|
|
| I recommend all 3 biographies as scholarly in understanding history. The middle bio is drier; while the 2 books on the ends explain Charles II's character and are written with more flair. Don't let the "King's Bed" title fool you into thinking it is not a serious bio. Paramours are expertly fleshed out and connected to explain the King, events, and the royal court. |
Recently I found myself back in Stuart England. My desire was to learn more about the life of Catherine of Braganza, who married King Charles II, becoming the Queen of England. Unable to find a comprehensive biography on her, I turned to bios of the King.
What a complicated royal court the new Queen found herself joining and was powerless to change. It would not be wrong to say, Charles II was a rake, a predator with royal pimps and powerful mistresses, and yet, unlike the bloodthirsty Tudor kings (such as Henry VIII), he had something of a heart. Although he neglected his wife too often, when necessary, Charles II also protected her (from statesmen in the realm who hated her due to her Catholicism). What's more, the King refused to divorce his Queen because she couldn't produce an heir, as well as, recognized and took care of his 12 illegitimate children by 7 of his (I lost count!) powerful mistresses. He gave each a title, property, and wealth* [funded from taxes and bribes paid by France's Louis XIV via an ultra-secret treaty].
I have no idea how Queen Catherine coped with her flawed husband who lived (his princely, then kingly) life exactly as he pleased. When first married, she tried to object, but couldn't change the libertine life that characterized the Stuart court at Whitehall, so she had no choice but to accept and make the best of her humiliating circumstances.
King Charles II was a 17th century Don Draper, a cad, who you still like (in spite of yourself) ... I suppose because you see him as debauched, but not evil. After a happy start in life, followed by the beheading of his father, Charles I, he was one of the few kings to live outside the privileged walls of a castle, without money, position, or stability and among the local folk before the Restoration of the English Monarchy in 1660. As the restored King of England, Scotland and Ireland, he was generous, charming, self-deprecating, well-intentioned, and had unfailingly good manners. He became a popular king in England. He had flashes of temper or coldness but usually could control it. Unlike some kings, he wasn't petty, nor vindictive. He loved reading unflattering criticism about himself and laughed along with it.
 |
| May 29, 1630 - February 6, 1685 |
For all his faults, Charles II is difficult to hate. There are times the King showed genuine courage, decency and loyalty. Author Christina Croft shared the following with me: "I recall one book about her [Queen Catherine] that portrayed so beautifully her terror that she was about to be arrested for her beliefs [Catholicism]. She was led before the King and, to her amazement and that of the court, he stepped down and took her hand in a show of affection and solidarity. It was very moving to read ... that one episode enabled me to forgive all his misdemeanors!! I also like the way he threw off his jacket and got to work with all the other people trying to put out the Great Fire of London [1666]."
Charles II had a soft spot for his illegitimate children, another of his admirable traits. Unlike the later Hanovers, the Stuart Kings loved and were attentive to their children.
Still your heart goes out to the sheltered, convent-raised Portuguese Princess who left her home to become his Queen, and you wonder what might have been ... without all the stress and nonsense of the Stuart court. Portugal sent a very classy daughter to England. She was intelligent, religious, kind and fun-loving when given a chance. She had a talent for acting, dancing and athletics. Catherine of Braganza is credited with introducing the practice of drinking tea in England. Charles II grew fond of her, and she remained devoted to him, despite the fact he was never at any time faithful to her. Not only did he have multiple courtesans and casual flings, his serious mistresses along with their bastard children were flaunted within his court, as well as, openly in public. His philandering brought sadness and isolation into her life.
 |
| November 25, 1638 - December 31, 1705 |
Queen Catherine had 4 miscarriages and stillborn children. Nobody can really know why she couldn't carry her babies to term, but as it turns out, the Queen was given quinine by 17th-century doctors, which is known to cause miscarriages. Also, the stress of having powerful wenches and their bastards in her face; the worry of being tossed out by divorce; and having little say in her own court, couldn't have helped matters in the least. Then there were the sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis the King and his French mistress, Louise deKèrouaille (who caught "the pox" from him), were known to have been treated for in 1674. Miraculously the Queen is not known to have contracted the disease.
But could she have caught other viruses affecting childbearing? We will never know ... but perhaps Charles II's hedonism was a factor in his own lack of a legitimate heir. He alone was responsible for his lubricious court. Queen Catherine remained a treasure ... her integrity and benevolence intact. It is speculated that the King never divorced his Queen partially out of guilt.
The book, The Kings Bed, depicts Charles II as a clever and shrewd King, but mentions that some historians reason, he was "a man who never truly grew up" ... perhaps "his problems stemmed from the violent death of his father and the subsequent years of his enforced exile." The King's "contemporaries agreed, his time in France [in the court of his cousin Louis XIV] corrupted him." Modern psychiatrist Dr. Paul Harlow thinks Charles suffered from "arrested emotional development stuck irredeemably in adolescence," listing several symptoms, including his "avoidance of emotional mature relationships and the need for endless female couplings ... In his formative years he lost the close contact of a mature male figure, leading him to 'Don Juan syndrome,' a condition in which a man fails to take charge of his life in an adult, mature way," notes Dr. Harlow. Also, toss in the factor: As absolute ruler, Charles received a pass from the expectation of following normal, social behavior. Accepting moral responsibility for his pleasure dome lifestyle "didn't come into play."
According to the same book, Charles isn't viewed as a psychopath as "he enjoyed life too much and engaged in it too well to be a psychopath." Moreover, the authors observe: "Whatever his failings ... Charles carried himself well enough throughout his life, usually with good humor and with a good word for the humblest of his subjects, though he cared little about them. ... Generally speaking, as long as he got his way, he was congeniality itself."
Furthermore, his erotic and parasitic behavior cut the monarchy down to size. For his subjects, it "broke the spell" of the idea of divine monarchy. Majesty -- or ''greatness of God" was forever after seen as less majestic and more human.
On Queen Catherine's final visit to her husband's deathbed in 1685, she was overcome with grief and tears. The Queen half-fainted in response to his suffering, as well as, his tenderness towards her and had to be carried back to her own rooms. She sent back a note asking Charles to forgive her if she had ever offended him. To which the dying King replied, "Poor woman, she begs my pardon! I beg hers with all my heart."
Here again, you wonder what might have been. The actor, Jon Hamm who played and knew Don Draper so well, always maintained that while his character was distinguished in his professional life, he was a coward in his private life. Was Charles II a coward also?
A question scholars always ask is: What of his early promise went unfulfilled, due to his duplicity and need of a huge purse?
If Charles had put his energy into what should have been his most important intimate relationship, his marriage (and cared more about statesmanship) in lieu of a pleasure-seeking court, what an influential team the outwardly Protestant King and his capable Catholic Queen might have been in England at a time of fierce religious intolerance. Perhaps, just perhaps the Stuarts would be remembered as the dynasty that brought the country back together ... and is it possible the Stuarts would still be sitting on the throne today? We can only wonder.
As head of the Church of England, King Charles II was a pragmatist. In private, he sympathized with the religion so many of the people around him (his mother, Queen, brother, James, his courtesans) followed. On his deathbed, he willingly converted to Catholicism. He died bravely, remaining congenial to the end. The cause of death was perhaps a stroke ... more probably kidney disease, but possibly accidental mercury poisoning from experiments in his windowless lab at Whitehall.
Later in life ... years after the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary (1688), the widowed Catherine of Braganza returned to Portugal to successfully act as regent for her brother, Peter II ... where she died in 1705.👑
*Charles gave his mistresses the rights to the proceeds from certain government taxes collected or the King's pardons. For example, Louise deKèrouaille got the money from prisoners who paid bribes to be pardoned - a practice at the time. Many were in jail because they couldn't pay their debts. If they couldn't pay her, she then sold the prisoners into indentured servitude for $3 - $12 a head, and they were shipped off to Virginia as slaves effectively, making her and her descendants rich.
At times mistresses, Barbara Villiers and Louise deKèrouaille, were able to crush politicians who dared to criticize their influence on the King, then were given their properties (now lost to the heirs of the ousted men). They broke the property up and sold it increasing their own wealth. Barbara Villiers "borrowed" jewelry from the Crown, but in her hands, the pieces became gifts. Charles II did nothing, so Queen Catherine was powerless.
Interesting fact: Prince William will be the 1st direct descendant ever of Charles II -- 350 years later -- to sit on the British throne. His mother, Diana Princess of Wales was a direct descendant of 2 rival mistresses: Barbara Villiers and Louise deKèrouaille. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, and Sarah, Duchess of York are also direct descendants of Charles II through Louise deKèrouaille. It's one big happy illegitimate family! But we're cool with Prince William and company. Heaven forbid if we never let bygones be bygones and had to atone for all our ancestors. Hopefully, we can look at history without judging innocent people who try to live meaningful lives.
You may also enjoy:
Queen Victoria's Family Pictures
Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll
Remembering Prince Leopold, Duke Of Albany
German Empress Victoria: A Book Review And More
