when was the last time the US had an atheist, Muslim, or Jewish president, and are you holding your breath for us to get one?
Sure, I get it! I guess what I meant, but didn't say carefully enough, was that differences within Christianity were more important in the 18th century. (Heh, in Sweden the prime minister is basically presumed to be non-religious, unless they demonstrate otherwise, and in any case it would be in pretty bad taste for them to start talking about God in speeches...)
Well, I guess I thought historians were more careful, and it's sad that they aren't. : ( Good luck with your article, it sounds like a cool project.
I think I'll try to email someone about BPC and religious conversion and see what happens! Maybe a retired historian so I don't feel like I'm taking time from their grading of student papers, and whatever.
I hope you don't mind me suddenly butting in here, but I noticed this conversation and I've just found a primary source for this!
Archibald Cameron, writing in 1753 and quoted by Robert Forbes in The Lyon in Mourning, says:
I likewise declare on the word of a dying man that the last time I had the honour to see his Royal Highness, Charles, Prince of Wales, he told me from his own mouth, and bid me assure his friends from him that he was a member of the Church of England.
Archibald could have been mistaken, of course, and he doesn't say anything about the circumstances of Charles's conversion. But at least it was something that people were saying in the 1750s!
Oh, how interesting! That certainly is evidence that it's not something made up much later, anyway. No, of course we don't mind it. : )
I've never plowed the whole of The Lyon in Mourning, just parts of it. Maybe I should go back to it...and by the way, check out the footnote on the page just previous to that! Broster used those exact words about the prospects of appealing to the Duke of Argyll. : ) Interesting that it was in actual history another Campbell pleading with him for Archie's life, and taking the role that Ewen takes in GitN.
There's all sorts of interesting stuff in there... Ooh, yes, that footnote about the Duke of Argyll is good—Broster definitely read The Lyon in Mourning, I wonder if that's where she got the idea for that bit in GitN!
Ooooh this is amazing, thank you! Though does it seem a bit, idk, wound about with protestations that it Really Truly Is From the Prince No Really to you? Still, that plus Archibald Cameron's source does make it seem at the very least plausible!
Hmm, possibly! Forbes is usually pretty scrupulous about his sources (he'll compare different accounts of the same event, note contradictions and gaps and try to figure out the truth, and so on), and all the Really Truly stuff could come from that attitude of wanting to be very clear about accuracy—but I agree it's slightly doubtful.
Right, like, I certainly know people who care passionately about the difference between various Christian denominations, but it's also more along the lines of "you can't take Communion with us" rather than "I won't support you for public office." (Though I guess the number of people I knew at my own church who were really into Mitt Romney's presidental run was, uh, not small. But that's a slightly different phenomenon.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Responses to luzula from last post
Sure, I get it! I guess what I meant, but didn't say carefully enough, was that differences within Christianity were more important in the 18th century. (Heh, in Sweden the prime minister is basically presumed to be non-religious, unless they demonstrate otherwise, and in any case it would be in pretty bad taste for them to start talking about God in speeches...)
Well, I guess I thought historians were more careful, and it's sad that they aren't. : ( Good luck with your article, it sounds like a cool project.
I think I'll try to email someone about BPC and religious conversion and see what happens! Maybe a retired historian so I don't feel like I'm taking time from their grading of student papers, and whatever.
Re: Responses to luzula from last post
Archibald Cameron, writing in 1753 and quoted by Robert Forbes in The Lyon in Mourning, says:
Archibald could have been mistaken, of course, and he doesn't say anything about the circumstances of Charles's conversion. But at least it was something that people were saying in the 1750s!
Re: Responses to luzula from last post
I've never plowed the whole of The Lyon in Mourning, just parts of it. Maybe I should go back to it...and by the way, check out the footnote on the page just previous to that! Broster used those exact words about the prospects of appealing to the Duke of Argyll. : ) Interesting that it was in actual history another Campbell pleading with him for Archie's life, and taking the role that Ewen takes in GitN.
Re: Responses to luzula from last post
There's all sorts of interesting stuff in there... Ooh, yes, that footnote about the Duke of Argyll is good—Broster definitely read The Lyon in Mourning, I wonder if that's where she got the idea for that bit in GitN!
Re: Responses to luzula from last post
Re: Responses to luzula from last post
Re: Responses to luzula from last post
Re: Responses to luzula from last post
And we absolutely want people to butt in and teach us things, that's what these discussion posts are all about. :)
Re: Responses to luzula from last post