![[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*
no subject
Date: 2023-10-22 02:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-10-22 05:30 am (UTC)I like how over 4 years later, he's still hearing about this "the Great" family!
But you'd have to restrain yourself from making everything about Frederick the Great.
:D
Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-22 09:01 am (UTC)Now, previously I had assumed Charles either took a lot of credits or raised taxes on his lonesome, never mind legalities. But no. Also, I was stunned to discover that Charles actually managed to make the state solvent and get out of the red and into the black in the state household without calling Parliament and raising taxes once. How did he, or rather his financial advisor and Lord Treasurer Weston, accomplish this marvel? Mainly by rediscovering a lot of medieval laws. These included the one featuring in every Robin Hood story, i.e. you weren‘t allowed to hunt in royal forests (unless you paid a fine). And then there was the fact that under James, knighthoods and other titles had been sold like candy (mostly by Buckingham), remember? Well, Weston found a medieval law from Edward III‘s time that said that knights not attending the coronation of a new king and personally swearing loyalty to their new liege could be fined. Not only were most of these new knights from all over the country but there had actually been plague hitting London at the time of Charles‘ coronation, so it really had not been well attended. So now the royal treasury presented the bill. And then there were the royal lands, of which Charles sold quite a lot. Like I said, the most amazing thing is that he managed to get enough money out of all this to not only finance his court (and growing painting collection) but his entire administration for eleven years.
(Ending the war with the Spanish and the trade war with the French which Buckingham had started helped, too.)
(But then he fucked up this pleasing situation by totally misjudging Scotland in his attempt to anglisize its church services for good. Charles had been born in Scotland, of course, but he had only lived there for three years, so to all intents and purposes, he was English, and as opposed to his father completely misjudged the Scots and how far he could go there. Cue expensive war!)
Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-22 09:17 am (UTC)Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-22 09:24 am (UTC)Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-22 09:33 am (UTC)Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-22 11:00 am (UTC)Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-22 11:06 am (UTC)Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-22 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-10-23 03:14 am (UTC)(I laughed. Then I laughed again at "Inte Grate." D thought it was awesome :PPPPPP )
Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-26 06:51 pm (UTC)And yeah, points for creativity.
no subject
Date: 2023-10-26 11:43 pm (UTC)Maria Theresa needs a "Great" by her nameRe: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-26 11:43 pm (UTC)That... is diabolical!
Well, Weston found a medieval law from Edward III‘s time that said that knights not attending the coronation of a new king and personally swearing loyalty to their new liege could be fined.
Heeeee. Okay, I find this one hilarious. "You wanted to pay to be a knight, did you? Well, you'll just have to pay AGAIN!"
Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-26 11:43 pm (UTC)Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-27 05:51 am (UTC)One of the earliest things the Long Parliament did was to shut all those financial loopholes down, though not to spare the knights but to make Charles and future royals entirely dependent on them. I bet before those eleven years of personal rule, most people in the kingdom(s) who weren't lawyers specializing in old laws wouldn't even have been aware of the existence of said medieval laws, including Charles!
ETA: And of course you know how Charles II. who did not have that loophole anymore solved his financial problem - by making the secret treaty with Louis XIV promising to convert to Catholicism in exchange for cash (and fulfilling it by converting five minutes before he died).
James II: I don't need no stinking loopholes and I am a true son of the Church! I just need obedient subjects! Dad was right, just too nice!
Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-27 05:56 am (UTC)Stuarts and Scotland
Date: 2023-10-27 06:29 am (UTC)Mary, Queen of Scots: I left the country as a toddler, was raised in France and came back basically a contintal Catholic Princess in the midst of the Scottish Reformation. The majority of my nobles and much of the commoners kept rebelling against me, and after the death of my no good husband Darnley, they openly called me a murderous whore. Only when Elizabeth executed me two decades later did the Scots suddenly discover they loved me and were indignant on my behalf, though my son was not. Thanks, I guess?
James I and VI: Born and bred a Scot, no one can deny it, and I maintained my strong accent till my dying day. Also, when I left Scotland after Elizabeth's death to take over the English neighbourhood, I promised my Scottish subjects I would be back soon, and would not neglect them. This wasn't exactly the truth. In fact, I only returned once, many, many years later, and it wasn't a long visit. Now, there were good reasons, not the least of which was that my English subjects were absolutely paranoid about my Scottish ones, but nonetheless, I wasn't exactly homesick, and my faraway ordered reforms for Scotland did try to make it more like England, though never to the degree my unfortuante son tried. And of course the whole "King of Great Britain" concept was my idea, even though no one liked it, other than me. Well, given my childhood and youth consisted of abusive bigotted dickheads trying to beat me into their image, feel free to speculate I did not have the fondest memories of ye olde country.
Charles I: I left as a toddler - hi, Grandma! -, and did not show up to be crowned in Scotland for over a decade after I was crowned in England. I did not get the Scots at all, which I proved every time we clashed. Cue two lost Bishops Wars, which forced me to recall Parliament after eleven years, and we all know how that ended up. My belated attempt to switch from solving my Scottish problem via my English subjects to solving my English problem via my Scottish subjects did not work out, either, as the Scottish Covenanters saw the English Junto (yes, Junto, not Junta, and yes, they were called that) as their natural allies and forgot all about hating the English when they could blackmail their King instead. By the time they rediscovered hating the English, it waws too late for me.
Charles II: So here I am in The Hague, a very young man who just learned his father has been executed. Now, the Scots actually proclaimed me as Charles II upon learning of Dad's death, much to Cromwell's disgruntlement, so my advisor Hyde points out that the Scots were who I had to come to terms with if there was any chance of winning the still ongoing Civil War. The idea was to go to Scotland, get crowned there, and then, backed up by Scots, cross the border into England. (High, grandnephew Charlie!) Well, the coronation thing happened. After they made me sign any number of ridiculous terms they and I damn well knew NO King of England could ever follow through with, such as forcing the entirety of England to become Presbyterians. But they were content with this? No. They even made me sign a declaration saying I was ashamed of my executed father and Catholic mother. Look, I'm a cynic in the making and a life long pragmatist and survival expert. But that, months after Dad's execution, was just gratitiously cruel, and my sympathy for Scotland and the Scots sank below zero at this point. So no. I never did like that wretched country, and you bet I stayed away after the Restoration.
James II: Charles made me Lord High Commissioner of Scotland for a while. Luzula would know better whether or not I did a good job there, but when I became King, there was promptly another Scottish uprising, by the Duke of Argyll who coordinated his rebellion with that of my nephew Jemmy of Monmouth. Naturally I crushed both and had them executed. I then followed my policy of freedom of religion. For Roman Catholics, that is, not for Scottish Presbyterians. Scotland reacted predictably. But when I was deposed by my daughters and living in exile in France, I seem to have started my and my descendants careers as icons of Scottish liberty!
=> History is bonkers
no subject
Date: 2023-10-27 06:44 am (UTC)Maria Theresa does, but I think the "Great" criteria is that you need to have expanded your territory by war. Which she didn't. Her Empire was expanded during her rule, but via the first Partition of Poland, not by a war of conquest.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.
no subject
Date: 2023-10-28 05:15 pm (UTC)Ugh! Not a fan :P
Re: Money, Money, Money
Date: 2023-10-28 05:20 pm (UTC)One of the earliest things the Long Parliament did was to shut all those financial loopholes down, though not to spare the knights but to make Charles and future royals entirely dependent on them.
I imagine also they were annoyed at Charles having loopholes! (I mean, not that that would have been the main reason at all, but I'm sure it didn't help... :) )
And of course you know how Charles II. who did not have that loophole anymore solved his financial problem - by making the secret treaty with Louis XIV promising to convert to Catholicism in exchange for cash (and fulfilling it by converting five minutes before he died).
Oh, right! You of course did tell me that but I forgot, thank you for the reminder!
Re: Stuarts and Scotland
Date: 2023-10-28 05:37 pm (UTC)Only when Elizabeth executed me two decades later did the Scots suddenly discover they loved me and were indignant on my behalf, though my son was not. Thanks, I guess?
I... guess... it's easier to be sympathetic to a dead woman and not an inconveniently alive one?
My belated attempt to switch from solving my Scottish problem via my English subjects to solving my English problem via my Scottish subjects did not work out, either, as the Scottish Covenanters saw the English Junto (yes, Junto, not Junta, and yes, they were called that) as their natural allies and forgot all about hating the English when they could blackmail their King instead.
Heh. Charles I really did make a lot of problems for himself, didn't he?
They even made me sign a declaration saying I was ashamed of my executed father and Catholic mother.
Aw, yeah, that's a bit much :(
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!)
no subject
Date: 2023-10-28 11:18 pm (UTC)Joseph, of course, was like: "Look! More territory to reform! I will visit it on my travels and take extensive notes."
There was also the prestige loss of MT having to give up territories in Italy in the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, at the same time as confirming her loss of Silesia. The War of the Austrian Succession was a major victory in many ways for MT, compared to the expectation of "lose everything", but also a significant loss compared to what the Habsburgs had controlled before 1740.
no subject
Date: 2023-10-28 11:19 pm (UTC)