cahn | Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 46

Background: 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*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

selenak

But also, the Stuarts aren't all identical, and James III is a nice untried card that everyone can project their wishes on...

Oh, absolutely, and since he never reigned, no one ever needed to get disillusioned as to whether he'd have been any good at it.

It's not just the monarchs to whom this applies. Because there hadn't been a Parliament in eleven years, people had invested such great hopes and mystical belief in it when Charles I. finally had to call one, and were ready to defend it at all costs - they thought it would really fix every grievance. And ironically enough, the monarchy was restored for the same reason. The Long Parliament - the very same everyone had invested so much into - didn't get along with Cromwell much better than it had with Charles I, then Cromwell with the army purged it of any MPs disagreeing with him and reduced it to the Rump, then England got the Protectorate with Cromwell as a dictator in all but name and went through two different attempts at a constitution to justify it, then Cromwell dies and his son Richard really isn't up to the job, and army amd Rump Parliament are at odds again, and by the time General Monck marches to London, everyone calls again for a Parliament freely elected with the same mystical belief it would fix everything they had back in Charles I's day. With the awareness that what a free Parliament would do would be most likely to call the Stuarts back, because the attempt to keep the Commonwealth going sans Oliver Cromwell had completely crashed and burned.

(

cahn, the "Long Parliament" is called that because the much reduced and purged version of it, nicknamed "the Rump" near the end of England's Commonwealth period decades later, consisted of MPS elected as parts of Charles I's last Parliament. The Rump clung to their offices with the same fervor as present day politicians, but General M. simply went and put those purged by Cromwell MPs (70 plus people all in all) back into Westminster, who then had the majority to call for the dissolution of the Rump/Long Parliament and the election of a new one).)

James II doing well in Scotland while still James, Duke of York: it's possible! Especially since back then, he did not have the power to do anything re: Catholic toleration or Prebyterian discrimination. And hey, he was fairly popular as Lord Admiral, too, Pepys, who worked for him, liked him well enough. He strikes me as one of those royals who are competent sidekicks but should never ever get into a situation where they need to do the top job.

It's interesting to do a compare and contrast between France and Great Britain in which effect their respective revolutions had on them. I mean, while you had the Napoleonic Empire and two Bourbon Restorations after the great French Revolution, it's still a fact that they kept going back to Revolutions and attempts at a Republic, with the post great Revolution monarchies feeling like the aberrations, not the norms. While in England and Scotland, there wasn't agreement as to which monarch they wanted, but there was no popular movement for a Republic anymore. An increasingly constitutional monarchy was what everyone went for. And yet the Cromwell years were in terms of English power fairly successful ones. His government was acknowledged by all European powers, he had a treaty with several of them - including Catholic France -, and while it wasn't fun to live in a state without theatre, Christmas or parties, there was never a Terror period, either.

Then again: I'm not sure you can call those Long Parliament/Cromwell years a genuine Republic, while the first French Republic definitely was one. Yes, the French had the guillontine and the Terror years in between. But even during the Terreur, elections kept happening. (Until the Empire and Napoleon.) Whereas there's a reason why nothing after the calling of what turned out to be the Long Parliament counts as a free election. In addition to the increasing role the army played, you also had constant redefinitions as to who got to vote at all, till only a tiny part of the (male) population was left. So ironically, what turned the Brits off Republicanism wasn't even a genuine attempt at same.

And when you compare the dynasties: Tallyrand famously said about the Bourbons, meaning Louis XVI's two brothers, "they had forgotten nothing and learned nothing" re: the Revolution, which applies for part of the Stuarts (James II, majorly so), but not for all of them (Charles II as well as nieces Mary and Anne certainly had learned something), plus the post Charles XIII Bourbons didn't have the particular constellation of several kingdoms, with one like Scotland able to romantisize them being in an oppressed situation vis a vis the other, and then the Bonapartes were ever so much better at cornering the grandiose dreams market as a competing exiled family anyway.

I still want to someone to write the AU where William of Orange adopts kid FW as he intended to for a hot minute and thus inflicts the Hohenzollern instead of their Hannover cousins as the next German dynasty on England, though. Presumably it would not have made much of a difference to the Jacobites as to whether they were rebelling against a George or a Frederick William, but FW's brand of Protestantism might have been more sympatico to at least part of the Scots, what with his austere Calvinism, while conversely the English nobility would have been horrified to discover their German king expected them to drink the Prussian cool aid and go for army service, hard drills and a modest life style.

FW: They could still go hunting, though. I like hunting! But no more debut balls, that's rubbish.

From:

luzula

It's not just the monarchs to whom this applies.
When I read Tom Paine's The Rights of Man, I just felt kind of sad when he wrote that in a republic, no one would ever complain about taxes again, because they had the power to influence them. And then you look at some of the suffragettes, who thought that if only women had the vote, there wouldn't be poverty, or children suffering, or whatever, anymore.

If we just Fix This Thing, everything will be fine!

I still want to someone to write the AU where William of Orange adopts kid FW as he intended to for a hot minute and thus inflicts the Hohenzollern instead of their Hannover cousins as the next German dynasty on England, though.
Would read!

Edited Date: 2023-10-31 08:46 pm (UTC)

From:

selenak

And then you look at some of the suffragettes, who thought that if only women had the vote, there wouldn't be poverty, or children suffering, or whatever, anymore.

Sigh, yes. And in terms of the British section of women's rights, there's the sadness that even before they ever got the right to vote, they got disillusioned in that regard, what with WWI causing a split right through the Pankhurst family, with Emmeline and Christabel being pro war (and fond of slogans like "Britain for the British") while Sylvia the socialist was anti war and against the property franchise related voting rights aimed at by her mother.

All of which doesn't mean change isn't worth aiming for, of course. The monarchy that came back to Britain in 1660 was already irrevocably different (as James II found out), even if the Glorious Revolution still needed to happen, and the idea of ruling without Parliament entirely the way Charles I had done for eleven years just wasn't on the cards anymore. And while the overall politication of the population could have dark sides, one should never ignore the good sides. People identifying with their Parliament and seeing it as quintessential in the governing process is a good thing, even if it can never deliver the perfect government so many imagine.

From:

luzula

All of which doesn't mean change isn't worth aiming for, of course.
No, of course not! Just that everything is always more complicated and the work is never done.

From:

cahn

Oh, absolutely, and since he never reigned, no one ever needed to get disillusioned as to whether he'd have been any good at it.

Heh, that is very true.

the "Long Parliament" is called that

Ah, thank you! I think the phrase has come up before but it never occurred to me to ask why it was called that!

and while it wasn't fun to live in a state without theatre, Christmas or parties, there was never a Terror period, either.

Huh. ...I don't know that it would be inconsistent with human nature to conclude that people would rather live with the Terror than without parties. (Or, rather, think they would rather, after both periods are safely behind them.)

FW: They could still go hunting, though. I like hunting! But no more debut balls, that's rubbish.

Heeee!

From:

selenak

Huh. ...I don't know that it would be inconsistent with human nature to conclude that people would rather live with the Terror than without parties. (Or, rather, think they would rather, after both periods are safely behind them.)

Clearly, I need to make this a poll: would you rather live in the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell or in France when the Committee of Public Safety is in charge?

Catholics, the Irish as a whole and Royalists in the Vendee as well as the good citizens of Lyon: We have a very different opinion here than your avarage Parisian or Londoner would have.

FW: They could still go hunting, though. I like hunting! But no more debut balls, that's rubbish.

Heeee!

I do wonder whether FW would have the same problem his cousin G2 had, to wit, not getting the English obsession with fox hunting. Remember, G2 had continental preferences in this regard (boars and deer, yay, foxes, nay! "You can't even see a fox from your horse, what even is the point?") But otherwise, hunting is basically the only arena where the English nobility would not have been aghast when confronted with their new sovereign.

FW: Händel, I like you, but, as Nicolai and my son tell us, only in arrangements for military musicians. That's me defunding opera and theatre right here. Must save money! And why the hell would I need yet another palace? One as a London residence, one for summer and autumn for hunting, that's it. All the others get closed or sold or rented. Now, what's this I hear about tall brave Highlanders?

From:

cahn

Händel, I like you, but, as Nicolai and my son tell us, only in arrangements for military musicians.

Oh nooooo! I am now noping right out of this AU :)