"The Bloody Man"

[Clandango]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I wonder if there will be any significant splinters of the Salvation Army that reform, maybe into several feuding factions?

Things involving prohibition, communion, finding where the hell to import wine for the the population that now wants to take it on their own rather than have the priest do it for them, et cetera?

[PCSwitaj]

Great update as always Ed, and while I'm happy to be heading back to North America soon, this:

Originally Posted by EdT

By lunchtime, the Salvation Army was scattered; no record of the fate of the famous Prophetess Anna Trapnel survives, and it may be assumed that she, like so many others, perished in the fighting.

Originally Posted by EdT

There were quite a few survivors- we haven’t quite seen the last of the Prophetess- but if any pilgrims do reform, it will be as underground congregations, not as marauding armies.

has me intrigued about just what has become of the Prophetess, and perhaps more importantly her son.

I do also wonder, how does the rest of Europe view the events taking place in Britain, as well as France and the Netherlands? Would there be fears that these conflicts are the beginning of a potential revolutionary wave across the Continent, or just something more along the lines of a WWI situation where alliances just keep sucking people into conflict?

[Cymraeg]

I've never really understood people who admire Charles. I once gave the son of our next door neighbours a lift and somehow the conversation got on to the Civil War. The moment he mentioned "Charles the Martyr" my bullshit antennae pricked up.

[Jape]

Originally Posted by Cymraeg

I've never really understood people who admire Charles. I once gave the son of our next door neighbours a lift and somehow the conversation got on to the Civil War. The moment he mentioned "Charles the Martyr" my bullshit antennae pricked up.

I think its image not moving with structure - in the mid 17th century it was pretty radical for a war crimes trial against your own monarch (ordained by G-d!), and then a republic of all things being brought in. Add in his piety and there you go.

The fact he was a warmonger who buggered all attempts at peace and compromise is only considered later when such king worship fades. Also there is no doubt the Commonwealth/Protectorate was unstable and had plenty of blood on its hands, which makes it easy to attack with immense hindsight.

Seems to be an air of Nicholas II about him, he was a nice man with awful political inclinations, who was replaced by ruthless radicals.

[EdT]

Originally Posted by wannis

Knowing Charles, the likelihood of this is what, 99%?

Well, to be fair on this occasion both sides are absurdly over-optimistic, so if Charles and the Covenanters fall out again the blame will be more or less equal. Problem is, if they can’t make an accommodation, what’s the alternative? Neither side really want to deal with the Agitators unless they absolutely have to.

Originally Posted by Thande

I was meaning to ask, was that film part of the inspiration for this TL? I mean it does start with Cromwell talking about how he wants to go to America...

It wasn’t really- although it is fun, particularly the death scene. I honestly can’t remember what my direct inspiration for the PoD was; I think there was a bit regarding it in Antonia Fraser’s biography and it lodged in my mind as something fun to base a TL from. Certainly it took me a long time to think of anything more detailed than “something with the civil war”.

BTW, I’m slightly appalled that I originally wrote “Alex” Guinness in my reply to you- what was I thinking?

Originally Posted by PCSwitaj

Great update as always Ed, and while I'm happy to be heading back to North America soon, this: has me intrigued about just what has become of the Prophetess, and perhaps more importantly her son.

Well, as the extract indicates, they’re not going to have a massive role on history. But they have survived Marston Magna, and we will see their ultimate fate towards the end of the TL.

Originally Posted by PCSwitaj

I do also wonder, how does the rest of Europe view the events taking place in Britain, as well as France and the Netherlands? Would there be fears that these conflicts are the beginning of a potential revolutionary wave across the Continent, or just something more along the lines of a WWI situation where alliances just keep sucking people into conflict?

Well Europe is still largely at war. Negotiations to secure a lasting peace are still happening Münster and Osnabrück, even if the Hispano/Dutch treaty is now basically dead. There’s no fear of a revolutionary spasm as such; Spanish pleasure at the outbreak of the Fronde is neatly balanced by frustration at the collapse of negotiations with the Dutch, and everyone else generally has their own troubles to contend with. I’ll do a piece on international reaction at some point.

Oh, and thanks for the email btw- will reply soon.

Originally Posted by Cymraeg

I've never really understood people who admire Charles. I once gave the son of our next door neighbours a lift and somehow the conversation got on to the Civil War. The moment he mentioned "Charles the Martyr" my bullshit antennae pricked up.

I think there’s a lot to admire with Charles, it’s just all personal, rather than political. He was a hugely honourable, self-effacing, pious and humble family man, but when it came to affairs of state he managed to demonstrate none of these qualities. It’s an interesting paradox really. The piety is the important one though- he managed to die very well, and that’s always a big help; add it in with the attitudes Jape alludes to (King’s evil, healing touch and all that) and the whole Charles as Martyr thing works quite nicely.

It’s easy to see why his advisors, who knew him and generally adored him, found him an astonishingly frustrating person to assist; as I’ve said before, I would probably have been a reluctant Royalist IOTL had I been around at the time, but Charles would have driven me to absolutely despair (and probably into the arms of Parliament, eventually).

[PCSwitaj]

Originally Posted by EdT

Well, as the extract indicates, they’re not going to have a massive role on history. But they have survived Marston Magna, and we will see their ultimate fate towards the end of the TL.

True, but at least for me there is still something interesting about the concept of "diminished descendents", so to speak. I remember being told that we somehow relate to Polish royalty if you go back far enough, which was always worth a laugh but I really have no clue. The ideal that you could get a few generations down the road and, simply for example, have a child growing up and struggling in the New World, having no idea that his great grandfather or great-great grandfather was the famous Prophet, all from a twist of fate and the Prophetess and her child having to be secretive is interesting and somewhat sad to think about. The history lost to us in such circumstances and time and whatnot...[/ramble].

[Blackadder mk 2]

So Charles is rather like how some people view Nicholas II, a nice guy to his family and friends but was horrifically crap at his job and milked the whole "divine right" thing for everything that it was worth then?

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Blackadder mk 2

So Charles is rather like how some people view Nicholas II, a nice guy to his family and friends but was horrifically crap at his job and milked the whole "divine right" thing for everything that it was worth then?

I think that's a fair comparison. Of course, Charles never expected to be King until his older brother died when he was twelve, and that might have gone to his head.

[Ares96]

Originally Posted by Thande

I think that's a fair comparison. Of course, Charles never expected to be King until his older brother died when he was twelve, and that might have gone to his head.

That certainly gives me an interesting TL idea; with Henry Frederick as king, we'd see both a very different 17th century (in England and elsewhere) and a different view of Charles - without his poor effort at kinging, his piety and other virtues would likely dominate his portrayal, and he'd be much more favourably viewed as a result. Of course, that's to the extent people remember him at all - I mean, how many people know of, say, Prince Frederick (before LTTW, that is)?

[jakewilson]

Originally Posted by PCSwitaj

True, but at least for me there is still something interesting about the concept of "diminished descendents", so to speak. I remember being told that we somehow relate to Polish royalty if you go back far enough, which was always worth a laugh but I really have no clue. The ideal that you could get a few generations down the road and, simply for example, have a child growing up and struggling in the New World, having no idea that his great grandfather or great-great grandfather was the famous Prophet, all from a twist of fate and the Prophetess and her child having to be secretive is interesting and somewhat sad to think about. The history lost to us in such circumstances and time and whatnot...[/ramble].

European royalty (particularly those not affected by Salic law) have tens of millions of offshoots in America. Everyone I know with North Carolina ancestry (myself included) claims to be a royal Bruce, for example.

The diminished descendants thing gives me an idea, though. In order to be a First Family of Virginia, you must be both a Plantagenet and a Powhatan. I'm thinking that Vulparian blue books might require 'prophetic blood' to merit inclusion ITTL.

[jakewilson]

Originally Posted by Ares96

That certainly gives me an interesting TL idea; with Henry Frederick as king, we'd see both a very different 17th century (in England and elsewhere) and a different view of Charles - without his poor effort at kinging, his piety and other virtues would likely dominate his portrayal, and he'd be much more favourably viewed as a result. Of course, that's to the extent people remember him at all - I mean, how many people know of, say, Prince Frederick (before LTTW, that is)?

Maybe he'd get martyred in an alt Civil War anyway and then a devoted nephew goes all out promoting the cause of Prince St Charles Martyr.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Ares96

That certainly gives me an interesting TL idea; with Henry Frederick as king, we'd see both a very different 17th century (in England and elsewhere) and a different view of Charles - without his poor effort at kinging, his piety and other virtues would likely dominate his portrayal, and he'd be much more favourably viewed as a result. Of course, that's to the extent people remember him at all - I mean, how many people know of, say, Prince Frederick (before LTTW, that is)?

There is actually a timeline on here about Henry living and becoming King, by Quiet Man. From what I remember, it's a slight wank, with Henry turning out to be a much better king than Charles and managing to push through an earlier Act of Union (as his father wanted) for instance.

[forget]

A progressive radical republican England is not something that is seen very often on AH before or after 1900.
Its good to see some light shed on the most important conflict in English history.
Being treated more than a forgotten foot note on a sea of time.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by wannis

Knowing Charles, the likelihood of this is what, 99%?

Heh. Or higher.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by forget

A progressive radical republican England is not something that is seen very often on AH before or after 1900.
Its good to see some light shed on the most important conflict in English history.
Being treated more than a forgotten foot note on a sea of time.

Decades of Darkness has one.

[Ares96]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Decades of Darkness has one.

I'd hardly call it progressive. By the end of the TL, it's ruled by an authoritarian general who's propelled by Anglo-Saxon nationalism and ruling by decree through appointed (often as patronage) sheriffs.

[EdT]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Decades of Darkness has one.

I wrote that one too, as it happens (not the TL obviously. But the British section of it.)

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Ares96

I'd hardly call it progressive. By the end of the TL, it's ruled by an authoritarian general who's propelled by Anglo-Saxon nationalism and ruling by decree through appointed (often as patronage) sheriffs.

Yeah, Decades of Darkness England is basically Horthy's Hungary: it's a kingdom with an empty throne ruled by a fascist strongman.

Although, given Ed conceived that segment, his opinion takes priority if he disagrees with my characterisation

I admit I was slightly inspired by that segment when I conceived a similar period in the history of my Britain in LTTW, though in that case at least it's mercifully brief.

[Ares96]

Originally Posted by EdT

I wrote that one too, as it happens (not the TL obviously. But the British section of it.)

You do seem to have a thing for English republicanism. AFAIK, all your TLs except AGB and ASHATW (it seems the fame of an author around here is determined by how many recognisable abbreviations he/she has for his/her work) has it show up in some form.

[Ares96]

Originally Posted by Thande

Yeah, Decades of Darkness England is basically Horthy's Hungary: it's a kingdom with an empty throne ruled by a fascist strongman.

Although, given Ed conceived that segment, his opinion takes priority if he disagrees with my characterisation

That's who Blackwood is based on too, isn't it?