![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnBackground: The kids' school has a topic for "Unit" every trimester that a lot of their work (reading, writing, some math) revolves around. These topics range from time/geographic periods ('Colonial America') to geography ('Asia') to science ('Space') to social science ('Business and Economics'). (I have some issues with this way of doing things, but that's a whole separate post.) Anyway, for Reasons, they have had to come up with a new topic this year, and E's 7/8 class is doing "World Fairs" as their new topic.
Me: I know E's teacher is all about World Fairs and I know she is great and will do a good job. But I feel like if we had a different teacher who wasn't so into World Fairs, they wouldn't do such a good job and another topic would be better.
Me: Like... the Enlightenment!
D: Heh, you could teach that! But you'd have to restrain yourself from making everything about Frederick the Great.
Me: But that's the thing! Everyone does relate to each other in this time period! Voltaire -- and his partner Émilie du Châtelet, who was heavily involved in the discourse of conservation of energy and momentum -- well, I've told you Voltaire had a thing with Fritz -- and then there's Empress Maria Theresa, who went to war with him a few times -- and Catherine the Great --
D, meditatively: You know --
Me: *am innocently not warned even though this is the same tone of voice that is often followed by, say, a bad pun*
D: -- it's impressive how everyone from this 'the Great' family is so famous!
Me: *splutters*
D, thoughtfully: But of course there's probably selection bias, as the ones who aren't famous don't get mentioned. You never see 'Bob the Great' in the history books...
Me: *splutters more*
Me: I know E's teacher is all about World Fairs and I know she is great and will do a good job. But I feel like if we had a different teacher who wasn't so into World Fairs, they wouldn't do such a good job and another topic would be better.
Me: Like... the Enlightenment!
D: Heh, you could teach that! But you'd have to restrain yourself from making everything about Frederick the Great.
Me: But that's the thing! Everyone does relate to each other in this time period! Voltaire -- and his partner Émilie du Châtelet, who was heavily involved in the discourse of conservation of energy and momentum -- well, I've told you Voltaire had a thing with Fritz -- and then there's Empress Maria Theresa, who went to war with him a few times -- and Catherine the Great --
D, meditatively: You know --
Me: *am innocently not warned even though this is the same tone of voice that is often followed by, say, a bad pun*
D: -- it's impressive how everyone from this 'the Great' family is so famous!
Me: *splutters*
D, thoughtfully: But of course there's probably selection bias, as the ones who aren't famous don't get mentioned. You never see 'Bob the Great' in the history books...
Me: *splutters more*
Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-10-27 04:05 pm (UTC)So, Thomas Wentworth: as a young man in James I and VI's reign, is actually somewhat critical of the royal treatment of Parliament, and hanging out with his future killers in the critical Parliamentarians bench. In Charles I's early reign, definitely against Charles arresting MPs in the time of Buckingham, also not a fan of Buckingham. BUT, and this becomes crucial, definitely not a fan of how far Team Junto, led by first Eliot, then Pym, are willing to go, so at some point in the 1630s, he becomes one one of Charles' most important advisors. He's also put in charge of Ireland, which is an important plot point. When things go south with the Scots in the Bishops Wars, Charles calls him back from Ireland, makes him the Earl of Strafford and asks for advice and help. Parliament is recalled after eleven years, first the short one, then the long one.
Meanwhile, the Junto (= bunch of the most radical Parliamentarians, and no, Cromwell isn't one of them, Cromwell in this early stage is not yet a factor at all and living in the countryside), who never forgave Wentworth for switching sides anyway, feels increasingly worried. He has determination, he has the King's ear, and in Ireland, he has an army. They also think, not wronglyl, he is after them and wants to prove that they're secretly corresponding with the rebellious (from Charles' pov) Covenanters in Scotland, which they totally are. (Reminder: corresponding with a foreign power - and while Charles rules both England and Scotland, the countries aren't united yet, so Scotland is a foreign power - which your King is at war with is high treason.) So Pym and the Junto make a preemptive move. They flood London - the country, too, but London is crucial - with pamphlets declaring that Strafford is the worst, he's Black Tom the Tyrant, head of a Catholic Conspiracy (Strafford isn't Catholic, but who cares) and about to bring evil Catholic Irish troops to England to help Charles dissolve Parliament again and turn the Kingdom Catholic once more. Result: not only does Strafford get impeached, there are thousands of riled up Londoners in front of Parliament every day, yelling for Strafford's head.
Charles I. , who thinks he's seen this before when Buckingham was the one impeached, promises Strafford he will never, ever let him die. This whole thing is ridiculous anyway - Strafford is the most loyal of the loyal, how can he be convicted for treason?
Strafford is also an experienced MP himself, and at first, he defends himself ably, and tears the prosecution's evidence into verbal shreds. The big issue are the minutes of a Privy Council meeting where when discussing the second Bishop's War Strafford told Charles "in Ireland, you have an army which can help you subject this country", meaning Scotland, as the war against the Scots was the one under discussion. The Junto claims that no, Strafford was talking about England, which he wanted to evily crush via his Irish troops. There is however the problem that the guy who took the minutes confirms Strafford's version, i.e. that they were discussing Scotland, and that "this country" therefore was Scotland.
Despite the riled up London crowd yelling every day at Westminster - they have been whipped into a fearful frenzy and are absolutely convinced Strafford, if freed, would lead his Irish army against Parliament and then all of England - , the House of Lords refuses to condemn Strafford, the Commons are beginning to waver, and it looks like this whole trial will actually end with Strafford being declared innocent.
The Junto, all of whom have a pretty good idea that while Wentworth won't use his soldiers to make England Catholic again, he definitely will help Charles to undo all the reforms they've just pressured Charles into signing (like the Triannial Act, making it law Parliament has to be called every three years at least, and of course making all of Charles' financial loopholes illegal) with the help of those thousands of people in the streets, and who also know after this stunt, he definitely won't hesitate to put them on trial for treason (with the Scots), decide to go for broke. The Junto member who first plainly says they need to kill the guy is none other than our old acquaintance Bob, the Earl of Essex (never impotent except with Frances!). This is all great for Essex, looking forward to REEEEEVENNNNGE at last.
So what Pym does next is to call for a Bill of Attainder, accusing Strafford of high treason and calling for his execution. The difference to an impeachment is that this that this is not a trial, but also once Parliament has presented the bill, the King has to sign it in order for it to be legal. Now, at first this looks like a drawback. But it isn't. Because the Londoners outside aren't just calling for Strafford's head anymore. There is one obvious suspect even closer to Charles for anyone who believes in an evil Catholic conspiracy to hand England over to the Pope, and this is, of course, Henrietta Maria, the Queen. The Commons are already preparing laws to banish the Catholics in her personal household from the Kingdom as well as one that disallows her to practice her Catholic Faith. (Both is against the marriage contract which explicitly granted Henrietta Maria the right to practice her faith in England and to maintain the necessary clergy in her personal household.) Henrietta Maria, for one, is convinced the Junto is absolutely capable of gunning for her next and for doing exactly what they're currently doing to Strafford, put her on trial under a flimsy pretext and execute her. It's not like this hasn't happened to Queens of England before, is it?
By now, Charles is panicked. He agonizes - he has promised Strafford to never let him die - but eventually gives in and signs the death warrant. Then he sends his oldest son, future Charles II, who is still a child of eleven, to Parliament, begging the MPs for Strafford's life - if they could agree to a change of the sentence to imprisonment, this would fill him, Charles I, with "unspeakable contentment". Fat chance. Unlike FW, the Junto isn't swayed by a pleading kid, and the rest of the MPs is too scared - by now, there are only two bishops left in the House of Lords, because all the others were physically attacked by the mob when trying to attend the sessions, because they are seen as being part of the Popish conspiracy. Strafford is beheaded the next day. William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury who is already arrested and will later also be executed, says about Strafford that he died "with more honour than any of them will gain which have hunted after his life". And Charles I, as mentioned, will feel guilty for the rest of his life and believe God allowed the Parliamentarians victory and allowed his own death in punishment for him not remaining firm and saving Strafford.
Now, Strafford - as Charles' de facto Viceroy in Ireland - certainly was responsible for his share of violence. And Charles really wasn't a good King, or even a good schemer. During Strafford's imprisonment, he allowed one of his other courtiers to try an attempt to capture the Tower and free Strafford, which promptly was fucked up and discovered, thus convincing everyone in London who wasn't already convinced that Charles, Strafford et all intended a military coup against Parliament so he could rule as an absolute monarch again. And of course, in the long term, Parliament embodied the forces of progress. But Strafford's death was still judical murder, and everyone immediately responsible for it knew it, whatever the crowd believed. And it's not surprising that after this, as soon as he could without anyone stopping him, Charles I. took himself and his family out of London and decided he really did need an army not against his Scottish but his English subjects.
Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-10-28 05:57 pm (UTC)(Reminder: corresponding with a foreign power - and while Charles rules both England and Scotland, the countries aren't united yet, so Scotland is a foreign power - which your King is at war with is high treason.)
Ah, right, thank you for the reminder!
The Junto member who first plainly says they need to kill the guy is none other than our old acquaintance Bob, the Earl of Essex (never impotent except with Frances!). This is all great for Essex, looking forward to REEEEEVENNNNGE at last.
THIS GUY! (Bob, lol. But not of the "Great" family!) Why did he want revenge on Strafford?
By now, Charles is panicked. He agonizes - he has promised Strafford to never let him die - but eventually gives in and signs the death warrant.
Okay, sorry, I need it spelled out even more -- is the issue that he thinks if he doesn't sign the death warrant, that they'll go after his wife? (And what is preventing them from going after her anyway?)
Then he sends his oldest son, future Charles II, who is still a child of eleven, to Parliament, begging the MPs for Strafford's life - if they could agree to a change of the sentence to imprisonment, this would fill him, Charles I, with "unspeakable contentment".
OMG. And did definitely remind me of FW. You had mentioned before that this probably had a major effect on Charles II (another of those things I am glad for repetition to remind me of!) and I'd intended to ask for more details on it but never did -- so thank you for them now!
William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury who is already arrested and will later also be executed, says about Strafford that he died "with more honour than any of them will gain which have hunted after his life".
<3 :(
During Strafford's imprisonment, he allowed one of his other courtiers to try an attempt to capture the Tower and free Strafford, which promptly was fucked up and discovered, thus convincing everyone in London who wasn't already convinced that Charles, Strafford et all intended a military coup against Parliament so he could rule as an absolute monarch again.
*facepalm* Come on, Charles, can't you do anything right?
And Charles I, as mentioned, will feel guilty for the rest of his life and believe God allowed the Parliamentarians victory and allowed his own death in punishment for him not remaining firm and saving Strafford.
Gosh. I can totally understand thinking that, too -- you promised him! Charles, you had one job! (Okay, fine, he had more than one job, but... still!)
Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-10-29 12:03 pm (UTC)He wanted revenge on Charles and the Stuarts, Strafford was just the means. Remember, the tale of Essex and the House of Stuart:
- argues with Prince Henry to the point where Bob beats Henry with a tennis racket and therefore gets kicked out of the then Prince of Wales' inner circle
- James I and VI supportes his fave's girlfriend Frances divorcing Bob for impotence and marrying James' fave, which is majorly humiliating for Bob
- Bob goes on to serve in the Thirty Years War and thus is one of the few English nobles with war time experience, yet he is only the second in command during Buckingham's rerun of the Elizabethan Age's greatest hits, and the raid of Cadiz becomes a complete fiasco, which Bob watches and blames Buckingham and Charles for
- Bob joins team IMPEACH BUCKINGHAM DIE DIE DIE, but Charles backs Buckingham
- when Buckingham gets murdered by Felton, Charles still doesn't make Bob top military guy
- Bob suspects his second wife to cuckold him with another of Charles' pals
- also Bob of Essex might actually have pro Parliament opinions, I wouldn't exclude that, but he really has it in for the Stuarts in general and Charles (as King) in particular at that point
Btw, when the Civil War has finally and officially started and Essex gets made supreme Commander by the Junto (because he's still one of the few nobles with active war experience, and the actual later winners Fairfax and Cromwell aren't famous yet, though rising in the ranks, at least one of the royal army units marching against Essex supposedly chanted "Hey, Cuckold, here we come - and you can't". But that was after Strafford was already dead.
Okay, sorry, I need it spelled out even more -- is the issue that he thinks if he doesn't sign the death warrant, that they'll go after his wife? (And what is preventing them from going after her anyway?)
Yes to the first, Charles thinks if he keeps refusing to sign the death warrant, it will be his wife's turn next, and given what happened to Buckingham (for which, remember, Charles, not a big believer in the lone assassin theory, but at any rate convinced violent rethoric had to do with what happened and disgusted by Parliament openly celebrating Buckingham's murder), they might not be bothering with legalities in the case of Henrietta Maria. The idea - or at least the excuse he gives to himself - is that if he does sign the warrant, Parliament will let up and be satisfied for now which will give him time to get out of London with his family and raise an army. Now, would Parliament have tried to either execute Henrietta Maria or have her killed if Charles had held firm to his promise? Who knows, but probably not, there were actually royalist voices in the Commons and of course in the Lords, and while there was precedent for the executing of Queens in England, these happened with the support and instigating of the ruling monarch. Otoh, given the Junto really had done their very best to convince the population of London that they were all about to massacred St. Bartholomew's Night style by evil Catholics if Strafford would be allowed to live, I wouldn't exclude the possibility of Londoners storming either the Tower or Whitehall to either kill Strafford themselves or get the royals, not as part of a plan but as the end result of months of deliberate demagogery.
Gosh. I can totally understand thinking that, too -- you promised him! Charles, you had one job! (Okay, fine, he had more than one job, but... still!)
He'd agree with you - like I said, he felt guilty to his dying day and thought that was the reason why the Almighty let it happen. He also advised his son via letter shortly before his death to never not stand by a loyal servant, no matter how hated.
Charles II: Yeah, no. I respected the hell out of Hyde, the later Earl of Clarendon. And he definitely did not do what that nutter Titus Oates accused him of. But when I could smell the scent of bloody riots in the air, I sacked him from his offices and exiled him. This meant a comfortable retirement for him and not having to go on my travels again for me.
Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-10-30 12:32 pm (UTC)*snorts out loud*
Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-11-04 05:25 am (UTC)at least one of the royal army units marching against Essex supposedly chanted "Hey, Cuckold, here we come - and you can't".
OMG, that's amazing.
and while there was precedent for the executing of Queens in England, these happened with the support and instigating of the ruling monarch.
...Henry VIII really has a lot to answer for, doesn't he?
Anyway, that makes sense -- thank you!
But when I could smell the scent of bloody riots in the air, I sacked him from his offices and exiled him.
I mean. That sounds a heck of a lot better than getting beheaded!
Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-11-04 08:04 am (UTC)I mean. That sounds a heck of a lot better than getting beheaded!
Quite. I mean, the whole Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon saga works as a good parallel and contrast to Thomas Wenthworth, Earl of Strafford. Both Hyde and Wentworth had started out as Parliamentarians who changed their allegiance to Royalist when the Junto became dominant in Parliament. Hyde went into exile with young Charles and became his most important loyal advisor, as Wentworth became Charles I's most important loyal advisor in the years immediately preceding the Civil War. Once the Restoration happened, Hyde then became increasingly one of the most hated people by nobililty and commoners alike, which mostly was not his own fault at all.
It was however partly the fault of future James II, who, remember had managed to secretly marry Hyde's daughter Anne in the year before the Restoration, get her pregnant, then when the Restoration happened immediately disawow the marriage and attempt to weasel out of it by making his mates declare they'd slept with Anne Hyde as well and could be the father until Charles II put an end to these disgraceful shenanigans by declaring Anne his sister-in-law and making James stand by her. He also ennobled her father -t hat's when Hyde becomes the Earl of Clarendon - since now the Hydes were nilly willy a part of the royal family. And of course absolutely everyone, from the nobles to the commoners was convinced Hyde/Clarendon had arranged the whole thing to make that happen, and was an Evil Advisor (tm). Then when Hyde had arranged the marriage between Charles II and Catherine de Braganza and while Charles produced illegitimate children left right and center, Catherine wasn't able to, Hyde was promptly accused of having known that in advance (how he should have known the virginal Catherine would not be fertile, no one ever explained) and having arranged the marriage solely to put his own grandkids on the throne. He was also blamed for the sale of Dunkirk, and the cost of supporting the colony of Tangiers, acquired along with Bombay as part of Catherine's dowry. The windows of Clarendon House were broken, and a placard fixed to the house blaming Hyde for "Dunkirk, Tangiers and a barren Queen".
Then there was the triple disaster of the Plague, the Great Fire and England losing its war against the Dutch, and Hyde was made into a scapegoat for the last one, despite having opposed it. Parliament called for his Impeachment. And as opposed to his father, Charles II then ruthlessly but expediently made it clear he would not defend Hyde, and it was exile time for the poor man, who went to France, where he wrote his famous "History of the Three Kingdoms", the first contemporary account of the English Civil War. When he died in 1675, his body was returned to England and buried in Westminster Abbey, making it clear Charles II had never thought there was any truth in the impeachment charges. Now I wouldn't blame Hyde for feeling bitter, but yes, he lived out a natural life span.
(The Charles II miniseries had Hyde played by none other than Ian "Emperor Palpatine" McDiarmid in a rare good guy role, and his last scene with Charles is great because you can see he's hurting but he's also proud precisely Charles - whom he taught and mentored - unlike his father does the politically smart thing, as opposed to the morally right thing.)
ETA: Oh, and you can say Hyde had the last laugh because his granddaughters, Mary and Anne, not only deposed his no good son-in-law James II but did become Queens of England in succession.
Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-11-26 06:52 pm (UTC)*headdesk*
And as opposed to his father, Charles II then ruthlessly but expediently made it clear he would not defend Hyde, and it was exile time for the poor man
Again... still better than being beheaded :) Though I can see if Hyde didn't see it like that.
The Charles II miniseries had Hyde played by none other than Ian "Emperor Palpatine" McDiarmid in a rare good guy role, and his last scene with Charles is great because you can see he's hurting but he's also proud precisely Charles - whom he taught and mentored - unlike his father does the politically smart thing, as opposed to the morally right thing.
AHAHAHA oh gosh I can totally see this. Aw. (Though it might be a lot of cognitive dissonance to watch given that I know him as Palpatine! Sort of like when they cast Hugo Weaving as Elrond when we'd all previously seen him in the Matrix.)
Oh, and you can say Hyde had the last laugh because his granddaughters, Mary and Anne, not only deposed his no good son-in-law James II but did become Queens of England in succession.
Aw, too bad he was dead by then :)
Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-11-26 06:57 pm (UTC)Ha, I totally remember the mental whiplash of that!
Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-11-26 06:59 pm (UTC)Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-11-26 06:58 pm (UTC)*headdesk*
So I'm reading a medieval history book for French practice, and a few days ago I actually ran into an explanation: there was a medical examination that was performed on prospective brides that was supposed to be able to tell if they were going to be fertile or not.
As had been the tradition for centuries, energetic matrons were called in to determine whether she was physically capable of childbearing. Isabeau got through the ancestral entrance exam without difficulty and was declared fertile.
This was the 14th century, but if it had been traditional for centuries already, I wouldn't be surprised if they were still doing it in the not-much-more-medically-advanced 17th century.
Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-11-26 08:26 pm (UTC)But also I could imagine there being an exam that would actually measure to some extent "physically capable of childbearing" (presumably things like whether you were menstruating and whether your hips were large enough?) which of course isn't the same as being fertile but maybe has a high enough correlation that counterexamples were just, idk, witchcraft or Evil Advisors or something.
Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style
Date: 2023-11-26 08:47 pm (UTC)But also I could imagine there being an exam that would actually measure to some extent "physically capable of childbearing" (presumably things like whether you were menstruating and whether your hips were large enough?)
Whatever it was, they missed the signs with Paul of Russia's poor first wife, the bone defects that prevented her from passing a baby through her birth canal. :/