#Maximilian I

[cuties-in-codices]

horse armour/barding

from an illustrated manuscript catalog of the armories of maximilian I, innsbruck or vienna, c. 1540

source: Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 10815, fol. 55r

[theancientwayoflife]

~ "Freydal": Tournament book of Emperor Maximilian I.

Culture: South German

Date: A.D. 1512-1515

Medium: 255 gouaches heightened with gold and silver in leather strap: paper; leather.

• From the source: The "Freydal" describes the tournaments during Maximilian's knightly love journey.

[hundredthousandtimes]

Christa Théret and Jannis Niewöhner as Mary of Burgundy and Maximilian I Maximilian - Das Spiel von Macht und Liebe Episode 3

[wardrobeoftime]

Reused Costumes

Costumes from Maximilian: Das Spiel von Macht und Liebe (Maximilian and Marie de Burgogne) reused in The White Princess | Part 02 of 04.

[royalty-nobility]

Maximilian I

Artist: Bernhard Strigel (German, 1460-1528)

Date: Before 1508

Medium: Oil on panel

Collection: Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, Austria

Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor

Maximilian I (22 March 1459 – 12 January 1519) was King of the Romans from 1486 and Holy Roman Emperor from 1508 until his death in 1519. He was never crowned by the Pope, as the journey to Rome was blocked by the Venetians. He proclaimed himself elected emperor in 1508 (Pope Julius II later recognized this) at Trent, thus breaking the long tradition of requiring a papal coronation for the adoption of the Imperial title. Maximilian was the only surviving son of Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, and Eleanor of Portugal. Since his coronation as King of the Romans in 1486, he ran a double government, or Doppelregierung (with a separate court), with his father until Frederick's death in 1493.

[illustratus]

Emperor Maximilian I on an Alpine Ibex hunt by Franz Krammer

[isabelle-primrose]

The Wedding of Mary of Burgundy with Maximilian of Austria by Jacob Jordaens, between 1634 and 1635

[richmond-rex]

Hi there

So I follow the Tudor Trio and Nicola Tallis, Matthew Lewis and Nathan Amin were doing a debate today on the Princes in the Tower with the quote on quote new evidence that has been revealed from Philippa Langley.

I still firmly believe Richard III killed the Princes and find many of Matthew Lewis' arguments bizarre. I'm not sure why he thinks the Princes weren't a threat to Richard but were to Henry VII. If the Princes weren't a threat to Richard then why would they have been a threat to Henry VII? I can't understand why Richard would ever let them escape England of his own free Will. There is almost no chance they could have escaped without him knowing about it.

Also he claimed that Henry VII sent Elizabeth Woodville to Bermondsey Abbey and that she was supporting the Lambert Simnel Rebellion. Is there any truth to that? Thanks!

Hi, sorry for taking so long to reply! Lewis' arguments are so incredibly ridiculous — they largely rest on accepting at face value people's signatures and on the claim that Maximilian and Margaret of York were too blue-blooded to ever lie for political ends: essentially, he claims lying was for peasants. And yes, the princes would absolutely be a threat to Richard III as he found out as soon as he left London after his coronation — there happened a rebellion made by former Edwardian servants that aimed to free the princes from the Tower, very possibly to restore them to the throne. The princes had been raised all their lives to regard the English throne as their birthright — you're telling me they would grow up abroad and would neve try a restoration aided by one of England's political enemies such as France?

The ricardian claim that Richard III sent them to Burgundy is incredibly ridiculous to me as well: even if they stayed with Richard's sister, she wasn't the one ruling Burgundy — Maximilian of Austria, the husband of Margaret's deceased daughter-in-law, was. How could Richard be sure Maximilian wouldn't take the princes the minute Richard did something that went against Maximilian's interests and use them to either blackmail him or depose him so Maximilian could have his own English king? Burgundy had displayed lancastrian loyalties not so long ago in the past and the political game in Europe changed constantly.

It would have been absolutely STUPID of Richard III to deliver the strongest weapon anyone could use against him to a foreign power. Let's also mention that Maximilian at the time was struggling with controlling his own children, the actual Burgundian heirs, because some Flemish cities had rebelled against him and had his heir (Philip of Burgundy) in their power and were up in arms against his regency. From June 1483 to July 1485 Maximilian couldn't have control of his own son. You're telling me Richard would have sent the biggest assets anyone could use against him to that unstable scenario?

The truth is that Ricardians like Matthew Lewis benefit from the fact that people study/know about the Wars of the Roses from an impossibly anglocentric lens, ignoring that the conflict was also the outcome of the multiple iterations of power play between Western European powers: 'the Wars of the Roses were an extended episode in a European conflict, not just a murderous private dispute'. It really is inconceivable, when it comes down to logic, how Richard was one step ahead of everyone during the mounting off to his takeover of the throne (bamboozling and imprisoning the Woodvilles, executing and imprisoning Edward V's strongest supporters such as Hastings) but would commit such a basic political error as sending other claimants to his own crown to a foreign power.

As to Elizabeth Woodville going to Bermondsey Abbey as a way of punishment for her supporting a rebellion against Henry VII, it makes little sense as well. Henry VII carried on with the marriage negotiations with Scotland that involved Elizabeth and two of her daughters until James III's death in 1488. Again, it would make little sense for Henry VII to have found out Elizabeth was conspiring against him but keep wanting to send her north as an ally to Scotland, a country that could easily make war on him and create problems. Why would he deliver an enemy into the hands of another possible enemy, if Elizabeth truly conspired against him? Again, it's the lack of perspective into Europe and international politics that jump out in Lewis' logic.

Do my words make sense to you? I truly cannot comprehend how Lewis can say the stuff he says and no one really contradicts him in his logic.

[juanaofcastilla]

La Corona Partida 2016

Raúl Mérida as Philip The Handsome

José Coronado as Emperor Maximilian I

Irene Escolar as Juana of Castile

Úrsula Corberó as Margaret of Austria

[royal-confessions]

“Since Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom received the nickname "grandmother of Europe". Emperor Franz II of Austria could receive the nickname "grandmother of Latin America", since the Latin American emperors were his grandsons: Dom Pedro II of Brazil and Maximiliano of Mexico.” - Submitted by Anonymous

[lancastrianwasian]

Can we have a limited series about Margaret of Austria? She’s so interesting! Betrothed to the King of France, she was dumped by him in favor of her would-be stepmother. Then she was engaged to the Prince of Asturias, but he died, and afterward, she married the Duke of Savoy, who passed away three years later. After that, she became regent and governor of the Low Countries for her nephew, raising him and her nieces.

Get my girl her moment!

[dreamconsumer]

Emperor Maximilian I of Austria. By Julius Naue and August von Kreling.

[rmelster]

Hello friend I have a question

What was Charles The bold motivation

What was Isabella of bourbon’s motivation and Margaret of York.

Charles wanted to become the second Alexander the Great, and in his quest to achieve greatness he sometimes neglected too many things.

Isabelle de Bourbon, on the other hand, wished her husband not to risk his life and even once she begged him not to leave to a particularly perilous battle, which he ignored.

As for Margaret of York, having not developed a significant bond with the duke, and having not birthed him a son -there is a certain possibility that they marriage was not even consummated, but I don’t believe it, although I think Charles did not attend his wife as much as he should have, which probably derived in the lack of heirs- she tried to find a worthy match for her beloved stepdaughter Mary, and o when Charles perished in Nancy, she made sure to hastily wed Mary to Maximilian I, then archduke and heir to the Holy Roman Emperor. She was also a patron of arts and culture while Duchess of Burgundy.

:)

[illustratus]

Combination Sallet and Bevor of Maximilian I by Lorenz Helmschmid, circa 1495. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Imperial Armoury

[isabelle-primrose]

The Tomb of Mary of Burgundy in the Church of Our Lady, Bruges, 1501

[richmond-rex]

Some Tudor authors/historians have tried to reassess Margaret of York recently but I still hate this type of condescending approach:

(G. Streeter, Arthur Prince of Wales: Henry VIII's Lost Brother)

Margaret of York was as much of a political player as the monarchs and princes of her age. Why should we assign her actions to emotional reasons, only changing our stance from 'insatiable hatred' to self-delusional grief that makes her desperately cling to a nephew she only met once? For one, Margaret had a family in Burgundy (her stepdaughter Mary and her children). Most important of all, as the dowager duchess of Burgundy she was as much invested in seeing to Burgundy's interests and profits as was the duchy's regent at the time, Maximilian of Austria.

In 1493, the Milanese Ambassador in France wrote:

[The admiral] persuades the king [Charles VIII] that the emperor [Maximilian I] only wants peace in order to deceive him and set up Burgundy again. He says if [Charles VIII] gives back the daughter [Margaret of Austria] one of two evils will follow, either her father [Maximilian I] will never marry her, saying that she is the wife of his Majesty [Charles VIII], and thus make out that the king's children [with Anne of Brittany] are bastards, or they will try to make King of England the boy who calls himself the son of King Edward [Perkin Warbeck], who fled thither, and give him [Margaret of Austria] to wife, so as by his means to make perpetual war in France.

Henry VII was to be directly affected by those scenarios and at the same time he was barely involved in them (as far as his own willingness to cooperate with Burgundy went) — what even to say about Margaret of York. Thanks to France and Burgundy's own particular struggle, Maximilian needed England as a tool to hurt the king of France. For that he needed his own puppet king on the English throne, regardless if he was Edward IV's son or not. It's a complex geopolitical situation that involved elaborate schemes; schemes where Margaret of York was a (most likely willing) participant but in any case, none that had to do with Margaret's feelings about her family one way or the other.