Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Was Juana insane?

So it's possible that Ferdinand and Charles could have
purposely made Juana's condition worse for their own
advantage. Just as they could have contributed to
making her condition better if they had seen
advantages to doing that.

***
=================================
Fernando saw Juana very soon during her depression, wrangled the regency from her, and certainly took advantage of her condition, but he never deliberately tried to drive her over the edge. Charles, on the oher hand, based on those letters Bergenroth found between him and the Marquis of Denia, had a definite agenda of mental destruction.



On p. 138, Jones says that Richard would have felt
something in common with Isabella, because she
declared her half-brother's daughter a bastard in her
effort to take the throne of Castile. I'd never heard
that before.

Can anyone comment on this?

TIA!

Marion
================================
Oh, can I comment on it!!

Okay. When he was about 15, in about 1440, prince Enrique, son of Juan II of Castile, married Blanca of Navarra, daughter of Enrique's uncle Juan II of Aragon. The marriage was never consummated, due, apparently to either/and a deficiency or lack of desire on Enrique's part, and after a few years, the marriage was dissolved on the basis of "witchcraft". Blanca returned to Navarra, where her younger sister, the redoubtable and vicious Leonor de Foix, imprisoned and eventually possibly poisoned her.

Meanwhile, Enrique married a cousin from Portugal (I don't have my sources, so my years and gen. detail is going to sketchy). Her name was Joana, and she became Juana of Portugal. She was very young, very sensual, and she and her train came into Castile with much color and high expectation. Unfortunately, Enrique was no more successful with Juana of Portugal than he'd been with Blanca of Navarra, and matters became desperate enough for a primite form of artificial insemination to be attempted. Juana of Portugal, meanwhile, took up with a series of lovers, prominent among whom was a favorite (and possible lover) of Enrique himself, one Beltran de la Cueva. Eventually, Juana of Portugal became pregnant, and the child was born and named Juana. But the question almost immediately came up: who was the father? Enrique or Beltran? As a result of this, child Juana acquired the title of "la Beltraneja".

This, among other mismanagements and a tendency to leave government in the hands of the malicous Juan Pacheco, Marques de Villena, and a terrible degeneration in economy, government, and every kind of order, led to a proclamation by the nobles against Enrique, listing, among other charges, the illegitimacy of la Beltraneja. The nobles decided to raise Alfonso, Isabel's younger brother, as rival king of Castile. They staged a proxy deposing of Enrique outside the walls of Avila and a bloody civil war. Young Alfonso ate a trout one evening, and died a night or two later from a miserably illness, at age 14. Isabel, age 16, was anxiously appealed to as figurehead by the nobility, but she intelligently insisted that they surrender to Enrique on condition of a contract including, among other things, her succession to the throne in place of la Beltraneja. Enrique agreed, and greeted Isabel with love, but things fell apart, and Isabel, under threat of arrest (very complicate story I can't go into now) eloped with Fernando much against her royal half-brother's interests. Enrique tried to re-instate la Beltraneja, and life got very nasty again. Poor Enrique died, though, in 1474, never renouncing la Beltraneja (whom he loved), but never rejecting Isabel either. A messenger raced from near Madrid, where Enrique died, to Segovia, where Isabel was, to tell her the news of Enrique's death, and Isabel immediately staged a coronation and had herself queen proprietess of Castile before la Beltraneja's adherents could get a jump on things.

Soon after this, la Beltraneja was taken to Portugal and married (?) to Afonso V, who claimed Castile in her name. The battle of Toro resulted from this, and not long after, la Beltraneja was forced into a Portuguese convent, where she stayed, outliving Isabel, Fernando, Catherine of Aragon, I think, and signing herself "yo la Reina" till the end.

In a big rush!

Maria
elena@...

--- In , Maria <elena@p...>
wrote:

> Oh, can I comment on it!!
>
> Okay. When he was about 15, in about 1440, prince Enrique, son of
Juan II of Castile, married Blanca of Navarra, daughter of Enrique's
uncle Juan II of Aragon. The marriage was never consummated, due,
apparently to either/and a deficiency or lack of desire on Enrique's
part, and after a few years, the marriage was dissolved on the basis
of "witchcraft". Blanca returned to Navarra, where her younger
sister, the redoubtable and vicious Leonor de Foix, imprisoned and
eventually possibly poisoned her.
>
> Meanwhile, Enrique married a cousin from Portugal (I don't have my
sources, so my years and gen. detail is going to sketchy). Her name
was Joana, and she became Juana of Portugal. She was very young,
very sensual, and she and her train came into Castile with much color
and high expectation. Unfortunately, Enrique was no more successful
with Juana of Portugal than he'd been with Blanca of Navarra, and
matters became desperate enough for a primite form of artificial
insemination to be attempted. Juana of Portugal, meanwhile, took up
with a series of lovers, prominent among whom was a favorite (and
possible lover) of Enrique himself, one Beltran de la Cueva.
Eventually, Juana of Portugal became pregnant, and the child was born
and named Juana. But the question almost immediately came up: who
was the father? Enrique or Beltran? As a result of this, child
Juana acquired the title of "la Beltraneja".
>
> This, among other mismanagements and a tendency to leave government
in the hands of the malicous Juan Pacheco, Marques de Villena, and a
terrible degeneration in economy, government, and every kind of
order, led to a proclamation by the nobles against Enrique, listing,
among other charges, the illegitimacy of la Beltraneja. The nobles
decided to raise Alfonso, Isabel's younger brother, as rival king of
Castile. They staged a proxy deposing of Enrique outside the walls
of Avila and a bloody civil war. Young Alfonso ate a trout one
evening, and died a night or two later from a miserably illness, at
age 14. Isabel, age 16, was anxiously appealed to as figurehead by
the nobility, but she intelligently insisted that they surrender to
Enrique on condition of a contract including, among other things, her
succession to the throne in place of la Beltraneja. Enrique agreed,
and greeted Isabel with love, but things fell apart, and Isabel,
under threat of arrest (very complicate story I can't go into now)
eloped with Fernando much against her royal half-brother's
interests. Enrique tried to re-instate la Beltraneja, and life got
very nasty again. Poor Enrique died, though, in 1474, never
renouncing la Beltraneja (whom he loved), but never rejecting Isabel
either. A messenger raced from near Madrid, where Enrique died, to
Segovia, where Isabel was, to tell her the news of Enrique's death,
and Isabel immediately staged a coronation and had herself queen
proprietess of Castile before la Beltraneja's adherents could get a
jump on things.
>
> Soon after this, la Beltraneja was taken to Portugal and married
(?) to Afonso V, who claimed Castile in her name. The battle of Toro
resulted from this, and not long after, la Beltraneja was forced into
a Portuguese convent, where she stayed, outliving Isabel, Fernando,
Catherine of Aragon, I think, and signing herself "yo la Reina" till
the end.
>
> In a big rush!
>
> Maria
> elena@p...

Was this the War of the Spanish Succession, or was that another one?

Katy

Was this the War of the Spanish Succession, or was that another one?

Katy
=========================
No, that one was out of our period, in the time of Louis XIV. This was *a* war of Castilian succession but it never acquired its own name. But if you read the Rozmital chronicle, you'll get a glimpse of the chaos that was reiging during this time. Among minor gaffes was the constant refusal on the part of young Alfonso to see Rozmital because Rozmital had paid his respects to Enrique first.

Enrique's second wife, Juana of Portugal, is credited with inventing the hoop skirt: during the war, she'd been placed under protective custody (aka house arrest) and forbidden to associate with any more men. She became pregnant anyway, by her cell keeper. Enrique, trying to contain matters, had sworn that la Beltraneja was his daughter, and was going to sign a document and go through a ceremony to endorse his oath. Juana of Portugal had to attend. However, it would go very badly if she showed up to the swearing of one child's legitimacy while obviously carrying one who wasn't. So she and her women fashioned the hoopskirt, and she made what she hoped would be a discreet getaway from her keeper, using blankets and a basket. The blankets didn't reach long enough and she fell, breaking a leg. In great pain, she made her way to former lover Beltran de la Cueva, who wouldn't let her in and went back to his friends saying "I never cared much anyway for her skinny legs."

Poor Juana finally made it Segovia and put herself further in disgrace. I don't know what happened to the baby. She died young, around the same time as Enrique, hysterical about being buried under the ground.

Maria
elena@...

> Was this the War of the Spanish Succession, or was that another one?
>
Katy

Briefly, the War of the Spanish Succession followed the death of
Carlos II in 1700. He was the last male of the Spanish Habsburgs, and
a truly spectacular example of the hazards of inbreeding. Shortly
before his death, Carlos made a will bequeathing his throne to Philip
of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV (Louis's queen was Carlos's sister,
and Louis's mother Carlos's aunt), but this was disputed by the
Emperor Leopold, who was married to Carlos's aunt, and put forward
his younger son, Archduke Charles (the later Emperor Charles VI) as
an alternative heir. The stakes were extremely high, involving not
only Spain itself, but the Spanish possessions in the New World, plus
Sicily, and the Italian duchies of Tuscany and Milan. apart from the
French, no one was really keen to see a Bourbon on the Spanish
throne, and the European powers lined up on either side.

The war eventually fizzled out around 1711, after the French had been
comprehensively defeated in the field by Marlborough, not least
because Leopold's successor, his elder son Joseph, had only daughters
and so it became clear that Charles would succeed - what was the
difference between a French ruler of Spain and the Habsburg emperor
as ruler of Spain. Philip of Anjou was accepted as King of Spain and
the other Spanish territories were divided up according to the terms
of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, whose main importance nowadays is
in giving Gibraltar (captured by British troops in 1704) to Great
Britain in perpetuity.

Ann

from the desk of Paul Trevor Bale

I am sure everyone will be thrilled to learn that Michael Hicks has just
published another of his attacks on Richard, this time in the form of a
biography of Edward V.
No I haven't yet read it, but know it will not be kind to Richard. I do
wonder though how anyone can write a decent length book on the young man's
brief (or maybe not) life.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> from the desk of Paul Trevor Bale
>
Desk, does Paul know you are posting?

Katy

Paul wrote: I am sure everyone will be thrilled to
learn that Michael Hicks has just published another of
his attacks on Richard, this time in the form of a
biography of Edward V.

***

Marie suggested I might find an answer to my question
about Edward V's Scorpio sun sign there, but it hasn't
arrived on a library shelf near me.

***

No I haven't yet read it, but know it will not be kind
to Richard.

***

Does Hicks give his readers the benefit of his own
growth and new information?

Michael Jones modified his opinions between his
article on Richard as a soldier in John Gillingham's
collection Richard III, a medieval kingship and his
own book, Bosworth 1485.

I think a writer's growth can be as interesting as the
new information s/he discovers. That's one reason I
think Bosworth 1485 is a good investment.

***

I do wonder though how anyone can write a decent
length book on the young man's brief (or maybe not)
life.

***

The Amazon.com description says it's 240 pp. long.
That's too short to justify the $40.00 list price IMO.
Even with the discount, I wouldn't want to invest in
it unless Hicks provides the kind of new information
and growth that Michael Jones does.

I'll have to wait until it arrives at a library.

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

from the desk of Paul Trevor Bale

> Does Hicks give his readers the benefit of his own
> growth and new information?
>
> Michael Jones modified his opinions between his
> article on Richard as a soldier in John Gillingham's
> collection Richard III, a medieval kingship and his
> own book, Bosworth 1485.
>
> I think a writer's growth can be as interesting as the
> new information s/he discovers. That's one reason I
> think Bosworth 1485 is a good investment.

Michael Jones grew to like Richard a lot the more he found out about him.
Hicks pretended to find him interesting until a few years ago when he
published the biography/picture book and at an AGM talk proved how much he
disliked him. He is a Charles Ross child after all, and Clarence is his
hero, so I guess we should expect nothing else.
One of the Book Clubs in the Uk is discounting the Edward V book to 20UKP.
But for such a short book I agree, it is a lot.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> from the desk of Paul Trevor Bale
>
> > Does Hicks give his readers the benefit of his own
> > growth and new information?
> >
> > Michael Jones modified his opinions between his
> > article on Richard as a soldier in John Gillingham's
> > collection Richard III, a medieval kingship and his
> > own book, Bosworth 1485.
> >
> > I think a writer's growth can be as interesting as the
> > new information s/he discovers. That's one reason I
> > think Bosworth 1485 is a good investment.
>
> Michael Jones grew to like Richard a lot the more he found out
about him.
> Hicks pretended to find him interesting until a few years ago when
he
> published the biography/picture book and at an AGM talk proved how
much he
> disliked him. He is a Charles Ross child after all, and Clarence is
his
> hero, so I guess we should expect nothing else.
> One of the Book Clubs in the Uk is discounting the Edward V book to
20UKP.
> But for such a short book I agree, it is a lot.
> Paul

That's what I thought. I then looked on Amazon and managed to find a
2nd-hand copy for £12 - should be posted on Tuesday. I have read an
article Hicks had published in one of the popular history mags
basically as a flyer for the book, and it was very dependent on the
Jones Hypothesis - the approach was that Edward V's problem was not
of his own making but lay with his lineage, and was actually
entitled "The Sins of the Father". Whether that will make him more
sympathetic to Richard, though, I don't know. But you can see how
Hicks would be drawn to the Jones hypothesis because of his sympathy
for Clarence.
I await the book with interest. Hicks' article also made reference to
Lady Lucy being the Duke of Exeter's step-sister Margaret Hankeford,
wife of Sir William Lucy, and I am interested to see his arguments
for her not being an Elizabeth, particularly as by my calculations
Margaret Hankeford would have been no spring chicken by Edward IV's
time.

Marie

Hicks is one of the speakers at a major conference on Bosworth in June, so I
shall make sure I have read his latest by then and make a list of challenges
for his q&a session!
Michael Jones, Colin Richmond, and a number of other top draw historians are
also going to be there. Should be fun!
Exactly what they are going to do to the site will be revealed when we will
find out of the County Council admits to having put everything in the wrong
place!
Paul

> That's what I thought. I then looked on Amazon and managed to find a
> 2nd-hand copy for £12 - should be posted on Tuesday. I have read an
> article Hicks had published in one of the popular history mags
> basically as a flyer for the book, and it was very dependent on the
> Jones Hypothesis - the approach was that Edward V's problem was not
> of his own making but lay with his lineage, and was actually
> entitled "The Sins of the Father". Whether that will make him more
> sympathetic to Richard, though, I don't know. But you can see how
> Hicks would be drawn to the Jones hypothesis because of his sympathy
> for Clarence.
> I await the book with interest. Hicks' article also made reference to
> Lady Lucy being the Duke of Exeter's step-sister Margaret Hankeford,
> wife of Sir William Lucy, and I am interested to see his arguments
> for her not being an Elizabeth, particularly as by my calculations
> Margaret Hankeford would have been no spring chicken by Edward IV's
> time.
>
> Marie

I never thought to read in The Ricardian a statement like the following
that begins a review of Michael Hicks latest book "Edward V" by one
Theron Westervelt.

"There might seem something rather quixotic about a biography of Edward
V, a king who reigned for two months and died at age twelve"

As I always say to the Yeomen Warders at the Tower "Prove it!" From
such men I expect to hear something that needs rebuttal, but such a
bald statement of "fact" in a Society publication was not expected!
Paul Trevor Bale