#Maximilian I

[theancientwayoflife]

~ "Freydal": Tournament book of Emperor Maximilian I.

Culture: South German

Date: A.D. 1512-1515

Medium: 255 gouaches heightened with gold and silver in leather strap: paper; leather.

• From the source: The "Freydal" describes the tournaments during Maximilian's knightly love journey.

[earlymodernbarbie]

Reference drawing of Juana I of Castile for the Tomb of Maximillian I by Jörg Kölderer (1522)

[illustratus]

A Guardian Angel Rescuing Emperor Maximilian from the Martinswand

by Alfred Rethel

The young emperor is in great danger as he gazes into the abyss. According to a popular Tyrolean legend, Maximilian I (1459-1519) supposedly got completely lost in the mountains while out hunting chamois near Innsbruck. On the third day, as if by a miracle, a mysterious man appeared and led the exhausted monarch back into the valley. Contrary to a previous idea of depicting the rescuer as an angel, Rethel shows him here as a shepherd in a sheepskin, albeit illuminated from behind by a supernatural light.

[hundredthousandtimes]

Christa Théret and Jannis Niewöhner as Mary of Burgundy and Maximilian I Maximilian - Das Spiel von Macht und Liebe Episode 3

[richmond-rex]

Hi there

So I follow the Tudor Trio and Nicola Tallis, Matthew Lewis and Nathan Amin were doing a debate today on the Princes in the Tower with the quote on quote new evidence that has been revealed from Philippa Langley.

I still firmly believe Richard III killed the Princes and find many of Matthew Lewis' arguments bizarre. I'm not sure why he thinks the Princes weren't a threat to Richard but were to Henry VII. If the Princes weren't a threat to Richard then why would they have been a threat to Henry VII? I can't understand why Richard would ever let them escape England of his own free Will. There is almost no chance they could have escaped without him knowing about it.

Also he claimed that Henry VII sent Elizabeth Woodville to Bermondsey Abbey and that she was supporting the Lambert Simnel Rebellion. Is there any truth to that? Thanks!

Hi, sorry for taking so long to reply! Lewis' arguments are so incredibly ridiculous — they largely rest on accepting at face value people's signatures and on the claim that Maximilian and Margaret of York were too blue-blooded to ever lie for political ends: essentially, he claims lying was for peasants. And yes, the princes would absolutely be a threat to Richard III as he found out as soon as he left London after his coronation — there happened a rebellion made by former Edwardian servants that aimed to free the princes from the Tower, very possibly to restore them to the throne. The princes had been raised all their lives to regard the English throne as their birthright — you're telling me they would grow up abroad and would neve try a restoration aided by one of England's political enemies such as France?

The ricardian claim that Richard III sent them to Burgundy is incredibly ridiculous to me as well: even if they stayed with Richard's sister, she wasn't the one ruling Burgundy — Maximilian of Austria, the husband of Margaret's deceased daughter-in-law, was. How could Richard be sure Maximilian wouldn't take the princes the minute Richard did something that went against Maximilian's interests and use them to either blackmail him or depose him so Maximilian could have his own English king? Burgundy had displayed lancastrian loyalties not so long ago in the past and the political game in Europe changed constantly.

It would have been absolutely STUPID of Richard III to deliver the strongest weapon anyone could use against him to a foreign power. Let's also mention that Maximilian at the time was struggling with controlling his own children, the actual Burgundian heirs, because some Flemish cities had rebelled against him and had his heir (Philip of Burgundy) in their power and were up in arms against his regency. From June 1483 to July 1485 Maximilian couldn't have control of his own son. You're telling me Richard would have sent the biggest assets anyone could use against him to that unstable scenario?

The truth is that Ricardians like Matthew Lewis benefit from the fact that people study/know about the Wars of the Roses from an impossibly anglocentric lens, ignoring that the conflict was also the outcome of the multiple iterations of power play between Western European powers: 'the Wars of the Roses were an extended episode in a European conflict, not just a murderous private dispute'. It really is inconceivable, when it comes down to logic, how Richard was one step ahead of everyone during the mounting off to his takeover of the throne (bamboozling and imprisoning the Woodvilles, executing and imprisoning Edward V's strongest supporters such as Hastings) but would commit such a basic political error as sending other claimants to his own crown to a foreign power.

As to Elizabeth Woodville going to Bermondsey Abbey as a way of punishment for her supporting a rebellion against Henry VII, it makes little sense as well. Henry VII carried on with the marriage negotiations with Scotland that involved Elizabeth and two of her daughters until James III's death in 1488. Again, it would make little sense for Henry VII to have found out Elizabeth was conspiring against him but keep wanting to send her north as an ally to Scotland, a country that could easily make war on him and create problems. Why would he deliver an enemy into the hands of another possible enemy, if Elizabeth truly conspired against him? Again, it's the lack of perspective into Europe and international politics that jump out in Lewis' logic.

Do my words make sense to you? I truly cannot comprehend how Lewis can say the stuff he says and no one really contradicts him in his logic.

[belle-primrose]

The Wedding of Mary of Burgundy with Maximilian of Austria by Jacob Jordaens, between 1634 and 1635

[royal-confessions]

“Imagine the disappointment that Empress Carlota of Mexico must have felt when she discovered that her husband, Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, still had an ardent love for the late Princess Maria Amelia of Brazil. Even after his marriage to Carlota, Maximiliano undertook a pilgrimage to places that Maria Amelia had visited before her tragic death. He even travelled to Brazil to meet the late princess's favourite bird.” - Submitted by cenacevedo15

[violaobanion]

Johannes Nussbaum as Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph Maria von Österreich in DIE KAISERIN (2022-) 1.01 “Ein Platz in der Welt”

[dreamconsumer]

Maximilian I of Habsburg. By Karl von Blaas.

[juanaofcastilla]

La Corona Partida 2016

Raúl Mérida as Philip The Handsome

José Coronado as Emperor Maximilian I

Irene Escolar as Juana of Castile

Úrsula Corberó as Margaret of Austria

[thefreelancehistorywriter]

Margaret of Austria is Shipwrecked and King Henry VII of England Writes to Her at Southampton – 1497

Probably by Pieter van Coninxloo Diptych: Philip the Handsome and Margaret of Austria about 1493-5 https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/GROUP20 When King Charles VIII of France put into motion his plans to extend his power basis into Italy, he attacked Naples which belonged to the sphere of influence of King Ferdinand of Aragon. Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I concluded an anti-French…

[little-candy-store-of-horrors]

Maximilian and his (b)rats 🐀🐀

His genes seemed to have skipped a whole generation; sure hope these two don't, like, pass them down and spawn the most f**ked up looking dynasty or something :-0> :-B> !

[earlymodernbarbie]

Bronze statues of Juana I of Castile and Archduchess Margaret of Austria in the Empty Tomb of Emperor Maximillian I

[illustratus]

Combination Sallet and Bevor of Maximilian I by Lorenz Helmschmid, circa 1495. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Imperial Armoury

[playitagin]

1867-Emperor Maximilian I

Maximilian I (German: Ferdinand Maximilian Josef Maria von Habsburg-Lothringen, Spanish: Fernando Maximiliano José María de Habsburgo-Lorena; 6 July 1832 – 19 June 1867) was an Austrian archduke who became emperor of the Second Mexican Empire from 10 April 1864 until his execution by the Mexican Republic on 19 June 1867.

Maximilian's trial began on 13 June, in the Teatro Iturbide of Querétaro, and he was charged with conspiring to overthrow the Mexican government and with carrying out the Black Decree. Maximilian's lawyers, which included the conservative statesman Rafael Martínez de la Torre attempted to defend the legitimacy of the Empire and Maximilian's benevolent rule. After only one day the court returned a verdict of guilty and sentenced Maximilian to death.

A number of the crowned heads of Europe and other prominent figures (including the eminent liberals Victor Hugo and Giuseppe Garibaldi) sent telegrams and letters to Mexico requesting that the Emperor's life be spared. Although he respected Maximilian on a personal level, Juárez refused to commute the sentence because he believed it was necessary to send a message that Mexico would not tolerate any more foreign interventions.

Felix Salm-Salm and his wife devised a plan to allow Maximilian to escape execution by bribing his jailors. However, Maximilian would not go through with the plan unless Generals Miramón and Mejía could accompany him and because he felt that shaving his beard to avoid recognition would undermine his dignity if he were to be recaptured.

The sentence was carried out in the Cerro de las Campanas at 6:40 a.m. on the morning of 19 June 1867, when Maximilian, along with Generals Miramón and Mejía, was executed by a Republican firing squad. He spoke only in Spanish and gave each of his executioners a gold coin in traditional European aristocratic fashion. His last words were, "I forgive everyone, and I ask everyone to forgive me. May my blood which is about to be spilled end the bloodshed which has been experienced in my new motherland. Long live Mexico! Long live its independence!" A photo of Maximilian's firing squad is owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gilman Collection.

[richmond-rex]

Some Tudor authors/historians have tried to reassess Margaret of York recently but I still hate this type of condescending approach:

(G. Streeter, Arthur Prince of Wales: Henry VIII's Lost Brother)

Margaret of York was as much of a political player as the monarchs and princes of her age. Why should we assign her actions to emotional reasons, only changing our stance from 'insatiable hatred' to self-delusional grief that makes her desperately cling to a nephew she only met once? For one, Margaret had a family in Burgundy (her stepdaughter Mary and her children). Most important of all, as the dowager duchess of Burgundy she was as much invested in seeing to Burgundy's interests and profits as was the duchy's regent at the time, Maximilian of Austria.

In 1493, the Milanese Ambassador in France wrote:

[The admiral] persuades the king [Charles VIII] that the emperor [Maximilian I] only wants peace in order to deceive him and set up Burgundy again. He says if [Charles VIII] gives back the daughter [Margaret of Austria] one of two evils will follow, either her father [Maximilian I] will never marry her, saying that she is the wife of his Majesty [Charles VIII], and thus make out that the king's children [with Anne of Brittany] are bastards, or they will try to make King of England the boy who calls himself the son of King Edward [Perkin Warbeck], who fled thither, and give him [Margaret of Austria] to wife, so as by his means to make perpetual war in France.

Henry VII was to be directly affected by those scenarios and at the same time he was barely involved in them (as far as his own willingness to cooperate with Burgundy went) — what even to say about Margaret of York. Thanks to France and Burgundy's own particular struggle, Maximilian needed England as a tool to hurt the king of France. For that he needed his own puppet king on the English throne, regardless if he was Edward IV's son or not. It's a complex geopolitical situation that involved elaborate schemes; schemes where Margaret of York was a (most likely willing) participant but in any case, none that had to do with Margaret's feelings about her family one way or the other.