Entry tags:
18th-Century Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 32
:) Still talking about Charles XII of Sweden / the Great Northern War and the Stuarts and the Jacobites, among other things!
27 August: The Earl of Mar holds the first council of war, in Scotland.
BTW, am I misrenembering or was this the guy who married Lady Mary's sister Frances, and in Isabel Grundy's biography of Lady Mary is described as an utter pig?
BTW, am I misrenembering or was this the guy who married Lady Mary's sister Frances, and in Isabel Grundy's biography of Lady Mary is described as an utter pig?
Not take the Gian Gastone route, I think. Heinrich's too strong-willed. GG comes across as a people-pleaser I'm inclined to diagnose with depression, low self-esteem, and social anxiety.
I'm guessing Heinrich takes the "gritting his teeth, loyal to bigoted dad" instead of "loyal to paranoid scapegoating brother" route, as opposed to the fine Medici tradition of poisoning (Did they actually poison anyone? I can think of more suspicions otomh than actual proved cases), but the bonus in this universe is that he gets to be Grand Duke starting in his 50s!
OTOH, the Medici line still dies out for lack of a male heir, lol forever.
I'm guessing Heinrich takes the "gritting his teeth, loyal to bigoted dad" instead of "loyal to paranoid scapegoating brother" route, as opposed to the fine Medici tradition of poisoning (Did they actually poison anyone? I can think of more suspicions otomh than actual proved cases), but the bonus in this universe is that he gets to be Grand Duke starting in his 50s!
OTOH, the Medici line still dies out for lack of a male heir, lol forever.
Hmmm. Realistically, "kll FW" seems most in-character, the man's temper was stronger than his sex drive. OTOH, the prospect of killing a fellow monarch might stay his hand.
"Have an affair with Fritz": with the caveat that the grand old tradition of "no homo" may apply to Peter too, this seems least likely. Even pedophilic author who wants everyone to be gay (and if he can't make them gay, they are "scum" and "slime") only cited one extreeemely dubious primary source for Peter the Great fucking his buddy Menshikov.
"Have an affair with SD": unlikely on SD's part, but since we're going full-out crack in this AU, why not! He doesn't seem to have a major womanizer, but he had several known affairs with women, and if you're going to kill the husband anyway...
(Realistically realistically, I think there are enough people who can ID Peter that the truth comes out without FW being killed, but for crack, I'm game for all three outcomes!)
"Have an affair with Fritz": with the caveat that the grand old tradition of "no homo" may apply to Peter too, this seems least likely. Even pedophilic author who wants everyone to be gay (and if he can't make them gay, they are "scum" and "slime") only cited one extreeemely dubious primary source for Peter the Great fucking his buddy Menshikov.
"Have an affair with SD": unlikely on SD's part, but since we're going full-out crack in this AU, why not! He doesn't seem to have a major womanizer, but he had several known affairs with women, and if you're going to kill the husband anyway...
(Realistically realistically, I think there are enough people who can ID Peter that the truth comes out without FW being killed, but for crack, I'm game for all three outcomes!)
Oh, good lord, no. No matter whose side you were on, everyone knew the Hanover succession was going to happen, and everyone was making their plans well in advance.
Sure, makes sense! I think this is just me not having read enough about the '15 before. I'd mostly read about the Scottish side of it, which did not mention enough about the English plotting etc. It really can't have been easy to coordinate insurrections in various parts of Britain with help from France, with all the logistics and communications difficulties.
For![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
cahn, not just any Irish military commander in French service, but James II's illegitimate son, and thus James III's half-brother!
For me, as well! : ) I knew basically nothing about Berwick as a person, so I'll check out the posts you link to. Ha, wow, that is some bad timing for the Jacobites in the '15, re: the French motivations...
I would love to see these examples.
This is not a long section in the book: European great power interest in the Jacobite card directly stemmed from the role of rebellion in international relations in the eighteenth century. For those continental great powers who considered allying with the Jacobites did not see them simply as cannon-fodder, but rather as a force which had the potential, literally, to destroy their British opponents.
These perceptions were firmly based on experience. All those involved in dealing with the Jacobites between 1716 and the 1760s were reared in the traditions of late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century statecraft. And although statesmen always professed abhorrence of rebels and rebellion, the siren voices of religion and realpolitik nearly always overwhelmed their, doubtless genuine, repugnance. Thus Elizabeth I of England gave ill-tempered succour to Philip II of Spain’s Dutch rebels for the second half of her reign. Philip, despite his ostensible outrage at Elizabeth’s dirty tactics, showed little compunction about secretly supporting English Catholic plotters who planned to murder her and in sending what arms and monies he could spare to aid Hugh O’Neill in Ireland. In the same vein Cardinal Jules Mazarin overcame his disgust with the English Republicans who had overthrown and executed Charles I sufficiently well to ally with them against Spain 1656–60, and Louis XIV openly supported both the revolt of the Portuguese Braganzas against the Spanish Habsburgs and the rebellions raised by Imre Thököly and Ferenc Ráckózi against their Austrian cousins in Hungary.
What consistently lured the statesmen of seventeenth-century Europe into setting aside their scruples with regard to making use of domestic rebels was, more than anything else, the devastating effects on contemporary great powers of serious internecine strife. The ‘Time of Troubles’ (1598–1613) in Russia traumatised the Russian political nation and put the Muscovite state out of serious contention in the great power game for nearly half a century. The Great Civil War neutralised England between 1638 and 1653. The once mighty Polish empire was permanently weakened by the uprising led by Bohdan Chmielnicki in the 1650s. The decline of the Spanish Habsburg empire was directly attributable to its defeat at the hands of Dutch and Portuguese rebels and the exhausting, bitter struggle to reconquer Catalonia 1640–52. Most pertinently of all, the impressive military machine James II and VII had built up was brought low by an invasion assisted by a nationwide rebellion in England in 1688.
The strategic attractions of using domestic rebels to destabilise enemy polities were enhanced by the chronic stalemate in conventional military operations that set in in the late seventeenth century. [etc, more on that]
I'll put a pin in this: Ditto, I'd be interested in that. Diplomatic history of the 1700-1730 period is apparently of great interest to me (pace Blanning :P).
Sure, makes sense! I think this is just me not having read enough about the '15 before. I'd mostly read about the Scottish side of it, which did not mention enough about the English plotting etc. It really can't have been easy to coordinate insurrections in various parts of Britain with help from France, with all the logistics and communications difficulties.
For
cahn, not just any Irish military commander in French service, but James II's illegitimate son, and thus James III's half-brother!For me, as well! : ) I knew basically nothing about Berwick as a person, so I'll check out the posts you link to. Ha, wow, that is some bad timing for the Jacobites in the '15, re: the French motivations...
I would love to see these examples.
This is not a long section in the book: European great power interest in the Jacobite card directly stemmed from the role of rebellion in international relations in the eighteenth century. For those continental great powers who considered allying with the Jacobites did not see them simply as cannon-fodder, but rather as a force which had the potential, literally, to destroy their British opponents.
These perceptions were firmly based on experience. All those involved in dealing with the Jacobites between 1716 and the 1760s were reared in the traditions of late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century statecraft. And although statesmen always professed abhorrence of rebels and rebellion, the siren voices of religion and realpolitik nearly always overwhelmed their, doubtless genuine, repugnance. Thus Elizabeth I of England gave ill-tempered succour to Philip II of Spain’s Dutch rebels for the second half of her reign. Philip, despite his ostensible outrage at Elizabeth’s dirty tactics, showed little compunction about secretly supporting English Catholic plotters who planned to murder her and in sending what arms and monies he could spare to aid Hugh O’Neill in Ireland. In the same vein Cardinal Jules Mazarin overcame his disgust with the English Republicans who had overthrown and executed Charles I sufficiently well to ally with them against Spain 1656–60, and Louis XIV openly supported both the revolt of the Portuguese Braganzas against the Spanish Habsburgs and the rebellions raised by Imre Thököly and Ferenc Ráckózi against their Austrian cousins in Hungary.
What consistently lured the statesmen of seventeenth-century Europe into setting aside their scruples with regard to making use of domestic rebels was, more than anything else, the devastating effects on contemporary great powers of serious internecine strife. The ‘Time of Troubles’ (1598–1613) in Russia traumatised the Russian political nation and put the Muscovite state out of serious contention in the great power game for nearly half a century. The Great Civil War neutralised England between 1638 and 1653. The once mighty Polish empire was permanently weakened by the uprising led by Bohdan Chmielnicki in the 1650s. The decline of the Spanish Habsburg empire was directly attributable to its defeat at the hands of Dutch and Portuguese rebels and the exhausting, bitter struggle to reconquer Catalonia 1640–52. Most pertinently of all, the impressive military machine James II and VII had built up was brought low by an invasion assisted by a nationwide rebellion in England in 1688.
The strategic attractions of using domestic rebels to destabilise enemy polities were enhanced by the chronic stalemate in conventional military operations that set in in the late seventeenth century. [etc, more on that]
I'll put a pin in this: Ditto, I'd be interested in that. Diplomatic history of the 1700-1730 period is apparently of great interest to me (pace Blanning :P).
By Jove, you're right!
I know nothing about Mar except as a name connected with the Jacobite rising I barely studied, so I can't comment on Grundy's assessment of his personality.
Lol Wikipedia:
Mar married his second wife Lady Frances Pierrepont, daughter of Evelyn Pierrepont, 1st Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull. The match was a success in that it finally provided Mar with the funds to begin to clear his inherited debts. Lady Frances went mad in 1728 due to the stress of his exile in France.
That's a hell of a segue. "The match was a success in that the husband got money! The wife went mad."
I know nothing about Mar except as a name connected with the Jacobite rising I barely studied, so I can't comment on Grundy's assessment of his personality.
Lol Wikipedia:
Mar married his second wife Lady Frances Pierrepont, daughter of Evelyn Pierrepont, 1st Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull. The match was a success in that it finally provided Mar with the funds to begin to clear his inherited debts. Lady Frances went mad in 1728 due to the stress of his exile in France.
That's a hell of a segue. "The match was a success in that the husband got money! The wife went mad."
Just to play Horowski‘s game of showing how interconnected and related the nobility is:
So, Lady Mary‘s brother in law (to her great regret, she oculdn‘t stand him) was the Earl of Mar, instigator of the 15. Her son in law was the Earl of Bute, educator and first PM to G3, bete noire of Fritz for cutting his subsidies in the last year of the 7 Years War. Lord Bute‘s younger brother is also the guy who was Barbarina‘s lover and temporary fiance when Fritz had her dragged to Prussia from Venice. And given Lady Mary‘s pining for Algarotti, this means we can connect all the early Jacobites within six steps to Algarotti, too, even without using the brothers Keith (who of course have the closest connection, due to sitting at the same table with him).
So, Lady Mary‘s brother in law (to her great regret, she oculdn‘t stand him) was the Earl of Mar, instigator of the 15. Her son in law was the Earl of Bute, educator and first PM to G3, bete noire of Fritz for cutting his subsidies in the last year of the 7 Years War. Lord Bute‘s younger brother is also the guy who was Barbarina‘s lover and temporary fiance when Fritz had her dragged to Prussia from Venice. And given Lady Mary‘s pining for Algarotti, this means we can connect all the early Jacobites within six steps to Algarotti, too, even without using the brothers Keith (who of course have the closest connection, due to sitting at the same table with him).
Let's see what Bruce Lenman says about him (a consistently snarky historian, you should see him snark on the topic of Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat--it's epic).
Mar had been a very active champion of the Act of Union. After raising the standard of rebellion he had to try to talk this episode away but it was in fact typical, for Mar was a government man through and through. He loved office, revelled in the deference which a minister of the King could extract from his contemporaries, and appreciated the salary. Political principles were never Mar's strong suit. (from "The Jacobite Risings in Britain 1689-1746")
It goes on to describe how he was one of those Tories brought down when Queen Anne died. I enjoy this sort of snark, but at the same time wonder how the author feels able to judge people's character like that! I mean, maybe he had read lots of the guy's letters or something, but...
Mar had been a very active champion of the Act of Union. After raising the standard of rebellion he had to try to talk this episode away but it was in fact typical, for Mar was a government man through and through. He loved office, revelled in the deference which a minister of the King could extract from his contemporaries, and appreciated the salary. Political principles were never Mar's strong suit. (from "The Jacobite Risings in Britain 1689-1746")
It goes on to describe how he was one of those Tories brought down when Queen Anne died. I enjoy this sort of snark, but at the same time wonder how the author feels able to judge people's character like that! I mean, maybe he had read lots of the guy's letters or something, but...
Oh, interesting. Would these have been indentured servants?
Yes, it seems so, and that they served their seven-year terms and then mostly stayed in America. Don't know where though!
What's the difference between Jacobitism and Jacobinism?
Hee! You should have seen me when I first ran across Jacobitism (which was in Naomi Mitchison's excellent novel The Bull Calves). Me: "...are Jacobites the same as Jacobins?"
No, no they were not. The Jacobins are the radical republicans in the French revolution. *g* They came to Ireland to help out in a rising there in 1798.
I secondmildred_of_midgard on wanting to know about civil wars breaking the military deadlock!
ETA: Check out this comment.
Yes, it seems so, and that they served their seven-year terms and then mostly stayed in America. Don't know where though!
What's the difference between Jacobitism and Jacobinism?
Hee! You should have seen me when I first ran across Jacobitism (which was in Naomi Mitchison's excellent novel The Bull Calves). Me: "...are Jacobites the same as Jacobins?"
No, no they were not. The Jacobins are the radical republicans in the French revolution. *g* They came to Ireland to help out in a rising there in 1798.
I second
mildred_of_midgard on wanting to know about civil wars breaking the military deadlock!ETA: Check out this comment.
Edited 2021-11-21 19:26 (UTC)
Ha, wow, that is some bad timing for the Jacobites in the '15, re: the French motivations...
Yeah. :) I mean, some of it is written with the benefit of hindsight, in that I'm talking about what Philippe/France was going to do in 1716 rather than what I can be sure they already had in mind in late 1715, but the point is that France very quickly moved into an alliance with England in the Regency period.
Would things have been different had Louis lived? Maybe, maybe not. His country was exhausted by the most recent war in a nonstop series of wars (anecdotally, he's supposed to have said on his deathbed, "I have loved war too well"), and he was being forced to make concessions to Britain in the peace negotiations. If he'd really wanted to support the Jacobites, the time was in 1714, when George ascended. Instead, one of my sources that I was reading today said he refused James III an audience and told the Jacobites not to expect any support.
But, Louis had been known to acknowledge the Protestant succession before (1697 Treaty of Ryswick) and then turn around and acknowledge James III on James II's deathbed (1701). Maybe he would have let Berwick go, maybe he wouldn't have. Maybe that would have changed things, maybe it wouldn't have. Maybe he would have been more inclined than Philippe to help once things got off the ground in late 1715, maybe not. Louis may have been a Jacobite at heart, but he was also not Charles XII and was capable of facing political realities.
But it's clear that on September 1, 1715, a monarch whose personal sympathies were with the Jacobites died, which didn't help their odds.
Yeah. :) I mean, some of it is written with the benefit of hindsight, in that I'm talking about what Philippe/France was going to do in 1716 rather than what I can be sure they already had in mind in late 1715, but the point is that France very quickly moved into an alliance with England in the Regency period.
Would things have been different had Louis lived? Maybe, maybe not. His country was exhausted by the most recent war in a nonstop series of wars (anecdotally, he's supposed to have said on his deathbed, "I have loved war too well"), and he was being forced to make concessions to Britain in the peace negotiations. If he'd really wanted to support the Jacobites, the time was in 1714, when George ascended. Instead, one of my sources that I was reading today said he refused James III an audience and told the Jacobites not to expect any support.
But, Louis had been known to acknowledge the Protestant succession before (1697 Treaty of Ryswick) and then turn around and acknowledge James III on James II's deathbed (1701). Maybe he would have let Berwick go, maybe he wouldn't have. Maybe that would have changed things, maybe it wouldn't have. Maybe he would have been more inclined than Philippe to help once things got off the ground in late 1715, maybe not. Louis may have been a Jacobite at heart, but he was also not Charles XII and was capable of facing political realities.
But it's clear that on September 1, 1715, a monarch whose personal sympathies were with the Jacobites died, which didn't help their odds.
Re: Write-up of "The Jacobites", by Daniel Szechi (2019)
mildred_of_midgard
2021-11-21 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Me: "...are Jacobites the same as Jacobins?"
I always roll my eyes when I'm reading a history book and the author confuses them, which happens far more than it should.
The Jacobins are the radical republicans in the French revolution. *g*
And this is why I found it so fascinating when you said that the Irish managed to transition naturally from Jacobitism to Jacobinism, because,cahn, Jacobitism started life as support for the dispossessed Stuarts. The Stuarts being the guys whose political philosophy was "I am a monarch by God-given divine right, and no rabble known as Parliament has the right to gainsay that."
And then apparently you get the Stuarts having to make concessions in exile (this I had either not learned, or more likely, forgotten, because I was far more into this for the military history than political or diplomatic history at the time), and then you end up with the Jacobins, whose political philosophy is, "We don't need no stinkin' king!"
Robespierre was a Jacobin. The Jacobins were the Reign of Terror guys. This is not what I would have expected from a party that started as the supporters of James II, Mister Absolute Monarchy!
I always roll my eyes when I'm reading a history book and the author confuses them, which happens far more than it should.
The Jacobins are the radical republicans in the French revolution. *g*
And this is why I found it so fascinating when you said that the Irish managed to transition naturally from Jacobitism to Jacobinism, because,
cahn, Jacobitism started life as support for the dispossessed Stuarts. The Stuarts being the guys whose political philosophy was "I am a monarch by God-given divine right, and no rabble known as Parliament has the right to gainsay that."And then apparently you get the Stuarts having to make concessions in exile (this I had either not learned, or more likely, forgotten, because I was far more into this for the military history than political or diplomatic history at the time), and then you end up with the Jacobins, whose political philosophy is, "We don't need no stinkin' king!"
Robespierre was a Jacobin. The Jacobins were the Reign of Terror guys. This is not what I would have expected from a party that started as the supporters of James II, Mister Absolute Monarchy!
Here's his sister-in-law's biographer having a go at him right when he's introduced to the tale. The Sister-inlaw was Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, and the bit about Paradise and Hell is what she, her sister Frances and their friends as young girls had invented as catagories for suitors - "Paradise" is the guy you want yourself, "Hell" is an unwanted guy your family makes you wed, and "Limbo" is a compromise guy who you don't love but think you can get along with for life. Lady Mary, btw, had married a limbo, but one she'd picked for herself.
Meanwhile the prospect of sister Frances's wedding crept closer. It was two years since Frances had confided to Philippa her misery at losing her Paradise and her belief that 'ev'ry living body shou'd fear hell above all other things'. Now her father had chosen for her a widower fifteen years her senior, father of a schoolboy son: John Erskine, 6th Earl of Mar. He was a Tory (though his family were Presbyterians), markedly Scottish in his speech. His portraits show him as handsome, though his body was said to be crooked. He claimed to have been long in love with Lady Frances. He was doing well under Queen Anne, as a Privy Counsellor and Secretary of State for Scotland (a post carrying a house in the Privy Garden, Whitehall), and a pension of 3.000 Pounds secured for him by Lord Oxford.
But neither his circumstances nor his character would stand scrutiny. His rental income was only 261 Scottish Pounds (with odd shillings). His debts and his late father's came to over 150,000 in the same currency, though he gave assurances that they could not 'touch' his estate or the money he would receive from Lady Frances. Besides, as she was later to know too well, the rental from Scottish estates was by custom paid in arrears, and in kind. The initial arrears would be doubled by the haggling ncessary to convert kind to cash. And Mar's character: an associate later thought it 'impossible for him to even play a fair game, or to mean but one thing at once'. A historian calls his letters 'models of ineptitude and tergiversation'.
For Lord Mar the beneffits of this marriage were clear: Lady Frances was a catch. Twelve years later he tried to justify his second marriage to his son by his first (who might 'repine' at the income he proposed to leave his second wife if he died). He insisted he had married to serve 'the good of the family'. He could hardly have been more open about his marrying for what he could get.
On the other side, it was a strange marriage for a daughter of Evelyn Pierrepoint, Marquess of Dorchester. Lady Mary thought Frances was pressured by Aunt Cheyne and a Mar relative. One of Dorchester's Whig circle wrote, 'there's a good Whig marr'd by taking a Scotch Jacobite for her Husband'. Did Dorchester miscalculate, seeing the high office and the estates, failing to note the debts? His 'design to marry himself' made it urgent for him to dispose of his remaining single daughter. But also, with Queen Anne's health in rapid decline and the succession uncertain, eminent Whigs were hedging their bets. Marlborough did this; Dorchester may have done so, too. If the Elector of Hanover succeeded to the throne, well and good; but if it should be James III. after all, a Scotch Jacobite son-in-law might be handy.
Meanwhile the prospect of sister Frances's wedding crept closer. It was two years since Frances had confided to Philippa her misery at losing her Paradise and her belief that 'ev'ry living body shou'd fear hell above all other things'. Now her father had chosen for her a widower fifteen years her senior, father of a schoolboy son: John Erskine, 6th Earl of Mar. He was a Tory (though his family were Presbyterians), markedly Scottish in his speech. His portraits show him as handsome, though his body was said to be crooked. He claimed to have been long in love with Lady Frances. He was doing well under Queen Anne, as a Privy Counsellor and Secretary of State for Scotland (a post carrying a house in the Privy Garden, Whitehall), and a pension of 3.000 Pounds secured for him by Lord Oxford.
But neither his circumstances nor his character would stand scrutiny. His rental income was only 261 Scottish Pounds (with odd shillings). His debts and his late father's came to over 150,000 in the same currency, though he gave assurances that they could not 'touch' his estate or the money he would receive from Lady Frances. Besides, as she was later to know too well, the rental from Scottish estates was by custom paid in arrears, and in kind. The initial arrears would be doubled by the haggling ncessary to convert kind to cash. And Mar's character: an associate later thought it 'impossible for him to even play a fair game, or to mean but one thing at once'. A historian calls his letters 'models of ineptitude and tergiversation'.
For Lord Mar the beneffits of this marriage were clear: Lady Frances was a catch. Twelve years later he tried to justify his second marriage to his son by his first (who might 'repine' at the income he proposed to leave his second wife if he died). He insisted he had married to serve 'the good of the family'. He could hardly have been more open about his marrying for what he could get.
On the other side, it was a strange marriage for a daughter of Evelyn Pierrepoint, Marquess of Dorchester. Lady Mary thought Frances was pressured by Aunt Cheyne and a Mar relative. One of Dorchester's Whig circle wrote, 'there's a good Whig marr'd by taking a Scotch Jacobite for her Husband'. Did Dorchester miscalculate, seeing the high office and the estates, failing to note the debts? His 'design to marry himself' made it urgent for him to dispose of his remaining single daughter. But also, with Queen Anne's health in rapid decline and the succession uncertain, eminent Whigs were hedging their bets. Marlborough did this; Dorchester may have done so, too. If the Elector of Hanover succeeded to the throne, well and good; but if it should be James III. after all, a Scotch Jacobite son-in-law might be handy.
Interesting, thanks! Yeah, Scots noblemen were in general much poorer than English ones. Tory + Presbyterian seems an unusual combination.
And interesting about the hedging of bets...I mean, the Whigs had been making up to George-I-to-be for a while, since they were so shut out during Anne's reign (and would soon shut the Tories out in their turn), so they must've been pretty sure of coming into power so long as George I got on the throne. But yeah, there might be a rebellion, which of course there was.
Poor Frances, anyway. : (
And interesting about the hedging of bets...I mean, the Whigs had been making up to George-I-to-be for a while, since they were so shut out during Anne's reign (and would soon shut the Tories out in their turn), so they must've been pretty sure of coming into power so long as George I got on the throne. But yeah, there might be a rebellion, which of course there was.
Poor Frances, anyway. : (
Yeah, there's definitely something interesting in how political position shapes action and influences ideology.
What would the Levellers and Gerrard Winstanley have made of these Stuarts...!
Well, but they still aren't radical in the sense that they want to empower poor people and do away with economic inequality, like Winstanley wanted (if I understand him correctly--I have still to read that Christopher Hill book). But neither were the Whigs, of course.
There is that interesting hint about William Mackintosh of Borlum (a Jacobite commander in the '15, for others reading along) expressing sympathy for the Galloway Levellers in the 1720's, though. I should finish reading his book...
Nope, there isn't much about Wales as a separate region; some of the English Jacobites he mentions are actually from Wales, I think, so I guess he just subsumes Wales into England.
What would the Levellers and Gerrard Winstanley have made of these Stuarts...!
Well, but they still aren't radical in the sense that they want to empower poor people and do away with economic inequality, like Winstanley wanted (if I understand him correctly--I have still to read that Christopher Hill book). But neither were the Whigs, of course.
There is that interesting hint about William Mackintosh of Borlum (a Jacobite commander in the '15, for others reading along) expressing sympathy for the Galloway Levellers in the 1720's, though. I should finish reading his book...
Nope, there isn't much about Wales as a separate region; some of the English Jacobites he mentions are actually from Wales, I think, so I guess he just subsumes Wales into England.
Well, but they still aren't radical in the sense that they want to empower poor people and do away with economic inequality, like Winstanley wanted
True!
Mackintosh of Borlum's fictional son as written by Naomi Mitchison is pretty sympathetic to the Quakers, isn't he—that's a potentially interesting thing (um, in Mitchison's imagination if not in real history), considering the seventeenth-century connections between the Quakers and the Levellers. Hmm, I want to read that book, though it looks as though it's still not available anywhere that allows download of the whole thing.
True!
Mackintosh of Borlum's fictional son as written by Naomi Mitchison is pretty sympathetic to the Quakers, isn't he—that's a potentially interesting thing (um, in Mitchison's imagination if not in real history), considering the seventeenth-century connections between the Quakers and the Levellers. Hmm, I want to read that book, though it looks as though it's still not available anywhere that allows download of the whole thing.
Most pertinently of all, the impressive military machine James II and VII had built up was brought low by an invasion assisted by a nationwide rebellion in England in 1688.
Oh huh, this is interesting to me -- I hadn't got the impression that James II was all that good at military stuff from The King's Touch (luzula, this is a novel I'm currently reading on selenak's recommendation about Charles II/James Duke of Monmouth, with James II as an important minor character, probably becoming more major later on but I haven't gotten there yet) but I guess I wouldn't know from what I've read so far, as he's not king yet :)
But anyway, that's fascinating, thank you!
Oh huh, this is interesting to me -- I hadn't got the impression that James II was all that good at military stuff from The King's Touch (
luzula, this is a novel I'm currently reading on selenak's recommendation about Charles II/James Duke of Monmouth, with James II as an important minor character, probably becoming more major later on but I haven't gotten there yet) but I guess I wouldn't know from what I've read so far, as he's not king yet :)But anyway, that's fascinating, thank you!
Ah! I did learn as a child about indentured servants in the colonies -- I think a bunch of the English colonies had them, e.g. I have dim memories of Virginia?
LOL I knew who the Jacobins were due to my lovely French teacher who gave me books on the French Revolution, but somehow I didn't know or forgot (probably didn't know) that they ever came to Ireland!
LOL I knew who the Jacobins were due to my lovely French teacher who gave me books on the French Revolution, but somehow I didn't know or forgot (probably didn't know) that they ever came to Ireland!
So, like I was saying to luzula, I knew who the Jacobins were before salon (but not the Jacobites whom I hadn't really heard of except for luzula/salon mentioning them) and lol, when she brought them up this time I was like... OK, but they couldn't be those Jacobins because Reign of Terror != Irish supporters of the Stuarts?? (Hilariously, I even did a google search before asking who they were, which of course came up with, well, Jacobins, and I discarded it because it obviously couldn't be them :) )
luzula, I knew who the Jacobins were before salon (but not the Jacobites whom I hadn't really heard of except for luzula/salon mentioning them) and lol, when she brought them up this time I was like... OK, but they couldn't be those Jacobins because Reign of Terror != Irish supporters of the Stuarts?? (Hilariously, I even did a google search before asking who they were, which of course came up with, well, Jacobins, and I discarded it because it obviously couldn't be them :) )
Page 9 of 13