Saturday 26 July 1662

Sir W. Batten, Mr. Pett, and I at the office sitting all the morning. So dined at home, and then to my office again, causing the model hanging in my chamber to be taken down and hung up in my office, for fear of being spoilt by the workmen, and for my own convenience of studying it. This afternoon I had a letter from Mr. Creed, who hath escaped narrowly in the King’s yacht, and got safe to the Downs after the late storm; and that there the King do tell him, that he is sure that my Lord is landed at Callis safe, of which being glad, I sent news thereof to my Lord Crew, and by the post to my Lady into the country. This afternoon I went to Westminster; and there hear that the King and Queen intend to come to White Hall from Hampton Court next week, for all winter. Thence to Mrs. Sarah, and there looked over my Lord’s lodgings, which are very pretty; and White Hall garden and the Bowling-ally (where lords and ladies are now at bowles), in brave condition. Mrs. Sarah told me how the falling out between my Lady Castlemaine and her Lord was about christening of the child lately,¹ which he would have, and had done by a priest: and, some days after, she had it again christened by a minister; the King, and Lord of Oxford, and Duchesse of Suffolk, being witnesses: and christened with a proviso, that it had not already been christened. Since that she left her Lord, carrying away every thing in the house; so much as every dish, and cloth, and servant but the porter. He is gone discontented into France, they say, to enter a monastery; and now she is coming back again to her house in Kingstreet. But I hear that the Queen did prick her out of the list presented her by the King;² desiring that she might have that favour done her, or that he would send her from whence she come: and that the King was angry and the Queen discontented a whole day and night upon it; but that the King hath promised to have nothing to do with her hereafter. But I cannot believe that the King can fling her off so, he loving her too well: and so I writ this night to my Lady to be my opinion; she calling her my lady, and the lady I admire. Here I find that my Lord hath lost the garden to his lodgings, and that it is turning into a tennis-court. Hence by water to the Wardrobe to see how all do there, and so home to supper and to bed.

The boy was born in June at Lady Castlemaine’s house in King Street. By the direction of Lord Castlemaine, who had become a Roman Catholic, the child was baptized by a priest, and this led to a final separation between husband and wife. Some days afterwards the child was again baptized by the rector of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, in presence of the godparents, the King, Aubrey De Ver, Earl of Oxford, and Barbara, Countess of Suffolk, first Lady of the Bedchamber to the Queen and Lady Castlemaine’s aunt. The entry in the register of St. Margaret’s is as follows: “1662 June 18 Charles Palmer Ld Limbricke, s. to ye right honorble Roger Earl of Castlemaine by Barbara” (Steinman’s “Memoir of Barbara, Duchess of Cleveland,” 1871, p. 33). The child was afterwards called Charles Fitzroy, and was created Duke of Southampton in 1674. He succeeded his mother in the dukedom of Cleveland in 1709, and died 1730.
“By the King’s command Lord Clarendon, much against his inclination, had twice visited his royal mistress with a view of inducing her, by persuasions which he could not justify, to give way to the King’s determination to have Lady Castlemaine of her household . . . . Lord Clarendon has given a full account of all that transpired between himself, the King and the Queen, on this very unpleasant business (‘Continuation of Life of Clarendon,’ 1759, ff. 168-178).”—Steinman’s Memoir of Duchess of Cleveland, p. 35. “The day at length arrived when Lady Castlemaine was to be formally admitted a Lady of the Bedchamber. The royal warrant, addressed to the Lord Chamberlain, bears date June 1, 1663, and includes with that of her ladyship, the names of the Duchess of Buckingham, the Countesses of Chesterfield and Bath, and the Countess Mareshall. A separate warrant of the same day directs his lordship to admit the Countess of Suffolk as Groom of the Stole and first Lady of the Bedchamber, to which undividable offices she had, with the additional ones of Mistress of the Robes and Keeper of the Privy Purse, been nominated by a warrant dated April 2, 1662, wherein the reception of her oath is expressly deferred until the Queen’s household shall be established. We here are furnished with the evidence that Charles would not sign the warrants for the five until Catherine had withdrawn her objection to his favourite one.”— Addenda to Steinman’s Memoir of Duchess of Cleveland (privately printed), 1874, p. i.

Sunday 27 July 1662Friday 25 July 1662

Also on this day

Temperature: 15°C / 59°F

(Average for July 1662)

In Earls Colne, Essex

Diary of Ralph Josselin

(About this data)

Annotations

N Phil Gyford on Tue 26 Jul 2005, 11:04pm

For more on today’s events head over to the very first of our “In-depth articles”: Jeannine Kerwin on the “Bedchamber” incident.

http://www.pepysdiary.com/indepth/archive/2005/07/26/the_bedchamber.php
N Australian Susan on Tue 26 Jul 2005, 11:25pm

Sam has really indulged himself with a right good gossip with Mrs Sarah, hasn’t he? This entry reads like an article in Hello! magazine! (not that I read that, of course…..)
N Terry F. on Tue 26 Jul 2005, 11:32pm

“my Lord hath lost the garden to his lodgings, and that it is turning into a tennis-court”

L&M note: “The garden had in turn been made from an older tennis court (‘The Brake’) in the 1650s. (R).
N Robert Gertz on Tue 26 Jul 2005, 11:37pm

Sounds like it was Lady Jemina who accused Sam of liking Lady Castlemaine…Danger there, Sam. She and Bess chat frequently and Bess is near to her now while she stays in Brampton.
N Terry F. on Tue 26 Jul 2005, 11:45pm

17c recycling.
“The garden had in turn been made from an older tennis court (
N Terry F. on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 01:11am

Add to post about the garden returned to a tennis court: offstage event in synch with with events occurring in The Bedchamber, By Jeannine Kerwin — grand read, for which thank you very much, Jeannine (aided by Pedro): back-and-forth; changes of service; temper-tantrums; stalking off the court; flacks; clacks; humiliation; careers on the lin. There are losers — but are there any winners in the long run?
N Terry F. on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 02:11am

Further actions on/in whichever court: mixed doubles; tag-team; changing partners; 40-love; individual and national dignities at stake…at stake…at the stake….
N Jeannine on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 02:20am

Terry—Thanks for the comment —regarding “Winners in the Long Run”, you ask a very good question. Here’s a quick summary.
Losers:
1. Charles-selfish,debaunched life, lazy, one greedy mistress to the next, no legitimate children, trusted nobody and was trusted by none, betrayed by his favorite son Monmouth and most of his mistresses and “friends” (Buckingham, etc.)over time (never by Catherine). He didn’t expect much from life and didn’t value “people” but rather used them as they used him. Died in his 50’s, buried alone without fanfare or grandeur.
2. Castlemaine—her reign will take an ego downshift as Charles adds to his mistresses. She’ll accumulate wealth and have a life of turmoil and anger-just a hateful and spiteful person. Her children don’t amount to much — one of them is just like her—they actually both will have an affair with Ralph Montague at the same time, which she’ll expolde over (the apple didn’t fall far from the tree!). Treats her husband like dirt, when he dies he leaves her nothing. In old age, marries a bigamist half her age who is abusive to her (not 100% clear in what way).
3. Clarendon—Had loved Charles I, devoted 14 years to Charles II in exile, sacrificed so much for him too. Drove the restoration efforts for Charles, ongoing headaches given to him to resolve in Scotland, best friend (Ormond) moved to Ireland. Gets blamed for things he never did—scapegoat for Catherine’s childlessness, Frances Stuart’s marriage & Dutch War. Is exiled—after 7 years away writes to Catherine, Charles and James (Duke of York) beggging to come home to England to die with his children. None of his letters are answered. Dies in exile.
4. Catherine—lived through Hell in England, silently, with dignity and grace. Sincerely tried her best to be a good wife to a totally selfish husband. After Charles death remains in England for 7-9 years for numerous reasons (legal and political issues won’t allow her to go home). Finally returns home & receives a hero’s welcome.Found a close, warm friendship with her sister in law and brother Pedro. Served as Regent at age 66.At her death she was buried next to her brother Theo, who she loved dearly. Maybe her peace was to finally rest her head with someone she loved next to her—something that she never got in England.
Sadly, the only real winner seems to have been Portugal (and therefore by default, perhaps Catherine).
N Terry F. on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 02:33am

Jeannine, thank you for the moving Epilogue to a very fine, shocking and devastating narrative.
N Kilroy on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 02:45am

With a name like Fitzroy…

As noted previously http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1662/05/21/index.php#c31235 Lady Castlemaine’s child was claimed to be the illegitimate child of the king’s.

“Families which had settled in Ireland soon after the Norman Conquest may have a surname beginning with “Fitz” (from the French “fils”, for “son”). “Fitz”, as used in England often indicates illegitimacy - so the surname Fitzroy means the illegitimate son of the King (from the French, Fils de Roi).” - from http://www.familychronicle.com/FamilyNameOrigins.html

It would seem the king is acknowledging the child as his in witnessing the child’s christening with this surname of Fitzroy.

The “proviso, that it had not already been christened” sounds like what we today call “spin”, no?

Is the king’s anger due to being out maneuvered? Appears to me that the queen is a step ahead giving him only 2 options from his list of moves: O-O-O or sacrifice of the rook.
N Mary House on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 02:48am

Wonderful, poignant narrative, Jeannine.
N Cumgranissalis on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 03:06am

Jeannine, luverly, not a waffle to be seen.
N Robert Gertz on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 03:32am

A very fine tribute to a noble Queen, thanks Jeannine.

Charlie…And brother Jamie…remain fascinating characters, though… Interesting that the devotion of Henrietta Maria and Charles I to each other had so little effect on their eldest son. Or perhaps in a sad and twisted way it did.
N Kilroy on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 04:14am

Was I off! about the source of the king’s anger.

From Jeannie’s summary it’s clear no one was out maneuvering anybody in this sordid affair.

I plead misreading “prick” for “pick” where Sam wrote the “Queen did prick her out of the list presented her by the King”.

This became clear in reading the in-depth link (above), “As Sam reports on this day, Catherine obliterated Lady Castlemaine
N Michael L on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 05:46am

“… christened with a proviso, that it had not already been christened.”

This is actually the formula still used with some baptisms today in the Catholic church, and probably some other churches as well. It is because baptism is only supposed to be done once, and if someone is to be baptized, but there is doubt as to whether they have been baptized already, the baptizer says not the usual “I baptize you…” but “If you have not already been baptized, I baptize you…”

However, in a case like this, when the baptism is already known to have happened, it is decidedly irregular.
N Terry F. on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 05:58am

“causing the model hanging in my chamber to be taken down and hung up in my office, for fear of being spoilt by the workmen, and for my own convenience of studying it.”

L&M note re the model: “Of The Royal James: see above http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1661/10/05/index.php

For a model ship worth studying see the one posted by GrahamT http://www.smartgroups.com/pictures/openpicture.cfm?GID=1855698&AlbumID=2993209&pictureID=24928378
N Terry F. on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 06:05am

It occurs to me that the model ship posted by GrahamT is probably accessible only to those who are members of the “Pepys Diary Discussion” SmartGroup; but that is an incentive for those who do not yet belong to do so — it’s free, painless and rewarding: http://www.smartgroups.com/group/joingroup.cfm?GID=1855698
N Australian Susan on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 07:13am

On the baptism
At this time, to have a child openly baptised in the Catholic tradition was a flagrantly anti-establishment act on the part of so prominent a figure. It would also not have been regarded as a proper baptism by the established church. It is sad to record such matters, but there it is.
I know Charles was selfish, but, to his credit, despite it being put to him, he never contemplated divorcing Catherine for not having children, but just accepted the situation and its inevitable consequence of having his brother as King, whom he was aware was unasuitable.
N Terry F. on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 08:32am

“…baptism is only supposed to be done once…”

This is true perhaps of the churches that practice infant baptism, whose adherents are the preponderance of Christians globally — Catholics and the Protestants of the “Dynastic” (C of E) and “Magisterial” (Lutheran & Calvinist) Reformations.

However, Michael L, those of the “Radical” Reformation practice only “believers’ baptism” of those who have reached the “age of discretion” and make their own “profession of faith.” This is practiced notably by Baptists (the largest US Protestant family today), who stem from 17c English separatists who found in Holland the like-minded Mennonites, refugees from Bohemia and a species of “Anabaptists” = “Again-baptizers”. so-called because the first generation, believing Scripture authorized only “believers’ baptism,” had themselves been baptized as infants, and so they underwent a second, “true” baptism — and this persists for some adult “baptized” converts. Nor do the the Holiness/Pentecostal Movements practice infant baptism, presently the fastest-growing Christian groups, globally.
N Terry F. on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 11:20am

Jeannine’s “Epilogue” — with splicing — belongs somehow with the original narrative (my view), but not as a Comment.
N Pedro on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 11:35am

“but just accepted the situation and its inevitable consequence of having his brother as King, whom he was aware was unasuitable.” (A.Susan)

“Charles was devoted to walking exercise. And so secure was he of his people’s adoration for him, and so daring in his recklessness, that he would even walk unattended and unguarded through the wild solitary regions between Knightsbridge and St. James’s. The Duke of York once remonstrated gravely with him on this rash habit; but Charles merely returned, with a smile, “Nobody would kill me to put you on the throne, my dear James”…for the Duke was not by any means popular. (Davidson)
N Jenny Doughty on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 04:27pm

I’m interested in Sam’s spelling of Calais as Callis, with the pronunciation that suggests. Here in Maine we have a town called Calais, pronounced Callis, which suggests the importation of the pronunciation from 17th century England - but in fact Calais, Maine, is right on the Canadian border and there are a lot of French speakers not that far away. Also, a lot of French-speaking Acadians retreated to northern Maine when the British drove them out of Nova Scotia. I’m now confused about why the British pronunciation survived rather than the French.
N Jenny Doughty on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 04:34pm

My husband now tells me that the French speakers were at the other end of New Brunswick, and the resettled Acadians were in the very north of Maine, so in fact the predominant influence on Calais, Maine, was from English speakers, which accounts for the survival of the English pronunciation. The French never succeeded in controlling eastern Maine - the English came up the coast from Massachusetts and prevented them.
N Jeannine on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 04:35pm

Australian Susan, “Charles and Divorce”
First to note in Charles’ “favor”, not only did he never divorce Catherine but he also adamantly defended her when she was falsely accused in the Popish Plots. Historians “debate” his motivation for his “tie” to her most often citing “guilt” as his motivator. Gray (“The King’s Wife”) points out he did have some protective feelings for her, and that it was “utterly repugnant to his conception of the royal perogative that political agitators should be allowed to interfere with the succession. Moreover, he knew all to well that his own fortunes were tied up with Catherine’s.”(p. 193) Her secretary had been heavily invovled in the negotiations of the Secret Treaty of Dover, and Charles could not risk having this treaty unmasked. Her brother Dom Pedro always had close ties with events in England, which added additional support for her. Finally, Gray cites her character.

Hutton (Charles II”)addresses the question in detail commenting that it wasn’t personal affection as he complained about James’ stupidity, Catholic faith, and of his siblings loved him the least. He cites the “sanctity of kingship”, “descent of blood”, “sense of family” and perhaps his experiences in exile. He adds “perhaps his brother and wife were precious to him, whatever their failings, simply becasue they were his….[and]the appreciation with which he always tried to reward loyalty and obedience, and the converse, the hatred with which he regarded those who crossed his will, or failed him”. He explains that James and Catherine never disobeyed his wishes while Monmouth [his illegitimate first born son who most wanted made King instead of James]continuously did. His final reason is “political caution” (p 402-402).

Personally, (and I’m no historian for sure )two elements may also have supported his tie to Catherine. Her role as Queen was to deliver an heir. She miscarried 4 times and in one instance, almost died in the process. Her illness is said to have deeply affected him as she is said to have expressed sincere love and devotion to him as she prepared to die. Grammont (Memoirs) says she had no regrets to die except to leave him. She knew he didn’t love her and she hoped that upon her death he could find a wife to please him and successfully bless him with the children that God had denied her to bring to him. Over the period of this illness, Pepys will report that Charles’ hair turned grey. In her own way, Catherine may have touched emotions in him that nobody else ever would.

The second area to consider is the question of Charles’ leaning towards the Catholic faith. Ormond (Irish ambassodor) reports at one time that he saw Charles in a Catholic church. It’s actually been questioned by some as to when he formally converted. His deathbed conversion scene is widely reported but there are questions as when he actually became a Catholic, and/or if he truly always was one in his heart. If he did intend in his lifetime to formally convert to the Catholic faith, he could not be divorced.
N Jeannine on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 04:39pm

Kilroy—regarding “Fitz” in Ireland. Clarendon and Ormond (Irish Ambassador) were best friends. During the time that land is Ireland was being parceled out, Lady Castlemaine was adamant to grab what she could. In true “court politics” fashion, Clarendon and Ormond both report (separately) doing all they could to “stall” any of her efforts for land grabbing (and other things too). At one point she became so inflamed that she came across Ormond in an apartment of the court and as Carte reports, “fell upon him with a torrent of abusive language, loaded him with all the reproaches that the rancour of her heart could suggest, or the folly of her tongue could utter, and told him in fine, that she hoped to live to see him hanged. The duke heard all unmoved, and only made this memorable reply: That he was not in so much haste to put an end to her days, for all he wished with regard to her was, that he might live to see her old.” She did get land in Ireland, but not without the process of working through the roadblocks set up be her enemies.
N Bradford on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 05:43pm

27 July through 2 August 2005 only:
The quite lengthy Dictionary of National Biography entry on My Lord was posted 27 July:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html

If you access the site after that date, click on the “Back to the Lives of the Week” bar in the upper right to find it. Lives stay up for approximately one week.
I re-post this transitory advisory here in hopes that as many interested parties as possible will be aware of it.
N Australian Susan on Wed 27 Jul 2005, 10:54pm

Thanks to Jeannine forthe lengthy post on Charles - most interesting - and I had had no idea about Catherine’s involvement via her secretary in the secret treaty of Dover (which is 1670 and therefore post-Diary). I, too, have always been fascinated by the question of Charles’s conversion or not to Catholicism - knowing his mind would make many differences to interpreting events in his reign and his reaction to them, but he was very careful about letting people into his true mind, so we are left to speculate!
Even Catholic monarchs could get their marriages divorced or annulled via the Pope - because of the imperative to provide heirs and a stable succession: when Henry VIII first applied to to the Pope of the day to get a divorce he fully expected to, but the Pope was too much under the influence of the nephew of Henry’s first wife, (another Iberian Catherine), Charles V. The marriage could also have been annulled on the grounds that Henry should not have married his brother’s widow. What would history have been like if Henry had been allowed to “put away”his wife with the blessing of the Pope? Sorry, off topic and idle speculation.
N Jeannine on Thu 28 Jul 2005, 12:52am

Thanks Susan - When Henry did divorce Katherine of Aragon he did so by creating his own church (Church of England). Flash forward to Charles, the head of the Church of England in a highly anti-Catholic nation. He married Catherine twice—first secretly as a Catholic becasue she asked him to do so out of respect for her faith, then publicly under the Church of England. If Charles wanted to divorce her-it may have been revealed in the process that he HAD married her twice, which would have been a horrible reflection back on him—the head of the Church of England taking part in a Catholic sacrament. Per the comment you provided on baptism above “At this time, to have a child openly baptised in the Catholic tradition was a flagrantly anti-establishment act on the part of so prominent a figure” Charles would have been inviting disaster to entertain a divorce or annulment as his own duplicity could have been revealed in the process.
N dirk on Thu 28 Jul 2005, 02:57am

Sam’s spelling of Calais as Callis

re - Jenny Doughty

Calais was one of the main towns in the County of Flanders, technically an integral part of the Kingdom of France. Throughout most of the Middele Ages though the counts ran a more or less independent course, at times in open - even military - conflict with the French King.

At the time two languages were spoken in the County of Flanders: Flemish (a regional variant of Dutch) in the north and west part, to which Calais belonged, and Walloon (a variant of French) in the “Wallingant” southeastern part.

The original Flemish pronunciation of Calais was “Kales” (stress on the first syllable, and the “a” to be pronounced phonetically as in Latin). Kales is supposed to be derived from the Latin word for chalice (calix).

The British captured Calais in 1347, and it would remain British till 1558, when the city became French again. Logically the English used the local (Flemish) pronunciation of the city name (and not the French pronunciation stressed on the last syllable) which came more natural to English speakers anyway.

This explains Sam’s spelling, and also his pronunciation!
N Cumgranissalis on Thu 28 Jul 2005, 03:57am

Charles be a very pragmatic Fella, better to have food on the table and plenty of lively entertainment, rather than be back to those good olde days of penny pinching, living off an Egoistical Cousin and having French/Dutch caste offs. Like many, it be best to, have an insurance Policy ready at the the moment of departure.
Also Like many a man that I have come across, he always tells the green eyed one, wot she be wanting to hear [on the goose down pillow] how he be misunderstood and that the Queen will not divorce him, and besides which Mumbai be be worth a bit, he cannae return all those Escudos.
Besides which the lower brain wins most of the time, followed by the money trail.
Catrina is wiser.’Malo in consilio feminae vincunt viros’
Syrus Maxims
to wit ‘women outwit men in scheming’
N Robert Gertz on Thu 28 Jul 2005, 10:37am

On Charles and Catherine, I think one point to be made for Charles is that he probably sees the marriage in what would then (and now, for some) pass for a sophisticated view-That it’s an arrangement to produce legitimate heirs for the sake of the kingdom’s and regime’s future and the two partners should hardly expect to be soulmates, fortunate if they enjoy each other’s company. He wants to treat her kindly and I think history suggests he becomes increasing fond of her but expects her to take a tolerant view of him seeking pleasures elsewhere. He could make the argument that he was with Castlemaine before the marriage but is constrainted by the nation’s interest not to have her as wife. We can only hope he’d allow her similar liberty if she desired it.

Hmmn…Not all that uncommon, in fact I’ve heard of this other fellow named Charles who…

This doesn’t mean to suggest he isn’t a selfish sob, just an attempt to see things from his pov.
N language hat on Thu 28 Jul 2005, 04:52pm

“He wants to treat her kindly”

I think that’s going way too far, based on Jeannine
N Lawrence on Thu 28 Jul 2005, 11:14pm

I’ve been away from this a while, but to come back to Jeannine’s essay, and to see the group are still very strong, with what look’s like some new members is fantastic, “is vince still annotating?”
N Australian Susan on Thu 28 Jul 2005, 11:51pm

Anecdote re Calais: when the news that England had lost Calais to the French (last English outpost on French soil), Queen Mary is reported to have said, “When I die, you shall find Calaisengraved on my heart.” This was also, maybe apocrphorically, as “callous” - perhaps it was her pronunciation. She died later the same year and of course is remembered in popular folklore as “Bloody Mary”.
N dirk on Fri 29 Jul 2005, 02:05am

“is vince still annotating?”

Vince is now to be taken “with a grain of salt” - as ever… (Cumgranissalis)
N Robert Gertz on Fri 29 Jul 2005, 03:22am

In describing Charles as taking a sophiscated view and wishing to be kind, I’m discussing the situation from his pov, not the actual result. He is of course being a selfish pig, however, from his pov, the marriage being a diplomatic arrangement, Catherine is making a ridiculous fuss over something important to him. We don’t how the entire matter was played out, he may have tried to explain the situation to her in private or through friends, and she may have, with advice, chosen to raise the stakes by threatening to embarass him publicly.

Moreover, while I accept the “noble, suffering Cathy” view…Who’s to say it was all like that. He’s been a slimey cad in demanding his mistress be foisted on the Queen yes, but if it is all horrible, why didn’t she demand to return to Portugal? It would have been difficult but not impossible, particularly given her Catholicism. She could have appealed to the Pope, providing welcome fodder for attacks on “unholy England”. She didn’t and the primary reason was probably that she’d been trained for her job, understood the importance of the English alliance to Portugal, and was conscientious about doing her duty and fulfilling her role.

This isn’t a typical marriage. She is a daughter of a royal house, who no doubt has seen and heard a few things at her own home court, and she has her retinue of advisors, all no doubt constantly at elbow, instructing her and offering her detailed advice on how to deal with Charles and Castlemaine. For all we know, the scene was in part carefully orchestrated by her people, more concerned about an insult to Portugal that threatened the alliance than her own sorrow. I don’t mean to cast her as crafty schemer, I agree she was genuinely hurt by Charles, but I do suspect she was more than the suffering victim. Being Queen was her career and she was determined to succeed.

Finally, I think in considering Charles and Catherine one has to consider more than one scene from a marriage. Catherine suffered yes but there is evidence that Charles came to care for her, perhaps, in his limited way, as
much as he could for anyone following the traumas of his youth. He in turn found his hopes of an easy accomodation in his arranged wife to his escapades dashed. She seems to have continued to try to be a good wife to him which suggests he was not without charm and their lives together not entirely miserable.

One interesting thing about studying couples in history is how little even in our modern era we know about the real relations between two people who fascinate us.
N dirk on Fri 29 Jul 2005, 03:33am

“if it is all horrible, why didn
N Pedro on Fri 29 Jul 2005, 09:15am

why didn