Mary II Stuart, the Protestant Queen of England

Sometimes, when you travel to different countries and visit museums, you come across works by local artists that depict people or events significant to that country’s history. You might realise you’ve seen the same figure or story before — just in a different context. I had exactly that kind of déjà vu while going through photos of artworks I’d taken at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. While walking through the museum, I didn’t have time to read every plaque. The artworks were so captivating that I simply photographed whatever caught my eye. One of those images turned out to be a bust of a noblewoman.

After returning home, I used Google Lens to identify the creator of the bust and the person it portrayed. I learned that the artist was Jan Michiel Rysbrack, and the bust depicted Mary II Stuart, Queen of England. That discovery piqued my curiosity, so I went online to find out more. To my surprise, I realised I had already written about her a few years ago — in a post on the history of … Scotland.

The sculptor, a renowned Flemish artist, made significant contributions to British art in the 18th century. Born in 1694 in Antwerp – now part of Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium – he moved to London in 1720. Back in 1700, Antwerp was still part of the Spanish Netherlands, a region in the southern Low Countries that remained under Spanish control from the 16th century until the early 18th century. Because of my work, I’ve often travelled to Belgium, and my recent trip to the neighbouring Netherlands might be the perfect occasion to write a post on the fascinating history of this region sometime soon.

For now, however, I’ll turn my attention to Mary Stuart, and explore why a Queen of England from a Scottish dynasty is featured so prominently in one of the main galleries of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam.

Mary II Stuart was born in 1662 at St. James’s Palace in London. She was the eldest daughter of James, Duke of York (later James II of England) and his first wife, Anne Hyde. Mary belonged to the Scottish Stuart dynasty, which had ruled England since the early 17th century. Although her father was a Catholic, Mary was raised as a Protestant – a decision that would prove crucial later in her life. Her uncle, Charles II, who was king at the time of her birth, was publicly Protestant, though he is believed to have converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. During his reign, it was politically expedient to maintain a Protestant public image in order to secure Parliament’s support and preserve stability. As for James, Mary’s father, the exact date of his conversion remains uncertain, but it is thought he became Catholic in the late 1660s. He kept his faith private for several years to avoid political repercussions, but by 1673, his conversion was publicly known. Nonetheless, keeping Mary’s Protestant upbringing was seen as vital to reassure Parliament and the English public that the Protestant succession would continue.

At the age of 15, in 1677, Mary married her first cousin, William of Orange – a Protestant and the son of William II, Prince of Orange, and Mary, Princess Royal of England, who was the daughter of Charles I of England. The marriage was part of a wider political effort to secure Protestant alliances for the British throne. At the time, Charles II, King of England and Mary’s uncle, was in poor health and – at least officially – remained Protestant.

William III of Orange was not King of the Netherlands in the modern sense of the term. Instead, he held the title of Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic from 1672. The Dutch Republic was a confederation of provinces in what is now the Netherlands, and the role of Stadtholder was neither hereditary nor equivalent to a monarchy. It was an appointed position, granted by the provinces, and primarily served as a military commander and political leader, rather than a sovereign ruler.

The Dutch Republic, officially known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands, was established in the northern part of the Low Countries in 1648, after gaining independence from Spain. Southern provinces such as Flanders, Brabant, and Hainaut remained under Spanish Catholic rule, a territory known as the Spanish Netherlands.

Mary’s father, James II, ascended to the English throne in 1685, but his Catholic faith and increasingly autocratic rule led to growing discontent across the kingdom. William’s marriage to Mary placed him in a strong position to challenge his father-in-law. In 1688, William III of Orange invaded England in what became known as the Glorious Revolution. James II fled to France, and William and Mary were jointly offered the throne by the English Parliament. Mary II reigned alongside William III until her death in 1694, and she was buried in Westminster Abbey. William continued to rule alone until his own death in 1702.

In the years that followed, the Jacobites — supporters of the deposed Stuart king James II and his descendants — sought to restore the Stuart monarchy to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland, but ultimately failed in their efforts. Great Britain remained Protestant, and the Hanoverian dynasty eventually solidified its rule. The name Jacobite comes from Jacobus, the Latin form of James.

Mary II Stuart, the Protestant Queen of England

Pius XII. Pope of the Warfare Time and Harsh Politics

St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican is both a place of pilgrimage and a major tourist destination — the most prominent Catholic church in the world. Like many sacred buildings, it holds an extensive collection of artworks. Among them are sculptures and mosaics which, from a distance, resemble paintings but are in fact intricate compositions made of tiny glass tesserae. Each carries its own meaning. Many of the statues commemorate saints and popes — names largely unfamiliar to me.

I moved slowly through the basilica, reading inscriptions, taking photographs, trying to make sense of what I saw. But without a deeper familiarity with Catholic history, I often found myself unable to place these figures in their historical roles. One in particular, however, stood out — both in posture and significance: Pope Pius XII, whose papacy unfolded during some of the most turbulent decades of the 20th century.

Pope Pius XII, born Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli (1876–1958), served as head of the Catholic Church from 1939 until his death in 1958. His pontificate was notable not only for its length, but for the turbulent historical period it encompassed — including the rise of Benito Mussolini, the events of World War II, and the early years of the Cold War.

Before ascending to the papacy, Pacelli had already been a major figure in Vatican diplomacy, serving as Cardinal Secretary of State. In that role, he was deeply involved in negotiating the Lateran Pacts of 1929, signed under Pope Pius XI with then Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini. These agreements marked a legal, financial, and religious realignment between the Catholic Church and the Italian state, following decades of estrangement.

The Lateran Pacts consisted of three components. First, a political treaty established Vatican City as a sovereign state. Second, a financial convention provided compensation from the Italian government to the Holy See for the loss of the Papal States — including both a lump sum and a perpetual annuity. Third, a Concordat regulated the relationship between Church and State. It declared Catholicism the state religion of Italy, defined the legal and civil status of clergy, and introduced religious education into the national school system.

This settlement ended the so-called Roman Question — a conflict that had remained unresolved since the unification of Italy in 1870. It was not merely a religious agreement, but also a recognition of the Church as a political actor in modern Europe.

During Pius XII’s lifetime, Italy was under Fascist rule, and the European balance of power was rapidly disintegrating. His early papacy coincided with the signing of the Nazi–Soviet Pact, the invasion of Poland, and the outbreak of the Second World War. Already serving as Cardinal Secretary of State, and now as pope, Pius XII was faced with the challenge of responding to Mussolini’s Fascist policies, many of which stood in direct contradiction to Catholic doctrine. These included Italy’s entry into the war and the introduction of racial laws, which imposed legal discrimination and aligned the regime more closely with Nazi ideology. What had begun as a career shaped by diplomacy was now overtaken by the demands of navigating a world in which religious and ethical values were being systematically dismantled.

Pius XII took an approach of deliberate silence. He did not speak out publicly or unambiguously on the persecution of Jews, the crimes of the Nazi regime, or the actions of totalitarian governments. In official documents, speeches and homilies, he refrained from naming countries, nationalities, or specific acts of genocide. When he did refer to suffering or violence, he did so in general terms, without identifying the perpetrators. He did not speak plainly. One striking example was the deportation of over a thousand Roman Jews in October 1943. Arrested by Nazi forces and taken from the very city in which the Vatican stood, they were sent to Auschwitz. The pope did not issue a public protest. No official statement was released, and no mass held in their name. The silence at that moment has become one of the most cited — and contested — aspects of his wartime record.

This stance has been interpreted by some scholars as passive complicity, and by others as a strategic decision, intended to avoid exacerbating the situation — particularly for Catholics and Jews living in Nazi-occupied territories.

Although Pius XII remained silent in public, numerous actions indicate that he was involved in discreet humanitarian efforts behind the scenes. Under his authority, Catholic institutions across Europe — including monasteries, convents, seminaries, and Church-run schools — provided shelter to Jews, political refugees, and others at risk. In Rome alone, over 4,000 Jews are estimated to have been hidden within religious buildings during the Nazi occupation. Approximately 477 sought refuge within the Vatican itself or at the papal residence in Castel Gandolfo.

In addition to providing shelter, some Church institutions issued false baptismal certificates and other forged identity documents to help individuals evade arrest and deportation. These actions were often carried out discreetly by local clergy — sometimes with tacit Vatican approval, and in certain cases, reportedly under direct papal instruction. While the documentation remains fragmentary, some testimonies and post-war investigations suggest that Pius XII was informed of these efforts and, in specific instances, either authorised them verbally or allowed them to proceed without interference. In Rome, the network of safe houses expanded significantly during the German occupation, and the fact that Vatican City itself sheltered hundreds of Jews strongly indicates at least a top-level awareness, if not formal coordination.

Pius XII’s wartime policy remains the subject of ongoing historical scrutiny and debate. Interpretations vary depending on how his actions — or inactions — are assessed in light of the complex wartime context and the archival material that has become more accessible in recent years.

Under his leadership, the Vatican was required to navigate difficult moral ground: maintaining the recently recognised sovereignty of the Holy See, while also fulfilling the spiritual responsibilities of the papacy. His approach was defined by diplomatic caution and a consistent focus on practical humanitarian assistance, rather than public denunciation.

This strategy has drawn criticism from some historians, who view it as a failure to clearly condemn atrocities committed during the war. Others argue that it reflected a deliberate, constrained choice — shaped by the risks, the political realities of the time, and a belief that quiet intervention might achieve more than public confrontation.

In the end, Pius XII’s papacy stands as a case study in the use of silence — as a diplomatic tool, a moral posture, and a legacy that continues to challenge historical understanding. In that sense, Pius XII does not simply stand for what the Church did – or failed to do – during the war. He embodies a broader human dilemma: how to act when all options carry a cost. His legacy is not only about history, but about the present – a reminder that moral clarity often arrives only in hindsight.

Pius XII. Pope of the Warfare Time and Harsh Politics

Bona Sforza

Bari is a city that is heard of in Poland from early childhood history lessons. In this city, one of the most influential queens in Polish history, Bona Sforza, was living before and after her stay in Poland. She became the Queen of Poland and Grand Duchess of Lithuania through her marriage to Sigismund I of Poland. It was only while staying with an Italian family near Bari that I learned that Bona Sforza was a significant figure in Bari, as well. Furthermore, that her modest sarcophagus is placed on the altar in the Basilica of Saint Nicholas in Bari.

Born 1494, in Milan, Italy, she was the daughter of Gian Galeazzo Sforza, Duke of Milan, and Isabella of Naples. Bona’s family, the Sforzas, were one of the leading families in Italy. Her childhood was affected by the political turmoil involving her family. The Sforza family’s power in Milan was contested. Her father died under mysterious circumstances when Bona was just a child. Soon after her father’s death, Duchess Isabella moved with her daughters to Bari. Bona’s Renaissance education covered languages, arts, and an introduction to politics, equipping her with linguistic proficiency and a foundational understanding of governance.

Isabella sought to arrange a favorable marriage for Bona to regain political influence and her former possessions. Despite initial unsuccessful attempts due to Isabella’s unfavorable political position, with the support of the Habsburgs, she eventually succeeded in arranging Bona’s marriage to the widowed Polish King Sigismund I.

In 1518, Bona Sforza married King Sigismund I of Poland, becoming Queen of Poland and Grand Duchess of Lithuania.

Her role as the Queen of Poland was marked by significant administrative reforms, among which the establishment of a permanent tax system was a major achievement. Although it must be said that she imposed and enforced these taxes with a firm hand. Prior to her influence, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth relied on irregular and often arbitrary taxation methods that were not only inefficient but also prone to exacerbating tensions between the monarchy and the nobility. By introducing a more systematic and regularized tax system, she brought about greater fiscal stability and predictability, which was essential for the effective governance and financial planning of the state. In addition to these fiscal reforms, Bona Sforza made concerted efforts to reduce the influence of the nobility by curbing their traditional privileges and powers, thereby centralizing authority under the monarchy.

Beyond her domestic reforms, Bona Sforza was deeply engaged in the foreign affairs of the Polish-Lithuanian realm. She openly opposed the growing influence of the Habsburgs in Central Europe and sought to counterbalance it through alliances with France and the Ottoman Empire. Her foreign policy was closely tied to her dynastic interests, as she worked to secure titles, lands and advantageous marriages for her children. Although some of her efforts were ultimately frustrated, she remained a shrewd political operator, whose ambitions extended well beyond the borders of her adopted country.

Bona Sforza played a notable role in the development of Renaissance culture in Poland. Hailing from Italy, she brought with her the refined tastes of the Italian courts and introduced them to the Polish royal household. She actively patronised artists, architects and craftsmen, many of whom she brought from her native land, leaving a lasting mark on the visual and architectural landscape of the kingdom. Under her influence, Wawel Castle was transformed with elegant arcaded courtyards in the Italian style. Beyond architecture, she encouraged literary and educational pursuits, helping to shape a more sophisticated and cosmopolitan court culture.

She also had a considerable impact on Polish agriculture and cuisine. She introduced important agricultural reforms, including new crops and farming techniques. While the idea that she single-handedly brought vegetables to Poland is somewhat exaggerated, she did play a significant role in promoting their wider use at the royal court and among the nobility. As a noblewoman from Italy – where Renaissance culinary culture was particularly rich and diverse – she brought with her knowledge of produce that was not commonly used in Poland at the time. Her influence contributed to a gradual shift in dietary habits, particularly among the upper classes.

Bona Sforza, towards the end of King Sigismund I’s reign and after his death in 1548, faced increasing animosity from the Polish nobility due to her strong political influence and centralizing reforms. Her relationship with her son, Sigismund II Augustus, became fraught with tension, as well. After he ascended to the throne, their differing views on state affairs exacerbated the strain in their relationship. A major source of conflict was also her son’s marriage to Barbara Radziwiłł from one of the most influential Polish-Lithuanian noble families. Bona viewed it as politically damaging and personally threatening, as it would strengthen his wife’s family influence at court while diminishing her own.

Consequently, for long eight years she moved with her daughters to Brodnica in Mazovia Poland. Finally she made the decision to leave Poland and return to Italy to Bari, marking the end of her direct involvement in Polish politics. Bona’s life came to an abrupt and mysterious end in 1557.

And here yet another fact from her life comes to light. Following her marriage to Sigismund I the Old in 1518, Bona was formally granted hereditary fiefs in southern Italy by Emperor Charles V of the Habsburg dynasty. These included the Duchy of Bari, the Principality of Rossano, as well as Modugno and Bitonto. These were highly lucrative estates situated in the Kingdom of Naples. Bona derived substantial income from them. She maintained financial independence and even loaned money to the Polish royal treasury. She was one of the wealthiest individuals in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and she handled her finances with remarkable diligence and care. For decades, even while residing in Poland, she administered her southern Italian fiefs through a network of trusted agents and correspondence. From the royal court in Kraków, she managed financial affairs, collected revenues, and oversaw local governance in the Duchy of Bari. This transregional management made her one of the most financially independent monarchs in Europe at the time.

When she eventually returned to Bari in 1556, she resumed direct rule and implemented a series of administrative and economic reforms. She strengthened tax collection, invested in urban infrastructure, and reasserted political control over her domains. Her presence in Bari reestablished the court as a center of local authority and Renaissance patronage — yet also drew the attention and hostility of the Spanish crown, particularly Philip II (son of Charles V), under whose rule the Kingdom of Naples now fell.

Bona died under suspicious circumstances. One of the historical hypotheses that has not been conclusively confirmed is the theory that she was poisoned by her secretary, Gian Lorenzo Pappacoda, who allegedly acted under orders from the Spanish crown. A forged will emerged, one that transferred her Italian holdings not to her son, as she had intended, but instead to Philip II. Poland’s diplomatic protests and claims were entirely ignored by the Spanish authorities.

She was buried in the Basilica of Saint Nicholas in Bari.

Bona Sforza