From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Tue Jan 29 2002 - 06:15:52 MST
> That didn't prevent Charles I from dragging it out whenever it
> suited him,
Not very convincingly though. The monarch's insistence on divine right was
somewhat threadbare by the end of Elizabeth's reign in the face of an
increasingly indifferent populace, partly due to the growth of a puritanism
(which though a minority, tended to be quite well placed) which saw
religious matters as being out of joint with the Royal prerogative and was
keen to apply pressure to artificially rectify that. The main decay was
probably with James though - Elizabeth was an astute propagandist who knew
how to manipulate (and used divine right accordingly). James was not so
skilled and was far from cutting enough of an impressive figure for people
to take him seriously. The edifice had been comprehensively undermined for
Charles and it only took unpopular measures to bring it all crashing down. I
did write a modest paper on this subject a while back - I would probably
have to dig that up in order to continue the subject, but that is not likely
to be quickly available.
> and it certainly was a component of "Bonnie Prince Charlie's" appeal.
I have to observe that as Scotland was independent during Elizabeth's reign
the issues we've been talking about subsequently manifested themselves in a
differing fashion and in a differing timescale. Just as events turned out
very differently in all of the other European states at the time.
> [Hermit 4] It wasn't just Elizabeth. She simply finished the
> "hatchet job"
> on the Plantagenets started by Henry VII and continued by Henry VIII with
> very deliberate thoroughness.
True - but as far as I can tell the intersection of issues of religious
provenance and lineage was a novel departure to a traditional policy. And of
course Elizabeth was far from quick to execute Norfolk - in her customary
manner she prevaricated endlessly over it and should probably have done it a
great deal earlier. But then my view of absolute monarchy is that if one is
bequeathed that amount of power there is simply not excuse for not abusing
it.
>Superbly researched and well written
> fiction that does a better job of dissecting the Tudors in 200 odd pages
> than anything else I've read.
I have quite an affection for Conrad Russell and John Gray, but I'll try and
look that up.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT