When Hadding and his queen, Ragnhild, talk on the shore, the wind is as bleak as their talk. (p. 226)
Later, she is in labour:
"A while past Yule, on a night when wind wailed and sleet hissed around the hall..." (p. 231)
All too predictably, Ragnhild dies and her third child is still-born.
That is an appropriate place to stop because I am closing down for the night. Chapter XXVII begins a new story:
"A man hight Tosti. He it was who broke the long peace." (p. 232)
He can do it tomorrow.
12 comments:
It's good work to remind people that childbirth was much more dangerous in the old days, and that rank gave you no advantage.
Also why kings wanted lots of children; they wanted to be sure of an heir, in an environment of high infant mortality. Also royals fostered their children with important families, which created a bond, and royal marriages were important to diplomacy.
It was precisely desire for an heir that drove Henry VIII to break with Rome, for example, an action whose consequences would reverberate down the centuries -- they're still important.
And it was considered a mark of great kindness that Charles II didn't find some excuse to 'put aside' his wife, Catherine of Braganza, when she didn't have children and it was obviously not Charles' fault, since he sired whole litters of bastards by his mistresses.
Kaor, Paul er alii!
A few days ago, I was on a walk, and I stopped at a little free library, a wooden box, several feet above the ground, containing books; people can hel0 themselves, or leave books for others. I looked, and saw a hardcover copy of Poul Anderson’s THE WINTER OF THE WORLD. I didn’t take it, or anything, but I hope that someone picks it up and enjoys it.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Nicholas!
Mr. Stirling: Yes, down to the latter part of the 19th century, childbirth was often dangerous to the mothers--to say nothing of high infant mortality.
Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Oliver Cromwell, are my three least favorite characters from British history. No Catholic can like Henry, altho we should pray for his soul.
And Charles II was vastly more likable and humane a man! I have read of how he flatly refused all hints or suggestions of finding some excuse for "setting aside" Catherine of Braganza.
Nicholas: We have those "free libraries" ourselves in MA. In fact, in either 2020 or 2021 I left an extra copy I had of Anderson's GENESIS in it. The next time I checked it, the book was gone. I hope someone enjoyed it, and THE WINTER OF THE WORLD.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: it's arguable that Charles II was excessively kind -- without a legitimate son, his heir was James, and Charles knew James was a political incompetent.
James once advised Charles to use troops to dismiss a parliament, and Charles replied: "James, James, I have no wish to go upon my travels again."
When Charles died, he left James a kingdom that was prosperous and quiet, with the Whig opposition in exile, Parliament stuffed with Stuart loyalists, a Church preaching "passive obedience", a full treasury (a miracle for the time) and a loyal army.
James blew it and doomed the dynasty by trying to reconvert England to Catholicism.
Charles was just as pro-Catholic as James in terms of personal conviction, but he had the good sense to remain an ostensible Anglican until he was dying, whereupon he 'converted' on his deathbed, made his confession and was absolved.
James was already openly Catholic, and probably could have gotten away with that if he'd kept it quiet and personal, but he tried to pressure people into conversion and threatened the Anglican land settlement.
This is probably the only thing he could have done that would guarantee his overthrow and the doom of the Stuart dynasty.
Charles was more resistant than most men to the temptation of wishful thinking: James wasn't, and wrecked himself trying to do in a few years something that could only have been accomplished by decades of slow patient effort.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Actually, I don't disagree with you about James II's political incompetence. One solution I've thought of might have been for Parliament, during the disgraceful Popish Plot mania of 1678-81, agreeing to proposals from Charles II to impose strict limitations on what James could do after his brother died, AS LONG as the Duke of York became king.
Yes, that was simply an effort by Charles II to outwit his enemy the Earl of Shaftesbury, to show he was being far more reasonable and conciliatory than the Whigs. The smart thing for Shaftesbury and his cronies in Parliament to have done would be to accept that, instead of trying to remove James from the succession.
Ad astra! Sean
To this day, the future Charles III cannot marry a Catholic and agree to have their children raised as Catholics.
At the time, there was good reason for that prohibiltion.
Henry VIII's confiscation of the Church's landed property and then his sales and gifts of it(*) gave the entire English ruling class a vested interest in preventing a Catholic restoration.
They'd put up with almost anything from a king except that.
(*) Henry was a spendthrift, unlike his penny-pinching father or thrifty daughter; he spent like drunken sailor on a spree. The Church's lands, a substantial share of England's most basic income-producing asset, ran through his fingers like water.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Not so much a GOOD reason for that kind of anti-Catholicism. Rather it was SELF serving. I do agree the tyrant Henry VIII was a wildly spendthrift profligate.
Btw, those of the English aristocracy and gentry who took part in the plunder of the Church did not have to fear the loss of their ill gotten gains (setting aside complications like those who had gained former monastic lands in good faith by 1553). After Queen Mary's accession in 1553, popes like Julius III and Paul IV made the choice NOT to demand either restoration of the stolen lands or demand compensation for them.* For the Church it was far more important to bring about a reconciliation with England and end the schism.
Paul: And that prohibition still irritates some British Catholics. One I used to know online commented the Prince of Wales could marry a Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu, and there would be no problems. But, try doing that with a Catholic lady and they would get treated like disgustingly depraved criminals and driven out of the country!
Ad astra! Sean
*Queen Mary did insist on returning to the Church those monastic lands still held by the Crown. Which was honorable of her!
Sean: it's a good thing that Henry was a spendthrift. If he'd -kept- the bulk of the Church lands, the monarchy would have had a massive source of income not voted for by Parliament.
Sean: yes, the Popes made tactical accommodations on that issue. But nobody believed they really meant it, or would keep to it if they had a position of power again.
Note that England had been fundamentally anticlerical for a long time; hence the Lollards and Wycliffe.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Respectfully, I disagree. My reading of this period, based on Philip Hughes' three volume THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND (massively detailed), Eamon Duffy's THE STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS, and the more theologically oriented EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE AND THE REFORMATION (by Francis Clark), convinces me you are mistaken here. The popes WERE sincere in refusing to demand restoration of the stolen lands or compensation for the thefts. What they wanted was repentance by the thieves, and an end to the schism.
And the works I listed above also convinces me that "anti-clericalism" has been exaggerated. It existed but not to the extreme degree some insist was the case.
Another point I've been forgetting to make is that I agree that it would have taken patient decades of hard, cautious work by James II and his son, who should have become James III, to chip away at the Penal Laws and Test Acts. It was not until the Quebec Act of the early 1770's that any Catholics under British rule got any relief. That Statute exempted the Catholic French Canadians from the most oppressive of the Penal Laws.* But, since that contradicted and made nonsense of those laws, the way was finally open to the far too slow dismantling of those laws, starting with the Catholic Relief Act of 1778.
Ad astra! Sean
*Incidentally, the Quebec Act was a major factor in reconciling Canada to British rule, and a major reason why French Canadians refused to side with the rebels in the US War of Independence.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I've been forgetting to respond to the you made on May 10, at 18.03, about it being fortunate Henry VIII was a spendthrift. While I agree it's good that the Executive, in whatever form it takes in whatever country, should get consent from a legislative body for the taxes and funds it uses, it was more complicated than that in England. For centuries the kings were expected to run the gov't and defray its costs from Crown lands and estates. In fact, one argument used by Henry VIII to overcoming resistance by some to him seizing monastic lands was that doing so would mean Parliament would not have to grant him supplies (taxes). As you said, his profligacy prevented the Crown from gaining a truly massive source of income independent of Parliament.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment