I should say that the nonfiction Monmouth biographer (whom I read after having read the novel) disagrees with Jude Morgan, novelist, on how bad the James/Jemmy relationship was early on, i.e. the non fiction biographer thinks they got along well for some years until Monmouth was starting to have followers of his own and the rumors that Charles would legitimize him and/or that he was the product of a secret marriage and thus legitimate to begin with were becoming not idle but an actual political weapon. Whereas in Morgan's novel they go from mild dislike to active hatred. But for the most part, both authors agree on James as a person.
The non fiction biographer, btw, thinks the reason why Charles while acknowledging all his bastards did have such a close relationship to Monmouth in particular and did more for him than for any of the others wasn't just because Jemmy was the oldest (Charles had been only 18 when getting him), but that all the other children had their mothers to fight for them and care for them. Whereas Charles had kidnapped this oldest son from his mother, and then she had died, so there was no other parent/champion. For good or ill, anything that this oldest child became was on Charles.
Re: Replies on Stuarts and treason and Monmouth
Date: 2021-11-20 03:47 pm (UTC)The non fiction biographer, btw, thinks the reason why Charles while acknowledging all his bastards did have such a close relationship to Monmouth in particular and did more for him than for any of the others wasn't just because Jemmy was the oldest (Charles had been only 18 when getting him), but that all the other children had their mothers to fight for them and care for them. Whereas Charles had kidnapped this oldest son from his mother, and then she had died, so there was no other parent/champion. For good or ill, anything that this oldest child became was on Charles.