazing to me how it could be considered progress etc.

To wrap this up, yes, I agree, some people would be much better served if they simply found other fantasy media based on a different time frame. Because it doesn't make sense to become so entrenched in this specific one if you hate the medieval period so much. Again, this is not to say that the Middle Ages cannot be criticised because that's just the way it was back then, they absolutely can, but a lot of criticism shared around is just done in bad faith and with no real desire to understand the historical phenomena at play.

For example, a few days ago, someone commented on one my bastardposts that "just because it was illegal doesn't make it fair", with the implied solution to that conundrum that Rhaenyra should simply be allowed by society to do whatever she pleased. No reflection on why that law/rule was in place to begin with, no consideration of how it would impact the wider community, no proposal as to how one could advance to a society in which all children are considered equal, regardless of their parents' marital status etc. The thought doesn't go beyond "feminism in its modern definition can magically crystallize in any historical period because it is completely divorced from the material conditions of a society".

[felipe-v-fanblog]

My Questions:

What is your favorite portrait of Felipe V and why?

What is Felipe V known for?

Is it true that he lived life thinking he was a frog?

ah thank you for asking about him !! he is my hyperfixation forever and ever <3 always happy to talk about any historical figure anyway

i will make a long-ass post i must confess that i dont know when to shut the fuck up:

FIRST OF ALL i really like the hyacinthe rigaud portraits. specially the last one, which i know one of the copies is at Versailles along with a portrait of his brother le petit Dauphin and his father le grand Dauphin and I believe there is one of Charles, duc de Berry too? which is also his brother. Anyway I am insane about all of them so of course its my favourite. BUT my favourite version of that portrait is this one:

he has a heart ! on his wig. over his forehead. there. i think its funny. This portrait has a lot of version which are too similar to eachother but this one is the only one with that weird thing on his wig. Also this one isnt actually for the public display that is why its on a very low quality its being sold. which is a Shame. Its from his second reign as that was the moment he started using the ponytail.

WHAT is felipe v known for is a eh interesting question as i think everybody knows the upside down portrait of him in Xátiva, near Valencia, which is the autonomous comunity which hates the most Philip V as far as I know ? SO he got a lot of hate during the war of spanish succession (1701-1714, starting approximately when he was 17, as he gets to Spain at 16 - it finished around the end of 1714, the year he marries his second wife, Elisabeth Farnese - also a very interesting character which i know a lot of people love a lot) . So eh the important stuff is that spaniards hated bourbons because Spain hates frenchmen ? for some reason ? but im british so im supposed to hate them too. So anyway after the war of succession which is ! ofc after charles ii death which i know you like a lot :3 i also really love him iiii I will keep talking about philip v as to not change subject. So. eh he was also the grandson of Louis XIV which I know spaniards hated because he was in war with the Habsburgs - its a conflict since Louis XIII s times - and they were very culturally different. In fact Philippe suffered a lot when he came to the spanish court a la Marie Antoinette because it was too different. But its like the contrary of Marie Antoinette, because he was suffering because spanish was boring and he didnt even knew spanish. He also felt pity against the gente de placer because they had different morals in the french court (ofc the activity its bad in itself but i will not state the obvious, yet in the court of louis xiv there are many examples of mentally ill or desfigured people which were supported by the state. ofc the majority of them were part of the royal family but anyway philippe knew he shouldnt make fun of these people - he was rather disturbed by the group). So anyway the habsburg faction was against him but he was rather welcomed to Spain, he himself didnt felt spanish enough to be king - and even had to be reassured of keep being king since very young, years before abdicating.

Clearing that out, because the story about Philippe going to Spain, or his childhood, or his first marriage; are all stuff I would talk on and on about, eh, I will proceed to talk about other stuff he is known for. During his first reign his first prime minister, which was a frenchman that Louis XIV send to fix Spain, did fix Spain; ofc not as good as Charles III would later do it, but did the first steps towards it. He also send to made very important buildings of Spain like el Palacio de la Granja, where he is actually buried along with his second wife Farnese. He is also known for being the first Bourbon king in Spain, may say the first bourbons were Isabel de Francia (first wife of Philip IV - sister of Louis XIII) and Maria Luisa de Orléans (first wife of Charles II - daughter of Philippe d Orleáns, brother of Louis XIV - you probably know the tale about Don Juan José negotiating the marriage ! its a funny story). There is also very peculiar characters during his reign like Don Blas de Lezo or the Cardinal Alberoni (which Philip himself made sure to make cardinal by spamming letters to the pope about making him a cardinal - Philip was very fond of him, and even made him his prime minister and Archobisp of Malagá), there is also Louis-Joseph of Vendôme (Luis José de Borbón, as he is known in Spain), which Philip also gave him his life and made him virrey de Cataluña, heir of the throne in case he did without childs, and marshal of Spain. He has a thing for giving the people he loves everything they ask for and more. Louis-Joseph is one of the most important military figures of the war of succession along with the duke of Berwick and the count of Tessé (marshal of France since Vendôme was exhiled from there. also a funny story. Vendôme was a real weird guy and I dont get to understand why Philippe liked him so much).

I finish the last section of this post. Which is getting big asf. The frog thing. Its very weird for me to see many people which make jokes about that ? I guess people think its funny ? but its not the only think he had issues with ? must say he was melancholic aka disordered since all his life. He was not know for being a normal kid, he was very quiet and shy. I know for a fact that he was bulimic, but he also presented a mood disorder, which has been mainly theorized to be Bipolar II, which I am actually okay with that version as he presented many of these traits - more tentative to depression, known as a hypomaniac state, and more tentative to psychosis. Even with that, psychology is very stained with a mysoginistic and racist history, and the diagnosis of male historical figures with bipolarity is one of them. First because they dont actually diagnose him with Bipolar II thats my own suggestion because spanish historians do their job terribly and dont even try to take it seriously enough to stand what kind of bipolarity are they talking about - they just threw off bipolarity because the mainstream idea of bipolarity is someone who tends to be happy for some moments and then deeply depressed. SO after throwing off my own agenda I will state the facts. He was deeply depressed and then went on a manic state from the sound of music. He employed an italian castrato - the most famous one ! - Farinelli to sing and play music for him, as he rested on the bed, and made him repeat the songs over and over again. He would have loved spotify. And after a lot of repetitions he even sang the songs himself, as these made him very happy. He also made Farinelly his prime minister (this guy seriously had problems with giving everything to the people he loved). He also had a very fucked up sleep schedule, making his ministers met him at the bed of his wife at 2 AM, as he never left these chambers. He had a big fear of dying, normal between Bourbons, and a big religious trauma since his childhood - he had a very severe tutor, which is actually a remarkable figure in the reign of Louis XIV; and even the spaniards were weirded out by how much he used to confess himself with Alberoni. He also had paranoid delusions, which are known to be bizarre, such as the time he thought his clothes were shining weird, and that they had poison, and because of that he started to use his wife s clothes (this is, well, a thing that happened for some reason. He ordered to only let nuns make his clothes for this). He was also hypersexual, and there is not a funny part about it, but I always joke about the fact that he was the first guy to drag a dildo to Spain (fun fact). So thats all. Ah he also thought for some time that his body parts would fall off and that he was a frog. Which the first is Cotard delusion and the other is just a bizzare delusion, as many psychotic delusions are. He liked to watch the gardens a lot, and used to be fascinated by the frogs jumping around it. This was a very small moment of his later years, when he barely left the bed, as he was very depressed. Thats the answer to the question. Now you know a lot about Philip V mental state which may or may not be funny. I think the frog thing was made popular by tiktok? but that was a very small part of his mental disorders. I love him a lot hehe. I personally think he had BPD as he was very fond of the people he loved and had many trust issues, and BPD also can make people more tentative to psychotic disorders and bipolarity. Spaniards tend to lie about the bourbons or exaggerate stuff because the historical records are tainted by habsburg faction, so the majority of my information comes from french people of the time. Feel free to ask questions or dont READ THIS AT ALL this is A BIGASS POST. I can also recommend free pdfs to read about his time blablabla I specially like Liselotte (Elizabeth of the Palatinade) letters and the memoirs of Saint-Simon, even if he talks a bit too badly about Louis-Joseph or le grand Dauphin.

[cafeleningrad]

You know what also harms the fairytales discussion? The idea that many confuse the concept of "fairy tale" with the concept of "fable",despite being two very different kind of story. Fable (in addition to being composed almost exclusively of animals) have the peculiarity of having a moral,but like,educative morals ala "don't talk tò strangers" etc. On the other hand, fairy tales .... do not have an educational purpose. They undoubtedly have themes, but they are mostly examples of very complex ideas that concern society (puberty, marriage, life, death). They are not educational, they are didactic (intended as: informative). To make matters worse, many people do not even know where real fairy tales begin/end. For example, the same "Farmhouse Tales" by Grimm are even too old for some scholars to be considered fairy tales (and in fact those by Andersen are not). I believe that this is partly caused by having removed the fairy tale from its oral dimension, causing it to lose its "ritual", but it is a somewhat complex issue (we can talk about it in private if you want). I don't know, tell me what you think

Oh definitely! 100% agreeing on this! The problem of packing fables together with fairy tales is created by publishers who put these different literary categories together in one book, and sell it under the label "bed time stories for children". Which reinforces the popular notion that fairy tales are meant to be didactic, even if only the fables are. Contemporary publishers definitely also are part of a general lack of engagement with this material they're publishing although it sells like hot cakes. They can definitely make easy work here: The general public already is fairly disengaged what fairy tales actually mean to children. The tests are already there, they just need to be rearragned and sold with new shiny covers. (Yes, I am polemic here. The literary industry is sometimes not very cultured.)

Even when you have the variations the Grimm edited for Kinder- und Hausmärchen in which they did add more Christina morality logic into some tales like Star Money, or the Girl without hands, in the total sum off all tales in the editions one end up with contradicting morals. The valiant little tailor or Puss in boots might teach cunning but not necessarily virtue or working for noble goals, like good Christian child should. I guess the moral of Rapunzel is to not steal your neighbors greens??? Don't make contracts with strange women at your local mill pond? Throw amphibia against the wall if you're in search of the perfect boyfriend? The Rose is nothing but a simple spook tale, so I guess I never leave the house again?

I'm being obtuse on purpose here but to stress your point, fairy tales are as singular stories incredibly varied in tone and subject matter. To say, when people generally talk about fairy tales, we talk about a very specific iteration of a literary category that is seen through a very specific variation of modern book publishing. However, as you perfectly pointed out, this is only one possibility, and on top an uncommon, relatively young possibility of spreading these stories in the history of fairy tales. In that sense, it's futile to bundle all Grimm tales together and trying to squeeze out a monomythic essence - because it doesn't exist. Logic, structure, tone, themes would contradict each other in variation. Examining single stories is much more fruitful. Not to mention that some fairy tales were more adventure or funny stories. In Russian fairy tales you do have some stories which are more an exercise in funny enumeration about people chasing sentient pancakes.

That's also not to forget that fables as well are not all made for children. La Fotaine fables were written for young Louis XIV yet held as subject matter the courtly life, and how to conduct in it. A reality only, daring assumption of mine, few modern children would live in. Hence some didactic teachings fall incredibly flat for today's children.

Oh yeah, the oral tradition is certainly a key element of these stories. Forgetting that these stories were for everyone, some even only for adults, creates a big discrepancy between the cultural importance of fairy tales (across cultures!!!), and the very weird distorted image of them. Something that sadly gets lost in most common flat retellings is the prosaic element that there is to them. The Grimms captured idioms and metpahors beautifully. Making fun of the incomprehensible gluttural mess that is Danish has become my favourite European past time since my last holiday however Andersen had a talent of capturing tone and emotion. Hauff definitely earned his criticism for his Orientalism big time still he created an entire idiomatic tapestry for magical stories set in Arabia in his life time.

Feel free to hit me up any time! :D I love this topic, partly because fairy tales are a very complex beast of literary history

[monkeyssalad-blog]

Germaine Dermoz by Truus, Bob & Jan too! Via Flickr: French postcard. Edition Pathé Frères. Photo Félix. Germaine Dermoz (1888–1966), younger sister of actress Jeanne Delvair, was a French film and theatre actress of the early-to-mid twentieth century. She is most famous for her portrayal of Madame Beudet in Germaine Dulac's avant-garde film The Smiling Madame Beudet (1923). Germaine Dermoz was born as Germaine Deluermoz on July 30, 1888 in Paris. She acted on stage with Réjane (she stayed with Réjane’s troupe between 1907 and 1909) and Firmin Gémier and her many theatrical tours led her, before the First World War, as far as Argentine and Russia. She recounts in her memoirs the perilous conditions in which one day she and her comrades had to cross the Cordillera of the Andes on the back of a donkey, on the side of a mountain on narrow paths, resigning themselves to throwing a part of their costumes on the snowy slopes. In St. Petersburg, she played before Tsar Nicholas II and suffered the first shots of the October 1917 revolution. Contrary to some assertions, she never belonged to the Comédie-Française. Already from 1908 Dermoz acted in the Gaumont film Méprise (Maurice de Féraudy, 1908), followed by a few more shorts by De Féraudy, but soon she would also play in films by Pathè, Éclair and Eclipse as well. She was especially active in the historical genre, such as Dragonnades sous Louis XIV (1909), Beethoven (1909), Eugénie Grandet (1910), Le roi Philippe le Bel et les templiers (1910), all by Victorin-Hippolyte Jasset for Éclair, but also La mort du duc d'Enghien en 1804 (Albert Capellani, 1909), La fin d'un tyran (Georges Le Faure, 1909), La duchesse de Langeais (André Calmettes, 1910), for Pathé, and L'assassinat d'Henri III (Henri Desfontaines, Louis Mercanton, 1911) , Olivier Cromwell (Desfontaines, 1911), and Milton (Desfontaines, 1911) for Eclipse. After the Éclair film Le mystère de Notre-Dame de Paris (Emile Chautard, Victorin-Hippolyte Jasset, 1912), Dermoz mostly acted in Pathé productions, of which several were directed by Adrien Caillard, such as Les trois sultanes (1912), Zaza (1913), adaptation of the play by Berton and Simon, and L'héritage de Cabestan (1913). At Pathé Dermoz was often acting together with Henri Étievant and Jeanne Grumbach, as in L’absent (A Dutch Love Story, Albert Capellani, 1913), and Le petit Jacques (Little Jack, Georges Monca, 1913). After 1914 Dermoz took a break of the set during the First World War, during which Pathé drastically reduced fiction film production. In 1918 she returned with the Pathé film La masque de l’amour by René Plaisetty, with Mévisto and Grumbach, and she had the female lead in the Balzac adaptation La marâtre (Jacques Grétillat 1918). Other adaptations followed: L'énigme (Jean Kemm, 1918) after Hervieu, Fanny Lear (Robert Boudrioz, Jean Manoussi, 1919), after Halévy and Meilhac, Les cinq gentlemen maudits (Luitz-Morat, Pierre Régnier, 1920) after Reuze, Petit ange (Luitz-Morat, Pierre Régnier, 1920) after Vercourt. If it were necessary to point out a single film of that period, though, it would undoubtedly be the masterpiece of Germaine Dulac, La souriante Madame Beudet (1923), a feminist manifesto and typical avant-garde production. The film deals with an intelligent woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a man, who always points an unloaded revolver at his head for fun. Sick of him, she loads the gun, but repents and tries to empty the gun. Yet, the man seizes the gun first and points it at her. In her memoirs, Dermoz recounts the apprehension that had seized her when the film was broadcast forty years later on French television and surprised to find that her play did not have the dreaded exaggeration and grotesque that characterized [a part of] silent film acting. After the female lead in the operetta film La course du flambeau (Luitz-Morat, 1925), which she had performed on stage in 1907, Dermoz’s silent film career ended. Between the two wars, she preferred to devote herself almost exclusively to the theater. She played on the biggest Parisian stages, and enjoyed successes in contemporary plays by André Josset, Henri-René Lenormand, Charles de Peyret-Chappuis and Jean Cocteau. On November 14, 1938, directed by former actress Alice Cocéa, and performed at the Théâtre des Ambassadeurs in Paris, Germaine Dermoz created the character of Yvonne in Les Parents terribles by Cocteau, with Gabrielle Dorziat and the very young Jean Marais, replacing almost instantly Yvonne de Bray for whom the role had been written but who, because of a serious heart problem, was no longer able to play. At the same time, Dermoz led a more relaxed film career, accepting shooting proposals only if they did not compromise her commitments to the theatre. When sound film set in in France she returned to the film set for supporting parts in Jacques de Baroncelli’s Daudet adaptation L'Arlésienne (1930), starring Blanche Montel, and Le rêve (Baroncelli, 1931) after Zola. Instead, Dermoz had the lead as Madame Kampf in Le bal (The Ball, Wilhelm Thiele, 1931), in which she played a middleclass woman who just like her husband (André Lefaur) turns into a snob when an inheritance looms. Their daughter (Danielle Darrieux in her first film role) torpedoes the plans when she throws all the invitations to the ball her parents organise in the Seine. The film was shot in a German version too by the same Thiele, Der Ball. After the court case drama Le crime du chemin rouge (Jacques Séverac, 1933), in which a lawyer (Marcel Vibert) suspects his wife (Dermoz) of murder, Dermoz had an endearing part in La porteuse de pain (The Bread Peddler, René Sti, 1934), as an innocently imprisoned woman, who after twenty years of hard labour, evades and goes to Paris where she survives as bread peddler. She finds back her children one by one, after which she unmasks the culprit, Jacques Garaud (Jacques Grétillat). By now Dermoz often played mature roles, as Annabella’s meddling mother in Les nuits moscovites (Moscow Nights, Alexis Granowsky, 1934), the wife of Fernand Charpin in the Mauriac adaptation Les anges noirs (The Black Angels, Willy Rozier, 1937), the wife of Raimu in Le héros de la Marne (Heroes of the Marne, André Hugon, 1938), Maria de Medici in Remontons les Champs-Élysées (Sacha Guitry, 1938), the mother of Katia Lova in La vie est magnifique (Maurice Cloche, 1939), the mother of Jean Chévrier in the smugglers drama Andorra ou les hommes d’airain (Andorra or the Bronze Men, 1942), and Raymond Rouleau’s mother and Constant Rémy’s wife in Monsieur des Lourdines (Pierre de Hérain 1943) after Chateaubriant. After the war she was Queen Anne of Austria in Monsieur Vincent (1947) on St. Vincent de Paul, played by Pierre Fresnay. In the comedy Le Rosier de Madame Husson (The Rosier of Madame Husson, Jean Boyer, 1950), after Maupassant’s classic tale, she leads a group of charitable ladies searching for a chaste girl, who will win a big sum of money. By lack of a chaste female they select a man (Bourvil), who, though, proves to be weak against female seductions. In Poil de carotte (Paul Mesnier, 1952), she was the ill-doing, hateful mother of the protagonist (Christian Simon). After a few minor parts, Dermoz almost made full circle with her early historical films when playing Catherine de Medici in Si Versailles m’était conté (Sacha Guitry, 1955), though two more minor parts followed. Dermoz’s last film part was in the spy comedy L'Honorable Stanislas, agent secret (Jean-Charles Dudrumet, 1963). Her stage career had already ended in the mid-1950s. Germaine Dermoz was the younger sister of Jeanne Delvourmoz, aka Jeanne Delvair (1877-1949), actress at the Comédie-Française, while her younger brother was animal painter Henri Deluermoz (1876-1943), illustrator, among others, of one of the first French editions of Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling. After a first marriage, Germaine Dermoz married in second wedding the actor Jean Galland, whom she then divorced. From his first marriage, Germaine Dermoz had a daughter, Claude, and from her second, another daughter, Anne-Marie. She was also, by her first marriage, the aunt by marriage of the actress Annabella, called "Zette" for the intimates, with whom she maintained affectionate ties until the end of her life. The journalist Hélène Lazareff, comedian Noël Roquevert and his wife, and the actress Paulette Noizeux were among the close friends of Germaine Dermoz. Germaine Dermoz died on November 6, 1966 in Paris. Source: French Wikipedia, IMDB.

[whencyclopedia]

Anne of Austria

Anne of Austria (1601-1666), as the wife of King Louis XIII of France (r. 1610-1643), was queen consort of France and of Navarre when the Kingdom of Navarre was annexed by the French Crown. She also acted as regent for her son, King Louis XIV of France (1638-1715), during the early years of his reign.

Early Life

Anne was born in Valladolid, Spain, on 22 September 1601 to King Philip III of Spain (r. 1598-1621) and Margaret of Austria (l. 1584-1611). Her childhood was spent at the Royal Alcazar in Madrid, Spain. Growing up, Anne was constantly visiting monasteries and would soon follow in her parents' footsteps and become very religious. In 1611, Anne's mother died in childbirth, and so the responsibility of raising her younger siblings was passed down to Anne.

While a Spaniard, Anne had Austrian ancestry and was considered an Austrian Archduchess as well as a Princess of Spain and Portugal, which is why she is referred to as ‘of Austria'. Anne was described to be a very beautiful girl, even at a young age, with fair hair that could often be found in large curls, greenish-blue eyes, and an oval face. Her beauty and political position would help Anne gain the attention of many suitors.

The most successful of Anne's suitors was none other than King Louis XIII of France (l. 1601-1643), and when their betrothal was announced to the people of Paris on 18 March 1612, there were celebrations throughout the city. There were balls, banquets, and celebratory parties being hosted in the Louvre (the residence of French royalty), Fontainebleau Palace, and St. Germain. This was a political marriage, and Anne's father thought this would be a good chance to bring France into the Habsburg world; the couple married in 1615 when Anne was 14 years old.

As it would turn out, the union between Anne and Louis was very cold. Louis prioritized activities common for young men of high status, such as hunting rabbits in the garden of the Tuileries Palace, and would allow himself to fully listen and be governed by his favorite advisors in court; as such, he had almost no relationship with Anne.

Continue reading...

[venicepearl]

Elizabeth, comtesse de Gramont (née Hamilton; 1641–1708), was an Irish-born courtier, first after the Restoration at the court of Charles II of England in Whitehall and later, after her marriage to Philibert de Gramont, at the court of Louis XIV where she was a lady-in-waiting to the French queen, Maria Theresa of Spain.

Known as "la belle Hamilton", she was one of the Windsor Beauties painted by Peter Lely. She appears prominently in the Mémoires du comte de Grammont, written by her brother Anthony.

[scotianostra]

On 9th April 1747 Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, the leading Scottish Jacobite rebel was beheaded on Tower Green.

A longer post than normal from me as in my opinion Simon Fraser was one of the most interesting characters in Jacobite history. A man of contrary, he was known to be very kind to the lesser clansmen taking a paternal interest in their affairs. A quote regarding him says that….“Generally he had a bag of farthings for when he walked abroad the contents of which he distributed among any beggars whom he met. He would stop a man on the road; inquire how many children he had; offer him sound advice; and promise to redress his grievances if he had any”

In his own estimate, he took care his clansmen were ‘always well-clothed and well-armed, after the Highland fashion, and not to suffer them to wear low-country clothes’ Lovat was also a brute of a man forcing a young woman into marriage and raping her in an attempt to legitimise the union. Lovat has become more well know lately thanks to Outlander, where in their world he is grandfather to the main protagonist Jamie Fraser and played brilliantly by the fine Scottish actor Clive Russell. Back in the real world he has been in the news in the recent past, I shall cover that at the end of this post.

Born in 1667 into the ancient clan who fought with distinction in the Wars of Independence – Sir Simon Fraser was one of the co-victors of the Battle of Roslin and his sons were close friends of Robert the Bruce, Alexander marrying Bruce’s sister Mary – Simon was the second son of Thomas Fraser of Beaufort who was closely related to Lord Hugh Fraser of Lovat, chief of clan Fraser.

Simon became his father’s heir when his elder brother was killed fighting alongside Bonnie Dundee against the forces of King William III at the Battle of Killiecrankie in 1689. He was still nowhere near being clan chief, however, and took himself off to Aberdeen University from which he graduated in 1695. Lord Hugh Fraser, the 9th Lord Lovat, was a weak man who unexpectedly signed over the clan leadership to Simon’s father in 1696.

Lord John Murray, Earl of Tullibardine and the most powerful man in Scotland, disputed the succession and fell out spectacularly with Simon in Edinburgh. The young Fraser hothead duly went north to Castle Dounie to try and persuade Hugh’s widow Amelia to give him the hand of her daughter, also Amelia, in a dynastic marriage that would seal his succession. Tullibardine was having none of it and moved his niece to the Murray stronghold, Blair Castle, where he planned to marry her off to Alexander Fraser, heir to the Lordship of Saltoun.

Simon retaliated by kidnapping Alexander and frightening him away, and to make matters worse in October, 1697, he went back to Castle Dounie and forced the widow Amelia into a sham wedding, raping her to consummate the “marriage”.

Tullibardine ensured Simon and his father were declared outlaws and when old Thomas died in 1699, Simon was unable to legally claim his title as 11th Lord Lovat which later passed to one Alexander Mackenzie who had legally married the younger Amelia.

Simon Fraser somehow managed to persuade King William that he was no threat, despite having his own personal army, and he was pardoned in 1700, only to be declared an outlaw again the following year over the forced marriage and rape.

Simon went off to the court of the Stuarts in France where he devised the plans that were eventually used in the 1715 and 1745 uprisings. Long before the former, however, Simon was double dealing, giving Queen Anne information about the plans of James, the Old Pretender. He was found out and King Louis XIV clapped him in jail for three years.

Even after he was released he was prevented from travelling to Scotland and thus missed the Act of Union which he opposed.

Still desperate to get his Lovat title and the chieftainship of his clan back, Simon sided with the forces of the new King, George I, during the ’15, and was given back his title as a reward, with Alexander Mackenzie imprisoned for being a Jacobite. The two men would fight in the courts for the next 15 years as to who was entitled to the income of the estate. Simon eventually won and spent his time building up the Fraser estates and wealth, even taking command of one of the Independent Companies of Highland soldiers established by the Hanoverian regime – the Fraser Highlanders.

As I said early Fraser was a man of contrary and to me was very like “Bobbing John” The Earl of Mar another Jacobite who a tendency to shift back and forth from faction to faction, no sooner had Fraser built up this “Hanoverian” army that he started openly campaigning for the restoration of the Stuarts. The Government responded by cancelling his military role.

When Bonnie Prince Charles landed in Scotland he was still playing games.

He allowed his sons to fight for the Stuarts, but stayed at home himself “loudly lamenting the wilful disobedience of children,” as Sarah Fraser has put it. Lovat did meet Charles, however, and expressed his anger at the lack of “siller” which he knew would be necessary for a successful campaign. They met again after Culloden, at which Clan Fraser fought bravely and suffered many casualties, and Lovat advised the prince to get away and re-form his forces. Charles fled through the heather, as we know, and made it to France while anyone associated with the Bonnie Prince was hunted down. The Duke of Cumberland’s troops were not taking any more games from Fraser and burned Castle Dounie.

Lovat managed to make it to Loch Morar but was captured there while hiding in a hollow tree. Although approaching his 80th birthday, The Fox was taken south to London.

He pled not guilty but his trial was a formality and he must have know his fate would be the same as previous nobles, the Earls of Kilmarnock, Balmerino and Derwentwater who were executed for treason the previous year.

At his trial, ever the Fox he insisted strongly upon his affection for the reigning family. Such were the characteristics of Simon Fraser, but of course he was found guilty the sentence, hanging, drawing and quartering was commuted later to a mere beheading by the King.

In a way, Lovat had the last laugh. Newspapers and pamphlets of the time recorded that as he was led out to the scaffold on Thursday, April 9, 1947, a wooden stand that had been erected near the Tower to seat crowds eager to see the execution collapsed sending hundreds plunging down. At least nine people died and dozens were injured, which amused Lovat – the phrase ‘laughing your head off’ is said to date from that event.

According to a woodcut print made on that fateful day, Lovat “with some composure laid his head on the block which the executioner took off with a single blow.”

As I mentioned at the top Lovat has been in the news quite recently. Simon had requested burial at the family mausoleum at Wardlaw near Inverness and the government initially agreed but changed its mind thinking his body could become a rallying point for further trouble. He was therefore buried in the floor of the chapel within the Tower of London, St. Peter ad Vincula. The chapel was refurbished in the 19th century and the floor was relaid. One of the coffins uncovered during the works had the nameplate of ‘Lord Lovat’. The names of those found are now recorded on a plaque on the wall of the chapel.

Fraser folklore, and written in several books says that his body was spirited away from London, the stories even go so far as to name the boat ‘The Pledger’ that sailed north to The Beauly Firth, where he was taken to the family mausoleum, there is even a plaque in the crypt that reads “In this coffin are laid the remains of Simon Lord Fraser of Lovat who, after twenty years in His own Land and abroad with the greatest distinction and renown, at the risk of his own life, restored and preserved his race, clan and household from the tyranny of the Athol and the treacherous plotting of the Mackenzies of Tarbat. To preserve an ancient house is not the greatest credit. Nor is there any honour for the enemy who despoiled it. Although that enemy was strong in his plotting and unrelenting warfare, yet Simon who was also skillful and cunning defeated him in war.“

In 2018 the headless skeleton inside the coffin was exhumed to be examined by experts from the University of Dundee in January this year they announced that the bones in the coffin did not belong to Simon Fraser, but to a young woman. So it looks like his body did end up rotting in The Tower’s Chapel, although the Frasers will still tell you otherwise.

Scottish actor Clive Russell played The Old Fox in the television adaptation off Outlander.

[kristabella]

Toilette de la duchesse de Parme, entre 1845 et 1851 Musée d'Orsay,1981

This ensemble was commissioned by a subscription circulated among the Legitimist ladies of France for the marriage, in November 1845, of Louise-Marie-Thérèse de Bourbon, the granddaughter of Charles X, and the Prince de Lucques, the future Duke Charles III of Parma. Its decoration evokes a nostalgic and idealised image of the Middle Ages as a period of loyalty to King and to God, as well as exalting traditional French values and the bonds of marriage. The fleurs-de-lis and roses of France are intertwined with ivy, the symbol of marital fidelity.

Sent to London in 1851 for the Great Exhibition, before being given to the Duchess, this prestigious piece of furniture contains references to many different civilisations – Occidental and Oriental – and achieves a synthesis of styles from various eras, from Saint Louis to Louis XIV.

The jewellery boxes, whose shape recalls 12th century Mosan reliquaries, are decorated with the portraits of twenty great French women renowned for their piety, courage and literary talent, such as Blanche de Castille, Joan of Arc and Clémence Isaure. The ewer and basin combine Islamic and Renaissance influences, while the candelabra are based on 17th century bronze models. The indeterminate style of the ensemble in fact demonstrates an eclecticism that would later prevail in the decorative arts under the Second Empire.