![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnUnfortunately, there was then at Berlin a King who pursued one policy only, who deceived his enemies, but not his servants, and who lied without scruple, but never without necessity.
(from The King's Secret - by Duke de Broglie, grand-nephew of the subject of the book, Comte de Broglie, and grandfather of the physicist) )
(from The King's Secret - by Duke de Broglie, grand-nephew of the subject of the book, Comte de Broglie, and grandfather of the physicist) )
James I and VI: Charles and George's Excellent Adventure
Date: 2023-10-03 08:22 am (UTC)So it was a few months of increasing awkwardness in Spain for Charles and Buckingham. There, Buckingham was hit by another brainwave. It was evident he and Charles would not, as first imagined, return triumphantly with the Infanta. And he knew how very unpopular the Spanish match was in England anyway. AND James was in increasing bad health. What if he completely rebranded himself, as the Protestant hero who organized this journey really to put an end to Spanish Catholic schemes, ferreted out the fact the Spaniards were never negotiating in good faith anyway, and then, having braved the evil country of the evil inquistion, escaped with his Prince to England, to denounce the evil Spaniards and organize a war against Spain instead? It would mean doing what he'd never done before, going explicitly against one of James' core policies and wishes. But would salvage this entire operation and prepare a good future for Buckingham.
Charles at 23 might have been a romantic but even he could see this Spanish marriage was going nowhere, so he was fine with leaving in a huff. But he had to formally ask his host Philip III for permission to leave, and Philipp said no because remember, the Spaniards still wanted Charles/Austrian Habsburg Princess to happen, and they could see if he left pissed off, it never would. Buckingham then suggested outright lying - a promise under durress doesn't count - and up the ante by Charless offering to convert to Catholicism if they let him leave and formally ask Dad for permission. Which Charles did. Whether or not Olivares actually believed Charles would do that, there was no way Spain could have said no to such an offer. This news arrived in England before Buckingham and Charles did and was the obvious bombshell, confirming everyone's worst fears. When Charles and Buckingham did arrive and explained, this reversed and there were celebrations about the marriage not happening, and for the first and last time the pair were Protestant heroes beloved by all, including the parliament James had to call to explain all of this. Charles and Buckingham presented their "War with evil Spain NOW!" case and again for the first and last time in his life, Charles actually got a parliament to do what he wanted, while James must have felt like never get out of facepalming. By now, he really was in bad shape, he had athritis and gout, and that the pain made him drink more and more didn't help. And Buckingham spent less and less time with him. He did rush to James' side for the end, though, as did Charles, they spend James' last week with him and James died in Buckingham's arms. Because of how hated Buckingham was, and how this death meant he could no focus all on Charles, there were the inevitable poison rumours - it wasn't like a Royal Favourite hadn't done it before in living memory -, but the general opinion seems to be no, he didn't, he wasn't as cold blooded as that. With James died peace, war with Spain was on, the Earl of Bristol coming back to say that it wasn't the evil Spanish who had intended to stab England in the back but Buckingham fucking things up first by arriving with Charles where Charles' presence wasn't wanted or needed and then by rebranding himself for entirely selfish reasons wasn't of any use anymore, either. And Charles had learned that making promises under durress doesn't count, a lesson he'd use so often in the up and coming Civl War that his subjects knew they could never come to an agreement with him he'd actually stick to. As for foreign wars, there wasn't a single one Charles and Buckingham led which they finished successfully.
So was James a good or bad monarch, either by contemporary or modern standards? His policy of no foreign wars benefited the country undoubtedly, the start of colonization in earnest was a good thing for England if not for the people getting colonized (whose opinions did not count in his era), the King James bible project undoubtedly enriched the English language, and his deep and personal confiction that witchcraft was real and witches needed to be killed did great damage. Here, the podcasters point out that James was not the type of fanatic wanting convictions no matter what, and in his later years by his persistent questioning in one case because he was sceptical of what evidence the prosecution provided saved a woman's life, i.e. that he did allow the the possibility that people might make wrong accusations out of personal motives and wanted to ensure against that. But he still changed the laws from Elizabeth's time (where witchcraft was also a thing, but you were "only" condemned to death the second time you were caught, and only if your spell had lethal consequences) to making any type of witchcraft warrant the death penalty, and the consequences were awful. He could be personally ruthless (though that he ensured Elizabeth didn't take his token protest against his mother's execution too seriously is forgivable if you consider he had been parted from Mary as a baby and had been raised exclusively by her enemies) and capable of strong attachment (see Robert Carr and Buckingham; in the first case, it wasn't James who'd originally withdrawn from the relationship, and he did commute the death sentences for Robert and Frances). Perhaps his most negative heritage was demonstrrating to his son that there was no way of getting along with parliament other than dissolving it in disgust. But given he started out as an abused child all the adults in his life tried to browbeat into submission and followed one of the all time royal stars on the throne, the fact he peacefully ruled over two kingdoms who'd been at war with each other for centuries, managed to push through an incredibly unpopular but beneficial foreign policy (peace with Spain) for decades and was the first monarch to die in bed succeeded by his adult son since, drumroll, Henry VII, the first T'udor King, is definitely impressive.
Re: James I and VI: Charles and George's Excellent Adventure
Date: 2023-10-06 11:52 pm (UTC)LOL!
Then they were in France where Buckingham managed to offend the French and provide Alexandre Dumas with a future plot by hitting on Queen Anne
...oh he's THAT Buckingham! :P (I get confused, okay. There are a lot of Buckinghams!) Huh, that reminds me I still have to finish Three Musketeers...
As for the Infanta, not that anyone asked her, but her pov was: I don't want to become Catherine of Aragon, thanks but NO THANKS!
<3
What if he completely rebranded himself, as the Protestant hero who organized this journey really to put an end to Spanish Catholic schemes
WOW. That's... some chutzpah.
And Charles had learned that making promises under durress doesn't count, a lesson he'd use so often in the up and coming Civl War that his subjects knew they could never come to an agreement with him he'd actually stick to. As for foreign wars, there wasn't a single one Charles and Buckingham led which they finished successfully.
Gosh. This is helping me with figuring out how Charles' eventual fate happened...
So was James a good or bad monarch, either by contemporary or modern standards?
Yeah, I can see that some of his legacy was rather harmful but idk, it sounds like he did really well with what he had, much better than a lot of these guys...
A Bunch of Buckinghams
Date: 2023-10-07 07:36 am (UTC)Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham: The one from the end time of the Wars of the Roses, who first allied with Richard III and then turned against him. Is one of the stronger alternate suspects as to who killed the Princes in the Tower. (This Buckingham was descendended from a son of Edward III, just like the Houses of York and Lancaster were, and if Richard and Henry Tudor had wiped each other out, this Buckingham would have been a very plausible candidate for the throne. Shows up in Shakespeare.
George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham: Favourite of James, bff of Charles, supposedly sex on legs, great at scheming, property and power mongering, alas not very competent in foreign politics and war at all, as Charles' early reign demonstrates all too clearly. (The best you can say for Buckingham in this regard is that since Charles' later post Buckingham reign wasn't that much more successful, ahem, the problem might have been with Charles, who always did say Buckingham acted on his orders instead of blaming him for the increasing disasters and throwing him under the bus.) That's the one who shows up in the Three Musketeers having a secret affair with Anne and getting murdered by Milady by her manipulating his historical assassin John Felton into it. (Since Milady is a Dumas invented character, in history Felton did it on his lonesome, one of many poorly paid soldiers increasingly enraged at Buckingham.) One more thing: this Buckingham was the first Duke in a good while. The numbers of Dukes had increasingly decreased under the Tudors, because traditionally if you were a Duke you had royal blood in your ancestry, and no one wanted a rerun of the Wars of the Roses. The last Tudor era Duke was the one of Norfolk who conspired against Elizabeth in order to marry Mary Queen of Scots and whom Elizabeth after some reluctance - she was related to him on her mother's side, after all what with him being a Howard - had executed. After said execution, the Howards got stripped of the ducal title. James didn't restore it to them, either, he made two of the Howards Earls instead. So when he made his provincial obscure nobility Favourite first Earl and then DUKE of Buckingham, the first English Duke since Norfolk's execution, the anti Buckingham faction grew exponentially.
George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham: son of Sex-on-Legs Buckingham. Was a baby when Dad was murdered by Felton and got taken in by Charles I who had him co-raised with his son, future Charles II. Became bff with Charles II and shared exile with him, then made a deal with Cromwell so he could return, then the Restoration happened (awkward!) but Buckingham made up with Charles not least due to the intercession of his cousin Barbara, Charles' mistress, but also because he was Charles II' childhood friend, and while their relationship got stormy at times and Buckingham was repeatedly in and out of favour (for example, he supported the Monmouth-for-Successor plot), Charles never cut him off completely. What this Buckingham never had, though: a political office like his Dad. This is the Buckingham who shows up in the novel The King's Touch and in Georgette Heyer's novel about young Charles II escaping after Worcester.
Possible additional Buckingham you could have come across, but only if you're familiar with Henry VIII's early reign, i.e. before all the marital drama:
Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham: son of the Richard III era Buckingham. Was a big honcho at the Tudor court due to his mother being a Woodville, which made him a cousin of Elizabeth of York's and her son Henry VIII's. Henry had him executed for a conspiracy against himself. He only shows up in Shakespeare's rarely played Henry VIII and in the first season of THe Tudors but otherwise isn't popular in historical fiction. After Edward the Stafford family lost the Duchy of Buckingham and the title went dormant until James I and VI revived it for his boytoy.
Re: A Bunch of Buckinghams
Date: 2023-10-07 12:22 pm (UTC)The reason I went to Stowe House is because of a connection to Flight of the Heron, obviously, which has a fictional Earl of Stowe.
Re: A Bunch of Buckinghams
Date: 2023-10-09 03:32 am (UTC)Re: A Bunch of Buckinghams
Date: 2023-10-09 03:30 am (UTC)since Charles' later post Buckingham reign wasn't that much more successful, ahem, the problem might have been with Charles
lol!
George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham: son of Sex-on-Legs Buckingham.
At this point I said aloud, "This is NOT FAIR!" No wonder I'm having trouble with the Buckinghams when they have the same name!! :PP