Juana of Castile, "la Beltraneja"

Juana of Castile, queen of Portugal (death of her father, Enrique IV of Castile, 11 December 1474)

Born on 21 February 1462, the infanta Juana of Castile was the daughter of Enrique IV and his second wife, Juana of Portugal. For much of her life, Juana of Castile's paternity was questioned, and she was disparagingly referred to as la Beltraneja--a reference to the nobleman Beltrán de La Cueva, a royal favorite who was suspected of being her father.*

A detail from a sixteenth-century Portuguese
royal family tree, showing Juana of Castile,
queen of Portugal from 1475 until her marriage
to Afonso of Portugal was invalidated

Whether she was the king's daughter or not, she was recognized by Enrique IV as his child and heir--and so I've decided to post about Juana of Castile today.

When her father died on 11 December 1474, the twelve-year-old Juana should have become the queen regnant of Castile. But she did not.

Enrique IV had come to the throne of Castile in 1454, after the death of his father, Juan II. The year before he became king, his thirteen-year marriage to Blanche of Navarre had been annulled; the unfortunate Blanche had "failed" to produce an heir for Castile, and despite rumors of Enrique's impotence, it was Blanche who was returned to Navarre in disgrace. A year after he became king, Enrique married once more; like his father, Enrique chose as his second wife a Portuguese princess, Juana.

It took Enrique and his second wife nearly seven years to produce an heir; Juana, their only child, was born in late February of 1462. In letters dispatched to major cities, Enrique announced the birth of the "most high Princess Doña Juana, my very dear and most beloved daughter and heir." In May the Cortes, the parliament of Castile's cities, was convened to confirm Juana as the king's successor. 

Although rebellion, civil war, and succession crises followed quickly, the problems did not result from the birth of a princess instead of a prince in 1462. It was Enrique himself who was the focus of dissatisfaction. He was accused of impotence and incompetence, of not being Juan II's legitimate son, of sympathizing with Jews and Moors, and of ignoring his "own" people, particularly the powerful Castilian grandees. 

By 1465, rumors about Princess Juana's legitimacy had been added to the toxic mix, with suspicion falling on Beltrán de la Cueva, Queen Juana's supposed lover. Dissatisfaction, dissension, and disaffection coalesced into defiance. Enrique's opponents "deposed" their king and crowned his half-brother, the eleven-year-old Alfonso, king.

Alfonso "XII," as he was called by his supporters, never became more than "the ghost of a sovereign," as he was known by his opponents. Three years later he fell suddenly ill. On 4 July 1468, Alfonso's sister (and Enrique's half sister), Isabella of Castile, wrote a letter reminding the people that "the succession of the reign and the dominions of Castile and León [belong] to me as legitimate heir and successor." The next day, on 5 July, Alfonso died.

Juana of Castile,
briefly queen of Portugal

The seventeen-year-old Isabella was urged to press ahead with her claim to be Alfonso's successor, but she chose not to do so. Chroniclers later supplied several motivations for her decision.

According to one, Isabella resisted the urging of her advisers because "the death of Alfonso might perhaps be interpreted as an indication from Heaven of its disapproval of their cause." According to another, she rejected these advisers because she wished to avoid "the hardships of war." Yet another attributed her decision to her recognition that "destruction and tyranny" would continue to "increase in the kingdom."

Whatever her reasons, Isabella signaled her decision in a letter written some two weeks after Alfonso's death, signing herself "Isabel, by Grace of God princess and legitimate hereditary successor to these kingdoms of Castile and León." Rather than claiming to be Alfonso's heir, she positioned herself as Enrique's.

Although he had assured Queen Juana he had no intention of disinheriting Princess Juana, Enrique met with Isabella and the opposition in September and signed a treaty that named his half-sister as his legitimate successor.

The treaty made no specific reference to his daughter or to her claim to the throne. But by his act, Juana of Castile became Juana la Beltraneja: illegitimate daughter of a disgraced Queen Juana and her lover Beltrán de la Cueva, instead of legitimate heir of Enrique IV, king of Castile.

Throughout the period of rebellion and civil war that lasted throughout the second half of Enrique's reign--from 1464, through the 1468 succession agreement, until Enrique's death in 1474--various marriage proposals were suggested as a way out of the political crisis.

In 1464, before "deposing" Enrique and proclaiming Alfonso king, rebellious nobles had negotiated with the king to name his half-brother as his heir and to arrange for the boy's marriage to Princess Juana, who for the purpose of this agreement was regarded as legitimate. This plan fell apart a few months later.

Isabella was also the focus of various marital projects intended to settle the crisis. In an effort to gain an ally in his struggle with rebellious grandees, Enrique had proposed Isabella as a match for Edward IV of England, an offer that Edward declined. In another effort, the king turned to Afonso V of Portugal, his wife's brother and a recent widower.

To prevent this Portuguese alliance and to neutralize Isabella's marriage as a political tool in Enrique's hands, the opposition met with the king in 1466 and proposed instead her marriage to Pedro Giron, one of the rebel leaders. In spite of Isabella's objections, Enrique accepted the compromise, but the bridegroom died on his way to celebrate the union.

By 1468 the political situation changed dramatically. Following Enrique's "decision" to name Isabella as his heir, a double marriage was considered: Afonso V of Portugal, Queen Juana's brother, was again proposed as a match for Isabella, while Juana, princess or la Beltraneja, would be married to the Portuguese king's son and heir, Joaõ. Enrique considered this proposal carefully, even asking his queen to travel to Portugal to discuss arrangements with her brother, but Queen Juana refused.

Louis XI of France then suggested Isabella's marriage to his brother and heir Charles, duke of Berry and Guyenne. From England came the possibility for an alliance with one of the brothers of King Edward IV, possibly Richard. All of these marriages--with the widowed Portuguese king, with the heir of the king of France, with a brother of the king of England--would have removed Isabella from Castile and almost certainly have jeopardized her claim to the crown.

By the terms of their 1468 agreement, Enrique could arrange a match for Isabella, but he could not force her to accept it; Isabella, for her part, had promised not to marry without Enrique's permission. But in 1469, taking the question of her marriage in her own hands, she chose an alliance with Ferdinand of Aragon. She wrote to Enrique announcing her intention and seeking his permission.

She began by reminding him of their agreement: "I agreed to submit to your wishes . . . in which it was agreed that the true succession of these said your kingdoms would belong to me as your legitimate heir and successor." Then she sought his permission for her proposal, asking that "Your Highness would . . . consent to the marriage with the . . . prince of Aragon."

Although Enrique's permission was not forthcoming, Isabella and Ferdinand were married on 18 October 1469. The terms of the marriage contract ensured Isabella's rights and her independence: Ferdinand would be prince-consort of Castile, not its king. Ferdinand had to promise "virtual obedience" to Isabella; among other "capitulations," he agreed to live in Castile, to seek permission before leaving the kingdom and before taking any children they might have out of the kingdom, to renew none of his father's claims to Castilian possessions, and to make no government appointments without Isabella's consent. Further, he agreed to provide Isabella a sizeable marriage gift and to serve as her military defender.

By February 1970, Isabella was pregnant; she gave birth to a daughter, Isabel, on 2 October. Weeks later, on 26 October, more than a year after his half-sister's marriage, Enrique at last replied. Declaring Isabella could no longer be considered his heir, he once again declared that Juana of Castile was his legitimate daughter and, therefore, his heir. 

Despite Enrique's assertions of her legitimacy, the succession question had not been settled when the king died in December of 1474. Conflicting accounts of his dying wishes reflect the confused state of affairs. One report claimed that Enrique had told his confessor, "I declare my daughter to be the heir to the kingdom." Another claimed that, when pressed about his wishes for the succession, the dying king would say nothing. Still another said that Enrique had appointed counselors "who knew his conscience" to settle the succession question, four of them favoring Isabella. In other accounts, Enrique had left a will designating Juana as his heir--a will that was spirited to Portugal for safekeeping, a will that never was found.

Enrique died on 11 December; two days later, on 13 December 1474, Isabella was proclaimed "Queen Proprietess" of Castile. Ferdinand, "as her legitimate husband," was recognized as king. Isabella and Ferdinand were still to face five years of civil war, at least in part motivated by those who defended the twelve-year-old Princess Juana's rights to the throne. 

Although by February of 1475 most of Castile had recognized Isabella, not all the rebellious grandees had. The marquis of Villena, for one, had not. He refused to surrender Juana until a marriage was negotiated for her, a condition Isabella and Ferdinand would not accept. Meanwhile, "Juanista sentiment" was revived in Portugal, where Afonso V, Juana's uncle, decided to intervene. He would marry Princess Juana and invade Castile.

By the end of May the Portuguese king was in Castile. He reached the city of Plasencia, which opened its gates to him. There the forty-three-year-old Afonso, who had once negotiated for Juana as a match for his son, was himself betrothed to the princess. They were jointly proclaimed king and queen of Castile and issued a statement in defense of Juana's claims to the throne. Juana herself claimed that Isabella and Ferdinand had poisoned Enrique and illegally seized the throne.

One of the letters sent by Juana and
Afonso in 1475, declaring her
status as queen of Castile

Ferdinand's initial encounter with Afonso was a disaster, his retreating army pillaging the Castilian countryside. But the Castilian army recovered, and Afonso and Ferdinand fought on until 1477, when at last Ferdinand declared victory. For his part, Afonso returned to Portugal, taking Juana with him. 

In 1478 two events signaled an end to the conflict between Portugal and Castile. In June, Isabella gave birth to a son, Juan, and in December the pope revoked the dispensation he had issued to Afonso so that the Portuguese king could marry his own niece. Afonso attempted one more invasion of Castile, but when this failed, Juana's fate was sealed.

To negotiate a peace settlement with Isabella, Afonso sent Beatriz, duchess of Viseu. The two women met in March of 1479. Beatriz was Afonso's sister-in-law, the wife of his brother. But Beatriz was also Isabella's aunt, her mother Isabel of Portugal's sister. The two women were thus joined by family ties even as they were separated by opposing political interests. 

By the terms of the treaty the two women eventually negotiated, Princess Isabel was to marry Afonso of Portugal, King Afonso's grandson and heir of Prince Joaõ. She would be sent to live under the guardianship of Beatriz of Viseu, who would also be Princess Juana's guardian. Juana could either marry Prince Juan, waiting thirteen or fourteen years until the prince was old enough to be married (by which time Juana would be at least thirty), or she could enter a convent. In either case, she was to give up her claim to the throne of Castile.

In light of these prospects, Princess Juana announced her intention of becoming a nun. Her decision was hardly a happy one, despite the reports of Isabella's chroniclers who attributed to her a variety of pious sentiments. 

She entered a convent in Portugal in 1479, then left it. She was forced into another convent in 1480, Isabella's own confessor witnessing Juana's profession of her vows. This was not the end of her usefulness as a political tool, however. When Afonso V died in 1481, his son, Joaõ II, renewed the promise that Juana should remain in Portugal "unmarried and a nun," then turned around and supported her claim to the Castilian throne in a dispute with Isabella. Juana's attitude to her "choice" of a religious life can best be assessed by her subsequent behavior:

During her long life La Beltraneja was to leave the convent repeatedly and live in ducal homes and palaces under the protection of Portuguese kings. Each time she made a lengthy excursion into the Portuguese court, Isabella and Ferdinand protested and enlisted the help of the pope to force her back into the convent. Neither monastic walls nor stark chapels would, however, change La Beltraneja's conviction. To the last days of her life in 1530 La Beltraneja continued to sign her letters Yo la Reina, or "I the Queen."**

*This post has been adapted from The Monstrous Regiment of Women: Female Rulers in Early Modern Europe (Palgrave Macmillan).

**This quotation is from Nancy Rubin's Isabella of Castile, the First Renaissance Queen (New York, 1991), 175.

Arbella Stuart--She Might Have Been Queen?

Lady Arbella Stuart (died 25 September 1615)

The unfortunate Arbella Stuart was born to great potential, but her life ended in great tragedy. She might have become queen of England. Instead, she died in the Tower of London.

Lady Arbella Stuart,
c. 1589 
Hardwick Hall Collection

Arbella was the great granddaughter of Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII's elder sister: queen of Scotland, mother of James V of Scotland and, by her second marriage, mother of Margaret Douglas.*

Lady Margaret Douglas married Matthew Stewart, earl of Lennox, who was himself a descendant of James II of Scotland; when her son Henry, lord Darnley married Mary Stuart, queen of Scots, uniting and reinforcing these claims, Lady Margaret Douglas was imprisoned. 

Undauted, in 1574 Margaret Douglas arranged for her younger son, Charles, earl of Lennox, to marry Elizabeth Cavendish, the daughter of Elizabeth Hardwick, then countess of Shrewsbury; Queen Elizabeth sent Lady Margaret to the Tower once more. She was released by November of the next year, however, when she wrote to her niece Mary Stuart, the queen of Scotland, to announce the birth of a granddaughter, Arbella.

Little is known about the early period of Arbella Stuart's life. Her father died in April of 1576, when she was about six months old; in 1582, when her mother died, she was sent to live with her grandmother Elizabeth Hardwick.

Arbella Stuart aged twenty-three months,
1577, 
Hardwick Hall Collection

Elizabeth Hardwick's fourth husband, George Talbot, had been Mary Stuart's "guardian" while she was imprisoned in England, but there is no surviving evidence about any relationship between Arbella and her aunt, the exiled queen. Even so, Sara Jayne Steen, who has written extensively about her, concludes that Arbella's subsequent "letters and actions suggest that she was influenced by [the queen of Scotland's] trial and execution." Arbella was eleven years old when Mary Stuart was executed in 1587.

Throughout her childhood, Arbella Stuart was "useful" to Queen Elizabeth as a "marrigeable property": "As a claimant who could bring the dowry of a crown, she was a commodity, one of high worth on the matrimonial market," Steen writes, but her status as a claimant "fluctuated with English and European politics and the rise and fall of Elizabeth's favor." 

Margaret Tudor's descendants had been cut out of the succession by Henry VIII and his son, Edward VI, but Queen Elizabeth had also acted to bar the descendants of Mary Tudor, Henry VIII's younger sister, from the throne. In such a complicated situation, James VI of Scotland, Mary Stuart's son, seemed to have the best claim to the English throne: he was the oldest unquestionably legitimate male descendant of Henry VII and Henry VIII. But he was also unquestionably a foreigner, and foreign birth was generally regarded as a bar to the English succession. 

After James VI, Margaret Tudor's daughter, Lady Margaret Douglas, might be considered "next in line" for the English crown. She had been born in England and had spent much of her life at the English court, but as Steen notes, she was older than Elizabeth Tudor and "unlikely to outlive" her. Lady Margaret's oldest son, Darnley, had married Mary Stuart, but he died in 1567; her younger son, Charles, was thus next in line for the throne, after James VI. After Charles's death in 1575, his daughter Arbella would inherit his claim. 

When Arbella was still a child, her grandmother had promised her to the four-year-old son of Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, who, perhaps fortunately for Bess of Hardwick, died; the queen had been angered by the proposal and took upon herself the task of arranging Arbella's future.

As queen, Elizabeth used Arbella as a "bargaining chip in foreign policy, tantalizing continental nobility with the prospect of marriage accompanied by the declaration of succession." At various times those prospective alliances included Esmé Stuart, who had inherited Arbella's Lennox title and lands after her father's death; the king of Scotland himself, James VI; Rainutio Farnese, the son of the duke of Parma; Henry IV, king of France; the prince of Condé; and the duke of Nevers. Various alliances with members of the English nobility were also proposed, including Robert Cecil.

But none of these marriages ever took place. Arbella came briefly to court in 1587 and again in 1588, but she was sent away in disgrace for some offense. At the time it was rumored, on the one hand, that her presumption had resulted in her dismissal, on the other that a romance with the earl of Essex had precipitated her removal from court. Arbella herself, writing about the incident later, indicated that at first she had enjoyed the queen's approval. Queen Elizabeth had examined the young woman for herself when she arrived at court and "by trial did pronounce me an eaglet of her own kind . . . worthy . . . even yet to carry her thunderbolt." 

It wasn't until 1591 that Arbella was recalled to court, during the period when her marriage to the son of the duke of Farnese was being discussed. She remained with the court into the summer of 1592, but when the duke died and marriage negotiations failed, she was once again dismissed. She was with her grandmother later in that year when a plot to abduct her came to light. A Catholic priest revealed a plan to kidnap Arbella and then marry her to a foreign Catholic noble, who would invade England and claim the throne on the young woman's behalf. Arbella was not implicated in the plot, but neither was she recalled to court by the queen. 

Despite the dazzling array of marriages proposed for Arbella, the queen was no more interested in finding a husband for Arbella than she was in finding one for herself. Instead, she left the young woman in the care of her grandmother. Arbella was well educated, but she was completely isolated, and she came to regard her seclusion as an imprisonment rather than a retirement. 

Life at Hardwick Hall grew intolerable. A twenty-seven-year-old woman, Arbella still slept in her grandmother's bedroom and had her nose "tweaked" for punishment. After a decade of being cut off from court and court contacts, in 1602 Arbella sought permission from Bess of Hardwick to "present" herself to the queen, but even that "small and ordinary liberty" was denied to her, at which she "despaired."

At last she took matters into her own hands. Arbella proposed a marriage with Edward Seymour, Lady Catherine Grey's grandson and thus, himself, a claimant to the English throne--despite the fact that Elizabeth I had declared Catherine Grey's marriage invalid and the children of that marriage illegitimate. On Christmas Day Arbella sent a message to Seymour's grandfather, the earl of Hertford, indicating that she would be interested in an alliance with his grandson. If the earl approved, he should send his grandson to her in disguise so that they could meet one another and, after having met, "see how they could like."

But Arbella's plot failed. The earl of Hertford forwarded her message to Sir Robert Cecil, and within days Henry Brounker was sent to Hardwick Hall to investigate. By January he had cleared things up to his own satisfaction and the queen's. Arbella apologized in a letter to the queen, expressing her sorrow for having given "the least cause of offense"; "I humbly prostrate myself at Your Majesty's feet," she wrote, "craving pardon" and hoping that, out of "princely clemency," the queen would "signify" her "gracious remission" to Arbella's grandmother, whose "discomfort" she, Arbella, would be until then. 

Arbella was "forgiven," but her restrictions were "redoubled." "Educated for command," as Steen notes, Arbella "seemed powerless, politically and personally enclosed: chaste, with no opportunity to be otherwise; silenced, forbidden unmonitored conversations or letters; and obedient, under the very real threat of the Tower or death." Although she acknowledged herself as a "poor silly infant and wretch," Arbella insisted that she had taken as "great care" to preserve the queen's "royal lineage from any blot as any whosoever"; she would, she wrote, have judged herself "unworthy of life" if she had "degenerated from the most reknowned stock whereof it is my greatest honor to be a branch."

Despite her apologies, Arbella's efforts to escape her confinement continued. She fabricated another marriage plot, used her poor health to effect a move to another residence, and ultimately attempted to escape. The escape failed, however, and early in March Arbella was once more at Hardwick Hall, under investigation. This time her apologies were less abject: 

When it shall please Her Majesty to afford me those ordinary rights which other subjects cannot be debarred of justly, I shall endeavor to receive them as thankfully now as if they had been in due time offered.

She would bear her yoke, she wrote, "as long as I think good to convince them that impose it of hardness of heart," and then "shake it off when I think good to take my Christian liberty." If it were "denied" her, the "whole world" would be "made judge upon what cause, or color, or how justly given or taken and by whom." If she could be left to be her "own woman," then everyone's "trouble" would cease.

I thought this was a portrait of
Arbella Stuart . . . but maybe not?
(see comments, below)

Queen Elizabeth died on 24 March 1603, just days after Arbella's letter was written. Arbella acknowledged the authority of the queen's successor, James VI of Scotland, now James I of England, and she was once more welcomed at court.

Again rumors about a prospective marriage for her circulated, but in July two plots against the new king were discovered, one of which included a plan to place Arbella on the English throne. She was cleared of suspicion, and while in the years that followed she was able to exert a certain amount of influence and patronage, she remained both unmarried and without adequate financial support. 

By the end of 1609 she was again under guard; "rumors abounded" about her political plans, her religious preferences, and her marriage prospects. She was investigated once more, cleared of suspicion once more, and restored to favor once more. By 1610 she had taken her destiny into her own hands, secretly arranging to marry. 

Arbella Stuart married William Seymour, Edward Seymour's younger brother, on 22 June. By early July, both were imprisoned and under investigation, Seymour in the Tower and Arbella in a private residence in Lambeth. In a letter to her husband written shortly after their arrest, Arbella wrote that she had heard he was not well, suggesting his illness represented the "sympathy" between them since she herself had been sick at the same time. She looked forward to a return of the king's favor, however, and wanted to make sure that Seymour's "grief of mind" did not "work" upon his body. If they were not "able to live to" the return of the king's favor, she wrote, "I for my part shall think myself a pattern of misfortune in enjoying so great a blessing as you so little a while." 

Arbella's belief that James would restore the pair to favor derived at least in part from her conviction that the king had given her permission to marry a husband of her own choice. In a letter to the king she wrote that his "neglect" of her and her lack of money "drove" her to her "contract" with Seymour before she informed the king of her intentions; nevertheless, she wrote, 

I humbly beseech Your Majesty to consider how impossible it was for me to imagine it could be offensive unto Your Majesty, having few days before given me your royal consent to bestow myself on any subject of Your Majesty's (which . . . likewise Your Majesty had done long since), besides never having been either prohibited any or spoken to for any in this land by your Majesty these seven years that I have lived in Your Majesty's house I could not conceive that Your Majesty regarded my marriage at all.

Despite Arbella's hopes, in January 1611 William Seymour was condemned to life imprisonment, and she was exiled to the north of England, where she was to live out her life guarded by the bishop of Durham. She attempted to fight the decision, at first by law, but when the courts failed her, she again fell ill. As Steen notes, she "became--whether by policy, from illness, or some combination of the two--too weak to travel."

She was sent on her way north on 21 March, but she traveled only six miles before stopping. There she remained until 1 April, when King James had her examined by a physician, who determined that she was, as she claimed, too weak to travel. By the end of April James was insisting that Arbella be forced to leave for Durham, but again she appealed, using her continued illness. She was granted an extension until 5 June, but on 3 June she escaped from custody, dressed in men's clothing

Her husband had escaped from the Tower, and the pair planned to be reunited in France. Arbella reached Calais on 5 June, but she was caught immediately and returned to England, this time to imprisonment in the Tower. Seymour, meanwhile, remained in France. He returned to England five months after Arbella died, restored to the king's favor. 

It is generally claimed that while she was imprisoned in the Tower, Arbella became insane. "The primary source for the idea that Stuart became deranged," Steen writes, "was court observer and letter-writer John Chamberlain, who in 1613 and 1614 repeatedly commented on Stuart's distraction; in April 1613, for example, he wrote that she was said to be 'cracked in her brain.'" The Lieutenant of the Tower, too, described Arbella's "fits of distemper and convulsions." 

Most later historians have accepted the diagnosis that Arbella Stuart "lost her sanity," but Steen effectively disputes the notion that she spent the last years of her life "as a lunatic prisoner." The evidence does "suggest that Stuart indeed was distressed, perhaps even intermittently delusional," suffering from illnesses that were "physiological, strategic, or a combination of the two," but also that Arbella "remained active on her own behalf." 

Definitely a portrait of
Arbella Stuart, c. 1605
National Galleries Scotland

Throughout the period of her supposed madness, Arbella Stuart continued to manage her financial affairs. Her relatives and friends continued to work for her release, and various political supporters continued to focus on her as a replacement for King James. At least one rescue attempt was made, and at least one plot to place her on the throne dates from this period, unlikely efforts if she were "irrecoverably deranged": 

The phrase "went insane" conveniently labels Stuart a female hysteric, a woman exhibiting the mental instability and melancholia often attributed to learned women, thus allowing observers such as John Chamberlain to dismiss her transgressions of the code of appropriate female behavior as "madness," without calling the system into question. Those who were acquainted with and attended Stuart consistently characterized her illnesses either as intentionally deceitful and obstinate or as psychosomatic in origin . . . , as arising from her grief of her unquiet mind.

James and his examiners may well have used "madness" as a way of explaining Arbella's gender "transgressions," but such a determination was an effective political tool. If Arbella Stuart were "cracked in her brain," her continued "imprisonment" in the Tower could be justified, and she could more effectively be eliminated as a rival or as a threat. 

Arbella's story parallels those of other women whose claims to the throne for themselves or their children resulted in their containment as nuns, lunatics, exiles, or prisoners. In Spain, for example, Juana la Beltraneja was discredited as illegitimate and compelled to become a nun, while Juana of Castile was declared insane and secluded (or imprisoned) at Tordesillas. 

In England, Margaret of Anjou had fought to maintain the crown for her son; having lost her son, she was defeated, discredited, and exiled. Lady Jane Grey was imprisoned in the Tower after her brief rule, but no further action was taken against her; it was only after an unsuccessful rebellion against Queen Mary that her imprisonment was not enough, and she was executed. Her sisters Catherine and Mary were both imprisoned in the Tower as well. 

The potential threats offered by such women could be controlled in other ways, however, if they were willing to accept more traditional and subordinate female roles. Elizabeth of York offered no challenge to the new Tudor king because he married her. She became a queen consort rather than a queen regnant, her own claims to the succession united with her husband's in their children. And having worked to secure her son's succession throughout her lifetime, Margaret Beaufort was certainly no challenge to his kingship; she was, as we have seen, able to exert considerable influence in her "natural" role as his mother. 

But Arbella Stuart was either incapable of or unwilling to accept a subordinate role. She died in the Tower of London on 25 September 1615, her death almost certainly complicated by her refusal to eat.  

*This post has been adapted from The Monstrous Regiment of Women: Female Rulers in Early Modern Europe (Palgrave Macmillan).

I have quoted here from Sara Jayne Steen's The Letters of Lady Arbella Stuart, a volume in the Oxford Women Writers in English, 1350-1850 series.

Sophia Dorothea of Celle, A Forced Marriage, Then an Imprisonment

Sophia Dorothea of Celle, princess of Hanover (born 15 September 1666) 

Sophia Dorothea of Celle's life is a tragic one--and her story is like that of many other inconvenient royal and aristocratic women who were judged to be "immoral," "crazy," "barren," or otherwise "dangerous" to the powerful men (and, to be fair, women) in their lives.

Sophia Dorothea was married at age sixteen much against her will. The marriage was arranged between her father, George William, duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg-Celle, and his sister-in-law, Sophia of the Palatinate, electress of Hanover and, under the settlement act of 1701, heir presumptive to the English throne (she was a daughter of Elizabeth Stuart, who herself was the daughter of King James I of England)--for the English succession, German Hanoverian Protestants who had never lived in England were preferred to any English Stuart heirs suspected of being Catholic or of having Catholic sympathies.

Sophia Dorothea of Celle,
c. 1686

For Sophia of Hanover, the motivations for her son's marriage were financial--according to Sophia Dorothea's biographer, the young woman was "the richest heiress in Germany."

But, even as she maneuvered to arrange the marriage of her son, George Louis, to Sophia Dorothea, the princess palatinate despised her brother-in-law George William, his wife (Eleonore d'Esmier d'Olbreuse, an exiled French Protestant aristocrat, who had been George William's mistress before she became his wife, ten years after Sophia Dorothea's birth), and her son's bride-to-be, Sophia Dorothea.

As for Sophia Dorothea herself, on hearing the announcement of the planned match, she "shouted, sobbed, stormed, smashed to smithereens the portrait of George Louis, set in in diamonds, that her future mother-in-law had brought for her," and insisted that she would not marry him, professing that she would never leave her mother and would prefer dying at Celle than marrying her father's choice. When first introduced to Sophia of Hanover, Sophia Dorothea is reported to have fainted. 

For his part, George Louis was impressed by what his mother called "a tidy sum to pocket," if not the bride herself. By the terms of the marriage contract, Sophia Dorothea's wealth became his. (All of this offering one more great example of traditional marriage.)

The two were married on 21 November 1682. Sophia Dorothea produced the requisite children--a son, George Augustus (who would become King George II of England), and a daughter, Sophia Dorothea (the younger Sophia Dorothea became queen of Prussia, but her marriage to Frederick William, king of Prussia, was also very unhappy).

While George Louis had a long-time mistress, Ehrengard von der Schulenburg, one of his mother's ladies-in-waiting (this relationship produced two daughters), the mere rumor in 1692 that Sophia Dorothea had a lover (the Swedish count Philip Christoph von Königsmarck) resulted in her banishment and imprisonment. (Königsmarck disappeared in 1694, his death probably arranged by George Louis.) George Louis divorced his wife as well--or, rather, he had his marriage "dissolved" on the basis that his wife had abandoned him.

From 1694 until her death on 13 November 1726, thirty-three years later, Sophia Dorothea was held captive, imprisoned in Ahlden House, on the Lüneburg Heath in Lower Saxony, Germany.

Although George Louis became king of Great Britain and Ireland on 1 August 1714, his British subjects did not know his wife was alive. Ehrengard von der Schulenburg moved to England with George Louis, now George I. There she was heaped with titles: on 18 July 1716 she was created duchess of Munster, marchioness of Dungannon, countess of Dungannon, and baroness Dundalk (Irish titles). On 19 March 1719 she was created duchess of Kendal, countess of Feversham, and baroness Glastonbury (English titles). In 1723, the Holy Roman Emperor created her princess of Eberstein, which some historians have regarded as evidence that she and King George had married in secret. (His relationship with Ehrengard did not keep George I from having other mistresses, however.)

I began this post by referring to other royal or aristocratic women who became "inconvenient" and were simply removed from the scene. Here are just a few: 

• Eleanor of Aquitaine, queen of England (c. 1122-1203): imprisoned by King Henry II of England between 1173 and 1189, though, unlike most of the women on this list, she made it out alive; 
• Joan of England, queen of Sicily (1165-1195): Eleanor of Aquitaine's daughter, she was imprisoned after her husband's death in 1189 by his successor, Tancred, but ultimately freed by her brother, King Richard, who took time off during his trip to the Holy Land to secure her release in 1190;
• Isabel, countess of Gloucester (c. 1173-1217): discarded after ten years' of marriage by her husband John shortly after he became king of England, she was deprived of title and possessions and closely held in Winchester and then Sherborn for fourteen years until 1213, when John, needing money, sold her off to a new "husband" for what historian Dan Jones calls an "astronomical" sum;
• Eleanor of Brittany (c. 1184-10 August 1241): the granddaughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the sole heir of her brother Arthur (the son of Geoffrey, the fourth son of Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine), Eleanor had a potential claim to the English throne (as well as to Brittany and vast holdings throughout England, Anjou, and Aquitaine) that threatened her uncle, King John of England (the fifth son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine); John had Eleanor imprisoned in 1202, and she remained a prisoner after John's death, when his son, Henry III, succeeded him; she died, still a caprive, on 10 August 1241;
• Elizabeth de Burgh, queen of Scotland (c. 1284-1327): the second wife of Robert the Bruce, king of Scotland, she was imprisoned after her husband's defeat at the battle of Methven in 1306, sent to Edward II, king of England, and imprisoned in a variety of locations from October 1306 until 1314, when she was finally returned to Scotland;
• Christina Bruce (c. 1278-1357): Robert the Bruce's sister, she was sent to the convent of Sixhills after her brother's defeat at the battle of Methven, but released, marrying in 1326;
• Mary Bruce (c. 1282-1323): Robert the Bruce's sister, she was betrayed after her brother's 1306 defeat, imprisoned in a stone and iron cage, and then hung out of doors for public display at Roxborough Castle; her imprisonment in these harsh outdoor cages lasted from 1306 until 1310 when she was moved to a different confinement, her release coming after the battle of Bannockburn in 1314;
• Isabella MacDuff, countess of Buchan (d. c. 1313?): supporter of Robert the Bruce, she was imprisoned in a stone and iron cage and then hung out of doors for public display at Berwick Castle from 1306 until 1310, then transferred to a different confinement, and transferred again in 1313, after which her fate is unknown; 
• Marjorie Bruce (c. 1296-1316): Robert the Bruce's daughter, she was transferred to Watton Priory after her father's defeat at the battle of Methven in 1306 and held in solitary confinement until 1314, after the battle of Bannockburn--King Edward I had originally planned to build a cage for Marjorie, like the ones in which he imprisoned her aunts, and display her at the Tower of London, but he ultimately decided on the convent instead
  (Note: for all of these women, their imprisonments outlasted Edward I, who died in 1307, and were continued by his son, Edward II);
• Margaret of Burgundy (1290-1315) and her sister-in-law Blanche of Burgundy (c. 1296-c. 1326) definitely proved themselves "inconvenient" when they were accused of having committed adultery with two brothers, who admitted having sexual relationships with the women (though it is likely that the accusations were true, both men were hideously tortured in order to extract their testimony); both women were tried, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment, underground, at Château Gaillard in Normandy (Margaret of Burgundy became nominal queen of France when her husband became Louis X, but she died a short time after his accession, perhaps murdered so he could remarry; Blanche was also nominally queen of France when her husband became Charles IV in 1322, after which he had their marriage annulled);
• Maria of Portugal (c. 1310-1350s): abandoned and imprisoned by her husband Alfonso XI of Castile;
• Blanche of Bourbon (1338-1361): repudiated by Pedro of Castile in 1352, the day after their marriage, and imprisoned until her death; 
• Leanor Teles (c. 1350s-1386): wife of Ferdinand I of Portugal, regent for her daughter, Beatrice, but overthrown, exiled to Castile, and imprisoned; 
• Beatrice of Castile (1353-1368): the eldest daughter of Pedro I of Castile, forced out of her claim to the throne of Castile and into a convent; 
• Blanche of Navarre (1424-64): repudiated by her husband, Enrique of Castile after thirteen years of marriage and send back to Navarre, where she was imprisoned and deprived of her claim to the throne; 
• Jeanne d'Harcourt (c. 1451-1488): repudiated by her husband René II of Anjou after fourteen years of marriage because of her "sterility," returned to her father's chateau at Tancarville where she lived under guard; 
• Enrique of Castile's daughter Juana of Castile (1462-1530), la Beltraneja: her legitimacy disputed, her title of queen of Castile lost (she lost it to Isabella of Castile), and consigned to a convent from 1480 until her death; 
• Juana I of Castile and Aragon, Isabella of Castile's daughter, la Loca: who inherited the titles of her mother and father, but whose husband, father, and son decided she was crazy and who was imprisoned for nearly fifty years, from 1507 until her death in 1555;
• Jeanne of France (1464-1505): the younger sister of Anne of France, repudiated by her husband, Louis XI after twenty-two years of marriage on the grounds, he claimed, of non-consummation, but really so he could marry Anne of Brittany (Jeanne entered into a convent and ultimately became a saint);
• Catherine of Aragon (1485-1536): repudiated by Henry VIII after more than twenty years of marriage, and banished after 1531; 
• Margaret Douglas (1515-78): the daughter of Henry VIII's older sister, Margaret Tudor, she was imprisoned in the Tower from 1536 until 1537 by Henry VIII for having engaged herself secretly to Thomas Howard and branded as "illegitimate," then imprisoned again by Henry in 1540 and by Queen Elizabeth in 1566 and again in 1576; 
• Mary, queen of Scots (1542-1587): imprisoned by Queen Elizabeth of England from 1568 until she was executed in 1587; 
• Catherine Grey (1540-68): imprisoned by Queen Elizabeth from 1561 until 1563 after a clandestine marriage, her marriage annulled, her children declared illegitimate, and forcibly removed to a series of confinements, dying in Suffolk at the age of twenty-seven;
• Mary Grey (c. 1545-1578): imprisoned by Queen Elizabeth from 1565 until 1572, after a clandestine marriage, and while ultimately released and "rehabilitated," she died in 1578 at the age of thirty-three;
• Arbella Stuart (1575-1615): to all intents and purposes imprisoned by her grandmother, Bess of Hardwick, to keep her safe and prepare her to inherit the English throne after Queen Elizabeth's death, then imprisoned by King James I from 1610 to 1615 after a clandestine marriage and labelled as insane, dying in the Tower while imprisoned, probably from refusing to eat; 
• Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel (1627-1686): divorced unilaterally by her husband, Charles Louis of the Palatinate, who bigamously married his mistress but maintained control of his "ex" wife in his palace; after nine years, she was allowed to return to her home in Hesse-Kassel; 
• Caroline Matilda of Great Britain (1751-75): arrested in 1772 by her husband, King Christian II of Denmark and Norway, interrogated and pressured to admit an affair, her marriage dissolved and then deported to Celle, where she was imprisoned and died at the age of twenty-three.

And these are just the names that come immediately to mind . . .

Paul Morand's Sophia Dorothea of Celle: The Captive Princess is the only biography I know of--it's a very bad English translation of Morand's French original, but used copies are usually available.