MovieChat Forums > The Borgias (2011) Discussion > Question about being a bastard

Question about being a bastard

posted 10 years ago by Neffys
19 replies | jump to latest

In episode s3.e07 Lucrezia is said to be a bastard. I have heard the children of the pope being called that before in the show but do not recall the exact season and episode. But surely he was married to their mother when she gave birth to them? I am a bit confused of the choice of words. If anyone has an explanation about it, I would be glad to hear it.

"I'd like to keep Spike as my pet"- Illyria, Angel S. 5

[–] jason_tasch 10 years ago

Vanozza was Rodrigo's mistress, never his wife. Rodrigo Borgia, as a man of the cloth, never married. All of his children were illegitimate, and therefore, bastards.

[–] Neffys 10 years ago

Ah right, thanks! I just got it at one point that they had been married but but I must have just heard it wrong.

"I'd like to keep Spike as my pet"- Illyria, Angel S. 5

[–] ArchFrenemy 10 years ago

Nope, Il Papa couldn't marry. No child of his was legitimate; in fact I was surprised that this family openly acknowledged them all as his children, not his "nieces and nephews" as was customary for the children of supposedly-celibate religious men back in the day.

Et quid amabo nisi quod aenigma est...?

[–] eljuma_1 10 years ago

The other 'Borgia' show portrays this better. They are called 'nephews' and they call him 'uncle' while he is cardinal, even though it is openly known that they are his children. When he becomes pope one of the first things he does is legitimizing them (as it is a papal privilege to legitimize bastards).

[–] ArchFrenemy 10 years ago

Good to know; thank you. I have yet to see 'Borgia' but yes, it is known that that was the way "celibate" religious men handled their offspring then and I assumed we'd see that in "The Borgias."
I look forward to viewing Canal Plus' version; it's in my to-watch list.

Et quid amabo nisi quod aenigma est...?

[–] panoptica 10 years ago

Eek, what other "Borgias" show and can it be watched online somewhere? Totally missed that there is another..?! So between the ending of "The Borgias", "The White Queen" and waiting for the new season of Vikings, I could stand another historical-fiction show. Oh yeah :)

[–] ArchFrenemy 10 years ago

Canal+ (France) did a version with John Doman as Pope...it's been very hard to find links for this version, especially complete episodes in English, but very recently a site I like has posted some. Try at primewire dot ag.

Et quid amabo nisi quod aenigma est...?

[–] emuir-1 10 years ago

I watched it on DD and found it a much better show, although John Doman's performance as Pope was totally eclipsed by that of Jeremy Irons.

[–] ArchFrenemy 10 years ago

Oh, and important to again mention when you're looking for the other show:

Showtime's version was called "The Borgias."
Canal+ called theirs "Borgia."

Because of the way the site is built, you'll need the exact spelling to find it in the TV section on primewire. IMDB has an entry for "Borgia" so you can read more here as well.

Et quid amabo nisi quod aenigma est...?

[–] panoptica 10 years ago

Many thanks. I saw snippets of this show before, like of Charles VIII - instantly became a fan :D

[–] OnlyRocknRoll 10 years ago

According to both civil and canon law, a child conceived by a couple who have not been married either by civil law or by the church is a bastard. Legitimacy cannot be conferred retroactively by a belated marriage contract. It was common practice to allow such children the use of the fathers surname, but it was often difficult or impossible for such children to inherit titles, property, or monies if there were legitimate heirs. Rodrigo Borgia was able to make 'advantageous' marriages for three of his children because the other party wanted connections to the Pope and his power. Lucrezia's first husband treated her badly because he really didn't want the marriage (it was politically motivated), and because being illegitimate made her a "slut" even though she was, in fact, a virgin at the time of the marriage.

All of that being said, it is interesting to watch series like The Tudors and The Borgias with all of the attempts to manipulate religion and the law to try to make it come out the way that they wanted. I love how they fling around words like bastard, whore, and heretic as it suits their agenda for power. The back and forth about Henry VIII's two surviving daughters is the classic example. Nothing like getting your own way by lopping off heads!

_______________________________________
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!"

Maximus Decimus Meridius

[–] eugenia_katze 10 years ago

Rodrigo Borgia was able to make 'advantageous' marriages for three of his children because the other party wanted connections to the Pope and his power. Lucrezia's first husband treated her badly because he really didn't want the marriage (it was politically motivated), and because being illegitimate made her a "slut" even though she was, in fact, a virgin at the time of the marriage.

There was absolutely nothing "advantageous" for the Borgias in Lucrezia's two first marriages.
The first one, to Giovanni Sforza, was disired by the Sforzas who wanted to detached the Pope from Ferrante of Naples. Rodrigo never considered this alliance as something firm and long-living; in fact he agreed to it only to put a pressure on Ferrante and to preserve a sort of ballance between Milan and Naples. And Giovanni Sforza never treated Lucrezia "badly", he had neither reasons nor balls for it. It's all just Neil Jordan's lame fantasies, nothing more. And you know Giovanni could hardly despise Lucrezia for being illegitimate 'cause he was just a bastard himself, too.
The second Lucrezia's marriage, to Alfonso of Aragon( another bastard btw), should have been just a step for another alliance: Cesare wanted to marry Carlotta, the legitimate daughter of Federigo of Naples, so he could get some rights for the throne and start building his "Borgias empire" with Naples as a basing point. As soon as the plan collapsed, the matrimony between Lucrezia and Alfonso lost any political sense.
The third marriage of Lucrezia, that to Alfonso d'Este, is a completely different story of course...
To sum it up: NEVER even try to learn history and politics basing on Jordan's "The Borgias", it's senseless and ridiculous.

[–] OnlyRocknRoll 10 years ago

As I said, politcally FORCED marriages.

_______________________________________
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!"

Maximus Decimus Meridius

[–] eugenia_katze 10 years ago

As I said, politcally FORCED marriages.

Well if we are still speaking of Lucrezia's marriage to Sforza I can't really see it as "forced". As I said it was desirable and important for the Sforzas but just a temporary, cynical and totally typical MANEUVER from the Pope's side. In fact Alexander did everything to be able to dissolve this marriage easily at some future point: he hadn't formally annuled Lucrezia's previous bethroal to Gasparo di Procida and even ordered that the marriage to Sforza was not to be consummated in the several next mouths, on the grounds of the bride's too young age. Later as the political situation changed he really tried to use both these reasons to declare the marriage invalid and to get the divorce.

[–] pol-edra 10 years ago

I don't see how one can not call such things "forced marriages" in a context in which girls had no say in the matter of who they married. Of course things were different back then, of course girls (and boys) were raised differently, and it was the norm for the wishes of the individual to be superseded by the needs of the family. But how des this different context make it any less of a forced marriage? How does the fact that the head of the family later decided to put an end to this marriage make it any less of a forced marriage to begin with? I would call this a forced marriage first and a forced annulment later, actually.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

[–] eugenia_katze 10 years ago

I don't see how one can not call such things "forced marriages" in a context in which girls had no say in the matter of who they married. Of course things were different back then, of course girls (and boys) were raised differently, and it was the norm for the wishes of the individual to be superseded by the needs of the family. But how des this different context make it any less of a forced marriage? How does the fact that the head of the family later decided to put an end to this marriage make it any less of a forced marriage to begin with? I would call this a forced marriage first and a forced annulment later, actually.

Ah I was talking NOT about Lucrezia and her feelings but about her marriage to Giovanni Sforza as a part of the political alliance between the Pope and Milan!
In "The Borgias" the poor Pope is basically "forced" to marry his daughter into the Sforza family. For some reason he hopes that the Sforzas would help him against the French army. We're supposed to believe he kinda had no choice but sacrifice Lucrezia( and Prince Djem btw). Giovanni Sforza, on the other hand, is also forced to this marriage by his cousin Caterina even if he doesn' want Lucrezia and openly despises her and her whole family. And it's pretty obvious from the very start that Rodrigo's plan won't work. Caterina will take the dowry and betray the Pope, Giovanni Sforza won't be kind and "gallant" to Lucrezia and so on. The stupid Pope just stupidly sacrificed his daughter's happiness and killed the tirkish prince for literally nothing.
In the history there was nothing like that. The Sforzas of Milan wanted this alliance badly in order to detach Rodrigo from Naples. Giovanni Sforza got not only the dowry of 31000 ducats but also the condotta from the Pope. And Rodrigo himself cynically used the matter to kick Ferrante's ass and remind him of how important is to have a Pope as an ally. No one of them was in any way "forced". As for Lucrezia... well of course nobody even thought of asking her opinion, you're right.

[–] natalie0407 10 years ago

difficult or impossible for such children to inherit titles, property, or monies if there were legitimate heirs

Well actually, bastards of the powerful men could quite well even in the presence of legitimate heirs. Sons could get titles, daughters could marry advantageously (ex: Katerina Sforza Riario). For example, Kind Ferrante of Naples was a bastard who got a piece of his father Mediterranean empire. Rodrigo's predecessor Pope Innocent had two illegitimate children (born before he became a priest so it wasn't a big deal). The son got lands and money (he's featured in S1 of the other Borgia show). Lucrezia's husband Alfonso d'Este conferred a title on his bastard. It seems that Italy especially was fairly lenient with bastards vs. other countries (but even there, the only thing that was barred from bastards was the crown).

[–] thesnowleopard 9 years ago

Well actually, bastards of the powerful men could quite well even in the presence of legitimate heirs. Sons could get titles, daughters could marry advantageously (ex: Katerina Sforza Riario). For example, Kind Ferrante of Naples was a bastard who got a piece of his father Mediterranean empire. Rodrigo's predecessor Pope Innocent had two illegitimate children (born before he became a priest so it wasn't a big deal). The son got lands and money (he's featured in S1 of the other Borgia show). Lucrezia's husband Alfonso d'Este conferred a title on his bastard. It seems that Italy especially was fairly lenient with bastards vs. other countries (but even there, the only thing that was barred from bastards was the crown).

Any medieval leader with sovereign power (i.e, the ability to make law) could make his/her children pretty much whatever they pleased and bastards could certainly inherit property--if the parent in question desired to do it.

A classic case of this is William the Conqueror, who began life as a bastard and was made the Count of Normandy at the age of seven--after previously growing up in a small village as basically a peasant. He wasn't even the first illegitimate count in the line.

Also of great interest on this subject are the origins of the Kingdom of Portugal as they relate to the rivalry between illegitimate Countess Theresa of Portugal and her legitimate sister, Queen Regnant Urraca of Castile. Urraca herself had illegitimate daughters by one of her nobles after two marriages gained her a male heir, and ended in widowhood and acrimonious divorce, respectively.

People too often look at the flashy and megalomaniacal rule of Henry VIII of England and see it as the way things normally were in the Middle Ages. Even if the bulk of Henry's rule were not, in fact, in the Reformation not the Middle Ages, and there were any such thing as a general rule of thumb for that extremely large and diverse period, there would be nothing "normal" about Henry's rule. His reign was laced with discontinuity from previous tradition, from the death of his brother (the original heir) to his decision to join the Reformation and become head of his own church, to the stripping of the altars, to his really peculiar way of dealing with his wives, when he already had a legitimate heir (two, if he'd stopped at Anne).

Yes, there were extra challenges for a ruling queen, but, as Henry's daughters demonstrated after his death, they were quite equal to them. He was a pretty awful ruler with a frightening level of tunnel vision that disrupted his reign permanently. It's not as though other rulers before him hadn't dealt with the issue far better.

Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com

[–] Scribblenaut 9 years ago

Legitimacy cannot be conferred retroactively by a belated marriage contract.

Actually, this is possible in Canon Law outside of England. The most prominent example I can think of is Pope Clement VII. He conceived out of wedlock by Giuliano de Medici and a commoner. A loophole in the law stated that a verbal contract between 2 people can be legally upheld. So despite the fact that his parents were never formally married before his father was assassinated, Clement was still considered legitimate.

Bastards could be granted property and allowances. They just could not inherit titles unless by papal or royal edict. Example: Although Cesare was considered a bastard, Rodrigo made him Prince of the Papal States. And Lucrezia's second husband Alfonso of Aragon was still considered royalty and was in the line of succession.

English law was a bit more hard nosed about the issue because Common Law and Canon Law were directly opposed to each other on the issue. Canon Law says bastards can become legitimate through certain means, while Common Law says they will always be bastards (which is weird considering on of their greatest kings was a bastard :P ).