Elizabeth I of England
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|
|Born||7 September 1533
Palace of Placentia, Greenwich, England
|Died||24 March 1603 (aged 69)
Richmond Palace, Surrey, England
|Burial||28 April 1603|
|Father||Henry VIII of England|
|Religion||Church of England|
Elizabeth I (7 September 1533 – 24 March 1603) was Queen of England and Ireland from 17 November 1558 until her death on 24 March 1603. Sometimes called the Virgin Queen, Gloriana 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. 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.
Personal union and republican phase
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 – 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.
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. 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.
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.
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. Soon after the passage of the Act, William III died, leaving the Crown to Anne.
After the 1707 Acts of Union
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia
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 Palace, Fife, Kingdom of Scotland
|Died||13 February 1662 (aged 65)
London, Kingdom of England
|Burial||17 February 1662
Westminster Abbey, London
|Spouse||Frederick V, Elector Palatine|
|Father||James VI and I|
|Mother||Anne of Denmark|
|Scottish and English Royalty|
|House of Stuart|
|James VI and I|
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 born at Dunfermline Palace, Fife, 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. 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”, where she was placed in the care of Lord Livingstone and his wife, Eleanor Hay. 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.
Move to England
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, Elizabeth made the journey south toward England with her mother “in a triumphal progress of perpetual entertainment”. On her father’s birthday, 19 June, Elizabeth danced at Worksop Manor with Robert Cecil’s son.
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. 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”.
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”.
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. 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.
Frederick V of the Palatinate
|Reign||19 September 1610 – 23 February 1623|
|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|
|Born||26 August 1596
Deinschwang, near Amberg, Upper Palatinate
|Died||29 November 1632 (aged 36)
|Father||Frederick IV, Elector Palatine|
|Mother||Princess Louise Juliana of Orange-Nassau|
Frederick V (German: Friedrich V.; 26 August 1596 – 29 November 1632) 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” (Czech: Zimní 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, as Frederick I (Czech: Fridrich 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.
Prince Rupert of the Rhine
|Count Palatine of the Rhine
Duke of Cumberland
Earl of Holderness
Prince Rupert portrayed in Roman garb
|Born||17 December 1619
|Died||29 November 1682 (aged 62)
|Burial||6 December 1682|
|Issue||Dudley Bard (1666–1686)
Ruperta Howe (1671–1740)
|Father||Frederick V, Elector Palatine|
|Occupation||Soldier, statesman, privateer, and scientist|
Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Duke of Cumberland, KG, PC, FRS (17 December 1619 – 29 November 1682) was a German-British army officer, admiral, scientist and colonial governor. He first came to prominence as a Cavalier cavalry commander during the English Civil War.[a]
Frederick was born on 26 August 1596 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). Rupert’s mother paid her children little attention even by the standards of the day, apparently preferring her pet monkeys and dogs. 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.
Early phases, 1642–43
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, evaded the pro-Parliamentary navy and landed in Newcastle. 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. 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. 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.
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, Rupert captured Leicester, but suffered a severe reversal at the Battle of Naseby a month later. 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. 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.
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. King Charles attempted to order Rupert to desist, fearing an armed coup, but Rupert arrived at the royal court anyway. After a difficult meeting, Rupert convinced the King to hold a court-martial over his conduct at Bristol, which exonerated him and Maurice. 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. Earlier interpretations of this event focused on Rupert’s concern for his honour in the face of his initial dismissal by the King; 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. 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. 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.
Career during the Second English War and Interregnum
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. Most of the fleet finally switched sides once more, returning to England in late 1648.
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. 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.
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. Rupert sailed to Lisbon taking several prizes en route, where he received a warm welcome from King John IV, the ruler of recently independent Portugal, who was a supporter of Charles II. Blake arrived shortly afterwards with a Parliamentary fleet, and an armed stand-off ensued. 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. Still pursued by Blake, the Royalist fleet manoeuvred up the Spanish coast, steadily losing vessels to their pursuers.
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. 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—and a great deal of captured treasure. 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. Rupert took the opportunity to explore and acquired a Moorish servant boy, who remained in his service for many years. Rupert also explored 150 miles up the Gambia River, taking two Spanish vessels as prizes and contracting malaria in the process.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. Rupert moved on, having placed his brother Charles Louis in some diplomatic difficulties with Spain. Rupert travelled onwards, continuing to attempt to convince Ferdinand to back Charles II’s efforts to regain his throne.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
In 1668, the King appointed Rupert to be the Constable of Windsor Castle. 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. 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. 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”. King Charles II and Rupert spent much time together over the years hunting and playing tennis together at Windsor, and Rupert was also a close companion of James, the Duke of York. Rupert was considered by Pepys to be the fourth best tennis player in England.
Rupert became romantically engaged to Frances Bard (1646–1708), the daughter of the English explorer and Civil War veteran Henry Bard. Frances claimed to have secretly married Rupert in 1664, although this was denied by him and no firm proof exists to support the claim. 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.
For much of the 17th century, England was embroiled in conflict with commercial rival Holland through the Anglo-Dutch Wars. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.” 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. The Dutch however would see a favourable end to the war with the decisive Raid on the Medway.
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. The English fleet had been much expanded, and Rupert had three ships, HMS Royal Charles, HMS 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. 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. Rupert was instead instructed to take over the Duke’s work at the Admiralty, which he did with gusto. The Allied naval plans were stalled after the Duke’s inconclusive battle with the Dutch at Solebay.
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. 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. Rupert began the 1673 campaign against the Dutch knowing the logistical support for his fleet remained uncertain, with many ships undermanned. 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. 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. Rupert finally retired from active seagoing command later that year.
Rupert had a characteristic style as an admiral; he relied upon “energetic personal leadership backed by close contact with his officers”; having decided how to proceed in a naval campaign, however, it could be difficult for his staff to change his mind. 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. 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. 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 and shaped the idea that an aggressive fighting spirit should be at the core of British naval doctrine.
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, 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. The King’s solution was to establish a small, empowered Admiralty Commission, of which Rupert became the first commissioner. 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. Rupert was also appointed to the supreme position of “General at Sea and Land”, effectively assuming the wartime powers of the Lord High Admiral.
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. To the younger members of the court the prince appeared increasingly distant—almost from a different era. 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”. 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.
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. Rupert was an active shareholder in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa that was established as a result in 1662. 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. 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.
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; there their account attracted the attention of the King and Rupert. 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. The Eaglet failed, but her sister vessel, the Nonsuch, made a successful expedition, returning in 1669 with furs worth £1,400. 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. 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.[b]
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.
Holy Roman Emperor
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 wouldbeguile thee; if thou wert the lamb, the fox wouldeat three: if thou wert the fox, the lion wouldsuspect thee, when peradventure thou wert accused bythe ass: if thou wert the ass, thy dulness wouldtorment thee, and still thou livedst but as abreakfast to the wolf: if thou wert the wolf, thygreediness would afflict thee, and oft thou shouldsthazard thy life for thy dinner: wert thou theunicorn, pride and wrath would confound thee andmake thine own self the conquest of thy fury: wertthou a bear, thou wouldst be killed by the horse:wert thou a horse, thou wouldst be seized by theleopard: wert thou a leopard, thou wert german tothe lion and the spots of thy kindred were jurors onthy life: all thy safety were remotion and thydefence absence. What beast couldst thou be, thatwere not subject to a beast? and what a beast artthou already, that seest not thy loss intransformation!”
For the 21st partisans for patronagePutin and the bear NationalismTrump and the Eagle InterNationalismCorbyn of the un-common people interNationalism
Farage of the common people NationalismWell May? You ask Globalism, Atlanticism
Within the Elysian bosom suckling Globalism on the rightand Internationalism on the left restricted by two titsA binary mammary conundrum for PIIGS have many teets.
On which teet will elites suckle, formula for the masses.From good men and bad society tobad men and good society from optimismto pessimism and from secularismto 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 Shawshadows 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)
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.
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.
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/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.
Richard North: WTO “a complete non-starter.” https://t.co/Z6JABb98Wj
North over-egging the pudding Why? https://t.co/j7p1vqNfrH @JoeBlob20 @RichardAENorth https://t.co/Fl41NNh0zs @briangukc #EUMilitaryUnification pic.twitter.com/ZJMMxQ565d
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) April 19, 2019
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.
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.
From Butterboxes to Wooden Shoes: The Shift in English Popular Sentiment from Anti-Dutch to Anti-French in the 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.
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
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 FlÃ¢neur and 19th-Century Media
By Marit GrÃ¸tta
“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.
Today, chess programs have become so good that even grandmasters sometimes struggle to understand the logic behind some of their moves.
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´´
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
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. 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 France, England and Spain at the time. Political Unification of
Frederick V of the Palatinate.
Currency and inflation
Aurelian’s attempt to reform the currency had failed; the denarius was dead. Diocletian restored the three-metal coinage and issued better quality pieces. 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.[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).
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. 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. 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. 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.
The Edict on Maximum Prices (Edictum De Pretiis Rerum Venalium) was issued two to three months after the coinage edict, somewhere between 20 November and 10 December 301. The best-preserved Latin inscription surviving from the Greek East, the edict survives in many versions, on materials as varied as wood, papyrus, and stone. 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.
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”. 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.
There is no consensus about how effectively the edict was enforced. Supposedly, inflation, speculation, and monetary instability continued, and a black market arose to trade in goods forced out of official markets. The edict’s penalties were applied unevenly across the empire (some scholars believe they were applied only in Diocletian’s domains), widely resisted, and eventually dropped, perhaps within a year of the edict’s issue. 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, and the impact of the law is recorded in no other ancient source.
Social and professional mobility
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. Soldiers’ children were also forcibly enrolled, something that followed spontaneous tendencies among the rank-and-file, but also expressed increasing difficulties in recruitment.
|Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire|
Laureate head of Diocletian
|Emperor of the Roman Empire|
|Reign||20 November 284 – 1 April 286 (in competition with Carinus until July 285)|
|Reign||1 April 286 – 1 May 305 (as Senior Augustus, ruled in the east)|
|Successor||Constantius Chlorus and Galerius|
|Co-emperor||Maximian (Western Emperor)|
|Born||c. 22 December 244
Salona (now Solin, Croatia)
|Died||3 December 311 (age 66)
Aspalathos (now Split, Croatia)
Diocletian (/ˌdaɪ.əˈkliːʃən/; Latin: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus), born Diocles (22 December 244 – 3 December 311), 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 Nicomedia, Mediolanum, Sirmium, 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.
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.