NOMINATION DE THERRIEN AU POSTE D'ENTRAÎNEUR : LES FANS ANGLOPHONES DU CANADIEN SONT CHOQUÉS ET DÉCOURAGÉS...

Je n'ai pas fait de recherche à ce sujet, mais, même si les Cannes à CHiens de MortYial se sont transformés en un club de CHaudrons au cours des dernières décennies, ils demeurent encore fort populaires dans le reste du Canada. Tellement et si follement aimés d'ailleurs, que, au total, ces CHieux doivent compter plus de partisans anglophones que de fefans francophones. Et, comme dans tous les autres domaines, ces deux catégories de supporteurs de la Sainte Guenille ne se comprennent pas. Au hockey comme pour tout le reste, anglos et francos représentent deux solitudes. C'est ainsi que la nomination de Michel "Éphrem" Therrien comme entraîneur-chef du Cacanadien a été accueilli assez différemment dans les deux communautés. Du côté des fefans, la nouvelle du retour de Therrien, pour un second séjour derrière le banc du bleu blanc merde, n'a pas nécessairement soulevé beaucoup d'enthousiasme, mais les "frogs" mordus de la CHiure se sont dits généralement d'accord pour qu'on lui donne une deuxième chance à la barre de l'équipe des Molson.

Chez les têtes carrées du Canada entier, l'annonce de l'embauche de Therrien a été reçue avec incompréhension, incrédulité et découragement. Pourquoi ramener cet idiot qui a été un des seuls instructeurs du CH à avoir eu le déshonneur de compiler une fiche perdante dans la longue histoire du club ? On a vite rappelé les vieux souvenirs qui sont à l'origine de la réputation ridicule du gros plein de soupe de Therrien. D'abord, on s'est souvenu de sa façon de s'habiller comme un clown, avec son fameux veston jaune (photo ci-dessus) et ses cravates mal assorties. Et puis on s'est rappelé la célèbre séquence où on le voyait faire le geste du "coupe-gorge" durant un match, alors qu'il dirigeait les Penguins de Pittsburgh. Enfin, on a revisionné sa crise de malade (c'est sur YouTube) au cours de laquelle il avait descendu ses joueurs publiquement, en point de presse, après une défaite de ses Pingouins. Peu de temps après, on le mettait à la porte. Avant d'être réengagé par le CHiendent après trois ans de purgatoire, Therrien n'était même pas venu près ou loin d'être pris en considération pour un poste d'entraîneur dans la LNH. Guy Carbonneau connaît présentement le même sort. Aucune organisation ne veut l'embaucher parce qu'il a eu lui aussi le tort de critiquer ses joueurs publiquement quand il dirigeait les jambons de Mourial.

Therrien affirme maintenant qu'il a eu sa leçon et qu'il a appris de ses erreurs. Il se présente comme un nouvel homme, un homme changé, plus sage, amélioré. Les anglos sont sceptiques. Ils croient que l'ancien Therrien, celui qui perd facilement la tête et le contrôle, quand ça va mal, reviendra rapidement sur le devant de la scène. Mais, d'autre part, il est assez stupéfiant de les entendre se demander pourquoi l'entraîneur-chef du Caca doit savoir s'exprimer dans la langue de Molière. Les canadiens anglais ne comprennent pas pourquoi le CHicolore se prive ainsi des meilleurs candidats au poste de coach. Faut-il rappeler que l'hiver passé, la nomination de l'unilingue anglophone Randy Cunneyworth, à la barre du club, a failli causé une émeute aux alentours du Centre PouBell ? Quand on parle des deux solitudes... Il est vrai que la longue association du torCHon avec les Molson en fait, dans les faits, le club de l'establishment anglais de Mountreal. D'où l'incompréhension des "red necks" de la métropauvre à l'endroit du fait français. Ils ont la certitude que le CHicolore leur appartient.

Chez les CHieux, plus ça change, plus c'est pareil. On se souvient qu'il y a deux ans, quand ils ont choisi Jacques "Dumbo" Martin pour mener les destinées de leur bande d'enfoirés, ils comptaient sur lui pour rétablir l'ordre et instaurer un régime disciplinaire, après la zizanie qui a marqué la fin du bref passage de Carbonneau derrière le banc. Un peu tout le monde disait que Martin était un entraîneur de transition, en attendant qu'un homme plus capable, comme Guy Boucher, prenne le club en charge. On a laissé filer ce dernier à Tampa Bay... Maintenant on dit la même chose de Therrien : il est là temporairement, en attendant d'être remplacé par Patrick Roy. Selon certaines sources d'information, Bob Hartley était l'homme que Symphorien Bergevin voulait comme pilote de sa formation. Mais Hartley a plutôt opté pour l'offre des Flames de Calgary. C'est ainsi que le gérant général des CHaudrons a dû se rabattre sur Therrien pour boucher le trou derrière le banc des joueurs et... oui, devinez quoi ? Pour rétablir la discipline autant sur la patinoire que dans le vestiaire.

À défaut d'améliorer leur groupe de vauriens par la voie des agents libres ou par celle du repêchage, les dirigeants des Canailliens ont donné le mandat à leur nouvel entraîneur de tirer le maximum du peu de talent qui est à sa disposition. Pour l'appuyer dans son rôle de "père fouettard" et de "presse-citrons", Therrien a choisi Gérard Gallant (ci-dessous, au milieu) comme entraîneur-adjoint. À eux deux, ils vont former le plus beau duo d'enragés et de "faces à claques" de la Ligue Nationale... Incidemment, le surnom de Gallant est "turkey" (dinde). Pas de farce, c'est vrai ! Dinde ! Quel beau surnom pour quelqu'un qui va entraîner un club de dindes !!! Ha ! Ha ! Ha !

Pour les analystes les mieux avisés, le style "tortionnaire" ou "coups-de-pied-au-cul" de Therrien et de Gallant est dépassé, dans la NHL d'aujourd'hui. Crier après les joueurs ou les humilier, c'est du "stuff de juniors" ou du fin fond des plus miteuses ligues mineures. En fait, les paris sont déjà ouverts en ce qui concerne la date à laquelle Therrien va être "remercié" une deuxième fois de ses services par la CHarogne. Certains gagent même qu'il ne durera même pas un an. Juste le temps de capoter et de perdre son vestiaire. Rappelons que les CHieux ont fait passer dix entraîneurs à l'abattoir au cours des dix-neuf dernières années. Pour les experts c'est clair : la nomination de Therrien signifie que les dirigeants du Cacanadien ont baissé les bras pour au moins deux autres saisons, en espérant qu'après la fin des gros contrats des joueurs engagés par le duo Gainey/Gauthier, les jeunes repêchés ces dernières années pourront prendre adéquatement la relève de cette bande de "losers".

Ce que les observateurs ont hâte de voir, c'est comment réagiront les joueurs quand on ressortira les vieux enregistrements des critiques de Therrien faites contre eux à l'émission l'Antichambre. Comment le nouveau pilote de la CHiasse pourra-t-il dire du bien de certains de ses poulains, après les avoir descendus publiquement sur les ondes du réseau Bull shit (RBS) ? Il va passer pour un hypocrite. Pour éviter cet écueil, on a vu Therrien préparer le terrain de la conciliation, en se faisant tout doux et tout miel à l'égard de ses anciens confrères journalistes, le jour de l'annonce de sa nomination. Il veut manifestement mettre les scribes de son côté en les flattant dans le sens du poil et en blaguant familièrement avec eux. On dit que Therrien déteste les joueurs qui sont paresseux ou/et qui ont la tête enflée. Beaux conflits à prévoir avec ceux qui ont ce profil parmi sa gang de deux de pique: Subban et Price en tête de liste ! On n'a pas fini de se marrer, chers amis anti-habs !

LES FEFANS DU CH DEVRONT PAYER ENCORE PLUS CHER POUR VOIR PERDRE LEUR CLUB POCHE AU CENTRE BELL...

Plus souvent pour les huer que pour les acclamer, les fefans des CHaudrons de Moronréal devront débourser encore plus d'argent pour se payer des billets afin d'aller voir perdre le Bleu Blanc Merde au Centre PouBell au cours de la saison 2012-13. Si saison il y a, bien entendu, puisque le renouvellement de la convention collective, à temps pour octobre, est loin d'être une chose acquise présentement... Mais, d'un autre côté, (positif celui-là !) si saison il y a, les fefans pourraient bénéficier de billets gratuits, comme en fin de campagne le printemps passé. On se rappellera en effet qu'avec la fiche honteuse du torCHon en 2011-12, pas mal de détenteurs de billets ne se donnaient même plus la peine d'assister aux défaites des CHieux au repère de voleurs des Molson. Et même en offrant gratuitement leurs laissez-passer à des gens de leur famille ou à des amis, ils ne trouvaient pas preneurs. On appelle ça la misère ou...la déchéance totale ! Ne reculant devant aucun scrupule, la direction du Caca a donc décrété une hausse de 2,5 % du prix des billets pour la prochaine année de débandade de son club de dernière place, un club pourri bien installé dans la cave du classement des équipes de l'Est.

Évidemment, si les Molson avaient été obligés d'ajuster le prix des billets en fonction du rendement récent de leur équipe de poires, ils auraient dû manger leurs bas en 2012-13. Car l'an passé le torCHon a dégringolé à tous points de vue : une baisse de 19 % au chapitre des points au classement; une débarque de 30 % au niveau des victoires; un affaissement encore plus catastrophique de 33 % du côté des victoires à domicile; 2 % de moins en ce qui a trait à la production de buts, de la part d'une offensive qui était déjà anémique (avec un jeu de puissance parmi les plus faibles de la LNH); 8 % de plus de buts alloués (gracieuseté de Scary Price, le nouvel homme de 39 millions de dollars de la CHiure). La plus belle "crosse" dans cette augmentation des droits d'entrée aux matchs de la CHnoutte, c'est peut-être le fait troublant que rien n'est prévu, aucun remboursement, en cas de grève ou de lock-out dans la NHL, cet automne.

Il faut comprendre que les Molson et leurs associés ont besoin de revenus accrus après avoir dépensé sans compter au cours de la saison morte. Des contrats aux montants faramineux ont été consentis à des joueurs poches ou de second ordre. On a aussi engagé un méchant paquet d'entraîneurs et d'adjoints aux compétences plus ou moins douteuses. Sans oublier qu'il faut payer encore pendant un an ceux que l'on a congédiés et qui sont toujours sous contrat : Gauthier, Martin, Cunneyworth, Ladouceur, Pearn. Considérant leur clientèle comme une clientèle "captive", les Molson ne craignent pas de la perdre même en la "saignant" toujours davantage à chaque année. Nous ne sommes probablement pas loin du petit verre de bière Molson vendu $ 12 l'unité aux fefans. Le principal projet des propriétaires du CH, un club payé beaucoup trop cher il y a une couple d'années, n'est pas d'améliorer le produit sur la patinoire mais de bâtir au plus vite la tour de 48 étages de condos luxueux (534 unités entre 250 000 et 800 000 $ l'unité) sur la Place (ou, plutôt, à la place) du Centenaire, juste à côté du Centre PouBell. Les pauvres fefans qui avaient acheté les fameuses briques de cet espace public agrémenté de quatre statues de grands joueurs du passé (Béliveau, Lafleur, Richard et Morenz, si je ne me trompe pas) devront essayer de les retrouver dans l'immensité de cette tour enlaidie du logo du Caca à son sommet. Un logo que l'on devrait recolorer en vert, la couleur de l'argent, le vrai symbole des entreprises des Molson.

En attendant, pour la prochaine saison, le défi des CHaudrons sera de devenir possiblement la première équipe à défoncer le plafond salarial de 70 millions de dollars tout en finissant dans la cave du classement. Qu'est-ce que ce serait tordant ! Mais les Molson ne craignent nullement ce scénario puisque les idiots de fefans seront toujours là pour payer pour les pots cassés !

The Glamorous Gunning Sisters: Lady Anne Davenport

This week we have the final installment in author Deborah Hale's series on The Glamorous Gunning Sisters: The Next Generation.

Lady Betty Hamilton’s cousin, Lady Anne Coventry, did not move in such exalted circles, but she did manage to create every bit as great a scandal. Lady Anne was born in 1757, the third of Maria Gunning’s children by the Earl of Coventry. Like her cousin, she experienced early loss with the death of her mother when she was only three. The earl took an interest in his heir, but little in his daughters, Maria and Anne. Shuttled between the family estate, Croome, and Brighthelmstone, they were left mostly in the care of their French governess and their uncle by marriage, Gilly Williams.

One person who did take an interest in the child was famed wit and eccentric George Selwyn, a friend of Williams who had also been admirer of Anne’s mother. Selwyn’s interest in “Nanny,” as he called her, was described by contemporaries as singular (an 18^th century euphemism for obsessive and rather creepy). In a biography of the Duchess Argyll, Horace Bleakly recounts, “in the subsequent correspondence will be found many pleasing proofs of the anxiety with which he (Selwyn) watched over the welfare of the offspring of his deceased friend and of the parental and almost romantic affection with which he regarded the interesting child.”

Selwyn expected updates on her health and spirits in every letter he received from Williams. He sent Anne and her sister gifts for which she wrote him a thank-you note in French, asking him to visit. In a letter to Selwyn in 1765 when Anne was eight-years-old and her brother ten, their father sounds disturbed by Selwyn’s interest in his children: “I have refused so many applications to let the little boy leave Marybone, that I must beg of you not to ask it. There is no one but Duchess Hamilton has liberty to send for him, and it would be very inconvenient to extend that privilege any farther.” In a post-script, he added, “I shall not trust you in a post-chaise with Nanny a year or two hence.”

Was Selwyn as much a pedophile as his correspondence and actions make him sound, and did he ever act upon his obsession? Were Anne’s subsequent actions those of a child alternately neglected and spoiled, as contemporaries suggest, or might they have been the self-destructive behaviour of a sexual abuse victim?

When Anne was seven, her father remarried Barbara St. John who was an affectionate stepmother. Williams wrote to Selwyn, “I wish her indulgence may not, in the end, prove worse than a little wholesome reserve and moderate restraint.” Not long afterward, he complained to Selwyn of the child’s behaviour: “I told Nanny what you have brought for her, though by the by she does not deserve it, for, from the want of all restraint and contradiction, she grows so intolerably passionate, that I wish one time or other she does not hurt her sister.” In another letter, he wrote, “There is seldom a night she does not fight us all round. The very last night of all, she hit me a box of the ear, and told her good-natured stepmother not to be so impertinent as to trouble her head about her.” He concluded by predicting, “I fear she will be outdone before she knows she is to blame.”

After this, Williams’ letters to Selwyn grew less frequent. His last mention of Anne was in 1766, when he wrote, “Nanny is well and in beauty.” His last letter in 1770 contained no mention of the girl, who would have been thirteen. By that time Selwyn seemed to have taken a special interest in the young daughter of Lord and Lady Carlisle. Eight years later, Lady Anne was mentioned again in the Selwyn correspondence by his niece, Mary Townshend: "I am told of another intended marriage not upon so solid a foundation; Mr. E, Foley to Lady Anne Coventry. Except Lord Deerhurst (her brother) takes them on his establishment, I do not see how they are to subsist.” Miss Townshend’s brother Thomas also mentioned Lady Anne’s marriage with distinct disapproval: “You have heard, I suppose of Ned Foley's match with Lady Anne Coventry. The trustees settled the jointure; who settled the match, God knows.”

It was a far less brilliant match than Lady Betty Hamilton had made, and no more happy. Edward Foley, was the second son of a newly created baron. Though his family had a large fortune, Ned and his equally profligate brother seemed determined to spend and gamble it all away. Nine months after the wedding, The Annual Register for 1779 announced, “Rt Hon. Lady Anne Foley of a son.” The child must have died very young for sources indicate the couple had no family. “Within a few months of the wedding,” wrote Horace Bleakley, “the conduct of the lady had provided the scandalous chronicles with new material.” So numerous were Lady Anne’s lovers that it was rumored she sent the following note to General Fitzpatrick, "Dear Richard, I give you joy. I have just made you the father of a beautiful boy...P.S. This is not a circular.”
For several years Ned Foley seemed content to let his wife take as many lovers as she wished, until she began an affair with the Earl of Peterborough. By this time Foley may have run through Lady Anne’s jointure and possibly saw the wealthy peer as a chance to profit from his unsatisfactory marriage. Or perhaps he was looking to settle down and have children he could be tolerably certain he had sired. Foley brought charges of “criminal conversation” (the legal term for adulterous sex) against Lord Peterborough and won £2500 in damages – equal to over half a million US dollars in today’s money.

When Foley sought to divorce her, Lady Anne fought back. Her lawyer argued that “Lady Anne Foley had been guilty of infidelity with many persons before; that Mr. Foley knew it in some instances, and was cautioned against Lord Peterborough, yet that he kept him in his house when his lordship wished to go, and told him not to be vain of Lady Anne's favors, for that she shared them to all men alike; that he left him in the house alone with her for days.” Unfortunately, the court decided against her. Not only did Foley drag Anne through the humiliation of a divorce, where her infidelity was discussed in detail in both Houses of Parliament, he made further money by publishing all the salacious details in a pamphlet that is still in circulation!

Perhaps miffed at the amount of money the dalliance had cost him, Lord Peterborough had no intention of making an honest woman of Lady Anne once she was free. Besides, an earl did not need an infertile wife with a notorious reputation. The lady did not languish, however. Within two years she married Samuel Wright, a captain in the 15th Hussars, who was the son of a prosperous banker. The couple retired to his home in Nottinghamshire to live out the rest of their days in the peace that had long eluded her.

August Book of the Month - Marilyn: The Passion and The Paradox

Marilyn Monroe in The Prince and The Showgirl

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the death of Marilyn Monroe. I hope that Marilyn is looking down to see just how much of an impact her life and career has had on the world.  From the iconic Warhol portrait to Sir Elton John's song "Candle in the Wind" it feels as if Marilyn is somehow still alive. She's inspired everyone from Madonna to Mariah Carey to Lady Gaga. In fact, one could say that Madonna owes her entire career to Marilyn Monroe.  Mariah Carey owns Marilyn's white piano and Lindsay Lohan recreated her last photo shoot for New York Magazine.  In the past year alone we've had Michelle William's Oscar nominated performance in My Week with Marilyn (an accolade that eluded Marilyn throughout her career) and Katherine McPhee and Megan Hilty duking it out to play Marilyn on the TV series SMASH.

Conspiracy theories abound about Marilyn's death, particularly after the revelations of her relationships with both JFK and RFK.  Was Marilyn murdered because she threatened to tell the world about her affairs with the two brothers? Was it just an accidental overdose? Or had Marilyn's life so spiraled down that she no longer wanted to live? Those are questions that the world will probably never have answers too.

There are many people who just don't 'get' Marilyn. I know that I was one of those people.  Watching old movies as a child, I was drawn more to actresses like Vivien Leigh and Olivia de Haviland.  I didn't understand that Marilyn was much more than a wiggle, a breathy voice and large breasts.  It wasn't until I started stufying acting in high school that I really began to appreciate her performances in movies like Some Like it Hot and The Misfits. Even in small roles like Miss Caswell in All About Eve, there is a feeling of sadness and vulnerability about her performance.  I started reading biographies about her, the two best being the memoir written by Susan Strasberg (the original Anne Frank on Broadway) and Barbara Leaming's biography.

Now Bloomsbury has published a major new biography on Marilyn by Lois Banner just in time for the 50th anniversary of her death. There's been a lot of hype about this book in Vanity Fair and Elle magazines, great reviews from Booklist and Publisher's Weekly. Any reader expecting a juicy, gossipy book to read on the beach will be thoroughly disappointed.  This is not the book for you.  Marilyn: The Passion and the Paradox is a much more nuanced and authoritative look at the life of the screen siren.  The biography is not only a pyschological portrait but also a cultural history of the first 60 years of the 20th century.

A great deal has been written on line concerning the 'revelations' in the book that Marilyn may have had affairs with women.  Banner doesn't really give any concrete evidence but it shouldn't really be surprising.  Marilyn believed in free love, she was also incredibly emotionally needy, and a people pleaser. She also was constantly searching for both a father/protector as well as a mother figure to replace her own mother who basically abandoned her from birth due to mental illness and lack of money into a series of foster homes. Marilyn would see her mother on weekends until Gladys was admitted to a mental hospital.  Her mother's best friend Grace also shuttled Marilyn into different foster homes and once into an orphanage.  Granted it wasn't a Dickensian orphanage, but Marilyn's abandonment issues ran deep.  Marilyn as bisexual is not that big of a shock.

The first section of the book which details Marilyn's childhood and early teenage years tends to drag a bit. I was fascinated to learn that Marilyn as a child suffered from a stutter, it's the first time that I've ever read that in a biography. Banner also deduces that Marilyn may have suffered from dyslexia.  One of things that I've always found interesting about Marilyn is how her insecurities deepened and grew, the more famous that she became. She never felt that she was good enough.  Banner makes a credible case for Marilyn's lateness and insistence on several takes as being part of her need to be perfect, no doubt another legacy from being shuttled around from one home to another.

Banner astutely points out something that I think tends to be forgotten with Marilyn, how hard she had to work for her stardom.  Studio executives, amazingly enough, had no faith in Marilyn as either as an actress or a star.  Zanuck only took notice when the audience did. Banner suggests that Marilyn's past as a party girl, attending studio parties that were mostly men, may have hurt her in the eyes of the studio.  Too them she was just a piece of ass that got passed around. They treated her like a joke.  I was also impressed by how seriously Marilyn took her craft, studios normally paid for actors to take singing and dancing lessons but not for her.  She paid for all of that herself out of her salary and her modeling jobs. It was Marilyn's determination and skill that made her a star.  She manufactured the persona of Marilyn Monroe, not the studio.

Banner also pointed out that Marilyn was very open about that fact that she had been sexually abused as a foster child which was not openly discussed in the 1950's.  Marilyn was a pioneer in a way that she talked about sex and sexuality in interviews, in a notoriously puritanical decade.  She was pre-sexual revolution.

Banner is an excellent writer and she definitely has a deep love and understanding of Marilyn that I've seen from only a few other biographers. The book is at it's best when Banner is discussing some of Marilyn's earlier films, the ones that sort of get lost in the shuffle, in order to concentrate on her later films after she became a star. My one complaint about the book is that it tends to be a bit repetitative.  It's not necessary to repeat a bit of information that you've told the reader two pages before yet again.  Our attention span is not yet that bad! Despite that one flaw, Marilyn couldn't have asked for a better biographer to interpret her life story for the 21st century. Marilyn comes across as a deeply complex woman. Hopefully readers of the biography will be motivated to seek out some of Marilyn's earlier films like Niagara or Don't Bother to Knock.

Isabella of France: She-Wolf of England

Isabella of France

When Isabella of France (1295-1358) arrived at the church in Boulogne in 1308 for her wedding to England’s Edward II, the idea that she would someday be one of the most reviled Queens in English history never entered her pretty head. After all her groom was everything a King should be, tall, athletic, with blond good looks to match her own.  The youngest surviving child and only surviving daughter of Philip IV of France and Joan I of Navarre, the marriage had been set in motion to end the war between France and England over territory, specifically the province of Gascony. But there were two things that stood in the way of their domestic bliss; Edward didn’t particularly want to be King, and he was in love with someone else.

Piers Gaveston, a native of Gascony, entered the King’s household when they were teenagers. “As soon as the King’s son saw him, he fell so much in love that he entered up on an enduring compact with him.” Edward I banished Gaveston from England, fearing his influence over his son, but as soon as the old King was dead, the new King called his lover back. He made him the Earl of Cornwall and married him to his own niece, making him a member of the royal family. In other words, there were now three people in this marriage and Isabella was the odd one out. When the newlyweds arrived at Dover in England, Edward rushed into the arms of his favorite. He even gave the couple’s wedding presents to his lover. Gaveston had been left behind as Regent while Edward went off to claim his bride. The highest nobility in the land, including the Earl of Lancaster who was related to the King, naturally expected Edward to turn to them for advice, not an upstart who delighted in openly poking fun at them.

The coronation of the new King and Queen in February 1308 turned into a complete fiasco. Gaveston, not Isabella, seemed to be the guest of honor. Tapestries were made with the coat of arms of the King and Gaveston, pissing off the French who considered it to be an insult to Isabella. The leading nobles in England shuddered to discover that Gaveston had been given the honor of carrying the coronation crown. He had also been given the responsibility for planning the coronation, and his organizational skills left a lot to be desired. The food and the banquet was badly cooked and ill-served, it was also long after dark before the banquet got under way. Not that Edward II seemed to mind, no matter what Gaveston did, the King applauded.

Soon Isabella was writing to her father how about how she was being ill-treated. The new Queen might have been only twelve but she knew what was owed to her as a royal princess and now a Queen. Lands that were supposed to be given to the Queen were given to Gaveston instead. She was also broke; no money was allocated to her to set up her own independent household. Having no other choice, Isabella had to suck it up, and figure out a way to live in this foreign court.

Isabella put up with her husband’s relationship with Gaveston for four years, even befriending him and his wife. Despite the sting to her pride, Isabella supported her husband, was loyal to him, which earned her the respect of the people of England. While Isabella might have been willing to put up with Gaveston, the barons were not quite so open-minded. They forced the King to exile his beloved, the first time to Ireland, but Edward soon found a way to bring Gaveston back. Again the King’s reliance on the favorite divided the barons into two camps, those who opposed Gaveston and those who supported the King. Finally the jealous barons had had enough of Gaveston, many of whom had lost their lands and titles to him. They seized him and had him executed.

For a few years after Gaveston’s death, Edward and Isabella were happy. No matter how she might have felt personally about the death of Gaveston, she put it aside to console her husband. After four years of marriage, Isabella soon gave birth to an heir, Edward. Three more children joined the royal nursery in the next ten years as Isabella devoted herself to being a good wife and Queen. Edward made no move to seek out a new favorite. Edward, for his part, finally began to appreciate the woman he married, particularly Isabella’s intelligence. She was a better judge of character than he was and he was happy to seek her advice, and to allow her to mediate in politics. When they were apart, they wrote frequently to each other. They’d managed to forge a working partnership. His trust in her judgment was such that he began to allow her to attend council meetings.

It was around 1319 that Hugh Despenser the younger began to insinuate himself into the King’s affections. Like Piers Gaveston, Despenser was married to the King’s niece Eleanor de Clare, heiress to the Earldom of Gloucester. Unlike his father who had always been loyal to the King, Despenser the younger had supported the barons until he realized he could fulfill his ambitions by sucking up to the King. Soon Despenser was made a council member and Chamberlain of the King’s Household. Despenser was more dangerous than Gaveston. He was smart ruthless and cunning. No one knows for sure whether or not the relationship between Edward and his new favorite was physical or not. But for Isabella and the barons, it really didn’t matter as they watched the King abdicate more and more responsibility to his new favorite.

For Isabella, it must have been déjà vu all over again, only Despenser was a power hungry bully. As the younger Despenser rose in the King’s favor, so Isabella faded from view. Despenser, jealous of Isabella’s influence over the King, convinced Edward to decrease her authority, and her income. Isabella inwardly seethed while outwardly putting on a brave face. But the final straw may been when he attempted to sexually harass the Queen. Nobody knows for sure, but rumors flew that Despenser wanted to possess the Queen as well. In 1321, when she was pregnant with her last child, Isabella begged the King to exile Despenser. Despenser was banished, but the King recalled him the next year.

In 1325, Isabella’s brother Charles IV of France seized the English crown’s territory in France. Isabella, along with her son the Prince of Wales, set sail to negotiate a peace treaty between the two countries. While in France, Isabella renewed her acquaintance with Roger de Mortimer, Baron Wigmore. Mortimer had been one of Edward’s most successful generals, fighting against the Scots in Ireland. Now in his mid-forties, Mortimer had rebelled against Edward when Despenser had made off with some of his land. Arrested and confined to the Tower of London, Mortimer had made a daring escape, rappelling down the walls, and swimming the Thames to freedom.

They became lovers, although they were initially discreet about their relationship. Soon they were making plans to invade England to put her son on the throne instead of his father. Once Edward began bombarding her brother and the Pope with letters, Isabella and Mortimer felt no need to hide their affair. Considering her marriage irretrievably broken down, Isabella began dressing like a widow, and telling anyone who would listen that “Someone has come between me and my husband….I protest that I will not return until this intruder has been removed, but discarding my marriage garment, I shall assume the robes of widowhood and mourning until I am avenged of this Pharisee.” After seventeen years of being a good wife, Isabella was not about to take her husband’s disrespect anymore.

Edward, on his part, refused to take his wife’s infidelity lying down. He had proved that he could be as ruthless as his father Edward I when he wanted to be. He had waited years, but he had finally taken his revenge against the barons who had killed Gaveston and tried to curtail his royal authority. Edward may have been a reluctant King but no one was going to tell him what to do. Angry letters flew back and forth across the Atlantic, demanding the return of the Prince of Wales, but Isabella would not budge. The Despensers, and by extension her husband, must go.

Armed with foreign troops and the support of the nobles opposed to Edward’s reign, Isabella and Mortimer invaded England. Edward II and the Despensers fled, hoping to rally support, but they were soon captured. Isabella pleaded for the life of the elder Despenser who had always been civil to her. Hugh Despenser the younger she had no pity for. Fearing that he might try to starve himself to death before they got him to London, he was put through a quick trial, and then sentenced to a traitor’s death, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. Isabella soon showed that she could be as merciless as her father as the King’s supporters were systematically hunted down. Edward II was now deposed and his son crowned Edward III. Since he was only fourteen at the time, Isabella and Mortimer were named regents.

Edward was another story. He was an anointed King although not a very good one, and public sympathy was swinging his way now that the hated Despensers were out of the picture. He would always be a magnet to the disenchanted and disenfranchised. There had already been two aborted attempts to free him. Edward was also still relatively young at forty-two, his father Edward I had lived to the age of sixty-eight. While he might claim to be contrite sitting in his jail cell writing bad poetry, Isabella knew that it was an act. She no doubt remembered Edward had broken his oaths to the barons. The King also had a long memory when it came to those who had wronged him.

Berkeley Castle, where Edward was allegedly murdered



For everyone’s peace of mind, the King had to die. In September of 1327, Edward II died, supposedly by sticking a hot poker through a cow’s horn up his posterior, which left little to no marks on the body. After his funeral at Gloucester Cathedral, Isabella was given his heart in a silver casket. How ironic that the one thing that had eluded Isabella in life, should be hers after her husband’s death.

By 1330, Mortimer had worn out his welcome. He had turned out to be just as greedy and rapacious a tyrant as the Despensers. But the final nail in his coffin was the execution of the King’s uncle Edmund, Earl of Kent. Edward III was now married, eighteen, and a father. It was time for him to take the reigns of power. Supported by the same barons who had deposed his father, Edward III now took steps to get rid of Mortimer. Mortimer was arrested and hanged. It was only due to Isabella’s intervention that he didn’t end up with a traitor’s death like the Despensers. Isabella was so distraught at losing her lover that she may have suffered a nervous breakdown during her two years of house arrest at Windsor Castle. Her son made sure to place on the blame on Mortimer, proclaiming Isabella’s innocence.

Isabella was soon welcomed back at court. A doting mother and grandmother, Isabella spent as much time as she could with them. Always pious, Isabella turned more towards religion in her later years, visiting in particular the shrine of St. Thomas Becket at Canterbury, perhaps to atone for her sins. When she died after a short illness in 1358, at the age of sixty-two, she was buried in her wedding dress, holding the casket with her husband’s heart. However, she was not buried with Edward II at Gloucester, reunited in death. No, Isabella was buried at Greyfriars church in London where Mortimer’s body had been taken after his death.

Isabella had been a good and dutiful wife until circumstances forced her into leading the most successful invasion of England since William the Conqueror. In her actions she was only following in the footsteps of other English Queens before her. Queens like Eleanor of Aquitaine who waged war against her husband Henry II, or Matilda, daughter of Henry I, who spent seventeen years fighting her cousin Stephan for the throne, until finally conceding her claim to her son, the future Henry II. But Isabella stepped into infamy when she looked away while regicide occurred. For that the chroniclers could not forgive her. Despite being cleared of any wrongdoing, the stain remains on her reputation, further immortalized in Marlowe’s and Brecht’s plays.



Sources:

Leslie Carroll: Royal Affairs: A Lusty Romp Through the Extramarital Adventures That Rocked the British Monarchy, NAL, 2008

P.C. Doherty. Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II. London: Robinson. (2003)

Eleanor Herman: Sex with the Queen: 900 Years of Vile Kings, Virile Lovers, and Passionate Politics, Harper Collins, (2006)

Alison Weir, Queen Isabella: She-Wolf of France, Queen of England. London: Pimlico Books. (2006)

FOUR SISTERS, ALL QUEENS

Title:  FOUR SISTERS, ALL QUEENS
Author:  Sherry Jones
Publisher:  Gallery Books (Simon & Schuster)
Pub Date:  May 8, 2012

What it’s about:
Amid the lush valleys and fragrant wildflowers of Provence, Marguerite, Eléonore, Sanchia, and Beatrice have learned to charm, hunt, dance, and debate under the careful tutelage of their ambitious mother—and to abide by the countess’s motto: “Family comes first.”

With Provence under constant attack, their legacy and safety depend upon powerful alliances. Marguerite’s illustrious match with the young King Louis IX makes her Queen of France. Soon Eléonore—independent and daring—is betrothed to Henry III of England. In turn, shy, devout Sanchia and tempestuous Beatrice wed noblemen who will also make them queens.

Yet a crown is no guarantee of protection. Enemies are everywhere, from Marguerite’s duplicitous mother-in-law to vengeful lovers and land-hungry barons. Then there are the dangers that come from within, as loyalty succumbs to bitter sibling rivalry, and sister is pitted against sister for the prize each believes is rightfully hers—Provence itself.

From the treacherous courts of France and England, to the bloody tumult of the Crusades, Sherry Jones traces the extraordinary true story of four fascinating sisters whose passions, conquests, and progeny shaped the course of history.

My thoughts: I first became acquainted with the story of the four sisters from Provence who became Queens thanks to the historical fiction of Jean Plaidy when I was in high school, so I was very interested when Gallery Books sent me a copy of Sherry Jones’s new book FOUR SISTERS, ALL QUEENS. I had the pleasure of meeting Sherry last year at the Historical Novel Society conference and then again in May when she read at Lady Jane’s Salon here in New York. I was aware of the controversy surrounding her first novel Jewel of Medina thanks to SMART BITCHES, TRASHY BOOKS and I’ve had a copy in my TBR pile, but FOUR SISTERS, ALL QUEENS is the first of her books that I’ve read. Also the book was released on my father’s birthday (he would have been 97 this year), so I was automatically predisposed to liking it.

I was intrigued from the get-go as Beatrice of Savoy, their mother, introduces their story, detailing how she raised her four daughters more like sons, even calling them ‘boys.’ All four siblings were incredibly well educated for the time which turns out to be both a blessing and a curse. They are also encouraged to always remember their family ties, but that becomes more difficult as time goes on. The book raises interesting questions, where does one’s loyalty lie, with your birth family or with the family that one forges through marriage and friendship. Throughout the book those loyalties constantly come into question.

Both Marguerite and Eléonore (who marries Henry III of England) make incredibly advantageous marriages. Marguerite also has to contend with the mother-in-law from hell, Blanche of Castile (who threatens to take over the book), who fought hard to gain power during her son’s regency and is very reluctant to let go of it when her son marries. Eléonore has to contend with the xenophobia of the English court and a marriage to a man who is much older than she is. Both women have husbands who both resent their strength and intelligence but who also rely on it.

The book is told from the points of view of all four sisters, and moves pretty swiftly from Marguerite’s betrothal at the age of 13 to Louis IX of France through to deaths of Sanchia and Beatrice. It’s told in third person present tense which took me some getting used to, I didn’t think it was necessary and seemed more of an affectation. However, the writing is lyrical and haunting in places, it evokes the time and place without sounding archaic. While the book detailed the intense political climate of the times, the wars between England and France, the rebellion of the barons under Simon de Montfort, the botched crusade of Louis IX and the incessant fight for who is going to rule Sicily, the book is at its best when it focuses on the dynamic between the four sisters. Anyone who has a sister or even a sibling will find it all pretty familiar. Marguerite and Eléonore as the two oldest and the closest in age have the tightest bond while Beatrice is the spoiled baby, their father’s favorite which has unforeseen consequences later in the book. Caught in the middle is Sanchia, the most beautiful of the siblings and the most emotionally fragile. Her story is the most tragic out of all four sisters. Marguerite and Beatrice have the most contentious relationship as the oldest and the youngest sisters.

Ultimately I had a hard time sympathizing with some of the sisters. The quarrel between Beatrice and Marguerite comes across as petty and small. Marguerite’s bitterness and hardness as the years go by make her harder to like. Eléonore was more of a cipher than the other sisters. I was unsure what to make of her. Only Beatrice seems to live a happy life with her husband. Unlike her sisters, she puts his needs first before the needs of her family. All four sisters struggle with what the traditional roles for women were and their own upbringing.

My one quarrel with this book is that the book feels too small to contain their stories. I wish that the story had been split into at least two books so that we had a chance to really savor what was going on. I had a hard time at certain points in the book keeping track of what was going, particularly in England with Simon de Montfort’s struggles with Henry III. I felt as if I was getting the Cliff Notes version. Jones has clearly done her research, and she manages to juggle all four narratives, giving each sister a distinct voice.

Verdict: A riveting look at the lives of four medieval women who struggle with the bonds of family and loyalty versus personal ambition.

The Glamorous Gunning Sisters Part Two: Lady Betty Hamilton

Scandalous Women is pleased to present part two of Deborah Hale's series on the Glamorous Gunning Sisters.  Part two could almost be called "The Next Generation"

During the mid-18^th century, the Gunning sisters, Maria and Elizabeth, parlayed their beauty and celebrity into brilliant marriages. Somehow they managed to tread the fine line between celebrity and notoriety without slipping into the latter.
Elizabeth's eldest daughter and Maria’s youngest were not so prudent. Both became figures of scandal in the latter part of the century.

Lady Betty Hamilton, daughter of Elizabeth Gunning and the 6^th Duke of Hamilton, was born in 1753, less than a year after her parents’ hasty, clandestine marriage. Two brothers followed before her father died when she was only five years old. Her mother wasted no time in remarrying another Scottish nobleman, the Duke of Argyll, by whom she had four more children.

Portraits of the period show that Lady Betty inherited her mother’s beauty. When she came out, the lovely young lady attracted the ardour of the equally attractive John Frederick, Duke of Dorset. An avid sportsman with a passion for cricket, Dorset possessed a great fortune and one of the finest estates in the kingdom. He was smitten with Lady Betty, but not enough to settle down before he’d had some fun. Instead of proposing, he headed off to Europe on his Grand Tour with celebrated courtesan Nancy Parsons in tow.

In spite of her heartbreak, Lady Betty could not afford to wait for Dorset to return. She had to secure a husband of wealth and title before the bloom went off the rose. Fortunately a new suitor presented himself. The Earl of Derby was not as handsome or high-ranking as the Duke of Dorset, but he was every bit as rich and possessed a more constant temperament.

Recognizing the makings of a good husband, the Duchess of Argyll pressed her daughter to secure the earl. Lady Betty was said to have accepted his proposal in a note stained with her tears, but Derby threw a lavish fete champêtre to celebrate their engagement that cost £5000. The couple were married in June 23, 1774 and divided their time between his Yorkshire estate, Knowsley, his country house in Surrey and his London mansion on Grosvenor Square. Lady Betty dutifully bore her husband an heir, followed by a daughter.

Then the Duke of Dorset returned from Europe. Casting off Nancy Parsons, he took up with another celebrated courtesan, Mrs. Armistead. Because he and Lord Derby were of similar age and rank, they became part of the same social circle. In June of 1777, the two men arranged a cricket match at Lord Derby’s Surrey estate, “The Oaks”. During the event, Lady Betty organized and played in the first women’s cricket match ever recorded. If she was trying to reignite Lord Dorset’s passion for her, she could not have done better than engage in his favourite sport. Later that summer, Dorset and the Derbys were guests at Howard Castle. By fall, gossip about Lord Dorset and Lady Derby was running rife. But that was nothing to the tattle when it was learned her ladyship was pregnant! Wagers were laid on whether the child been sired by Lady Betty’s husband or her lover.

The earl turned a deaf ear to the gossip until after the child was born. But when his wife went off to the seaside resort of Brighthelmstone to ‘recover from the birth.’ it may have been the last straw. Who went to the south coast of England when a combined French-Spanish invasion was expected any day? It was clear the proximity of Brighthelmstone to Lord Dorset’s estate, Knole, had been the chief factor in her ladyship’s choice. When he returned from militia camp in the fall, the earl confronted his wife with evidence of her infidelity and she moved out of their London home.

Fully expecting Lord Derby to divorce her, Dorset declared he would marry Lady Betty as soon as she was free. But the lovers had not reckoned with the fury of a gentleman scorned. The Earl of Derby vowed he would never seek a divorce from his wife. Why should he? His wife had provided him with an heir. For female companionship he had taken up with Lord Dorset’s former mistress, Mrs. Armistead. His decision left Lady Betty in the lurch. As an adulterous wife, her reputation was ruined. She would not be permitted to see her children, nor could her female friends continue to see her without risking their reputations. But without a divorce she could not rehabilitate herself by marrying the duke.

For a time, she and Lord Dorset remained together, hoping the earl would relent, but in the end the handsome duke moved on to become ambassador to France, where he charmed Queen Marie Antoinette. Lady Betty drifted off to the Continent, where she would not be quite such an outcast, but after a few years she returned to England, her spirit and health broken. She finally died in the winter of 1797, at the age of forty-four, leaving Lord Derby free to marry actress Elizabeth Farren. It was said that the Duke to Dorset met her funeral cortege and asked whose it was, only to be told the deceased was the woman whose heart he had broken…twice.

　
Stay tuned for Part Three next week:  Lady Anne Coventry