Princess Elizabeth, Charles I and Henrietta Maria's second daughter was born on December 28, 1635 and died imprisoned by Parliament on September 8, 1650. The portrait of her in the Palace of St. James by Millais depicts her as scholarly and young. As her father had in his youth, she had suffered from rickets and broke her leg at the age of seven. She was rather scholarly, learning Hebrew, Greek, Italian, Latin, and French. The princess was also known for her gentleness, with the nickname "Temperance."
She and her younger brother Henry were not allowed to join their mother and other siblings in Holland and France. She urged her older brother James to escape as soon as he could, lending him clothing to disguise himself. Elizabeth and Henry met with their father before his execution one last time and the princess wrote her recollection (she was 13; her brother 8):He bid us tell my mother that his thoughts had never strayed from her, and that his love would be the same to the last. Withal, he commanded me and my brother to be obedient to her; and bid me send his blessing to the rest of my brothers and sisters, with communications to all his friends. Then, taking my brother Gloucester on his knee, he said, 'Sweetheart, now they will cut off thy father's head.' And Gloucester looking very intently upon him, he said again, "Heed, my child, what I say: they will cut off my head and perhaps make thee a king. But mark what I say. Thou must not be a king as long as thy brothers Charles and James do live; for they will cut off your brothers' heads when they can catch them, and cut off thy head too at the last, and therefore I charge you, do not be made a king by them.' At which my brother sighed deeply, and made answer: 'I will be torn in pieces first!' And these words, coming so unexpectedly from so young a child, rejoiced my father exceedingly. And his majesty spoke to him of the welfare of his soul, and to keep his religion, commanding him to fear God, and He would provide for him. Further, he commanded us all to forgive those people, but never to trust them; for they had been most false to him and those that gave them power, and he feared also to their own souls. And he desired me not to grieve for him, for he should die a martyr, and that he doubted not the Lord would settle his throne upon his son, and that we all should be happier than we could have expected to have been if he had lived; with many other things which at present I cannot remember.He gave her a Bible and told her to read good Anglican books--and never to read any Catholic books! (Read more.)
Share
6 comments:
In a way, Princess Elizabeth was luckier than Madame Royale; in another way, unluckier. Marie-Thérèse had far worse experiences in her youth, but at least she lived to adulthood and had quite a full life.
Thank you for this article Elena Maria! I never knew of Princess Elizabeth; how very sad. What is it with republics? Cromwell, Danton, Robespierre; why take revenge on innocent children. Are these men so totally evil? The fact that Cromwell would not let her leave with her mother was simply outrageous. I guess he was intelligent enough to know that in Britain boys AND girls may inherit the royal throne. The sarcophagus of Princess Elizabeth is so beautiful it breaks your heart.
There was no reason for Elizabeth to be a prisoner.
I am confused about something; how is it that Catholic princesses like Henrietta Maria were allowed to marry Protestants, when everyone knew that their children would be raised as Protestants? Also, were the brides married in Protestant ceremonies? Was that permitted at the time?
I was reading recently about the marriage negotiations of the Catholic Leopold of Belgium and the Lutheran Astrid of Sweden (1920's) and by then, the Catholic rules were very strict: the prince could only marry a Protestant if she agreed to raise the children as Catholics, and they were not allowed to have a Protestant wedding ceremony- just an emphatically *civil* marriage in Stockholm, then a Catholic religious marriage in Brussels- this was diplomatically quite awkward, but the Belgian royal family was told that it was intrinsically wrong for a Catholic to take part in a Protestant wedding ceremony and even the Pope could not give a dispensation for it. This puzzled me, though, when I thought of these earlier royal marriages...was there a more flexible view of these matters earlier on?
In earlier times the rules were not as strict. Or let us say it was left to the conscience of the Catholic spouse. It was not until the 19th century that Protestants marrying Catholics had to promise that the children would be raised Catholic in order for the marriage to be blessed by the Church. However, in those past times there were usually two wedding ceremonies, a Catholic one and a Protestant one.
That clears things up, thank you!
Post a Comment