Chapter XXIV: Epilogue (3)

In January 1685 the Duke of Montalto in Madrid wrote to Pedro
Ronquillo, the ambassador in London. ‘The King attends to nothing but
his hunting pastimes, and the Queen in tiring horses, as if she were a
skilled horse-breaker. That is a pretty way to become pregnant! In
short, my dear sir, it is quite clear that God determines to punish us
on every side.’ Writing again, a month later (28th February), the same
correspondent, after vilifying the Medina Celi government, says:
‘Neither the things in the palace or anywhere else here improve. It
looks, on the contrary, as if the devil himself had taken them in
hand. Medina Celi is very placid over it, and cares only for himself;
the King has been wolf-hunting for a week thirty miles off, and there
would be no harm in that if he would only despatch business. As for
the Queen, Medina Celi positively encourages her in her pranks so as
to be able to hold on to office by her. He does not care so long as
others have to pay.’ Both the correspondents, it is needless to say,
belonged to Mariana’s party. ‘Doc. Ined.,’ lxxix.

Footnote 315:

There was a document found in Marie Louise’s cabinet after her death,
which purported to be a political guide, written to her at this period
by Louis XIV. In this cynical document the Queen is advised how to
gain advantage from the King’s weakness and ineptitude, and how to
obtain control of him. She is to maintain an attitude between
complaint and friendship with the Queen-Mother, but to be very wary
with regard to her: she is advised to maintain Oropesa in the
ministry, but not to trust him, or to allow him more power than he
had. She is to continue to introduce French fashions, manners, etc.,
in the palace; and advice is given her as to how she should treat all
the principal nobles. The manuscript concludes: ‘Withdraw this paper
into your most secret keeping. Live for yourself and for your beloved
France. In Spain they do not love you, as you know, and they do not
fear you either, for faint hearts easily conceive suspicions, and
strength is not needed to commit a cruelty.’ The original document is
in the Bibliotéca Nacional, Madrid (H. II), and there is a Spanish
translation of it in MSS. Add. 15,193, British Museum. The document
has usually been assumed to be authentic, but I am rather inclined to
regard it as one of the many means employed to blacken the French
cause after Marie Louise’s death.

Footnote 316:

To the French ambassador who was in Spain in 1688, the Count de
Rebenac, she gave the most intimate detailed reasons for her lack of
issue connected with the constitution of the King. Rebenac repeated
these confidences in his letters to Louis.

Footnote 317:

Mme. Quantin was a widow. It has been explained that all the ladies in
the palace had to be maids or widows.

Footnote 318:

‘Doc. Ined.,’ lxxix.

Footnote 319:

‘Doc. Ined.,’ lxxix.

Footnote 320:

_Ibid._

Footnote 321:

MSS. of Father Léonard in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Quoted by
Morel Fatio in ‘Mémoires de la Cour d’Espagne.’

Footnote 322:

This was Susanne Duperroy, to whom Marie Louise left 3,000 doubloons
in her will. Mme. Quantin herself received a legacy of 4,000 from the
Queen.

Footnote 323:

‘Doc. Ined.,’ lxxix.

Footnote 324:

The letter is in the Archives of the Ministère des Affaires
Étrangères, Paris, vol. 71. It has been transcribed by M. Morel Fatio.

Footnote 325:

‘Recueil des Instructions aux Ambassadeurs Français,’ Paris, 1894, and
‘Correspondance de Rebenac, Archives du Ministère des Affaires
Etrangères.’

Footnote 326:

The tragic end of the Queen so distressed the French ambassador
Rebenac that for a time he lost his reason after attending the funeral
ceremony. In his subsequent correspondence with the King of France he
made no secret of his belief that she had been murdered. The Duchess
of Orleans, the Queen’s stepmother, thus refers to Rebenac’s
statements in her correspondence: ‘Rebenac’s feelings have done no
wrong to our young Queen of Spain. It is the sharp-nosed Count of
Mansfeldt who poisoned her.’ De Torcy, in his ‘Mémoires,’ says: ‘The
Count of Mansfeldt and Count Oropesa are both suspected of having been
the authors of Marie Louise’s death, and take little care to exonerate
themselves. The Marquis de Louville, in his ‘Mémoires,’ also
distinctly states that the Queen was poisoned, and several other
contemporary French authorities are no less certain.

Footnote 327:

The jewels taken by Count Benavente from Charles was valued at 180,000
crowns, and Mariana’s gift to her daughter-in-law 30,000.

Footnote 328:

Stanhope Correspondence in Lord Mahon’s ‘Spain under Charles II.‘

Footnote 329:

‘Reinas Catolicas,’ Father Florez.

Footnote 330:

Stanhope Correspondence.

Footnote 331:

‘Modesto Lafuente Historia de España.’

Footnote 332:

Stanhope Correspondence.

Footnote 333:

Stanhope says: ‘Our new junta, which raised so great expectations, at
first, is now grown almost a jest; especially since, at the time they
took away all pensions from poor widows and orphans, the Duke of
Osuna, one of the richest men in Spain, procured himself a pension of
6000 crowns a year for life, by intercession of the confessor.’

Footnote 334:

‘Recueil des Instructions,’ etc.

Footnote 335:

Stanhope Correspondence, 3rd May 1696.

Footnote 336:

Stanhope reports, ‘There is now great noise of a miracle done by a
piece of a waistcoat she died in, on an old lame nun, who, in great
faith, earnestly desired it, and no sooner applied it to her lips, but
she was perfectly well and threw away her crutches. This, with some
other stories that will not be wanting, may in time grow up to a
canonisation.’ Correspondence in ‘Spain under Charles II.‘

Footnote 337:

His recovery from this attack was attributed to the body of St. Diego,
which was brought to his bed; and when the King got better, amidst the
great rejoicings and bullfights to celebrate the miracle, Charles and
his wife spent some days at Alcalá worshipping the grim
relic.—_Stanhope._

Footnote 338:

Stanhope Correspondence.—_Mahon._

Footnote 339:

The Admiral of Castile, who was the Queen’s most ostentatious
champion, though she often quarrelled with him, was really betraying
her all the time (‘Recueil des Instructions’).

Footnote 340:

The account here given is taken mainly from a contemporary MS.,
written by an officer of the Inquisition and an adherent of
Portocarrero, in the British Museum, Add. 10,241: and from another
account printed in Madrid, 1787.

Footnote 341:

‘Stanhope Correspondence,’ _Mahon_, 11th June 1698.

Footnote 342:

Every detail of the correspondence will be found in the MSS. already
referred to, and, in English, in ‘The Exorcism of Charles the
Bewitched,’ in ‘The Year after the Armada,’ etc., by the present
writer.

Footnote 343:

MSS. account already referred to. British Museum MSS., Add. 10,241.

Footnote 344:

This struggle, which cannot be described here, is fully narrated in
‘The Exorcism of Charles the Bewitched’ (‘Year After the Armada’), by
Martin Hume.

Footnote 345:

Stanhope Correspondence.—_Mahon._

Footnote 346:

Stanhope Correspondence.—_Mahon._

Footnote 347:

There is no doubt whatever that the French claim through Maria Theresa
and Anna of Austria, Queens of France, was the legitimate one, and
that the Emperor had no valid right by Spanish law.

Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty at the Edinburgh
University Press.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. P. 171, changed “1906” to “1506”. 2. P. 353, changed “1543” to “1643”. 3. P. 433, changed “amoreux” to “amoureux”. 4. P. 448, changed “1580” to “1680”. 5. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling. 6. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed. 7. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter. 8. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. 9. Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single superscript character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}.