I was at boarding school in Scotland, 1956-1960. Pupils sometimes yelled, "Charlie will come again!" See here. One reply was, "Aye, Charlie Chaplin!"
In Scotland, Sheila and I heard an anti-Jacobite song that included the lines:
"You're about to die for a Stuart king
"And a cause that isnae yours...
"Now Chairlie's bonny and Chairlie's braw
"But look how Chairlie runs awa'..."
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
It does make me wonder what might have happened if James II and VII had been as politically astute and realistic as his brother Charles II. What might have happened if James II had not pressed his formal powers and rights too strongly, in ways that eventually brought about his deposition?
Given the anti Catholic bigotry of those times, a Catholic dynasty reigning in Great Britain might well have felt compelled to yield more and more power to parliament.
Sean
James II was a political imbecile. He kept advising Charles to adopt arbitrary measures, and Charles always replied: "James, James, I have no wish to go upon my travels again."
Charles II was smart -- far and away the brightest of his dynasty. He was just as much a Catholic by conviction as James, for example, but stayed an Anglican until he was sure he was dying, then converted on his deathbed.
He also didn't -fight- Parliament, he -subverted- it, by packing it with his "placemen" and supporters. He was extremely adroit at diplomatic betrayal, for example -- he took subsidies from Spain and Louis XIV, and then knifed them in the back at exactly the opportune moment.
At the time he died -- unexpectedly and rather young -- he was firmly in power, the Whigs were exiled to Holland, Parliament was doing what he told it to, the army was loyal, the Anglican church was preaching unconditional submission, British commerce and colonial ventures were flourishing, and he wasn't even broke, a miracle for a Stuart.
James blew it all in four miserable years by refusing to leave the religious settlement alone. It was the one issue that could unseat him, and he just wouldn't leave it alone.
James also advised Charles to vary the path of his daily walk, to make things more difficult for assassins. Charles replied: "James, James, there is no man in England who will kill -me- to make -you- King."
Charles II's reign was devoted to keeping his crown on his head and his head on his shoulders.
True, but that involved ruling reasonably well and not getting involved in any disasters. And Charles was a basically fairly good man; he ordered the absolute minimum of executions, for instance. When he heard how governor Berkeley had dealt with Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia he exclaimed: “That old fool has killed more men in that naked country than I did here for the murder of my father!”
And dismissed Berkeley, I might add.
He also.pitched in immediately and effectively during the Great Fire of London and its aftermath.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree with your assessment of both Charles II and James II. The latter had many good qualities and stirling (!) virtues, except he lacked his brother's wiliness and political shrewdness.
The Whigs REALLY and grossly overplayed their hand during the Popish Plot mania of 1678-81. And were undone by their fanaticism, greed, lust for power, and sheer unwillingness to accept any compromise with Charles II. The reaction this eventually provoked played into the King's hands.
It was impossible for Charles II to pardon the regicides who had condemned his father to death--but, as you said, only the minimum number possible were executed. I recall as well how, years after the Restoration, he went out of his way to meet Oliver Cromwell's son Henry. And was reassuringly affable, soothing, and forgiving.
Oh, yes, Charles II was a VERY likable as well as an able king.
Sean
Post a Comment