VVD0D95
Banned
He is indeed, and I can see him and Louis looking to improve the capacity for ships ttl. And Oh interesting I'll keep a note of that
A Britain of Panthers and Lions: House of Oldenburg Britain
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
He is indeed, and I can see him and Louis looking to improve the capacity for ships ttl. And Oh interesting I'll keep a note of that
Duc d'Artois and Duc de Provence (though elevation of these ancient counties to Dukedoms does not sit right for me, Louis XV OTL used county titles for tradition sake) will likely not get appanages proper - but get Duchy of Aumale (and probably some counties that King may decide to extort from Duc de Maine as well) and Duchies of Angoulene and Alencone respectively through their marriages to Mlle de Maine and Mlle de Berry.
I don't think Louis XVI would be THAT cruel to his half-uncle as to deprive him of BOTH counties he owns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bourbon-Maine
By 1720 Maine owned Duchy of Aumale, Sovereign Principality of Dombes, and two counties - Dreux and Eu.
Eu and Aumale would make the most sense to be seized as dowry, IMO.
VVD0D95
Banned
I don't think Louis XVI would be THAT cruel to his half-uncle as to deprive him of BOTH counties he owns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bourbon-Maine
By 1720 Maine owned Duchy of Aumale, Sovereign Principality of Dombes, and two counties - Dreux and Eu.
Eu and Aumale would make the most sense to be seized as dowry, IMO.
EU and Aumale it is then
With Artois getting Normandy as a DUkedom insteadVVD0D95
Banned
Yes. Duke of Normandy as style - and two Normandian fiefs. County of Artois proper can be given him by his half-brother as "real" appanage so that he does not depend on dowry of his wife for this
SOunds good to me, would he ever be given the governorship of Normandy or would that be considered far too risky?
VVD0D95
Banned
Hmm true, also so I get the style of address right, as the oldest surviving brother of the King he'd be referred to as Monseiur correct?
Glad you're liking it
You're spot on there, Ken replaced Sancroft once the latter's term was done and dusted, his relationship with Anne was quite good ttl as it was otl.
In regards to Anne's longer rule and the success of the Tories does mean the High Church party dominates the CofE, that's correct, that will change a fair few things socially in due course.
Hmm, I'm not sure, King James might look on such a union favourably, but at the same time he might be hesitant about allowing foreigners into union with his church.
Here, she's a bit more low church compared to her husband, she thinks some of the services are a bit daft, but is happy enough to be patron to peolpe who respect the divine will of the King.
I'd pegged Law for a future Archbishop of Canterbury but wasn't sure if it was realistic for him to rise that far?
The 1637 one is currently in use, but James and his son George have plans to completely shift that, and bring the book more into line with their own theories on the church. Well, George more than anyone that is.
I did have an idea re Scotland, but was wondering if James or George would risk another Bishop#'s War now that the Scots are essentially on the same path.
-On Law: maybe. The thing is, figuring out who'll make Bishop if the church is higher is really difficult. So, for example, John Johnson, Vickar of Cranbrooke, is a good theologian who probably gets a Bishopric here, but how high can he go? Hard to say. Atterbury is almost certainly prominent: IIRC he was considered for Canterbury under Anne IOTL, but ultimately passed over [after which he became a Jacobite, corresponded with the Pretender, and essentially lit his episcopal career on fire].
I'll say this about Law: he was considered for episcopacy before he stumbled at the oath to George I, and even after he left the C of E, his Three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor were highly respected by the high church party. So given his natural abilities, Canterbury's not totally crazy, though London or Oxford would also be possible.
And if Law does get Canterbury, his fusion of evangelical devotion with high church principles/piety will have a huge impact on the church. As in, could conceivably keep the Wesleys in it, leading to a variant of Methodist Anglicanism. I don't know what you have planned for the colonies, but tying the Methodist movement firmly into the national church has massive potential nock-on effects if those of us across the pond end up not separating.
Re: Sweden, I'd say it probably depends on what the union of churches means in terms of practical politics, but I could certainly see it as something he'd consider if there's another royal marriage. At a minimum, something like recognition of the mutual validity of orders and the right for communicants of one church to commune at the other when abroad would be a nice, and probably very doable, gesture. [Basically the Lambeth Agreement of 1908 two hundred years early].
The other pragmatic reason James might go for it? Swedes and Finns made really good colonists in North America, and having them in the church in the colonies--a thing that was already happening ad hoc at this point--would serve to strengthen that church more. Given his... hesitancy... re: nonconformists, that's probably desirable.
As for Scotland: I actually think getting the Scottish Episcopals to transition to the 1662 isn't that hard, particularly if it reconciles elements of the kirk to the new episcopal settlement. You might have a couple of Bishops pushing against this and really strenuously arguing for the 1637 because of a couple of liturgical components like the epiclesis that were in the 37 but not the 1662. [Basically the usager-non-usager split IOTL]. Interestingly, though, the IOTL Scottish Episcopal Church just authorized use of both rites, and as a pragmatic compromise it worked.
The irony is that I could see the king arguing "We need to make them all use the 62" while the more high church Bishops are for tolerating use of the 1637 because it was Laud's book and has a lot of the liturgical innovations they'd honestly prefer.
Interesting times in Scotland, to be sure, and with the Stuarts behind the Episcopal Church, will Presbyterians begin advocating for republicanism?
Last edited: