it rhymes

"may I never see the day when those who meet me do not call me empress."

[causedandcreated]

holiday gift list 2018

a cool sword

some new books

v e n g a n c e 

Oscar Wilde’s blessing before I fight the gods on my own

a nice pen would be cool

The Dark Academia Coat™

a reindeer outfit for my dog (a sweet little cockapoo)

the ability to speak ancient languages with ease. 

the actual spear of Achilles.

maybe some new shoes idk

[shewhoworshipscarlin]

Girdle, 1500, Upper Rhineland, Germany.

[ottomanladies]

Could you explain the rules of the harem? MC just confuses me too much, I'm happy I found your blog

Hello! This will be very long so I apologise in advance.

So, slaves could enter the harem as a gift from someone (a member of the Imperial family or a high-ranking statesman), or they could be bought from slave markets. Usually, the former were already educated and more refined than the latter. A princess or a statesman would never gift an illiterate girl or someone who doesn’t have any talents. Those slaves were presented to the Sultan right away because they had already received their training; their donor’s hope was that they would become a concubine of the sultan. If this didn’t happen, they would still be spared manual labour because of their higher training and education.

White slaves with blue eyes and blonde hair were considered the best of the best, so they were the most expensive. Dark-skinned slaves were usually destined to manual labour inside the harem, while white slaves would be educated to become potential concubines or servants of high-ranking women.

Anyway, slaves bought from the slave market were visited by midwives to check that they didn’t have any illnesses and that they were still virgins, as soon as they entered the harem. They were given a name, usually of Persian origin, and they would wear a piece of paper on their chest with their new name on it so that the others could learn it. They were thorougly educated by female teachers; they learned how to read, write and speak Turkish, they were taught on religion and the Qu’ran, they also learned how to embroider, how to dance, how to play an instrument– basically some kind of talent. In the late Ottoman empire, some of them even spoke foreign languages like French.

According to Postel, who wrote in the mid-sixteenth century, the slaves trained in the art of the needle were those who lacked the “beauty and grace” to rise to higher status. 

Note that at this point they hadn’t seen the sultan yet. Novices weren’t allowed to be in the sultan’s presence because they hadn’t been educated yet. Also, it was potentially dangerous since the harem staff didn’t know who these girls were. The highest-ranking official they would have seen was probably the Harem Stewardess.

Usually, sultans chose their concubines from the retinues of their mothers, which is why the Valide Sultan surrounded herself with the best and most beautiful girls in the harem.

From Mehmed II to Süleyman I, the harem was housed in the Old Palace, which the sultan would visit from time to time to see his mother, his consorts, his children and to look for new women as well. The Valide Sultan would organise entertainments for her son where she displayed the girls that, according to her, could attract his attention. Each one of those girls was carefully chosen by the Valide Sultan and her attendants on the account of beauty, manners and talents as well.

The chosen girl would be sent to Topkapi Palace to spend the night with the sultan. She would be accompanied by servants and if she was liked, she’d be temporarily housed in Topkapi, in the Hall of Maidens, so that the sultan could call her more easily.

A bedded concubine was called gözde and she was now important, as she was the new favourite of the sultan. She would be given gifts and better accomodations.

The story of the purple handkerchief is just a story, as confirmed by Hafsa Kadın, former consort of Mustafa II. The sultan would tell the Chief Black Eunuch which concubine he would like to spend the night with and he would, discreetly, inform said concubine so that she could prepare for the night.

A gözde would stay in Topkapi Palace until she became pregnant, after which time she would return to the Old Palace to prepare for the birth and where she would still reside with her child.

Luigi Bassano described the gözdes: “From these [young Christian girls] the Grand Turk chooses whoever pleases him the most, and keeps her separate for two months, and amuses himself with her as he pleases; if she becomes pregnant, he takes her as his consort, otherwise he marries her to one of his men”

As Peirce wrote: “To sum up, the career of a cariye might culminate in one of three ways: entry into the dynastic family as the mother of an Ottoman prince, promotion to one of the administrative offices of the harem institution, or manumission and entry into the Ottoman ruling elite as the wife of a male servant of the dynasty.”

If a concubine got pregnant, there were two paths for her: if she gave birth to a girl, she could still go back to the sultan’s bed. If she gave birth to a boy, her “sexual role” was now over. The rest of her life would be dedicated to the education and protection of her son.

The mother of a child was not called Sultan. Before the era of the Haseki, the title Sultan was reserved to Imperial princesses. She would still called Hatun but of course her rank would be much higher; her stipend would be raised, her rooms would be bigger, she would have more staff because she now had a child to rise. Contrary to what MC depicts, the Valide Sultan didn’t take the children away from their mothers; it was up to the concubines to raise their chilren. From time to time the Valide Sultan would check in, to make sure that everything went smoothly, and so would do the Sultan, during his visits to the Old Palace.

In the pre-haseki harem, the only titles were Hatun, Sultan for the imperial princesses (from Bayezid II onwards), and Valide Hatun for the mother of the sultan (but not always). There were no Kadın, Hanım, Ikbal, etc etc.

Hafsa may have been the first concubine to be bestowed upon the title of Sultan (thus making her a Valide Sultan, but it’s not certain whether she called herself like that or not), and then Hürrem, of course.

The career of an Ottoman consort during the Sultanate of Women can be summed up like this:

cariye: a slave, a woman without a status

gözde: a bedded concubine

hatun: mother of a child

haseki sultan: bestowed by the sultan at his discretion

valide sultan: queen mother, if her son ascends the throne

The harem after the Sultanate of Women was different, as there were different titles.

[lochiels]

On the 17th May 1536, George Boleyn was executed on a high scaffold on Tower Hill.

Anne and George had lots of opportunities to be close siblings, with George serving the King and Anne being queen-in-waiting and then queen. He produced two manuscripts for Anne: Les Epistres and The Ecclesiaste. They are exquisite and his dedication to her is beautiful, and very tongue-in-cheek. That short dedication gives us an insight into his personality and the siblings’ close relationship.

George was a man of real courage and conviction. He had his faults, but in his last days in the Tower he showed compassion for others when he worried about those he owed money to and those who owed him, and his scaffold speech is incredible. His warning to “trust not in the vanity of the world, and especially in the flatterings of the court, and the favour and treacheries of Fortune” is as true today as it was then. [x]

[roses--and--rue]

1850s-1860s archery outfit.

Look at the cut little pocket diary hanging from her belt!

[madamelamarquys]

Historical figures that need more love/attention: Emperor Justinian & Empress Theodora

                                                  {req}

[the-busy-ghost]

“The vigour shown by the queen, in endeavouring to resist her husband’s murderers and afterwards in hunting them down and securing their punishment, is not the only evidence that she was a woman of character. (…) Whether or not the Kingis Quair gives an historical version of the wooing or not, the marriage seems to have been of the happiest. The conjugal fidelity of the king is exceptional in early Stewart history, and he appears to have associated her with him in affairs of state. Thus, in 1428 she witnessed the documents concerned with the betrothal of Margaret and accompanied the king on his journey to Inverness. The same year the council-general required the successors of prelates and heirs of lay tenants to take oath to the queen as to the king. In January, 1435, the lords of the parliament promised to give their letters of retinence and fidelity to the queen and in the same month James refused to come to any settlement regarding the despatch of Margaret, till the queen had been consulted. More than once her mandate was accepted at the audit as warrant not only for payments but for the remission of customs.”

—

‘James I, King of Scots’, by E.W.M. Balfour-Melville, discussing the political position of Joan Beaufort as queen and her marriage. 

This book is quite an old one, and thus it seems worthwhile to qualify some of the statements. For example, Michael Brown’s biography of Joan’s husband discusses the political dimensions of both their marriage, and of ‘stalling’ in the marriage of Margaret. Fiona Downie, meanwhile, discusses the implications for Scottish queenship of James associating Joan with his political actions- this formed a partnership but also, as with Mary of Guelders and James II, stressed that the queen consort’s authority stemmed from the king’s and that in turn her presence deeply enhanced his own power. (This was also, Downie believes, apparent in Joan’s expenditure and their shared servants and so on). There is also the clear political implications of Joan’s actions during and after James’ murder. And, as Balfour-Melville points out, there was some argument over the evidence that the Kingis Quair provides, though he personally believes that it is ‘far from improbable’ that the narrative it gives is true (and Michael Brown and several others agree).

Nevertheless I think the author’s larger point still stands. The marriage of James and Joan, whether founded on politics or personality, was close in both terms, and their partnership was an interesting aspect of his rule, especially since it seems to have been affectionate. 

(Also this book is great on the detail front- lots of records of expenditure and servats and even a theorised itinerary for the king. They don’t make them like that any more).

[lochiels]

“Since women were legally barred from holding public office, their avenues of influence outside the home appear to have been largely restricted to any sway they may have held with their male relatives. Of those who might have been expected to achieve a measure of political influence, one looks first to the women of the Medici family, who enjoyed seigniory in Florence for most of the fifteenth century. In the personal communications of Contessina de’ Bardi, wife of Cosimo de’ Medici, we find a portrait of a doting wife and mother whose time was consumed by the day-to-day running of a large and prosperous household. Contessina was poorly educated and frequently dictated letters filled with details of illnesses, food, clothing , and child care advice for the edification of family members. There is never any indication that Contessina took an interest in politics, even though her husband was one the most influential men in Italy. — The same observation can be made regarding Clarice Orsini, the daughter of a wealthy Roman aristocrat, whom Lorenzo II Manifico married in 1469. Clarice did not share his enthusiasms, and, although the political and intellectual elite of the Florentine Renaissance gathered daily at the Medici palazzo, she frequently retreated to her husband’s country residences. Her letters focus on domestic travails. When she died in 1488, the Ferrarese ambassador to Florence wrote that, “Madonna Clarice…died three days ago, but I did not send the news at once, as it did not seem to me of much importance…She died last Wednesday at twenty-four of the clock and was buried without pomp that evening.” — By contrast, Lucrezia Tornabuoni, Cosimo’s daughter-in-law and mother of Lorenzo, was the most cultivated Medici woman of the Quattrocento, and in her role as madre di famiglia of the most powerful family in Florence, took an active interest in the affairs of the commune. From the time of her marriage to Cosimo’s son Piero in 1444 until her death in 1482, there was not a more politically influential woman in Tuscany; nonetheless, the large body of her preserved correspondence suggests that the source and scope of her power lay largely in the extent to which she could function as intercessor with her husband or son. In a ltter of consolation written to Lorenzo upon his mother’s death, a canon at S. Lorenzo stated that Lucrezia “knew how to manage the most important affairs with wise counsel, and how to succor the citizens in time of calamity.” Yet in spite of her many talents and the high regard in which she was universally held, Lucrezia’s power was exercised using the same channels open to their respectable aristocratic wives and mothers; as a Tuscan wife living in the early Renaissance, her political role remained one insurmountable step removed from exercising direct control.”

— Boccaccio’s Heroines: Power and Virtue in Renaissance Society By Margaret Ann Franklin

[rejectedprincesses]

Toregene Khatun (?-1246): Empress of the Mongol Empire

Thus concludes Mongol Empire May, I suppose! Full entry here. Books here. Patreon here. Art notes after the cut.

Keep reading

[historical-nonfiction]

“Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that he [King Richard the Lionheart] retained the same cynicism about churchmen displayed by his mother in her prime. When the preacher Fulk of Neuilly accused him of begetting three shameless daughters, Pride, Avarice and Sensuality, Richard was ready with a retort worthy of William IX: ‘I give my daughter Pride to the Knights Templars, my daughter Avarice to the Cistercians, and my daughter Sensuality to the princes of the Church.’ No story illustrates more vividly how much he was a son after Eleanor’s heart, but, like her, he was no persecutor of clerics.”

— from Desmond Seward’s Eleanor of Aquitaine (1979).

[met-armsarmor]

Partisan, Arms and Armor

Medium: Steel, wood, textile, brass, gold

John Stoneacre Ellis Collection, Gift of Mrs. Ellis and Augustus Van Horne Ellis, 1896 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY

http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/25015

[mademoisellelapiquante]

The Borgias | Papal reign: 1492-1503 | (click on each image for details)

[middleladies-blog]

Knights in Malory always read women as vulnerable, helpless, and ever in need of the services of a knight—in short, the object through and against which a knight affirms his masculine identity. Even as the Pentecostal Oath offers explicit protection to women in the ladies clause, it also simultaneously and deliberately constructs them as ‘feminine’ in the chivalric sense—helpless, needy, rape-able. […] In affirming his knightly identity and his right to belong to the heteronormative masculine community of the Arthurian court, a knight not only needs a vulnerable, helpless woman, but more specifically, he needs 'woman’ to signify as vulnerable and helpless.

Dorsey Armstrong, Gender and the Chivalric Community in Malory’s Morte d’Arthur

[artist-bosch]

The Vagabond (The Prodigal Son), 1487, Hieronymus Bosch

Size: 70x71 cm Medium: oil, panel

[joannalannister]

“The beauty and chastity of this lady are indeed so great that neither Lucretia nor Diana herself were either more beautiful or more chaste. So great is her virtue and her character so fine, that she certainly seems to have been preserved by divine will (…)”

— on Elizabeth of york, from Henry VII’s official correspondence to the Pope Innocent VIII. (via marthajefferson)

[armthearmour]

An incredibly ornate Kilij with a highly gilt an calligraphed blade and a dyed green shagreen grip, Ottoman, ca. mid 16th century, housed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[goodqueenaly]

Why did so many women at court aspire to become the king's mistress?

For one, being the king’s mistress could be rewarding on a personal level, as kings were known to lavish great wealth on their favorites. Alice Perrers, mistress to Edward III of England, was granted robes and jewels belonging to the dead Queen Philippa (the jewels were worth over six million pounds in today’s money), as well as over a dozen manors, by her royal lover. Barbara Palmer and Louise de Kerouaille, mistresses of the lascivious Charles II, were granted dukedoms in their own right, with their requisite lands and incomes, and Barbara was given Henry VIII’s Nonsuch Palace. Louis XIV was so entranced by Athenais, the Marquise de Montespan, that he granted her a suite of 20 rooms in Versailles (compared to the queen’s 10), and had built for her the Chateau de Clagny, spending millions of livres to do so. Leopold II of Belgium shocked and angered his subjects by the wealth the aging monarch lavished on his teenage mistress, Caroline Lacroix, including millions of francs (Caroline once bragged about spending three million in a single shopping spree) and estates in Belgium and France. Even foreign visitors would know to flatter the king’s favorite: when the future Gustav III of Sweden visited the court of Louis XV, he presented the king’s mistress, the notoriously luxury-loving Madame du Barry, a collar for her little spaniel, made of diamonds and with a ruby leash. 

Being the royal mistress could also be an avenue to power. Henry II of France was so devoted to his lifelong passion Diane de Poitiers that the two would often collaborate on government letters and documents, even signing the bottom “HenriDiane”. The Protestant (later Catholic) Henry IV of France relied on his beloved mistress Gabrielle d’Estrees to make peace with the noble Catholic families of the country, and it was under her influence that he created the Edict of Nantes, which gave significant rights to French Huguenots (indeed, so trusted was Gabrielle that Henry gave her a seat on his Council of National Policy). Too, as an intimate of the king, a royal mistress would be expected to have the king’s ear in private moments ordinary courtiers could never dream of sharing, and could be a useful intermediary between the king and his courtiers. Such was the power and influence of Madame de Pompadour on Louis XV that Empress Maria Theresa of Austria’s ambassador approached her for aid in the negotiations that would lead to the Treaty of Versailles and the Diplomatic Revolution that would bring Austria and France together in alliance. Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany and second son of George III, was not a king, but he was commander in chief of the army from 1795 - a position he was forced to resign in 1809, when his mistress, Mary Anne Clarke, was brought before the House of Commons and testified that she had, with the duke’s knowledge and assistance, been selling army commissions (even pinning the names of those desiring commissions to the curtains in the home they shared).

Nor should family ambition be discounted; having great influence over the king meant that a mistress could secure boons for her kin as well as herself. While sleeping with Mary Boleyn and thereafter pursuing sister Anne, Henry VIII granted a number of honors to the Boleyn family: Sir Thomas Boleyn (father to Mary and Anne) was made Viscount Rochford in 1525, Earl of Wiltshire in 1529, and Lord Privy Seal in 1530; their brother George was knighted and made a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber in 1529 (at which time he was also granted the courtesy title Viscount Rochford), held several key offices in Henry VIII’s court, and was made an ambassador to France, doubtless via his sister’s influence. The family of Anne, Duchess of Etampes, benefited greatly from her affair with Francis I of France, as her uncle, Antoine Sanguin, was made Bishop of Orleans and a cardinal and named Grand Almoner by Francis I when the post became vacant and two brothers also rose high in Church hierarchy. (However, when Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, suggested that his daughter Mary - widow of Henry VIII’s illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy - become the king’s mistress to wield similar influence she pointedly refused.)

And there was always the chance, however small (and however politically meaningless), that the king would make his mistress his wife. Indeed, Henry IV had come extremely close to marrying Gabrielle: in 1599, after writing to Pope Clement asking for an annulment from his marriage to Margaret of Valois, Henry gave Gabrielle his coronation ring and promised to wed her (unfortunately for Henry, she died on April 10 of that year, probably from eclampsia). Alexander II, Emperor of Russia, actually did marry his mistress, Catherine Dolgorukova, a little more than a month after his first wife, Marie of Hesse and by the Rhine, died, and gave Catherine the title Princess Yurievskaya and the status of “Serene Highness”; although the marriage was morganatic, there were fears, particularly within the imperial family, that Alexander would strive to put his children by Catherine in the succession (particularly as Catherine claimed Alexander had placed the imperial crown on her head in a private ceremony, and as Alexander had legitimized the children and made pointed comments about his son by Catherine, George Alexandrovich - commenting that George was a “real Russian” and introducing him to his heir, the future Alexander III, as George’s “eldest brother”). Louis XIV was far more secret about his marriage to Madame de Maintenon; although the marquise was never formally acknowledged as his wife, her presence at court was substantial, and for the roughly three decades their marriage lasted, Madame de Maintenon exerted far more influence over the Sun King than her predecessor, Maria Theresa, ever had.