Catherine De Medici's Black Legend

Catherine de Medici’s culpability for the turbulent events in France in 1559-72 remains a topic of some debate. Highly personal protestant pamphleteers associated Catherine with sinister comparisons to the contemporary evil Machiavelli which eventually developed into the ‘Black Legend’. Jean.H. Mariégol consolidates this interpretation, overwhelmingly assuming Catherine’s wickedness; the Queen Mother was deemed to be acting for ‘personal aggrandizement’ without an interest in the monarchy. Neale provides a corrective arguing a ‘dominant maternalism’ drove Catherine’s policies. Sutherland critiques Neale, suggesting he is guilty of using misconceived qualifying phrases from the ‘Black Legend’ stemming from the contemporary pamphlets, instead

Bourgeon agreed, highlighting the Spanish ambassador’s comments in 1571 that ‘several things’ were brewing and would happen amongst wedding festivities. A contemporary pamphlet argued evil royal councillors plotted the massacre aiming to institute a Turkish style tyranny in France. However, Heller revealed that this pamphlet was a form of anti-Italianism propaganda meant to unite the Huguenot and Catholic nobility against Catherine. Neale disagrees with the pamphleteers that Catherine premeditated a plan to attack the Huguenots, emphasising the true purpose of the Bayonne meeting was to organise a double marriage for her children with Phillip II family. Neale and Knecht agree the pamphlets do not accurately represent the nature of the massacre. They suggest that the spark for the plot was the failed assassination of Coligny. Salviati’s account substantiates this noting ‘things would not have happened in the same way’ if the shot had killed Coligny, indicating the plot was a royal reaction to fears of a Huguenot uprising. Sutherland qualifies this, suggesting that the plot against the Huguenot noblemen’ was never an ideal, but a desperate plot for a desperate situation, and this is representative of the Spanish Ambassador’s opinion that ‘the Admiral’s death was a planned action, that of the Huguenots was the result of a sudden decision’. Salviati’s account indicates the Queen Mother acted alone in the organising the general Massacre ‘exhorting Charles to the slaughter to all them that followed’. Holt disagrees, evidence shows there was a consensus amongst the royal council supporting the attack on the noblemen but he rejects that the King’s council condoned the popular massacre that followed. This is credible, Charles himself ordered the violence to cease and even the Duc of Guise made efforts to prevent the