Loyalty Binds Me

San Mercuriale, Forli

In May 1487, Caterina Sforza began to take the reigns of power. Her husband had suddenly been taken ill with a mysterious illness and as he lay in his sick bed she had to govern Forli and Imola in his stead. Yet Caterina had to watch herself. Girolamo was seriously unwell and her eldest son was still only eight years old and there was those who had their eyes on Forli. Thankfully Girolamo recovered, but thanks to his illness as well as his weak character, Caterina knew that he was not a fit ruler. She had to take centre stage, and so she did. And in 1488, her life would change forever.

As Caterina began ruling Forli in mid 1487, she began to make plans should her husband die. She renewed her alliance with Milan and sent feelers to the Bentivoglio family in Bologna. However, the fortress of Ravaldino was under the protection of a man who she distrusted, Melhiorre Zaccheo. He had showed up in Forli as Girolamo was desperate for cash, and in return for a few loans was installed as commander of Ravaldino. Caterina made it one of her first jobs to get rid of the man and, at 8 months pregnant rode to Ravaldino. She then got off her horse and called to Zaccheo to relinquish the castle. He, of course, refused saying that he had heard Girolamo was already dead and he would only vacate the fortress on his terms and when he was damn well good and ready. Caterina rode back to Imola, a plan formulating in her mind. On August 10th, Innocenzo Codronchi turned up at Ravaldino. There was already bad blood between him and Caterina after she had ousted him from the Castel Sant Angelo. But Girolamo had rewarded Codronchi's loyalty and made him castellan of Ravaldino, which would have displeased Caterina greatly. And when Girolamo had made Zaccheo castellan of Ravaldino in his stead, he was made captain of Girolamo's personal guard. And Codronchi would have a massive part to play in helping Caterina take back her fortress. The two men knew each other well, and had played cards together often. And when Codronchi returned, it is no surprise that Zaccheo welcomed him, and the two men played at dice. The loser would have to provide lunch the next day. Of course Codronchi lost and the next morning he left Ravaldino, promising to return with lunch. His servant appeared the next morning with a fowl for lunch and Zaccheo admitted him so that he could prepare the meal. As lunch was served, the manservant waited behind Zaccheo's chair, and as Zaccheo rose from the table Codronchi grabbed him and the servant hit him on the head! Next, Zaccheo's own servant stabbed his master over and over again. It was Codronchi himself who dealt the final blow, by stabbing Zaccheo with his own sword. Zaccheo's body was then unceremoniously thrown down a well, and Codronchi threatened to do the same to Zaccheo's followers. They fled and Codronchi raised Ravadino's drawbridge. As Caterina was due to give birth on the 11th August, her brother in law brought news of Zaccheo's murder to her. Despite being so close to giving birth, she rode hard to Forli and rode up to the moat, calling to Codronchi to explain himself. He replied:

"Madam, you shouldn't entrust your fortress to drunkards and people with no brains"

And that he murdered Zaccheo because he "felt like it". What a brilliant excuse! Yet as he looked down at Caterina and saw her exhausted from her long ride and being "pregnant up to her throat", he advised Caterina to get some rest and invited her to lunch the very next day. Yet there was a condition, she was only allowed to bring one servant with her. And the next morning, she and a maidservant rode to Ravaldino. Her maidservant had prepared lunch, to make it look as though she were afraid of a poisoning attempt. Yet as she disappeared into Ravaldino, she and Codronchi disappeared alone where they discussed what was going to happen, and allowed their servants only a glimpse of various documents being signed. Not long after, Caterina got back on her horse and rode back to Imola. Three days later she returned to Ravaldino with a new castellan, Tommaso Feo. The two of them entered the fortress and not long after she emerged with Codronchi at her side. They rode together into Forli and stopped before the steps of the Riaro palace, claiming that Rivaldino was back in her hands and she had chosen a castellan who was suitable. Following dinner within the palace, Codronchi left the palace and was never heard from again.

The next day, Caterina gave birth to Francesco who was lovingly nicknamed "Sforzino". And at the same time she was busy dealing with international politics. Her main issue was with Erole D'Este, who owned the lands next to hers, and she had to keep an eye on him. Ercole and Caterina often clashed and Ercole never seemed to pass up an opportunity to goad Caterina. Two days after little Sforzino was born, Caterina had finally had enough and built a farmhouse on their borders where she stationed soldiers to constantly watch the Ferrara lands for signs of invasion. Ercole realised what was going on and on 19th August 1487 sent his peasants to tear down the little farmhouse on the basis that Caterina had built it on his territory. Caterina took the case before a tribunal but lost to Ercole. In September of the same year, the old Ordelaffi claimants made their move and stormed Forli's western gate. Thankfully this was stopped before it could really have begun, and despite only being a month out of her child bed insisted on interrogating the prisoners herself. Upon interrogation, she discovered that the man behind the plot was a farmer by the name of Passi. Yet as she brought Passi before her, Passi shouted that he hadn't spoken to these men in over eight months. The man who made the acusation was hanged, and Passi was set free.

Yet all the while, Girolamo remained in his sickbed with his mysterious illness. Yet even as he began to recover, he stared back with some of his old tricks. Despite telling his people he would get rid of the dazzi tax, he reinstated it. And the outcome was not a happy one.

Following the reinstatement of the dazzi in 1488, as wedding bells rang throughout the country as Lorenzo de Medici's daughter married the son of Pope Innocent VIII, two of Girolamo Riario's enemies united. Riario feared both Rome and Florence following his involvement in the assassination of Giuliano de Medici, and the fact that both states supported the Ordelaffi claimants to Forli. In his fear, Girolamo began to upset the nobles of his own town by trying to relieve the taxes paid by the poor. Riario tried to shift the tax to the rich town dwellers and the move was not a popular one. Ludovico Orsi, a one time friend of Riario, took it upon himself to rebuke Girolamo as acting up to the peasant class would only make things worse. Yet Riario would have none of it, and Orsi grew angry and told Riario that the people would tear him to shreds. And sadly for Girolamo Riaro, these words would become truth soon enough. Riario however accused Orsi of never having been his friend and demanded, "Perhaps you would rather that I die?". Orsi fled, and having met up with his brother agreed that the Count should die. Giralomo, already paranoid about assassination attempts, kept a constant watch on the piazza and often spotted as Orsi tried to make his way in disguise through the town. On one occasion Girolamo dragged Orsi to his quarters and demanded to know why he didn't visit any more. Orsi muttered something about needing money for the count but as soldiers stepped forward, he panicked and fled. And now that the Orsi had fully broken with the Riario's, they decided to act before Riario could. And plans to murder the Riario family began in earnest.

Girolamo Riario took his midday meal in his "hall of the mymphs", away from his family and in the afternoon, following a small siesta, held audiences. The Orsi assasins already knew how to get a couple of minutes with the count, and persuaded Riario's new page that his uncle Gasparino needed a few minutes alone with the count. Gasparino was, of course, one of those involved in the plot. Gasparino then agreed to signal from the open window when Girolamo was taking his siesta.

Girolamo Riario

Moday, April 14th was the day when it would all happen. The town was busy with the market, but by lunch time the main piazza had quietened down. Caterina was busy having lunch with her children, and as Riario went to lay down, Gasparino signalled. Six members of the Orsi family, all dressed in armour, climbed the stairs towards the hall of the nymphs and there, Cecco Orsi stabbed Riario over and over. And as they did so they cried "Liberty!". As the Orsi family ransacked the palace the servants fought amongst themselves, trying to work out if their lord had beenn killed or not, and the gathered townspeople did the same.

Three soldiers dragged the naked, battered corpse of Girolamo Riario and threw him over the balcony into the piazza. The people circled the mangled body, recognising the facial figures of their count. And they ran to the palace in horror. And as they ran, the palace was ransacked.

Girolamo's body was left laying in the piazza like meat. His body was dragged through the piazza, being spat upon and kicked and some fanatics tried to tear him to shreds. Yet the fraternity of the Battuti Neri stopped them, and they took the body to the cathedral.

Caterina was having lunch with her children at the time, and when she heard the cries of " Liberty". Gathering her children to her, she went to the window with little Ottaviano and called for help for the little heir of Forli. The palace was however now in the hands of the Orsis, and there was no help that would come for her, and Caterina knew what was at stake. The assassins would look to kill her children and so she barricaded herself inside her rooms, and called to those loyal to her that there was no point in fighting as the Orsi family had control. And as she spoke those words, her attackers pounded on her doors. Yet Caterina would not allow her town to fall completely. She was the widow of Forli and mother of the heir. She ordered that those loyal to her meet in Ravaldino, and as she did so, the Orsi burst into her rooms.

It was at Ravaldino in 1488 that those mythical words were cried, "I have the means to make ten more sons!". Did Caterina Sforza really speak these words?

Alas, as it is late, I feel that the myth of Caterina and "ten more sons" should be saved for the next entry. So please do keep your eyes pealed.

Further Reading

Elizabeth Lev, The Tigress of Forli,
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
Paul Strathern, The Artist, The Philosopher and the Warrior
Ernst Breisach, Caterina Sforza: A Renaissance Virago
Christopher Hibbert, The Borgias and Their Enemies
Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilisation of the Renaissance In Italy
Christopher Hare, The Most Illustrious Ladies of the Italian Renaissance
Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy
Will Durant, The Renaissance: A History of Civilization in Italy from 1304-1576 AD

Gina McKee as Caterina Sforza, shouting down from her ramparts that she had the "means to make ten more sons!"

There is one story about Caterina Sforza that will always stick in someones mind. Ask anyone who has watched Showtime's recent "The Borgias" what the one thing they remember Caterina for is. and then will say the words "ten more sons". These three words are some of the most famous attributed to Caterina Sforza, probably more now than before thanks to The Borgias. But did she really say them? When did she say them? Did she really lift her skirts and show her genitalia to soldiers before her walls and shout those words down? Were they really said as Juan Borgia laid siege to the city of Forli?

I can answer that last question straight of the bat. No, she did not utter those famous famous words at the siege of Forli. She actually uttered the words in 1488, as she held the fortress of Ravaldino against the Orsi family and murderers of her husband. The Borgias places Juan Borgia as commander of the besieging army - the problem with this though is that the siege of Forli did not take place until 1499. How on earth could Juan Borgia be at the siege of Forli when he died in 1497? In reality it was Cesare Borgia who besieged Forli in 1499 and who eventually took Caterina prisoner. But that's another subject for another post. Today, I will be talking about the events that lead up to the supposed "ten more sons", and the time she spent holed up in the fortress of Ravaldino after the murder of her husband.

Going back somewhat, I left the last entry at the point where Girolamo's assassins entered Caterina's chambers. Now, she cowed against the wall, protecting her children. None of her husbands assassins dared to even touch her, however her sister was with her and when one of the men tried to grope her she slapped him away.

As the townspeople greeted Bishop Savelli, who rode into Forli on 15th April 1488, carrying the papal banner and intending to bring Forli under papal control; the fortress of Ravaldino was still in the hands of Riario supporters and it would be prudent for the supporters to get their countess inside the walls of Ravaldino. There she would be safe. Yet the Orsi family had the idea of taking her to the fortress and having her demand the castellans hand the fortress over to the Orsis. Ludovico Orsi therefore took her from her prison in the Orsi palace and dragged her away from her children. They took her before the walls of Ravaldio where she spoke to Tommaso Feo, begging that he give up the fortress for the sake of her children. Feo refused, saying his orders were to keep the castle safe for Ottaviano. And as the crowds listened to the exchange it became clear that this man was Caterina's friend and ally. He dropped the names of Sforza, Cardinal Riario and Bentivolglio to make it clear to her captors that she had her allies. The Orsi then dragged her away, realising that the whole exchange was likely staged, that there was no plan to hand the castle over to them.

Her captors were of course angry that she had played them for fools, and they threatened to run her though with lances. And as they did so, her whole demeanour changed. No longer was she an upset widow, instead she became strong, "Certainly you can hurt me, but you don't scare me because I am the daughter of a man who knew no fear. Do what you want: you have killed my lord, you can certainly kill me. After all, I'm just a woman".

They took her back to her prison, determined to break her spirits. They knew she was a pious woman and thought that by using her religion against her, they would break her. They smuggled a priest into her rooms and confronted her about both her and her husbands sins. Saying that his husband had been killed for her sins, he demanded she give up Ravaldino and if she did not, she would face the same fate as her husband. He said also that if she did not hand over the fortress, she would be punished by starvation and eternal hellfire for both her and her children. She banged on the door and screamed that he be taken away and she later admitted that she found this experience more traumatic than losing her husband. However, bishop Savelli (who had previously rode to the town to bring it under papal control), had her family moved to the tower of Porta San Pietro for their safety, while she was removed across the town and placed in a small cell.

On April 16th, a message came to to a man who was loyal to the Riarios (but pretending to work for the Orsi) by the name of Ercolani. The message was from Feo who said he would give up the castle on one condition: Caterina would have to pay him his back wages and give him a good reference for any future employment. Caterina would have to come alone. Of course, the Orsi would not agree to this so Savelli agreed to a compromise. It would have to be done with Caterina outside the walls, in full view. Once again she made her way up to the walls of Ravaldino and called to Feo, promising he would have everything he had asked for. Feo then said that Caterina would have to come into the fortress to sign a contract and only one person was allowed to come inside with her. The Orsi put up a fight but Savelli sent her inside, wishing for everything to be over with. And she took with her a young groom named Luca. And as she crossed the drawbridge, she turned back to the crowd and raised her hand with the index and ring fingers folded back and her thumb tucked between her. She had just, for all intents and purposes, sworn violently as the crowd.

Savelli had given her three hours to conduct her business. But the three hour limit came and went and she did not set foot outside the front of the castle. After a while, Feo appeared on the battlements and shouted down that he had taken Caterina as his hostage! He then said he would exchange her for several members of the nobility, all of which were supporters of the Orsi family. The Orsi knew that Caterina and Feo had planned this and in anger they went and seized Ottaviano and his nurse before dragging them back to Ravaldino. The child begged for mercy, his cries mingling with the cries of his little brother Livio; and the soldiers shouted threats. The cries of her children summoned her to the ramparts of Ravaldino.

Tradition dictated that she should give in when faced with her endangered children. Yet she was not like other women, she was the daughter of a great family of warriors. She knew that Savelli knew her children were the nephews of the Duke of Milan, and that Milan would bring justice swiftly down on anyone who caused the children harm. She also knew that giving up the castle would give her no advantage whatsoever against the Orsi's, that if she did so then she and her family would be in danger of imprisonment and of being poisoned.

And this is where the "ten more sons" myth comes from, the most well known and well publicised version of this story. It was said that she walked to the edge of the ramparts and as the Orsi threatened to kill her children on the spot, she shouted back, "Do it then you fools! I am already pregnant with another child by Count Riario and I have the means to make more!". Others wrote of the event, and Galeotto Manfredi wrote to Lorenzo De Medici that Caterina had raised her skirts, grabbed her genitals and shouted that unlike those men below, she had the means of making ten more sons. Niccolo Machiavelli also repeats this story in his discourses but no one else mentions such a salacious version of events. This however, is a complete myth. There are contemporary accounts written by Cobelli and Bernardi which mention nothing of any such words. Both men, both local authors and diarists, mention that her children were brought to the walls but that Caterina never stepped foot on the ramparts. Cobelli mentions that she stayed inside on purpose while Feo had several cannon shots fired.

Savelli reclaimed the family immediately to take them away from the danger that the Orsi's were placing them in. He knew they were unstable and he had to protect the children by placing them under a heavier guard.

Caterina held the castle until April 29th. The Milanese army had come, and they demanded that the Riario family be reinstated, and Savelli made it clear of the Papal position on the matter also. The people began to panic, thinking that the Roman army was on its way. Yet as they arrived, only fifty horseman rode through the gates and had been sent by Cardinal Riario to help his aunt. The Orsi ran to the Porta San Pietro where they believed the Riario children to be, and banged o the doors saying that Savelli had ordered them to take the children and keep them safe. The guards refused, knowing full well that Savelli had ordered no such thing.

And as Caterina heard the shouts of her townspeople, and the cheers as the Orsi's were ousted from power she would have heard the shouts of "Duke!" and "Ottaviano"

Her son was now the rightful ruler of Forli, she had won. She had stepped into the shoes of the warrior noblewoman who has come down to us through the centuries. From that moment on she was known as a Tigress, a woman who really was her fathers daughter. And she would rule Forli until her son came of age.

Further Reading

Elizabeth Lev, The Tigress of Forli,
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
Paul Strathern, The Artist, The Philosopher and the Warrior
Ernst Breisach, Caterina Sforza: A Renaissance Virago
Christopher Hibbert, The Borgias and Their Enemies
Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilisation of the Renaissance In Italy
Christopher Hare, The Most Illustrious Ladies of the Italian Renaissance
Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy
Will Durant, The Renaissance: A History of Civilization in Italy from 1304-1576 AD

The works of Sir Peter Lely have long been my favourite Restoration, and whilst I love the work of Van Dyke and Kneller, I think Lely will always hold a special place in my heart. It probably has something to do with my long standing adoration of Charles II and the Restoration period, and the fact that this fabulous artist has painted some of the historical personages that I so admire. When I first heard about the exhibition at Hampton Court a while back, "The Wild, The Beautiful and The Damned", I knew I just had to go? Why? Because it would mean seeing some of Sir Peter Lely's most famous paintings in the flesh, which in all honesty was something I could never have imagined. Think of Sir Peter Lely and what do you think of? His portraits of Charles II, Nell Gwynne, John Wilmot Earl of Rochester? One of his most famous portraits if of Nell Gwynne as Venus, and one of my favourite paintings by him, so as I'm sure you can imagine actually physically seeing it was a bit of a moment for me.

Nell Gwynne as Venus by Sir Peter Lely

Born Pieter van der Faes in Soest (Westphalia, Northern Germany) on 14th September 1618, the little boy would grow up to be one of the greatest Restoration artists. The surname he used later in life, Lely, apparently came from the house where his father had been born which had a Lily on the emblem. Lely's father noticed early on that his son was more of an artist than a soldier and so sent him to study with an artist by the name of Frans Pieters de Grebber, an artist who is not so well known today.

Elisha Refused The Gifts of Naamen by Frans Pieters de Grebber

The young Lely studdied in Holland with Grebber and it must have proved to be a stimulating environment for the young man.

It is said that the young Lely came to England in either 1641 or 1642 although the exact reason for his move to England is not recorded. It's possible that he heard of other artists from his area prospering in England under the patronage of Charles I. Did he want to follow in their footsteps? When he first arrived in England it is rather hard to trace his exact whereabouts although it is possible that he worked for the art dealer George Geldorp who had come over from Antwerp in 1626 and was keeper of the King's pictures, and apparently kept a collection of works by Van Dyke (the man who painted the majority of paintings of Charles I). It has been noted that Lely painted in the style of Geldorp so it is really rather likely that he worked with Geldorp, and was introduced to Geldorps rich patrons.

In 1641, Van Dyke died and other famous portrait painters disappeared from the scene before the onset of the English Civil War or died soon after it's beginning. It was not until 1647 however that Lely began to practice his art independently when he was free of the Guild of Painters. He had previously made himself known with the Duke of Northumberland and Earl of Salisbury. These men were loyal to Charles I but hadn't followed the King to Oxford. In 1647, Charles I surrendered Oxford and was kept at Hampton Court - his children James Duke of York and Minette were held at Syon Park by Northumberland. It was Northumberland who commissioned Lely to paint the now famous portrait of Charles I and James Duke of York. This portrait, next to Nell Gwynne is one of my favourites by Lely.

Charles I and the Duke of York by Sir Peter Lely

In 1554, five years after the execution of Charles I, Lely painted the famous portrait of Oliver Cromwell. It is said that as Cromwell sat for his portrait he said, "Mr Lely, I desire that you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me, and not flatter me at all; but remark all those roughnesses, pimples, warts and every thing as you see me, otherwise I will never pay you a farthing for it". Indeed, the portrait of Cromwell certainly shows a man who was painted "warts and all" and there have been those who have suggested that Lely painted it from an existing picture although Cromwell must have approved it for later on, Richard Cromwell also commissioned a portrait from him.

When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, he was known as one of the best artists in England. And it wasn't long before he was getting work from those leading the Restoration including King Charles II himself. By 1662 he was a citizen of England and such a popular painter that he was having to employ assistants (something which a man playing Lely was keen to emphasise when I went to The Wild, The Beautiful and The Damned) and was expected to both paint the royal portraits and to provide gift copies. It should be noted that the copies of his work were done to such a high quality that they must have been done under his close supervision. Indeed, when Samuel Pepys visited Lely's studio for the first time, Lely was so busy that he thought Pepys had turned up to buy a copy of one of his portraits and told the diarist he was full booked up for the next three weeks; and in 1666 James Duke of York commissioned Lely to paint him as Lord High Admiral of the Navy.

The works that Lely is most famous for has to be his "Windsor Beauties" - many of these can be seen hanging in the galleries of Hampton Court. Recently they were all on display at The Wild, The Beautiful and The Damned as a special exhibition and include such court beauties as Barbara Villiers, Frances Stuart and Elizabeth Hamilton.

Barbara Villiers by Sir Peter Lely

Frances Stuart by Sir Peter Lely

Elizabeth Gramont by Sir Peter Lely

Indeed Sir Peter Lely was the man who created the famous "Restoration Image" and it is this for which he is most known. Think of Sir Peter Lely and you will immediately think of a portrait painted by him; indeed he is known for little else other than portraits. It must be noted however that Lely did indeed paint more than just portraits, for instance his little known The Concert which although unfinished is apparently meant to be a visualisation of Shakespeare's famous line, "If music be the fool of love, play on". Indeed, despite being unfinished, I feel there is something inherently magical about The Concert.

Lely is not just famous for his royal portraits however. Some of his most beautiful works are indeed of non royals:

Portrait of a Boy by Sir Peter Lely

Sleeping Nymphs by Sir Peter Lely

The Concert by Sir Peter Lely

Sir Peter Lely was knighted in 1680, shortly before his death. It is said that he died at his easel whilst painting the Duchess of Somerset. Indeed, when he died he had become one of the most prominent artists of Charles II's reign and indeed would go down in history as one of the greatest artists of the Restoration. Indeed, many will recognise his works today, even without knowing who he was. And this has to be a great testament to his skill. Of course to art historians and lovers of the Restoration his work is like a much loved piece of furniture, something we would not do without. Although many of his portraits, particularly of the Windsor Beauties, look incredibly similar facially (it is said he used the same template for many of his portraits but rather changed the dress and backgrounds), I cannot help but love his work. Thanks to Lely, I have been able to connect to the Royalty of the Restoration, to the nobility and even to the famous mistresses of Charles II. And every time I look at his works be it online or in person, I marvel at his beautiful works. Thanks to Lely I was introduced to the Restoration, and for that I owe the man an infinite debt, and for that I will always appreciate his amazing artwork.

Queen Catherine of Braganza by Sir Peter Lely

James Duke of York and Anne Hyde by Sir Peter Lely

Nell Gwynne by Sir Peter Lely

Henrietta Anne "Minette" Stuart by Sir Peter Lely

Further Reading

Oliver Millar - Sir Peter Lely 1618-1680

The Great Artists Issue 69: Lely (link unavailable)

Sir Walter Raleigh by an unknown artist

On this day in history, 1618; sir Walter Raleigh was beheaded upon the orders of James I. But why was this man, once a great favourite of Elizabeth I, given such a death and executed as a traitor? With this post, I will give a brief overview of his life up until the reign of James I; and then will discuss in more detail the events that lead up to his trial and execution in 1618.

Sir Walter Raleigh was born in 1554 to Walter Raleigh and Catherine Champernowne in Hayes, Devon. Little Walter's family had links to royalty back to the thirteenth century, and his father had previously been Lord Vice Admiral to Mary I from 1555-58. We know from Raleigh's later work that he was an incredibly intelligent man, but really very little is known about his childhood years and what sparked that brilliant mind. What we do know though is that from 1569 (from the age of 15 or so) he served as a volunteer in France during their religious wars. He returned to England in 1570. We also know that he spent some years at Oriel College in Oxford, although the exact date that he entered the college has not been recorded. He left Oxford without his degree, which at the time was not unusual and went to the Middle Temple (sort of like a law school) in the February of 1575. Whilst there he began penning poetry, the first of which was published in 1576. Raleigh was in fact related to Katherine Ashley, first gentlewoman of Elizabeth I's bedchamber, through his mother and it is possible that this link allowed him to meet other great courtiers such as Robert Dudley. In 1578, he teamed up with a man by the name of Humphrey Gilbert and set sail on an adventure to discover remote lands. He returned the following year.

In 1581, following a brief stint as a soldier in Ireland, Raleigh began to attract the attentions of Elizabeth I and spent a good few years as her favourite. That was until he earned her displeasure by entering into a liaison with one of her maids; Elizabeth Throckmorton. Having gotten Elizabeth pregnant, the two married in secret. Raleigh knew how displeased the Queen would be and so made plans to set sail once more, yet when he returned from his voyage in 1592, the Queen was well aware of what had happened. She had the couple separated and both were sent to the Tower of London. It took a while for Elizabeth to even think of forgiving the couple and both were eventually released from the Tower. Their first son disappears from the record, but in 1593 Elizabeth gave birth to another little boy. However, they were both still banished from court and it took Raleigh a while to return to favour. Raleigh was not allowed back to court until 1597 and during those years of disgrace had spent a good many years on his travels searching for the fabled El Dorado and explored the areas of Guyana and Eastern Venezuela. He had managed to get his hands on a description of a City of Gold, yet despite his years of searching never found it.

When Elizabeth I died in 1603, Raleigh had not long been back in favour yet had spent a good few years still adventuring and also dabbling in poetry. When news broke of Elizabeth's death, he hastened to meet the new King James, yet did not exactly receive a warm welcome. Despite being present at the Queens funeral as an official attendant, following this he was rebuffed quite harshly by the new ruler - James I (also James VI of Scotland) stripped him of his monopolies as well as his captaincy of the Guard and was told that he had to leave his current place of residency, Durham Place. In July of 1603 Raleigh was also questioned on two counts of treason and placed under house arrest. Yet what were these treason's? It had come to James' ear that Raleigh had been involved in a number of plots, including planning rebellion and a Spanish invasion, as well as plotting the death of the King. It is said that he planned to place Lady Arabella Stuart in James' place as monarch.

Arabella Stuart by Lowres

Raleigh was taken to the Tower on 20th July 1603. There he wrote a farewell letter to his wife, and on 27th July tried to take his own life by stabbing himself in the heart with a table knife. The attempt failed, and after a while he realised that the only evidence of any substance held against him was a statement made by a man who thought Raleigh had betrayed him. It seems that the gentleman who made the accusations withdrew them almost immediately although Raleigh did not know this until he was brought to trial on 17th November. At any rate, Raleigh was found guilty - despite the fact that Cobham had withdrawn his accusations, he was still found guilty of a more sweeping treason thanks to various letters from Cobham making out that Raleigh had passed on information on the King's military endeavours and trying to get money out of others for military intelligence. Raleigh was taken back to the Tower, and there held until 1612. After his trial, he despaired of mercy from King James and wrote another letter to his wife. However in December 1503, King James agreed that Raleigh could keep his life.

During his years in the Tower, Raleigh dabbled in chemistry. There he created various medicines, but when he fell sick in 1615 it was put down to his dabbling in chemicals. Whilst locked away he also wrote his famous History of the World. There is a copy of this still on show in the Tower of London. He began the work in around 1607, and it was intended to be widely published as the first part of his history of the world. The entire work works out as around 5 volumes, and the first two volumes make up the biblical history of how the world came into being and the final three volumes deal with the histories of the Greek and Roman Empires.

Walter Raleigh's History of the World. Photo by me

Reconstruction of Raleigh's rooms in the Tower. Photo by me

Raleigh was released from the Tower in 1616 and then began his final voyage. The aim of this expedition was to search once more for the fabled El Dorado. He set sail on 19th August 1617 and did not land until November. The journey had been arduous, Raleigh himself succumbing to a nasty fever. On 2nd January 1618, the party arrived at the Spanish settlement of San Thome. The group stormed the settlement, in direct violation of the original agreement. They were there to search for gold, they were there to help relations between England and Spain. They weren't there to attack a Spanish outpost and pillage. Following this, they searched further and further inland for the fabled mines but found nothing. San Thome had been burnt to the ground and on 13th February 1618 Raleigh was told that his son had been killed during the storming of the outpost. Raleigh would accept no apologies for his sons death and began planning another expedition of San Thome, saying that they had missed the mine. His men refused to follow, and in March deserted him completely. Raleigh was left with a tiny force, and returned to Plymouth utterly defeated.

when he returned to England, the Spanish ambassador had already been to King James with reports of the violence that had happened at San Thome. The ambassador demanded Raleigh's arrest and not long after he landed, he was arrested and taken to London. On 10th August 1618, Raleigh found himself back in the Tower. This time, there would be no escape for Sir Walter Raleigh.

On 22nd October, Raleigh was brought before the Privy Council. There he was accused of being ungrateful to the King who had forgiven him his previous treason's, accused of planning to start a war between England and Spain, and moreover was accused of deserting his men. On 28th October, a verdict was passed. Sir Walter Raleigh was guilty. Yet Raleigh threw himself on the Kings mercy, pleading for clemency. It didn't work, and Raleigh was sentenced to execution. He spent his last night in the Gatehouse at Westminster and on the morning of 29th October 1618 was beheaded at Westminster. His execution speech was long and he welcomed the fact that he was going to die. His final speech lasted for almost forty five minutes and in it he insisted that his expeditions had no ulterior motive, that he had never sought to plot with France and start a war between England and Spain.

Just before he knelt he spoke a few more words, admitting that he had been a man of vanity and joked with the executioner that the axe would be his "sharp medicine". And once the fatal blow was struck, his head was placed in a red bag and taken away by his wife who kept it until her own death. It is said that she liked to bring out his head when she had visitors. Once she died, his head was returned to the rest of his remains at St Margaret's Church next to Westminster Abbey.

Raleigh's memorial plaque inside St Margaret's Church

St Margaret's Church, Westminster. Photo by me.

Further Reading

Mark Nicholls, Penry Williams, ‘Ralegh, Sir Walter (1554–1618)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23039, accessed 29 Oct 2012]
Sir Walter Raleigh: In Life & Legend - Penry Williams & Mark Nicholls
The Favourite - Mathew Lyons

Each of the Popes considered in this book, from the gentle hermit pope Celestine V to the degenerate Rodrigo Borgia and the emperor pope Boniface VIII shared one heavy burden. They were not only the spiritual leaders of Europe but, through an audacious forgery (the so called Donation of Constantine), they were also territorial princes - 'papal monarchs' - struggling to maintain control over an enormous section of Italy. The careers of these popes demonstrate the disastrous effect of combining religion and politics and led at last to the event which ends this book - the Sack of Rome in 1527. Brought about by the inept attempts of Pope Clement VIV against his rival the King of France, the culmination was the sacking of the Eternal City by 20,000 starving, pitiless mercenaries. It was the end of an era.

Ever since I first started reading about the Borgia family, I have found myself becoming more and more interested in the history of the Roman Catholic church. And more so the history of the corrupt Popes from history. So when I saw this book I knew I just had to have it. And I'm glad I did.

This book starts with an introduction to Rome and the Papacy and describes briefly the Donation of Constantine, which was a forged document giving the Pope of Rome the principality of the Papal states. I won't go too much into what it is and what it did here as it would have to be a whole other blog post. Once the introduction is out of the way Chamberlin then goes on to describe in detail the lives and careers of Rome's most corrupt and decadent popes. Of course Chamberlin does not tell us about each and every Pope as that would just be a bit too much but rather has picked out a selection of those Popes with probably the worst reputations in the history of the Catholic Church. The thing I liked about this though was that Chamberlin doesn't bash the Popes for their behaviour, far from it. Instead he gives an incredibly balanced view of things, and tells the reader of each Popes pluses and minuses, showing how they can go from quite pious and agreeable men, to sheer corruption and it really allows you to draw your own conclusions.

The book itself runs from the early popes in the Theophylact family, who reigned from 926-1046 right up until the sack of Rome in 1527. That is a huge amount of ground to cover yet Chamberlin does a great job in giving the reader the information that they need about each Pope being looked at. Of course, not every aspect can be written about, as that would end up as an entire library. But Chamberlin makes his point, expands on it and covers it in a brilliantly snappy manner that doesn't leave you feeling as if you've swallowed an encyclopedia. And it works.

Of course, my favourite section of the book was on the infamous Rodrigo Borgia who is often seen as the most corrupt Pope in history. Yet the section on him retains a balanced view, and you really get a sense that Rodrigo Borgia wasn't really all that bad. Chamberlin also gives Cesare Borgia the benefit of the doubt too, and while he admits that Cesare wasn't the nicest man in the world, he says he was "probably innocent" of his brothers murder. And this made me smile quite a lot. I must admit that I found the later sections of the book more interesting than the earlier Popes, probably because my area of interest is from the 15th Century onwards, so I did really enjoy the chapters on Alexander VI (Borgia), Julius II (Della Rovere) and the Medici popes. And whilst the chapters give you a fantastic overview of their good points and bad points, it has also given me a thirst to know more about these other Papal monarchs too. And so, I feel incredibly sorry for both my purse and my bookcase!

All in all a fantastic book and highly recommended, especially if you are interested in the history of the Roman Catholic Church and learning a bit more about those Popes who have gone down in history as the worst of the worst.

When I visited Rome in the summer, one of the most amazing experiences was walking into the Sistine Chapel and just looking up. Despite the fact that the chapel was rammed with people and the scary security guards kept yelling at people to be quiet, seeing the beautiful frescoes by Michelangelo was just mind blowing, and an experience I will never forget.

The frescoes by Michelangelo tell the story of God's creation of the world as can be read in the book of Genesis, and the panel's show God's creation of man, their fall from grace and the story of the Great Flood as man's punishment for their sins. It should be noted however that not all the panels are in the correct order; and Michelangelo also brings in other figures from elsewhere in the bible.

In 1505, Michelangelo was called to Rome. He was already an incredibly famous artist thanks to his brilliant sculptures. But he wasn't actually called to Rome to begin painting the ceiling. He was actually commissioned by Pope Julius II to build him a magnificent tomb. And Michelangelo took to the task with gusto and huge enthusiasm, spending over 8 months in the quarries of Carrara to chose the best blocks of marble.

Michelangelo became obsessed with the tomb, and for a long time it was all he thought about. The plans for the tomb became more and more grand and Michelangelo's obsession probably started to annoy the Pope who was concentrating more on the rebuilding of St Peters Basilica. And as Julius became more obsessed with the church, he refused to give Michelangelo any more money for the tomb and dismissed the artist from the papal court. He was back in Florence in May 1506, and though bitterly disappointed never lost his enthusiasm for Julius' tomb and it was eventually built many years after Julius' death though it was much, much smaller than the original plan.

It was Julius II who came up with the idea of painting the Sistine chapel ceiling, as the original was rather outdated and didn't fit in with the other paintings on the chapel walls. And in 1508, Michelangelo was the man chosen to repaint the ceiling. There are stories that Michelangelo's rival Bramante suggested Michelangelo as a suitable candidate for the task, hoping to embarrass him. After all, Michelangelo was first and foremost a sculptor and had never proven himself as a fresco painter. In the end it would be Bramante who would be the one with the red face. On the 10th May 1508, Michelangelo wrote in his diary:

"I record that today, May 10 1508, I, Michelangelo sculptor, have received on account from our Holy Lord Pope Julius II five hundred papal ducats counted by Messer Carlino (of the chamber) and Messer Carlo degli Albrizzi, towards the painting of the vault of Pope Sixtus on which I am beginning to work today, upon the conditions and agreements that appear in thee writings of the most reverend Monsignor of Pavia (Francesco Alidosi), and signed in my own hand"

Michelangelo was original contracted to paint the twelve apostles, who were to be seated on thrones. There were to be five on each side of the chapel and one at each end. The rest of the ceiling would be painting geometrically and conventionally. But Michelangelo scrapped this idea and said that "they would turn our poorly". He decided that Julius' plan was too simple, too boring and it wouldn't use enough of his talents (especially his talent of showing the human form unclothed). Instead he began a much more complicated idea which ended up with him painting over 300 human figures and it allowed him a huge artistic outlet that reflected his own deep religious feelings.

The ceiling is made up of nine panels, depicting the stories from Genesis. The first three panels near the altar show the creation of the world by God, the next three show the creation of Adam and Eve and their fall from Grace and the last three show the story of Noah. The Noah panels are painted in reverse order, starting with the drunkenness of Noah and moving backwards. Surrounding the main panels are an assortment of complicated stories, all taken from the bible. Below are pictures of each of the panels:

The Division of Light from Darkness

The Creation of the Sun and Moon

The Separation of the Sky and the Water

The Creation of Adam

The Creation of Eve

The Fall and the Expulsion

The Flood

Noah's Sacrifice

The Drunkenness of Noah

Dotted around the panels are other panels showing other stories from the bible such as David and Goliath and The Prophet Jonah. With David and Goliath, Michelangelo shows the story at its end, when David is beheading the giant; and with Jonah you can see the Prophet about to be eaten by the whale (or fish as the bible states). An interesting point about the painting of Jonah is that Michelangelo painted it from a vantage point less than a metre away from the wall when he was up on his scaffold; and when you look at the painting one wonders how on earth he did it.

David and Goliath

The Prophet Jonah

The Prophet Daniel

The Prophet Isaiah

The ceiling was finished in 1512, four years after it was started; and was unveiled at the vigil of All Saints Day on 31st October. Michelangelo once more entered the Sistine Chapel in 1536 and painted the famous Last Judgement (quite possibly my favourite of his works of art).

Michelangelo died on 18th February 1564 at the age of nearly 90. Originally buried in Rome, his body was smuggled out of Rome by his nephew and taken to Florence and buried in the church of Santa Croce. His paintings in the Sistine chapel had already become the stuff of legend, and the genius workmanship would be appreciated for many hundreds of years to come. Of course, the work is still the stuff of legend; and thousands upon thousands of people walk through the Sistine Chapel every day just to glimpse these remarkable frescoes..

Further Reading

Robin Richmond, Michelangelo and the Creation of the Sistine Chapel

Ross King, Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling

Andrew Graham-Dixon, Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel

Guy Fawkes by Cruikshank

Remember, remember!

The fifth of November,

The Gunpowder treason and plot;

I know of no reason

Why the Gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot!

I've never really been a fan of fireworks. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that my dog used to get really frightened of them and shake in the corner of our kitchen whenever he heard them going off. But even as a small child when I was taken to watch the bonfire and firework displays, I would always be morbidly fascinated by the 'Guy' that was on top of the bonfire and how the crowd would watch him burn. It was my grandfather who told me why we did it, and whilst his story made me shudder inside, I thought it was all kinds of awesome. Maybe in a way, hearing my grandfather tell me the story of the Gunpowder plot is what sparked my interest in the Seventeenth Century. But what I find amazing is that even today we celebrate the fact that Guy Fawkes and his conspirators tried to blow up our parliament. Only in Britain eh?

But why do we do it?

In the early hours of the morning on November 5th 1605, a magistrate and gentleman of the Kings Privy Chamber (Thomas Knyvet) were sent to search the vaults beneath Parliament. King James I was incredibly suspicious of any plot to murder him and even more so after Lord Monteagle showed him a letter. This letter had been sent to Monteagle by one of the conspirators, warning him not to be in Parliament on November 5th as the place would be blown up.

As Knyvet and the Magistrate searched the vaults they discovered Guy Fawkes making his way out of a room. He was fully dressed with his boots on, and thinking it slightly suspicious Knyvet had him arrested. As Fawkes was hauled away, Knyvet's men discovered 36 barrels of gunpowder and wooden faggots. It became glaringly obvious what had been planned and what had been so close to being successful.

Guy Fawkes was imprisoned and interrogated. Yet Fawkes refused to give away the names of his fellow conspirators, and his fortitude actually impressed his interrogators. Faced with a barrage of questions he admitted he had recently been to Flanders and when the reason why was demanded he retorted that he had gone to sight see and pass the time! The real reason was of course to try and get help for the conspiracy. When he spoke plainly, and it wasn't often, he expressed his dislike of the Scottish King but other than that he refused to give any other answers. It was only on 7th November, likely after torture, that he gave the interrogators his name and that was only after a letter addressed to him was found in his pockets. At the same time, thanks to being tortured that he implicated his fellow torturers. Fawkes however was the only conspirator to suffer torture, and once King James had the answers he wanted, the torture was stopped.

Four of Fawkes' co-conspirators perished in a skirmish at Holbeach House in Staffordshire as the army tried to arrest them. The remaining 8 men were captured and imprisoned, and they were kept in the Tower of London until January 1606 when they were all tried for treason. On 27th January 1606, they faced trial in Westminster Hall, although the verdict was already a foregone conclusion although all but Sir Edward Digby pleaded not guilty. On 30th January, four of the men were executed in St Paul's churchyard and the following day it was the turn of Winter, Ambrose, Rookwood, Keyes and Fawkes. They were hung, drawn and quartered in the Old Palace Yard at Westminster.

And the reason we still light bonfires today? King James I ordered that bonfires should be lit every year on November 5th in celebration of his lucky escape from the treasonous plotters. And until 1859, prayers of thanksgiving for the King's escape were still being read. Indeed, the celebrations kept on going as well due to the country's dislike of Catholicism and popery at the time and the plot was seen as one of the most horrific catholic conspiracies ever committed. Indeed the Puritans kept on the tradition well into the reign of Charles I's reign as a stand up to the Catholicism that was feared to be creeping into the royal court. James II's court tried to ban the celebrations in the early years of his reign (as James was a catholic) but the idea fell flat on its face, especially after William of Orange landed in England and took the throne from James.

Although these days the country is open to religious toleration, the celebrations of November 5th still go on. It seems it is ingrained into the minds of the English, and we still celebrate the downfall of the notorious plotter Guy Fawkes. For the most part, the celebrations are just that, celebrations although in some parts of the country there are still some towns which stay with the traditional anti catholic tradition; not only with their bonfires and fireworks but also parading with an effigy of the Pope which then gets burned on the bonfire. An excellent example of this is Lewes in Sussex.

The traditional 'anti catholic' 5th November celebrations in Lewes, Sussex

Whatever you are up to tonight; whether you are going to watch a bonfire and fireworks display or staying in, do stay safe. And try not to forget the reason why we still light bonfires on 5th November.

Further Reading

Antonia Fraser - The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605

John Paul Davis - Pity for the Guy: A Biography of Guy Fawkes

James Sharp - Remember, Remember the Fifth of November: Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot

Mark Nicholls, ‘Fawkes, Guy (bap. 1570, d. 1606)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2009 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/9230, accessed 5 Nov 2012]

I've just spent the past two hours contemplating moving this blog over to wordpress, even going so far as to create an account and export every single one of my blog posts and comments over to said new account. Then I realised "hang on a minute, I have a domain" and proceeded to try and move said domain name over to the new wordpress account only to really mess things up. There's also the fact that wordpress wanted to charge me an arm and a leg for the ability to use the domain name I'd already purchased through blogger. So after two hours of wrestling with complicated internet stuff I called it a day and deleted the new account and came slinking back to blogger.I'm not going to lie, I felt like a bit of a traitor when I started to build the new blog and I'm glad I realised before I hit the delete button on blogger how much I loved this blog.

Plus, starting from scratch when I've had nearly 60,000 visitors just seems a bit rubbish.

So, in celebration I've decided to completely do over the design of this blog. I'm staying right here and you can expect lots more historical posts in the future and I've got loads and loads of ideas.

I'd also like to extend an invitation to anyone who wants to do a guest post for me. If you're interested then please do drop me an email at samantha@loyaltybindsme.org - you'll all know by now that this blog is primarilly an Italian Renaissance/Seventeenth Century England blog but I will accept pretty much anything as long as it's historical.

There will also shortly be an announcement regarding a project I've got in the works. I really want to tell you all about it RIGHT now but it's gonna have to wait a little while. Keep your eyes peeled though and all will be revealed soon enough.

Lorenzo the Magnificent by Agnolo Bronzino

On 21st March 1492, Lorenzo "Il Magnifico" de Medici was carried from his palace in Florence to his countryside villa at Careggi, not far from the city. The reason? His health was failing fast thanks to severe feverish gout, an inflammatory disease that was the bane of the Medici family. Lorenzo had been ruler of Florence for over twenty years and despite mistakes he made later in his reign was a much loved and respected man, and an incredibly able politician. Mistakes were of course made - he allowed the Medici bank to run itself almost to ruin (something that would be completely finished when his son Piero took over), stole from the Florentine Signoria coffers when money ran low and worse still, stole from a public fund set up to provide dowries for penniless girls so they could be married. He and his men made sure the covered up as much of the thievery as possible by burning evidence, but rumours still circulated. Despite this though, the years that he spent ruling Florence were, for the most part, peaceful years.

Two weeks after he was taken to Careggi, news was brought to his bedside. The two famous lions that were caged in the city had mauled each other to death during a frightening storm - this was seen as a particularly bad omen as the lion was the emblem of Florence - and that same night lightning struck the famous duomo built by Brunelleschi, sending marble crashing down onto the pavement. When Lorenzo heard of this he demanded to know which side the marble had fallen and was told it had fallen on the north west side. He then said to his attendants, "that is the side pointing to this house...this means I shall die."

Brunelleschi's Duomo, Santa Maria del Fiore Florence

Lorenzo knew he was dying and so called his eldest son Piero to his side. Just as his father had done for him, and his fathers father before him; he passed on the secrets of the Medici family to his heir. He told his son to be unassuming in public and to remember the people of Florence although in time Piero would show just how little of this he had taken in. Once Piero had left it became evident to Poliziano, one of Lorenzo's favourites, that the disease that affected his body was now affecting his internal organs and so Lorenzo summoned Girolamo Savonarola to his bedside to seek his blessing, and grant him absolution from his sins. It seems that the great humanist was going back to religion and superstition in his dying days. What happened next is the stuff of legend - it is said that when Savonarola came to Lorenzo's bedside he demanded three things:

He asked if Lorenzo repented of his sins and adhered to the true faith. Lorenzo said he did.
He demanded that Lorenzo give up all of his wealth to which Lorenzo replied, "Father, I will do so or I will cause my heirs to do it if I cannot"
He demanded that Lorenzo give the Florentine people back their liberty. Lorenzo did not reply and turned his face away.

And on 8th April 1492, Lorenzo de Medici died. It is said that the entire city mourned the death of their leader and attended his funeral at the church of San Lorenzo. His son, Piero de Medici took over the reigns of government when he was just twenty one years old. The differences between Piero and his father were huge - where Lorenzo had been an astute politician, Piero really had no idea. And Piero was more interested in women and hunting than in the affairs of state. More so, he was arrogant and had none of the charm that his father had. Like this, the signoria of Florence was likely to turn treacherous, they needed constant attention and gifts from their ruler and needed to be approached with tact. Piero had none of this and completely misjudged the situation from the get go.

Piero's rule would last for just two years, and the constant mistakes that he made would earn him the nickname of Piero the Unfortunate.

Piero de Medici by Agnolo Bronzino

In 1494, the French King Charles VIII crossed the alps into Italy at the behest of Ludovico "Il Moro" Sforza. Previously, Savonarola had prophesised the coming of a new Cyrus who would invade the country and bring it back to God, and it seemed that he was correct, Charles VIII would be that man. Charles wanted Naples, and Ludovico promised that to him (because he wanted rid of the new Neopolitan King Alfonso, a relation of his nephew's wife and a man who it was said would exact revenge on Ludovico for his mistreatment of his nephew and wife). Ludovico welcomed Charles to Milan and after hearing nothing from Florence as to whether they would support Naples or France, Charles ordered his troops march into Tuscan territory. After Charles took towns and castles near to Florence, Piero made a decision - he rode out to the French camp where he was greeted coolly, he certainly was not greeted with the respect he thought he deserved, before agreeing to give the cities of Pisa and Livorno as well as promising Charles the use of the Palazzo Medici and 200,000 florins.

It was those promises which sealed Piero de Medici's fate.

He returned to Florence two weeks later and when he arrived at the Piazza della Signoria, the door was slammed shut in his face. He waited uncertainly outside the Signoria as the massive bell rang (it was nicknamed "The Cow" due to the deep noise it made), and people from all over the city descended on the piazza. As Piero stood there wondering what was happening he was pelted with insults, stones and rubbish - eventually he decided the best thing would be for him to get away from the mob and hole himself up in his palazzo. And as he rode, the signoria were denouncing Piero and his family as traitors, saying that anyone who aided him would also be known thenceforth as traitors.

Now, both Piero and his brother Giovanni (later Pope Leo X) were holed up in the Palazzo Medici and had to come up with a plan so they could escape Florence. And in the early hours of 9th November 1494, Piero rode out of the city with his wife and children and they travelled to Venice. Giovanni stayed behind a little longer, going through the Medici belongings in the palazzo and it is said he carried gold, jewels and coins to the monastery of San Marco while disguised as a Dominican friar. Did this really happen? Indeed the monastery had been refurbished thanks to Cosimo De Medici but it was now under the control of Savonarola who disagreed with everything the Medici stood for - be that as it may, many of the friars may have stayed loyal to the Medici cause and helped Giovanni hide the treasure that he was able to rescue. Once he had finished, he too fled the city.

And on 10th November 1494 (518 years ago today!), the Florentine signoria officially banished Piero de Medici and his family, saying that they could never return. If they were to return, a price was put on both Piero and Giovanni's heads. And just over 30 years previously, their grandfather Cosimo de Medici had predicted that within 50 years the city of Florence would be tired of Medici rule, and they would be banished. Indeed, the Medici did not return to Florence until 1512 when Cardinal Giovanni de Medici returned to Florence as its ruler.

Further Reading

The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance - Paul Strathern

Death In Florence - Paul Strathern

The Burning of the Vanities - Desmond Seward

If I should die, think only this of me:

That there's some corner of a foreign field

That is for ever England. There shall be

In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;

A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,

Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,

A body of England's, breathing English air,

Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.

And think, this heart, all evil shed away,

A pulse in the eternal mind, no less

Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given;

Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;

And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,

In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.

This is not the sort of thing I would normally post however, Remembrance Sunday is an exceptionally important moment in history. Because on the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month 1918, the guns of the First World War fell silent. And at that moment, a peace treaty was signed between the Allies and Germany in a train carriage in the forest of Compiegne. We have celebrated the end of the war every year since, and it's not only about remembering those who died in World War 1 or World War 2, but also remembering those serving now, remembering those who died in recent conflicts also.

Irish Soldiers on the first day of the Somme

Today it is important that we remember those thousands of men who gave their lives in World War 1, each and every man who died to enemy guns be they on the allied side or the German side; we remember those men and women who fought and died in world war 2 - the soldiers, the nurses, the spies; the men, women and children who died in concentration camps; those who fought and died in more recent conflicts - the Boer Wars of the late 1800's and the more recent Afghanistan conflict being just two examples. These people have all died serving their country, and we owe each and every one of them for it.

I for one will always remember, I will remember the roles that both my great (great?) grandfathers played in the first world war. Both men fought in France, both survived the entire four year effort, both even fought at the Somme. I will remember the stories that they told me, and the old world war I tin helmet that my grandfather wore during the Somme with the bullet hole in it. He was shot, and the bullet went straight through the helmet, just centimetres away from the top of his head. Lest we forget...

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them

The Execution of Savonarola by Anonymous

I've been spending a lot of time recently researching Girolamo Savonarola recently, for particular reasons that will hopefully be announced soon as well as the fact that the man fascinates me. I don't really know why he does, as he was the man behind the terrible travesty known as the Bonfire of the Vanities but there is just something about his incredible self belief and his unwavering faith that has really pulled me in. And having just finished Death In Florence by Paul Strathern (review coming over the next few days), whilst I can't say I really like the man, I can now say I feel incredibly sorry for him and respect the little Dominican friar utterly. But why? As I mentioned previously, his incredible self belief and unwavering faith are partly to do with it but there is also something else. He endured torture bravely and approached his death calmly. If anything, Girolamo Savonarola became a martyr to his supporters in Florence and those who served with him in the Dominican monastery at San Marco. Today, I am going to write about Savonarola's trial and execution and I will warn you now, it does not make for light reading.

On the 8th April 1498, Fra Girolamo Savonarola was arrested within the church of San Marco, following what can only be described as a siege. The people of Florence had risen up against him following the botched "trial by fire" only a few weeks previously, and the ruling signoria (currently being run by men of the anti-Savonarola faction) had the excuse they were looking for to place the man on trial for treason and heresy. Previously, the city of Florence had hung on to Savonarola's every word and had believed the prophecies that he had made; he had even taken part in setting up the new government after Piero de Medici was exiled. But now it seemed as though the city was tired of him, and Pope Alexander VI wanted the friar out of his hair for good. Arrested alongside Savonarola were two other Dominican friars - Fra Domenico and Fra Silvestro Maruffi. Savonarola and Domenico were taken first, and Maruffi joined them the next day.

Savonarola and Domenico were placed in irons and marched to the Piazza della Signoria, where they were presented to the Gonfaloniere who asked them both if they still persisted in believing that Savonarola's words came from God. When they both replied that they did they were taken to separate cells within the palazzo and Savonarola was taken to the tiny room at the top of the tower known as the Alberghettino.

The Palazzo della Signoria, now known as the Palazzo Vecchio

The next morning, Savonarola was brought down from his tiny cell and there subjected to some initial informal questioning. As he had been arrested for both treason and heresy, he would now face everything that the law could throw at him. And that included torture. This ordeal would begin on the Tuesday. The man assigned as Savonarola's interrogator was Francesco de Ser Barone, also known as "Ser Ceccone" - after Piero de Medici's flight from the city this man had pretended to join Savonarola's following but in reality he had been an informant, sending ever word to the men who conspired to bring the friar to heel. The initial 'investigation' would last for just over a week and finish on 17th April, and despite the fact that Easter fell in this week, the interrogation was not stopped for these most holy days in the christian calendar. Instead, Savonarola was subjected to the strappado after being at first invited to make his confession. When he refused, his arms would have been tied behind his back and with use of a pulley he would have been lifted and dropped over and over again until he did confess. The method was ingenious because it very rarely proved fatal, it would have been agonisingly painful as each drop would have dislocated the victim's shoulders and a surgeon would have been on hand to pop the shoulders back in place before they could be dislocated again.

The Strappado

When news reached Pope Alexander VI that Savonarola had been arrested and subject to trial (which by the way was illegal - despite having been excommunicated, as a man of the cloth he should have been tried by the church courts) he was undoubtedly pleased. But he sent a message to Florence demanding that once they were finished with the man, he wanted him sent to Rome so he could be tried and tortured by the church courts. And whilst Alexander lifted the excommunication that he had previously placed on the city, the signoria were reluctant to sent Savonarola away from Florence as he knew intimate details of the goings on of their parliament, and their foreign policy. It would not do for the friar to give away such information that could be used against them.

The diarist Landucci recorded the following about the torture inflicted on Savonarola:

"Fra Girolamo was put to the rack (stappado) three times, and Fra Domenico four times; and Fra Girolamo said: 'Take me down and I will write you my whole life.'"

It should be noted though that there is no way that we can know how many times he was dropped, there are so many differing numbers given and no actual material evidence. The most quoted is 14, but Savonarola was incredibly frail so it is unlikely he would have been to put up with many drops before he said he would confess. But when he said he would write them his whole life if they stopped torturing, it wasn't enough for the Signoria - they wanted a confession of his heresy and his treason so they could have him executed. Following the torture, Savonarola admitted that he did not receive prophecies from God and that for all intents and purposes he had made everything up, and he justified his motives for everything he did - he said he wanted credit and he wanted reputation. However, Savonarola undoubtedly believed that he was a prophet and believed that he was receiving visions from God, that he believed he was working for the good of Florence. Was this Savonarola's way of trying to save himself? At any rate, the answers he gave did not constitute treason, so Ceccone pressed on and on, trying to outwit the friar. Still his answers did not constitute treason.

Girolamo Savonarola by Fra Bartolomeo

The Pope was still insisting that Savanarola and the other friars be taken to Rome, and still the Signoria held back on this. But Savonarola's confession wasn't enough, and the signoria decided that Savonarola should be tried for a second time although according to reports this did not use any form of torture. On 24th, Savonarola was told to sign his confession, some of which was written himself but other parts were written be Ceccone. The confession told of how he (Savonarola) had lost his faith in God, how he had sinned and how he had lied about his prophecies and visions. As Savonarola was signing his confession, the other friars brought in with him were also being tortured, and the torture faced by Maruffi broke the frail old man and terrified him out of his wits. Domenico however faced his ordeal bravely, and kept singing Savonarola's praises.

On the 5th May, the Signoria made the decision that Pope Alexander VI could send a papal commission to place the friars on trial in the ecclesiastical manner. They would however not allow the men to be taken to Rome as they believed that the men should be tried and executed in Florence. And so, on 19th May the Papal commission reached Rome and their own trial began the next day.

As the trial began, it became evident that Savonarola had regained much of his previous demeanour and he would obscure the truth from them, but without lying. The commission grew tired of this and demanded that the strappado be brought back out, and when faced with the rope Girolamo fell to the floor and cried out in terror, admitting that he had said what he had previously in fear of being tortured. Now, he was tortured again, despite the fact that the previous strappado sessions had rendered one of his arms useless. It is said that as he faced the prospect of the rope again, he raved and screamed; and in the transcript it is obvious that faced with terror Savonarola told the truth.

After two days of this, the commission retired and the signoria discussed the judgement. And as this was being discussed the commission sent a report to Alexander detailing most of what was said by Savonarola although some of it was kept hidden, likely to try and protect the Pope from what was perceived as great wickedness on Savonarola's part. And on May 22nd, Savonarola and his fellow friars were given the verdict - the very next day they would be stripped of their church membership and then they would be executed.

The method of execution would be the usual one for heretics - they would be burnt. But it would be slightly different to the burning at the stake normally done for such matters. The men would be hanged, and a fire set beneath their feet. The gallows and pyre was built in the piazza della signoria, on the very spot where the trial by fire was supposed to have taken place just weeks before; the stake was built to look like a cross. The people cried out that Savonarola was going to be crucified, and so the part making it look like a cross was sawn off.

At daybreak on 23rd, the three friars were lead out into the piazza and there were faced with three tribunals. The first stripped them of their membership in the church and removed their vestments. The second was an indulgence granted by Pope Alexander, forgiving them their sins and the third was where they were handed over to the secular authorities who confirmed their fate and then shaved their hair and beards. The men were then lead along the wooden walkway towards the gallows. Silvestro was the first man who was taken up and there the rope was placed around his neck and he was pushed off the ladder. The rope however was too short and not tight enough, so Silvestro dangled, slowly being strangled and repeating "Jesu" over and over again. This was of course done on purpose so that he and his fellow condemned would be able to feel the pain once the flames were lit. Domenico was next, and he went to the gibbet with a smile on his face, seemingly glad to meet his maker. Savonarola went last - he did not speak to the crowds and only muttered to himself as he walked towards his death - he did not say a word about his guilt or even his innocence - and then he too was hanged, though allowed to suffer slowly before the flames were lit. As the kindling beneath the gallows was lit, the fire spread very quickly and a wind blew, making the arm of Savonarola rise in the draft and look as if he were blessing those in attendance. Then the wind dropped again, and the flames turned into an inferno. Stones were thrown at the bodies as they burnt, making arms and legs drop into the flames, and guards surrounded the fire so that those present could not pick up anything that could be used as a relic. To make doubly sure that nothing would be left, as only the burning torsoes of the men remained, the gibbet was pushed into the flames.

Once the fire was out, the ashes were shovelled into a cart and taken to the Ponte Vecchio. There the ashes were tossed into the River Arno so that nothing would remain behind.

Further Reading
Paul Strathern - Death In Florence
Paul Strathern - The Medici
Desmond Seward - The Burning of the Vanities
Lauro Martines - Scourge and Fire: Savonarola and Renaissance Italy
Lauro Martines - Fire in the City: Savonarola and the Struggle for Renaissance Florence

Today's post is somewhat unusual. But I'm not going to apologise in the slightest. Not so long back, I came across something online called The Travelling Red Dress, an idea set up by the fantastic Jenny Lawson:

"I want, just once, to wear a bright red, strapless ball gown with no apologies. I want to be shocking, and vivid and wear a dress as intensely amazing as the person I so want to be. And the more I thought about it the more I realised how often we deny ourselves that red dress and all the other capricious, ridiculous, overindulgent and silly things that we desperately want but never let ourselves have because they are simply “not sensible”. Things like flying lessons, and ballet shoes, and breaking into spontaneous song, and building a train set, and crawling onto the roof just to see the stars better. Things like cartwheels and learning how to box and painting encouraging words on your body to remind yourself that you’re worth it."

The idea is to wear a vivid red dress just for the hell of it, to wear something that reminds us that we are special, that we are worth it and that we shouldn't be embarrassed to wear something that will make us feel as amazing as we really are. And do you know what? As I stood in that photography studio, I did feel amazing. The whole experience was just completely mind blowing, the photographer really put me at ease and made it so much fun. It was so nice just to let loose and really be myself for a bit; I'm not going to lie, the past few months have been rather difficult for me health wise so it was nice to just let my hair down and have some fun while wearing this absolutely spectacular red dress.

Not only that, the whole experience has made me feel better about myself. I wore the hell out of that dress and it has made me realise I can do anything. It made me realise that I can get the book written that has been in my head for the longest time, it made me realise that I shouldn't let the stress get to me so much. It made me realise that I should just do those things that I never thought I could do before, that I should just have fun, that there is no harm in me letting my hair down. And now I can send the dress on to another fabulous lady and make her feel as special as she really is!

I just wanted to say a massive thank you to Claire for sending me this spectacular gown, and really making my day; and to Jenny "The Bloggess" for coming up with this fabulous idea. I couldn't have done this without either of you.

Now, the travelling red dress is up for grabs. Please do contact me via email if interested. The dress is a UK size 12!

And now back to your regularly scheduled history blog posts......

Recently I have come across more and more people "shipping" Cesare and Lucrezia Borgia. That's fine, do whatever you want but when these people insist that they "ship" these characters because it's "historically accurate"? If I'm honest that's more than I can deal with. I've written about this subject before, and my absolute despair when anyone comes to me and says "OH WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? CESARE AND LUCREZIA WERE IN A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH EACH OTHER SO YOU'RE WRITING LIES ON YOUR BLOG!"

Lucrezia in Pintruccio's murals: The Borgia Apartments (picture taken by me)

I would just like to point out, that in the years I have spent researching the Borgia family I have never come across a shred of credible evidence to suggest that Cesare and Lucrezia were ever involved sexually. Oh, they were close. The whole family was close, you can tell that from the evidence that does exist and the letters between the siblings but saying they were involved incestuously is really a step too far. These rumours are probably the most lingering about the family along with the whole Cesare killing his brother thing (which also is anti-Borgia propaganda by the way, please do swing over to this post on Juan's death to find out why). And what do I blame for this? The anti-Borgia propaganda from those times, the fact that games such as Assassins Creed play up to these rumours and the fact that numerous television shows (Borgia for one - thankfully The Borgias hasn't crossed that line yet) and Borgia novels (The Borgia Bride has a rather disturbing incestuous scene between Pope Alexander and his daughter). The problem is that this will make people believe the rumours are true and will just mean that the propaganda keeps being passed around - the vilification of this family needs to stop. Because they really weren't all that bad. Ok, so they weren't all kittens and rainbows but they certainly were not as inherently evil as many still make out.

Francois Arnaud and Holliday Grainger as Cesare and Lucrezia in "The Borgias"

So, where did the rumours come from?

The answer is really very simple. In 1493, Lucrezia married Giovanni Sforza - it was a marriage of politics, Pope Alexander VI believed that having the Sforza's as his allies would help him in his political endeavours and it was a way of thanking the Sforza family for their help in electing him as pope. However, Pope Alexander soon grew tired of the Borgia/Sforza alliance, it was doing nothing for him politically and he needed more powerful allies. Annulment proceedings began and of course, Giovanni Sforza refused. Lucrezia was sent to a convent, and it is said that Giovanni begged the Pope to have his wife returned to him. Alexander refused on the basis that the marriage had never been consummated.

Ronan Vibert as Giovanni Sforza in "The Borgias"

When Sforza was asked whether this was true he replied that no, he had known Lucrezia an infinite number of times. And that the only reason the Pope wanted the marriage annulled was so he could have her to himself.

Because he wanted her for himself.

And the rumours stuck. Giovanni Sforza, enraged at being made out to be impotent spread the rumours that his now ex-wife was involved incestuously with her own father and brother. These rumours would stay with Lucrezia for the duration of her life.

But can we put any faith in these stories? Can we believe the stories that so often get told in television, video games and novels even now? Quite frankly, no. The entire incest rumour is based on one man who disliked the way the annulment of his marriage was conducted and the lies about him being impotent. It helped that Lucrezia and Cesare were incredibly close, that Cesare loved her and was so loyal to her that many began to believe that they had crossed the line. His love for his sister and his jealousy even lead him to commit murder. But did that mean they were involved sexually? No. Cesare loved his sister, that much is certain and he never looked on other women the way he saw Lucrezia. But the rumours of incest are completely unjustified and have to be looked on with scepticism. As Bradford says in her biography of Lucrezia:

"Cesare was the evil genius of Lucrezia's life: their love and loyalty to each other was such that he, like his father, would be accused of incest with her; even that his obsessive love for her led him to commit murder. Accusations f incest at the time have to be viewed with a degree of scepticism: sexual innuendo was a favourite ingredient of Italian gossip"

Yet I know that I will keep coming across the whole Cesare Lucrezia incest thing. It saddens me deeply to think that people are still intent on vilifying this family and believing the anti-Borgia propaganda that still circulates. But until I am presented with credible evidence that this happened (and by credible I mean actual historic documents stating this happened; not some piece of historical fiction or TV show) then I will continue to fight the whole Borgia incest idea.

Further Reading

Sarah Bradford - Lucrezia Borgia: Life, Love and Death in Renaissance Italy

Sarah Bradford - Cesare Borgia: His Life and Times

Christopher Hibbert - The Borgias and Their Enemies

Mary Hollingsworth - The Borgias: History's Most Notorious Dynasty

Paul Strathern - The Artist, The Philosopher and The Warrior

Raphael Sabatini - The Life of Cesare Borgia

I've always wanted to write a book and when I was younger I would often write little stories. Looking back, they were kind of rubbish but even back then I was telling myself that one day I would write a book that people would read. More recently I've found myself getting smacked in the face over and over again with ideas for novels some of which I've dismissed right off the bat and others which have been written down in my little note book in the hope I'll come back to it later. But then, a couple of weeks ago I was hit with an idea that just wouldn't go away.

And I knew I had to write it.

And so, the idea for my first ever novel was born. Some of you may have seen on my twitter that I've been spending a lot of time talking about Girolamo Savonarola, quoting some of his sermons and tweeting facts about his life (and, rather morbidly, his death) and the reason for this is that I've been spending rather a lot of time researching the mans life. Why? Because Savonarola and his life are the subject of the book I have started to write.

It's my aim to be as accurate as I possibly can when telling his story, but of course there will be parts of it that are fictional. It's a historical fiction work after all. But at the same time I'll be telling Savonarola's story, having him doing what we was doing, predicting the death of various tyrants, his arguments with Pope Alexander VI, his hatred of the vices that plagued Florence, his bonfire of the Vanities, his arrest, his torture and his death. Let's face it, his life is so interesting and I wouldn't really want to make up anything extra because he did so much exciting stuff. His story is exciting enough without adding a ton of embellishments.

I'm not all that far into his story yet, but I am working away on it and writing whenever I can. It's thoroughly enjoyable and the words are just spilling out onto the page right now - I don't think I've ever been able to write anything with such enthusiasm and it's amazing. Not only is the writing exciting me, but the research too so much so that I am planning a trip to Florence so I can see the places where he lived, worked and died. All in the name of research of course.

I'll be updating here with my progress and I'll be adding a link onto my sidebar about it over the next few weeks or so. Please do keep your eyes peeled, and wish me luck!

This evening I sat myself down with a large glass of pink lemonade, and curled up to watch Los Borgia. I've been a fan of The Borgias pretty much ever since it first started and although I love the series more than anything the lack of historical accuracy in the series has been known to make me rage and scream at my television. For instance, in season 2 of The Borgias you see Juan Borgia at the Siege of Forli - now, the siege of Forli happened in 1499 when Juan had been dead for two years, and it was Cesare who commanded the armies and who took Caterina Sforza prisoner. Oh, and Caterina didn't do the whole "ten more sons" thing at the siege in 1499 either, she apparently said it in 1488 after the death of her first husband Girolamo Riario. Both series 1 and 2 tend to do this, and the mistakes in the historiography are just too many to count. Now, I know it's a drama series and made to give that dramatic kick in the balls to make the whole thing seem much more exciting but honestly, the story of the Borgia family really doesn't need any fabrication or stuff changing around.

Now then, when I first heard about Los Borgia I was a little put off as it is entirely in Spanish. However, having sat down and watched it I am so, so glad I did. I will start by saying that the casting was almost perfect. The young man who played Cesare, Sergio Peris-Mencheta, was nigh on perfect and really captured the essence of Cesare Borgia. As the programme went on you saw him change from a young man who didn't want to wear cardinals robes to a man growing into his role as soldier and general, his obsession with glory. Each and every actor or actress brought something to their characters that made you feel something for the character - I adored Lucrezia and her innocence, Juan was ambitious and arrogant as I imagined him in history, Caterina Sforza was like a tigress. To me, the cast was almost flawless.

What was even better was that the script kept as close to the history as it could. Alright so there were things that had to be glossed over or missed out due to the 2 hour timescale, but they showed each and every one of Lucrezia's marriages (with none of these ridiculous random suitors like in The Borgias) and Alfonso of Aragon was actually the correct guy in this one (in The Borgias, Sancia's brother gets horrifically murdered by Charles VIII and Alfonso D'Aragona ends up being someone completely different when in reality he was actually Sancia's brother), Juan isn't shown as stabbed and chucked in the Tiber by his brother - rather you see him ride away with a masked man and then found in the river the next day, The Siege of Forli is shown with the correct brother heading the army and at the correct time and the script made it clear that the rumours saying Juan was killed by Cesare were rumours; and made sure that the audience knew the incest thing is based on vile rumour also. As well as this, I thought they dealt with Cesare's death exceptionally well, sticking as close to what actually happened as they possibly could - he ended up alone, dressed in light armour, and was ambushed. He was stabbed from all sides and then stripped and left naked and bleeding. The men who killed Cesare had no idea it was actually him, until Cesare's squire was shown his armour and the young lad burst into tears. The script dealt with his death really well, and the show finished with a shot of Cesare lying dead, pierced by spears and holding a necklace given to him by his sister. Brilliant cinematography that had me reaching for the tissues.

If you are interested in the Borgia family and want to watch a television show about them that is a lot more historically accurate and less dramatised than The Borgias (which I do adore by the way), then I would wholeheartedly recommend Los Borgia.

And now for some screencaps. Enjoy!

Cesare

Cesare, Jofre, Lucrezia and Juan

Cesare sparring with Micheletto

Cesare and Juan eyeing up Sancia

Juan, about to go off and be a rubbish soldier

Lucrezia and Cesare

Cesare with the body of Juan's groom, who was stabbed on his way to fetch Juan's armour

The body of Juan Borgia, 2nd Duke of Gandia

Pope Alexander VI and Lucrezia

Lucrezia

Cesare's sword was inscribed with the words Caesar Aut Nihil which meant "Caesar Or Nothing"

Cesare and his sword

Cesare, about to head off and be an awesome soldier

Lucrezia giving her brother a helmet

The Pope, about to be handed letters infused with Cantarella from Caterina Sforza. In reality, these letters had been infused with the plague.

Cesare, being an awesome soldier

Caterina Sforza defending Forli

Cesare and Lucrezia

The Pope

The funeral of Alfonso D'Aragona

Vanozza Cattanei

Lucrezia basically telling Cesare to go away because he killed her husband

Cesare suffering from the same illness that killed his father, and Lucrezia (who is in Ferrara) all worried

The death of Alexander VI

Pope Julius II

Cesare looking across the hills of Navarre, Spain

Cesare is said to have worn this mask to disguise the deformities on his face from syphillis

Cesare and his young groom

Cesare and his groom

Taking on the soldiers, ON HIS OWN

Stabbed

The death of Cesare Borgia, Duke of Valentinois and Duke of the Romagna

Today in 1600, a young prince was born to King James I and his wife Anne of Denmark. This prince, the couple's second son, would go on to become one the most famous monarchs that England had ever known - King Charles I. He would go on to declare war on Parliament in 1642 and would eventually be executed for treason on 30th January 1649. Charles has long fascinated me and during my University days I spent much of my time researching the English Civil War and the role that the Royalist army played, eventually concentrating solely on the Battle of Cheriton in 1644. For my sins I was also a part of the Sealed Knot and "fought" for the Royalist regiment, Henry Tilliers Regiment of Foote.

Charles I is an interesting character in many respects, not only for his role in the English Civil War. He was never supposed to become King in the first place, that was the role meant for his elder brother Henry Stuart. Sadly though, Henry died in 1612 and the young Duke of York became heir to the throne. Poor little Charles wasn't exactly the most healthy child, he was sickly and had problems walking, and apparently had a speech impediment too. He had spent his childhood in the shadow of his brother Henry, who he loved and tried his best to emulate but unfortunately as a child could never really live up to his brother. In fact, little Charles did not start walking properly until he was at least four years old thanks to the weakness in his legs. At the age of 16 it is recorded that he suffered from "green sickness", a rather odd illness for an adolescent young man to suffer from as it was normally said to affect young ladies! However by the time he reached his early 20's he seems to have left most of his physical illnesses behind although he apparently never really had the intellectual capacity of other young men of his age.

Charles also became bosom friends with his fathers supposed paramour George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. In George, Charles found a surrogate older brother who encouraged Charles to start looking at women (and noticed that Charles was very slow on the uptake with romance!), and even took the young heir incognito to Spain to woo the Spanish Infanta. When James I died in 1625, Charles married Henrietta Maria if France yet held Villiers above her in his affections. It wasn't until Villiers was assassinated in 1628 that Charles began to take decent notice of his wife and the two of them ended up falling head over heels in love with each other.

Charles never really had a very good relationship with parliament, and ended up taking personal rule of the country from 1629. The next eleven years were known by parliamentarian supporters as the "eleven years tyranny". In 1640, Charles recalled parliament - he needed money to fight the second bishops war. Less than a month later, this parliament was dissolved by Charles because he wasn't going to listen to their ideas for reform. In November that year, Charles again called Parliament, again needing more money and this became known as the Long Parliament. In this one, tensions soon rose when Parliament wanted to impeach various members of the court and they also passed an act to prevent the King from dissolving parliament. In March 1641 they impeached Lord Stafford and he was placed on trial for High Treason. Charles however refused to sign the bill of Attainder but in parliament this bill went unopposed and Charles signed the bill in fear for his family's safety. Stafford was executed. In May of the same year parliament made ship money and various forms of taxation illegal - all of which had proven unpopular when the King had forced these taxes previously.

All of this lead to Charles and Parliament fighting for control - Charles believed that as King of England he should have control, Parliament believed that the King should work with them or not at all. Charles then tried to have five prominent members of parliament arrested on 4th January 1642 when he tried to take parliament by force of arms. The five men had already left. And this was the beginning of the end for Charles Stuart - Parliament seized London and in January 1642, Charles fled London.

Civil War was declared in August 1642 and Charles raised an army. Parliament did the same and it lead to a bitter 7 year period of fighting. The best known part of the civil war lasted until 1646 when Charles was arrested and imprisoned by Parliament. The second civil war was fought in 1648-9, finishing with the execution of King Charles I in January 1649 and the third civil war lasted from 1649-51 and was fought between parliament and supporters of Charles II. Following Charles I's execution in 1649, the country was run by Oliver Cromwell and the interregnum lasted until the death of Cromwell and the failure of his son Richard - leading to the Restoration of Charles I's son Charles II as monarch.

If I'm honest, the life of Charles I deserves much much more than this super brief overview. His life was really very interesting and he did so much in his reign - not all of it clever! Though that seems to be a bit of a pattern with Stuart monarchs (maybe that's why I'm so fascinated with them, really they just seemed to make life difficult for themselves). One of these days I'll do a series of posts on this most fascinating monarch, but I hope this overview has given you all something to mull over. And to finish off - Happy Birthday Charles I!

Further Reading

Frederick Holmes - The Sickly Stuarts
Dianne Purkiss - The English Civil war: A People's History
Katie Whitaker - A Royal Passion
C.V Wedgwood - A King Condemned
Tristram Hunt - The English Civil War At First Hand
David Starkey & Christopher Hibbert - Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason

Giuliano de Medici by Sandro Botticelli

On 26th April 1478 the ruler of Florence Lorenzo de Medici made his way through his city to the grand Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore - more commonly known as The Duomo thanks to the great dome that topped the imposing structure. Lorenzo de Medici, known to almost everyone as Il Magnifico, ruled the city of Florence but not as a king; rather he insisted that he be called a simple citizen of Florence. Despite this though he was involved in the politics of the city, and nothing happened without his say so. Lorenzo himself really did live up to the name of Il Magnifico; he had taken over the reigns of power from his father Piero in 1470 and was a great patron of the arts - so much so that he ended up taking artists under his wing including Leonardo Da Vinci and the brilliant Michelangelo. He also made sure that the city was alive with parties and festivals. Topping this off, Lorenzo himself was an excellent poet, musician and swordsman with a love of philosophy and women - he wasn't exactly the best looking of men, but according to many of his biographers there was something about him that made him attractive to men and women alike.

Bust of Lorenzo de Medici by Verroccio

The reason for his trip to the Duomo that day was the Easter Sunday service, and hundreds of Florentine citizens also flocked to the great cathedral including possibly a very young Niccolo Machiavelli and his family. Little were these people to know that they were about to watch one of the greatest conspiracies in Florentine history unfold before their very eyes.

Lorenzo's younger brother Giuliano had tried to make his excuses to not attend the service that day. He blamed ill health, and really his excuses should have held some sway as he suffered from a particularly nasty form of sciatica. But two of his friends, Francesco de Pazzi and Bernardo Bandini had insisted he come along and had even gone as far as helping him get out of the house and helping him to walk to the Duomo. What Giuliano did not know was that Francesco and Bernardo had done this deliberately - they had been planning this for months. And the younger Medici should have stayed in bed that day.

What was about to unfold would go down i history as the Pazzi conspiracy. The Pazzi family had long been living under the thumb of the Medici, both were ancient families and both were banking families but the Pazzi had begun to believe that it was about time the Medici were ousted from power, that their own family deserved some of the glory. The plot had originally been hatched in Rome, after Pope Sixtus had asked Lorenzo de Medici for a loan of 40,000 ducats so he could buy the city of Imola for his nephew Girolamo Riaro. Lorenzo had refused - it was a large sum of money that really his failing bank couldn't afford (Lorenzo hadn't really given much interest to the Medici bank) but not only that, he had hoped to buy Imola for Florence. Lending the Pope the money so it could fall into the hands of papal supporters wasn't exactly what Lorenzo had in mind. Pope Sixtus was furious, and so went to the Medici's rival bank for the funds. The Pazzi bank immediately granted the Pope his money, Sixtus gave Imola to his nephew and the Pazzi now had control of the Curia accounts. Relations between the Pope and the Medici grew even more strained when the Pope tried to oust Niccolo Vitelli from the town of Citta di Castello - this little town had been brought for Florence by Lorenzo's grandfather Cosimo and when Lorenzo raised a small army to help Vitelli, the Pope was seriously offended. War was barely averted. Lorenzo then offended the Pope even more by refusing to allow the Papal choice of archbishop for Florence into the city, and by starting an alliance between Florence, Venice and Milan which the Pope thought was aimed at himself. By the time 1477 rolled around there were a number of men in Rome who wanted to see the end of the Medici in Florence - Girolamo Riaro was one of them, Francesco Salviati (the archbishop who hadn't been allowed into Florence) and Francesco de Pazzi who believed it was time the Pazzi took power.

Francesco de Pazzi then took the ideas for the coup d'etat to his relative, Jacopo de Pazzi of Florence. Jacopo was an old man and incredibly tight fisted when it came to money, but when Francesco approached him he said that the whole idea wouldn't work. He was also reluctant to show his support because one of his nephews was Lorenzo de Medici's brother in law. To convince Jacopo, Francesco decided to garner military support. And when Jacopo recruited a well known condottiero, Gian Battista de Montesecco, to the cause it seems all was on track. Unfortunately as this condottiero was also in the employ of the Pope, he said he couldn't do anything without papal support. Francesco convinced the man he was working for the good of the papacy and the condottiero agreed to help as long as they had the pope's blessing. This was duly given by the Pope:

"I do not wish the death of anyone on any account since it does not accord with our office to consent with such a thing. Though Lorenzo is a villain, and behaves ill towards us, yet we do not on any account desire his death, but only a change in the government."

Despite the fact that the Pope had said he did not desire any blood shed, the men left the audience convinced that Sixtus would consent to the murder of the Medici if they deemed murder necessary. Montesecco then rode to the Romagna to raise his troops before heading to Florence to speak with Jacopo. When Montesecco told Jacopo of the Pope's consent his mood towards the whole thing changed, and he agreed to help. The plot was then hatched. To start with, it was decided that they would invite Lorenzo to Rome and kill him and his brother there. But when Lorenzo headed to Rome, his brother wasn't with him due to his ill health. The plot was postponed.

It was then decided that the assassination would happen in Florence. Cardinal Raphael Riario had asked Lorenzo if he might be able to see the famous Medici treasures he had heard so much about, even going as far as to say he would be in Florence the following Sunday - he would combine his visit to the Palazzo Medici with High Mass at the Cathedral. When Lorenzo agreed and began plans to throw his distinguished guest a sumptuous banquet, plans for the murders began to take shape. It was decided that the time and the place would be during Mass at the Santa Maria del Fiore, as the brothers would be together at such an occasion. Monstesecco began to get cold feet and said his conscience would not allow him to kill the men in a place where God could see him, so instead the conspirators brought in two anti-Medici priests who were more than happy to help. They agreed on a signal, as the bell rang to signal the elevation of the Host they would strike. It would provide the best opportunity as everyone would be busy praying, they could dispatch their victims and get out quickly.

Unfortunately for the conspirators, it didn't go quite to plan.

As Giuliano was accompanied to the Cathedral by Francesco and Bernardo, Francesco hugged Giuliano in a friendly manner (a cover to frisk for weapons), and they continued on amicably. As they reached their destination, Giuliano took his place by the door of the Cathedral (he was too late to take his place at the front) and Lorenzo was already in place by the altar. Mass begins and the congregation falls silent and as the priest raises the host and the bell rings, all hell breaks lose in the cathedral. By the door, Bernardo Baroncellui had shouted "TAKE THAT, TRAITOR!" and stabbed Giuliano hard in the head. Francesco de Pazzi had then stabbed Giuliano over and over in a frenzy, and managed to stab himself in his leg as he was doing so. Giuliano fell to his knees as Francesco kept stabbing him, before he fell down dead with nineteen stab wounds. By the altar, the two priests who had been brought in at the last minute drew their daggers. One of them placed a hand on Lorenzo's shoulder as if to steady himself (a bit of a silly move really) and as the priest moved to stab Lorenzo in the back, Lorenzo turned around. Realising what was happening he jumped back, the blade only lightly wounding his neck. He then drew his sword and used his cloak as a shield before escaping into the sacristy.

As all hell broke lose in the cathedral, and following Giuliano's murder, many of the killers melted away into the crowds. Salviati had meanwhile managed to get an audience with the signoria, saying he had a message from the Pope. But the archbishop was nervous, and Petrucci (the gonfaloniere) called the guards after a couple of minutes having been made suspicious. Salviati then fled the Signoria, shouting that the time to strike had come. As in the Duomo, all hell broke lose in the Signoria but the massive bell began to ring , calling the citizens to the main square. Members of the Pazzi family tried to shout for support with their cries of "Liberta!" but when no support arrived, they filtered away.

News of Giuliano's murder had by now reached the Signoria. And in swift, decisive reprisals, the Signoria threw a rope around Salviati's neck and chucked him out of one of the Signoria windows. They did the same to others who had tried to take over the Signoria. Francesco de Pazzi had escaped to the family home, but was dragged out still bleeding from his thigh and stripped naked. He too was hung from a window. The citizens of Florence raced to the Palazzo Medici and demanded to see Lorenzo, who stood at a window with a bandage around his neck. He begged the people to calm down, and not attack those who they merely suspected of murder. It was more important for them to help catch the real villains. The people took no notice though and rampaged through the streets, picking people at random who they wanted to have been involved and murdering them.

Reprisals did however come to those who had been involved. Jacopo de Pazzi escaped but was brought back to Florence where he was tortured and hung out of one of the signoria windows. He was buried in the church of Santa Croce but not long afterwards he was removed from his tomb and dragged through the streets, his body was then thrown into the Arno, fished out and hung over a tree where children beat the body before throwing him back into the river. The two priests were found hiding, and were arrested. They were then castrated and hanged. Renato de Pazzi, although his part in the ordeal was never truly established was also hanged. Other members of the Pazzi family were sentenced to life imprisonment. Montesecco was the last to be caught - he was tortured and he gave his torturers a very detailed account of the whole conspiracy before he was beheaded. Baroncelli did manage to escape and made it to Constantinople before being recognised. He was brought back to Florence in chains and duly executed.

As a lasting reminder of the conspiracy and what happened to those who had tried to murder the Medici, Lorenzo ordered an artistic representation be made of the whole ordeal. Sandro Boticelli was drafted in to create a huge mural which would show eight portraits of the leading conspirators. Those who had been caught would be painted with ropes around their necks, while Baroncelli (who at that point was still at large), was to be painted hung upside down hanging by his foot. And underneath each portrait, Boticelli would paint a short, mocking verse. Six months later, at the request of Pope Sixtus, the portrait of Salviati was obliterated. When Baroncelli was eventually caught and brought back to Florence, Leonardo Da Vinci was drafted in to repaint the mans portrait. Leonardo even did sketched of Baroncelli hanging in his famous notebooks. All Pazzi arms were also ordered to be removed from buildings and their property confiscated and no man who had married a Pazzi was ever again allowed to hold public office. The family had been completely and utterly disgraced, and the city of Florence would forever remember that the Pazzi family had been the ones who tried, and failed, to bring down the Medici family.

Drawing of Baroncelli by Leonardo Da Vinci

Further Reading

Paul Strathern - The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance

Christopher Hibbert - The Rise and Fall of the House of Medici

Paul Strathern - Death in Florence

Paul Oppenheimer - Machiavelli: A Life Beyond Ideology

I picked this book up on a bit of a whim when I was off sick from work. I'd had a really rough couple of weeks and needed cheering up. Plus, I adore Paul Strathern's work on the Medici and thought his book on Cesare Borgia, Leonardo Da Vinci and Niccolo Machiavelli was top notch. When I saw this beauty on Amazon for less than a tenner I knew I just had to have it. I have to say that this book has also proven to be a rather excellent bible when it has come to working on my book. But anyway, I digress. I should be reviewing this book and not gushing about how it's been awesome for my own research.

Anyway, from the moment this tome of a book arrived I devoured it. The book, in a nutshell, tells the story of Girolamo Savonarola - right from his early years up until his rather grisly death. Mixed in with that you have the stories of Lorenzo de Medici's death, Piero de Medici's flight from Florence (he never returned) and Charles VIII and his relationship with the Dominican friar. Right from the first sentence I was hooked, Strathern's writing style certainly doesn't fail to disappoint. He writes with an amazing fluidity and tells these most fascinating stories in an exceptional manner yet retaining that academic manner that makes his books so readable.

What surprised me when I was reading this was how much was going on in the background of Savonarola's life, and how his life was so interconnected with the politics of the day. For instance, Girolamo decided to become a friar at a time when Ferrara was going to war with other Italian states. He also paid exceedingly close attention to Charles VIII of France and his invasion of Italy, even going as far as to meet up with Charles and convince the deformed little man that he would be the scourge of Italy. Sadly, Charles let him down and didn't prove that he would be the "New Cyrus" but Savonarola also kept abreast of political goings on in Florence and also had a close say in the new government after Piero de Medici's flight. And Strathern did a wonderful job of interweaving everything so the story ran smoothly, it was so interesting reading how Savonarola's life and work mixed in with everything else that was going on. It really was such an intricate web of politics at that time that it could have been so easy to make the story dry and boring, but Strathern did a really good job of telling the stories in an engaging manner.

Superbly written and engaging, I don't want to go into too much detail as you really need to read this book to understand that it really is a masterpiece. I'll say it til the cows come home, Paul Strathern is one of my favourite Renaissance historians (next to Christopher Hibbert) and he's just fantastic. Of course his works aren't perfect, but this one is as close to perfect as you can get. Highly recommended to anyone interested in the history of Renaissance Italy and in particularly, Renaissance Florence.

I've had this sitting on my shelf for a while and never really gotten around to reading it until now. Honestly, I wish I'd sat down and read it before because this book is an absolute masterpiece. But first a little bit of background. The author of this work is one Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine diplomat and politician from the fifteenth century, born in 1469 and contemporary to such Renaissance greats as Lorenzo de Medici, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (more on him soon!) and Cesare Borgia. The Prince is a political treatise written by Machiavelli in around 1513 after his imprisonment and torture, which he began when he went into retirement at his farm near San Casciano. Shortly after his retirement here, in around 1520 he was commissioned to write a history of Florence by Cardinal Giovanni de Medici (later Pope Leo X) which was finished in 1525. Machiavelli died shortly after this, after a very brief return to public life, in 1527.

And so to this extraordinary work. I will be clear from the outset, The Prince is certainly not all kittens and rainbows. Far from it. It is in fact an essay on how a Prince should act to gain loyalty and keep it. He lists all the good points that Prince must have to gain his loyalty but then turns around and gives a list of points when a Prince must resort to cruelty to keep said loyalty; and he gives examples of both past and present (at least his contemporary) rulers and princes to back these points up. When this treatise was published (at least in the Penguin Classics version) it includes a letter of dedication to Lorenzo De Medici, aka "Il Magnifico" which states that:

"So, Your Magnificence, take this little gift in the spirit of which I send it; and if you read and consider it diligently, you will discover in it my urgent wish that you reach the eminence that fortune and your other qualities promise you."

When I read the Penguin Classics copy, I wondered how on earth Lorenzo could have dedicated the book to Lorenzo. Lorenzo de Medici when the man died in 1492. This comes across as a printing mistake, and it is more likely that Machiavelli dedicated it to Lorenzo de Piero de Medici, Pope Leo X's nephew and grandson of Lorenzo the Magnifence.

The book itself, as previously mentioned is his summary of how Princes can gain and keep their power. And the great thing about this book is that Machiavelli bases his treatise on first hand experience. Many of his contemporary examples come from men who he has met in his own life and there is one man who crops up time and time again:

Cesare Borgia.

Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI, would have been a well known entity to Machiavelli. During his life time, Machiavelli met and dealt with Cesare on many occasions and, it seems to me at the very least, held a hell of a lot of respect for Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli mentions Cesare at many points during his work and uses his example to justify his points. And throughout his work he makes the point that it is better for a man to be a risk taker to gain popularity, and also that if popularity is not gained then he should be a risk taker to remain respect. Cesare is used throughout the work to make this point.

"I will never fear to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. The duke entered Romagna with auxiliary arms, leading wholly French troops, and with these he took Imola and Forlì. But, such arms not seeming secure to him, he turned to the mercenary ones, judging that there be less danger in them, and engaged both the Orsini and the Vitelli. Later, managing and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he extinguished them and turned to his own. And one can easily see the difference between these arms, considering the difference between the duke's reputation, when he had only the French and when he had Orsini and Vitelli, and when he was left with his own soldiers and on his own: and always one will find it increased; never was he so esteemed as when everyone saw that he was the total owner of his arms"

Throughout the book you get constant mentions of Cesare and the method of "criminal virtue" that he used to gain his power. Alas, Machiavelli also mentions that Cesare - despite his brilliant methods of gaining and keeping power (such as taking the towns of the Romagna and taking power easily because the people hating their leaders) - failed because of a few very simple reasons; the death of his father Pope Alexander VI, and his trusting in the new Pope Julius II. Such a shame, had Cesare not trusted in Julis then he could have gone on and ruled the Romagna. Alas, his failure lead to his imprisonment and eventual death.

Of course, Machiavelli doesn't always use Cesare's example. Just most of the time. He also uses examples of other Italian rulers such as Caterina Sforza and also rulers from history - listing in turn what they did right and the methods that made them fall. And as I said earlier, he doesn't make it all kittens and rainbows. Oh no, he is really quite blunt with his conclusions. And for that I love him.

There is one other thing I want to mention before I wrap this review up - Machiavelli's "Prince" really did away with the morality of the time and pretty much gave instructions to those from his own time (and ours) of how to gain absolute power. Because of this, the man came to be thought of an an instrument of the devil. When you hear the phrase "Machiavellian tragedy" from Jacobean drama, this is what it points to - someone who endeavours to take absolute power, and because of this the man (despite his brilliance) was for a very long time regarded as an agent of the devil. Reading it myself however, I wonder why people thought this of him because his work makes a lot of sense to me - he recognised the complicated nature of the political life of the time and realised that life wasn't all kittens and rainbows. Machiavelli certainly was a man before his time, and I defy anyone to read this and reject his statements as his words reflect even to our present life.

The man was a genius, despite his own flaws, and his works should in my opinion be read by every one. It really is a masterpiece and a must read for anyone interest in the political happenings of Renaissance Italy.

As I sit here this morning, I am feeling rather sorry for myself. For the past two days I've been off work with a nasty sicky bug and so am sat here wrapped up in my PJs with a massive mug of tea. It's not helping much and I feel like I should still be hugging the bowl I was hugging for the entirety of yesterday. Now, I realise that's really too much information but it has a point. As I was curled up on the sofa last night, hugging my bowl and running off to the toilet every so often to make best friends with it, I decided to finish watching Borgia. Before I started watching this series, I will admit I was a little put off by some of the reviews I'd read and the things people told me - "don't watch it Sam, it's really inaccurate", "It has Cesare and Lucrezia incest". I wish I had gone into watching the series with my eyes open as when I started watching it, I really wanted to hate it. However, after a few episodes it really did begin to grow on me and a few episodes after that I really started to enjoy it.

So, Borgia itself is a French/German production that was shown in 2011 on Channel + and stars Mark Ryder as Cesare Borgia, Stanley Weber as Juan Borgia, Isolde Dychauk as Lucrezia Borgia and John Doman as Rodrigo Borgia. The story itself is, of course obvious - it is the story of the Borgia family, from Rodrigo Borgia's election to the Papacy in 1492 and onwards (I hope in future series) to the Pope's death and Cesare's own imprisonment and death. When I first began to watch the series I was a little unsure about the casting of the show, and the first thing that really got to me was the huge mix of accents - Rodrigo was American, Cesare was English (with the odd lilt of Irish coming through), Lucrezia German and Juan was French. It was kind of off putting for a while, but a few episodes in I was able to look past it. Other than this though, after a few episodes as well I found myself really liking some of the characters and really hating others - as you would expect in such a television programme. I had exactly the same issue when I watched The Borgias and Los Borgia, and I think when actors manage to make their viewers love the characters or hate them to such an extreme, then they are doing a good job.

Mark Ryder as Cesare

Mark Ryder is the young man playing Cesare Borgia (and I'm allowed to say young because I'm a little bit older than him!) and right from the get go you can really see that Ryder has done his utmost to step into Cesare's shoes and get right into the man's psyche. A consequent conversation with Mark Ryder on twitter the other evening lead to a discussion on books about Cesare which was awesome. Anyway, even in the first episode you can see the extreme emotions that haunt Cesare - one moment he can be having a laugh and the next he can be in a murderous rage, and these extremes get even worse as the series goes on, finishing up in Cesare committing murder right in front of his father and the college of Cardinal's and claiming that his name will echo throughout history and shouting that he is "CESARE BORGIA!" whilst just moments before he had been in floods of tears with his sister. In history, Cesare was well known for these extremes of emotion, I thought that Ryder did a really excellent job of showing this side of Borgia's personality.

Isolde Dychauk as Lucrezia

Lucrezia is played by Isolde Dychauk. The character of Lucrezia in this was one that I started out really disliking, probably because her parts of the story were really quite inaccurate. Saying that though, by the end of the series I had begun to like her - you see Lucrezia go from this innocent young girl to a woman with her own thoughts and minds, to a woman who will do anything to protect her family. Although her story was hugely inaccurate, I really loved how the script showed her change. Plus, when you compare Isolde to the representation of Lucrezia in Pintruccio's murals, they really did a very good job in casting her.

Marta Gastini as Giulia Farnese

The character of Giulia Farnese is the character who I probably hated the most in the whole series and right from the get go. Played by Marta Gastini, Giulia was shown as a nasty, manipulative little girl who came across as obsessed with keeping Pope Alexander to herself. In all of my reading on the Borgia family, I have come across very little on Giulia but what I did read pointed out that Giulia was actually quite a nice person and friends with Lucrezia. I have also never ready that Giulia used Pantisilea to try and manipulate Lucrezia and gain more love from Rodrigo. However Gastini did a really good job as coming across as nasty and manipulative and even though I despised her character, it takes a really good actress to make a viewer hate them quite that much.

John Bradley as Giovanni de Medici

Cardinal Giovanni de Medici played by John Bradley (Sam Tarley in Game of Thrones). I loved this casting from the outset. Giovanni de Medici was the son of Lorenzo the Magnificent and made a cardinal in 1492 and was known as a man who loved the pleasures of the table. Top notch casting here, and Bradley is a top notch actor too!

Mark Ryder as Cesare and Stanley Weber as Juan

Played by French actor Stanley Weber, I absolutely despised Juan Borgia in this adaptation. And I really think I was supposed to. Whereas in The Borgias I felt quite sorry for Juan, in Borgia I hated the man with a passion and thought he was the world's biggest derp. And it was awesome. Why? Because in history, Juan Borgia 2nd Duke of Gandia was a massive derp and a bit of a failure. There is no doubt that Cesare was the better man that he, and that if anyone should have been the one in Cardinal's robes, it was Juan. However, the series dealt with Juan's death really very well and (almost) sticks to the facts - you see him ride off in search of further pleasures with another man; and he is never seen again. His horse returns with the saddles cut, and a search begins in earnest. When they find his body floating in the Tiber with 9 stabs wounds and a slit throat, Pope Alexander flies into a paroxysm of grief and investigations begin into who killed Juan. Alright so in history we won't ever know who killed Juan, but historical investigation shows that the most likely candidate was the Orsini family who Juan really managed to piss off. It wasn't likely to have been Cesare but rumours abounded due to the apparent jealousy between the siblings; and whilst I was rather pleased they did not show Cesare offing his brother I was a little shocked that they showed Lucrezia as the guilty party. Still, well done to Weber for getting into the character of Juan and in my opinion, doing a damned good job of it!

John Doman as Rodrigo Borgia and Isolde Dychauk as Lucrezia

The last character I want to discuss in a bit more detail is Rodrigo Borgia/Alexander VI played by John Doman. When I first started watching the series I was a little taken aback by their portrayal of Rodrigo, mainly because of the whole accent thing. But like with many of the other characters, I soon found myself really liking their portrayal of him. He certainly looks a lot more like Pope Alexander than Jeremy Irons (although I adore Jeremy Irons as Pope Alexander and he's become affectionately known as "Pope Irons"). Yet again, the extremes of emotion showed by Doman were second to none and I particularly loved his show of grief after the death of Juan - it was so well done that it almost moved me to tears.

The sets during the show were also top notch. I was particularly impressed with their depiction of the Sistine Chapel:

The Sistine Chapel

Having been to the Sistine Chapel I was really rather impressed in the set used here. They even got the ceiling correct, which in 1492 hadn't been worked on my Michelangelo, rather it was painted blue with stars. The detail shown in the chapel was just stupendous. In fact, the majority of the sets were done in such a way right down to the CGI of what Rome would have been like in 1492.

A brilliant CGI rendering of Rome as it would have been in 1492

The old basillica of St Peters, not the one that exists today

Beautiful set pieces

Alessandro Farnese at Orvieto

The churches and chapels were superbly done

Another brilliant CGI rendering of the approach to Rome

The Colosseum

Laocoon and His Sons - this wasn't excavated until much later (and Michelangelo was present) but I thought it interesting they put this in the show. And the copy of this amazing work is second to none!

Whilst the historical accuracy of parts of this series leaves a lot to be desired, I have to say that I am very pleased that they got the chronology of what happened mostly correct. Of course, you need to leave room for dramatic license and I can understand this there were a couple of parts that made me shake my head. First of all, and probably the biggest crunch for me was Cesare leaving his young son on a mountainside to die - dramatic license yes, but I have no idea where the writers got this idea from. Secondly, Cesare being raped by Marc Antonio Colonna. Well done yes, and done for dramatic license but again, I have no idea where they got this from. In my opinion, it added nothing to the story as this never happened. In the same way, although this is a tad more understandable, they have Juan's death in 1493. This actually happened in 1497. I can however understand why they have done this and at least they didn't have it happen after events that Juan was never at anyway. Such as the Siege of Forli which happened in 1498 - although The Borgias had it happen much earlier with Juan at the head of the army. Didn't happen. These little things however are easily able to be overlooked and I am really glad that I decided to watch this show. I was rather disappointed by the make-out session between Cesare and Lucrezia though - although the script makes it clear that this is based on rumours so they might as well prove everyone right. Thankfully it didn't go very far but I was cringing throughout that entire scene (and as you will know I have fought the NO BORGIA INCEST fight for a while, so anything that shows it just makes me go all fhjsdkhfjsdfhsdkfdsk).

Excellent casting, beautiful costumes and a story that tries as best it can to stick to the historiography. I will most definitely be watching Season 2 when it comes out. If you're interested in the Borgia family and looking at watching something on the family for a bit of drama, then I would highly recommend this. It's not perfect of course, but they give it a damned good go. 7/10.

Caterina Sforza Part 4 - 1488: The Death of Girolamo Riario

Caterina Sforza Part 5 - Ten More Sons.

Sir Peter Lely

Sir Walter Raleigh

Review - The Bad Popes by Russell Chamberlin

The Sistine Chapel Ceiling

"What Idiot Wrote A Letter?"

A Bit of Bloggy Stuff and Calling All Guest Posters.

The Expulsion of the Medici

We Will Remember Them

The Trial And Execution of Girolamo Savonarola

The Story Of The Travelling Red Dress

The Origins of the Borgia Incest Myth

Girolamo Savonarola - A Novel In The Making

Los Borgia

Happy Birthday Charles I

The Pazzi Conspiracy

Review: Death in Florence by Paul Strathern

The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli

Borgia Season 1