![[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) )
Re: James VI and I: Crying Murder Most Foul!
Date: 2023-10-09 03:24 am (UTC)ahahahaha this is great, I love this too! (Although what would make this even more hilarious, admittedly in a somewhat dark way, would be if Buckingham was like, "I have a great idea, you shouldn't bleed him!" and the docs were all "What a quack!")
with the most vicious aspect of his death
Oh nooooo. That's horrible!
Sadly, I cannot watch the videos due to copyright shenanigans :(
Unlike brother James, whose idea seems to have been "like Dad, only more so!"
OH JAMES NO.
Re: James VI and I: Crying Murder Most Foul!
Date: 2023-10-09 07:03 am (UTC)Although what would make this even more hilarious, admittedly in a somewhat dark way, would be if Buckingham was like, "I have a great idea, you shouldn't bleed him!" and the docs were all "What a quack!
LOL, I wouldn't be surprised, old school medicine being what it was.
OH JAMES NO.
James, Henrietta Maria and Tim Blanning, apparantly, forming a triad of people thinking Charles I. was a role model as a monarch. Mind you, I always thought Charles I. had a lot in common with his grandmother Mary Queen of Scots - they weren't good monarchs, but they were at their best facing their deaths with dignity and great courage. (Also during their respective trials before that. This is independent from the legal guilt fact. Mary undoubtedly did participate in and encourage conspiracies against Elizabeth. Charles did make agreements with Parliament only to break them. Both of them still had a point (and made it) that their respective trials were show trials with a predetermined outcome (can you imagine either Mary or Charles being declared innocent and let go under ANY circumstances?), and that according to the law as it was at this point in time their judges were not qualified to judge them. (Yes, Charles, too, because as he himself pointed out during his trial, he wasn't judged by Parliament (which consisted of Commons and Lords alike), but of a part of the Commons appointed by the army, leaving aside the whole problem of putting a King on trial.
(I mean, I'm against Kings being given free license to do whatever they want, obviously! Monarchy bad, democracy good. Also I think their respective actions did bring both Mary and Charles to their ends. But the legality of it even from a contemporary pov is questionable, to put it mildly, and even their worst enemies did not deny they were at their best in their trials and facing their deaths.)
Incidentally, you can see why historical fiction had problems with both James (I and VI, not James II his grandson) and Charles (I) if we talk about fiction putting them in the center, not giving them cameo appearances in someone else's story. James fits neither in the heroic King facing Big Evil (Foreign) Enemies narrative (NOT going to war is awfully difficult to dramatize) nor in the Evil Tyrant King narrative. Even stories where he shows up as a villain/antagonist - i.e. anything Walter Raleigh centric - don't really make him the final big bad but show him as a tool of Robert Cecil and/or Gondomar. As for Charles I., he works as a villain if you show him ordering MP's to be arrested from the MP's pov, obviously, but he's very much not the stereotype of the decadent tryannical tuler muwahhaing over his enemies' pains, and his civic virtues (i.e. good husband and father, stubbornly loyal to friends even and especially if it would serve him politically not to be) means you can't present him as exploiting his subjects and abusing his Faithful Lieutenants, either, as Evil Overlords usually do.
The most memorable Charles in fiction I know of is the one played by Alec Guinness (who is superb, of course) in the 1970s movie Cromwell - which as a critic once jested could be called "Charles and Oliver" for all the narrative space Charles gets - where he is the shades of grey antagonist. Richard Harris is Oliver Cromwell. Mind you, the movie while doing a reasonably good job of presenting both the bad and good of Charles edits out Cromwell's most problematic side, i.e. anything to do with Ireland. No massacres committed by this Oliver Cromwell. Helped by the fact the only Catholics showing up are Queen Henrietta Maria and a slimy Italian Cardinal Up To No Good, not starving Irish peasants. Also, the movie weirdly picks Edward Hyde, of all the people, to go through the reverse arc he did in real life. RL: Edward Hyde starts out on the side of Parliament, switches sides to become a Royalist, and by the time Charles I. gets executed is already in exile with young Charles (II), whom he mentors for the entire Interregnum. He then gets rewarded by becoming the de facto first PM of Charles II's reign but is promptly hated on by a lot of courtiers, including Buckingham and Barbara Villliers, and vilified by the people with the mind boggling charge that he deliberately picked Catherine of Braganza as a bride for Charles because he knew she wouldn't give birth to living children, all so his daughter Anne - who married James (the future II after James first got her pregnant and then tried to weasel out of it, remember) could become Queen. Anyway, this same Sir Edward Hyde shows up in Cromwell at Charles I's trial testifying against him, which, well, physically impossible - him being in the Netherlands with young Charles (II) - and also completely against his CV.
I haven't yet seen the two parter Gunpowder, Treason and Plot which has Robert Carlyle as James I and VI, who is at least bound to be memorable, so so far, the most memorable James in fiction remains Alan Cummings in the Doctor Who episode I showed you clips from. My definite Charles I is Sir Alec, of course. Most memorable and convincing Charles II is the one in the novel The King's Touch, with Rufus Sewell in Charles II: The Power and the Passion getting second place.
Philippe Auguste and Ingeborg
Date: 2023-10-10 12:20 pm (UTC)Hahaha, so the day you posted this, my French practice in a biography of Philippe II Auguste (12-13th century) had me reading about how he treated his second wife very badly, locking her in a castle with inadequate basic necessities, assigning her ladies in waiting whose job was to verbally abuse her, and denying her priests and doctors. At one point, she's sick, and she can't even be bled!
Me: Weeelllll...The abusive asshole might have accidentally done her some good there, ha.
(Why did he treat her this way, you ask,
Because Philippe's and Ingeborg's claims were the reverse of Bob's and Frances's, Philippe did not feel compelled to run around showing everyone he could get an erection with anyone but his wife. :P
P.S. My French streak is still going!