![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnAnd in this post:
-luzula is going to tell us about the Jacobites and the '45!
-I'm going to finish reading Nancy Goldstone's book about Maria Theresia and (some of) her children Maria Christina, Maria Carolina, and Marie Antoinette, In the Shadow of the Empress, andselenak is going to tell us all the things wrong with the last four chapters (spoiler: in the first twenty chapters there have been many, MANY things wrong)!
-mildred_of_midgard is going to tell us about Charles XII of Sweden and the Great Northern War
(seriously, how did I get so lucky to have all these people Telling Me Things, this is AWESOME)
-oh, and also there will be Yuletide signups :D
-
luzula is going to tell us about the Jacobites and the '45!-I'm going to finish reading Nancy Goldstone's book about Maria Theresia and (some of) her children Maria Christina, Maria Carolina, and Marie Antoinette, In the Shadow of the Empress, and
selenak is going to tell us all the things wrong with the last four chapters (spoiler: in the first twenty chapters there have been many, MANY things wrong)!-
mildred_of_midgard is going to tell us about Charles XII of Sweden and the Great Northern War(seriously, how did I get so lucky to have all these people Telling Me Things, this is AWESOME)
-oh, and also there will be Yuletide signups :D
William III, FW, and Sophia
Date: 2021-10-23 06:28 pm (UTC)Either that or everyone forgot he existed. :P
I still wonder about the effect on GB if William of Orange had adopted FW and England had had the dubious joy of being ruled first by FW, then Fritz. Could they have micromanaged the British Empire, including the overseas colonies?
No, even Prussia was overstraining Fritz by the end of his lifetime, after he'd expanded it in both territory and population. But it would have been entertaining to see them try!
I wish I could remember who said W3 thinking of adopting FW was a myth that's since been exploded, because I ran into a reference in Hatton's scholarly, archive-oriented, but mid-twentieth-century bio of G1.
According to Hatton, Sophia of Hanover and Sophia Charlotte visited W3 in the Netherlands in October 1700. What she said to him and what she had just written to Stepney, the British representative at the Hague, was that her son G1 was indifferent to the British Crown.
Hatton says everyone in Hanover was appalled, that even if this was true (and there's no sign that it was), it undermined the Hanoverian campaign for electoral status.
No wonder that William began to think of alternative candidates to George (had not Sophia herself invited it?), and that the son of the electress of Brandenburg was now reckoned to be ahead of his uncle.
Unfortunately, she groups her citations at the end of the paragraph, so I can't tell what the specific source for this claim is, but they're all primary, contemporary, archival sources.
Hatton continues:
Sophia's letter to Stepney, which became widely known on both sides of the Channel, caused more permanent damage than her talk. It was neither correct nor politic to stress that George was ‘absolute’ in Hanover and that he would be too set in his ways when the time came for him to be king of England, in contrast to James II's son (whom she referred to as the prince of Wales) who was young enough and keen enough to be moulded into the kind of ruler most Englishmen wanted.
I knew that there was a serious discussion between W3 and Louis XIV about the possibility of making James Francis Edward (future Jacobite "James III", Cahn) William's heir, but that his father, uncompromising James II, said that it was impossible that his son could be king while he was alive, so it never came to anything. But I didn't realize Sophia had supported this!
Thanks to Hatton's citation for the letter to Stepney, I've turned up the letter, and downloaded it from Hathitrust, because I'm not sure our Germans can view it. As far as I can tell, she's saying that she would be pleased to have a crown if she were 30 years younger, but it's not realistic to expect her to outlive much younger people, and after her death, there's a risk that her son will be viewed as a foreigner. Furthermore, her son is used to ruling absolutely, whereas the much younger Prince of Wales (whom she calls the "Prince of Wales" without any questions about his birth or his right to hold that title) will be much easier for the English to do what they want with. Something about preconceived biases (?) in England, I didn't quite catch that, and this is all she's going to put in writing now. But she and her daughter (this is Sophia Charlotte, FW's mom, Cahn, I know it's hard to keep the Sophias straight) are traveling and will be meeting W3 soon.
She's not so philosophical that she wouldn't like to wear a crown, but party politics in England are such that you can never be sure of anything, but she's much obliged to everyone for the offer, etc. etc.
Did you know this, Selena? Did you tell us and I forgot?
Re: William III, FW, and Sophia
Date: 2021-10-24 06:35 am (UTC)If I was thirty years younger, I would make much of my perdigree and my religious confession in order to expect people in England to consider myself. But since it is not very likely that I shall survive two much younger people, though they're both less healthy, I'm afraid that after my death, one will regard my sons as foreigners. (Yes, that's "sons" plural. More than one was still alive after all.) Besides, the oldest is much more used to act as a sovereign than the poor Prince of Wales, who is still too young to have patterned himself on the example of the King of France and who it seems would be so happy to achieve again that which his royal father has lost in such an inconsiderate way, that one could do whatever one wanted with him. (The implication for me here isn't so much that G1 is used to act like Louis XIV but that G1 is now used to act as a sovereign, full stop, - i.e. rule on his own - whereas young James - who is after all living at Louis' court together with his Dad in exile - is still too young to have patterned himself on Louis, and also is ready to make compromises in order to get the throne back. )But in England, prejudice reigns, and in order to stick to what you're telling me about this, and without any further discussion of this point in a letter, I shall tell you that my daughter has dragged me here where she has been spending three weeks taking the waters, and that we want to leave on Monday in order to travel to the Netherlands via Brussels, where we shall have the honor to see the King. I am neither so philosophical nor so inconsiderate as to not like all this conversation about a crown, as you may believe, and of course I am pondering your well founded judgment in this affair. In my opinion, there are so many factions in England that one can never be sure of anything there. Which doesn't stop me from being very grateful to those who show affection towards me and mine, especially to you, grateful enough to last a life time. And I find it a pleasing to be obliged to such an deserving person as yourself, whom one likes to owe gratitude towards. Sophie, Electress.
Now, what she doesn't say is that future G1 doesn't want to be King. There's nothing in the letter about his eagerness or lack of same. Just that he (or any other son of hers) will be perceived as a foreigner by the Brits, and that he's used to rule as a sovereign by now, whereas young James is a young (British) pub who can still be molded. While Sophie never visited England herself, she knew her share of British exiles from girlhood onwards, not to mention that brothers Carl Ludwig and Rupert lived in the country for years and did have stories to tell, so I would say the observation that any son of hers will be seen as a foreigner was entirely on point and correct. "Used to act like a sovereign by now" is another matter; I haven't yet read a biography of his, so you would know better, but I did have the impression that as Elector, he did like to do his own stuff as opposed to leaving governing entirely to ministers.
Something else she doesn't say is that she'll tell W3 the Hannovers weren't interested. And it's worth pointing out that she and Sophie Charlotte weren't alone; they had kid FW with them. Now, here's a funny thing: counting your quote from Hatton, I have now seen three entirely different takes on this Sophie/Sophie/W3 summit, to wit:
Morgenstern: So what happened was that W3 thought little FW was awesome, wanted to adopt him, but his mean Mom and Grandma, being all about the Hannover interests, evidently were against it. FW never stopped being disgruntled about this and convinced he'd have made a way better King of England than the Georges, readers, I swear!
Goldstone: So we don't know what was said but it's clear from the timing that this was when Sophie pushed for the Hannover succession, therefore finally achieving that late win for Mary Queen of Scots!
Hatton: This was when Sophie said they weren't interested and nearly lost her son the chance for the crown!"
It does occur to me that anything Sophie writes about young James - young, can be molded - certainly (without having prophetic powers) would apply to 12 years old FW as well, and of course as opposed to young James he's impeccably Protestant (the observation about prejudice ruling in England persumably means religious prejudice, i.e. the NO CATHOLICS! issue) and Sophie's direct descendant. So I wouldn't consider it impossible that either of the Sophias or both raised the possibility of FW as an alterante candidate with W3. But maybe, as opposed to what Morgenstern thinks (who wasn't there and only had it by word of mouth anyway, either from FW or his tobacco cronies), W3 wasn't smitten by kid!FW and the idea of adopting him and making him King of England.
Re: William III, FW, and Sophia
Date: 2021-10-24 01:05 pm (UTC)Hatton's summary sure made it sound like Sophia had written that G1 was indifferent, but I didn't go back and reread what I had written after I turned up the letter. However, her end-of-paragraph citation footnote is more explicit about what her sources were for the indifference:
AG,: 29 vol. iv., Bothmer's letter of 23 Nov. 1700 from The Hague on the effect of Sophia's talk of George's 'indifference'; cp. AG 34 vol. iii, for Schütz reporting on 13/24 Dec. 1700 from London a conversation with William III on the same subject.
So it sounds like the indifference part might have come orally at the summit, and the letter details the practical obstacles.
AG is the "Bernstorffsches Archiv, Gartow," Bernstorff being G1's first minister in Hannover.
(the observation about prejudice ruling in England persumably means religious prejudice, i.e. the NO CATHOLICS! issue)
Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure if it was religious (anti-James) or anti-foreigner (anti-George) prejudice that she was talking about.
She did apparently say that she thought little James Francis Edward would be willing to convert to Anglicanism: When older and freer of parental control, she argued, he might well turn Protestant in order to become king of England and Scotland.
So I wouldn't consider it impossible that either of the Sophias or both raised the possibility of FW as an alterante candidate with W3. But maybe, as opposed to what Morgenstern thinks (who wasn't there and only had it by word of mouth anyway, either from FW or his tobacco cronies), W3 wasn't smitten by kid!FW and the idea of adopting him and making him King of England.
Yeah, I wish Hatton would be explicit about her source that FW's prospects were reckoned higher than Hanoverian, although it's probably one of those two references from the Bernstorff archive discussing what happened at the summit. It would make sense if the consideration of FW as a candidate was way more casual than what Morgenstern thinks.
It's also worth adding that in addition to the downplaying of her family's claims and interests by Sophia, Hatton also lists the various bits of evidence that she *was* interested: getting upset when Louis XIV recognized "James III", being extremely happy that she was named in the Act of Succession, expressing her willingness to Anne to come to England, etc.
Re: William III, FW, and Sophia
Date: 2021-10-24 03:31 pm (UTC)Another unlikely AU and "what if?", btw, is the one where young Sophie actually marries cousin Charles II while he's in exile and thus later does become Queen of England, producing a good number of children (fertility wasn't a problem for either of them, evidently), some of which survive into adulthood. No glorious revolution in England, no Jacobite uprisings in Scotland. James remains the eternally disgruntled Duke of York, and his Catholicism remains seen as his private excentricity, since he's no longer the heir. Charles' oldest illegtimate son Jemmy the Duke of Monmouth survives instead of getting executed by James. In Germany, it also means no FW, no Fritz, a possibly very different Prussia, oh, and Hannover likely remains a small principality which doesn't even make it to electorate status.
Re: William III, FW, and Sophia
Date: 2021-10-25 05:03 am (UTC)This sounds interesting to me! (Though perhaps with fewer haunting songs :) )
Charles' oldest illegtimate son Jemmy the Duke of Monmouth survives instead of getting executed by James.
Wait, what?? (Will I find out about this if I keep reading the Jude Morgan? Which I only got to the first chapter of and now it is currently on ice for Yuletide, but I'll get back to it at some point...)
Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-10-25 05:54 am (UTC)"Monmouth seem'd to be born for a better Fate; for the first part of his life was all Sunshine, though the rest was clouded. He was Brave, Generous, Affable, and extremely Handsome: Constant in his Friendships, just to His Word, and an utter enemy to all sorts of Cruelty. He was easy in his Nature, and fond of popular Applause which led him insensibly into all his Misfortunes; But wherever might be the hidden Designs of some working Heads he embark'd with, his own were noble, and chiefly aim'd at the Good of his Country."
"an utter enemy to all sorts of Cruelty" was not something that could be said about Mary's father James, who had dealt with Monmouth's followers even more gruesomely than with his nephew. Their fates are referred to as the "Bloody Assizes". I quote:
The Bloody Assizes took place at Salisbury, Dorchester, Taunton and Wells. Figures vary, but it appears that more than 1,400 cases were heard, of which 1,381 rebels were found guilty and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered.
The King exercised the prerogative of mercy in some cases and it ended with 320 being executed and the sentence for 800 commuted to transportation. There was a good reason for this; before the final battle had been fought, slave owners at the King’s court had petitioned him to buy up to 1,000 rebels to use as slaves on their sugar plantations in the West Indies. The King could make a lot of money out of this and it was not an act of mercy; the brutality and hardship involved is well illustrated in Raphael Sabatini’s novel Captain Blood.
In time honoured fashion, once the condemned had been beheaded and their bodies quartered, their heads and quarters were displayed in prominent sites around the area where the rebellion had taken place; the description by travellers of: “...a charnel house...” was frequently used.
Special treatment was reserved for Lyme Regis where the rebellion had originated; heads and quarters were displayed on the spiked railings around the church, and there they remained until King James was deposed in 1688. Indeed, any attempt to remove any body part, anywhere would result in severe punishment.
Just in case someone tells you James and his idea of absolute royalty were harmless. Re: the fate of nephew Jemmy, there was an additional vicious touch in that the King granted him an audience before his execution. Now, in every single case this had happened before, the King granting an audience to a condemned man was a signal that the condemned man would be pardoned. James had no intention of pardoning his nephew, but granted the audience, it seems, just to say later that Jemmy had behaved cowardly, asking for mercy, even offering to to convert to Catholicism. Whether or not this is true depends on whether you believe James II, but the thing is: afterwards, Jemmy died while the Eucharist was withheld from him by the (Anglican) Bishop sent to administer him because Jemmy refused to admit that either his rebellion against James or his relationship with Lady Henrietta Wentworth (who is the "my love" the narrating Jemmy refers to in the novel) had been sinful. So he went to his gruesome death unpardoned in every sense. That he stuck to his refusal does not sound like he offered a Catholic conversion before to me, but of course the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Oh, and for added measure, James also claimed that Jemmy might not have been his nephew after all given that Jemmy's mother Lucy had lived such a dissolute life. To which one could say: Charles II never had a moment's doubt Jemmy was his son, including during their times of argument, and Charles was many things, but easily trusting or letting wishful thinking reign were never one of them. Nor did anyone else in the legitimate family doubt Jemmy was Charles' kid, including the very strict Henrietta Maria, the grandmother who had supervised part of his upbringing, Henriette "Minette" Anne the youngest sister of Charles and James, who'd been close to him, or James' own daughters.
Anyway, when you read accounts where Mary and Anne, James' Protestant daughters, are compared to Goneril and Regan for turning against Dad, I'm thinking that in addition to the very sound political reasons they had for doing so, Mary at least might also have remembered how Dad had treated the cousin she'd liked and maybe even loved.
Re: Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-10-31 08:42 pm (UTC)(and btw, the fact that they not only took him in but that he was close to both should have told James something about how his oldest daughter and son-in-law saw him long before the Glorious Revolution)
Oh, woooow. You know, I guess I now knew from your previous writeups that Mary was James II's kid, but I guess it didn't really sink in for me until this comment?
(Also, I've been to Lyme Regis -- when I was a kid, so my memories are dim and I have no idea what it's like these days, but I remember it being just a nice place I have good memories of :P (I obviously had no idea of the history.))
James had no intention of pardoning his nephew, but granted the audience, it seems, just to say later that Jemmy had behaved cowardly, asking for mercy, even offering to to convert to Catholicism. Whether or not this is true depends on whether you believe James II
:(
That he stuck to his refusal does not sound like he offered a Catholic conversion before to me, but of course the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Yeeeeah, I could imagine him offering a Catholic conversion and also being like "...but there are some things I won't do/believe" (sounds very Man of All Seasons when I put it that way, haha) but of course I don't know that I trust James II either :P
I'm thinking that in addition to the very sound political reasons they had for doing so, Mary at least might also have remembered how Dad had treated the cousin she'd liked and maybe even loved.
Wow, yeah, I could... definitely see that. What were the very sound political reasons they had, was it just that James II sucked as a monarch?
(I also really love the title you gave this, because omg. With the difference of course that David had to be talked into killing Absalom, whereas it sounds like James II wasn't exactly talked into anything...)
Re: Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-11-01 07:46 am (UTC)Since the novel is told by Jemmy in first person (during his exile in the Netherlands), you can read all of it except for the epilogue without having to go through this gruesomeness, if it's a comfort. (The epilogue is told by his mistress, Lady Henrietta Wentworth, in first person, summing up what happened to him.)
You know, I guess I now knew from your previous writeups that Mary was James II's kid, but I guess it didn't really sink in for me until this comment?
Here's a Mary anecdote for you: when her wedding to cousin William (who was her first cousin, the son of James' and Charles' oldest sister Mary, which is why he later had a claim to the throne both through his wife and his own descent) was prepared, Mary was upset at this whole marrying abroad thing and cried. Charles' wife Catherine of Braganza wanted to comfort her and told her that she, too, had been upset when having to marry a foreign monarch, but then she'd found her happiness in Charles. "Yes", sobs Mary, "but Madam, you were travelling to England, and I am leaving it!"
(Bless the Brits.)
Anyway, Mary and Anne as James' Protestant daughters from his first marriage were a big reason why until his second marriage produced a (Catholic) son, James' throne was relatively secure. He was undoubtedly the legitimate king of you believe in the monarchy, and hardcore Protestants could comfort themselves that Catholic James would just be an interlude, to be succeeded by his Protestant daughter with her impeccably Protestant husband, and even if these two did not have a living kid, there was the other Protestant daughter with also an impeccably Protestant husband, and she kept having babies, at least one of which would surely survive! Surely! And then...
What were the very sound political reasons they had, was it just that James II sucked as a monarch?
That, and also James' chumminess with Louis XIV. Who was William's arch enemy whom William and the Netherlands had been warring against for most of William's life. Not to mention that Louis became more hardcore Catholic the older he got. Now I don't know whether William and Mary ever seriously believed James would attempt to do what Mary Tudor had tried, to re-Catholize England, and do it aided by Louis' troops. But they certainly could have believed dear old Dad would do nothing while France invaded the Netherlands again.
The Jude Morgan novel also has Mary telling Jemmy that she was quite aware of how her father had treated her mother, but that's novelistic speculation. (Reminder: James had gotten Anne Hyde pregnant, married her in secret, then denied having married her and/or wanted to take it back, with the recorded in Samuel Pepys' journal awful simile that a man doesn't put on a hat into which he has shat. Brother Charles did not let him get away with this, and James remained married to Anne Hyde, eventually producing Mary and Anne the younger, future Olivia Colman, with her.)
Re: Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-11-05 04:50 am (UTC)Well, I suppose that's something :P :)
"Yes", sobs Mary, "but Madam, you were travelling to England, and I am leaving it!"
(Bless the Brits.)
Aww! And, yeah, lol!
(Reminder: James had gotten Anne Hyde pregnant, married her in secret, then denied having married her and/or wanted to take it back, with the recorded in Samuel Pepys' journal awful simile that a man doesn't put on a hat into which he has shat. Brother Charles did not let him get away with this, and James remained married to Anne Hyde, eventually producing Mary and Anne the younger, future Olivia Colman, with her.)
Oh, yeeeeah. James :(
Re: Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-11-02 08:23 pm (UTC)This sounds pretty much like what the Hanoverians did after the '45, though? At least the executions, transportations, putting people's heads/bodies on display for years... Well, except that we don't know what they would've done if they'd caught BPC, of course. I've never actually seen anything about what their plans were for that.
Re: Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-11-03 02:50 pm (UTC)Well, except that we don't know what they would've done if they'd caught BPC, of course. I've never actually seen anything about what their plans were for that.
Somehow, I don't think he'd have been beheaded in the Tower by an incompetent executioner. Not because the Hanoverians were nicer than James, but because BPC had a protection Monmouth did not - he was legtitimate royalty. Ex-royalty, from a Hanovarian pov, but his grandfather had been King, and he himself was the son and grandson of legal marriages. Whereas Monmouth was illegitimate, and no matter how much he had been liked by legal Stuarts not James, he was a bastard who had tried to achieve a position usually reserved for legtimate offspring. By the very system everyone (no matter of which faith) was upholding, that made him a transgressor.
...also, I don't think any of the Hannover clan had met BPC. There was no personal rancour. (G2 was busy hating his own (oldest) son and Dad, I doubt he ever gave a personal fig about any of the Stuarts beyond not wanting them on the throne.) James and Monmouth, by contrast, knew each other pretty well. There was a (terrible) relationship and thus personal enmity.
Mind you, I don't think they'd just have send him home to Rome! (Or France.) He probably would have been imprisoned for years, or the rest of his life. But not executed as a rebel.
Re: Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-11-03 09:49 pm (UTC)Ah, okay. I think the very first time I read about him, I was like "he thought people should be allowed to be Catholic? That sounds reasonable?" but I have since realized how serious the religious issue was at the time and that he was really pushing the Catholic agenda, and also that he seems to have been a pretty terrible king with a talent for pissing everyone off (except perhaps in the Highlands). But his execution and transportation of rebels seems pretty standard for the time.
Hmm, interesting speculation re: BPC.
Re: Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-11-03 10:17 pm (UTC)Same!
Re: Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-11-03 10:04 pm (UTC)Huh. I don't have strong opinions on whether he would have been executed--could go either way, imo--but I've always considered it a possibility. He was descended from royalty, and he was legitimate, yes, but would the Hanoverians really have recognized him as royalty? Or are you saying that they would have had to be concerned about repercussions from people who did?
My thinking was always that BPC wasn't an anointed monarch, nor even the son of one, and even being an anointed monarch isn't guaranteed protection if you're a plausible threat to the current monarch. After coming as close to London with an army as he did, an execution wouldn't have surprised me.
But I could be convinced.
Re: Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-11-04 12:44 pm (UTC)Jacobites and treason
Date: 2021-11-04 03:04 pm (UTC)But you know more about the Hanovers and the 18th century in general. :) Also, keep in mind that my knowledge is 20 years old and doesn't extend to many primary sources, and if there's one thing salon has taught me, it's that any belief I hold will eventually be overturned by new evidence, if I just wait long enough.
I mean, if Elizaveta and Catherine in Russia lock up not just poor Ivan and Anna Leopoldovna for life but also all of Ivan's siblings and EC's brother instead of just, well, killing them, in Russia, where the supreme rulers have way more leaveway than in the rest of Europe...
Ah, but that wasn't a double standard! Elizaveta famously decided not to have a single person executed in her entire reign! And both she and Catherine had a standing order to have Ivan killed on the spot if there was an escape attempt, which is how he died (almost immediately after Catherine's coup). Elizaveta was also said to have cradled the one-year-old during the coup, saying, "Poor, innocent baby." Which is also completely different from BPC and his army.
Also, in the event of a BPC capture, who would make the decision to execute him? Cumberland? G2? Would there be a trial?
I would be interested to know what Cumberland's standing orders were during the hunt for the Prince. If you really wanted to kill him, it wouldn't be that hard to say that he didn't survive the attempt to capture him, so sorry, too bad.
If he had been captured alive, I was always assuming Parliament would have claimed jurisdiction and he would have been put on trial for treason. I mean, if they could execute Charles I!
BPC's followers count as rebels from a Hannovarian pov, but does BPC, who hasn't been born in Britain and thus isn't really a subject of King George (or is he, again, from a Hannoverian pov - of course he's not from a Stuart one)?
Yeah, this is an interesting legal question. Hmm. I just checked Blackstone, and this is possibly relevant:
Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king's dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another.
Oh, wait, this is even better:
It was enacted by statute 13 and 14 W. III. c. 3 that the pretended prince of Wales, who was then thirteen years of age, and had assumed the title of James III. should be attainted of high treason...And by statue 17 Geo. II. c. 39, it is enacted, that if any of the sons of the pretender shall land or attempt to land in this kingdom, or be found in Great Britain, or Ireland, or any of the dominions belonging to the same, he shall be judged attainted of high treason, and suffer the pains thereof.
Yeah, this is consistent with the impression I'd always had that BPC would have been charged with high treason. Would they have gone with the full death penalty in practice? I can't say for sure, but this law was passed in 1743 in direct response to BPC's arrival in France, and the relevant passage reads:
he...shall, by virtue of this act, stand, and be adjudged attainted of high treason, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and shall suffer and forfeit as persons attainted of high treason by the laws of the land ought to suffer and forfeit.
If anyone is interested in knowing who took what side in the parliamentary debate (which was mostly about the clause to attaint anyone of high treason who even corresponded with any of the Stuart pretenders), there are 200 pages of speeches in Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England: 1743-1747 on Google. :) Chesterfield is against. What's interesting is he doesn't seem to think there's the slightest danger of a real invasion. But he also argues that even if there's a real danger, essentially, "We can't let the
terroriststyrants win by passing laws that would make us as bad as them."Also, if he's a live prisoner, could he be made to officially resign from any claims the Stuarts have to the throne?
Yes, just like Philip V was made to resign from any claims he had to the French throne. ;) IOW, if I were a Hanover, I wouldn't feel very safe.
Okay, see, this post is what I mean when I say that if we start talking about the Jacobites, I will get sucked back in. :'D
Re: Jacobites and treason
Date: 2021-11-04 07:47 pm (UTC)That's very interesting. It's sort of paradoxical to me that the government was worried enough to enact that law in 1743 (presumably in response to the fact that James III's heir had grown up and turned out to be ambitious), but still be so unprepared in 1745, especially after the French attempt in '44!
Oh, and the arguments for or against it: I see that they're about the English punishment for treason in general, which was controversial both because of the physical cruelty, but also because it punished children for their fathers' sins (they could not inherit from a father convicted of treason and lost all titles). Scotland didn't use to have that law, they just executed the traitor. But in 1709, the English law for treason was introduced in Scotland, much against the will of the Scots MP:s and also arguably against the articles of Union of 1707, because Scotland had been guaranteed to keep its laws. I just randomly started to read the Duke of Bedford's speech (he raised a regiment of his own in the '45, btw, though it was mostly useless), and saw something I didn't know: that this foisting of the English punishment for treason on Scotland (and also the law itself in England) was supposed to have a time limit: until the Pretender was dead (James III, it must be) and also three years after the Hanoverian succession. So it seems what they're debating is not just about whether the Stuarts should be attainted for treason, but whether this law should continue to be prolonged?
Good for the Duke of Bedford; I like his speech arguing for the abolishment of the English punishment for treason (well, except for when he claims that when poor people revolt, they will always set up arbitrary and tyrannical power).
Re: Jacobites and treason
Date: 2021-11-05 03:52 pm (UTC)Precisely in response to the fact that he'd shown up in France in late 1743 agitating for support, and the French had received him instead of kicking him out.
Remember that one of the terms of the Peace of Utrecht back in ~1713 was that France had to recognize the Protestant Succession and kick James "III" out south of the Alps, which is why the Stuarts are now living in Rome. The fact that BPC is now in France and clearly not there to socialize and attend the opera, is a violation of the treaty. And of course, France and GB are now at war again.
still be so unprepared in 1745, especially after the French attempt in '44!
Well, at least one of the speechmakers (Chesterfield) was arguing that there was no way there was any real and present danger!
Chesterfield also made an interesting argument, which was that they shouldn't pass this bill (again, they're arguing mostly about the forfeiture of estates, not about attainting BPC for treason) because the government already had law on its side, unlike the Pretender, who could only offer violence, and there was no call for the English to start acting like him by threatening violence.
but also because it punished children for their fathers' sins
I saw a lot of this in my skimming! One counterargument seems to be that just like if the fathers spent money when they were alive, it's not punishing children that the fathers can't leave them what they don't own when they die. (Which is interesting, because the whole principle of entailment is that you can't alienate your own real estate because you're holding it in trust for the next generation. I wonder if anyone mentions that. Of course, not all estates are entailed, but as I recall from my Roman days, the early Romans *couldn't* alienate their own property, for that very reason.)
until the Pretender was dead (James III, it must be)
Yep, James III, who ended up not dying until 1766.
So it seems what they're debating is not just about whether the Stuarts should be attainted for treason, but whether this law should continue to be prolonged?
Yep, that's one of the articles! I think it was Chesterfield who was going, "Look, he's 55, he's in pretty good health, he's going to live a while longer, why do we need to extend the term longer?" The bill got passed and did in fact get extended to include the two sons, so 1807, when Henry Benedict died (BPC dying in 1788). Though it then got repealed in 1799, when there really was no danger from the Jacobites anymore.
Ha ha, wow, not going to stop you. Great work digging!
So this I didn't actually mind spending time on, because my resistance to reprising the Jacobites is that I don't want to be rehashing the same ground (and the temptation is there, because I know I have access to *so much more* than I did when I was a high schooler in a small town in pre- and early-internet days). But this is new ground that I'm interested in covering, so I'm game. :)
In the last decade, I've twice tried and failed to read Blackstone cover to cover, so any excuse to dip into him again is welcome. And I still remember the moment, almost twenty years ago, when I was at college and realized the library had entire shelves of volumes of the Parliamentary speeches. I was flabbergasted and wished I was still in the fandom so I could make time to read them!
He's notorious for being "best of all possible worlds" and casting each and every law as wise and moderate. This is entertaining, because England was known for having a brutal criminal law, death penalty for everything and gruesome torture + death for the really bad stuff, and watching him bend over backwards to do gymnastics to cast everything as "Well, but it could be worse!" is hilarious.
He's not always reliable, but he is comprehensive, and very readable, although the four volumes are too long and dense for me to have read the series cover-to-cover. Now that I have a much better system for reading long and dense works, which I developed in the last 3 years, I should give it another try.
But in the more near future, I'd like to sample the Parliamentary speeches on treason. They seem fascinating! I see a lot of references to the Greeks and Romans. Which is exactly what I'd expect from the 18th century, but it is cool to see it in practice.
Re: Jacobites and treason
From:Re: <s>Jacobites</s> Stuarts and treason
From:Re: <s>Jacobites</s> Stuarts and treason: Monmouth's death
From:Re: Absalom my nephew
Date: 2021-11-03 09:27 pm (UTC)But the one thing I got out of this book is that I've never seen anyone stan the Duke of Cumberland (who lost Fontenoy to Maurice de Saxe) so hard as the author. For the record, the reported severity of the retributions after the '45 was highly exaggerated ("the tale grew in the telling"), and anyway the Jacobites were at least as bad as the Hanoverians whenever they had a victory, and anyway the severity was necessary because "harsh times call for harsh measures," and anyway you shouldn't sympathize too much with the Jacobites because most of them probably didn't think the Stuarts were legitimate either, they were just ambitious with fortunes to make.
The author is the same guy who wrote the history of the War of the Spanish Succession, where at least he managed to be less one-sided, although I'm still mad at him for the lack of adequate maps. Anyone who writes military history without good maps gets a frowny face from me.
In other news, the one factoid I retained about Maurice de Saxe was that his early commander and tutor in warfare was General Schulenburg, brother of Melusine.
So just to spell out the links for
George I -> Sophia Dorothea of Celle (wife) -> Philipp von Königsmarck (murdered lover) -> Aurora von Königsmarck (sister) -> Maurice de Saxe (illegimate son by August the Strong) -> Johann Matthias von Schulenburg (commander) -> Melusine von Schulenburg (sister) -> George I (lover).
Somewhere Horowski is smiling.
Btw, this is what August the Strong wrote to Schulenburg when first putting his 12-year-old son under his command:
Keep him on his toes and don't coddle him. Toughen him up. I want you to make him march on foot to Flanders … and don't let him pay other soldiers to do his guard duty for him unless he is seriously ill.
This is when he saw the battle of Malplaquet, the one we covered in some detail, that was the bloodiest battle of the century, a tactical victory for Marlborough and Eugene, and a strategic victory for the French. Malplaquet is where FW arguably learned that big battles should be avoided, because holy shit.
Fortunately, 12-yo Maurice de Saxe was with the baggage, not an active combatant, but it doesn't seem to have turned him off battle. :P
Charles II and Sophia
Date: 2021-10-25 11:57 am (UTC)Yep, that checks out.
is the one where young Sophie actually marries cousin Charles II while he's in exile
Incidentally, that was something else I meant to mention. Barbara Beuys' take, as summarized by you, was:
Charles (with fare more finesse, but this is what he meant): I need cash. You're an heiress. How about it, Cousin?
Sophie: Nope. You're nice to flirt with, but no more.
Charles: Okay, but can you at least take a public stroll or two with me? Because then my creditors will be believe we're a match and will prolong my credit.
Sophie:.... I suppose.
Whereas Hatton's take:
Charles did appear to pay court to Sophia; her pride, however, was deeply hurt when she discovered that his real objective, without the strings of marriage, was financial help from lord Craven whose fortune had long supported the Palatinate court in exile and who was particularly attached to Sophia.
Thoughts?
Re: Charles II and Sophia
Date: 2021-11-03 03:02 pm (UTC)Anyway: My own assessment back then was based on Beuys' very brief summary. The whole thing is somewhat more detailed in Sophie's memoirs, which I read later. I had gotten wrong that it was getting the creditors off his back when it was about getting money from Lord Craven, BUT unless Hatton as another source than Sophia herself, there "her pride was deeply hurt" is completely personal speculation, plus she presents herself as sceptical of Charles' intentions from the start, and concluding that as nice as he was in person, he must be after the money from her mother's patron, something that then gets confirmed to her from other sources. The passage in the memoirs sounds amused. Could she have been faking amusement decades later (when writing) to hide hurt pride felt at the time? Sure. But, like I said: if Hatton's sole source for the entire episode are Sophie's memoirs, then she's making that speculation up.
(There is also a compare and contrast to how Sophie writes about the oldest Hannover brother, Georg Wilhelm, the one who after getting engaged to her first fobs her off to younger brother Ernst August, swears he won't marry (in writing) and later falls in love with SD the older's mother, producing SD the older. There, you do have a noticable element of pique (hence her including such details as the STD gained from a courtesan in Venice, the entire letter in which Georg Wilhem swears to remain single, and the fact that once she was married to Ernst August, he - Georg Wilhelm - suddenly pounced on her and tried to seduce her. Whereas she's very shoulder shrugging about the early Charles interlude.)
Re: Charles II and Sophia
Date: 2021-11-03 10:13 pm (UTC)(hence her including such details as the STD gained from a courtesan in Venice
Oh, one thing Hatton says that does come from a letter is this:
Sophia's amour-propre had been damaged by Georg Wilhelm's rejection but she was given to understand--or convinced herself--that he had contracted syphilis in Venice and was now 'unfit for marriage'.7
7 For her later realization that Karl Ludwig had been told this of Georg Wilhelm to make him consent to the substitution of bridegrooms, see Sophia, Correspondence with her brother: to Karl Ludwig 8 April 1666.
I found the volume, and the quote reads:
Je ne sache aussi personne qui ait jamais doute de la vigueur de Georg Wilhelm ; ce qu'on vous a dit n'a este que pour vous faire consentir a mon mariage.
I also don't know anyone who ever doubted the vigor of Georg Wilhelm; what you have been told was only to make you consent to my marriage.
Re: William III, FW, and Sophia
Date: 2021-10-24 08:12 pm (UTC)I don't know enough about James III's feelings on religion to know if would have converted? BPC did so in 1750, when it was too late...I do wonder why he didn't do it in 1745. He doesn't seem to have personally been all that attached to Catholicism.
BPC and religious conversion
Date: 2021-10-24 08:31 pm (UTC)This is one of those things that back in the late 90s, I learned that it was an unsubstantiated rumor. Now I keep seeing that scholars believe it. Do you know what evidence turned up in the last 20 years? I refuse to look because of reasons that you know.
(You guuuuuys, the Great Northern War is nothing like the War of the Spanish Succession. There is NO way to summarize it comprehensively and intelligibly, although I will give it my best shot. I can see why Blanning was going, "Summarizing the Great Northern War is a hard and almost unsolved problem." I cannot afford to get distracted by Jacobite historiographic developments! Also, I have two time-consuming essays in progress, Fredersdorf+Pfeiffer and Peter Keith!)
I do wonder why he didn't do it in 1745. He doesn't seem to have personally been all that attached to Catholicism.
I have often wondered that myself. I don't know if this is apocryphal, but I seem to remember this (paraphrased from memory) quote from the '45: "Do you know what the religion of princes is? I'll tell you: It is the religion of their subjects." (I.e., whatever religion keeps them in power. Says a grandson of J2!)
My opinion is that first and foremost, in 1745, he was too optimistic to think he'd have to. Divine right of kings! People would flock to his banner because obviously! They were sewing dragon banners! Only after the failure of the rising did he realize that he might have to make some concessions.
Then there were, of course, the political aspects of his initial support base (France, Scottish Jacobites) being predominantly (not exclusively) Catholic, but I think those were secondary considerations. He'd been Catholic his whole life, changing that probably wasn't extremely on his radar at that age (growing up in Rome as he did), and he believed so whole-heartedly in his mission that he probably didn't see what he needed to change. "I am come home."
Re: BPC and religious conversion
Date: 2021-10-24 09:33 pm (UTC)Oh, okay? I've seen it in multiple sources, and never seen anyone saying it wasn't true... But I'll dig into it and see what I can find. : ) Meanwhile, this book from 2020, which seems a reputable one, definitely believes it. Just to show that current books contain the claim.