What if the Jacobite rebellion of 1745 was successful?

Jan 2019
194
Montreal, QC
#31
Indeed. The bastards even abolished Xmas. .

Do you think this repression was directly responsible for the relative licentiousness of Charles 11 reign?
Yes and no.

Charles II was certainly traumatised to some degree from his "travels", as he himself called them, and surrounded himself with such licentious debauchery in order to alleviate some of his personal pains. It was also quite a slippery, cynical move on his part. We so often imagine him as being a drunken, careless, lazy lech, but 3/4 of those things are untrue. Charles didn't like to drink alcohol (nor did his father or his brother - James had reported that it upset his stomach), and he was up before dawn every morning to play tennis, go horseback riding, or to go swimming with dear Jamie (as Charles called his brother). When Charles put on the front of the Merry Monarch, he was able to see who would take advantage of him. If he pretended to be a careless drunk, he could observe who exactly would try to sway him, or who would try to spy on him, or who would try to pull some sort of underhand ploy against him.

I'm not sure how I feel about their characterisation of Charles at large, but Richard Bucholz and Newton Key made a very compelling observation about him:

Basically, Charles II was a cynic- and who could blame him? After all, the people who now professed their undying loyalty and affection for him were the very ones who had fought against his father. He would never fully understand their prejudices. On his last visit to his dominions in 1651 he had been forced to hide in a tree before sneaking out of the country in disguise. During the ensuing exile of over eighteen years he had been threatened, denounced, promised to, lied to, used, and spied on by them- as well as by every government in Europe. Often, he would find that a confidential servant was in the pay of his enemies; or that a fellow monarch had used him as a pawn in some diplomatic game of chess with Cromwell. No wonder that he trusted no one. He never knew when the English, Scots, and Irish would change their minds once more and force him to go "on his travels" again.1
If you think about him beyond his facade of the Merry Monarch, Good King Charles was really a very tragic figure. He certainly learned from his father's mistakes. But poor James didn't...

[1] Richard Bucholz and Newton Key, Early Modern England, 1485-1714: A Narrative History (2009), p. 284-285
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#33
Yes and no.

Charles II was certainly traumatised to some degree from his "travels", as he himself called them, and surrounded himself with such licentious debauchery in order to alleviate some of his personal pains. It was also quite a slippery, cynical move on his part. We so often imagine him as being a drunken, careless, lazy lech, but 3/4 of those things are untrue. Charles didn't like to drink alcohol (nor did his father or his brother - James had reported that it upset his stomach), and he was up before dawn every morning to play tennis, go horseback riding, or to go swimming with dear Jamie (as Charles called his brother). When Charles put on the front of the Merry Monarch, he was able to see who would take advantage of him. If he pretended to be a careless drunk, he could observe who exactly would try to sway him, or who would try to spy on him, or who would try to pull some sort of underhand ploy against him.

I'm not sure how I feel about their characterisation of Charles at large, but Richard Bucholz and Newton Key made a very compelling observation about him:



If you think about him beyond his facade of the Merry Monarch, Good King Charles was really a very tragic figure. He certainly learned from his father's mistakes. But poor James didn't...

[1] Richard Bucholz and Newton Key, Early Modern England, 1485-1714: A Narrative History (2009), p. 284-285

Thanks Duchess.

Good stuff.

Some of that may have been covered in Wheatley's "Old Rowley", but I read that in 1971. I have forgotten just about everything except the title and some vague notions.One is that Charles 11 was pretty ruthless hunting down those he saw as responsible for his father's death.. Is that true?
 
Jan 2019
194
Montreal, QC
#34
Thanks Duchess.

Good stuff.

Some of that may have been covered in Wheatley's "Old Rowley", but I read that in 1971. I have forgotten just about everything except the title and some vague notions.One is that Charles 11 was pretty ruthless hunting down those he saw as responsible for his father's death.. Is that true?
Au contraire. From the same book:

Above all, Charles II saw the need for healing after a quarter-century of bitter conflict. At Breda he had promised forgiveness to his enemies, and, in general, he lived up to that promise: fewer than 40 old rebels and servants of the Commonwealth and Protectorate were left out of the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion (1660). The most serous revenge was reserved for those who had signed Charles I's death warrant and, of these, only 11 were executed. Those unfortunate souls, however, suffered the full fury of the traditional punishments associated with treason: they were hanged, drawn, and quartered, and their boiled remains impaled on the City gates. The new regime even vented its wrath on the dead: the bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton, and John Bradshaw were exhumed and hanged at Tyburn in their shrouds. Afterwards their heads were placed on pikes at Westminster Hall- the place of Charles I's trial- as a warning to all potential rebels.

On the other hand, Charles II forgave many surviving Roundheads, reappointing them to the offices they had performed so well for the Commonwealth and Protectorate, rewarding them for their new-found loyalty with titles, pensions, and lands. This eased bitterness on their part and it kept experienced and competent people in government. But it also left many old Royalists, impoverished by their long and faithful service to the Stuarts in defeat and exile, resentful that they were not rewarded more generously. In fact, most Royalist nobility and gentry regained the lands lost during the Interregnum, but those further down the social scale were not so lucky. A fund of £60,000 was established for indigent officers, but individual pay-outs were tiny. Hence the dark Royalist joke that the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion meant indemnity for the king's former enemies and oblivion for his friends.
Charles had even moved to prevent more executions of the regicides:

It was the King who prevented a further nineteen of their number... He told Hyde that while he could not pardon them, he was 'weary of hanging.'
The above is from Dame Antonia Fraser's 1979 biography on King Charles II, page 239.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#35
Au contraire. From the same book:



Charles had even moved to prevent more executions of the regicides:



The above is from Dame Antonia Fraser's 1979 biography on King Charles II, page 239.
Excellent! Thank You. I think you were right about Wheatley's book; after all, it WAS written in 1933. A simpler explanation, which may be more likely, is that I have misremembered even the vague bits I seem to recall.

I hate it when I forget stuff. Was a time I could have given a precise of the book. Don't get old; you won't like it.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,357
Sydney
#36
this is an aside but I'm fascinated by James ,
he was a man of action with way too much principles for his own good ,
his brother had a fine sense of the possible ,which he lacked
as a person , he seems to have been likeable
as a king , much less
 
Jan 2014
2,261
Westmorland
#37
Indeed. The bastards even abolished Xmas. .

Do you think this repression was directly responsible for the relative licentiousness of Charles 11 reign?
Probably. Hedonism tends to only ever be one step behind the Fun Police, although I think we have to be careful not to assume that the excesses of Charles II's court were replicated across the land. It's not unlike London in the 60s or Manchester in the late 1980s. Although history may tell us that everyone in London was dropping acid on Carnaby Street and shagging everything that moved or that everyone in Manchester spent every waking moment in the Hacienda, ripped to the eyeballs on E and waving glo-sticks like demented air traffic controllers, in reality that just wasn't the case.
 
Likes: sparky

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,357
Sydney
#38
It's not like if the puritans just stopped existing either ,
there remained a great number of evangelical churches through the land and in the universities
even if , perforce , they were keeping a low profile
there also was a strong Cromwellian element in the army and navy who remembered well the past success and deep morality
in sharp contrast with the court practice , filled with quasi foreigners
 
Jan 2019
194
Montreal, QC
#39
this is an aside but I'm fascinated by James ,
he was a man of action with way too much principles for his own good ,
his brother had a fine sense of the possible ,which he lacked
as a person , he seems to have been likeable
as a king , much less
When I'm not in the grips of a horrific headache, I'll write about him at length. Charles II and James VII/II are my special interest in history. :)
 

Similar History Discussions