See The Morning After.
I have quoted the Shakespearean parody:
"'Uneasy hies tha head what caeres for clowns.'" (p. 107)
- twice before. See here.
The full reference for the original line is:
Henry IV, Part 2: Act 3, scene 1, line 31. (See here.)
regicide;
terror;
tyranny;
centuries of further regicides and tyrannies;
meanwhile, Charles II corrupted by years of exile;
the Restoration of the English monarchy;
Charles' merry but ruinous reign;
war against the Dutch;
the Dutch Raid on the Medway with a broom at the masthead;
the overthrow of the Stuarts.
Rupert will prevent all this in his timeline although, of course, neither he nor anyone else can prevent it in those timelines where it does occur. Regicide etc can be prevented only in timelines where they are prevented.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
One thing I remember hesitating about this dismal catalog was wondering exactly how Charles II had been "corrupted" by years of exile.
I think mention was also made of how the regicide, terror, tyranny, etc., springing from what happened in England led to even worse similar events happening in other countries. Which made me think of the tyranny of Lenin in Russia and the savage massacre of the Russian royal family on July 18 and 19, 1918.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There was also the beheading of a Louis in France.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
True! And Louis XVI was by no means a tyrant. A decent, kindly, well meaning man who really did desire the well being of France
Ad astra! Sean
Actually, Poul isn't really fair to Charles II. The wars with the Dutch ended more or less in England's favor -- she acquired New York, among other prizes -- and the English mercantile marine grew rapidly, partly at Dutch expense; the Dutch were successfully excluded from the carrying trade with the English colonies which they'd acquired during the Civil War and Interregnum.
And far from the foundations of the throne being "rotted", by the time Charles died (unexpectedly and rather young) the Crown was in a much stronger position than it had ever been during the Stuart dynasty.
The government was solvent, the country was at peace and quite prosperous, the Navy was strong, the army was small but quite efficient, and English trade and colonization were proceeding apace abroad.
Parliament was pro-Charles, the Anglican church was united in preaching obedience to the Crown, and the Whig opposition had been exiled, silenced or bought off.
Granted, James blew it all by trying to question the religious settlement, but that wasn't Charles' fault. James was a political idiot and if he'd just kept his mouth shut and practiced Catholicism in private, he'd have died old and handed his throne on to his son without much trouble.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And your comments merely confirms the doubts I had about Charles II being "corrupted" by years of exile. And I agree he was much more able than many historians, "put off" by his mistresses and crypto-Catholicism, had been willing to concede.
I also agree James II was a blunderer in politics. All he had to do was reign as you suggested and he would have died old on the throne and been succeeded by his son.
Ad astra! Sean
Charles was just as Catholic as James in terms of his actual beliefs, almost certainly -- he converted and was confessed on his deathbed.
But he was smart enough to realize that the country wouldn't tolerate him being -openly- Catholic, particularly if it looked as if he was trying to undo the religious settlement.
James transparently -did- try to undo the religious settlement, and it scuppered him. It was the only thing that could have made the average Anglican unwilling to support the Crown when William of Orange landed.
James' problem was that he couldn't imagine that the Protestants really believed what they said they believed.
Charles knew they did.
A lot of people are blind that way -- they can't imagine that "obviously" wrong beliefs are sincerely held.
Note that by the 17th century, Protestantism and national independence had become deeply linked in the English consciousness.
That inability to understand that someone else genuinely holds a different belief is one of the biggest barriers to mutual comprehension. Street Evangelicals address us on the assumption that their belief is true and that they do not have to present any reasons or evidence for it. One of my fellow postgrad Philosophy students became a Presbyterian minister. When I remarked that there are Christians with whom dialogue is impossible, he replied, "I know."
Post a Comment