Sunday, 5 March 2017

The Lorings Of Tilford


Poul Anderson's Time Patrol series connects with Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes series;

SM Stirling's Emberverse series connects with Doyle's Sir Nigel and The White Company;

Prince Rupert of the Rhine stars in Anderson's A Midsummer Tempest and is mentioned in Emberverse Vol II;

the Lorings were at Tilford before Woburn Abbey was built;

for a while, the land passed through the female line before marriage to a distant cousin restored the surname (neat!);

Lorings fought at Crecy and Agincourt and against the Spanish Armada;

one died fighting under Rupert at Marston Moor;

his wife defended Tilford against the Roundheads;

Charles II made the Lorings baronets;

some died abroad from Delhi to the Crimea;

Nigel's grandfather was killed by German shells in 1914;

his father was killed in action in Malaya in the 1950s.

Wow. But did any of them ever question the value of fighting and killing for king and country? This is an alternative history that celebrates history.

Addendum: Late last night, I merely summarized the Loring family history. To bring the story up to date, we should add that the contemporary Sir Nigel Loring helped Charles III to resettle mainland Britain after the Change but is now at odds with Charles because the latter will not restore Parliament.


Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I see nothing wrong in the Lorings of Tilford being so determinedly loyal to King and Country. Just as I see nothing wrong in Americans having similar feelings for the US. And that does not mean people who think that way are being blind to the faults of the UK, US, or Terran Empire.

It is a truism that some countries or societies ARE better than others. For all the faults of the nations comprising the West, its society is still better than the kind of society we see in Islam, for example. And the Terran Empire, decadent or not, was still far better than the Merseian Roidhunate.


Paul Shackley said...

It is tragic that there are good men on both sides in any conflict. Without classifying myself as one on the "good men" (!), my response to the Troubles in Northern Ireland would be not to assassinate IRA or UDA leaders but to campaign against the sectarian social divisions that had been institutionalized by the Partition.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Of cause I agree with the example you gave and the need to resolve, reform, or ameliorate the social divisions causing the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The difficulty is that when actual HARM to persons or property is done the leaders of the state, any state, HAS to act, else ORDER is likely to break down, even to collapse. Recall how Commissioner Desai, conciliatory and moderate tho he was in his treatment of Aeneas in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN, still had to take decisive actions against terrorist acts. Later, he was willing to grant amnesty for PAST acts, but warned he would crack down HARD on any future acts.

That much said, I do agree that sometimes the particular methods chosen for preserving order has to be tailored to fit the local situation. And that sometimes tactics can be poorly chosen or thought out.

Commenting now on your "Addendum." Yes, Sir Nigel came to fall out with Stirling's Charles III because the latter was unwilling to call a new Parliament. I would point out that the king had an UNDERSTANDABLE point of view and was not merely being capricious. Charles III had shown himself an able and imaginative ruler who had governed well. I can understand his reluctance to summon a new parliament if it meant the Crown again rubber stamping the will of a PM leading temporarily dominant factions, for the King's owe ideas and views in public matters being ignored and discounted, to him being forced to accept ideas and policies he might well think are bad.

In fact, I recall Sir Nigel having some sympathy for this point of view. And I think he was inclined to trying to work out a solution where the Sovereign could take a more "active" role in politics alongside an equally active Parliament.

One I idea I've thought of was that instead of an absolute veto of a proposed law of Parliament which is now very, very seldom used, the Crown could have a "weaker" veto. That is, the constitution could be adjusted to allowing Parliament to reverse a veto if two thirds of the House of Commons voted to do so.

(In the US, it needs a two thirds vote of both Houses of Congress to reverse a Presidential veto. But I'm aware of the Lords being now weaker than the Commons.)

My point is, the King or Queen is now allowed an opportunity to give his own opinion, and in such a way that it has to be taken seriously, without hysterics about a "constitutional crisis."