In defence of a queen who died in 1705

We were part of her dowry, so we have some stake in this!

You know how this story plays out. Charles II of England married Catherine of Braganza, who was the princess of Portugal. And along with her hand in marriage, a handsome dowry was negotiated, which included the islands of Bombay.

However, most times when you are told this story, it’s also added that Catherine was considerably lacking in the looks department. It is said that on seeing her, Charles II said they had brought him a bat instead of a woman.

I’ve always been troubled by this. Is it a narrative that been around for centuries because it makes a fun story? An ugly princess who had to put up a dowry to get married, and our city of Bombay was part of that compensation.

So here’s another side to it. First a quick background. This was a marriage alliance. Portugal had gotten rid of the Spanish and didn’t really have any friends except England who recognised them as an independent state. Charles II, on the other hand, grew up in exile in his mother’s native country France. When he was invited back to England to become King, he had a throne but not the funds.

Catherine was educated in a convent where hymn signing, embroidery and prayer were thought to be suitable accomplishments for a Catholic bride. While Charles II was heavily influenced by his cousin King Louis XIV of France and wanted a court that was decadent, in terms of fashion, mistresses, money. Not exactly a match made in heaven.

Now when the talk of a marriage alliance happened, many people at his court wanted him to choose a Protestant Princess. Plus it seems the Spanish representative at the English court was livid. Portugal was enemy No.1 for Spain. And after trying every tactic in the book to dissuade Charles, he chose the easiest. Trash talking! He said the princess was deformed, had bad health, and a delicate constitution that would not allow her to bear an heir.

There is however another account that says when the marriage plans were under discussion, Charles was shown a portrait brought over by the Portuguese ambassador. A Londoner has supposed to have reported “The picture of our intended Queen is at Whitehall; by that and the report of those that have seen her she is a lovely little woman.” Standing before it Charles is said to have remarked “That person cannot be unhandsome”.

While that’s not really a glowing compliment, it’s not him calling her a bat either.

This is the portrait that he probably saw. It painted by Dirck Stoop, a Dutch artist. Before the 1660s, when he came to Portugal and followed Catherine to England, Stoop is said to have primarily painted landscapes featuring hunting scenes and equestrian fights. He also seems to have a preference for painting urinating horses or donkeys into his earlier work. Really, Catherine did herself no favours!

This painting of the Princess must have created a lot of talk. I love this description, because it captures the bewilderment that must have gone around the court. "Catherine of Braganza is there represented as a lovely glowing brunette, with a rich profusion of chestnut hair, disposed on each side of her face in a waved pyramid, consisting of parallel lines of cannon curls, descending in graduated rows to the waist in a most extraordinary and unaccountable fashion, as if in imitation of a lord chief justice's wig, but without the powder. The whole of a very beautiful head of hair was spread out thus fantastically in side wings, with the exception of one large tress called a top-knot, which was combed slanting across the forehead, and gave additional oddity to this strange costume."

What’s also interesting is that the ladies in the English court styled themselves very differently at that time. Look at the pictures below.

Barbara Palmer, Charle’s most famous mistress, circa 1670

Two ladies of the Lake Family, circa 1660

The court of the second Charles of England fluttered with dazzling and frivolous beauties. Queen Catherine’s contemporaries detested her for her creed and her piety, for her uselessness as a political tool, for her bitter misfortune of childlessness, for the stumbling block that she innocently formed to their greed and ambition. They have left her portrait to posterity painted in malignant colours.

Lillias Campbell Davidson, Queen Catherine’s biographer

While the Queen’s biographer may be biased, it does seem that the mismatch in Catherine’s grooming and dressing would have caused scandal and gossip in the court, where anyway not too many people would have been happy to see a Catholic Princess.

There is also this excerpt from the the same biography, Catherine of Braganza, Infanta Of Portugal & Queen-Consort Of England.

No doubt her hair-dressing was also under consultation and debate. One can fancy the faint shudder that would run through the ranks of the English women on beholding her fantastic coiffure. They themselves wore their locks in flowing ringlets on either side of the face, with a parting in the middle. One or two stray little curls of a few hairs each lay on the forehead.

Edward Corp, in the book Queenship In England 1660-1837 takes on the unfavourable descriptions of the Queen by saying

The Queen conformed to a different ideal of feminity, with her olive-tinted Portuguese skin and a hairstyle and formal court costume that was not at all fashionale in England or France in the 1660’s. She might not have been beautiful, but she was young and pretty.

So did Charles call her a bat? Or was it a statement an unreliable biographer of the time made up?

What I did find was this quote attributed to Charles II after his first sighting of his bride.

“Her face is not so exactly as to be called a beauty, though her eyes are excellent good, and nothing in her face that in the least degree can disgust one. On the contrary, she hath as much agreeableness in her looks as I ever saw, and if I have any skill in physiognomy, which I think I have, she must be as good a woman as ever was born. You will wonder to see how well we are acquainted already; in a word, I think myself very happy, for I am confident our two humours will agree very well together.”

So there you have it. The next time anyone tells you Catherine Of Braganza, Infanta Of Portugal, had to give a dowry because she was dowdy, tell them it’s not true and that mean girls existed in every court and palace even before the Hollywood movie.

Thank you for reading this. I’m sorry for being lax and lazy. I have been recording so many amazing seniors in Bandra, and I aim to start writing more regularly, so you can enjoy their stories and memories, just like I do.

And lastly, but never the least, this piece of writing is in memory of my friend Farrokh Jijina. A writer, editor, history finder, city lover who touched many lives and encouraged many people. I miss his sharp tongue, witty repartees and insights on things that I wrote. I hope he’s reading this newsletter wherever he is.

Sources & references:

queensroyalsurreys.org.uk I The National Portrait Gallery I Lily Bjerkan - Catherine Of Braganza Research Paper I Queenship In Britain 1660 - 1837 I Catherine of Braganza, Infanta Of Portugal & Queen-Consort Of England - Lillias Campbell Davidson I epysdiary.com I Tate UK I historiamag.com I monstrousregimentofwomen I www.gutenberg.org I