cahn

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

Mes amies, it seems I providede the lowdown on the early stuarts just in time, for lo and behold, there's a new movie or series coming out (I couldn't tell from the advertisement which one), titled "Mary and George", which goes all in with the Favorite treatment of power games, cursing, sex and snark. The George of the title is young Buckingham (as in the fave of James and Charles, not any of the other Buckinghams). The Mary is his mother, whom the podcasters never mentioned but wiki tells me was a big influence, as in, despite the Villiers clan not being rich at all pre his rise she got him the courtier education which helped making him such a hit with James, is said to have arranged his marriage with a rich heiress by tricking said heiress into spending the night under the same roof as George (so she had to marry him to salvage her reputation), and being the source for the home remedies Buckingham provided James with in the week before his death.

Googling also tells me that this film/series is based on a book called "The King's Assassin", in which, you guessed it, the author takes the accusation Essex & the Parliamentarians came up with to justify impeaching Buckingham (because Buckingham sucking at being a Lord Admiral and at foreign policies in general despite what he and Charles think is actually not a traitorous action, and back then Parliament hadn't hit yet on the Bill of Attainder idea they used with Wentworth), i.e. that Buckingham poisoned James. Now, the trailer gives me the impression that they'll use both the Robert Carr downfall (that's the previous fave, Frances' second husband whom she divorced Essex for with James help) downfall and the murder case there (reminder: Frances and Carr being accused and condemned for murdering Robert Carr's former advisor, and Frances admitted to it, but James commuted their sentences from death to imprisonment) which was the start of Buckingham's career as James' fave and James' death which will be by poison in this version, but probably not Buckingham's own death years later though wiki says Mary actually outlived him, and give Mary the Livia (from I, Claudius treatment as making her the mastermind villainess who plots her son's rise to power and removes all the obstacles in between, only with added orgies (one of the clips shows King James with not one but several pretty man having an orgy) and leaving nothing to the imagination. It could be fun - The Favourite is a hilarious black comedy though manages to be feel tragic in the end re: how each of the three female main characters end up, and NOT because any of them die - , and Julianne Moore looks like she's having a fabulous time, plus the young Buckingham (Nicholas Galitzine) does look appropriate hot for a character whom even his enemies describe as the 17th century equivalent of sex on legs.

But precisely because this era and these people are not osmosed by pop culture so far (as opposed to the thousands of Tudor fictionalisations), I feel a bit frustrated that it will be introduced to the public at large this way. (Well, okay, Buckingham is already a regular in most adaptions of The Three Musketeers, but that's in his later life during Charles' reign, shows him solely via the "is involved with Queen Anne/Wants to relieve siege of La Rochelle and hence Richelieu orders Milady to get rid of him" angle, and doesn't include his bisexuality, nor his rise to power, nor James I and VI's gayness.) Because I can't believe I'm saying this, since I used to strongly dislike James in my younger days (because of his witch hunting encouragement), but presenting him as the passive plaything of his favourites led by his prick is unfair. Both the podcasts point out that while of course the favourites were influential, they didn't set political trends, James did, his policies were consistent no matter whom he was currently faovuring, and also, he was right in considering going back to war with Spain a stupid idea which would not benefit England at all (as Charles and Buckingham found out).

As to whether or not Buckingham (or his mother?) would/could have killed James: I am of course influenced by the podcasters, but sure, you can say he had motive (he had just successfully bonded with Charles, thus ensuring his position as the King's Favourite would not die with James, plus because he had just reinvented himself as a champion of the Protestant cause and the cause of Elizabethan cosplay, "let's go to war with Spain, fuck yeah!", and he might have assumed even with Parliament (cheering on Charles and Buckingham for the first and last time in either's lives) being all pro war, James would still not go for it, and he had opportunity. But there's also the fact this accusation came from his enemies who were desperate for an accusation that would make it impossible for Charles to either protect Buckingham from it by saying he gave the orders (which he did with all the others) or to commute his sentence later (again, impossible in the case of regicide since that would have made Charles look guilty), and James' doctors despite pressure from these guys did not support it and stuck to their original complaint, that they thought these were quack remedies and not helpful, but also not lethal. And you can just as well question the whole "motive" theory - having just secured himself Charles' friendship and thus safety for his future, would Buckingham have risked it by doing the one thing Charles would and could not have forgiven him for, regicide? After having seen how easily murders could come to light even if arranged by the King's faves, as in the Robert and Frances Carr case?

And that's discounting Buckingham might actually have cared for James. I mean, I don't think he was as crazy about James as James was about him, and if James had not been King, I doubt young George would have hit on him to begin with. But that doesn't mean he didn't feel any affection for James at all, and that all the loving letters still existing were fakes. James wasn't an idiot. One reason why he had a fallout with Robert Carr long before any murder accusations raised their heads was because Carr had made it increasingly clear he wasn't into James as a lover anymore. And Buckingham was James' favourite for years and years. I think James would have noticed if it had been all power hungry calculation. And wasn't like there was a lack of competition, i.e. other pretty young men pushed at him. But he stuck to Buckingham. In conclusion, I'm team "Buckingham was a lousy politician, and favouring him as much as they did means James and then Charles inadvertendly contributed to the path towards Revolution, because seeing Buckingham accumulate so much wealth and fucking things up without ever suffering for it pissed off so many people through the ranks, but no, he wasn't a murderer".

(I'll still see the movie/series, of course.) (And hope they include Essex shouting "I'm not impotent!" at everyone.)

From:

cahn

is said to have arranged his marriage with a rich heiress by tricking said heiress into spending the night under the same roof as George (so she had to marry him to salvage her reputation)

omg!

and being the source for the home remedies Buckingham provided James with in the week before his death.

okay, I lol'ed at this :)

But precisely because this era and these people are not osmosed by pop culture so far (as opposed to the thousands of Tudor fictionalisations), I feel a bit frustrated that it will be introduced to the public at large this way.

Yeah, that's super fair. And, I mean, yes to Buckingham, but, like, you realize that I was sufficiently confused that I assumed Three Musketeers Buckingham was not James' Buckingham until you explicitly said so!

Because I can't believe I'm saying this, since I used to strongly dislike James in my younger days (because of his witch hunting encouragement), but presenting him as the passive plaything of his favourites led by his prick is unfair.

*nods*
I also do wonder if part of this is because the one thing that the average American will know about James I is that he sponsored the King James Version of the Bible.

But that doesn't mean he didn't feel any affection for James at all, and that all the loving letters still existing were fakes. James wasn't an idiot.

*nods* Like you say, there's a distinct difference between "I might not have worked nearly as hard to be close to that person if they hadn't been rich" (or whatever) and "I don't actually feel any affection for that person."

Heh, I will probably not see it, but please report back when you do!

(And hope they include Essex shouting "I'm not impotent!" at everyone.)

YES.