#bc i feel like i'm being repetitive lool

[ducavalentinos]

Thoughts on these Borgia-related women? Vannozza de Cattanei, Adrianna de Mila, Caterina Sforza, Lucrezia Borgia, the unfortunate Pantasilea, Charlotte d'Albret, Sancha d'Aragona, Isabella d'Este and Giulia Farnese

I have some thoughts, yes lol. Vannozza dei Cattanei: Well, she's an inspiration to us all ok. What a woman. She managed to catch eye of Rodrigo, which you know easy enough, but then also keep a hold over his affection towards her for decades, which proved more difficult, in a way no other woman ever did in his life, to the point she apparently could, and did, actually used the family name and coat of arms of the Borgia family in her private life, and there are some documents from 1514 which she signs as Vannozza Borgia or Vanotia Borgia de Cathaneis. I might be a little bit biased here 👀 but she also put beautiful, amazing children into this world., she clearly had a mind for commerce, for business and she eventually became quite the businesswoman, with her vineyards and many proprieties. She never made a scene, that we know of, over Giulia Farnese, in my view precisely because she knew the position she occupied in Rodrigo's life, and she had a good life. She was a smart, pragmatic woman, and often the personalities, the qualities of the Borgia children, esp. Lucrezia and Cesare are more linked to their father, Rodrigo, and it's true they inherited a lot from him, but I also see they inherited much from their mother, the genes between these two was evidently pretty awesome so it's no wonder they produced such beautiful, amazing children, sorry not sorry. And then, at the end of her life, Vannozza was of course an incredibly wealthy woman, she survived the election and papacy of Della Rovere and his relentless persecution against any Borgia, or anyone associated with the Borgias and/or just Spaniards in general. She went from mistress (more like wife heh) of a Cardinal and Pope to this universally respectable woman, patron of the arts and generous donor to pious commuities, and when she died in 1518, she was buried with solemnity in the Church of Sta. Maria del Popolo, and Pope Leo X ordered that she be given the honors normally only reserved for cardinals, her funeral was more of a big deal than the many cardinals and other ecclesiastics that came to pass. Again, what a woman, what a inspiration, what a role model. That's how you do it. Adriana de Milà: It’s difficult to have a clear image of her and how she was like. I tend to reject the idea of her being this cold, harsh, bitter woman, or like the wicked step-mother given the Borgia children, with the exception of Gioffre who was too young, were removed from Vannozza's house and put into Adriana's care, I don't why she is presented like that sometimes, in history and in fiction, when there is no evidence suggesting that at all. She might have been a good mother figure for them, Lucrezia seemed attached to her, more so than with her own mother, and I'm not sure about the boys: Cesare and Juan, we know Cesare was and remained close to his mother, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was no bond between him and Adriana, in any case, to me she comes across as a pragmatic, prudent woman, who seemed to have always been more devoted to the Borgia side of her family, through the bloodline of de Milà, than to the Orsini side by her marriage with Ludovico Orsini. She is recorded as being very close to Rodrigo, indeed some say she was his closest confidant, but like I said before, I highly disagree with the idea she was like his doormat and his "creature" and she had no mind of her own, clearly that was not the case, otherwise she wouldn't have helped Giulia in Pesaro and other occasions, too. I posted this dispatch by Lorenzo Pucci a while back which I think it's interesting and it highlights the good relationship Giulia and Adriana had, and their complicity with each other. I think Adriana was moved by her loyalty and her close bonds with people she loved, yes, but I think she was also moved by what was more advantegeous for her and for the family. She’s an intriguing woman and I wish  we need more about her personal relationships with the Borgia family. Caterina Sforza: hmm, I tend to separate Caterina the historical figure, which it’s quite a mess from Caterina the person according to the historical records, and talking about the person: She had interesting moments during the papacy of Sixtus, her dislike of Riario makes me laugh every time and she clearly was brave, to a fault, I believe. I’m fascinated by her recipes about beauty care, medicines, alchemy and other things, however, I can’t say I vibe with her, for lack of a better word. Her style of doing things, esp. politically speaking, are not my style. She was too rash, too hot-tempered, too needlessly violent for my taste. Like every time she was hurt or angry, she would just go full on rage mode targeting anyone in her way, (including women and children), which does not help to cultivate a good popular opinion about you as a ruler, which she didn’t seem to care much about (big mistake, as we later saw). Her political actions to me come across as having been mostly guided by how she felt, and that’s just not something I can understand, it’s not even about judging, about sides, I’m sure she did what she thought was the right thing for herself and her family’s power, I just fail to see the intelligence in them, like how did she thought acting the way she did would help her in holding on to power? it only did the opposite. It wasn’t clever, and it was the main reason why she fell from power.  Machiavelli’s assessment of her as a ruler, and as to why she lost Imola and Forlì so fast are correct, it was the same for the other lords of the Romagna, with the exception of Manfredi of Faenza and Montefeltro of Urbino (although the loyalty and affection Guidobaldo enjoyed from the people of Urbino came mostly because of the good memory the people had of his family, of his father, than anything about him in particular. He wasn’t a bad ruler per se, but he was a weak one). I think in the end, what it comes down to with Caterina for me, it’s that I can’t relate to her personality, and I don’t agree with her politics. And then as a bonus her historical literature, unfortunately, is polluted with types of scholars and methodologies I tend to avoid because I really don’t have the patience for it anymore, if I ever did dsjdsjds. Pantasilea: I don’t have thoughts about her tbh, because there’s very little info about her in history. We don’t even know if the female body found at the Tiber was really her, all we have are rumours, which are far from reliable, just as the ones attached to Pedro Calderon aka Perotto’s death, which I discuss more here, below keeping reading. Sancia d’Aragona: I’m fond of Sancia, I like how she loved to enjoy life, her sexual agency is interesting to take note, she was very proud and spoiled as young noblewomen tended to be, but she was also particuarly bold and openly confrontational about things which she disagreed on. She could be very troublesome sometimes, with or without good reasons. She lacked diplomacy and calm, and it naturally got her trouble on occasion. If she had been a man, I believe she would have been killed young, because many young noblemen who behave in the way she did ended up being murdered by their enemies, but she was beautiful and charming and she had her protectors, she might not have been so politically savvy as Lucrezia, Giulia or Isabella, but she knew how court intrigues worked (she was from Naples and in the court of Naples, if you didn’t know how intrigues worked, you died lol, it was that simple), so she played it well, and good for her, you know. One thing I often wonder about her and the end of her life is: how did she felt about the fact she apparently couldn’t bare children? with the fact she couldn’t be a mother? was it something she was okay with, even happy? or was it something that made her sad? I’d love to know that and more about the her last years, which there isn’t much available info, that I’ve found, sadly. Giulia Farnese: There's little about Giulia, but enough to make me like her. Everything I've read about her makes me imagine her as a beautiful, lovely, lively, smart young woman. I can see why Rodrigo was so crazy about her, hell, all of the men who came into her presence fell in love immediately dsjdsjdsj, and she was very aware of that and used it to her and her family's advantage, that much it's clear to me. She was no meek, feeble-minded girl as some authors characterize her as. The sibling relationship between her and Alessandro is also very cute, it seems he was protective of her. And ooh, what endears her to me even more is her capricious, bold attitude at times, like can you imagine young Giulia, in her what? 17-year-old-self openly changelling the Pope's orders? at least twice that we know of, even though she knew full well the risk it brought to her and her family? That's just....not even grown, harsh men dared to that and if they did, they were screwed, but Giulia was like whatever I’m doing what I want! djsdjsdj, and to me that highly implies she knew where she stood with Rodrigo. It’s so powerful and awesome really, I can’t say that I agree with the notion she was a victim of Rodrigo, or as the prefered narrative often goes from women of the past, a victim and pawn of her family ZzzZZzz. Giulia was harcore, and I think she was as interested in the advancement her family as they were, given the more high status your family had, the more opportunities you had, the more wealth and therefore power and safety, she knew how to play the game and she was successful at it, I mean she managed to make her brother a Cardinal and later he became pope, anddd she also managed to make a great alliance for her daughter, with no other than the Della Rovere’s family, that takes some serious political maneuvers and charm and patience, which it seems she had it in spare. She also had many lovers it seems, and she eventually married a Baron, and became governor of Carbognano, and the records state she was a good, wise administrator, "who governed in a firm but energic manner" (god, this reminds me of Cesare djsdjjs), so yeah, Giulia was a pretty cool lady. Isabella d'Este: I find her more interesting than Sforza mentioned above, and I vibe more with her and her way of doing politics, for sure, she was a savy political player and keen diplomat. I'm fond of her relationship with her brother, Giulio d'Este, it's very cute, and I find it unfair when some scholars characterize her as a shrew of a wife to Gonzaga (hi, Bellonci! hahaha). I don't think it was quite like that, she certainly helped him a lot during the moments of crisis, but she had to make some hard decisions, and she did what she thought was best for her family's power and her State, it's not so simple. So yeah, she’s ok, I just don't find her interesting as a historical figure I suppose, nor her family. I don't really find the d'Este interesting tbh, there are some interesting moments perhaps during the 1400s, with Ercole d'Este's father: Niccolò III d'Este, but overall it's like mehh. They had such a haughty attitude about themselves and their lineage, which unlike the Malatesta, it's not fun, it's just annoying, and their hypocrisy was out of control, and I can't stand that lol.  Lucrezia Borgia and Charlotte d’Albret: I’m putting them together and for last here because I think they suffer much from the same kind of faults in their historical literature: The passionate, overly sensitive approach by their biographers. They are put on a pedestal, where only their piety and kindness are acknowledged, and/or the victim status is applied to them, regardless of the lack of evidence. And from then on all sorts of empty assumptions and claims, personal projections are made about them, in a rather condescending, clairvoyant way, and of course of their relationship and bond with Cesare. They are always seen as women first and human beings second (no matter the author's school of thought nor his/her intentions), so their minds, their complexity, their political intelligence has to be severely diminished in order for some narratives to work, which it’s a big disservice to them, in the end. Their sincere love and cloneness with Cesare always have to be justified, from the natural love of a sister to a silly’s girl first love etc, it’s terrible, and it fails to pay attention to the historical material, same for the “competition” which happens often among some scholars in order to establish which woman had a more important position in Cesare’s life. I think it’s so silly, so limiting to give promience to one or the other. Lucrezia was his sister, his blood, and as such of course she occupied an important position in his life, yes, but there is no need to exaggerate things and turn their normal sibling bond into this epic romance where Lucrezia is the only and most important woman in his life, (which it’s far from being supported by the known facts available about the Borgia family) and then as a result, completely ignore or dismiss Charlotte and her own important position his life and the sincere affection he had for her, and vice-versa, there’s no need to call Lucrezia a non-entity and disregard her importance in her brother’s life. Like, a more balanced, fact-based view is possible where we can say both women held important positions in Cesare’s life, and it seems he had strong emotional bonds with both of them. They can co-exist, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Overall I think there’s just this constant infantilization with them that I find quite insulting, and there's also this modernization, if that makes sense, of their lives? maybe as a way to make them more relatable to modern readers idk, so sometimes I read works where it looks like Lucrezia or Charlotte are teenage girls living in the 50s or in today's time, and they are not. There are worlds apart between Lucrezia in her 14-years-old, for example, and a teenage girl today. It's not the same at all and it shouldn't be presented so imo. Thoughts on...ask meme