GG has been exonerated! I have been reading books in Italian by Alberto Bruschi, a historian who relies on archival material, whereas Acton and Wikipedia have been relying largely on an anonymous manuscript that I've now read and strikes me as really just a tabloid.
So this happened:
Bruschi: The anonymous manuscript claims, and other historians repeat, that Giuliano accompanied GG on his way to his wedding in Bohemia, meaning GG arrived with his lover in tow (and therefore wasn't committed to his marriage from the get-go). But nobody has ever asked how old Giuliano was at the time!
Mildred: Me, me! I asked! And was appalled by the answer.
Bruschi: The anonymous manuscript, while it gives all sorts of juicy (and unreliable, slanderous) details about Giuliano's origins, leaves out the most basic fact: when was he born? And I can tell you that he was born in 1683, meaning he would have been 14 when the wedding took place. Now, first of all, nobody takes a 14-yo as a companion on a trip like this.
Me: Your faith in human nature exceeds mine. Also, they don't necessarily have had to have been sexually involved at the time. Giuliano could have just been one lackey in a sizable retinue that wasn't necessarily hand-picked to consist 100% of people having sexual relations with the prince. But go on.
Bruschi: And second of all, I have documentary evidence showing that Giuliano was still in Italy, employed by an Italian noble, in 1703, meaning when he was 20. He didn't enter GG's service until his early 20s.
Me: Woot! Must tell salon and clear GG's name!
ETA: I must add that Bruschi is attempting to clear GG's name of having entered an arranged marriage to a complete stranger with no intention of being sexually faithful to her. I, who heartily disapprove of the double standard toward women but am reluctant to condemn human beings, especially gay ones, for finding emotional and sexual satisfaction outside of a cold-bloodedly arranged marriage, am more concerned about whether he was RAPING a CHILD or not.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Giuliano Dami's age
Date: 2021-12-05 04:27 pm (UTC)So this happened:
Bruschi: The anonymous manuscript claims, and other historians repeat, that Giuliano accompanied GG on his way to his wedding in Bohemia, meaning GG arrived with his lover in tow (and therefore wasn't committed to his marriage from the get-go). But nobody has ever asked how old Giuliano was at the time!
Mildred: Me, me! I asked! And was appalled by the answer.
Bruschi: The anonymous manuscript, while it gives all sorts of juicy (and unreliable, slanderous) details about Giuliano's origins, leaves out the most basic fact: when was he born? And I can tell you that he was born in 1683, meaning he would have been 14 when the wedding took place. Now, first of all, nobody takes a 14-yo as a companion on a trip like this.
Me: Your faith in human nature exceeds mine. Also, they don't necessarily have had to have been sexually involved at the time. Giuliano could have just been one lackey in a sizable retinue that wasn't necessarily hand-picked to consist 100% of people having sexual relations with the prince. But go on.
Bruschi: And second of all, I have documentary evidence showing that Giuliano was still in Italy, employed by an Italian noble, in 1703, meaning when he was 20. He didn't enter GG's service until his early 20s.
Me: Woot! Must tell salon and clear GG's name!
ETA: I must add that Bruschi is attempting to clear GG's name of having entered an arranged marriage to a complete stranger with no intention of being sexually faithful to her. I, who heartily disapprove of the double standard toward women but am reluctant to condemn human beings, especially gay ones, for finding emotional and sexual satisfaction outside of a cold-bloodedly arranged marriage, am more concerned about whether he was RAPING a CHILD or not.