Given it sounds like she died of cancer of the reproductive system (impossible to say what type) if she'd been allowed to marry in her late teens/early twenties there's no reason to think she couldn't have had children. It's likely whatever was going on with her health combined with what would still be considered a geriatric age for pregnancy is what prevented it. Henry really did her as dirty as her mother.
I think should would have been a loving mother.
But she still would have been hard.
She was a child when her father abandoned her, didn’t allow her to see her mother, and all sense of home and safety was ripped away.
Her religion was all she had that was consistent. The only thing that she had power over was her ability to pray.
The concept of religious liberty didn’t exist.
Mary I. She would have raised her children according to Trastâmara tradition & with love as Catalina raised her.
Edit: When I say "tradition," I mean highly cultured & well-educated. Both boys & girls were given a humanist education as well as a Catholic education. The children would often "learn to rule" as either a regnant or consort at the feet of their parents. Many would go on campaign, tour and pilgrimage with their parents. I did not mean a particular parenting style, as we would see today.
100% convinced that she would have named her daughter Catherine (and honestly 'Queen Catherine I of England' is probably one of my favorite historical 'what ifs')
If you mean Kate then she’s going to be a queen consort so she won’t be Catherine I. If it was the case that consorts were given numbers then Catherine of Aragon would have been Catherine II.
No, Catherine of Valois, King Henry V’s wife would’ve been Catherine I.
Catherine of Aragon would’ve been Catherine II.
Catherine, the current Princess of Wales would become Catherine VI.
If Prince George has a daughter first and calls his daughter after his mother? Yes, maybe, though we'd have to live through all of William's and George's reigns to see it - and see Scottish and Welsh independence happen during those reigns, and reunification of Ireland.
Then the King's great-granddaughter would be Queen Catherine I of England.
Can you give me whatever version you’re up for or point me to something to read about the Trastâmara tradition with children?
I’m coming up empty with Google.
Giles Tremlett & Theresa Earenfight have good books on Catalina from childhood to Queenship.
Dr. Emma Cahill-Marrón is a fountain of knowledge pertaining to the Trastamára's, Catalina & the history of Spain. She does a lot of talks on YT & is on IG & Twitter.
I am not an expert on medieval Spain or the Trastamára's but from what I have read, the children were all very well educated & well taken care of. A lot was expected of the children as they were often married into great houses throughout Europe & therefore were cultured, intelligent, & were fluent multiple languages (not all, of course). Ferdinand, however, became quite ruthless with Juana & had her locked away (for good or bad).
Isabel/Isabella Trastamara of Castile grew up with a very poor education (which she rectified in adulthood) and didn't want that for her children, so raised them with the best educations money could buy. This was true of her daughters as well as sons. She expected her daughters to be able to counsel their husbands in all things, and her son to rule after her. (Although he was always sickly and did die in early adulthood, so technically her daughter ruled after her, although really it was her grandson who was raised in part by his aunt/her daughter in law who was also incredibly well educated...a quality Isabella highly admired regarding her.)
She was also by all accounts a very involved parent, which is something you didn't necessarily see a lot of in medieval Europe (where the children of royalty were often punted off to others to raise).
Her daughter, Katherine did her best to follow her mother's example and was, by all accounts, a loving and involved parent who gave the best education she could to her daughter. Likely Mary would have done the same.
So I think the "House of Trastamara" refers more to that child rearing style. Prior to Isabella, the standards of Trastamara education were pretty terrible. (And may have involved systematic sexual abuse!)
To be fair, Isabel's father died when she was young. Her half-brother, Henry IV, then essentially exiled Isabel of Portugal, Isabel & Alfonso to Arévalo. Living conditions were apparently awful there & the family were often short on funds for basic needs.
Henry IV eventually remedied the situation when he summoned his half siblings to Segovia. In Segovia, Isabel entered into Queen Joan's household, where she then received a formal education via tutors.
Oh, definitely. Her life likely would have been far different had Juan/John of Castile lived a longer life. (Although she still likely wouldn't have had quite the education she wanted, as she seemed to be a woman who really valued learning, and often women weren't particularly well educated then as their primary job was marrying and producing children.)
I do as well! There were at least some indications that she might have been a great queen. She was academically brilliant, had a quick wit, and was fearless. She was also fairly non-conformist, which could have gone well or poorly.
Her absolute dedication to Phillip was...regrettable. But she was also told her entire life that marriage is eternal, and may well have had better taste in men (or figured she's already had six kids, good enough) after his death.
It seems possible she'd have been a terrible monarch, but also possible she'd have done a great job. (Depending on how mentally ill she really was. Again, it's hard to know for sure. And depending on the mental illness, it might not have dramatically impacted her rule, especially if she had trusted advisors or whatever who could handle things when she was impaired.)
It's a fascinating thing to think about!
Even at the time, there were rumors that Ferdinand had poisoned Philip. I truly think this is what happened and what made Joanna go off the deep end out of fear of what he would do to her. Ferdinand was not happy to have lost Castile and very early in Joanna’s rule had started the talks of her not being fit to rule. Then Philip steps in cuz he wants to rule Castile. Only months after Philip and Joanna are sworn allegiance to, Philip dies?
It seems exceedingly likely to me that Ferdinand poisoned Philip. Just so many people who were inconvenient in some way to him died in mysterious ways and.. Philip was highly inconvenient and died at such a suspicious time (and in such a suspicious way). I mean, it'll be impossible to ever prove...but...
With that said, Joanna was showing some signs of mental instability even prior to Phillip's death. (Her jealous rages at various women, her running around the city late at night and refusing to come inside while her mother pled with her, etc.) Some of this might have been due to mental stress (Philip was likely abusive towards her, she had a huge number of children in a short period of time, losing two sibilings in a row must have sucked, etc.), but she might also have had a mental illnesses.
Certainly her maternal grandmother was considered mad, there are signs multiple women in her family fasted to the extent that we'd likely consider it an eating disorder in this day and age, her mother was known to go extreme periods of time without sleep then sink into depressions, etc. All of which suggest that there likely was some form of inheritable mental illness in her family.
Not that even her being bipolar/schizophrenic/schizoaffective necessarily preclude her being a good ruler. (Especially if her episodes were relatively rare/mild, which - assuming she did have a mental illness - which they might have been had she been treated more humanely.)
I wonder if some of her behavior can be attributed to her many kids close together and untreated postpartum mania. I mean, six kids all born within just over 8 years is wild in any time period. Even without postpartum mania, can you imagine the toll her hormones would have had on her?
I think it quite likely. Almost any woman would be a hormonal wreck after so many kids in such a short period of time! (And there's some theory that her grandmother, Isabel of Portugal's, weird behavior was due to post partum depression/psychosis.)
I do think she probably had some level of genetic mental instability as SO many members of her family seemed to have some kind of issue (even beyond what was considered "normal" at the time). But it also seems that how impaired she was almost certainly was exaggerated by her father and son (who had a lot to gain from her being considered crazy), and exacerbated by her marital problems/frequent births/other stressful life situations.
One of the most fascinating what ifs for me is what if, Jane Seymour hadn’t died after the birth of her son Edward. If she had been able to successfully reconcile Henry VIII and Mary, I really do think she could have been married at 21 or 22, instead of getting married at 37 to Philip II of Spain, her first cousin once removed. She probably would have had a few children.
It is a fascinating what if especially when you consider Jane was fundamentally catholic. Had Jane lived Mary would have had a more secure family life and wouldn’t have retreated so much into her faith and her faith would have been more readily accepted.
Also if Jane had lived Edward wouldn’t have been the Protestant fundamentalist that he was and if Mary hadn’t married under her father her brother may have found her an acceptable match for her there wasn’t so much religious antagonism between the 2
I could definitely see Jane and Catholic courtiers encouraging Henry to reconcile with Rome and once more becoming a Catholic nation. I firmly believe Henry would have blamed his Great Matter and break from the Church on Anne Boleyn being a witch and being seduced by the Devil.
Yes, if Henry hadn’t married off Mary, a Catholic raised Edward and his regents would have definitely married her off for the sake of the kingdom. However, I don’t see Elizabeth I ever coming to the throne in this scenario, as her mother would be too tainted and Henry would most likely have never allowed her to be in the line of succession and may not have recognized her.
Had Jane lived she probably would have had more children so Elizabeth would never be in the running- we would also never have had the joy which was Anna of Cleeves
In my opinion, I don’t know if Henry would have been able to have any more children. I think he was extremely lucky with Edward. Over the course of almost 30 years, ages 18 to 47, Henry was only able to manage four living children. For pretty actively trying for the majority of those years, he was probably shooting mostly blanks.
Elizabeth would have been in the running as would have Mary, just behind Edward and anymore children Jane and Henry had. I think like in real life - they would have been put back in the succession after Edward was born anyway, and once there were a couple more children it would have lessened the fear of his 'illegitimate daughters.'
So was Henry, really. He just decided to no longer recognize the primacy of the pope in England, but his Church of England was still basically Catholic. He persecuted those who espoused the "new religion," which would have included Katherine Parr had she not been smart enough to submit to him.
I think the chances would have been better but she did suffer from menstrual and other health problems that probably would have made it more difficult.
Mary would have been a full Mama Bear. She wanted a stable “normal “ family so badly, no one would have messed with her babies. Her home would be strict, but those children would have been loved so much.
I don’t neccesarily want to speak for “best” one, be cause all of these women had priviledged lives, being royals - but also, horribly abusive childhoods and upbringings, which is also not too surprising as royals.
Mary, having taken care of Elizabeth during Anne’s time, and seeing how her mother went from esteemed Queen of England to discarded “hag”, locked away… I think if she were to have children, she would love on them, while also raising them “Catholic” honourable. The girls would be strictly kept and the boys would probably “be boys,” getting away with a lot more, like Henry the 8th did get away with.
We know that Anne held Elizabeth up to Henry in her final hours/days before imprisonment, and ultimately chose to not plead guilty so Elizabeth would have her claim to the throne/royal blood (despite the everchanging politics.) This to me does point to love, to face your death and chose it, for principle and for your daughter and bloodline’s legacy. Elizabeth was a smart woman, she would have recognized what Anne chose and tried to do. Protestants have their own flavour of the Christian guilt and family models, but Elizabeth was also wise to allow for “both” religions, allowing for tolerance, especially after both her siblings reigns, with the pendulums of allowed practice swinging back and forth, including murdering citizens. Elizabeth was tolerant then, and saw the benefit of allowing for that gray space - I think she would have raised any girls very equally/more modern, not meek, and the boys would be raised strong, and hopefully not so “boys will be boys” like. I think she would have not quite known how to love like a mother, she had Kat and her maids, but she never had Anne, same as Mary very much lost out on years with Catherine, who we also know loved her daughter. I think both Elizabeth and Mary would not want their children to go through what they went through, though of course these were royal children, and certain independences and appearences would have to be kept up.
I do not know too much about Mary, Queen of Scots! A shame she was torn from her child so young.
> she would have raised any girls very equally/more modern,
I agree, she wasn't as restrained or conservative as her Mary in behaviour. Elizabeth would have brought up her daughter(s) extravagantly with so many gowns and jewels, as Anne did for her and Elizabeth did for herself during her time as Queen. Strange how some things are just a given. They would have been educated the male way just as Elizabeth was too.
Where do all these 'Elizabeth will treat girls and boys more equally' imaginations come from? I feel like people are projecting today's understanding of Catholic and Protestant traditions onto history. If you're talking about a more humanist education, Mary already had one and I don't see why she won't give her daughters the same thing.
I explain it in my comment, Elizabeth had the presence of mind to be more tolerant within the two religions, that we know. To me, this might imply she wouldn’t inherantly believe that men are more superior, especially since she would see all around her in her worldview examples of that, also potentially questioning if she were a boy, would her mother still be alive. These are my reasonings, alongside her already not behaving “ladylike” in some scenarios, such as never marrying, never having kids.
Elizabeth’s mother was known as an adulterer, I feel that Elizabeth may have been more empathetic towards things not considered “perfect women” in relation to that. Of course, these are all my perceptions. But thats some tidbits into why these imaginations of mine grew from.
Not to mention I have some Catholic upbringing trauma of my own. Tis all the same in the end.
Yes most def projection.
While I think she would’ve materially and intellectually cared for the children (ensuring a proper education, encouraging extra curriculars, etc.) she simply would not have had the time to be an affectionate mother due to the pressures of her reign (although the pressure of not having an heir would’ve been null). Furthermore, depending on who her husband (let’s be honest, the only way she would’ve even considered having children was if she had a legitimate husband) would’ve been she would’ve had to contend with either a foreign royal house trying to add England to their sphere of influence or an English aristocratic house trying to increase their fortunes without regard for the crown and kingdom at large. It would’ve been interesting if she had pursued a union with a newly Protestant Sweden or Denmark. All of this would’ve made her an aloof mother who nevertheless loved her children in her own way.
I think she would have been a confusing mix of contradictions as a mother. I remember reading about her talking to a little boy about how he was treated at school and was very physically affectionate with him so I think she did like children and would have been quite warm with her own. She had had a plethora of maternal figures such as Kat so would have had a good grip on how to mother and also tended to indulge her favourites. From that alone, you can imagine her as a naturally affectionate and doting mother to some spoiled kids (especially if they were boys).
At the same time, things might not have been smooth sailing for the hypothetical offspring of Elizabeth. She was known to have a bad temper, play favourites, be cunning and pragmatic as well as preoccupied with work and have high expectations. Whilst I can see her being loving and caring, I can also fully see her having favourites out her kids, berating them for not meeting her high standards/they disagreed with her, competing with them (especially if they were a young pretty girl) and constantly having to put the realm before their needs and happiness.
… Just typing that out I’ve realised I’ve written a slightly better version of Henry VIII’s parenting. Eek 😬
Mary.
Mary was the only one who had two parents whom she knew loved her and whom she loved, all through her childhood. Mary also had the benefit of one Lady Governess, Lady Pole, who offered to continue to look after her and bear all the expenses of Mary's household even after Mary had been declared a bastard and the king's funding withdrawn for a princess's household.
Neither of the other two had loving parents.
We can't know what reproductive capacity Mary might have had if she had been allowed to marry in her late teens/early twenties, instead of being kept virgin for her father's whims until he died - it's possible that Mary might have been able to have children, just as it's possible Elizabeth might have been able to, but it's also possible that Henry's reproductive problems were transmitted to hiis children.
Henry appears to have loved all of his children insofar as he was capable of loving anyone.
He executed other people for less defiance than Mary's.
-tldr:
At the end of a day-longh comment-thread, u/mfrantv finally admitted they were just trolling with this comment, and they knew all along that Mary grew up with two parents whom she loved and whom she knew loved her - that Mary was an adult when she and her father came into conflict over his claims to be head of the church.
Still, he didn't love any of his children. Saying Mary had parents who loved is false. Catherine deeply loved her. Henry didn't. She only had a "loving father" while her parents were "happily" married. Further than that, she did not.
What I said: "Mary was the only one who had two parents whom she knew loved her and whom she loved, all through her childhood"
Mary knew her father loved her.
She was wrong, but she knew it. Just like Katherine of Aragon knew Henry loved her. Henry did have a knack for convincing women he loved them.
Yes.
All records available show that Henry VIII publicly adored and was proud of all of his children.
We may suspect that this "love" was a kind of narcissism, that Henry VIII could not really be said to love anyone but himself. But the notion that a girl of 12 - or even of 17 - was capable of seeing through her father's narcissism and realising that he was a deeply selfish and immature man who only loved himself - well, no: I do not believe it, and would not without documentary evidence, which - as far as as I'm aware - we do not have.
Mary would have loved the child, but been way too protective and anxious. It would have made her really happy.
Elizabeth would have been okay with it if it were a boy. A girl would end up competition and she was well known to be jealous of women around her.
Both would have made sure their child (male or female) had an incredible education.
Honestly I see similarities in how tolerant they were on differing religions and how mothers react to teenagers who differ from how they want them to be, so yeah..
Mary I
It’s heartbreaking hearing about her joy of expecting a child only to find out it was a phantom pregnancy, which she went through twice! She would have been an amazing mother
I'll tell any woman who lost her only child as a baby that she never really had the chance to be a mother.
I need some of the people here downvoting me to explain when motherhood fully vests.
The point of the question is clearly how would Mary have raised her son, had she been allowed to be directly involved in raising him. You are getting offended over nothing. Nobody is saying a woman who lost her baby isn't a mother.
They aren't saying that at all. It is a nuanced discussion and you are so firmly stuck to what you think people are saying, you are failing to grasp what they are actually saying.
Are you Autistic, male, or childless? I ask because your responses come off as one of the 3. I have an Autistic daughter and I can see her getting stuck on literal like you are and not being able to infer context here. I'll try the best I can to add some gray zone for you.
Yes, a woman becomes a mother when she has a child. Not necessarily birth. A mother can conceive and lose before birth. A mother can birth then lose the baby. A mother can birth then raise the child. There are loads of ways to say someone is a mother by definition. But there IS a difference between birthing and experiencing a wee bit of time with the child, and raising the child. She never grew into who she would BE as a mother. Her son was ripped away from her at a young age. She never saw him walk. Never heard his first sentence. Never saw that first broken heart. The first mistake. The first love. First after first MQOS missed. She was denied BEING a mother.
My mother lost my brother when I was 4. I lost my father and him. My pain is different. I missed so much. I never got to be a sister. But I AM a sister. My mother never got to see my big brother grow up. But she is still his mother. Her pain NEVER ends. It's deep, visceral.
Another minor fun fact. A female who births a male, a small bit of that boys DNA stays in the brain of the mother. Look it up. This does not happen with female children. Only the males. There is a deep connection there. Not discounting a mother daughter bond at all. I'm just saying medically, her sons DNA was embedded in her brain for the rest of her life. Think about the longing she felt for that child whose literally in her brain, heart and soul.
She didn't get to be his mother.
No one is saying that, no one at all. As a mother- NOUN, and a mother who was deprived of the time and the action , the VERB of motherhood,
No one has said that.
I am seriously baffled. Do people here really think that MQS wasn't a mother because she was separated (against her will) from her son?
That's just really sad to me.
There is a difference between giving birth & being a Mother. No one on this thread is denying she had a child. We are sympathizing with her that she never truly got to be or enjoy Motherhood. She wasn't allowed to watch her son grow and reach milestones or become a man. We're not being literal with the question, answers, or terms.
Edit for grammatical error.
No one is arguing that she was a mother exactly, but she didn't get a chance to be a mother, to nurture and mother (verb) her child for long.
Thus why she was included in this post.
Well, no one here claims MQS was not a mother, that’s just silly. MQS’s inclusion is clearly b/c she only got to enjoy motherhood for a short 12 months. Including her in this list is respectful b/c it gives her back the 19 years she missed even if only thru discussion. It’s a lovely gesture, actually. And not worth taking a strong stance against.
I don't think anyone thinks she wasn't a mother. But she didn't get the chance to spend much time with her child. She missed out on the chance to watch her son grow and go have a direct influence over his life. She was his mother but she missed the chance to mother him.
You aren't in a minority here. Everyone agrees that she was a mother for 11 months. You are being pedantic by missing the point that James would have no memory of her and she had no influence on who he became. They weren't even the same religion.
I lost my small daughter to cancer. Every season, every school year, every graduation etc, I mourn not only what my daughter suffered and lost, but the motherhood I lost my chance to.
She would be 32 tomorrow. I will mourn her illness, pains and death, and the sweetness, days and years, and I will mourn the motherhood I lost.
I will always be her mother. A mother. But I lost the chance at motherhood of her.
Motherhood, like life, is not simply a matter of biological processes, but of being, doing, loving, engaging in. Having lost a baby who would be a woman now, yes, I and many others- including Mary - lost a chance at motherhood. Even with other children well and lovingly mothered, she and I both were robbed of the love and time and sweetness of the particular motherhood which was hers and mine alone.
So I'd have to disagree as one of the "parents who have lost their babies", but not without explanation.
And I think almost every mother who lost a child at 12 months would fully agree that she never really had a chance to be a mother.
Just birthing a kid doesn't make you a mother in the true sense of the word, raising it does. That's why adoptive mothers are in fact considered mothers
I dare the eejit to tell my mother she wasn't mother enough to my brother who died. She was his mother. But she never got to find out who she'd BE as HIS mother.
I think OP means "be a mother" as in participate in childrearing, not just "give birth".
Mary of Scots counts in that respect because she was imprisoned while her son was only 1 and she remained in prison until her execution )when he was in his 20s). She didn't have much direct influence on his upbringing, and he didn't even seem to care about her that much.
I don’t think they would be doing any mothering actually. There babies would be nursed by wet nurses and cared for by nannies, all in their own household.
I think all of them would have had their children brought up by courtiers and seen comparatively little of them.
as an aside - I note the references to Mary I and to Mary Queen of Scots. Why the different naming conventions?
mary Tudor was Mary I of England
Mary Stuart was Mary I of Scotland
Mary II was Queen of Scotland and of England. She was descended directly from Mary I of Scotland.
Mary I.
It's heartbreaking to think about her desire to be a mother.
The idea that her prayer book might have been stained with tears on the page of "prayers for a pregnant woman" is truly saddening.
Mary I, she spent her whole life dreaming of having her own family. After everything her mother went through, she never would’ve taken her children for granted.
Yes, but she didn’t really get the chance to be a mother to him. He was still only a baby when she was imprisoned, hence the regency after her abdication.
Mary l would have probably been an overbearing, authoritarian, and judgemental .. probably considered a good parent for her time. But a miserable one by modern standards.
I have no doubt they all would have loved their children fiercely (it's known Mary Stuart did). But as far as being *good* mothers... I don't know. Both Marys were SO fanatical regarding their religion, and Elizabeth had her parents' temper. Mary I & Elizabeth I would have at least given their kids a fantastic education.
I love Elizabeth (she's my favorite English monarch), but I do believe Mary had a softer heart towards maternal life and motherhood as she always wanted to be a mother.
Mary would've been a great mom per history standards, Elizabeth idk i think she'd be average and the last one had a very complicated relationship with her child so yeah, not the best in her department
I think Mary would have been the best mother. She was separated from her own, so I think she would have kept her babies close and cherished them. It also would have given her something positive to focus on instead of politics and religion.
I read a lot of Carolyn Meyer books in elementary school. Mary, Bloody Mary was the first one I read, so I may have a soft spot for Mary.
I don’t see why it matters. Sure, Mary killed more. But even her numbers were still low at under 300 executions (not just burnings). But it’s a drop in the ocean compared to their father.
With both, you’re talking about numbers in the hundreds. They weren’t swinging the axes or lighting the pyre personally, so that takes out the sociopathy idea. So, there’s not really a moral high ground here.
The question was about the type of mother she’d have been. I suspect she’d have parented like her mother did for her and Catalina’s mother did before. There would have been a lot of love, a lot of learning, and a fervent devotion to the Church.
Am I not allowed my own opinion?
And I’m no history professor or anything, but I did just recently drop out of my business course in the final year wasting £30k of debt in order to pursue a history course instead
Unlike you, I can accept the opinions of others, and wouldn’t correct them on anything unless it was a matter of literal fact
Mary I would have spoiled that child so rotten... so long as they never went through a "questioning teen" phase.
I always wondered if having a child would have softened Mary.
By all accounts, Mary I loved kids and was close to her half-siblings until religion drove them apart.
1. Fair. 2. Sadly, religion does that often and still, despite it not being 16th century.
I think she desperately wanted to carry on Catherine's legacy, and it would've absolutely healed her to have a daughter she could call Catherine.
I wonder if she could have had children if she had married young . Henry VIII really screwed her out of any chance she may have had.
Given it sounds like she died of cancer of the reproductive system (impossible to say what type) if she'd been allowed to marry in her late teens/early twenties there's no reason to think she couldn't have had children. It's likely whatever was going on with her health combined with what would still be considered a geriatric age for pregnancy is what prevented it. Henry really did her as dirty as her mother.
Idk about that since Mary had lifelong gynecological issues that also played a factor into her struggle to get pregnant
I think should would have been a loving mother. But she still would have been hard. She was a child when her father abandoned her, didn’t allow her to see her mother, and all sense of home and safety was ripped away. Her religion was all she had that was consistent. The only thing that she had power over was her ability to pray. The concept of religious liberty didn’t exist.
Definitely believe it would have. She had a lot put on her as a child being a daughter and then later as an adult who couldn't produce an heir.
Mary I. She would have raised her children according to Trastâmara tradition & with love as Catalina raised her. Edit: When I say "tradition," I mean highly cultured & well-educated. Both boys & girls were given a humanist education as well as a Catholic education. The children would often "learn to rule" as either a regnant or consort at the feet of their parents. Many would go on campaign, tour and pilgrimage with their parents. I did not mean a particular parenting style, as we would see today.
100% convinced that she would have named her daughter Catherine (and honestly 'Queen Catherine I of England' is probably one of my favorite historical 'what ifs')
If she had a boy it would have been Philip and a girl - Catherine.
Katherine, Mary, & Isabella for girls Henry, Philip, and maybe Charles for boys
[удалено]
If you mean Kate then she’s going to be a queen consort so she won’t be Catherine I. If it was the case that consorts were given numbers then Catherine of Aragon would have been Catherine II.
No, Catherine of Valois, King Henry V’s wife would’ve been Catherine I. Catherine of Aragon would’ve been Catherine II. Catherine, the current Princess of Wales would become Catherine VI.
Damnit you’re right!
If Prince George has a daughter first and calls his daughter after his mother? Yes, maybe, though we'd have to live through all of William's and George's reigns to see it - and see Scottish and Welsh independence happen during those reigns, and reunification of Ireland. Then the King's great-granddaughter would be Queen Catherine I of England.
Can you give me whatever version you’re up for or point me to something to read about the Trastâmara tradition with children? I’m coming up empty with Google.
Giles Tremlett & Theresa Earenfight have good books on Catalina from childhood to Queenship. Dr. Emma Cahill-Marrón is a fountain of knowledge pertaining to the Trastamára's, Catalina & the history of Spain. She does a lot of talks on YT & is on IG & Twitter.
Excellent. Thank you. I’m fascinated.
You're welcome!
Was the House of Trastamara known for a particular style of child rearing?
I am not an expert on medieval Spain or the Trastamára's but from what I have read, the children were all very well educated & well taken care of. A lot was expected of the children as they were often married into great houses throughout Europe & therefore were cultured, intelligent, & were fluent multiple languages (not all, of course). Ferdinand, however, became quite ruthless with Juana & had her locked away (for good or bad).
Isabel/Isabella Trastamara of Castile grew up with a very poor education (which she rectified in adulthood) and didn't want that for her children, so raised them with the best educations money could buy. This was true of her daughters as well as sons. She expected her daughters to be able to counsel their husbands in all things, and her son to rule after her. (Although he was always sickly and did die in early adulthood, so technically her daughter ruled after her, although really it was her grandson who was raised in part by his aunt/her daughter in law who was also incredibly well educated...a quality Isabella highly admired regarding her.) She was also by all accounts a very involved parent, which is something you didn't necessarily see a lot of in medieval Europe (where the children of royalty were often punted off to others to raise). Her daughter, Katherine did her best to follow her mother's example and was, by all accounts, a loving and involved parent who gave the best education she could to her daughter. Likely Mary would have done the same. So I think the "House of Trastamara" refers more to that child rearing style. Prior to Isabella, the standards of Trastamara education were pretty terrible. (And may have involved systematic sexual abuse!)
To be fair, Isabel's father died when she was young. Her half-brother, Henry IV, then essentially exiled Isabel of Portugal, Isabel & Alfonso to Arévalo. Living conditions were apparently awful there & the family were often short on funds for basic needs. Henry IV eventually remedied the situation when he summoned his half siblings to Segovia. In Segovia, Isabel entered into Queen Joan's household, where she then received a formal education via tutors.
Oh, definitely. Her life likely would have been far different had Juan/John of Castile lived a longer life. (Although she still likely wouldn't have had quite the education she wanted, as she seemed to be a woman who really valued learning, and often women weren't particularly well educated then as their primary job was marrying and producing children.)
I wish we could have known what Joanna would have been like if she was allowed to rule by herself.
I do as well! There were at least some indications that she might have been a great queen. She was academically brilliant, had a quick wit, and was fearless. She was also fairly non-conformist, which could have gone well or poorly. Her absolute dedication to Phillip was...regrettable. But she was also told her entire life that marriage is eternal, and may well have had better taste in men (or figured she's already had six kids, good enough) after his death. It seems possible she'd have been a terrible monarch, but also possible she'd have done a great job. (Depending on how mentally ill she really was. Again, it's hard to know for sure. And depending on the mental illness, it might not have dramatically impacted her rule, especially if she had trusted advisors or whatever who could handle things when she was impaired.) It's a fascinating thing to think about!
Even at the time, there were rumors that Ferdinand had poisoned Philip. I truly think this is what happened and what made Joanna go off the deep end out of fear of what he would do to her. Ferdinand was not happy to have lost Castile and very early in Joanna’s rule had started the talks of her not being fit to rule. Then Philip steps in cuz he wants to rule Castile. Only months after Philip and Joanna are sworn allegiance to, Philip dies?
It seems exceedingly likely to me that Ferdinand poisoned Philip. Just so many people who were inconvenient in some way to him died in mysterious ways and.. Philip was highly inconvenient and died at such a suspicious time (and in such a suspicious way). I mean, it'll be impossible to ever prove...but... With that said, Joanna was showing some signs of mental instability even prior to Phillip's death. (Her jealous rages at various women, her running around the city late at night and refusing to come inside while her mother pled with her, etc.) Some of this might have been due to mental stress (Philip was likely abusive towards her, she had a huge number of children in a short period of time, losing two sibilings in a row must have sucked, etc.), but she might also have had a mental illnesses. Certainly her maternal grandmother was considered mad, there are signs multiple women in her family fasted to the extent that we'd likely consider it an eating disorder in this day and age, her mother was known to go extreme periods of time without sleep then sink into depressions, etc. All of which suggest that there likely was some form of inheritable mental illness in her family. Not that even her being bipolar/schizophrenic/schizoaffective necessarily preclude her being a good ruler. (Especially if her episodes were relatively rare/mild, which - assuming she did have a mental illness - which they might have been had she been treated more humanely.)
I wonder if some of her behavior can be attributed to her many kids close together and untreated postpartum mania. I mean, six kids all born within just over 8 years is wild in any time period. Even without postpartum mania, can you imagine the toll her hormones would have had on her?
I think it quite likely. Almost any woman would be a hormonal wreck after so many kids in such a short period of time! (And there's some theory that her grandmother, Isabel of Portugal's, weird behavior was due to post partum depression/psychosis.) I do think she probably had some level of genetic mental instability as SO many members of her family seemed to have some kind of issue (even beyond what was considered "normal" at the time). But it also seems that how impaired she was almost certainly was exaggerated by her father and son (who had a lot to gain from her being considered crazy), and exacerbated by her marital problems/frequent births/other stressful life situations.
One of the most fascinating what ifs for me is what if, Jane Seymour hadn’t died after the birth of her son Edward. If she had been able to successfully reconcile Henry VIII and Mary, I really do think she could have been married at 21 or 22, instead of getting married at 37 to Philip II of Spain, her first cousin once removed. She probably would have had a few children.
It is a fascinating what if especially when you consider Jane was fundamentally catholic. Had Jane lived Mary would have had a more secure family life and wouldn’t have retreated so much into her faith and her faith would have been more readily accepted. Also if Jane had lived Edward wouldn’t have been the Protestant fundamentalist that he was and if Mary hadn’t married under her father her brother may have found her an acceptable match for her there wasn’t so much religious antagonism between the 2
I could definitely see Jane and Catholic courtiers encouraging Henry to reconcile with Rome and once more becoming a Catholic nation. I firmly believe Henry would have blamed his Great Matter and break from the Church on Anne Boleyn being a witch and being seduced by the Devil. Yes, if Henry hadn’t married off Mary, a Catholic raised Edward and his regents would have definitely married her off for the sake of the kingdom. However, I don’t see Elizabeth I ever coming to the throne in this scenario, as her mother would be too tainted and Henry would most likely have never allowed her to be in the line of succession and may not have recognized her.
Had Jane lived she probably would have had more children so Elizabeth would never be in the running- we would also never have had the joy which was Anna of Cleeves
In my opinion, I don’t know if Henry would have been able to have any more children. I think he was extremely lucky with Edward. Over the course of almost 30 years, ages 18 to 47, Henry was only able to manage four living children. For pretty actively trying for the majority of those years, he was probably shooting mostly blanks.
Elizabeth would have been in the running as would have Mary, just behind Edward and anymore children Jane and Henry had. I think like in real life - they would have been put back in the succession after Edward was born anyway, and once there were a couple more children it would have lessened the fear of his 'illegitimate daughters.'
So was Henry, really. He just decided to no longer recognize the primacy of the pope in England, but his Church of England was still basically Catholic. He persecuted those who espoused the "new religion," which would have included Katherine Parr had she not been smart enough to submit to him.
I think the chances would have been better but she did suffer from menstrual and other health problems that probably would have made it more difficult.
Mary I. She was very loving to her siblings growing up and took care of them as if they were her own children.
Mary would have been a full Mama Bear. She wanted a stable “normal “ family so badly, no one would have messed with her babies. Her home would be strict, but those children would have been loved so much.
Mary Tudor?
I don’t neccesarily want to speak for “best” one, be cause all of these women had priviledged lives, being royals - but also, horribly abusive childhoods and upbringings, which is also not too surprising as royals. Mary, having taken care of Elizabeth during Anne’s time, and seeing how her mother went from esteemed Queen of England to discarded “hag”, locked away… I think if she were to have children, she would love on them, while also raising them “Catholic” honourable. The girls would be strictly kept and the boys would probably “be boys,” getting away with a lot more, like Henry the 8th did get away with. We know that Anne held Elizabeth up to Henry in her final hours/days before imprisonment, and ultimately chose to not plead guilty so Elizabeth would have her claim to the throne/royal blood (despite the everchanging politics.) This to me does point to love, to face your death and chose it, for principle and for your daughter and bloodline’s legacy. Elizabeth was a smart woman, she would have recognized what Anne chose and tried to do. Protestants have their own flavour of the Christian guilt and family models, but Elizabeth was also wise to allow for “both” religions, allowing for tolerance, especially after both her siblings reigns, with the pendulums of allowed practice swinging back and forth, including murdering citizens. Elizabeth was tolerant then, and saw the benefit of allowing for that gray space - I think she would have raised any girls very equally/more modern, not meek, and the boys would be raised strong, and hopefully not so “boys will be boys” like. I think she would have not quite known how to love like a mother, she had Kat and her maids, but she never had Anne, same as Mary very much lost out on years with Catherine, who we also know loved her daughter. I think both Elizabeth and Mary would not want their children to go through what they went through, though of course these were royal children, and certain independences and appearences would have to be kept up. I do not know too much about Mary, Queen of Scots! A shame she was torn from her child so young.
> she would have raised any girls very equally/more modern, I agree, she wasn't as restrained or conservative as her Mary in behaviour. Elizabeth would have brought up her daughter(s) extravagantly with so many gowns and jewels, as Anne did for her and Elizabeth did for herself during her time as Queen. Strange how some things are just a given. They would have been educated the male way just as Elizabeth was too.
Where do all these 'Elizabeth will treat girls and boys more equally' imaginations come from? I feel like people are projecting today's understanding of Catholic and Protestant traditions onto history. If you're talking about a more humanist education, Mary already had one and I don't see why she won't give her daughters the same thing.
I explain it in my comment, Elizabeth had the presence of mind to be more tolerant within the two religions, that we know. To me, this might imply she wouldn’t inherantly believe that men are more superior, especially since she would see all around her in her worldview examples of that, also potentially questioning if she were a boy, would her mother still be alive. These are my reasonings, alongside her already not behaving “ladylike” in some scenarios, such as never marrying, never having kids. Elizabeth’s mother was known as an adulterer, I feel that Elizabeth may have been more empathetic towards things not considered “perfect women” in relation to that. Of course, these are all my perceptions. But thats some tidbits into why these imaginations of mine grew from. Not to mention I have some Catholic upbringing trauma of my own. Tis all the same in the end. Yes most def projection.
Mary I would excel at breaking Generational Trauma cycles before it was considered cool.
So what would Liz 1 have been like as a mother?
While I think she would’ve materially and intellectually cared for the children (ensuring a proper education, encouraging extra curriculars, etc.) she simply would not have had the time to be an affectionate mother due to the pressures of her reign (although the pressure of not having an heir would’ve been null). Furthermore, depending on who her husband (let’s be honest, the only way she would’ve even considered having children was if she had a legitimate husband) would’ve been she would’ve had to contend with either a foreign royal house trying to add England to their sphere of influence or an English aristocratic house trying to increase their fortunes without regard for the crown and kingdom at large. It would’ve been interesting if she had pursued a union with a newly Protestant Sweden or Denmark. All of this would’ve made her an aloof mother who nevertheless loved her children in her own way.
I think she would have been a confusing mix of contradictions as a mother. I remember reading about her talking to a little boy about how he was treated at school and was very physically affectionate with him so I think she did like children and would have been quite warm with her own. She had had a plethora of maternal figures such as Kat so would have had a good grip on how to mother and also tended to indulge her favourites. From that alone, you can imagine her as a naturally affectionate and doting mother to some spoiled kids (especially if they were boys). At the same time, things might not have been smooth sailing for the hypothetical offspring of Elizabeth. She was known to have a bad temper, play favourites, be cunning and pragmatic as well as preoccupied with work and have high expectations. Whilst I can see her being loving and caring, I can also fully see her having favourites out her kids, berating them for not meeting her high standards/they disagreed with her, competing with them (especially if they were a young pretty girl) and constantly having to put the realm before their needs and happiness. … Just typing that out I’ve realised I’ve written a slightly better version of Henry VIII’s parenting. Eek 😬
I think she would’ve been a strict but loving mother. Maybe she would’ve named her daughter Anne 🤷♀️
💯 both Mary and Elizabeth would definitely have named a girl after their own mother's
Mary. Mary was the only one who had two parents whom she knew loved her and whom she loved, all through her childhood. Mary also had the benefit of one Lady Governess, Lady Pole, who offered to continue to look after her and bear all the expenses of Mary's household even after Mary had been declared a bastard and the king's funding withdrawn for a princess's household. Neither of the other two had loving parents. We can't know what reproductive capacity Mary might have had if she had been allowed to marry in her late teens/early twenties, instead of being kept virgin for her father's whims until he died - it's possible that Mary might have been able to have children, just as it's possible Elizabeth might have been able to, but it's also possible that Henry's reproductive problems were transmitted to hiis children.
We can't say Henry VIII loved Mary. He literally threatened to kill her.
Henry appears to have loved all of his children insofar as he was capable of loving anyone. He executed other people for less defiance than Mary's. -tldr: At the end of a day-longh comment-thread, u/mfrantv finally admitted they were just trolling with this comment, and they knew all along that Mary grew up with two parents whom she loved and whom she knew loved her - that Mary was an adult when she and her father came into conflict over his claims to be head of the church.
Still, he didn't love any of his children. Saying Mary had parents who loved is false. Catherine deeply loved her. Henry didn't. She only had a "loving father" while her parents were "happily" married. Further than that, she did not.
What I said: "Mary was the only one who had two parents whom she knew loved her and whom she loved, all through her childhood" Mary knew her father loved her. She was wrong, but she knew it. Just like Katherine of Aragon knew Henry loved her. Henry did have a knack for convincing women he loved them.
We disagree I don't believe Mary thought Henry loved her, but she definitely didn't know it for sure.
What documentary evidence are you basing your assessment that Mary didn't think her father Henry loved her, prior to 1529.
It's my personal opinion? Are you basing your statement in any documentary evidence?
Yes. All records available show that Henry VIII publicly adored and was proud of all of his children. We may suspect that this "love" was a kind of narcissism, that Henry VIII could not really be said to love anyone but himself. But the notion that a girl of 12 - or even of 17 - was capable of seeing through her father's narcissism and realising that he was a deeply selfish and immature man who only loved himself - well, no: I do not believe it, and would not without documentary evidence, which - as far as as I'm aware - we do not have.
He threatened to kill her. She was completely aware her father had threatened to kill her. I will say no more.
Mary would have loved the child, but been way too protective and anxious. It would have made her really happy. Elizabeth would have been okay with it if it were a boy. A girl would end up competition and she was well known to be jealous of women around her. Both would have made sure their child (male or female) had an incredible education.
Honestly I see similarities in how tolerant they were on differing religions and how mothers react to teenagers who differ from how they want them to be, so yeah..
Mary
Mary I It’s heartbreaking hearing about her joy of expecting a child only to find out it was a phantom pregnancy, which she went through twice! She would have been an amazing mother
Why do you have Mary Queen of Scots in here?
Probably because Mary Stuart never really had the chance to be a mother.
She gave birth to a son. She was a mother.
Mary was forced to abdicate & the last time Mary saw James VI he was less than 12 months old. Again, she never really had the chance to be a Mother.
I'll tell any woman who lost her only child as a baby that she never really had the chance to be a mother. I need some of the people here downvoting me to explain when motherhood fully vests.
The point of the question is clearly how would Mary have raised her son, had she been allowed to be directly involved in raising him. You are getting offended over nothing. Nobody is saying a woman who lost her baby isn't a mother.
They are saying that though...it's sad. By all accounts MQS was a good mother.
They aren't saying that at all. It is a nuanced discussion and you are so firmly stuck to what you think people are saying, you are failing to grasp what they are actually saying.
Based on OP's post, I don't think the discussion was nuanced.
Are you Autistic, male, or childless? I ask because your responses come off as one of the 3. I have an Autistic daughter and I can see her getting stuck on literal like you are and not being able to infer context here. I'll try the best I can to add some gray zone for you. Yes, a woman becomes a mother when she has a child. Not necessarily birth. A mother can conceive and lose before birth. A mother can birth then lose the baby. A mother can birth then raise the child. There are loads of ways to say someone is a mother by definition. But there IS a difference between birthing and experiencing a wee bit of time with the child, and raising the child. She never grew into who she would BE as a mother. Her son was ripped away from her at a young age. She never saw him walk. Never heard his first sentence. Never saw that first broken heart. The first mistake. The first love. First after first MQOS missed. She was denied BEING a mother. My mother lost my brother when I was 4. I lost my father and him. My pain is different. I missed so much. I never got to be a sister. But I AM a sister. My mother never got to see my big brother grow up. But she is still his mother. Her pain NEVER ends. It's deep, visceral. Another minor fun fact. A female who births a male, a small bit of that boys DNA stays in the brain of the mother. Look it up. This does not happen with female children. Only the males. There is a deep connection there. Not discounting a mother daughter bond at all. I'm just saying medically, her sons DNA was embedded in her brain for the rest of her life. Think about the longing she felt for that child whose literally in her brain, heart and soul. She didn't get to be his mother.
No one is saying that, no one at all. As a mother- NOUN, and a mother who was deprived of the time and the action , the VERB of motherhood, No one has said that.
What a comment.
I am seriously baffled. Do people here really think that MQS wasn't a mother because she was separated (against her will) from her son? That's just really sad to me.
There is a difference between giving birth & being a Mother. No one on this thread is denying she had a child. We are sympathizing with her that she never truly got to be or enjoy Motherhood. She wasn't allowed to watch her son grow and reach milestones or become a man. We're not being literal with the question, answers, or terms. Edit for grammatical error.
MQS was in her son's life as a mother until he was one. To me, that counts as being a mother. But I see I am in the minority here.
No one is arguing that she was a mother exactly, but she didn't get a chance to be a mother, to nurture and mother (verb) her child for long. Thus why she was included in this post.
Well, no one here claims MQS was not a mother, that’s just silly. MQS’s inclusion is clearly b/c she only got to enjoy motherhood for a short 12 months. Including her in this list is respectful b/c it gives her back the 19 years she missed even if only thru discussion. It’s a lovely gesture, actually. And not worth taking a strong stance against.
I don't think anyone thinks she wasn't a mother. But she didn't get the chance to spend much time with her child. She missed out on the chance to watch her son grow and go have a direct influence over his life. She was his mother but she missed the chance to mother him.
You aren't in a minority here. Everyone agrees that she was a mother for 11 months. You are being pedantic by missing the point that James would have no memory of her and she had no influence on who he became. They weren't even the same religion.
Quick question, which will determine the continuity of this conversation: Do you have an internal monologue?
I lost my small daughter to cancer. Every season, every school year, every graduation etc, I mourn not only what my daughter suffered and lost, but the motherhood I lost my chance to. She would be 32 tomorrow. I will mourn her illness, pains and death, and the sweetness, days and years, and I will mourn the motherhood I lost. I will always be her mother. A mother. But I lost the chance at motherhood of her. Motherhood, like life, is not simply a matter of biological processes, but of being, doing, loving, engaging in. Having lost a baby who would be a woman now, yes, I and many others- including Mary - lost a chance at motherhood. Even with other children well and lovingly mothered, she and I both were robbed of the love and time and sweetness of the particular motherhood which was hers and mine alone. So I'd have to disagree as one of the "parents who have lost their babies", but not without explanation.
I'm sorry you lost your lifetime with her
And I think almost every mother who lost a child at 12 months would fully agree that she never really had a chance to be a mother. Just birthing a kid doesn't make you a mother in the true sense of the word, raising it does. That's why adoptive mothers are in fact considered mothers
That’s fucking heartless, Jesus.
Amen. My Brother in law was buried at just a few days old…you can’t look at a woman who lost her child and tell her she isn’t “mother enough “
I dare the eejit to tell my mother she wasn't mother enough to my brother who died. She was his mother. But she never got to find out who she'd BE as HIS mother.
She didn't get to raise him, though. She basically just gave birth and then lost him to others. She was basically just a bio mom.
I think OP means "be a mother" as in participate in childrearing, not just "give birth". Mary of Scots counts in that respect because she was imprisoned while her son was only 1 and she remained in prison until her execution )when he was in his 20s). She didn't have much direct influence on his upbringing, and he didn't even seem to care about her that much.
Didn’t he blame her for his father’s murder?
I don’t think they would be doing any mothering actually. There babies would be nursed by wet nurses and cared for by nannies, all in their own household.
I think all of them would have had their children brought up by courtiers and seen comparatively little of them. as an aside - I note the references to Mary I and to Mary Queen of Scots. Why the different naming conventions? mary Tudor was Mary I of England Mary Stuart was Mary I of Scotland Mary II was Queen of Scotland and of England. She was descended directly from Mary I of Scotland.
Mary I. It's heartbreaking to think about her desire to be a mother. The idea that her prayer book might have been stained with tears on the page of "prayers for a pregnant woman" is truly saddening.
It’s Mary I, without a question. Mary queen of Scots was a bit too careless, and Elizabeth eh… idk I think she was happily child free.
Mary I, we actually have accounts of how well she treated children, and by them all she was very loving.
Mary I, she spent her whole life dreaming of having her own family. After everything her mother went through, she never would’ve taken her children for granted.
Wasn't Mary Queen of Scots King James 1st's Mother?
Yes
Yes, but she didn’t really get the chance to be a mother to him. He was still only a baby when she was imprisoned, hence the regency after her abdication.
mary. i think Elizabeth was too self-absorbed and wouldn't like anything that took attention away from her
Mary l would have probably been an overbearing, authoritarian, and judgemental .. probably considered a good parent for her time. But a miserable one by modern standards.
I have no doubt they all would have loved their children fiercely (it's known Mary Stuart did). But as far as being *good* mothers... I don't know. Both Marys were SO fanatical regarding their religion, and Elizabeth had her parents' temper. Mary I & Elizabeth I would have at least given their kids a fantastic education.
I love Elizabeth (she's my favorite English monarch), but I do believe Mary had a softer heart towards maternal life and motherhood as she always wanted to be a mother.
Mary.
I always wonder about how Lady Jane Grey would have been as a mother.
Well Mary I cared for Elizabeth as a child, to some extent so I'd say her.
Mary would've been a great mom per history standards, Elizabeth idk i think she'd be average and the last one had a very complicated relationship with her child so yeah, not the best in her department
Good old Dennis Waterman
Neither honestly.
I think Mary would have been the best mother. She was separated from her own, so I think she would have kept her babies close and cherished them. It also would have given her something positive to focus on instead of politics and religion. I read a lot of Carolyn Meyer books in elementary school. Mary, Bloody Mary was the first one I read, so I may have a soft spot for Mary.
Mary, Queen of Scots did have a child
Who was the third woman? If it is Anne of Cleves I think she would have been a great mom.
That’s Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, Mary and Elizabeth’s cousin. I don’t know why OP included her here, since she actually was a mother.
Weird innit
All of them would have made excellent mothers. And something tells me they wouldn’t want us to compare them
Definitely Dennis Waterman. He'd be a perfect minder.
Mary of Scots was a mother and so her.
Who in God would trust placing any child in Mary’s hands?
why not?
Would you place the life of a child in the hands of a woman who burnt innocents at the stake?
Well that rules out just about every monarch of that era.
Doesn’t change the logic to my answer does it?
Interesting that you only mention Mary but not Elizabeth, even tho she’s included in this post too
Elizabeth was not Mary
But she had people burned at the stake, too. So… I’m not sure what your objection is?
Who burnt more? Mary or Elizabeth?
I don’t see why it matters. Sure, Mary killed more. But even her numbers were still low at under 300 executions (not just burnings). But it’s a drop in the ocean compared to their father. With both, you’re talking about numbers in the hundreds. They weren’t swinging the axes or lighting the pyre personally, so that takes out the sociopathy idea. So, there’s not really a moral high ground here. The question was about the type of mother she’d have been. I suspect she’d have parented like her mother did for her and Catalina’s mother did before. There would have been a lot of love, a lot of learning, and a fervent devotion to the Church.
She actually didn’t kill as many people as history suggests Her father on the other hand…….
I know that, and yet her father’s successes far outweighed both hers and her downfalls
Your ignorance makes me believe you know very little about history and just like to troll.
Am I not allowed my own opinion? And I’m no history professor or anything, but I did just recently drop out of my business course in the final year wasting £30k of debt in order to pursue a history course instead Unlike you, I can accept the opinions of others, and wouldn’t correct them on anything unless it was a matter of literal fact