hot blooded, active and irritable and as a child always wanted his own way and resented correction. Nevertheless he was so sensible and understanding that he resisted his natural tendencies and as a young man there was no one more polite and even tempered.19
In a violent age, a ferocious temper was rather admired in a ruler. Indeed Edward IV was criticised for being too affable. Charles drove all his staff and servants hard, he spared no one when he was angry, but neither did he spare himself, and he worked hard at his duties. This is shown by the vast amount of material initialled by him or even written in his own crabbed gothic handwriting.20 He was criticised by his peers in the Order of the Golden Fleece for his undue severity towards his servants, for being over zealous and for failing to curb his impatience when dealing with other rulers. Commynes, who deserted the service of Charles for Louis XI, attributed all Charles’ great endeavours to his lust for fame and glory and his ardent desire to be remembered as a hero. Throughout his life Charles was surrounded with tapestries and books recalling the great heroes of myth and history: Hercules, Jason, Alexander, Pompey, Caesar and Hannibal. In his emulation of these he never showed the slightest signs of fear, which Commynes attributed to the Duke’s overwhelming egotism and arrogance.21
Charles was a talented linguist, a good orator and musician. He was competent in French, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese and German. He knew some Latin, though he preferred to read the classics in translation, and he spoke enough English to address his English mercenaries in their own language, and perhaps also his wife. His eloquence was well-known. In 1468 he addressed the Ghent delegates for two hours and he appreciated the orations of others, such as those of his close friend, the Chancellor Hugonet.22 The ducal chapel included a large choir, orchestra and organist. This was the great age of Burgundian music. Mass was sung every day and Charles took his musicians with him even on his military campaigns. He enjoyed singing himself, having had some excellent teachers, including an Englishman called Robert Morton, but although he had a lot of musical knowledge, his voice was not considered pleasant.23
The Duke’s sense of his own worth was reflected in his close attention to etiquette. This sometimes led to grotesque situations such as at Trier, when he and the Emperor stood in the pouring rain for half an hour, each with his hat in his hand, rather than accept precedence over the other.24 This exaggerated deference to the rules of etiquette was a prerequisite for the whole existence of medieval hierarchies. To uphold their authority over rebellious subjects and to maintain their place in the order of European rulers as second only to the Kings and the Emperor, the Dukes of Burgundy needed all the props which ritual, tradition, ceremony and honour could offer. Margaret, nurtured in the strict ceremonial of Elizabeth Woodville’s court, would have understood the significance of all this and she maintained the authority of both herself and her lord with keen enthusiasm.
The new Duchess would also have appreciated the efficiency and thoroughness of the ducal government. The Duke’s ability to raise larger sums in taxation than any of his predecessors was due to both the efficiency and severity of his administration. His severity often amounted to brutality, as at Dinant and Liège, where the cities were sacked and looted and the citizens butchered. During the sack of Nesle, a town which had dared to stand out against the ducal army, Charles applauded the ferocity of his men, declaring ‘here is a fine spectacle, truly I have good butchers with me’.25 He used terror as a means of demonstrating his power, but his armies were strictly disciplined and were not allowed to loot and pillage at will. In this respect his armies were better restrained than the French or Swiss who massacred and looted after the battles of Grandson and Murten. Charles was, however, often accused by his contemporaries of especial cruelty, because he punished nobles as if they were ordinary criminals, and took such a hard line against the cities such as Liège.
This solemn, hard-working and proud man must have pleased Margaret with his piety and his punctilious regard for the religious festivals. ‘He swore neither by God nor by the saints, he held God in great fear and reverence’26 and he expected his subjects to show the same fear and reverence towards himself. Margaret would also have appreciated his interest in books. Indeed there was little in his character that his wife could not admire. His pride and self-esteem were considered the proper signs of a princely character and she was well endowed with these characteristics herself. After his death, Margaret maintained and upheld his reputation and by remaining unmarried she kept his memory fresh in the public eye. Twenty years after his death she donated a great window portraying the Duke to the Church of St Rombout’s in Malines, and she was no doubt influential in ensuring that the Duke’s eldest grandson, the future Emperor Charles V, was named after him.
But was Charles equally well pleased with the person and character of his latest wife? None of the surviving portraits of Margaret have the same vigour and mastery as the van der Weyden portrait of Charles. The anonymous portrait which belongs to the Louvre was painted about the time of her marriage, perhaps by someone in the studio of Simon Marmion of Tournai.27 The identity of the sitter is made clear by the large necklace of red and white roses which alternate with ‘Cs’ and ‘XXs’ (which seem to be interlocking ‘Ms’) in red and golden enamel. And there are more references to Margaret within the painting, including the small golden marguerite on her dark dress, and a pearl brooch with a golden ‘B’ which hangs from her sober black headcloth. Her dress is rich but discreet, she wears the hennin or steeple headdress covered with a light veil, her sleeves are trimmed with ermine, her dress with a few rows of braid and on her hands she wears two simple rings. Her oval face is painted with little character and shows merely the fashionable high brow, broad-set eyes which are cautious and circumspect, a well shaped nose and mouth and a small chin. Her whole manner is reserved and withdrawn but there is a suggestion of determination and resolve and an air of refined melancholy which matches the mood of the more revealing van der Weyden portrait of Charles. This portrait of Margaret may have been commissioned by the Duke as one half of a travelling diptych. Its small size, it is only about twenty by twelve centimetres, would certainly support this theory. Since she is painted looking towards the right and her hands are clasped in prayer, the other half of the diptych may well have portrayed the Virgin and Child.
Of the other possible portraits of Margaret, the one today in the Robert Lehman Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, is the most lively and direct and the most interesting of all from the point of view of portraiture.28 This young woman with the cool introspective eyes certainly accords well with all the contemporary descriptions that indicate that Margaret was an intelligent and energetic woman, well able to look after her own and her family’s interests. She is portrayed within the arch of a window, which cuts across the top of her brocade hennin and, as in the Louvre painting, she does not look directly out of the picture. Her headcloth of black velvet matches her dress, which is trimmed with ermine. She wears little jewellery, only a simple gold chain and a fine black cord. This portrait has been attributed to Petrus Christus or to a French artist working at the Burgundian court. The woman so soberly portrayed in this picture shows a considerable likeness to the portrait belonging to the Society of Antiquaries in London.
The London portrait shows Margaret fuller faced and older and may be a copy of one which was painted about the time of her visit to England in 1480. All these portrayals have features in common with a further possible representation of Margaret, which can be found in an intriguing painting now in the J. Paul Getty museum, the ‘Deposition’ painted about 1500 by an unknown Flemish artist after the style of the great Rogier van der Weyden. Margaret may be portrayed among the group on the right of the picture. Apart from the white rose and the marguerites at her belt (the implications of this painting are discussed in Chapter 6), the face has the features in common with all the paintings of Margaret, the firm mouth, straight nose, rather full cheeks and recessive chin.
&n
bsp; There is a similarity between the other supposed portraits of Margaret and the well-accepted Louvre painting and this also matches the best-known miniatures of the Princess. It is perhaps no coincidence that Marmion was a famous miniaturist and the Louvre portrait is in this style rather than in the freer, more realistic, humanistic style of van der Weyden. Among the miniatures, the most colourful appear in the opulently painted Benois seront les Misèricordieux (Blessed are the Merciful) which came from the workshop of Jean Dreux. In one of these she is accompanied by her patron saint, St Margaret.29 There are indeed many miniatures portraying the Duchess, one of the most beautiful appears in the Douce manuscript in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, where she kneels at prayer accompanied by her ladies.30 There is another in a life of St Colette given to the convent of the Poor Clares at Ghent.31 On the last page of this manuscript there is a dedication in Margaret’s own hand, and her bold open scrawl shows a great contrast to the narrow pinched letters of her husband.
All these portraits and miniatures reveal the sort of image that Margaret chose to project to the world. Her name saint, St Margaret, was a martyr of the early Christian Church and her life was well-known in the medieval world through her prominence in the best selling book on the lives of the saints, the ‘Golden Legend’. St Margaret was one of Joan of Arc’s special voices.32 In most of the miniatures Margaret is shown at prayer, reading or on errands of charity, and her demeanour is always serious and dignified.
However, there are representations which belie this very sombre image. One, showing Charles and Margaret together, is a fragment of a larger tapestry, probably made at Lille in about 1470.33 Here they are enjoying a day’s hunting. Margaret is wearing a blue and white gown and is turning towards the Duke who wears a red coat and a plumed hat. He walks boldly forward bearing a heart on his right hand and carrying a falcon on his left. This scrap of material shows the lighter side of Burgundian court life and is a rare sign that perhaps Margaret, like her stepdaughter, enjoyed hunting and falconry. Another hunting scene, portraying Margaret together with Mary and Mary’s husband Maximilian, is a drawing by Frank van der Beecke entitled ‘The Bear Hunt’. Here Margaret is riding side-saddle, her horse led by a groom. These representations supplement the brief descriptions of Margaret provided by her contemporaries, such as Jean de Haynin and Olivier de La Marche.
Her relationship with her husband cannot have been entirely easy. Wielant commented on a certain amount of misogyny in Charles’ character, probably a reaction against his father’s notorious womanizing. It was said the Duke was resolved to keep his household free from silly female influences. He preferred the company of his councillors, financiers and soldiers, and he made a practice of always lodging the ladies of the court at some distance from his own household.34 However, there is no evidence that Charles deliberately avoided his wife or that he disliked her. Most writers were sure that he had been very fond of Isabelle of Bourbon, although he had spent long periods away from her and he had been too busy to visit her during her long, fatal illness. The separate residences of the Duke and Duchess were chiefly a matter of convenience. Only the very largest castles could accommodate their combined households. Furthermore, the Duke was almost always on the move, while the Duchess made regular progresses around the Low Countries. Considering all these factors, together with the Duke’s very energetic and personal style of government, it is hardly surprising that they spent so little time in each other’s company.
In fact in the first seven years of their marriage Margaret and Charles spent a total of one year together and, after 23 July 1475, they never met again because Charles was continually with his army in the Rhinelands.35 During the first four years they met fairly regularly. They were together for twenty-one days in 1468, ninety-six days in 1469, one hundred and forty-five days in 1470 and fifty-five days in 1471. They celebrated three consecutive Christmases together between 1469 and 1471, but after December 1471 they were together for only thirty-two days. His attention to the Duchess up to 1471 may have been motivated by his wish for an heir, but after her failure to conceive, his attendance may no longer have seemed necessary, and he had other more pressing matters with which to deal. In spite of long periods of absence, the Duke showed every normal consideration to his wife. He was quick to visit her in 1472 after a fire at Maele had frightened her and destroyed much of her property.36 He also made generous provision for her in spite of the fact that her brother Edward failed to fulfil his dowry obligations.
During her first year as Duchess, Margaret became known at court and in the cities and provinces of the Low Countries. A fifteenth century ruler had to be seen by great numbers of their people and Margaret, as an extension of the Duke, represented his power and upheld his glory as she progressed throughout the land. The very nature of the Burgundian state made the mobility of the ducal household an essential feature of government. Unlike the Kings of England and France, the Burgundian Dukes were still itinerant rulers. Margaret’s procession passing through the countryside and cities of the duchy was an important sign of the ducal presence and government.
Immediately after her marriage Margaret, accompanied by Mary, left Bruges and went via Ursel, Ghent, Dendermonde and Asse to Brussels, where she was received on 23 July. The two ladies spent August in the city and its environs, probably enjoying some hunting in the forest of Soignes. They then set off again visiting Aalst, Oudenaarde and Courtrai en route for Aire, where Margaret arrived on 7 September. There she was taken seriously ill, but by the end of the month she was over the worst and convalescing. Was her illness the result of a miscarriage or merely exhaustion caused by her strenuous and exacting new life? In any case she stayed on at Aire until Christmas. Throughout all this time, Charles was fully occupied with affairs of state, first on his visit to the north, then negotiating the treaty of Peronne with Louis XI, and finally subduing the rebellion at Liège with the reluctant King of France still in his entourage.37
As a result, very soon after her marriage Margaret became familiar with the life-style which was expected of the Duchess of Burgundy. During her eight and a half years as Duchess, she was to undertake twenty-eight major journeys. She was always accompanied by a large retinue of soldiers, officials, servants and attendants, and followed or preceded by cartloads of baggage. Each journey covered about 130 kilometres, but was conducted at a gentle pace of 15 to 20 kilometres a day. She passed regularly through the heartlands of the Burgundian Netherlands. On a few occasions she ventured south to Boulogne and to Picardy as far as Le Crotoy at the mouth of the Somme.38 Her visitations were planned with care, each revolving around the ducal palaces of Ghent, Brussels, Aire, Hesdin and Bruges, and were timed to fit in with the major festivals of the Church. Her dower towns were not particularly favoured. Oudenaarde hardly ever saw its Duchess until after Charles died, and Malines fared little better. Dendermonde, however, as a crossroads between Flanders and Brabant, was visited at least six times. The shorter stops between the larger palaces gave Margaret the opportunity to visit all the chief cities. At each of these she was welcomed with presentations of wine of honour and gifts, often bearing the city arms, and pageants, verses and orations by the literary guilds.
The journey of November 1470 was typical of many. Travelling at one of the worst times of year, when the heavy loam of Brabant was sodden due to the autumn rains, she left Brussels where she had spent most of the summer to join Charles at Hesdin for the Christmas celebration. Mary was with her and the two ladies rode out of Brussels on the 13th of the month. They probably went on horseback which, at a rate of only 15 kilometers a day, would be much more comfortable than the unsprung litters which were an alternative transport for ladies. Both Mary and Margaret were often presented with hackneys, quiet horses normally ridden by ladies. It took them sixteen days to reach Hesdin. On the way they visited the shrines at Alsemberg and Halle and Margaret made her first visit to Mons, the most important city in Hainault.39 She was therefore accorded a grand reception and a Joyeuse Entrée. Mon
s was determined to rival the receptions already given for Margaret at Bruges, Ghent and Brussels and nothing was spared to make it a memorable occasion. Escorted by Lord Ravenstein, who often travelled with the Duchess, the two ladies rode into Mons on a cold November evening. They wore warm black velvet gowns trimmed with fur and their white horses were caparisoned in cloth of gold. A long procession of lords, ladies and soldiers attended them.
The magistrates of Mons offered extravagant gifts of gold plate and enamels, as well as the traditional wines of honour. A ducal visit was an expensive affair for the cities, since they were expected to give suitable gifts to the whole entourage as well as providing a lavish entertainment. But the magistrates hoped their expenditure would win a handsome return for their town in the form of ducal favours, and perhaps even win them the greatest prize of all, the honour and profit of becoming a ducal residence, which would benefit all their citizens. Mons did not neglect to keep in contact with their Duchess; they sent her 600 crowns after the fire at Maele, and a further 800 livres during the civil wars. Their attentions bore fruit. Mary made the city her chief residence from 1471 to 1472 and Margaret continued to visit it regularly throughout her life, giving several donations to religious foundations within the city.
Certainly her first sight of Mons must have been both spectacular and memorable. The dark night was illuminated by torches and candelabra and all the houses on the route of the procession had been draped with green velvet and tapestries. Banners hung in the streets and all along the route there were the customary tableaux and pageants including the familiar tale of Esther and the Queen of Sheba. But Mons had added the story of Judith, the slayer of the tyrant Holofernes, a very popular theme in the art of the Netherlands, but a somewhat ambiguous choice to present to the wife of Duke Charles. The Duchess and her stepdaughter stayed two nights in the city, attending vespers at the church of the Friars Minor and mass in the mighty church of St Waudrin, the patron of the city. Then they continued their journey to Hesdin visiting other ducal and noble castles on the way.
Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess Page 10