I began to have more sympathy for Fahriye when I found out that she had been married off for political alliances 3 times but the husbands had died each time. Mehmet Giray was the only man she ever loved and who probably ever loved her.
The real Fahriye lived a king life, didn’t have any affairs. Marriages were long. And he died naturally in 1656 - she married first time 1604, so she had to have been at least 14-15 years then she past away around 65-66 years at least. Interesting dramatic twist in the show. But real Fahriye sultan was a very different person.
@@dorra25555 I don’t know. I wouldn’t go with “pretty sure” about all the way until the 19th century. Definitely not about 17th century and before it. 14 was a fairly common age to be married back then. 14, 15 boys were going to battles. Laws in many lands were stating that a girl can be married as soon as she becomes fertile (becomes a woman”), and 14 and 15 would be an appropriate age for that time, considering at 40 a woman was already considered “aged” or “old”. 14-15 is a child for us today. We consider people become adults at 18 for some of the decision making purposes like voting, being elected, serving in the military (and going to combat), for marriage as well etc, and 21 for other reasons like being allowed to consume alcohol, buying cigarettes, among other laws. Girls at 14 today easily engage in intimate relationships and at 16 (!) compare to 14-15 for marriage) children are considered at the age of consent. Yet, when you look at emotional, intellectual and physical development, especially when comes to the first two - many people in their late 20s still have maturity of a teen. So, again, “pretty sure” is not “I am convinced”. Youngsters of the Renaissance, Middle Ages and before were growing up quite fast. And we don’t know whether they considered themselves “children” at 14 and 15. When you have to lead your troops into the battle at that age - I am sure you are likely to believe you could be ready to marry as well. History should be looked at within the framework of contemporary laws, rules and traditions. Not through the laws and rules of the present time. Even so, kids at 18 are not allowed to buy alcohol, but they are trusted to operate multimillion military equipment, and they die in combat. At 16 we have age of consent for intimacy in many countries and in many US states. A child at any age is allowed to terminate pregnancy in 2 states and in DC. But we are not allowed to have a tattoo on our body until we turn 18 without the parental permission. Think about that.
@@milanamughal Back then children probably grew up faster due to how hard life was and they needed to become mature fast to survive, so I wouldn't say even then or now that kids grow up that fast. While some kids may engage in 'adult' things like romantic relationships at 14+ depending on their environment and social factors, a lot engage in such things much later. Maturity definitely depends on the individual. I also wouldn't say being considered to engage in mature things so early was proof that you had grown up. We have evidence to prove that girls would have gotten their periods later than they do now, which may mean that they got pushed to get married soon afterwards(since it would have been hard for common folk to provide for children for so long back then, especially if you were had children when you were like 30+) but it may still not mean that was good considering each individual's personal development. It was just the norm.
@@qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm3093 Totally agree. Age or time of maturity is very individual and so much contributes to when said maturity is reached - biological, intellectual, emotional, the entire scope that contributes to that notion. And that was exactly what I was talking about - the “norm” of any given age. Assigning value or validation to a norm of 11th or 16th century from the 21st century point of view is wrong. I was fascinated by Margaret Beaufort’s life, her choices, decisions, her path overall. She was first married at 6, but marriage was annulled. Exactly non-consummation was the grounds for the annulment. It wouldn’t even occur to her guardian (slash - father-in-law) to have this child enter into this aspect of the marriage. And then she was married into Tudor family, already “mature” by the norm of Christian society of the 15th century and she had Henry (VII) Tudor when she was 13. And we could imagine “poor child”, etc, but it was Margaret who quickly researched the “marriage market” and within 3 months of having Henry (at her age!!) she was already going through nuptials with her next husband, Buckingham’s own brother. She was a strong politician at 13, which today is a tender age of barely a teenager. She knew the rules, the laws, the tradition and she always played them to her personal benefit and later to the benefit of her son. Over time society began realizing that even though it was true that children at 14 and 15 were burdened with many adult responsibilities, biologically this was too early to procreate. And even though the laws caught up probably around 19th century, the age of marriage was being pushed further and further up, towards 18 years of age. Especially influenced by developing medical science. Up until late 19th, beginning of 20th century medicine in Europe had very little understanding of health, illness and biology overall. So, I will reiterate, very much in agreement with what you said about the norms of the age. It doesn’t mean they are right, but they were developed based on the knowledge and common sense of the their era. And children were being raised according to the norms of their time. So, judging right and wrong 500 years ago through the prism of 21st century simply doesn’t make sense.
@@sarahvontettenborn121Yes, it was cruel but politically necessary. It was the only way to send a message to EVERYONE, and especially Safiye, that trying to kill him, and trying to kill an innocent 5 year old, was NOT a good idea.
Well she tried to kill the sultan and felt a little bit of guilt dervish actualy killed his father and most likely i did not seen him ever has guilt or remorse
@@konmajFacts. Although she was a traitor. She was still naive and threw her family under the bus for love (even though she was forcibly married off 3x and had an evil mother). She was still defenseless in this scene and begged forgiveness just prior.
@@Blooming_CrystalsYes, you're right. I used to hate Fahriye when I started watching this series, but when I found out that she had been forcefully married 3 times against her will, I started feeling sorry for her. She shouldn't have tried to kill Amhed and Mustafa, but Fahriye just proved that once again some people will do ANYTHING for love.
Ahmed should have listened to Handan and taken Mustafa with him on this expedition, regardless of Mustafa's age. It would be hard, to say the least, for Safiye to overthrow Ahmed without having a successor on hand.
I have to feel for Dervish here. He has to be loyal to the "son" he raised to be Sultan. He killed Ahmed's father to preserve Ahmed. He has feelings for his wife, even though it is an arranged marriage, and he wanted to be loyal to Ahmed's mother, instead. Now his loyalty is being tested again. It's just a bad situation all around. Clearly women are disposable in this Empire. Not that she didn't deserve her punishment, she clearly earned it as she abused her position as family and an insider. And obviously you cannot drink anything in this place unless you know the origin, or bring it to the party yourself! Just rules for survival as an Ottoman, you know?
Technically everyone is disposable. That's why most of the Sultan's brothers in each generation have been killed, while the sisters are given in marriage for political reasons. And doing that creates cut throat women in the mothers who are expected to bare these children. Ironic how some traditions that were supposed to bring stability create instability. If Nurbanu had just left Safiye alone and not taken her from her husband then most of these things never would have happened.
Nurbanu was pretty evil, although I think that although she did not love the Sultan at first, she did develop feelings for him. And Nurbanu seemed to be able to keep the Sultan's (I'm sorry, I can't remember his name) alcoholism in check most of the time. I also have to admit that if I was a member of the Ottoman Royal Family I'd probably become an alcoholic to cope with being a member of that family too..
Just from watching this, Fahriye has definitely started to turn like her evil mother although she lacks the cleverness and smarts to outwit her enemies which caused her demise. She thought her beauty and her position as a born Sultana would be enough for her to do what she wants to do but it’s not. There are a lot of beautiful women in the harem and some of them are more cunning and smarter (like Kosem) who knows how to play the game of throne. Her vanity, arrogance and lack of foresight are what got her killed. When the stakes are this high and it’s your life at risk, you want to make sure you have several plans. The main plan and backup plans. You want to make sure you have only the most loyal people around you know what is going on and who will help you. You see, she doesn’t have political ties like her mother. Kosem knew in order to have power, she needs powerful allies and that’s what she did. She trusted them and they her.
I've always thought that the scenes where Kosem gets Fahriye outside of the religious enclave could have been titled "Mission Impossible: Magnificent Century Kosem Style."
I felt so bad for princess the way she was crying for forgiveness she changed .she done for mehmat and he betrayed her king gave him chance but not the Princess 😢😢😢
@@cheetavontiebolt9971 that might be so but as the person above that kind of thing was forbidden and if you know the history of that time and place you will see that it's true
@@neidaifranklin7926It was amazing how without ever even kissing each other, it was obvious how much Dervish and Handan loved each other. Kudos to both of the actors who portrayed them.
@@nisaasin83Empress Maria Theresa of Austria-Hungary married all of her daughters to other European rulers in what one could call "Marriage Foreign Policy". She felt that other European rulers would be less likely to declare war on Austria-Hungary if their rulers were married to members of the Ausrtian Royal Family. I know that one of her daughters married the King of Naples, who was so incompetent that she basically ruled the country in his name. And one might say that Maria Thersa's most successful case of "Marriage Diplomacy" was when she married her daughter Marie Antoinette to the future French King Louis XVI. Well, it was successful until they got their heads cut off.
I began to have more sympathy for Fahriye when I found out that she had been married off for political alliances 3 times but the husbands had died each time. Mehmet Giray was the only man she ever loved and who probably ever loved her.
@@nielubieinceli Preeeeeeach!!! Same here. BUT it was the reality of the time, which is why I'm glad to be in this time. I'd be burning at the stake for so many reasons, if I were born at any other time.
My heart broke for Safiye when she said "my baby". Evil or not, no mother can handle seeing her child in a coffin
That was pretty sad.
9:34 Why do I have this sudden urge to say to Safiye "Sultana Kosem sends her greetings"?
I began to have more sympathy for Fahriye when I found out that she had been married off for political alliances 3 times but the husbands had died each time. Mehmet Giray was the only man she ever loved and who probably ever loved her.
The real Fahriye lived a king life, didn’t have any affairs. Marriages were long. And he died naturally in 1656 - she married first time 1604, so she had to have been at least 14-15 years then she past away around 65-66 years at least.
Interesting dramatic twist in the show. But real Fahriye sultan was a very different person.
@@milanamughal pretty sure no child will be happy to be married off at 14
@@dorra25555
I don’t know. I wouldn’t go with “pretty sure” about all the way until the 19th century. Definitely not about 17th century and before it. 14 was a fairly common age to be married back then. 14, 15 boys were going to battles. Laws in many lands were stating that a girl can be married as soon as she becomes fertile (becomes a woman”), and 14 and 15 would be an appropriate age for that time, considering at 40 a woman was already considered “aged” or “old”.
14-15 is a child for us today. We consider people become adults at 18 for some of the decision making purposes like voting, being elected, serving in the military (and going to combat), for marriage as well etc, and 21 for other reasons like being allowed to consume alcohol, buying cigarettes, among other laws. Girls at 14 today easily engage in intimate relationships and at 16 (!) compare to 14-15 for marriage) children are considered at the age of consent.
Yet, when you look at emotional, intellectual and physical development, especially when comes to the first two - many people in their late 20s still have maturity of a teen.
So, again, “pretty sure” is not “I am convinced”. Youngsters of the Renaissance, Middle Ages and before were growing up quite fast. And we don’t know whether they considered themselves “children” at 14 and 15. When you have to lead your troops into the battle at that age - I am sure you are likely to believe you could be ready to marry as well.
History should be looked at within the framework of contemporary laws, rules and traditions. Not through the laws and rules of the present time.
Even so, kids at 18 are not allowed to buy alcohol, but they are trusted to operate multimillion military equipment, and they die in combat. At 16 we have age of consent for intimacy in many countries and in many US states. A child at any age is allowed to terminate pregnancy in 2 states and in DC. But we are not allowed to have a tattoo on our body until we turn 18 without the parental permission. Think about that.
@@milanamughal Back then children probably grew up faster due to how hard life was and they needed to become mature fast to survive, so I wouldn't say even then or now that kids grow up that fast. While some kids may engage in 'adult' things like romantic relationships at 14+ depending on their environment and social factors, a lot engage in such things much later. Maturity definitely depends on the individual. I also wouldn't say being considered to engage in mature things so early was proof that you had grown up. We have evidence to prove that girls would have gotten their periods later than they do now, which may mean that they got pushed to get married soon afterwards(since it would have been hard for common folk to provide for children for so long back then, especially if you were had children when you were like 30+) but it may still not mean that was good considering each individual's personal development. It was just the norm.
@@qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm3093
Totally agree. Age or time of maturity is very individual and so much contributes to when said maturity is reached - biological, intellectual, emotional, the entire scope that contributes to that notion. And that was exactly what I was talking about - the “norm” of any given age. Assigning value or validation to a norm of 11th or 16th century from the 21st century point of view is wrong.
I was fascinated by Margaret Beaufort’s life, her choices, decisions, her path overall. She was first married at 6, but marriage was annulled. Exactly non-consummation was the grounds for the annulment. It wouldn’t even occur to her guardian (slash - father-in-law) to have this child enter into this aspect of the marriage. And then she was married into Tudor family, already “mature” by the norm of Christian society of the 15th century and she had Henry (VII) Tudor when she was 13. And we could imagine “poor child”, etc, but it was Margaret who quickly researched the “marriage market” and within 3 months of having Henry (at her age!!) she was already going through nuptials with her next husband, Buckingham’s own brother. She was a strong politician at 13, which today is a tender age of barely a teenager. She knew the rules, the laws, the tradition and she always played them to her personal benefit and later to the benefit of her son.
Over time society began realizing that even though it was true that children at 14 and 15 were burdened with many adult responsibilities, biologically this was too early to procreate. And even though the laws caught up probably around 19th century, the age of marriage was being pushed further and further up, towards 18 years of age. Especially influenced by developing medical science. Up until late 19th, beginning of 20th century medicine in Europe had very little understanding of health, illness and biology overall.
So, I will reiterate, very much in agreement with what you said about the norms of the age. It doesn’t mean they are right, but they were developed based on the knowledge and common sense of the their era. And children were being raised according to the norms of their time. So, judging right and wrong 500 years ago through the prism of 21st century simply doesn’t make sense.
Dervis is a true loyal man to the sultan not those who have power greed he may have his own evils, but he is a true servant, admirable.
The sultan’s request was too cruel.
@@sarahvontettenborn121Yes, it was cruel but politically necessary. It was the only way to send a message to EVERYONE, and especially Safiye, that trying to kill him, and trying to kill an innocent 5 year old, was NOT a good idea.
Well she tried to kill the sultan and felt a little bit of guilt dervish actualy killed his father and most likely i did not seen him ever has guilt or remorse
4:11 Is it me or does Dervis look a bit guilty because he just poisoned Fahriye?
not only you
He's a soldier so apparently he doesn't like killing people in such way. Besides he had to kill defenceless woman who trusted him.
@@konmajFacts. Although she was a traitor. She was still naive and threw her family under the bus for love (even though she was forcibly married off 3x and had an evil mother). She was still defenseless in this scene and begged forgiveness just prior.
@@Blooming_CrystalsYes, you're right. I used to hate Fahriye when I started watching this series, but when I found out that she had been forcefully married 3 times against her will, I started feeling sorry for her. She shouldn't have tried to kill Amhed and Mustafa, but Fahriye just proved that once again some people will do ANYTHING for love.
Ahmed should have listened to Handan and taken Mustafa with him on this expedition, regardless of Mustafa's age. It would be hard, to say the least, for Safiye to overthrow Ahmed without having a successor on hand.
I have to feel for Dervish here. He has to be loyal to the "son" he raised to be Sultan. He killed Ahmed's father to preserve Ahmed. He has feelings for his wife, even though it is an arranged marriage, and he wanted to be loyal to Ahmed's mother, instead. Now his loyalty is being tested again. It's just a bad situation all around. Clearly women are disposable in this Empire. Not that she didn't deserve her punishment, she clearly earned it as she abused her position as family and an insider. And obviously you cannot drink anything in this place unless you know the origin, or bring it to the party yourself! Just rules for survival as an Ottoman, you know?
Women were always disposable to the crow, ask any of Henry the 8ths wives.
Technically everyone is disposable. That's why most of the Sultan's brothers in each generation have been killed, while the sisters are given in marriage for political reasons. And doing that creates cut throat women in the mothers who are expected to bare these children. Ironic how some traditions that were supposed to bring stability create instability. If Nurbanu had just left Safiye alone and not taken her from her husband then most of these things never would have happened.
Has anyone else ever noticed that it seems like every member of the Royal Family has a supply of posion on hand?
Nurbanu was pretty evil, although I think that although she did not love the Sultan at first, she did develop feelings for him. And Nurbanu seemed to be able to keep the Sultan's (I'm sorry, I can't remember his name) alcoholism in check most of the time. I also have to admit that if I was a member of the Ottoman Royal Family I'd probably become an alcoholic to cope with being a member of that family too..
@@mariakelly90210 I think Nurbanu in real life was far worse than the one in the show.
I don't know why I feel like crying when every Sultana die even if they are good or bad
It’s because we feel sorry for the women. They were all forced into competitions to stay alive.
Just from watching this, Fahriye has definitely started to turn like her evil mother although she lacks the cleverness and smarts to outwit her enemies which caused her demise. She thought her beauty and her position as a born Sultana would be enough for her to do what she wants to do but it’s not. There are a lot of beautiful women in the harem and some of them are more cunning and smarter (like Kosem) who knows how to play the game of throne. Her vanity, arrogance and lack of foresight are what got her killed. When the stakes are this high and it’s your life at risk, you want to make sure you have several plans. The main plan and backup plans. You want to make sure you have only the most loyal people around you know what is going on and who will help you. You see, she doesn’t have political ties like her mother. Kosem knew in order to have power, she needs powerful allies and that’s what she did. She trusted them and they her.
I've always thought that the scenes where Kosem gets Fahriye outside of the religious enclave could have been titled "Mission Impossible: Magnificent Century Kosem Style."
I felt so bad for princess the way she was crying for forgiveness she changed .she done for mehmat and he betrayed her king gave him chance but not the Princess 😢😢😢
dilruba should have learned a lesson here. maybe she would have lived longer.
I was surprised that Dilruba lived as long as she did.
Let Dervish be with Handan if they cannot marry let them become secret lovers
Such thing was forbidden. Handan gave birth to a prince, and was the sultan's woman. She cannot be with another man.
@@anagirbau3301 being forbidden does not stop people women have needs too remember forbidden fruit
@@cheetavontiebolt9971 that might be so but as the person above that kind of thing was forbidden and if you know the history of that time and place you will see that it's true
@@neidaifranklin7926It was amazing how without ever even kissing each other, it was obvious how much Dervish and Handan loved each other. Kudos to both of the actors who portrayed them.
She looks like a child in that coffin.
Were those people really so cruel or is it all drama thst they are showing us?
Sadly yes they were. 😔
They were more cruel in rl u know its real history😅
We have the same cruel People now too... ☹️☹️
Drama. Most of it is drama. Some of it true however.
Yes and No, most likely.
Farhiye only infected sultan because she was provoked she did not want Dervish pasha all ahmed had to do was let her be with nehmet giray
Should have taught her to be loyal to the Sultan
The delusion is too much. She really thought she was going to get away with that. Smh
I don't care anymore abt Kosem Ahmed bla bla bla.. such a disturbing system and power game
Do you think it was different in Europe?
@nisaasin83 i don't know dat much abt Europe !
@@anamikasrija22Well maybe you should learn. There are a ton of books about the various Royal Families you could read.
@@nisaasin83Empress Maria Theresa of Austria-Hungary married all of her daughters to other European rulers in what one could call "Marriage Foreign Policy". She felt that other European rulers would be less likely to declare war on Austria-Hungary if their rulers were married to members of the Ausrtian Royal Family. I know that one of her daughters married the King of Naples, who was so incompetent that she basically ruled the country in his name. And one might say that Maria Thersa's most successful case of "Marriage Diplomacy" was when she married her daughter Marie Antoinette to the future French King Louis XVI. Well, it was successful until they got their heads cut off.
😮😮😮😮😮
A cruel leader is not worth saving.
Didn't she give her nephews smallpox? If so then I'm not sad
😢😢😢😢
SO much blood and violence in this sHOW...sickening.
😰🙏💖🇬🇧
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤😂😂😢😢😮
Wow. What pathetic film making this was.
I began to have more sympathy for Fahriye when I found out that she had been married off for political alliances 3 times but the husbands had died each time. Mehmet Giray was the only man she ever loved and who probably ever loved her.
And the most handsome man at that too!
Let mehmet and farhiye marry they are both muslim and in love
Maria
Loyalty to family is the most important duty of a person.
@@amandaa3713 but it doesn't include traiding off my body to a stranger
@@nielubieinceli Preeeeeeach!!! Same here.
BUT it was the reality of the time, which is why I'm glad to be in this time. I'd be burning at the stake for so many reasons, if I were born at any other time.