Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

[Kellan Sullivan]

The last British monarch who ruled over us to actually treat us anywhere close to right was James VII & II. Elizabeth II did well when she came to visit, but that was after we had obtained our freedom.

could you perhaps cite proof that the Irish were somehow mistreated under the Hannoverians- no argument that William III and Cromwell deserve all the scorn you heap on them.- George IV actually made an effort, George II had a visit to Ireland planned in 1739/1740, but the WotAS and the '45 got in the way. And the Irish middle-class life- we're not just talking the Protestants, but the Catholics too- was certainly of a comparable standard to their English counterparts. There were no punitive recourses- like on Scotland- after the '45. In fact, so much so that another visit was proposed for 1753 (not sure why this one didn't come off).

Pieter van Maldere (a Dutch Catholic) had several works premier in Ireland (including his Dublin Sinfonia), Händel's Messiah had its premier in Dublin, under the baton of Irish Catholic, Matthew Dubourg. Johann Christian Bach (the so-called English Bach, who had converted to Catholicism) paid several trips to Ireland, and his works were premiered in Ireland before they were released in London, where Bach was also music teacher to Queen Charlotte. Johann Christian Fischer, a Bohemian Catholic, was a huge hit amongst the Irish, as were Vivaldi, Corelli and, wait for it, Händel (Dubourg was the lead violinist in Händel's orchestra IIRC). Which suggests there was a thriving cultural life in Ireland* (possibly even more than in contemporary London). The circulation of works by foreign born Catholic composers (specifically Italians like Corelli and Vivaldi, or priests like Fischer) doesn't equate with this "heavy boot of English oppression" that you seem to portray.

While paintings and music didn't help the Irish avoid starvation in the 19th century, it could be argued they didn't help the French when the Revolution broke out either. But the interests of the middle class (not just Protestants or just Anglos) that they're subscribing to concerts and publications of music and commissioning paintings rather than raising rebellion suggests they were doing rather well for themselves. But what people are spending their money on is usually a decent indicator of the level of contentment.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

The last British monarch who ruled over us to actually treat us anywhere close to right was James VII & II.

You've said this several times ad-infinitum, but it's also been pointed out to you several times that James II really wasn't any better than that those that had preceded him and those who followed him.

Your nostalgia for Stuarts because their Catholicism clouds the fact that James II only intended to use Ireland as a springboard to retake England, and had no real interest in improving Ireland's / the Irish's lot. Irish landownership had already plummeted by the 1680s, to some 22% and neither James nor his supporters had any interest in fixing the situation (Tyrconnell, one of James' supporters, had been one of the few Catholics to benefit from the 1662 land law, for instance, so he had no interest in undoing the earlier land confiscations carried out in the earlier parts of the 17th century). James II readily abandoned the Irish supporters once he was defeated. It's worth remembering that after that, he was called Séamus an Chaca or James the Shit.

Had he won and been restored to his throne, Ireland would've been no better off. IMO, whatever concessions he had made to the Irish to secure his position, he would've readily repealed once his position was stronger. The Stuarts were Unionists, through and through.

 

[Ogrebear]

I have a slightly random question: in 1674 - shortly after the Great Fire of London- Sir Christopher Wren was employed to design and construct some new enclosures at the Tower of London. These enclosures were built because, during the fire, as preventative measures, some of the buildings nearby had been blown up in an attempt to create a firebreak, and this had panicked the animals (I'm not sure if anything inside the tower was actually damaged or not).

These renovations were responsible for unearthing the remains believed to belong to the Princes in the Tower.

However, for my actual question...what if Charles II had decided to employ Christopher Wren to build him a whole new palace on the site of the Tower of London? After all, in the last decade, Thomas Blood had gotten in and attempted to steal the crown jewels, so clearly the security there wasn't great. And the royal menagerie housed there was at one of its lows for animals, so it's not like it would cause as much displacement there.

@isabella @Vitruvius @DrakeRlugia

I think given the many other Palaces available the King would not raise William the Conquerer’s fortress. Make the Jewels more secure sure, but he’s not doing much else.

Getting Wren to build a new Palace in the City is possible I guess. Still not sure the King needs one.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

could you perhaps cite proof that the Irish were somehow mistreated under the Hannoverians- no argument that William III and Cromwell deserve all the scorn you heap on them.- George IV actually made an effort, George II had a visit to Ireland planned in 1739/1740, but the WotAS and the '45 got in the way. And the Irish middle-class life- we're not just talking the Protestants, but the Catholics too- was certainly of a comparable standard to their English counterparts. There were no punitive recourses- like on Scotland- after the '45. In fact, so much so that another visit was proposed for 1753 (not sure why this one didn't come off).

The Protestant Ascendancy, the Great Famine, this was all during the Hanoverian occupation. George III refused to give Catholics (aka the native people of Ireland) equal rights. The vast majority of Protestants in Ireland are and always have been British settlers who were more loyal to Britain than to Ireland. Wolfe Tone was a rare exception, and he himself had an Irish Catholic mother. After we had won our independence, most of them wanted to remain British, I wish they had returned to Britain instead of carving out a piece of our country for themselves.

Pieter van Maldere (a Dutch Catholic) had several works premier in Ireland (including his Dublin Sinfonia), Händel's Messiah had its premier in Dublin, under the baton of Irish Catholic, Matthew Dubourg. Johann Christian Bach (the so-called English Bach, who had converted to Catholicism) paid several trips to Ireland, and his works were premiered in Ireland before they were released in London, where Bach was also music teacher to Queen Charlotte. Johann Christian Fischer, a Bohemian Catholic, was a huge hit amongst the Irish, as were Vivaldi, Corelli and, wait for it, Händel (Dubourg was the lead violinist in Händel's orchestra IIRC). Which suggests there was a thriving cultural life in Ireland* (possibly even more than in contemporary London). The circulation of works by foreign born Catholic composers (specifically Italians like Corelli and Vivaldi, or priests like Fischer) doesn't equate with this "heavy boot of English oppression" that you seem to portray.

I don't think Matthew Dubourg was Irish

Matthew Dubourg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Dubourg was born in London, the illegitimate son of a court dancing master, his mother's identity is unknown." His father was apparently named "Isaacs", which isn't an Irish name. (Actually might have been Jewish, the great British actor Jason Isaacs is Jewish)
Louis Armstrong was very popular in America in the 1930s, that doesn't change the fact that blacks were discriminated against.

Protestant Ascendancy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The fact that we were third if not fourth-class citizens in our own native land for hundreds of years is a proven historical fact.

While paintings and music didn't help the Irish avoid starvation in the 19th century, it could be argued they didn't help the French when the Revolution broke out either. But the interests of the middle class (not just Protestants or just Anglos) that they're subscribing to concerts and publications of music and commissioning paintings rather than raising rebellion suggests they were doing rather well for themselves. But what people are spending their money on is usually a decent indicator of the level of contentment.

I guess, then, that Queen Victoria's power and wealth means that women were doing rather well for themselves in the 19th century, then.

You've said this several times ad-infinitum, but it's also been pointed out to you several times that James II really wasn't any better than that those that had preceded him and those who followed him.

Penal laws (Ireland) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Following the flight from England to Ireland by James II caused by the English Glorious Revolution in 1688, the decisions of the Catholic-majority Patriot Parliament of 1688–9 in Dublin included a complete repeal of the 1660s land settlements."
1689 was a dream come true for us. It's a shame that incestuous usurper ruined it.

Patriot Parliament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Each and every one of these laws would have made Ireland a far better place.

Your nostalgia for Stuarts because their Catholicism clouds the fact that James II only intended to use Ireland as a springboard to retake England, and had no real interest in improving Ireland's / the Irish's lot. Irish landownership had already plummeted by the 1680s, to some 22% and neither James nor his supporters had any interest in fixing the situation (Tyrconnell, one of James' supporters, had been one of the few Catholics to benefit from the 1662 land law, for instance, so he had no interest in undoing the earlier land confiscations carried out in the earlier parts of the 17th century). James II readily abandoned the Irish supporters once he was defeated. It's worth remembering that after that, he was called Séamus an Chaca or James the Shit.

But he did improve things for the Irish. The Patriot Parliament, for example. Yes, he didn't give us everything we wanted (which would have included returning the British Protestant settlers to Britain and returning the land they took from us), but he offered us far more than any of his predecessors for centuries did.

Had he won and been restored to his throne, Ireland would've been no better off. IMO, whatever concessions he had made to the Irish to secure his position, he would've readily repealed once his position was stronger. The Stuarts were Unionists, through and through.

There would have been no Penal Laws or Protestant Ascendancy had King James VII & II won. It wouldn't have been perfect, but it would have been far better.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

But he did improve things for the Irish. The Patriot Parliament, for example. Yes, he didn't give us everything we wanted (which would have included returning the British Protestant settlers to Britain and returning the land they took from us), but he offered us far more than any of his predecessors for centuries did.

You realize that he largely clashed with the Patriot Parliament, correct? Many of the measures they proposed were too much for him to even consider. It was only their refusal to give James funds unless he agreed to said proposals that forced him to make a choice. It was his need for money that swayed him, not the kindness of his heart. Not to mention, the proposals put forward by the Patriot Parliament that he accepted had a large effect of essentially alienating his Protestant supporters (which were many in this period such as Tory Legitimists. Their needs and wants were prioritized before the Catholics here). This alienation / loss of support actually ruined his chances of reclaiming England and keeping Ireland. He did very little in terms of land settlements (he had no desire to meddle with prior land settlements), or even the Irish Parliament's autonomy. The Declaratory Act declared the Irish Parliament distinct, but Poyning's Law remained on the books: allowing England to continue legislate over Ireland. England would continue to dominate Ireland under James II.

There would have been no Penal Laws or Protestant Ascendancy had King James VII & II won. It wouldn't have been perfect, but it would have been far better.

Not for the common Irishman that you often harp on about.

James retaining (or regaining) his throne means coming to some accommodation with the Protestant Party, Parliament, and Church of England at some point. He has no support to rule as an Catholic, Absolutist style monarch. Perhaps some agreement might be reached re: the CoE where the James II delegates the sovereigns traditional role in the CoE to a panel of Bishops (per @Kellan Sullivan I want to say this was suggested during Mary of Modena's regency over the Old Pretender perhaps before then?) in exchange for a broad patent of toleration that includes Catholics alongside Protestant dissenters.

But this will mean squat for the common Irishmen. The land will stay in the hands of the great landlords, except instead of all them being Protestant Englishmen, perhaps some of them will be Catholic Englishmen or Anglo-Irishmen, who will be just as eager to profit as the Protestants. English trade will continue to be an important part of Ireland's economy, and the great estates will bring in massive profits for their landowners. Salt beef, pork, butter and hard cheese would continue to be exported through Cork towards the Royal Navy and the West Indies, while the common Irish peasant does little but survive and starve. James II and his Stuart successors will not make this better.

I understand wanting to see how you might make your country a better place, but please: take off your rose colored glasses towards James II and the Stuarts. They were not and are not Ireland's hope.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

1689 was a dream come true for us. It's a shame that incestuous usurper ruined it.

I'm also not sure why you continue to call William incestuous as if that is some ding against him.

You realize that in the 18th century every royal family was incestuous, right? The Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs were quite fond of uncle to niece marriages. A marriage of first cousins was not uncommon, and it was probably even more common amongst common people, especially if land and finances were intertwined. It was not frowned upon in this period and it wasn't considered incestuous.

A Stuart restoration doesn't mean the next generation of sovereigns are going to marry a British noblewomen and create an 18th century Princess Diana. They'd continue to marry into Catholic royal families, and within a generation, they'd be related to them as well.

 

[Karl der Große]

I'm also not sure why you continue to call William incestuous as if that is some ding against him.

You realize that in the 18th century every royal family was incestuous, right? The Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs were quite fond of uncle to niece marriages. A marriage of first cousins was not uncommon, and it was probably even more common amongst common people, especially if land and finances were intertwined. It was not frowned upon in this period and it wasn't considered incestuous.

A Stuart restoration doesn't mean the next generation of sovereigns are going to marry a British noblewomen and create an 18th century Princess Diana. They'd continue to marry into Catholic royal families, and within a generation, they'd be related to them as well.

Cousin marriages were definitely considered incestuous. Otherwise why did they require dispensations?

 

[DrakeRlugia]

Cousin marriages were definitely considered incestuous. Otherwise why did they require dispensations?

They required dispensations because Roman Law prohibited marriages within so many degrees of consanguinity. Within four degrees, then seven, then back to four. Dispensations were granted for such marriages because thousands of people were within the prohibited degree. Consanguinity within the direct line (father-daughter, for instance) has always been prohibited. Indirect Consanguinity (such a cousins) was not so much prohibited as an impediment to marriage, one which was easily resolved. The Church's position is that such marriages are prohibited by church law, not divine law: hence a dispensation could be given.

First cousin marriage was incredibly common for this part of time (the 17th century) and into the 18th and early 19th. It was only into the later 19th century that such marriages began to fall out of fashion as women gained became more socially mobile

 

[Ogrebear]

Could you please take the King James and the Irish conversation to another tread please?

 

[Ogrebear]

However, for my actual question...what if Charles II had decided to employ Christopher Wren to build him a whole new palace on the site of the Tower of London? After all, in the last decade, Thomas Blood had gotten in and attempted to steal the crown jewels, so clearly the security there wasn't great. And the royal menagerie housed there was at one of its lows for animals, so it's not like it would cause as much displacement there.

@isabella @Vitruvius @DrakeRlugia

Doing some digging it is likely Wren would have been commissioned to rebuild Baynard's Castle which was destroyed in the fire and prime river front address for a palace.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Doing some digging it is likely Wren would have been commissioned to rebuild Baynard's Castle which was destroyed in the fire and prime river front address for a palace.

thanks for that. It would've been a fascinating addition to potential royal residences

 

[Charles III Stuart]

You realize that he largely clashed with the Patriot Parliament, correct? Many of the measures they proposed were too much for him to even consider. It was only their refusal to give James funds unless he agreed to said proposals that forced him to make a choice. It was his need for money that swayed him, not the kindness of his heart. Not to mention, the proposals put forward by the Patriot Parliament that he accepted had a large effect of essentially alienating his Protestant supporters (which were many in this period such as Tory Legitimists. Their needs and wants were prioritized before the Catholics here). This alienation / loss of support actually ruined his chances of reclaiming England and keeping Ireland. He did very little in terms of land settlements (he had no desire to meddle with prior land settlements), or even the Irish Parliament's autonomy. The Declaratory Act declared the Irish Parliament distinct, but Poyning's Law remained on the books: allowing England to continue legislate over Ireland. England would continue to dominate Ireland under James II.

James was dependent on the Irish Catholics for support, so even if it was grudging, he still would have treated us far better than William of Orange did. Even if all he did was give Catholics equality, that alone would have made a huge difference for us.

Not for the common Irishman that you often harp on about.

James retaining (or regaining) his throne means coming to some accommodation with the Protestant Party, Parliament, and Church of England at some point. He has no support to rule as an Catholic, Absolutist style monarch. Perhaps some agreement might be reached re: the CoE where the James II delegates the sovereigns traditional role in the CoE to a panel of Bishops (per @Kellan Sullivan I want to say this was suggested during Mary of Modena's regency over the Old Pretender perhaps before then?) in exchange for a broad patent of toleration that includes Catholics alongside Protestant dissenters.

But this will mean squat for the common Irishmen. The land will stay in the hands of the great landlords, except instead of all them being Protestant Englishmen, perhaps some of them will be Catholic Englishmen or Anglo-Irishmen, who will be just as eager to profit as the Protestants. English trade will continue to be an important part of Ireland's economy, and the great estates will bring in massive profits for their landowners. Salt beef, pork, butter and hard cheese would continue to be exported through Cork towards the Royal Navy and the West Indies, while the common Irish peasant does little but survive and starve. James II and his Stuart successors will not make this better.

But even if all that is different under James VII & II and his successors is no Protestant Ascendancy, that alone is better for us than what happened under the incestuous William.

I understand wanting to see how you might make your country a better place, but please: take off your rose colored glasses towards James II and the Stuarts. They were not and are not Ireland's hope.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. King James wasn't perfect, but things would have been better for us under him than they were under William. How much better is an open question, but even a little bit better is still preferable.

I'm also not sure why you continue to call William incestuous as if that is some ding against him.

Because having sex with your first cousin is weird and gross. William was a sexually deviant usurper who murdered huge numbers of innocent people. It wouldn't surprise me at all if William was a psychopath or sociopath, or a narcissist at the very least.

You realize that in the 18th century every royal family was incestuous, right? The Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs were quite fond of uncle to niece marriages. A marriage of first cousins was not uncommon, and it was probably even more common amongst common people, especially if land and finances were intertwined. It was not frowned upon in this period and it wasn't considered incestuous.

James VI & I didn't marry his first cousin. Charles I didn't marry his first cousin. Charles II didn't marry his first cousin. James VII & II didn't marry his first cousin. James VIII & III didn't marry his first cousin. Charles III didn't marry his first cousin, Henry I & IX didn't marry at all. Anne didn't marry her first cousin. Mary was the only Stuart who did.
Marrying a third cousin or more distant isn't really a big deal, since third cousins share less than 1% of their DNA.
Let's look at thepeerage.com, they have a consanguinity index for every royal. (This shows how inbred they are)

Here's some Hanoverians;
George II (parents were first cousins) - 7.32%
Princess Charlotte (daughter of George IV, parents were first cousins) - 9.1%
Edward VII (parents were first cousins) - 8.15%

Compare to the legitimate Stuarts:
Charles I - 0.65%
Charles II and James VII & II - 0.61%
James VIII & III ("the Old Pretender") - 0.37%
Charles III ("Bonnie Prince Charlie") and Henry I & IX ("Cardinal Duke of York") - 0.45%
Queen Anne and Mary II - 0% (King James and Anne Hyde were not related at all)
Queen Anne's son Prince William - 1.51% (Anne and her husband George were distantly related, but not close enough to make it weird or cause genetic problems)

Notice that the children of first cousins have even higher consanguinity indexes than you would expect for the child of first cousins, that's because their parents had other relations in addition to being first cousins.

A Stuart restoration doesn't mean the next generation of sovereigns are going to marry a British noblewomen and create an 18th century Princess Diana. They'd continue to marry into Catholic royal families, and within a generation, they'd be related to them as well.

I mean, James VII & II did marry Anne Hyde, and she wasn't even noble at the time. Certainly the natively British Stuarts seemed more interested in British women than the German Hanoverians did.

 

[Karl der Große]

They required dispensations because Roman Law prohibited marriages within so many degrees of consanguinity. Within four degrees, then seven, then back to four. Dispensations were granted for such marriages because thousands of people were within the prohibited degree. Consanguinity within the direct line (father-daughter, for instance) has always been prohibited. Indirect Consanguinity (such a cousins) was not so much prohibited as an impediment to marriage, one which was easily resolved. The Church's position is that such marriages are prohibited by church law, not divine law: hence a dispensation could be given.

First cousin marriage was incredibly common for this part of time (the 17th century) and into the 18th and early 19th. It was only into the later 19th century that such marriages began to fall out of fashion as women gained became more socially mobile

I think first cousin marriage being "incredibly common" is overstated. It happened more than today, but rural areas for most of medieval times were quite densely populated. There could easily be dozens of marriagable people within a day's walk away to easily meet and pick from. And peasants weren't dumb, they knew successive cousin marriages would drastically increase chances of inbreeding depression.

 

[Karl der Große]

@Charles III Stuart eh, there's nothing actually wrong with having sex with a cousin. Please don't insert baseless morality into the discussion.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

@Charles III Stuart eh, there's nothing actually wrong with having sex with a cousin. Please don't insert baseless morality into the discussion.

It's not baseless morality. Incest is gross. I love my cousins very much, but the thought of having sex with them is just nasty.

Do you think there's anything wrong with siblings having sex? For those of us who grew up close to our cousins, the thought of sleeping with a cousin is very similar to the thought of sleeping with a sibling.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

Because having sex with your first cousin is weird and gross. William was a sexually deviant usurper who murdered huge numbers of innocent people. It wouldn't surprise me at all if William was a psychopath or sociopath, or a narcissist at the very least.

You're trying to import modern day morality into the 17th century. People in the 17th century did plenty of things that would make us nauseous. You can't apply modern values to someone who has been dead 300+ years.

Trying to diagnose a historical figure with a psychological or personality order is frankly a little odd, and insulting to people to have those actual issues. I work in mental health and work closely with people with such issues every single day. William of Orange they are not, and it's an insulting comparison to make. I get you don't like the guy, but don't do that: that's what is weird and gross. There are people out there that suffer with those real issues. Don't make light of it to try and score points on an internet forum.

James VI & I didn't marry his first cousin. Charles I didn't marry his first cousin. Charles II didn't marry his first cousin. James VII & II didn't marry his first cousin. James VIII & III didn't marry his first cousin. Charles III didn't marry his first cousin, Henry I & IX didn't marry at all. Anne didn't marry her first cousin. Mary was the only Stuart who did.
Marrying a third cousin or more distant isn't really a big deal, since third cousins share less than 1% of their DNA.
Let's look at thepeerage.com, they have a consanguinity index for every royal. (This shows how inbred they are)

Again, not sure of the obsession with genetics.

James VI married a Protestant princess because Scotland had broken away from Catholicism. Denmark was not a strange place to look for a bride, and previous Danish princesses had become Queens of Scotland.

Charles I married a French Bourbon Princess: the new French dynasty. Stuart marriages into France were not uncommon, though.

Charles II married a Portuguese Princess, a bit of an odd match, but his Restoration meant that his options were limited. During his exile, he was for a time considered as a husband for a French cousin (Le Grande Madamoiselle) and more distant cousins, such as Elisabeth of Bohemia's daughters.

James II's options were pretty limited in exile. His marriage with Anne Hyde was largely viewed a mesalliance. He wanted out of it, but Charles II ordered the marriage to stand. After she died, his options were limited as a second son. Mary of Modena was definitely a more afield match, but he wanted a Catholic bride.

Mary was married for William because of political reasons: primarily because of political reasons. You act like she had a choice in matter (she absolutely didn't). Charles II arranged the marriage because of discontent over James II's remarriage, iirc. It was done to appease the English public.

Here's some Hanoverians;
George II (parents were first cousins) - 7.32%
Princess Charlotte (daughter of George IV, parents were first cousins) - 9.1%
Edward VII (parents were first cousins) - 8.15%

Compare to the legitimate Stuarts:
Charles I - 0.65%
Charles II and James VII & II - 0.61%
James VIII & III ("the Old Pretender") - 0.37%
Charles III ("Bonnie Prince Charlie") and Henry I & IX ("Cardinal Duke of York") - 0.45%
Queen Anne and Mary II - 0% (King James and Anne Hyde were not related at all)
Queen Anne's son Prince William - 1.51% (Anne and her husband George were distantly related, but not close enough to make it weird or cause genetic problems)

This information is useless and means nothing. Do you think royal families were considering closeness when arranging marriages? They weren't. The Hannoverians were a German dynasty, and Protestant: it's no surprise they sought out brides in Germany, and were more closely related. They also wed post-Glorious Revolution, when the crown was neutered and even marrying a Catholic could disqualify someone from the succession. The Stuarts had more freedom to arrange marriages: especially cross-religious marriages.

I mean, James VII & II did marry Anne Hyde, and she wasn't even noble at the time. Certainly the natively British Stuarts seemed more interested in British women than the German Hanoverians did.

He knocked her up and basically was forced to marry her. As soon as he could, your savior James II tried to throw her under the bus: he claimed the child wasn't his, she'd slept with numerous men, ect. He wanted a divorce because of his poor choices. Charles II said sorry, you're staying married.

The Stuarts had more genetic variety because the crown had more power. They could marry Catholics (despite the discontent). The Hannoverians didn't have that option. Germany became the hunting ground for consorts, and continued until Queen Victoria.

 

[Karl der Große]

It's not baseless morality. Incest is gross. I love my cousins very much, but the thought of having sex with them is just nasty.

Do you think there's anything wrong with siblings having sex? For those of us who grew up close to our cousins, the thought of sleeping with a cousin is very similar to the thought of sleeping with a sibling.

It doesn't hurt anyone, at all, even tangentially. It can be gross to you, that's fine, nobody is trying to change the fact it doesn't appeal to you. But it's not *wrong*.
Ditto with a sibling 🤷🏼‍♂️ I would never fuck my sister, never been attracted to her even though she's beautiful, but there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

You're trying to import modern day morality into the 17th century. People in the 17th century did plenty of things that would make us nauseous. You can't apply modern values to someone who has been dead 300+ years.

Even back then, it wasn't the norm to marry your first cousin. I've done a lot of genealogical research on a lot of people.

Trying to diagnose a historical figure with a psychological or personality order is frankly a little odd, and insulting to people to have those actual issues. I work in mental health and work closely with people with such issues every single day. William of Orange they are not, and it's an insulting comparison to make. I get you don't like the guy, but don't do that: that's what is weird and gross. There are people out there that suffer with those real issues. Don't make light of it to try and score points on an internet forum.

I'm not making light of anything. William of Orange showed a lack of respect for other people, and had lots of innocent people killed. Psychopathy and sociopathy are characterized first and foremost by a lack of empathy, which William's actions indicate.

Again, not sure of the obsession with genetics.

Because having a kid with a close relative makes it much more likely that the kid will have genetic disorders.

James VI married a Protestant princess because Scotland had broken away from Catholicism. Denmark was not a strange place to look for a bride, and previous Danish princesses had become Queens of Scotland.

I'm kind of surprised he didn't marry a relative of Lady Jane Grey's in order to consolidate their claims to the throne. The reason his parents married was apparently to consolidate their claims to the throne.

Charles I married a French Bourbon Princess: the new French dynasty. Stuart marriages into France were not uncommon, though.

Which turned out very well, seeing as she gave him two fine sons who became king.

Charles II married a Portuguese Princess, a bit of an odd match, but his Restoration meant that his options were limited. During his exile, he was for a time considered as a husband for a French cousin (Le Grande Madamoiselle) and more distant cousins, such as Elisabeth of Bohemia's daughters.

I'm kind of surprised he didn't just marry Monmouth's mother (or did he? some think they were secretly married in the 40s)

James II's options were pretty limited in exile. His marriage with Anne Hyde was largely viewed a mesalliance. He wanted out of it, but Charles II ordered the marriage to stand. After she died, his options were limited as a second son. Mary of Modena was definitely a more afield match, but he wanted a Catholic bride.

Anne Hyde was a pretty good consort, though, and her lack of foreign connections meant that her daughter, Queen Anne got support for being British/English, which she emphasized when she was queen, seeing as she was sandwiched between two foreign kings.

Mary was married for William because of political reasons: primarily because of political reasons. You act like she had a choice in matter (she absolutely didn't). Charles II arranged the marriage because of discontent over James II's remarriage, iirc. It was done to appease the English public.

William definitely had a choice in the matter. He was far more evil than Mary, she seems to me to have been a total pushover who just did whatever William said to do. She didn't even want the throne, she wanted William as king with her as consort.

This information is useless and means nothing. Do you think royal families were considering closeness when arranging marriages? They weren't. The Hannoverians were a German dynasty, and Protestant: it's no surprise they sought out brides in Germany, and were more closely related. They also wed post-Glorious Revolution, when the crown was neutered and even marrying a Catholic could disqualify someone from the succession. The Stuarts had more freedom to arrange marriages: especially cross-religious marriages.

I think you absolutely should consider closeness when arranging a marriage, and I actually prefer marriages that are not arranged, like King James VII & II and Anne Hyde. (Yes, he was pressured into marrying her and staying with her after getting her pregnant, but she wasn't chosen for him by someone else, he chose her)
The "Glorious" Revolution weakened the crown too much for my liking. The way things were under Charles II and James VII & II was a happy medium.

He knocked her up and basically was forced to marry her. As soon as he could, your savior James II tried to throw her under the bus: he claimed the child wasn't his, she'd slept with numerous men, ect. He wanted a divorce because of his poor choices. Charles II said sorry, you're staying married.

James wasn't perfect, but he treated Anne far better than George I treated his wife.

The Stuarts had more genetic variety because the crown had more power. They could marry Catholics (despite the discontent). The Hannoverians didn't have that option. Germany became the hunting ground for consorts, and continued until Queen Victoria.

The Hanoverians could have married local noblewomen. Frederick, Prince of Wales (George III's father) almost married Lady Diana Spencer.

It doesn't hurt anyone, at all, even tangentially. It can be gross to you, that's fine, nobody is trying to change the fact it doesn't appeal to you. But it's not *wrong*.

So are you okay with a father sleeping with his daughter, then? Do you think that's not morally wrong?

Ditto with a sibling 🤷🏼‍♂️ I would never fuck my sister, never been attracted to her even though she's beautiful, but there's nothing wrong with it.

It mixes family and sexual partners. That shouldn't be done. The only family member it's okay to have sex with is your spouse, and technically a spouse is an in-law, not a family member.

 

[Karl der Große]

I'm not making light of anything. William of Orange showed a lack of respect for other people, and had lots of innocent people killed. Psychopathy and sociopathy are characterized first and foremost by a lack of empathy, which William's actions indicate.

So are you okay with a father sleeping with his daughter, then? Do you think that's not morally wrong?

It mixes family and sexual partners. That shouldn't be done. The only family member it's okay to have sex with is your spouse, and technically a spouse is an in-law, not a family member.

That doesn't make him a psychopath or sociopath. Callous yes, but he did have actual friends. This was the 17th century, not today. Not many people cared deeply about total strangers.

Why not? Why would it be morally wrong? Why do you think it's wrong for consenting adults to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone?

Again, your opinion.

 

[Stahlo]

It just seems asinine to me to try to claim one Royal house has any kind of moral superiority over the other, especially when you're talking about Royal houses from hundreds of years ago.