“video et taceo” (“I see but say nothing”) #OnBrino #HMQE2 #EUMilitaryUnification#RumpParliament #EnglishCivilWar #GloriousRevolution #CondemnedtoRepeat #AsFarcethenTragedy #ShallIRevealMyDarkerPurposes Understanding Brexit, Prince Rupert Speaks. #ElectedPredestination #TheCalvinistAngle #TheChosen #The Holy Roman Empire #Diocletian.

Selection_481

https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/the-english-revolution–6

Elizabeth I of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Elizabeth I)

Jump to navigationJump to search

Elizabeth I
Darnley stage 3.jpg

The “Darnley Portrait” of Elizabeth I (c. 1575)
Queen of England and Ireland

Reign 17 November 1558 –
24 March 1603
Coronation 15 January 1559
Predecessors Mary I and Philip
Successor James I
Born 7 September 1533
Palace of PlacentiaGreenwichEngland
Died 24 March 1603 (aged 69)
Richmond PalaceSurrey, England
Burial 28 April 1603

House Tudor
Father Henry VIII of England
Mother Anne Boleyn
Religion Church of England
Signature Elizabeth I's signature

Elizabeth I (7 September 1533 – 24 March 1603)[1] was Queen of England and Ireland from 17 November 1558 until her death on 24 March 1603. Sometimes called the Virgin QueenGloriana or Good Queen Bess, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor.

Elizabeth was the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, his second wife, who was executed two-and-a-half years after Elizabeth’s birth. Anne’s marriage to Henry VIII was annulled, and Elizabeth was declared illegitimate. Her half-brother, Edward VI, ruled until his death in 1553, bequeathing the crown to Lady Jane Grey and ignoring the claims of his two half-sisters, Elizabeth and the Roman Catholic Mary, in spite of statute law to the contrary. Edward’s will was set aside and Mary became queen, deposing Lady Jane Grey. During Mary’s reign, Elizabeth was imprisoned for nearly a year on suspicion of supporting Protestant rebels.

In 1558 upon Mary’s death, Elizabeth succeeded her half-sister to the throne and set out to rule by good counsel.[2] She depended heavily on a group of trusted advisers, led by William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley. One of her first actions as queen was the establishment of an English Protestant church, of which she became the Supreme Governor. This Elizabethan Religious Settlement was to evolve into the Church of England. It was expected that Elizabeth would marry and produce an heir; however, despite numerous courtships, she never did. She was eventually succeeded by her first cousin twice removed, James VI of Scotland. She had earlier been responsible for the imprisonment and execution of James’s mother, Mary, Queen of Scots.

In government, Elizabeth was more moderate than her father and half-siblings had been.[3] One of her mottoes was “video et taceo” (“I see but say nothing”).[4]

Personal union and republican phase[edit]

In 1603 James VI and I became the first monarch to rule over England, Scotland, and Ireland together.

Elizabeth I’s death in 1603 ended Tudor rule in England. Since she had no children, she was succeeded by the Scottish monarch James VI, who was the great-grandson of Henry VIII‘s older sister and hence Elizabeth’s first cousin twice removed. James VI ruled in England as James I after what was known as the “Union of the Crowns“. Although England and Scotland were in personal union under one monarch – James I became the first monarch to style himself “King of Great Britain” in 1604[52] – they remained two separate kingdoms. James I’s successor, Charles I, experienced frequent conflicts with the English Parliament related to the issue of royal and parliamentary powers, especially the power to impose taxes. He provoked opposition by ruling without Parliament from 1629 to 1640, unilaterally levying taxes and adopting controversial religious policies (many of which were offensive to the Scottish Presbyterians and the English Puritans). His attempt to enforce Anglicanism led to organised rebellion in Scotland (the “Bishops’ Wars“) and ignited the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. In 1642, the conflict between the King and English Parliament reached its climax and the English Civil War began.[53]

The Civil War culminated in the execution of the king in 1649, the overthrow of the English monarchy, and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England. Charles I’s son, Charles II, was proclaimed King of Great Britain in Scotland, but he was forced to flee abroad after he invaded England and was defeated at the Battle of Worcester. In 1653, Oliver Cromwell, the most prominent military and political leader in the nation, seized power and declared himself Lord Protector (effectively becoming a military dictator, but refusing the title of king). Cromwell ruled until his death in 1658, when he was succeeded by his son Richard. The new Lord Protector had little interest in governing; he soon resigned.[54] The lack of clear leadership led to civil and military unrest, and for a popular desire to restore the monarchy. In 1660, the monarchy was restored and Charles II returned to Britain.[55]

Charles II’s reign was marked by the development of the first modern political parties in England. Charles had no legitimate children, and was due to be succeeded by his Roman Catholic brother, James, Duke of York. A parliamentary effort to exclude James from the line of succession arose; the “Petitioners”, who supported exclusion, became the Whig Party, whereas the “Abhorrers”, who opposed exclusion, became the Tory Party. The Exclusion Bill failed; on several occasions, Charles II dissolved Parliament because he feared that the bill might pass. After the dissolution of the Parliament of 1681, Charles ruled without a Parliament until his death in 1685. When James succeeded Charles, he pursued a policy of offering religious tolerance to Roman Catholics, thereby drawing the ire of many of his Protestant subjects. Many opposed James’s decisions to maintain a large standing army, to appoint Roman Catholics to high political and military offices, and to imprison Church of England clerics who challenged his policies. As a result, a group of Protestants known as the Immortal Seven invited James II’s daughter Mary and her husband William III of Orange to depose the king. William obliged, arriving in England on 5 November 1688 to great public support. Faced with the defection of many of his Protestant officials, James fled the realm and William and Mary (rather than James II’s Catholic son) were declared joint Sovereigns of England, Scotland and Ireland.[56]

James’s overthrow, known as the Glorious Revolution, was one of the most important events in the long evolution of parliamentary power. The Bill of Rights 1689 affirmed parliamentary supremacy, and declared that the English people held certain rights, including the freedom from taxes imposed without parliamentary consent. The Bill of Rights required future monarchs to be Protestants, and provided that, after any children of William and Mary, Mary’s sister Anne would inherit the Crown. Mary died childless in 1694, leaving William as the sole monarch. By 1700, a political crisis arose, as all of Anne’s children had died, leaving her as the only individual left in the line of succession. Parliament was afraid that the former James II or his supporters, known as Jacobites, might attempt to reclaim the throne. Parliament passed the Act of Settlement 1701, which excluded James and his Catholic relations from the succession and made William’s nearest Protestant relations, the family of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, next in line to the throne after his sister-in-law Anne.[57] Soon after the passage of the Act, William III died, leaving the Crown to Anne.

After the 1707 Acts of Union[edit]

England and Scotland were united as Great Britain under Queen Anne in 1707.

After Anne’s accession, the problem of the succession re-emerged. The Scottish Parliament, infuriated that the English Parliament did not consult them on the choice of Sophia’s family as the next heirs, passed the Act of Security 1704, threatening to end the personal union between England and Scotland. The Parliament of England retaliated with the Alien Act 1705, threatening to devastate the Scottish economy by restricting trade. The Scottish and English parliaments negotiated the Acts of Union 1707, under which England and Scotland were united into a single Kingdom of Great Britain, with succession under the rules prescribed by the Act of Settlement.[58]

In 1714, Queen Anne was succeeded by her second cousin, and Sophia’s son, George IElector of Hanover, who consolidated his position by defeating Jacobite rebellions in 1715 and 1719. The new monarch was less active in government than many of his British predecessors, but retained control over his German kingdoms, with which Britain was now in personal union.[59] Power shifted towards George’s ministers, especially to Sir Robert Walpole, who is often considered the first British prime minister, although the title was not then in use.[60] The next monarch, George II, witnessed the final end of the Jacobite threat in 1746, when the Catholic Stuarts were completely defeated. During the long reign of his grandson, George III, Britain’s American colonies were lost, the former colonies having formed the United States of America, but British influence elsewhere in the world continued to grow, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created by the Acts of Union 1800.[61]

The union of Great Britain and Ireland into the United Kingdom occurred in 1801 during the reign of King George III.

From 1811 to 1820, George III suffered a severe bout of what is now believed to be porphyria, an illness rendering him incapable of ruling. His son, the future George IV, ruled in his stead as Prince Regent. During the Regency and his own reign, the power of the monarchy declined, and by the time of his successor, William IV, the monarch was no longer able to effectively interfere with parliamentary power. In 1834, William dismissed the Whig Prime Minister, William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, and appointed a Tory, Sir Robert Peel. In the ensuing elections, however, Peel lost. The king had no choice but to recall Lord Melbourne. During William IV’s reign, the Reform Act 1832, which reformed parliamentary representation, was passed. Together with others passed later in the century, the Act led to an expansion of the electoral franchise and the rise of the House of Commons as the most important branch of Parliament.[62]

The final transition to a constitutional monarchy was made during the long reign of William IV’s successor, Victoria. As a woman, Victoria could not rule Hanover, which only permitted succession in the male line, so the personal union of the United Kingdom and Hanover came to an end. The Victorian era was marked by great cultural change, technological progress, and the establishment of the United Kingdom as one of the world’s foremost powers. In recognition of British rule over India, Victoria was declared Empress of India in 1876. However, her reign was also marked by increased support for the republican movement, due in part to Victoria’s permanent mourning and lengthy period of seclusion following the death of her husband in 1861.[63]

Victoria’s son, Edward VII, became the first monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1901. In 1917, the next monarch, George V, changed “Saxe-Coburg and Gotha” to “Windsor” in response to the anti-German sympathies aroused by the First World War. George V’s reign was marked by the separation of Ireland into Northern Ireland, which remained a part of the United Kingdom, and the Irish Free State, an independent nation, in 1922.[64]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Stuart,_Queen_of_Bohemia

Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Elizabeth Stuart
Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia from NPG.jpg

Elizabeth as Electress Palatine
Electress consort Palatine
Tenure 14 February 1613 – 23 February 1623
Coronation 17 June 1613
Queen consort of Bohemia
Tenure 4 November 1619 – 8 November 1620
Coronation 7 November 1619
Born 19 August 1596
Dunfermline PalaceFifeKingdom of Scotland
Died 13 February 1662 (aged 65)
LondonKingdom of England
Burial 17 February 1662

Spouse Frederick V, Elector Palatine
Issue
House Stuart
Father James VI and I
Mother Anne of Denmark
Scottish and English Royalty
House of Stuart
Coat of Arms of England (1603-1649).svg
James VI and I
Children
Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales
Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia and Electress Palatine
Princess Margaret
Charles I
Prince Robert, Duke of Kintyre
Princess Mary
Princess Sophia

Elizabeth Stuart (19 August 1596 – 13 February 1662) was Electress of the Palatinate and briefly Queen of Bohemia as the wife of Frederick V of the Palatinate. Due to her husband’s reign in Bohemia lasting for just one winter, Elizabeth is often referred to as the “Winter Queen”.

Elizabeth was the second child and eldest daughter of James VI and IKing of ScotlandEngland, and Ireland, and his wife, Anne of Denmark.

With the demise of the last Stuart monarch in 1714, Elizabeth’s grandson succeeded to the British throne as George I, initiating the Hanoverian dynasty.

Early life[edit]

Princess Elizabeth at age 7 by Robert Peake the Elder

Elizabeth was born at Dunfermline PalaceFife, on 19 August 1596 at 2 o’clock in the morning. King James rode to the bedside from Callendar, where he was attending the wedding of the Earl of Orkney.[1] At the time of her birth, her father was King of Scots only. Named in honour of Queen Elizabeth I of England, the young Elizabeth was christened on 28 November 1596 in the Chapel Royal at Holyroodhouse. During her early life in Scotland, Elizabeth was brought up at Linlithgow Palace, “one of the grandest of Scotland’s royal residences”,[2] where she was placed in the care of Lord Livingstone and his wife, Eleanor Hay.[3] A couple of years later the king’s second daughter, Margaret, was placed in their care as well. Elizabeth “did not pay particular attention to this younger sister”, as even at this young age her affections were with her brother, Henry.[4]

Move to England[edit]

When Queen Elizabeth I of England died in 1603, Elizabeth Stuart’s father, James, succeeded as King of England and Ireland. The Countess of Kildare was appointed the princess’s governess. Along with her elder brother, Henry,[5] Elizabeth made the journey south toward England with her mother “in a triumphal progress of perpetual entertainment”.[6] On her father’s birthday, 19 June, Elizabeth danced at Worksop Manor with Robert Cecil’s son.[7]

Elizabeth remained at court for a few weeks, but “there is no evidence that she was present at her parents’ coronation” on 25 July 1603.[8] It seems likely that by this time the royal children already had been removed to Oatlands, an old Tudor hunting lodge near Weybridge. On 19 October 1603 “an order was issued under the privy seal announcing that the King had thought fit to commit the keeping and education of the Lady Elizabeth to the Lord Harrington [sic] and his wife”.[9]

Under the care of Lord Harington at Coombe Abbey, Elizabeth met Anne Dudley, with whom she was to strike up a lifelong friendship.

Gunpowder Plot[edit]

Coombe Abbey painted in 1797 by Maria Johnson

Part of the intent of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was to assassinate Elizabeth’s father and the Protestant aristocracy, kidnap the nine-year-old Elizabeth from Coombe Abbey, and place her on the throne of England – and presumably the thrones of Ireland and Scotland – as a Catholic monarch. The conspirators chose Elizabeth after considering the other available options. Prince Henry, it was believed, would perish alongside his father. Charles was seen as too feeble (having only just learnt to walk) and Mary too young. Elizabeth, on the other hand, had already attended formal functions, and the conspirators knew that “she could fulfil a ceremonial role despite her comparative youth”.[10]

The conspirators aimed to cause an uprising in the Midlands to coincide with the explosion in London and at this point secure Elizabeth’s accession as a puppet queen. She would then be brought up as a Catholic and later married to a Catholic bridegroom.[11] The plot failed when the conspirators were betrayed and Guy Fawkes was caught by the King’s soldiers before he was able to ignite the powder.[12]

Frederick V of the Palatinate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Frederick V
Gerard van Honthorst 006.jpg

Frederick wearing the Crown of Saint Wenceslas, other Bohemian regalia and the collar of the Order of the Garter. On the table is the Cap representing his separate office as Elector Palatine. Painted by Gerrit von Honthorst in 1634.
Elector Palatine
Reign 19 September 1610 – 23 February 1623
Predecessor Frederick IV
Successor Charles I Louis
King of Bohemia (as Frederick I)
Reign 26 August 1619 – 8 November 1620
Coronation 4 November 1619
Predecessor Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor
Successor Ferdinand II
Born 26 August 1596
Deinschwang, near AmbergUpper Palatinate
Died 29 November 1632 (aged 36)
MainzRhineland-Palatinate
Spouse Elizabeth Stuart
Issue
more…
House Palatine Simmern
Father Frederick IV, Elector Palatine
Mother Princess Louise Juliana of Orange-Nassau
Religion Calvinist

Frederick’s coat of arms

Frederick V (German: Friedrich V.; 26 August 1596 – 29 November 1632)[1][2] was the Elector Palatine of the Rhine in the Holy Roman Empire from 1610 to 1623, and reigned as King of Bohemia from 1619 to 1620. He was forced to abdicate both roles, and the brevity of his reign in Bohemia earned him the derisive sobriquet “the Winter King” (CzechZimní král; German: Winterkönig).

Frederick was born at the Jagdschloss Deinschwang (a hunting lodge) near Amberg in the Upper Palatinate. He was the son of Frederick IV and of Louise Juliana of Orange-Nassau, the daughter of William the Silent and Charlotte de Bourbon-Montpensier. An intellectual, a mystic, and a Calvinist, he succeeded his father as Prince-Elector of the Rhenish Palatinate in 1610. He was responsible for the construction of the famous Hortus Palatinus gardens in Heidelberg.

In 1618 the largely Protestant estates of Bohemia rebelled against their Catholic King Ferdinand, triggering the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War. Frederick was asked to assume the crown of Bohemia. He accepted the offer and was crowned on 4 November 1619,[1] as Frederick I (CzechFridrich Falcký; the adjective means “of Oberpfalz” or “of the Upper Palatinate“). The estates chose Frederick since he was the leader of the Protestant Union, a military alliance founded by his father, and hoped for the support of Frederick’s father-in-law, James VI of Scotland and I of England. However, James opposed the takeover of Bohemia from the Habsburgs and Frederick’s allies in the Protestant Union failed to support him militarily by signing the Treaty of Ulm (1620). His brief reign as King of Bohemia ended with his defeat at the Battle of White Mountain on 8 November 1620 – a year and four days after his coronation.

After the battle, the Imperial forces invaded Frederick’s Palatine lands and he had to flee to his uncle Prince Maurice, Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic in 1622. An Imperial edict formally deprived him of the Palatinate in 1623. He lived the rest of his life in exile with his wife and family, mostly at The Hague, and died in Mainz in 1632.

His eldest surviving son Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine, returned to power in 1648 with the end of the war. Another son was Prince Rupert of the Rhine, one of the most colourful figures of his time. His daughter Princess Sophia was eventually named heiress presumptive to the British throne, and is the founder of the Hanoverian line of kings.

1

Prince Rupert of the Rhine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Prince Rupert
Count Palatine of the Rhine
Duke of Cumberland
Earl of Holderness
Rupert of the Rhine.jpg

Prince Rupert portrayed in Roman garb
Born 17 December 1619
PragueBohemia
Died 29 November 1682 (aged 62)
LondonEngland
Burial 6 December 1682

Issue Dudley Bard (1666–1686)
Ruperta Howe (1671–1740)
House Palatinate-Simmern
Father Frederick V, Elector Palatine
Mother Elizabeth Stuart
Religion Calvinist
Occupation Soldier, statesman, privateer, and scientist

Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Duke of CumberlandKGPCFRS (17 December 1619 – 29 November 1682) was a German-British army officeradmiralscientist and colonial governor. He first came to prominence as a Cavalier cavalry commander during the English Civil War.[a]

Youth, 1596–1610[edit]

Map showing the Electoral Palatinate in the Holy Roman Empire. As son and heir of Frederick IV, Elector Palatine (1574–1610), Frederick was the hereditary ruler of the Palatinate.

Frederick was born on 26 August 1596[1][2] at the Jagdschloss Deinschwang (a hunting lodge) near Amberg in the Upper Palatinate. His father, Frederick IV, was the ruler of Electoral Palatinate; his mother was Louise Juliana of Nassau, the daughter of William I of Orange and Charlotte de Bourbon-Monpensier. Frederick was related to almost all of the ruling families of the Holy Roman Empire and a number of diplomats and dignitaries attended his baptism at Amberg on 6 October 1596. The Palatine Simmerns, a cadet branch of the House of Wittelsbach, were noted for their attachment to Calvinism; this was in marked contrast to the other main line of Wittelsbachs, headed by Duke Maximilian, which was deeply devoted to the Roman Catholic Church.

Rupert accompanied his parents to The Hague, where he spent his early years at the Hof te Wassenaer (the Wassenaer Court).[7] Rupert’s mother paid her children little attention even by the standards of the day, apparently preferring her pet monkeys and dogs.[8] Instead, Frederick employed a French couple, Monsieur and Madame de Plessen, as governors to his children. They were raised with a positive attitude towards the Bohemians and the English, and as strict Calvinists.[8]

Early phases, 1642–43[edit]

The painting is of a group of 17th century men and women, under a large tree in front of a stone building. The King, in armour does appear to be listening to this group, mostly consisting of his advisors. Prince Rupert is sat to the right, pointing to a map on the table. A dog sits under the table, whilst a retainer with a horse waits on the left of the scene. Two women dressed in domestic clothes are paused on the right of the scene.

Charles I holding a council of war at Edgecote on the day before the Battle of Edgehill; Rupert, who would command the King’s cavalry during the battle, is seated at the table

Rupert arrived in England following his period of imprisonment and final release from captivity in Germany. In August 1642, Rupert, along with his brother Prince Maurice and a number of professional soldiers, ran the gauntlet across the sea from the United Provinces, and after one initial failure,[31] evaded the pro-Parliamentary navy and landed in Newcastle.[32] Riding across country, he found the King with a tiny army at Leicester Abbey, and was promptly appointed General of Horse, a coveted appointment at the time in European warfare.[27] Rupert set about recruiting and training: with great effort he had put together a partially trained mounted force of 3,000 cavalry by the end of September.[33] Rupert’s reputation continued to rise and, leading a sudden, courageous charge, he routed a Parliamentarian force at Powick Bridge, the first military engagement of the war. Although a small engagement, this had a propaganda value far exceeding the importance of the battle itself, and Rupert became an heroic figure for many young men in the Royalist camp.[34]

In November 1644 Rupert was appointed General of the entire Royalist army, which increased already marked tensions between him and a number of the King’s councillors. By May 1645, and now desperately short of supplies,[51] Rupert captured Leicester, but suffered a severe reversal at the Battle of Naseby a month later.[52] Although Rupert had counselled the King against accepting battle at Naseby, the opinions of Digby had won the day in council: nonetheless, Rupert’s defeat damaged him, rather than Digby, politically.[53] After Naseby, Rupert regarded the Royalist cause as lost, and urged Charles to conclude a peace with Parliament. Charles, still supported by an optimistic Digby, believed he could win the war. By late summer Rupert had become trapped in Bristol by Parliamentary forces; faced with an impossible military situation on the ground, Rupert surrendered Bristol in September 1645, and Charles dismissed him from his service and command.[54]

Rupert responded by making his way across Parliamentary held territory to the King at Newark with Prince Maurice and around a hundred men, fighting their way through smaller enemy units and evading larger ones.[55] King Charles attempted to order Rupert to desist, fearing an armed coup, but Rupert arrived at the royal court anyway.[55] After a difficult meeting, Rupert convinced the King to hold a court-martial over his conduct at Bristol, which exonerated him and Maurice.[56] After a final argument over the fate of his friend Richard Willis, the governor of Newark, who had let Rupert into the royal court to begin with, Rupert resigned and left the service of King Charles, along with most of his best cavalry officers.[57] Earlier interpretations of this event focused on Rupert’s concern for his honour in the face of his initial dismissal by the King;[56] later works have highlighted the practical importance of the courts martial to Rupert’s future employability as a mercenary in Europe, given that Rupert knew that the war by this point was effectively lost.[58] Rupert and Maurice spent the winter of 1645 in Woodstock, examining options for employment under the Venetian Republic, before returning to Oxford and the King in 1646.[59] Rupert and the King were reconciled, the Prince remaining to defend Oxford when the King left for the north. After the ensuing siege and surrender of Oxford in 1646, Parliament banished both Rupert and his brother from England.[60]

The picture centres on Rupert riding a horse, with his pet dog beneath him. Rupert is holding a small pike and firing a pistol, and is clad in armour. On the left is a small representation of the town of Daventry; on the right a depiction of Birmingham, ablaze.

Rupert was a common figure of Parliamentarian propaganda, depicted here, with his dog Boy, pillaging the town of Birmingham

1

Career during the Second English War and Interregnum[edit]

The picture consists of Rupert's head and shoulders, with long flowing hair, looking towards the viewer. He is wearing a large sash across his chest and throat. In this woodcut, he appears tired and world weary.

Rupert at the start of the Interregnum, after William Dobson.

After the end of the First English Civil War Rupert was employed by the young King Louis XIV of France to fight the Spanish during the final years of the Thirty Years’ War.[70] Rupert’s military employment was complicated by his promises to the Holy Roman Emperor that had led to his release from captivity in 1642, and his ongoing commitment to the English Royalist faction in exile.[71] He also became a Knight of the Garter in 1642. Throughout the period Rupert was inconvenienced by his lack of secure income, and his ongoing feuds with other leading members of the Royalist circle.[72]

Service in the Royalist navy[edit]

In 1648, the relatively brief Second English Civil War broke out, and Rupert informed the French King that he would be returning to King Charles’s service.[76] The Parliamentary navy mutinied in favour of the King and sailed for Holland, providing the Royalists with a major fleet for the first time since the start of the civil conflict; Rupert joined the fleet under the command of the Duke of York, who assumed the rank of Lord High Admiral.[77] Rupert argued that the fleet should be used to rescue the King, then being held prisoner on the Isle of Wight, while others advised sailing in support of the fighting in the north. The fleet itself rapidly lost discipline, with many vessels’ crews focussing on seizing local ships and cargoes.[77] This underlined a major problem for the Royalists—the cost of maintaining the new fleet was well beyond their means. Discipline continued to deteriorate and Rupert had to intervene personally several times, including defusing one group of mutinous sailors by suddenly dangling the ringleader over the side of his vessel and threatening to drop him into the sea.[78] Most of the fleet finally switched sides once more, returning to England in late 1648.[79]

Then, following a degree of reconciliation with Charles, Rupert obtained command of the Royalist fleet himself. The intention was to restore Royalist finances by using the remaining vessels of the fleet to conduct a campaign of organised piracy against English shipping across the region.[80] One of the obstacles that this plan faced was the growing strength of the Parliamentary fleet and the presence of Robert Blake, one of the finest admirals of the period, as Rupert’s opponent during the campaign.[81]

A blue and white map showing Rupert's journey from Ireland, across the Atlantic into the Mediterranean, then down the African coastline, across to the West Indies and back to France.

Rupert’s maritime campaign in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas, 1650–1653.

Rupert’s naval campaign formed two phases. The first involved the Royalist fleet sailing from Kinsale in Ireland to Lisbon in Portugal. He took three large ships, HMS Constant Reformation, the Convertine and the Swallow, accompanied by four smaller vessels.[82] Rupert sailed to Lisbon taking several prizes en route,[83] where he received a warm welcome from King John IV, the ruler of recently independent Portugal, who was a supporter of Charles II.[84] Blake arrived shortly afterwards with a Parliamentary fleet, and an armed stand-off ensued.[85] Tensions rose, skirmishes began to break out and King John became increasingly keen for his Royalist guests to leave. In October 1650, Rupert’s fleet, now comprising six vessels, broke out and headed into the Mediterranean.[86] Still pursued by Blake, the Royalist fleet manoeuvred up the Spanish coast, steadily losing vessels to their pursuers.[87]

The second phase of the campaign then began. Rupert crossed back into the Atlantic and, during 1651, cut west to the Azores, capturing vessels as he went. He intended to continue on to the West Indies, where there would be many rich targets.[88] Instead he encountered a late summer storm, leading to the sinking of the Constant Reformation with the loss of 333 lives—almost including Rupert’s brother, Prince Maurice, who only just escaped[89]—and a great deal of captured treasure.[90] Turning back to regroup, repair and re-equip in early 1652, Rupert’s reduced force moored at Cape Blanc, an island near what is now Mauritania.[91] Rupert took the opportunity to explore and acquired a Moorish servant boy, who remained in his service for many years.[92] Rupert also explored 150 miles up the Gambia River, taking two Spanish vessels as prizes and contracting malaria in the process.[93]

Rupert then finally made a successful crossing into the Caribbean, landing first at Saint Lucia, before continuing up the chain of the Antilles to the Virgin Islands. There the fleet was hit by a hurricane, which scattered the ships and sank the Defiance, this time with Prince Maurice on board.[94] It was a while before Maurice’s death became certain, which came as a terrible blow to Rupert. He was forced to return to Europe, arriving in France in March 1653 with a fleet of five ships.[95] It became clear, as the profits and losses of the piracy campaign were calculated, that the venture had not been as profitable as hoped. This complicated tensions in the Royalist court, and Charles II and Rupert eventually split the spoils, after which Rupert, tired and a little bitter, returned to France to recuperate from the long campaign.[96]

In 1654, Rupert appears to have been involved in a plot to assassinate Oliver Cromwell, an event that would then have been followed by a coup, the landing of a small army in Sussex, and the restoration of Charles II. Charles himself is understood to have rejected the assassination proposal, but three conspirators—who implicated Rupert in the plan—were arrested and confessed in London.[97] Rupert’s presence at the royal court continued to be problematic; as in 1643, he was regarded by Edward Hyde (later Earl of Clarendon) and others as a bellicose figure and an obstacle to peace negotiations; in 1655 Rupert left for Germany.[98]

Service in Germany

After his quarrel with the Royalist court in exile, Rupert travelled to Heidelberg to visit his brother Charles Louis, now partially restored as Elector Palatine, where the two had an ambivalent reunion.[99] Charles Louis and Rupert had not been friendly as children and had almost ended up on opposite sides during the Civil War. To make matters worse, Charles Louis had been deprived of half the old Palatinate under the Peace of Westphalia, leaving him badly short of money, although he still remained responsible under the Imperial laws of apanage for providing for his younger brother and had offered the sum of £375 per annum, which Rupert had accepted.[100] Rupert travelled on to Vienna, where he attempted to claim the £15,000 compensation allocated to him under the Peace of Westphalia from the Emperor. Emperor Ferdinand III warmly welcomed him, but was unable to pay such a sum immediately—instead, he would have to pay in installments, to the disadvantage of Rupert.[101]

Over the next twelve months, Rupert was asked by the Duke of Modena in northern Italy to raise an army against the Papal States—having done so, and with the army stationed in the Palatinate, the enterprise collapsed, with the Duke requesting that Rupert invade Spanish held Milan instead.[102] Rupert moved on, having placed his brother Charles Louis in some diplomatic difficulties with Spain.[102] Rupert travelled onwards, continuing to attempt to convince Ferdinand to back Charles II’s efforts to regain his throne.[103]

In 1656 relations between Rupert and Charles Louis deteriorated badly. Rupert had fallen in love with Louise von Degenfeld, one of his sister-in-law’s maids of honour.[104] One of Rupert’s notes proffering his affections accidentally fell into the possession of Charles Louis’ wife Charlotte, who believed it was written to her. Charlotte was keen to engage in an affair with Rupert and became unhappy when she was declined and the mistake explained. Unfortunately, von Degenfeld was uninterested in Rupert, but was engaged in an affair with Charles Louis—this was discovered in due course, leading to the annulment of the marriage.[105] Rupert, for his part, was unhappy that Charles Louis could not endow him with a suitable estate, and the two parted on bad terms in 1657, Rupert refusing to ever return to the Palatinate again and taking up employment under Ferdinand III in Hungary.[106]

Restoration statesman[edit]

Rupert was appointed to the King’s Privy Council in 1662, taking roles on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Admiralty Committee and the Tangier Committee.[116] Accounts vary of Rupert’s role in all these committees of government. Samuel Pepys, no friend of Rupert’s, sat on the Tangier Committee with him and later declared that all Rupert did was to laugh and swear occasionally: other records, such as those of the Foreign Affairs Committee, show him taking a full and active role in proceedings.[114]

In 1668, the King appointed Rupert to be the Constable of Windsor Castle.[117] Rupert was already one of the Knights of the Garter, who had their headquarters at the castle, and was a close companion of the King, who would wish to be suitably entertained at the castle.[118] Rupert immediately began to reorder the castle’s defences, sorting out the garrison’s accommodation, repairing the Devil’s Tower, reconstructing the real tennis court and improving the castle’s hunting estate.[119] Rupert acquired his own apartments in the castle, which were recorded as being “very singular” with some decorated with an “extraordinary” number of “pikes, muskets, pistols, bandoliers, holsters, drums, back, breast, and head pieces”, and his inner chambers “hung with tapisserie, curious and effeminate pictures”.[120] King Charles II and Rupert spent much time together over the years hunting and playing tennis together at Windsor,[121] and Rupert was also a close companion of James, the Duke of York.[114] Rupert was considered by Pepys to be the fourth best tennis player in England.[122]

Rupert became romantically engaged to Frances Bard (1646–1708), the daughter of the English explorer and Civil War veteran Henry Bard.[123] Frances claimed to have secretly married Rupert in 1664, although this was denied by him and no firm proof exists to support the claim.[124] Rupert acknowledged the son he had with Frances, Dudley Bard (1666–86), often called “Dudley Rupert”, who was schooled at Eton College. In 1673, Rupert was urged by Charles Louis to return home, marry and father an heir to the Palatinate, as it appeared likely that Charles Louis’s own son would not survive childhood. Rupert refused, and remained in England.[125]

Career in the Restoration navy[edit]

English and Dutch sailing ships clash on a stormy sea; a wreck of a sinking vessel can be seen in the foreground, whilst the sky is full busy white clouds.

The Four Days’ Battle, 1–4 June 1666, by Abraham Storck, during which Rupert’s new aggressive fleet tactics were first applied

For much of the 17th century, England was embroiled in conflict with commercial rival Holland through the Anglo-Dutch Wars.[126] Rupert became closely involved in these as a senior admiral to King Charles II, rising to command the Royal Navy by the end of his career. Although several famous admirals of the day had previously been army commanders, including Blake and Monk, they had commanded relatively small land forces and Rupert was still relatively unusual for the period in having both practical experience of commanding large land armies and having extensive naval experience from his campaigns in the 1650s.[127]

At the start of the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665–67), Rupert was appointed as one of the three squadron commanders of the English fleet, under the overall command of the Duke of York, taking HMS Royal James as his flagship.[128] As the commander of the White Squadron, Rupert fought at the Battle of Lowestoft in 1665, breaking through the enemy defences at a critical moment; Rupert’s leg was injured in the battle, an injury that caused him ongoing pain.[129] Recalled to accompany the King during the plague that was sweeping London, Rupert continued to argue in favour of the fleet’s seeking a set-piece engagement with the Dutch that would force the Dutch back to the negotiating table.[130] The following year, Rupert was made joint commander of the fleet with Monk and given the opportunity to put this plan into practice. In June 1666, they fought the Dutch at the Four Days’ Battle, one of the longest naval battles in history; the battle saw the new aggressive tactics of Rupert and Monk applied, resulting in “a sight unique till then in sailing-ship warfare, the English beating upwind and breaking the enemy’s line from leeward.”[131] However, the Four Days’ Battle was considered a victory for the Dutch, but the St. James’s Day Battle the following month allowed Rupert and Monk to use the same tactics to inflict heavy damage on the Dutch and the battle resulted in a significant English victory.[132] The Dutch however would see a favourable end to the war with the decisive Raid on the Medway.[133]

Rupert also played a prominent role in the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672–74). This time Louis XIV of France was a key English ally against Holland, and it was decided that the French would form a squadron in a combined fleet.[134] The English fleet had been much expanded, and Rupert had three ships, HMS Royal CharlesHMS Royal James and HMS Royal Oak, equipped with a high-specification, annealed and lathe-produced gun of his own design, the Rupertinoe. Unfortunately the cost of the weapon—three times that of a normal gun—prevented its wider deployment in the fleet.[135] The French role in the conflict proved a problem when Charles turned to the appointment of an admiral. Rupert’s objection to the French alliance was well known, and accordingly the King appointed the Duke of York to the role instead.[136] Rupert was instead instructed to take over the Duke’s work at the Admiralty, which he did with gusto.[136] The Allied naval plans were stalled after the Duke’s inconclusive battle with the Dutch at Solebay.[137]

English and Dutch ships clash at night; the sky is dark, with the last colour of the day in the centre. The surrounding edges of the picture fade into deep blues and darkness.

The Battle of Texel, by Willem van de Velde the Younger, a Dutch victory which marked the end of Rupert’s career as a sea admiral

The English plan for 1673 centred on first achieving naval dominance, followed by landing an army in Zeeland. The King appointed the Duke as supreme commander, with Rupert as his deputy, combining the ranks of general and vice admiral of England.[138] During the winter of 1672, however, Charles—still (legitimately) childless—decided that the risk to the Duke, his heir, was too great and made Rupert supreme Allied commander in his place.[139] Rupert began the 1673 campaign against the Dutch knowing the logistical support for his fleet remained uncertain, with many ships undermanned.[140] The result was the Battle of Schooneveld in June and the Battle of Texel in August, a controversial sequence of engagements in which, at a minimum, poor communications between the French and English commanders assisted the marginal Dutch victory.[141] Many English commentators were harsher, blaming the French for failing to fully engage in the battles and Rupert—having cautioned against the alliance in the first place—was popularly hailed as a hero.[142] Rupert finally retired from active seagoing command later that year.[143]

Rupert had a characteristic style as an admiral; he relied upon “energetic personal leadership backed by close contact with his officers”;[144] having decided how to proceed in a naval campaign, however, it could be difficult for his staff to change his mind.[144] Recent work on Rupert’s role as a commander has also highlighted the progress the prince made in formulating the way that orders were given to the British fleet. Fleet communications were limited during the period, and the traditional orders from admirals before a battle were accordingly quite rigid, limiting a captain’s independence in the battle.[145] Rupert played a key part in the conferences held by the Duke of York in 1665 to review tactics and operational methods from the first Dutch war, and put these into practice before the St James Day battle.[146] These instructions and supplementary instructions to ships’ captains, which attempted to balance an adherence to standing orders with the need to exploit emerging opportunities in a battle, proved heavily influential over the next hundred years[146] and shaped the idea that an aggressive fighting spirit should be at the core of British naval doctrine.[147]

After 1673 Rupert remained a senior member of the Royal Navy and Charles’s administration. Rupert allied himself with Lord Shaftesbury on matters of foreign policy, but remained loyal to King Charles II on other issues,[125] and was passionate about protecting the Royal Prerogative. As a consequence he opposed Parliament’s plan in 1677 to appoint him to Lord High Admiral—on the basis that only the King should be allowed to propose such appointments—but noted that he was willing to become Admiral if the King wished him to do so.[148] The King’s solution was to establish a small, empowered Admiralty Commission, of which Rupert became the first commissioner.[149] As a result, from 1673 to 1679 Rupert was able to focus on ensuring a closer regulation of manning, gunning and the selection of officers. He was also involved in setting priorities between the different theatres of operations that the Royal Navy was now involved in around the world.[150] Rupert was also appointed to the supreme position of “General at Sea and Land”, effectively assuming the wartime powers of the Lord High Admiral.[151]

Later life[edit]

This painting of Prince Rupert shows an older man, posed sideways to the viewer. He is dressed in full state regalia, with gold chains and expensive clothes. His hair is long, black and curled. He looks older, but his facial experience looks slightly sardonic.

An older Rupert, painted in 1670 by Sir Peter Lely

After the end of his seagoing naval career Rupert continued to be actively involved in both government and science, although he was increasingly removed from current politics.[152] To the younger members of the court the prince appeared increasingly distant—almost from a different era.[153] The Count de Gramont described Rupert as “brave and courageous even to rashness, but cross-grained and incorrigibly obstinate… he was polite, even to excess, unseasonably; but haughty, and even brutal, when he ought to have been gentle and courteous… his manners were ungracious: he had a dry hard-favoured visage, and a stern look, even when he wished to please; but, when he was out of humour, he was the true picture of reproof”.[153] Rupert’s health during this period was also less robust; his head wound from his employment in France required a painful trepanning treatment, his leg wound continued to hurt and he still suffered from the malaria he had caught while in the Gambia.[154]

Colonial administration[edit]

Rupert had demonstrated an interest in colonial issues for many years. On arriving in England in 1660, he had encouraged the government to continue his own exploration of the Gambia in an attempt to find gold, leading to Robert Holmes‘s expedition the following year.[155] Rupert was an active shareholder in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa that was established as a result in 1662.[155] The company continued operations for the next eight years, with backers including the King, the Duke of York and the Royal Society, with operations including engaging in the West Africa slave trade until it folded in 1670.[156] The company’s operations merged with those of the Gambia Merchants’ Company into the new Royal African Company, with a royal charter to set up forts, factories, troops and to exercise martial law in West Africa, in pursuit of trade in gold, silver and slaves; Rupert was the third named member of the company’s board.[157]

By then, however, Rupert’s attention had turned to North America. The French explorers Radisson and des Groseilliers had come to England after conducting a joint exploration of the Hudson’s Bay region in 1659;[158] there their account attracted the attention of the King and Rupert.[159] Rupert put an initial investment of £270 of his own money into a proposal for a fresh expedition and set about raising more; despite setbacks, including the Great Fire of London, by 1667 he had formed a private syndicate and leased the Eaglet from the King for the expedition.[160] The Eaglet failed, but her sister vessel, the Nonsuch, made a successful expedition, returning in 1669 with furs worth £1,400.[161] In 1670, the King approved the charter for “The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson’s Bay” that would form the Hudson’s Bay Company, which was granted a trading monopoly in the whole Hudson Bay watershed area, an immense territory named Rupert’s Land, with Rupert appointed the first Governor.[161] Rupert’s first company secretary was Sir James Hayes and Radisson named the Hayes River, in present-day Manitoba, in his honour. The company continued to prosper, forming the basis for much of the commercial activity of colonial Canada. Rupert’s role in colonial commerce was marked by his being asked to lay the cornerstone of the new Royal Exchange in 1670, and being made one of its first councillors.[162][b]

EU/UN Feudalism, what feudalism under the new EUssrRegime Looks Like. Evolution of the Swedish Constitution, Brino , Brexit. Sweden the 4th Reich and The EUsssr and the 5th Reich.

Benito Mussolini claimed that the modern phase of capitalism is state socialism “turned on its head”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

The Swedish Theory of Love, an everyday story from #Cuckland. #SwedishHypocrisy #SwedishStateMonopolyCronyCapitalism #SwedishEUMilitaryUnification #EUArmyNatoByBackDoor

The Peculiar history of the Swedish State constitutionally and the arrangements made in the Social Contract when the US New Deal and British versions of the same were cast. The Swedes created a form of State monopoly Capitalism somewhat analogous to the Junkers and Prussian arrangements explained by John Catto.

This evolution lead with a flirtation described as Socialism or Democratic Socialism. It was in fact a FLirtation with National Socialism/StateMonopoly Capitalism a Flirtation which endures and is also the driving force behind the Eu.

Holy Roman Emperor

Timonism, The Calvinist strain in Neo Liberal Misanthropy. Zionism, The Money Power Usury and The Petro Dollar. Fall of the Roman Empire 2.0. #OccupyTheEuropeanSpring

Animated GIF-downsized_large (10)Some Books and Themes Informing a Cynical and not Timonist view of Neo-Liberal Fascism.

“A beastly ambition, which the gods grant thee t’
attain to! If thou wert the lion, the fox would
beguile thee; if thou wert the lamb, the fox would
eat three: if thou wert the fox, the lion would
suspect thee, when peradventure thou wert accused by
the ass: if thou wert the ass, thy dulness would
torment thee, and still thou livedst but as a
breakfast to the wolf: if thou wert the wolf, thy
greediness would afflict thee, and oft thou shouldst
hazard thy life for thy dinner: wert thou the
unicorn, pride and wrath would confound thee and
make thine own self the conquest of thy fury: wert
thou a bear, thou wouldst be killed by the horse:
wert thou a horse, thou wouldst be seized by the
leopard: wert thou a leopard, thou wert german to
the lion and the spots of thy kindred were jurors on
thy life: all thy safety were remotion and thy
defence absence. What beast couldst thou be, that
were not subject to a beast? and what a beast art
thou already, that seest not thy loss in
transformation!”

Selection_482

For the 21st partisans for patronage
Putin and the bear Nationalism
Trump and the Eagle InterNationalism
Corbyn of the un-common people interNationalism
Farage of the common people Nationalism
Well May? You ask Globalism, Atlanticism
Within the Elysian bosom suckling Globalism on the right
and Internationalism on the left restricted by two tits
A binary mammary conundrum for PIIGS have many teets.
On which teet will elites suckle, formula for the masses.
From good men and bad society to
bad men and good society from optimism
to pessimism and from secularism
to religion. Creative destruction Globalisation?
The Simple see war is simply a football match 
conducted with cannons.wise men look 
not In  Nietzsche's Will to Power, 
but In the custom house.Says Bernard Shaw
shadows cast from secret whispers.

“man müsse das Volk stets in Armuth erhalten, damit es gehorsam bleibe.”(2)

“One must always keep the people in poverty so that they remain obedient”

Belloc characterised the reformation as

´´a rising of the rich against the poor´´,(1)

´and indeed Calvin had written the unfortunate statement:

´´The people must always be kept in poverty in order that they remain obedient´´.(2)

p.198 Lost Science of Money.(1)
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/authentic-discourses-on-decisions-to-act/

1

Belloc said that the Enlightenment was a rising of the rich against the poor and Calvin actually wrote, That the poor must be kept poor so that they remain obedient.
On Left and Right I find it a deeply unsatisfactory Label, it negates the timbre and shading in peoples make up which is a complex thing. Rich and Poor is a much stronger classification upon which we can hang hard numbers.
What hard numbers?
1. After 60k a year people are not significantly any happier
2. Designation of a Super High Net worth individual is 30 million dollars of which there are
170,000
3.The percentage of the population who are net receivers of Interest. ( less than 10%)
I will not go on but there are lots of measures which one can actually measure reliably which do not boil down to is it left or right but certainly do boil down to are they indicators of being Rich or Poor.

My question then is this. How much is enough, how little is too little and in whose interests does the Left-Right Meme really work? I think that the idea of Left and Right is very convenient for our Oligarchical Lords and Masters I think the Rich and Poor designation is rather more inconvenient.
I have not added links or references but will happily elaborate upon any of the 3 listed examples.

https://www.knightfrank.com/resources/wealthreport2018/the-wealth-report-2018.pdf

“TINA” and the Left Right Thing. ‘COWBOY WIRING’ no Polarity.

Meet the Fuggers or, its the Money Power stupid. 

Brexit, The Euro and clueless Elites.

The Eastern Roman empire under Justinian saw the seeds of its final fall to The Ottomans when Abd El Melik started paying tribute in Gold coinage under his own Political Branding you might say.

With all the talk of Brexit being the removal of a final obstacle to the deeper federation of a European State transcending tiresome nationalism, perhaps a little review of History, particularly Monetary history, might not be such a bad thing.

1.

Richard North, Flexit whos side is he on?

what do you make of North Here, I have read all his EU books but I do think he is wrong about WTO rules, whats his stich do you think he is very poor on Money none of his books tackle it which I noted in my own Technical Brexit series. Meet the Fuggers, EU Enlargement and Their Lordships and Article 50.

Sections of the book on Energy policy and also other Trade matters are important and covered extensively in the book. One does wonder why Dr North does not dig into the Gnomes of Zurich(Basle) aspects as much as he is clearly capable of doing, and which I assume he has chosen not to. Dr North also writes convincingly on political devolution and of devolving democratic powers back to the local level, That is, I found it convincing but I am a natural member of that particular choir.
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/article-50-globalisation-and-the-real-seat-of-power-the-top-table-and-the-trump-card-and-the-elephant-in-the-room/

Just a memory jogger on the Raab Marr interview, Baker Cash evidence to committe and the Bruges Group memory holed scop?
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/04/19/no-actuelite-let-alone-economy-with-the-actualite-death-of-truth-post-truth-brino-lies-subterfuge-and-general-telling-of-tall-tales-and-outright-porkies-brino-pdc-personal-destiny-control-wik/

https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2017/10/27/brexit-discourse-does-not-improve-at-the-bbc/ looking at the comments exchange on this John not possible on BBC anymore that avenue has all but disappeared.

1

he gained control of the Aubsburg mint, hence for 100 years  control of both the Silver source and the mint gave great power to the Fugger dynasty by 1525 they charged as much as 30% on small loans and as little as 2% on large loans.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugger

The Hanseatic League against the Credit bankers. Is one struggle between a group of entrepreneurs and a bunch of Banksters in their case the Banksters were in Bruges. Elsewhere across the channel,
Belloc characterised the reformation as

´´a rising of the rich against the poor´´,

´and indeed Calvin had written the unfortunate statement:

´´The people must always be kept in poverty in order that they remain obedient´´.

Kampshulte I 1869 p.430 as quoted by Grisar

Weber wrote of ´´Tooth Fairy Capitalism ´´ The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

The Levellers found inspiration in the Torah, Puritanism Oliver Cromwell Usury and all of that.

And then what passed as Fake news at the time.

1634 Flagellum Pontificum John Bastwick

1652 Apologetical Narration John Lilburne

1657 Killing no murder Colonel Titus and sexby

1673 England’s Appeal from the private cabal at Whitehall Lisola.

.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiuc.5260972_001;view=1up;seq=10;size=200

 

From Butterboxes to Wooden Shoes: The Shift in English Popular Sentiment from Anti-Dutch to Anti-French in the 1670s

http://www.academicroom.com/article/butterboxes-wooden-shoes-shift-english-popular-sentiment-anti-dutch-anti-french-1670s

 

So What have the Europeans ever done for us?

´´The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” He continued “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Suskind, Ron (2004-10-17). Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush. The New York Times Magazine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove

Contrast this with Marcel Champs

“I am still a victim of chess. It has all the beauty of art – and much more. It cannot be commercialized. Chess is much purer than art in its social position. (On giving up art to play chess)”
― Marcel Duchamp
And
Duchamp’s dictum, “It is the viewer [regardeur] who makes the pictures [tableaux],” would probably have been applauded by Baudelaire, who insisted on the active role of the beholder.´´
Baudelaire’s Media Aesthetics: The Gaze of the Flâneur and 19th-Century Media
By Marit Grøtta

or

“Beholder, wake up. Seer (and Apprentice Seer), stick out your thumb. Beholder, you may view the Seer’s card.”
From Bonus Pack 2, on Team Village
Normally, the Beholder and the Seer are on the same team and, like the Masons, can afford to have one party lie knowing other will be there to back them up. But this dynamic turns on its head if the Beholder sees that the Seer has been turned into a Werewolf.
http://onenightultimate.com/?p=275

And

 

Today, chess programs have become so good that even grandmasters sometimes struggle to understand the logic behind some of their moves.
Kenneth Rogoff

karelvan wolferen says

´´But it still leaves us with the puzzle of why Asians as well as Europeans, whose EU trade commissioners have been mouthing the same job creating nonsense around the TPIP that has come with the TPP, appear unable to tackle intellectually the dominant power aspects of these treaties. Perhaps because they exist in a world of their own that is politically sterilized by current economic suppositions. More generally, the concept of power (not influence with which it is often confused) receives a stepmotherly treatment in popular as well as serious writing, and the social science denizens of academia are entirely at sea with it. Mainstream economics is ahistorcal on purpose and hence has no room for power, which has helped continue the fateful division of political and economic affairs into separate realms for discussion that has long served the interests of power elites´´
http://www.karelvanwolferen.com/49-the-predators-behind-the-tpp-14-oct-2015/

Wolferen has more to say , this for instance.

´´Since the political dimension to economic arrangements in the United States remains hidden in most discourse because political and economic reality are routinely treated as separate realms of life, few notice that what is justified in the United States by casting it in terms of the market at work, is frequently the result of heavy political involvement and interference. Politically well-connected American corporations, paying for the election expenses of Congress members who determine their fate, need not fear ‘market forces’. If the banks responsible for the credit crisis of 2008 and the subsequent world-recession that is still with us, had not been lifted out of ‘the market’ by the state, they would no longer exist. Powerful corporations have been allowed to swallow the state; they have as the power sensitive economist James Galbraith calls it, created a ‘predator state’, which they of course exploit for their own expansion. There is no frame of reference with which we can more convincingly define the TPP.´´

Some before and after Discourse on Brexit. Pillow Talk Tett and Lord King.

Gillian Tett and Lord King.Tett after New your law school

Tett before question time.

 

Will Rogers quote for 30´s trickle down

Brandon Weber

MR FARAGE REPLIED: “I WOULD DO A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL TO GET A PROPER BREXIT.” THE SECRET CITY. THE THREE CITY STATES.PROCRUSTEAN ELEPHANT GRAPH FITTING. ETC AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

PROCRUSTEAN ELEPHANT GRAPH FITTING. ETC AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYozWHBIf8g https://youtu.be/uqCUKHuCsTs https://liberal-international.org/who-we-are/political-leadership/nominal-vice-presidents/ Beatrice Rangoni Machiavelli From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Beatrice Rangoni Machiavelli is an Italian politician, author, and activist. She was President of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union from 1998 to 2000.[1] Contents 1Life 2Awards 3References

The Swedish invasion of the Holy Roman Empire, or the Swedish Intervention in the Thirty Years’ War is a historically accepted division of the Thirty Years’ War. It was a military conflict that took place between 1630 and 1635, during the course of the Thirty Years’ War. It was a major turning point of the war: the Protestant cause, previously on the verge of defeat, won several major victories and changed the direction of the War. The Habsburg-Catholic coalition, previously in the ascendant, was significantly weakened as a result of the gains the Protestant cause made. It is often considered to be an independent conflict by most historians.

After several attempts by the Holy Roman Empire to prevent and contain the spread of Protestantism in Europe, King Gustav II Adolf of Sweden led an invasion of the Holy Roman Empire. Although he was killed in battle at Lützen, southwest of Leipzig, the Swedish armies managed to successfully defeat their Catholic enemies and established Sweden as one of the great powers of Europe for the next 100 years. His leadership of the Protestant powers of Germany and Europe was critical to the establishment of an alternative branch of Christianity recognized in Germany, and ensconced it in some forms of international law and custom. Additionally, it rolled back the gains the Habsburg family had made in re-centralizing political power in the Holy Roman Empire in the hands of the Holy Roman Emperor. The Swedish invasion confirmed the role of Holy Roman Emperor as a ceremonial, de jure position within the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire. The new European great power of Sweden would last for a hundred years before being overwhelmed by numerous enemies in the Great Northern War.

The long-term political consequences of the Protestant victory include the Holy Roman Empire emphasising decentralization of power to local magnates and dynasts. Protestant victory and liberty of religion thereby assured the political and national decentralization of the Empire for several centuries, and made it vulnerable to foreign domination. The religious and political divisions sowed by the conflict blocked centralization as was occurring in FranceEngland and Spain at the time. Political Unification of

Frederick V of the Palatinate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian#Currency_and_inflation

Currency and inflation[edit]

A fragment of the Edict on Maximum Prices (301), on display in Berlin

Part of the prices edict in Greek in its original area built into a medieval church, Geraki, Greece

Aurelian’s attempt to reform the currency had failed; the denarius was dead.[279] Diocletian restored the three-metal coinage and issued better quality pieces.[280] The new system consisted of five coins: the aureus/solidus, a gold coin weighing, like its predecessors, one-sixtieth of a pound; the argenteus, a coin weighing one ninety-sixth of a pound and containing ninety-five percent pure silver; the follis, sometimes referred to as the laureatus A, which is a copper coin with added silver struck at the rate of thirty-two to the pound; the radiatus, a small copper coin struck at the rate of 108 to the pound, with no added silver; and a coin known today as the laureatus B, a smaller copper coin struck at the rate of 192 to the pound.[281][Note 14] Since the nominal values of these new issues were lower than their intrinsic worth as metals, the state was minting these coins at a loss. This practice could be sustained only by requisitioning precious metals from private citizens in exchange for state-minted coin (of a far lower value than the price of the precious metals requisitioned).[282]

By 301, however, the system was in trouble, strained by a new bout of inflation. Diocletian therefore issued his Edict on Coinage, an act re-tariffing all debts so that the nummus, the most common coin in circulation, would be worth half as much.[283] In the edict, preserved in an inscription from the city of Aphrodisias in Caria (near Geyre, Turkey), it was declared that all debts contracted before 1 September 301 must be repaid at the old standards, while all debts contracted after that date would be repaid at the new standards.[284] It appears that the edict was made in an attempt to preserve the current price of gold and to keep the Empire’s coinage on silver, Rome’s traditional metal currency.[285] This edict risked giving further momentum to inflationary trends, as had happened after Aurelian’s currency reforms. The government’s response was to issue a price freeze.[286]

The Edict on Maximum Prices (Edictum De Pretiis Rerum Venalium) was issued two to three months after the coinage edict,[279] somewhere between 20 November and 10 December 301.[284] The best-preserved Latin inscription surviving from the Greek East,[287] the edict survives in many versions, on materials as varied as wood, papyrus, and stone.[288] In the edict, Diocletian declared that the current pricing crisis resulted from the unchecked greed of merchants, and had resulted in turmoil for the mass of common citizens. The language of the edict calls on the people’s memory of their benevolent leaders, and exhorts them to enforce the provisions of the edict, and thereby restore perfection to the world. The edict goes on to list in detail over one thousand goods and accompanying retail prices not to be exceeded. Penalties are laid out for various pricing transgressions.[289]

In the most basic terms, the edict was ignorant of the law of supply and demand: it ignored the fact that prices might vary from region to region according to product availability, and it ignored the impact of transportation costs in the retail price of goods. In the judgment of the historian David Potter, the edict was “an act of economic lunacy”.[290] The fact that the edict began with a long rhetorical preamble betrays at the same time a moralizing stance as well as a weak grasp of economics – perhaps simply the wishful thinking that criminalizing a practice was enough to stop it.[291]

There is no consensus about how effectively the edict was enforced.[292] Supposedly, inflation, speculation, and monetary instability continued, and a black market arose to trade in goods forced out of official markets.[293] The edict’s penalties were applied unevenly across the empire (some scholars believe they were applied only in Diocletian’s domains),[294] widely resisted, and eventually dropped, perhaps within a year of the edict’s issue.[295] Lactantius has written of the perverse accompaniments to the edict; of goods withdrawn from the market, of brawls over minute variations in price, of the deaths that came when its provisions were enforced. His account may be true, but it seems to modern historians exaggerated and hyperbolic,[296] and the impact of the law is recorded in no other ancient source.[297]

Social and professional mobility[edit]

Partly in response to economic pressures and in order to protect the vital functions of the state, Diocletian restricted social and professional mobility. Peasants became tied to the land in a way that presaged later systems of land tenure and workers such as bakers, armourers, public entertainers and workers in the mint had their occupations made hereditary.[298] Soldiers’ children were also forcibly enrolled, something that followed spontaneous tendencies among the rank-and-file, but also expressed increasing difficulties in recruitment.[299]

Diocletian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Diocletian
Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire
Istanbul - Museo archeol. - Diocleziano (284-305 d.C.) - Foto G. Dall'Orto 28-5-2006.jpg

Laureate head of Diocletian
Emperor of the Roman Empire
Reign 20 November 284 – 1 April 286 (in competition with Carinus until July 285)[1]
Predecessor Carinus
Reign 1 April 286 – 1 May 305 (as Senior Augustus, ruled in the east)[2]
Successor Constantius Chlorus and Galerius
Co-emperor Maximian (Western Emperor)
Born c. 22 December 244[3]
Salona (now SolinCroatia)
Died 3 December 311 (age 66)[4]
Aspalathos (now Split, Croatia)
Burial
Diocletian’s Palace in Aspalathos. His tomb was later turned into a Christian church, the Cathedral of St. Domnius, which is still standing within the palace at Split.
Spouse Prisca
Issue Valeria
Full name
Diocles
Regnal name
Imperator Caesar Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus[5]

Diocletian (/ˌd.əˈklʃən/LatinGaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus), born Diocles (22 December 244 – 3 December 311),[4][6] was a Roman emperor from 284 to 305. Born to a family of low status in Dalmatia, Diocletian rose through the ranks of the military to become Roman cavalry commander to the Emperor Carus. After the deaths of Carus and his son Numerian on campaign in Persia, Diocletian was proclaimed emperor. The title was also claimed by Carus’ surviving son, Carinus, but Diocletian defeated him in the Battle of the Margus.

Diocletian’s reign stabilized the empire and marks the end of the Crisis of the Third Century. He appointed fellow officer Maximian as Augustus, co-emperor, in 286. Diocletian reigned in the Eastern Empire, and Maximian reigned in the Western Empire. Diocletian delegated further on 1 March 293, appointing Galerius and Constantius as Caesars, junior co-emperors, under himself and Maximian respectively. Under this ‘tetrarchy‘, or “rule of four”, each emperor would rule over a quarter-division of the empire. Diocletian secured the empire’s borders and purged it of all threats to his power. He defeated the Sarmatians and Carpi during several campaigns between 285 and 299, the Alamanni in 288, and usurpers in Egypt between 297 and 298. Galerius, aided by Diocletian, campaigned successfully against Sassanid Persia, the empire’s traditional enemy. In 299 he sacked their capital, Ctesiphon. Diocletian led the subsequent negotiations and achieved a lasting and favourable peace.

Diocletian separated and enlarged the empire’s civil and military services and reorganized the empire’s provincial divisions, establishing the largest and most bureaucratic government in the history of the empire. He established new administrative centres in NicomediaMediolanumSirmium, and Trevorum, closer to the empire’s frontiers than the traditional capital at Rome. Building on third-century trends towards absolutism, he styled himself an autocrat, elevating himself above the empire’s masses with imposing forms of court ceremonies and architecture. Bureaucratic and military growth, constant campaigning, and construction projects increased the state’s expenditures and necessitated a comprehensive tax reform. From at least 297 on, imperial taxation was standardized, made more equitable, and levied at generally higher rates.

Not all of Diocletian’s plans were successful: the Edict on Maximum Prices (301), his attempt to curb inflation via price controls, was counterproductive and quickly ignored. Although effective while he ruled, Diocletian’s tetrarchic system collapsed after his abdication under the competing dynastic claims of Maxentius and Constantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively. The Diocletianic Persecution (303–312), the empire’s last, largest, and bloodiest official persecution of Christianity, failed to eliminate Christianity in the empire; indeed, after 324, Christianity became the empire’s preferred religion under Constantine. Despite these failures and challenges, Diocletian’s reforms fundamentally changed the structure of Roman imperial government and helped stabilize the empire economically and militarily, enabling the empire to remain essentially intact for another 150 years despite being near the brink of collapse in Diocletian’s youth. Weakened by illness, Diocletian left the imperial office on 1 May 305, and became the first Roman emperor to abdicate the position voluntarily. He lived out his retirement in his palace on the Dalmatian coast, tending to his vegetable gardens. His palace eventually became the core of the modern-day city of Split in Croatia.

1

 these Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to

The Peculiar history of the Swedish State constitutionally and the arrangements made in the Social Contract when the US New Deal and British versions of the same were cast. The Swedes created a form of State monopoly Capitalism somewhat analogous to the Junkers and Prussian arrangements explained by John Catto.

 

This evolution leads to a flirtation described as Socialism or Democratic Socialism. It was, in fact, a Flirtation with National Socialism/StateMonopoly Capitalism a Flirtation that endures and is also the driving force behind the Eu.

23 thoughts on ““video et taceo” (“I see but say nothing”) #OnBrino #HMQE2 #EUMilitaryUnification#RumpParliament #EnglishCivilWar #GloriousRevolution #CondemnedtoRepeat #AsFarcethenTragedy #ShallIRevealMyDarkerPurposes Understanding Brexit, Prince Rupert Speaks. #ElectedPredestination #TheCalvinistAngle #TheChosen #The Holy Roman Empire #Diocletian.

  1. Personal union and republican phase

    In 1603 James VI and I became the first monarch to rule over England, Scotland, and Ireland together.
    Elizabeth I’s death in 1603 ended Tudor rule in England. Since she had no children, she was succeeded by the Scottish monarch James VI, who was the great-grandson of Henry VIII’s older sister and hence Elizabeth’s first cousin twice removed. James VI ruled in England as James I after what was known as the “Union of the Crowns”. Although England and Scotland were in personal union under one monarch – James I became the first monarch to style himself “King of Great Britain” in 1604[52] – they remained two separate kingdoms. James I’s successor, Charles I, experienced frequent conflicts with the English Parliament related to the issue of royal and parliamentary powers, especially the power to impose taxes. He provoked opposition by ruling without Parliament from 1629 to 1640, unilaterally levying taxes and adopting controversial religious policies (many of which were offensive to the Scottish Presbyterians and the English Puritans). His attempt to enforce Anglicanism led to organised rebellion in Scotland (the “Bishops’ Wars”) and ignited the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. In 1642, the conflict between the King and English Parliament reached its climax and the English Civil War began.[53]

    The Civil War culminated in the execution of the king in 1649, the overthrow of the English monarchy, and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England. Charles I’s son, Charles II, was proclaimed King of Great Britain in Scotland, but he was forced to flee abroad after he invaded England and was defeated at the Battle of Worcester. In 1653, Oliver Cromwell, the most prominent military and political leader in the nation, seized power and declared himself Lord Protector (effectively becoming a military dictator, but refusing the title of king). Cromwell ruled until his death in 1658, when he was succeeded by his son Richard. The new Lord Protector had little interest in governing; he soon resigned.[54] The lack of clear leadership led to civil and military unrest, and for a popular desire to restore the monarchy. In 1660, the monarchy was restored and Charles II returned to Britain.[55]

    Charles II’s reign was marked by the development of the first modern political parties in England. Charles had no legitimate children, and was due to be succeeded by his Roman Catholic brother, James, Duke of York. A parliamentary effort to exclude James from the line of succession arose; the “Petitioners”, who supported exclusion, became the Whig Party, whereas the “Abhorrers”, who opposed exclusion, became the Tory Party. The Exclusion Bill failed; on several occasions, Charles II dissolved Parliament because he feared that the bill might pass. After the dissolution of the Parliament of 1681, Charles ruled without a Parliament until his death in 1685. When James succeeded Charles, he pursued a policy of offering religious tolerance to Roman Catholics, thereby drawing the ire of many of his Protestant subjects. Many opposed James’s decisions to maintain a large standing army, to appoint Roman Catholics to high political and military offices, and to imprison Church of England clerics who challenged his policies. As a result, a group of Protestants known as the Immortal Seven invited James II’s daughter Mary and her husband William III of Orange to depose the king. William obliged, arriving in England on 5 November 1688 to great public support. Faced with the defection of many of his Protestant officials, James fled the realm and William and Mary (rather than James II’s Catholic son) were declared joint Sovereigns of England, Scotland and Ireland.[56]

    James’s overthrow, known as the Glorious Revolution, was one of the most important events in the long evolution of parliamentary power. The Bill of Rights 1689 affirmed parliamentary supremacy, and declared that the English people held certain rights, including the freedom from taxes imposed without parliamentary consent. The Bill of Rights required future monarchs to be Protestants, and provided that, after any children of William and Mary, Mary’s sister Anne would inherit the Crown. Mary died childless in 1694, leaving William as the sole monarch. By 1700, a political crisis arose, as all of Anne’s children had died, leaving her as the only individual left in the line of succession. Parliament was afraid that the former James II or his supporters, known as Jacobites, might attempt to reclaim the throne. Parliament passed the Act of Settlement 1701, which excluded James and his Catholic relations from the succession and made William’s nearest Protestant relations, the family of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, next in line to the throne after his sister-in-law Anne.[57] Soon after the passage of the Act, William III died, leaving the Crown to Anne.

    After the 1707 Acts of Union

    England and Scotland were united as Great Britain under Queen Anne in 1707.
    See also: List of British monarchs
    After Anne’s accession, the problem of the succession re-emerged. The Scottish Parliament, infuriated that the English Parliament did not consult them on the choice of Sophia’s family as the next heirs, passed the Act of Security 1704, threatening to end the personal union between England and Scotland. The Parliament of England retaliated with the Alien Act 1705, threatening to devastate the Scottish economy by restricting trade. The Scottish and English parliaments negotiated the Acts of Union 1707, under which England and Scotland were united into a single Kingdom of Great Britain, with succession under the rules prescribed by the Act of Settlement.[58]

    In 1714, Queen Anne was succeeded by her second cousin, and Sophia’s son, George I, Elector of Hanover, who consolidated his position by defeating Jacobite rebellions in 1715 and 1719. The new monarch was less active in government than many of his British predecessors, but retained control over his German kingdoms, with which Britain was now in personal union.[59] Power shifted towards George’s ministers, especially to Sir Robert Walpole, who is often considered the first British prime minister, although the title was not then in use.[60] The next monarch, George II, witnessed the final end of the Jacobite threat in 1746, when the Catholic Stuarts were completely defeated. During the long reign of his grandson, George III, Britain’s American colonies were lost, the former colonies having formed the United States of America, but British influence elsewhere in the world continued to grow, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created by the Acts of Union 1800.[61]

    The union of Great Britain and Ireland into the United Kingdom occurred in 1801 during the reign of King George III.
    From 1811 to 1820, George III suffered a severe bout of what is now believed to be porphyria, an illness rendering him incapable of ruling. His son, the future George IV, ruled in his stead as Prince Regent. During the Regency and his own reign, the power of the monarchy declined, and by the time of his successor, William IV, the monarch was no longer able to effectively interfere with parliamentary power. In 1834, William dismissed the Whig Prime Minister, William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, and appointed a Tory, Sir Robert Peel. In the ensuing elections, however, Peel lost. The king had no choice but to recall Lord Melbourne. During William IV’s reign, the Reform Act 1832, which reformed parliamentary representation, was passed. Together with others passed later in the century, the Act led to an expansion of the electoral franchise and the rise of the House of Commons as the most important branch of Parliament.[62]

    The final transition to a constitutional monarchy was made during the long reign of William IV’s successor, Victoria. As a woman, Victoria could not rule Hanover, which only permitted succession in the male line, so the personal union of the United Kingdom and Hanover came to an end. The Victorian era was marked by great cultural change, technological progress, and the establishment of the United Kingdom as one of the world’s foremost powers. In recognition of British rule over India, Victoria was declared Empress of India in 1876. However, her reign was also marked by increased support for the republican movement, due in part to Victoria’s permanent mourning and lengthy period of seclusion following the death of her husband in 1861.[63]

    Victoria’s son, Edward VII, became the first monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1901. In 1917, the next monarch, George V, changed “Saxe-Coburg and Gotha” to “Windsor” in response to the anti-German sympathies aroused by the First World War. George V’s reign was marked by the separation of Ireland into Northern Ireland, which remained a part of the United Kingdom, and the Irish Free State, an independent nation, in 1922.[64]

    Shared monarchy

    Map of the British Empire in 1921

    Commonwealth realms
    Overseas territories of Commonwealth realms
    During the twentieth century, the Commonwealth of Nations evolved from the British Empire. Prior to 1926, the British Crown reigned over the British Empire collectively; the Dominions and Crown Colonies were subordinate to the United Kingdom. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 gave complete self-government to the Dominions, effectively creating a system whereby a single monarch operated independently in each separate Dominion. The concept was solidified by the Statute of Westminster 1931,[65] which has been likened to “a treaty among the Commonwealth countries”.[66]

    The monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution, although it is often still referred to as “British” for legal and historical reasons and for convenience. The monarch became separately monarch of the United Kingdom, monarch of Canada, monarch of Australia, and so forth. The independent states within the Commonwealth would share the same monarch in a relationship likened to a personal union.[67][68][69][70]

    George V’s death in 1936 was followed by the accession of Edward VIII, who caused a public scandal by announcing his desire to marry the divorced American Wallis Simpson, even though the Church of England opposed the remarriage of divorcées. Accordingly, Edward announced his intention to abdicate; the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and of other Commonwealth countries granted his request. Edward VIII and any children by his new wife were excluded from the line of succession, and the Crown went to his brother, George VI.[71] George served as a rallying figure for the British people during World War II, making morale-boosting visits to the troops as well as to munitions factories and to areas bombed by Nazi Germany. In June 1948 George VI relinquished the title Emperor of India, although remaining head of state of the Dominion of India.[72]

    At first, every member of the Commonwealth retained the same monarch as the United Kingdom, but when the Dominion of India became a republic in 1950, it would no longer share in a common monarchy. Instead, the British monarch was acknowledged as “Head of the Commonwealth” in all Commonwealth member states, whether they were realms or republics. The position is purely ceremonial, and is not inherited by the British monarch as of right but is vested in an individual chosen by the Commonwealth heads of government.[73][74] Member states of the Commonwealth that share the same person as monarch are informally known as Commonwealth realms.[73]

    Monarchy in Ireland
    See also: Monarchy of Ireland
    In 1155 the only English pope, Adrian IV, authorised King Henry II of England to take possession of Ireland as a feudal territory nominally under papal overlordship. The pope wanted the English monarch to annex Ireland and bring the Irish church into line with Rome, despite this process already underway in Ireland by 1155.[75] An all-island kingship of Ireland had been created in 854 by Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid. His last successor was Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, who had become King of Ireland in early 1166, and exiled Diarmait Mac Murchada, King of Leinster. Diarmait asked Henry II for help, gaining a group of Anglo-Norman aristocrats and adventurers, led by Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, to help him regain his throne. Diarmait and his Anglo-Norman allies succeeded and he became King of Leinster again. De Clare married Diarmait’s daughter, and when Diarmait died in 1171, de Clare became King of Leinster.[76] Henry was afraid that de Clare would make Ireland a rival Norman kingdom, so he took advantage of the papal bull and invaded, forcing de Clare and the other Anglo-Norman aristocrats in Ireland and the major Irish kings and lords to recognise him as their overlord.[77] English lords came close to colonising the entire island, but a Gaelic resurgence from the 1260s resulted in the island divided between Gaelic-Irish and Anglo-Irish lords by 1400. Many of the latter became completely Gaelicised, and did not recognise England’s kings except perhaps nominally. Some, such as Manus O’Donnell and Conn O’Neill, 1st Earl of Tyrone, were kings themselves.

    By 1541, King Henry VIII of England had broken with the Church of Rome and declared himself Supreme Head of the Church of England. The pope’s grant of Ireland to the English monarch became invalid, so Henry summoned a meeting of the Irish Parliament to change his title from Lord of Ireland to King of Ireland.[78] However much of the island was beyond English control, resulting in the extended Tudor conquest of Ireland that only made the Kingdom of Ireland a reality in 1603, at the conclusion of the Nine Years’ War (Ireland). Nevertheless, Ireland retained its own parliament, becoming an independent state in 1642-1649 (Confederate Ireland), and again in 1688-91. Only warfare such as the Williamite War in Ireland and subsequent occupation enabled the English crown from 1692, and successive British states from 1707, to retain the country.

    In 1800, as a result of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, the Act of Union merged the kingdom of Great Britain and the kingdom of Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The whole island of Ireland continued to be a part of the United Kingdom until 1922, when what is now the Republic of Ireland won independence as the Irish Free State, a separate Dominion within the Commonwealth. The Irish Free State was renamed Éire (or “Ireland”) in 1937, and in 1949 declared itself a republic, left the Commonwealth and severed all ties with the monarchy. Northern Ireland remained within the Union. In 1927, the United Kingdom changed its name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while the monarch’s style for the next twenty years became “of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India”.

    Modern status
    In the 1990s, republicanism in the United Kingdom grew, partly on account of negative publicity associated with the Royal Family (for instance, immediately following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales).[79] However, polls from 2002 to 2007 showed that around 70–80% of the British public supported the continuation of the monarchy.[80][81][82][83]

    Religious role
    The sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the established Church of England. Archbishops and bishops are appointed by the monarch, on the advice of the prime minister, who chooses the appointee from a list of nominees prepared by a Church Commission. The Crown’s role in the Church of England is titular; the most senior clergyman, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is the spiritual leader of the Church and of the worldwide Anglican Communion.[84][85] The monarch takes an oath to preserve the Church of Scotland and he or she holds the power to appoint the Lord High Commissioner to the Church’s General Assembly, but otherwise plays no part in its governance, and exerts no powers over it.[86][87] The sovereign plays no formal role in the disestablished Church in Wales or Church of Ireland.

    Like

  2. The People Versus Parliament, The People Versus the Banks. #Brino #SurrenderActii #BorisasPrinceRupert #GrubStreetJournal #DavidStarkey #BrexitUnentangled #LordActon #ShipMoney #EdmundBurke #onThesePresentDiscontents #StCrispinsDay #EUMilitaryUnification
    https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/10/18/the-people-versus-parliament-the-people-versus-the-banks-brino-surrenderactii-borisasprincerupert-grubstreetjournal-davidstarkey-brexitunentangled-lordacton-shipmoney-edmundburke-onthesep/

    Like

  3. First English Civil War (1642–1646)
    Main article: First English Civil War

    Maps of territory held by Royalists (red) and Parliamentarians (yellow-green), 1642–1645
    In early January 1642, a few days after failing to capture five members of the House of Commons, Charles feared for the safety of his family and retinue and left the London area for the north country.[63] Further frequent negotiations by letter between the King and the Long Parliament, through to early summer, proved fruitless. As the summer progressed, cities and towns declared their sympathies for one faction or the other: for example, the garrison of Portsmouth commanded by Sir George Goring declared for the King,[64] but when Charles tried to acquire arms from Kingston upon Hull, the weaponry depository used in the previous Scottish campaigns, Sir John Hotham, the military governor appointed by Parliament in January, refused to let Charles enter the town,[65] and when Charles returned with more men later, Hotham drove them off.[66] Charles issued a warrant for Hotham’s arrest as a traitor, but was powerless to enforce it. Throughout the summer, tensions rose and there was brawling in several places, the first death from the conflict taking place in Manchester.[66][67]

    At the outset of the conflict, much of the country remained neutral, though the Royal Navy and most English cities favoured Parliament, while the King found marked support in rural communities. Historians estimate that both sides had only about 15,000 men between them,[citation needed] but the war quickly spread and eventually involved every level of society. Many areas attempted to remain neutral. Some formed bands of Clubmen to protect their localities from the worst excesses of the armies of both sides,[68] but most found it impossible to withstand both King and Parliament. On one side, the King and his supporters fought for traditional government in church and state, while on the other, most Parliamentarians initially took up arms to defend what they saw as a traditional balance of government in church and state, which the bad advice the King received from his advisers had undermined before and during the “Eleven Years’ Tyranny”. The views of the members of Parliament ranged from unquestioning support of the King — at one point during the First Civil War, more members of the Commons and Lords gathered in the King’s Oxford Parliament than at Westminster — through to radicals who sought major reforms in religious independence and redistribution of power at a national level. However, even the most radical Parliamentarian supporters still favoured keeping Charles on the throne.[citation needed]

    After the debacle at Hull, Charles moved on to Nottingham, raising the royal standard there on 22 August 1642.[69] At the time, Charles had with him about 2,000 cavalry and a small number of Yorkshire infantrymen, and using the archaic system of a Commission of Array,[70] his supporters started to build a larger army around the standard. Charles moved in a westerly direction, first to Stafford, then on to Shrewsbury, as support for his cause seemed particularly strong in the Severn valley area and in North Wales.[71] While passing through Wellington, he declared in what became known as the “Wellington Declaration” that he would uphold the “Protestant religion, the laws of England, and the liberty of Parliament”.[72]

    Oliver Cromwell
    The Parliamentarians who opposed the King did not remain passive in this pre-war period. As in Hull, they took measures to secure strategic towns and cities by appointing to office men sympathetic to their cause. On 9 June they voted to raise an army of 10,000 volunteers and appointed Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex its commander three days later.[73] He received orders “to rescue His Majesty’s person, and the persons of the Prince [of Wales] and the Duke of York [James II] out of the hands of those desperate persons who were about them.”[74] The Lords Lieutenant whom Parliament appointed used the Militia Ordinance to order the militia to join Essex’s army.[75]

    Two weeks after the King had raised his standard at Nottingham, Essex led his army north towards Northampton,[76] picking up support along the way (including a detachment of Huntingdonshire cavalry raised and commanded by Oliver Cromwell).[d] By mid-September Essex’s forces had grown to 21,000 infantry and 4,200 cavalry and dragoons. On 14 September he moved his army to Coventry and then to the north of the Cotswolds,[77] a strategy that placed it between the Royalists and London. With the size of both armies now in the tens of thousands, and only Worcestershire between them, it was inevitable that cavalry reconnaissance units would meet sooner or later. This happened in the first major skirmish of the Civil War, when a troop of about 1,000 Royalist cavalry under Prince Rupert, a German nephew of the King and one of the outstanding cavalry commanders of the war,[78] defeated a Parliamentary cavalry detachment under Colonel John Brown at the Battle of Powick Bridge, which crossed the River Teme close to Worcester.[79]

    Prince Rupert of the Rhine
    Rupert withdrew to Shrewsbury, where a council-of-war discussed two courses of action: whether to advance towards Essex’s new position near Worcester, or march down the now open road towards London. The Council decided on the London route, but not to avoid a battle, for the Royalist generals wanted to fight Essex before he grew too strong, and the temper of both sides made it impossible to postpone the decision. In the Earl of Clarendon’s words, “it was considered more counsellable to march towards London, it being morally sure that the earl of Essex would put himself in their way.”[80] So the army left Shrewsbury on 12 October, gaining two days’ start on the enemy, and moved south-east. This had the desired effect of forcing Essex to move to intercept them.[80]

    The first pitched battle of the war, at Edgehill on 23 October 1642, proved inconclusive, both Royalists and Parliamentarians claiming victory.[81] The second field action, the stand-off at Turnham Green, saw Charles forced to withdraw to Oxford,[82] which would serve as his base for the rest of the war.[83]

    In 1643, Royalist forces won at Adwalton Moor, gaining control of most of Yorkshire.[84] In the Midlands, a Parliamentary force under Sir John Gell besieged and captured the cathedral city of Lichfield, after the death of the original commander, Lord Brooke.[85] This group then joined forces with Sir John Brereton at the inconclusive Battle of Hopton Heath (19 March 1643), where the Royalist commander, the Earl of Northampton, was killed.[85] John Hampden died after being wounded in the Battle of Chalgrove Field (18 June 1643).[86] Subsequent battles in the west of England at Lansdowne and Roundway Down also went to the Royalists.[87] Prince Rupert could then take Bristol. In the same year, however, Cromwell formed his troop of “Ironsides”, a disciplined unit that demonstrated his military leadership ability. With their assistance he won a victory at the Battle of Gainsborough in July.[88]

    At this stage, from 7 to 9 August 1643, there were some popular demonstrations in London — both for and against war. They were protesting at Westminster. A peace demonstration by London women, which turned violent, was suppressed by William Waller’s regiment of horse. Some women were beaten and even killed, and many arrested.[89]

    After these August events, the representative of Venice in England reported to the Doge that the London government took considerable measures to stifle dissent.[90]

    In general, the early part of the war went well for the Royalists. The turning point came in the late summer and early autumn of 1643, when the Earl of Essex’s army forced the king to raise the siege of Gloucester[91] and then brushed the Royalists aside at the First Battle of Newbury (20 September 1643),[92] to return triumphantly to London. Parliamentarian forces led by the Earl of Manchester besieged the port of King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which under Sir Hamon L’Estrange held out until September.[93] Other forces won the Battle of Winceby,[94] giving them control of Lincoln. Political manœuvring to gain an advantage in numbers led Charles to negotiate a ceasefire in Ireland, freeing up English troops to fight on the Royalist side in England,[95] while Parliament offered concessions to the Scots in return for aid and assistance.

    The Battle of Marston Moor, 1644
    Helped by the Scots, Parliament won at Marston Moor (2 July 1644),[96] gaining York and the north of England.[97] Cromwell’s conduct in the battle proved decisive,[98] and showed his potential as a political and as an important military leader. The defeat at the Battle of Lostwithiel in Cornwall, however, marked a serious reverse for Parliament in the south-west of England.[99] Subsequent fighting around Newbury (27 October 1644), though tactically indecisive, strategically gave another check to Parliament.[100]

    In 1645, Parliament reaffirmed its determination to fight the war to a finish. It passed the Self-denying Ordinance, by which all members of either House of Parliament laid down their commands and reorganized its main forces into the New Model Army, under the command of Sir Thomas Fairfax, with Cromwell as his second-in-command and Lieutenant-General of Horse.[101] In two decisive engagements — the Battle of Naseby on 14 June and the Battle of Langport on 10 July — the Parliamentarians effectively destroyed Charles’s armies.[102]

    In the remains of his English realm, Charles tried to recover a stable base of support by consolidating the Midlands. He began to form an axis between Oxford and Newark-on-Trent in Nottinghamshire. These towns had become fortresses and showed more reliable loyalty to him than others. He took Leicester, which lies between them, but found his resources exhausted. Having little opportunity to replenish them, in May 1646 he sought shelter with a Presbyterian Scottish army at Southwell in Nottinghamshire.[103] Charles was eventually handed over to the English Parliament by the Scots and imprisoned.[104] This marked the end of the First English Civil War.

    Second English Civil War (1648–1649)
    Main article: Second English Civil War

    “And when did you last see your father?” by William Frederick Yeames.
    Charles I took advantage of the deflection of attention away from himself to negotiate on 28 December 1647 a secret treaty with the Scots, again promising church reform.[105] Under the agreement, called the “Engagement”, the Scots undertook to invade England on Charles’s behalf and restore him to the throne on condition of the establishment of Presbyterianism within three years.[106]

    A series of Royalist uprisings throughout England and a Scottish invasion occurred in the summer of 1648. Forces loyal to Parliament[107] put down most of those in England after little more than a skirmish, but uprisings in Kent, Essex and Cumberland, the rebellion in Wales, and the Scottish invasion involved pitched battles and prolonged sieges.[105]

    In the spring of 1648, unpaid Parliamentarian troops in Wales changed sides. Colonel Thomas Horton defeated the Royalist rebels at the Battle of St Fagans (8 May)[108] and the rebel leaders surrendered to Cromwell on 11 July after a protracted two-month siege of Pembroke.[109] Sir Thomas Fairfax defeated a Royalist uprising in Kent at the Battle of Maidstone on 1 June. Fairfax, after his success at Maidstone and the pacification of Kent, turned north to reduce Essex, where, under an ardent, experienced and popular leader, Sir Charles Lucas, the Royalists had taken up arms in great numbers. Fairfax soon drove the enemy into Colchester, but his first attack on the town met with a repulse and he had to settle down to a long siege.[110]

    In the North of England, Major-General John Lambert fought a successful campaign against several Royalist uprisings, the largest being that of Sir Marmaduke Langdale in Cumberland.[111] Thanks to Lambert’s successes, the Scottish commander, the Duke of Hamilton, had to take a western route through Carlisle in his pro-Royalist Scottish invasion of England.[112] The Parliamentarians under Cromwell engaged the Scots at the Battle of Preston (17–19 August). The battle took place largely at Walton-le-Dale near Preston, Lancashire, and resulted in victory for Cromwell’s troops over the Royalists and Scots commanded by Hamilton.[112] This victory marked the end of the Second English Civil War.

    Nearly all the Royalists who had fought in the First Civil War had given their word not to bear arms against Parliament, and many, like Lord Astley, were therefore bound by oath not to take any part in the second conflict. So the victors in the Second Civil War showed little mercy to those who had brought war into the land again. On the evening of the surrender of Colchester, Parliamentarians had Sir Charles Lucas and Sir George Lisle shot.[113] Parliamentary authorities sentenced the leaders of the Welsh rebels, Major-General Rowland Laugharne, Colonel John Poyer and Colonel Rice Powel to death, but executed only Poyer (25 April 1649), having selected him by lot.[114] Of five prominent Royalist peers who had fallen into Parliamentary hands, three – the Duke of Hamilton, the Earl of Holland, and Lord Capel, one of the Colchester prisoners and a man of high character – were beheaded at Westminster on 9 March.[115]

    Like

  4. Eighty Years’ War
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    This article is about the war. For the historical context of the war, see Dutch Revolt.
    Eighty Years’ War
    Dutch War of Independence
    Veen01.jpg
    Relief of Leiden after the siege, 1574
    Date 1568–1648
    Location
    The Low Countries
    (worldwide colonial warfare)
    Result
    Peace of Münster

    Spain recognises the independence of the Dutch Republic
    Spain retains the Southern Netherlands
    Creation of the Dutch colonial empire
    Belligerents
    United Provinces
    England
    Scotland[a]
    France
    Spain Spain
    Portugal Portugal[b]
    Commanders and leaders
    Dutch Republic William the Silent †
    Dutch Republic Maurice of Orange
    Dutch Republic Frederick Henry
    Kingdom of England Elizabeth I
    Kingdom of England Robert Dudley
    Kingdom of EnglandKingdom of Scotland James VI and I
    Kingdom of EnglandKingdom of Scotland Charles I Stuart
    Kingdom of EnglandDutch Republic Roger Williams
    Spain Philip II
    Spain Philip III
    Spain Philip IV
    Casualties and losses
    c. 100,000 Dutch killed[1] (1568–1609) Unknown
    vte
    Dutch Revolt
    (Eighty Years’ War)
    The Eighty Years’ War (Dutch: Tachtigjarige Oorlog; Spanish: Guerra de los Ochenta Años) or Dutch War of Independence (1568–1648)[2] was a revolt of the Seventeen Provinces of what are today the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg against Philip II of Spain, the sovereign of the Habsburg Netherlands. After the initial stages, Philip II deployed his armies and regained control over most of the rebelling provinces. Under the leadership of the exiled William the Silent, the northern provinces continued their resistance. They eventually were able to oust the Habsburg armies, and in 1581 they established the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. The war continued in other areas, although the heartland of the republic was no longer threatened. This included the origins of the Dutch colonial empire, which began with Dutch attacks on Portugal’s overseas territories, which at the time was conceived as carrying overseas the war with Spain due to Portugal being in a dynastic union with Spain. The Dutch Republic was recognized by Spain and the major European powers in 1609 at the start of the Twelve Years’ Truce. Hostilities broke out again around 1619, as part of the broader Thirty Years’ War. An end was reached in 1648 with the Peace of Münster (a treaty part of the Peace of Westphalia), when the Dutch Republic was definitively recognised as an independent country no longer part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Peace of Münster is sometimes considered the beginning of the Dutch Golden Age.

    Like

  5. Ship money
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search

    Portrait of King Charles I by Sir Anthony van Dyck
    Ship money was a tax of medieval origin levied intermittently in the Kingdom of England until the middle of the 17th century. Assessed typically on the inhabitants of coastal areas of England, it was one of several taxes that English monarchs could levy by prerogative without the approval of Parliament. The attempt of King Charles I from 1634 onwards to levy ship money during peacetime and extend it to the inland counties of England without Parliamentary approval provoked fierce resistance, and was one of the grievances of the English propertied class in the lead-up to the English Civil War.

    Like

  6. Ship Money Act 1640
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    The Ship Money Act 1640[1]

    Parliament of England
    Long title An Act for declaring unlawfull and void the late proceedings touching Ship money and for vacating of all Records and Processe concerning the same.[2]
    Citation 16 Car 1 c 14
    Status: Repealed
    The Ship Money Act 1640 (16 Car 1 c 14) was an Act of the Parliament of England.[3] It outlawed the medieval tax called ship money, a tax the sovereign could levy (on coastal towns) without parliamentary approval. Ship money was intended for use in war, but by the 1630s was being used to fund everyday government expenses of King Charles I, thereby subverting parliament.

    The whole Act, so far as unrepealed, was repealed by section 1 of, and Part I of the Schedule to, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.

    Like

  7. Wars of the Three Kingdoms
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    This article is about the British Isles. For other uses, see Three Kingdoms (disambiguation).
    Wars of the Three Kingdoms
    Part of the European wars of religion
    Charles I in Three Positions by Anthony van Dyck, 1635–1636
    Monarch of the Three Kingdoms: Charles I in Three Positions by Anthony van Dyck, painted in 1633
    Date 1639–1651
    (12 years)
    Location
    Kingdoms of England, Ireland, and Scotland
    Result
    English Parliamentary Army victory over all other protagonists

    Execution of King Charles I
    Exile of Charles II
    Defeat of the Irish Confederates
    Defeat of the Scottish Covenanters
    English Parliament reduced to a Rump
    Establishment of the republican Commonwealth
    Belligerents
    English, Scottish and Irish Royalists Scottish Covenanters Irish Confederates Irish Protestants English Parliamentarians
    Commanders and leaders
    Charles I Executed
    Prince Rupert
    Charles II
    Marquis of Montrose (in Scotland)
    Marquis of Argyll
    David Leslie
    Confederate Supreme Council
    Owen Roe O’Neill (in Ulster)
    Thomas Preston (in Leinster)
    Garret Barry (in Munster)
    John Burke (in Connacht)
    Edmund O’Dwyer (in Munster)
    Earl of Inchiquin
    Duke of Ormonde
    Earl of Essex
    Earl of Manchester
    Thomas Fairfax
    Oliver Cromwell
    George Monck (in Scotland)
    Michael Jones (in Ireland)
    Henry Ireton (in Ireland)
    Casualties and losses
    50,000 English and Welsh[1] 34,000[1]
    127,000 noncombat English and Welsh deaths (including some 40,000 civilians)[a]
    vte
    Wars of the
    Three Kingdoms
    The Wars of the Three Kingdoms,[b] sometimes known as the British Civil Wars,[c][d] formed an intertwined series of conflicts that took place in the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland between 1639 and 1651. The English Civil War proper has become the best-known of these conflicts; it included the abolition of the monarchy and the execution of the kingdoms’ monarch, Charles I, by the English Parliament in 1649.

    The history of these wars is often extended to include the uprisings and conflicts that continued through the 1650s until the English Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, and sometimes to include Venner’s uprising the following year. The wars were the outcome of broadly set tensions over religious and civil issues. Religious disputes centred on whether religion was to be dictated by the monarch or by choice, the conscience of the individual, with many people feeling that they ought to have freedom of religion (freedom of conscience). The related civil question was settling the extent to which the king’s rule was to be constrained by Parliament—in particular the right to raise taxes and armed forces without consent of the Parliament.

    The wars also had elements of national conflict, as Ireland and Scotland rebelled against England’s primacy within the Three Kingdoms. The broad and durable victory of the English Parliament—ultimately (under Oliver Cromwell and the Army) overcoming the king, the Irish and the Scots, and then outlasting the Cromwellian Protectorate itself—helped establish the future of Great Britain and Ireland as a constitutional monarchy with political power centred on the Parliament in London.

    These wars included the Bishops’ Wars of 1639 and 1640; the Irish Rebellion of 1641; Confederate Ireland, 1642–1649; the Scottish Civil War of 1644–1645; and the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in 1649 (collectively the Eleven Years War or Irish Confederate Wars); and the First, Second and Third English Civil Wars of 1642–1646, 1648–1649 and 1650–1651.

    Like

  8. Glorious Revolution
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    “The Bloodless Revolution” redirects here. For a history of the vegetarian movement, see The Bloodless Revolution (book).
    This article is about the English revolution of 1688. For the revolution of 1868 in Spain, see Glorious Revolution (Spain). For other uses, see Glorious Revolution (disambiguation).
    Glorious Revolution
    Prince of Orange engraving by William Miller after Turner R739.jpg
    Prince of Orange Landing at Torbay
    engraving by William Miller (1852)
    Date 1688–1689
    Location British Isles
    Also known as
    Revolution of 1688
    War of the English Succession
    Bloodless Revolution
    Participants English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish society, Dutch forces
    Outcome
    Replacement of James II by William III and Mary II
    Jacobite rising of 1689
    Williamite War in Ireland
    War with France; England and Scotland join Grand Alliance
    Drafting of the Bill of Rights 1689
    Part of a series on the
    History of England
    NEW MAP OF THE KINGDOME of ENGLAND, Representing the Princedome of WALES, and other PROVINCES, CITIES, MARKET TOWNS, with the ROADS from TOWN to TOWN (1685)
    Timeline[show]
    Topics[show]
    Polities[show]
    By county[show]
    By city or town[show]
    Flag of England.svg England portal
    vte
    The Glorious Revolution, or Revolution of 1688 (Irish: An Réabhlóid Ghlórmhar, Scottish Gaelic: Rèabhlaid Ghlòrmhor or Welsh: Chwyldro Gogoneddus) was the November 1688 deposition and subsequent replacement of James II and VII as ruler of England, Scotland and Ireland by his daughter Mary II and his Dutch nephew and Mary’s husband, William III of Orange. The outcome of events in all three kingdoms and Europe, the Revolution was quick and relatively bloodless, though establishing the new regime took much longer and led to significant casualties.[1] The term was first used by John Hampden in late 1689.[2]

    Like

  9. John Hampden (1653–1696)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    For other men with the same name, see John Hampden (disambiguation).

    John Hampden, c. 1690

    Arms of Hampden: Argent, a saltire gules between four eagles displayed azure
    John Hampden (21 March 1653 – 12 December 1696), the second son of Richard Hampden, and grandson of Ship money tax protester John Hampden, returned to England after residing for about two years in France, and joined himself to William Russell and Algernon Sidney and the party opposed to the arbitrary government of Charles II. With Russell and Sidney he was arrested in 1683 for alleged complicity in the Rye House Plot, but more fortunate than his colleagues his life was spared, although as he was unable to pay the fine of £40,000 which was imposed upon him he remained in prison. Then in 1685, after the failure of Monmouth’s rising, Hampden was again brought to trial, and on a charge of high treason was condemned to death. But the sentence was not carried out, and having paid £6000 he was set at liberty. In the Convention Parliament of 1689 he represented Wendover, but in the subsequent parliaments he failed to secure a seat. It was Hampden who in 1689 coined the phrase “Glorious Revolution”.[1] He died by his own hand on 12 December 1696. Hampden wrote numerous pamphlets, and Bishop Burnet described him as “one of the learnedest gentlemen I ever knew”.

    He married Sarah Foley (died 1687), and had two children:

    Richard Hampden (aft. 1674 – 27 July 1728), an MP and Privy Counsellor
    Letitia Hampden, who married John Birch MP as his second wife
    After her death, he married Anne Cornwallis and had two children:

    John Hampden (c. 1696 – 4 February 1754), an MP
    Ann Hampden (died September 1723), married Thomas Kempthorne

    Like

  10. Bill of Rights 1689
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    The Bill of Rights[nb 1]

    Parliament of England
    Long title An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.
    Citation 1 William & Mary Sess 2 c 2
    Dates
    Royal assent 16 December 1689
    Commencement 1689
    Status: Amended
    Revised text of statute as amended
    The Bill of Rights
    English Bill of Rights of 1689.jpg
    Created 1689
    Location Parliamentary Archives
    Author(s) Parliament of England
    Purpose Assert the rights of Parliament and the individual, and ensure a Protestant political supremacy
    The Bill of Rights 1689 is a landmark Act in the constitutional law of England that sets out certain basic civil rights and clarifies who would be next to inherit the Crown. It received the Royal Assent on 16 December 1689 and is a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William III and Mary II in February 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch and sets out the rights of Parliament, including the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech in Parliament.[2] It sets out certain rights of individuals including the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and reestablished the right of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law. It also includes no right of taxation without Parliament’s agreement. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights described and condemned several misdeeds of James II of England.[3]

    These ideas reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they quickly became popular in England.[4] It also sets out – or, in the view of its drafters, restates – certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in Parliament.[3][5]

    In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act 1689, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights 1689 was one of the models for the United States Bill of Rights of 1789, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950.[2]

    Along with the Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights is still in effect in all Commonwealth realms. Following the Perth Agreement in 2011, legislation amending both of them came into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26 March 2015.

    Contents
    1 Background
    1.1 Glorious Revolution
    1.2 Declaration of Right
    2 Provisions of the Act
    3 Date and title
    4 Augmentation and effect
    5 Legal status
    5.1 United Kingdom
    5.2 Australia
    5.3 Canada
    5.4 New Zealand
    5.5 Republic of Ireland
    6 Modern recognition
    7 See also
    8 Notes
    9 References
    10 Bibliography
    11 External links

    Like

  11. Act of Settlement 1701
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    For other acts with similar titles, see Act of Settlement (disambiguation).
    Act of Settlement[1]

    Parliament of England
    Long title An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject
    Citation 12 and 13 Will 3 c. 2
    Territorial extent
    England and Ireland initially
    Dates
    Royal assent 1701
    Commencement 1701
    Other legislation
    Amended by
    Various
    Relates to Bill of Rights 1689
    Status: Amended
    Revised text of statute as amended
    Part of a series on the
    Constitution
    of Canada

    Constitutional history
    Bill of Rights (1689)
    Act of Settlement (1701)
    Treaty of Paris (1763)
    Royal Proclamation (1763)
    Quebec Act (1774)
    Constitutional Act (1791)
    Act of Union (1840)
    Constitution Act (1867)
    Supreme Court Act (1875)
    Constitution Act, 1886
    British North America Acts (1867–1975)
    Statute of Westminster (1931)
    Succession to the Throne Act (1937)
    Letters Patent (1947)
    Canada Act (1982)
    Constitution Act (1982)
    Document list
    Amendments
    Unsuccessful amendments
    Constitutional law
    Constitutional debate
    Patriation
    Charter of Rights and Freedoms
    Canadian federalism
    Law of Canada
    Canadian Bill of Rights
    Implied Bill of Rights
    Canadian Human Rights Act
    Flag of Canada.svg Canada portal A coloured voting box.svg Politics portal
    vte
    The Act of Settlement is an Act of the Parliament of England that was passed in 1701[5] to settle the succession to the English and Irish crowns on Protestants only. The next Protestant in line to the throne was the Electress Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of James VI of Scotland, I of England and Ireland. After her the crowns would descend only to her non-Roman Catholic heirs.

    The act was prompted by the failure of King William III & II and Queen Mary II, as well as of Mary’s sister Queen Anne, to produce any surviving children, and the Roman Catholic religion of all other members of the House of Stuart. The line of Sophia of Hanover was the most junior among the Stuarts, but consisted of convinced Protestants. Sophia died on 8 June 1714, before the death of Queen Anne on 1 August 1714. On Queen Anne’s death, Sophia’s son duly became King George I and started the Hanoverian dynasty in Britain.

    The act played a key role in the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. England and Scotland had shared a monarch since 1603, but had remained separately governed countries. The Scottish parliament was more reluctant than the English to abandon the House of Stuart, members of which had been Scottish monarchs long before they became English ones. English pressure on Scotland to accept the Act of Settlement was one factor leading to the parliamentary union of the two countries in 1707.

    Under the Act of Settlement anyone who became a Roman Catholic, or who married one, became disqualified to inherit the throne. The act also placed limits on both the role of foreigners in the British government and the power of the monarch with respect to the Parliament of England. Some of those provisions have been altered by subsequent legislation.

    Along with the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement remains today one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession not only to the throne of the United Kingdom, but to those of the other Commonwealth realms, whether by assumption or by patriation.[6] The Act of Settlement cannot be altered in any realm except by that realm’s own parliament and, by convention, only with the consent of all the other realms, as it touches on the succession to the shared crown.[7]

    Following the Perth Agreement in 2011, legislation amending the act came into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26 March 2015, and removed the disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic.

    Contents
    1 Original context
    2 Provisions
    3 Opposition
    4 Effects
    4.1 Kingdom of Great Britain
    4.2 Succession to the Crown
    4.3 Removal from the succession due to Catholicism
    5 Present status
    6 Amendment proposals
    6.1 Australia
    6.2 Canada
    6.3 United Kingdom
    6.4 Across the realms
    7 See also
    8 Notes
    9 Sources
    10 External links

    Like

  12. Acts of Union 1707
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    “Union of England and Scotland” redirects here. It is not to be confused with Union of England and Scotland Act 1603 or Treaty of Union.
    Union with Scotland Act 1706[1]
    Act of Parliament

    Parliament of England
    Long title An Act for a Union of the Two Kingdoms of England and Scotland
    Citation 1706 c. 11
    Territorial extent Kingdom of England (inc. Wales); subsequently, United Kingdom
    Dates
    Commencement 1 May 1707
    Status: Current legislation
    Revised text of statute as amended
    Union with England Act 1707
    Act of Parliament

    Parliament of Scotland
    Long title Act Ratifying and Approving the Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England
    Citation 1707 c. 7
    Territorial extent Kingdom of Scotland; subsequently, United Kingdom
    Dates
    Commencement 1 May 1707
    Status: Current legislation
    Revised text of statute as amended
    Constitutional documents of the UK
    Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (HM Government).svg
    vte
    The Acts of Union were two Acts of Parliament: the Union with Scotland Act 1706 passed by the Parliament of England, and the Union with England Act passed in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland. They put into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union that had been agreed on 22 July 1706, following negotiation between commissioners representing the parliaments of the two countries. By the two Acts, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland—which at the time were separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch—were, in the words of the Treaty, “United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain”.[2]

    The two countries had shared a monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his double first cousin twice removed, Queen Elizabeth I. Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head (as opposed to the implied creation of a single Crown and a single Kingdom, exemplified by the later Kingdom of Great Britain). Prior to the Acts of Union there had been three previous attempts (in 1606, 1667, and 1689) to unite the two countries by Acts of Parliament, but it was not until the early 18th century that both political establishments came to support the idea, albeit for different reasons.

    The Acts took effect on 1 May 1707. On this date, the Scottish Parliament and the English Parliament united to form the Parliament of Great Britain, based in the Palace of Westminster in London, the home of the English Parliament.[3] Hence, the Acts are referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. On the Union, the historian Simon Schama said “What began as a hostile merger, would end in a full partnership in the most powerful going concern in the world … it was one of the most astonishing transformations in European history.”[4]

    Contents
    1 Historical background
    1.1 Pre-1707 attempts at Union
    1.1.1 1603–1639
    1.1.2 1639–1670
    1.1.3 1670–1707
    1.2 Treaty and passage of the Acts of 1707
    2 Political motivations
    2.1 English perspective
    2.2 Scottish perspective
    3 Provisions of the Acts
    3.1 Related Acts
    4 Evaluations
    5 300th anniversary
    6 Scottish voting records
    7 See also
    8 Notes
    9 Further reading
    10 Other books
    11 External links
    Historical background

    The first Union flag, created by James VI and I. A separate version was used in Scotland during the 17th century.
    Pre-1707 attempts at Union
    Despite attempts by Edward I to conquer Scotland in the late 13th and early 14th centuries, the two countries were entirely separate. However, when Elizabeth I became Queen of England in 1558, a union became increasingly likely as she neither married nor had children. From 1558 onwards, her heir was her Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, who pledged herself to a peaceful union between the two kingdoms.[5] In 1567, Mary was forced to abdicate as Queen of Scots and replaced by her infant son James VI, who was brought up as a Protestant and became heir to the English throne. After Elizabeth died in 1603, the two Crowns were held in personal union by James, now also James I of England, and his Stuart successors, but England and Scotland remained separate kingdoms.

    1603–1639
    When James became King of England in 1603, the creation of a unified Church of Scotland and England governed by bishops was the first step in his vision of a centralised, Unionist state.[6] On his accession, he announced his intention to unite the two realms so he would not be “guilty of bigamy;” he used the royal prerogative to take the title “King of Great Britain”[7] and give a British character to his court and person.[8]

    Scottish opposition to Stuart attempts to impose religious union led to the 1638 National Covenant
    The 1603 Union of England and Scotland Act established a joint Commission to agree terms but the English Parliament was concerned this would lead to the imposition of an absolutist structure similar to that of Scotland.[9] James dropped his policy of a speedy union, the topic disappeared from the legislative agenda while attempts to revive it in 1610 were met with hostility.[10]

    This did not mean James abandoned the idea; 17th-century religion and politics were closely linked and he viewed a unified Church of Scotland and England as the first step towards a centralised, Unionist state.[6] The problem was that the two churches were very different in both structure and doctrine; Scottish bishops presided over Presbyterian structures but were doctrinal Calvinists who viewed many Church of England practices as little better than Catholicism.[11] The religious policies followed by James and his son Charles I were intended as precursors to political union; resistance to this concept led to the 1638 National Covenant in Scotland and the 1639-1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

    1639–1670
    Main article: Scotland under the Commonwealth

    The 1643 Solemn League and Covenant between England and Scotland
    The 1639–1640 Bishops’ Wars confirmed the primacy of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland or kirk and established a Covenanter government in Scotland. The Scots remained neutral when the First English Civil War began in 1642, but grew concerned as to the impact of Royalist victory on Scotland after Parliamentary defeats in the first year of the war.[12] Religious union with England was also seen as the best way to preserve a Presbyterian kirk.[13] The 1643 Solemn League and Covenant provided Scottish military support for the English Parliament in return for a religious union between the Church of England and the kirk. While it referred repeatedly to ‘union’ between England, Scotland, and Ireland, it did not explicitly commit to political union which had little support even among their English supporters.

    Battle of Dunbar (1650); Scotland was incorporated into the Commonwealth after defeat in the Anglo-Scots War.
    Even religious union was fiercely opposed by the Episcopalian majority in the Church of England and Independents like Oliver Cromwell. The Scots and English Presbyterians came to see the Independents who dominated the New Model Army as a bigger threat than the Royalists and when Charles I surrendered in 1646, they agreed to restore him to the English throne. Both Royalists and Covenanters agreed the institution of monarchy was divinely ordered but disagreed on the nature and extent of Royal authority versus that of the church.[14]

    Commonwealth-era flag depicting the union between England and Scotland
    After defeat in the 1647–1648 Second English Civil War, Scotland was occupied by English troops which were withdrawn once the so-called Engagers whom Cromwell held responsible for the war had been replaced by the Kirk Party. In December 1648, Pride’s Purge confirmed Cromwell’s political control in England by removing Presbyterian MPs from Parliament and executing Charles in January 1649. Despite this, in February, the Kirk Party proclaimed Charles II King of Scotland and Great Britain; and agreed to restore him to the English throne.

    Defeat in the 1649–1651 Third English Civil War or Anglo-Scottish War resulted in Scotland’s incorporation into the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, largely driven by Cromwell’s determination to break the power of the kirk, which he held responsible for the Anglo-Scottish War.[15] The 1652 Tender of Union was followed on 12 April 1654 by An Ordinance by the Protector for the Union of England and Scotland, creating the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland.[16] It was ratified by the Second Protectorate Parliament on 26 June 1657, creating a single Parliament in Westminster, with 30 representatives each from Scotland and Ireland added to the existing English members.[17]

    While it established free trade within the Commonwealth, the economic benefits were diminished by the heavy taxation needed to fund the army.[18] In Scotland, Union was associated with military occupation, in England with heavy taxes and had little popular support in either country. It was dissolved by the 1660 Restoration of Charles II despite a petition by Scottish members of the Commonwealth Parliament for its continuance.

    The Scottish economy was badly damaged by the English Navigation Acts of 1660 and 1663 and wars with the Dutch Republic, its major export market. An Anglo-Scots Trade Commission was set up in January 1668 but the English had no interest in making concessions, as the Scots had little to offer in return. In 1669, Charles II revived talks on political union; his motives were to weaken Scotland’s commercial and political links with the Dutch, still seen as an enemy and complete the work of his grandfather James I.[19] Continued opposition in both England and Scotland meant that by the end of 1669, negotiations between Commissioners ground to a halt.[20]

    1670–1707
    Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, a Scottish Convention met in Edinburgh in April 1689 to agree a new constitutional settlement; during which the Scottish Bishops backed a proposed union in an attempt to preserve Episcopalian control of the kirk. William and Mary were supportive of the idea but it was opposed both by the Presbyterian majority in Scotland and the English Parliament.[21] Episcopacy in Scotland was abolished in 1690, alienating a significant part of the political class; it was this element that later formed the bedrock of opposition to Union.[22]

    The 1690s were a time of economic hardship in Europe as a whole and Scotland in particular, a period now known as the Seven ill years which led to strained relations with England.[23] In 1698, the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies received a charter to raise capital through public subscription.[24] The Company invested in the Darién scheme, an ambitious plan funded almost entirely by Scottish investors to build a colony on the Isthmus of Panama for trade with East Asia.[25] The scheme was a disaster; the losses of over £150,000 severely impacted the Scottish commercial system.[26] The financial losses incurred have often been suggested as one of the drivers behind Union.

    Treaty and passage of the Acts of 1707

    “Articles of Union otherwise known as Treaty of Union”, 1707
    Deeper political integration had been a key policy of Queen Anne from the time she acceded to the throne in 1702. Under the aegis of the Queen and her ministers in both kingdoms, the parliaments of England and Scotland agreed to participate in fresh negotiations for a union treaty in 1705.

    Both countries appointed 31 commissioners to conduct the negotiations. Most of the Scottish commissioners favoured union, and about half were government ministers and other officials. At the head of the list was Queensberry, and the Lord Chancellor of Scotland, the Earl of Seafield.[27] The English commissioners included the Lord High Treasurer, the Earl of Godolphin, the Lord Keeper, Baron Cowper, and a large number of Whigs who supported union. Tories were not in favour of union and only one was represented among the commissioners.[27]

    Negotiations between the English and Scottish commissioners took place between 16 April and 22 July 1706 at the Cockpit in London. Each side had its own particular concerns. Within a few days, England gained a guarantee that the Hanoverian dynasty would succeed Queen Anne to the Scottish crown, and Scotland received a guarantee of access to colonial markets, in the hope that they would be placed on an equal footing in terms of trade.[28]

    After negotiations ended in July 1706, the acts had to be ratified by both Parliaments. In Scotland, about 100 of the 227 members of the Parliament of Scotland were supportive of the Court Party. For extra votes the pro-court side could rely on about 25 members of the Squadrone Volante, led by the Marquess of Montrose and the Duke of Roxburghe. Opponents of the court were generally known as the Country party, and included various factions and individuals such as the Duke of Hamilton, Lord Belhaven and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who spoke forcefully and passionately against the union. The Court party enjoyed significant funding from England and the Treasury and included many who had accumulated debts following the Darien Disaster.[29]

    In Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry was largely responsible for the successful passage of the Union act by the Scottish Parliament. In Scotland, he received much criticism from local residents, but in England he was cheered for his action. He had received around half of the funding awarded by the Westminster treasury for himself. In April 1707, he travelled to London to attend celebrations at the royal court, and was greeted by groups of noblemen and gentry lined along the road. From Barnet, the route was lined with crowds of cheering people, and once he reached London a huge crowd had formed. On 17 April, the Duke was gratefully received by the Queen at Kensington Palace.[30]

    Political motivations

    Queen Anne in 1702, the year she became queen, from the school of John Closterman
    The Acts of Union should be seen within a wider European context of increasing state centralisation during the late 17th and early 18th centuries. This included the monarchies of France, Sweden, Denmark and Spain. While there were exceptions such as the Dutch Republic or the Republic of Venice, the trend was clear.[31]

    However, this can be disputed by pointing out the simple fact that an essential part of the Act of Union was restatement of the Act of Settlement 1701 and the ban on Roman Catholics from taking the throne. It is impossible to ignore or dismiss the importance of sectarianism.

    The dangers of the monarch using one Parliament against the other became apparent in the wars of 1647 and 1651 and resurfaced during the Exclusion Crisis. English resistance to the Catholic James succeeding his brother Charles resulted in his being sent to Edinburgh in 1681 as Lord High Commissioner. In August, the Scottish Parliament passed the Succession Act, confirming the divine right of kings, the rights of the natural heir ‘regardless of religion,’ the duty of all to swear allegiance to that king and the independence of the Scottish Crown. It then went beyond ensuring James’s succession to the Scottish throne by explicitly stating the aim was to make his exclusion from the English throne impossible without ‘…the fatall and dreadfull consequences of a civil war.'[32]

    The issue reappeared during the 1688 Glorious Revolution. Contrary to what is often assumed, the English Parliament generally supported the replacement of James with his Protestant daughter Mary II but strongly resisted making her Dutch husband William III & II joint ruler. They only gave way when he threatened to return to the Netherlands and Mary refused to rule without him.[33]

    In Scotland, conflict over control of the kirk between Presbyterians and Episcopalians and William’s position as a fellow Calvinist put him in a much stronger position. Originally, William insisted on retaining Episcopacy in the kirk and the Committee of the Articles, an unelected body that controlled what legislation Parliament could debate. Both of these would have given the Crown far greater control than in England but he withdrew his demands due to the 1689-1692 Jacobite Rising.[34]

    English perspective

    This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
    The English purpose was to ensure that Scotland would not choose a monarch different from the one on the English throne. The two countries had shared a king for much of the previous century, but the English were concerned that an independent Scotland with a different king, even if he were a Protestant, might make alliances against England. The English succession was provided for by the English Act of Settlement 1701, which ensured that the monarch of England would be a Protestant member of the House of Hanover. Until the Union of Parliaments, the Scottish throne might be inherited by a different successor after Queen Anne: the Scottish Act of Security 1704 granted parliament the right to choose a successor and explicitly required a choice different from the English monarch unless the English were to grant free trade and navigation. Many people in England were unhappy about the prospect, however. English overseas possessions made England wealthy in comparison to Scotland and had many times the number of Members of Parliament than Scotland, thus able to pass any legislation over Scottish objections. This made unification a markedly unequal relationship, much to England’s advantage.

    Scottish perspective
    In Scotland, some claimed that union would enable Scotland to recover from the financial disaster wrought by the Darien scheme through English assistance and the lifting of measures put in place through the Alien Act to force the Scottish Parliament into compliance with the Act of Settlement.[35]

    The combined votes of the Court party with a majority of the Squadrone Volante were sufficient to ensure the final passage of the treaty through the House.

    Personal financial interests were also allegedly involved. Many Commissioners had invested heavily in the Darien scheme and they believed that they would receive compensation for their losses; Article 15 granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland, a sum known as The Equivalent, to offset future liability towards the English national debt. In essence it was also used as a means of compensation for investors in the Company of Scotland’s Darien scheme, as 58.6% was allocated to its shareholders and creditors.[36]

    18th-century French illustration of an opening of the Scottish Parliament
    Even more direct bribery was a factor.[37] £20,000 (£240,000 Scots) was dispatched to Scotland for distribution by the Earl of Glasgow. James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, the Queen’s Commissioner in Parliament, received £12,325, more than 60% of the funding. Robert Burns referred to this:

    We’re bought and sold for English Gold,
    Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation.

    Some of the money was used to hire spies, such as Daniel Defoe; his first reports were of vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against the Union. “A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind,” he reported, “for every Scot in favour there is 99 against”. Years later, Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, originally a leading Unionist, wrote in his memoirs that Defoe “was a spy among us, but not known as such, otherwise the Mob of Edinburgh would pull him to pieces.”

    The Treaty was hated in Scotland at the time. Riots occurred in Edinburgh, as well as substantial riots in Glasgow. The people of Edinburgh demonstrated against the treaty, and their apparent leader in opposition to the Unionists was James Hamilton, 4th Duke of Hamilton. However, Hamilton was actually on the side of the English Government. Demonstrators in Edinburgh were opposed to the Union for many reasons: they feared the Kirk would be Anglicised; that Anglicisation would remove democracy from the only really elementally democratic part of the Kingdom; and they feared that tax rises would come.[38]

    Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that “The whole nation appears against the Union”[39] and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was “contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom”.[39] Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union as proposed:
    That it is our indispensable duty to signify to your grace that, as we are not against an honourable and safe union with England far less can we expect to have the condition of the people of Scotland, with relation to these great concerns, made better and improved without a Scots Parliament.[40]

    Not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carilloner in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells in the tune Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?[41] Threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law.

    Provisions of the Acts

    Heraldic badge of Queen Anne, depicting the Tudor rose and the Scottish thistle growing from the same stem.
    Main article: Treaty of Union
    The Treaty of Union, agreed between representatives of the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland in 1706, consisted of 25 articles, 15 of which were economic in nature. In Scotland, each article was voted on separately and several clauses in articles were delegated to specialised subcommittees. Article 1 of the treaty was based on the political principle of an incorporating union and this was secured by a majority of 116 votes to 83 on 4 November 1706. To minimise the opposition of the Church of Scotland, an Act was also passed to secure the Presbyterian establishment of the Church, after which the Church stopped its open opposition, although hostility remained at lower levels of the clergy. The treaty as a whole was finally ratified on 16 January 1707 by a majority of 110 votes to 69.[42]

    The two Acts incorporated provisions for Scotland to send representative peers from the Peerage of Scotland to sit in the House of Lords. It guaranteed that the Church of Scotland would remain the established church in Scotland, that the Court of Session would “remain in all time coming within Scotland”, and that Scots law would “remain in the same force as before”. Other provisions included the restatement of the Act of Settlement 1701 and the ban on Roman Catholics from taking the throne. It also created a customs union and monetary union.

    The Act provided that any “laws and statutes” that were “contrary to or inconsistent with the terms” of the Act would “cease and become void”.

    Related Acts
    The Scottish Parliament also passed the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707 guaranteeing the status of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The English Parliament passed a similar Act, 6 Anne c.8.

    Soon after the Union, the Act 6 Anne c.40—later named the Union with Scotland (Amendment) Act 1707—united the English and Scottish Privy Councils and decentralised Scottish administration by appointing justices of the peace in each shire to carry out administration. In effect it took the day-to-day government of Scotland out of the hands of politicians and into those of the College of Justice.

    In the year following the Union, the Treason Act 1708 abolished the Scottish law of treason and extended the corresponding English law across Great Britain.

    Evaluations
    Scotland benefited, says historian G.N. Clark, gaining “freedom of trade with England and the colonies” as well as “a great expansion of markets”. The agreement guaranteed the permanent status of the Presbyterian church in Scotland, and the separate system of laws and courts in Scotland. Clark argued that in exchange for the financial benefits and bribes that England bestowed, what it gained was

    of inestimable value. Scotland accepted the Hanoverian succession and gave up her power of threatening England’s military security and complicating her commercial relations … The sweeping successes of the eighteenth-century wars owed much to the new unity of the two nations.[43]

    By the time Samuel Johnson and James Boswell made their tour in 1773, recorded in A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland, Johnson noted that Scotland was “a nation of which the commerce is hourly extending, and the wealth increasing” and in particular that Glasgow had become one of the greatest cities of Britain.[44]

    300th anniversary

    The £2 coin issued in the United Kingdom in 2007 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Acts of Union
    A commemorative two-pound coin was issued to mark the tercentennial—300th anniversary—of the Union, which occurred two days before the Scottish Parliament general election on 3 May 2007.[45]

    The Scottish Government held a number of commemorative events through the year including an education project led by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, an exhibition of Union-related objects and documents at the National Museums of Scotland and an exhibition of portraits of people associated with the Union at the National Galleries of Scotland.[46]

    Like

  13. Alien Act 1705
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    The Alien Act was a law passed by the Parliament of England in February 1705, as a response to the Parliament of Scotland’s Act of Security of 1704, which in turn was partially a response to the English Act of Settlement 1701. Lord Godolphin, the Lord High Treasurer, was instrumental in the Union of 1707 and all the Acts leading up to it. The Alien Act was passed to prevent the inconveniences that would occur hastily if these two Kingdoms were not to become one Union.[1]

    The Alien Act provided that Scottish nationals in England were to be treated as aliens (foreign nationals), and estates held by Scots would be treated as alien property,[2] making inheritance much less certain. It also included an embargo on the import of Scottish products into England and English colonies – about half of Scotland’s trade, covering goods such as linen, cattle and coal.[3] There was also an embargo on the export of arms, ammunition, and horses to Scotland so that they could not raise an army and invade England.[4] Faced with the economic pressure the Scottish decided to unionize, something England had wanted for over a century. With the Union in 1707 free trade was established along with a single parliament.

    The Act contained a provision that it would be suspended if the Scots entered into negotiations regarding a proposed union of the parliaments of Scotland and England. The Act demanded that a settlement of succession or authorize union negotiation by December 25, 1705.[5] The Scots insisted that the Alien Act be repealed before entering into treaty negotiations.[6] In late December, news that both the Commons and the Lords had agreed to repeal the act reached the north.[7] Combined with English financial offers to refund Scottish losses on the Darien scheme, the Act achieved its aim, leading to the Acts of Union 1707 uniting the two countries as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

    Like

  14. Robert Walpole
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    For other people named Robert Walpole, see Robert Walpole (disambiguation).
    The Right Honourable
    The Earl of Orford
    KG PC
    Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford by Arthur Pond.jpg
    Prime Minister of Great Britain
    In office
    3 April 1721 – 11 February 1742
    Monarch
    George I
    George II
    Preceded by Office established
    Succeeded by The Earl of Wilmington
    Chancellor of the Exchequer
    In office
    4 April 1721 – 12 February 1742
    Preceded by Sir John Pratt
    Succeeded by Samuel Sandys
    In office
    12 October 1715 – 15 April 1717
    Preceded by Sir Richard Onslow
    Succeeded by The Viscount Stanhope
    Leader of the House of Commons
    In office
    4 April 1721 – 6 February 1742
    Succeeded by Samuel Sandys
    Personal details
    Born 26 August 1676
    Houghton, Norfolk, England
    Died 18 March 1745 (aged 68)
    St James’s, Middlesex, Great Britain
    Resting place St Martin Churchyard, Houghton, Norfolk
    Nationality Great Britain
    Political party Whig
    Spouse(s)
    Catherine Shorter
    (m. 1700; died 1737)
    Maria Skerret
    (m. 1738; died 1738)
    Children 6, including Robert, Edward and Horace
    Parents
    Robert Walpole
    Mary Burwell
    Relatives Walpole family
    Alma mater King’s College, Cambridge
    Profession
    Politicianscholar
    Signature
    Military service
    Battles/wars War of the Austrian Succession

    Armorial of Walpole: Or, on a fesse between two chevrons sable three crosses crosslet of the field[1]

    Quartered arms of Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford, KG
    Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford, KG, PC (26 August 1676 – 18 March 1745), known between 1725 and 1742 as Sir Robert Walpole, was a British politician who is generally regarded as the de facto first Prime Minister of Great Britain.

    Although the exact dates of Walpole’s dominance, dubbed the “Robinocracy”,[2] are a matter of scholarly debate, the period 1721–1742 is often used. He dominated the Walpole–Townshend ministry, as well as the subsequent Walpole ministry, and holds the record as the longest-serving British prime minister in history. W. A. Speck wrote that Walpole’s uninterrupted run of 20 years as Prime Minister “is rightly regarded as one of the major feats of British political history… Explanations are usually offered in terms of his expert handling of the political system after 1720, [and] his unique blending of the surviving powers of the crown with the increasing influence of the Commons”.[3]

    He was a Whig from the gentry class who was first elected to Parliament in 1701 and held many senior positions. He was a country squire and looked to country gentlemen for his political base. Historian Frank O’Gorman says his leadership in Parliament reflected his “reasonable and persuasive oratory, his ability to move both the emotions as well as the minds of men, and, above all, his extraordinary self-confidence”.[4] Hoppit says Walpole’s policies sought moderation: he worked for peace, lower taxes and growing exports and allowed a little more tolerance for Protestant Dissenters. He mostly avoided controversy and high-intensity disputes as his middle way attracted moderates from both the Whig and Tory camps, [5] but his appointment to Chancellor of the Exchequer after the South Sea Bubble stock-market crisis drew attention to a perceived protection of political allies by Walpole.[6]

    H. T. Dickinson sums up his historical role by saying that “Walpole was one of the greatest politicians in British history. He played a significant role in sustaining the Whig party, safeguarding the Hanoverian succession, and defending the principles of the Glorious Revolution (1688) […] He established a stable political supremacy for the Whig party and taught succeeding ministers how best to establish an effective working relationship between Crown and Parliament”.[7]

    Like

  15. Acts of Union 1800
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    Act of Union (Ireland) 1800

    Parliament of Ireland
    Long title An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland
    Citation 40 Geo. 3 c.38
    Introduced by John Toler[1]
    Dates
    Commencement 1 January 1801
    Status: Amended
    Revised text of statute as amended
    Constitutional documents of the UK
    Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (HM Government).svg
    vte
    The Acts of Union 1800 (sometimes referred to as a single Act of Union 1801) were parallel acts of the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland which united the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland (previously in personal union) to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The acts came into force on 1 January 1801, and the merged Parliament of the United Kingdom had its first meeting on 22 January 1801.

    Both acts remain in force, with amendments, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,[2] and have been repealed in the Republic of Ireland.[3]

    Contents
    1 Name
    2 Background
    3 Passing the Acts
    4 Provisions
    4.1 The first parliament
    5 Union flag
    6 References
    6.1 Sources
    6.2 Citations
    7 Further reading
    8 External links

    Like

  16. George I of Great Britain
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    George I
    George seated on the throne in the robes of the Order of the Garter
    Portrait from the studio of Sir Godfrey Kneller, c. 1714
    King of Great Britain and Ireland (more…)
    Reign 1 August 1714 – 11 June 1727[a]
    Coronation 20 October 1714
    Predecessor Anne
    Successor George II
    Elector of Hanover
    Reign 23 January 1698 – 11 June 1727[a]
    Predecessor Ernest Augustus
    Successor George II
    Born 28 May / 7 June 1660 (O.S./N.S.)[a]
    Hanover, Brunswick-Lüneburg, Holy Roman Empire
    Died 11/22 June 1727 (aged 67) (O.S./N.S.)
    Schloss Osnabrück, Osnabrück
    Burial 4 August 1727
    Leineschloss, Hanover; later Herrenhausen, Hanover
    Spouse Sophia Dorothea of Celle
    (m. 1682; div. 1694)
    Issue
    more…
    George II of Great Britain
    Sophia Dorothea, Queen in Prussia
    Full name
    George Louis (German: Georg Ludwig)
    House Hanover
    Father Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover
    Mother Sophia of the Palatinate
    Religion Protestant[1]
    Signature George I’s signature
    George I (George Louis; German: Georg Ludwig; 28 May 1660 – 11 June 1727)[a] was King of Great Britain and Ireland from 1 August 1714 and ruler of the Duchy and Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg (Hanover) in the Holy Roman Empire from 23 January 1698 until his death in 1727. He was the first British monarch of the House of Hanover.

    Born in Hanover to its Elector Ernest Augustus and Electress Sophia, George inherited the titles and lands of the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg from his father and uncles. A succession of European wars expanded his German domains during his lifetime; he was ratified as prince-elector of Hanover in 1708. After the deaths in 1714 of his mother and his second cousin Anne, Queen of Great Britain (r. 1702–1714), George ascended the British throne as Anne’s closest living Protestant relative under the Act of Settlement 1701. Jacobites attempted, but failed, to depose George and replace him with James Francis Edward Stuart, Anne’s Catholic half-brother.

    During George’s reign, the powers of the monarchy diminished and Britain began a transition to the modern system of cabinet government led by a prime minister. Towards the end of his reign, actual political power was held by Robert Walpole, now recognised as Britain’s first de facto prime minister. George died of a stroke on a trip to his native Hanover, where he was buried. He was the last British monarch to be buried outside the United Kingdom.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.