History That Inspired ASOIAF

[Alester Florent]

37 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Lord North tried to resign a few times before and during the war but George kept saying no. That's why in America we say the monarch was the tyrant and not the minister who kept trying to quit.

The problem was the lack of a viable alternative. After the collapse of the Grafton coalition, and in particular after the 1774 election, neither Rockingham nor Pitt the Elder (both infinitely better leaders than North) could command a majority in the Commons and therefore actually govern the country effectively. And none of the Tory alternatives were any more attractive than North, so stability and continuity seemed preferable (maybe Gower, but it's not clear that he could have actually controlled the party and in any case he turned the job down after North's eventual resingation). Even leaving aside George's strong preferences against Rockingham and Pitt.

Indeed we can see the paucity of alternatives from what happened following North's eventual resignation: Rockingham's death was unforeseeable, perhaps (although the level of support he had in 1782 was very different to that he had in 1775; he was not a viable alternative when North was first trying to resign). But after that, Shelburne and Portland both forced out of office in short order, followed by what was expected to be the caretaker appointment of the utterly inexperienced 24-year-old Pitt the Younger as a compromise until a more credible alternative emerged. Four Prime Ministers in less than 18 months.

Obviously the king supported North and his approach to the Americans, but he didn't originate it, and indeed that seemed to be the general attitude of the country at large anyway. I'm also inclined to believe that the minutiae of tax disputes was generally outwith the interest of the king and he was more concerned with the apparent lese-majésté - a situation that only arose because of North's inability or unwillingness to find a compromise over the tax situation anyway. So even to the extent that George helped perpetuate the dispute (which he did) I think it was still (on this side of the pond) North's fault, for allowing the situation to arise in the first place.

There's also the way that in British politics it wasn't uncommon to tender one's resignation as a kind of power play: essentially declaring "if you're unhappy with the job I'm doing, find someone else", thereby rallying support when it turns out that there isn't actually anyone else more attractive. (Most recently and memorably, John Major did this in the 90s to see off a challenge from the faction generally known as "the bastards"). The extent to which some of North's attempted resignations were along these lines, essentially covering his own backside by spreading the responsibility around, rather than sincere attempts to lay down power, is debatable. And if they were sincere resignation attempts, it wasn't because he had suddenly developed sympathy for the colonists and wanted to renounce the policies he had been pursuing to that point, but because he doubted his ability/level of support to carry those same policies out.

Moreover, having cocked things up to the point that the colonies were in outright rebellion, I think we can draw a line under responsibility at that point even if the same people later attempt to resign and hand the mess over to someone else.

My suspicion is that had North actually wanted to resign, he could have done so, de facto if not de jure, by effectively delegating executive power to one of his senior ministers notwithstanding his position as FLOTT. This is how the Pitt ministries had functioned (successfully!) in the 1750s and 1760s with the FLOTT being essentially an administrator but real power resting with Pitt in whichever ministry he held at the time.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Alester Florent

[SeanF]

On 7/20/2023 at 9:50 PM, BlackLightning said:

Isn't the coup against James II is bullshit from any perspective?

As to the bold, I think you can thank Elizabeth and Mary (but mainly Elizabeth) for that.

The British Crown (and maybe the world) would've been better off if she had just found a husband and kept on with him until she gave birth. 

James II wanted to rule England in the same manner as Louis XIV and align England with France.  Neither was acceptable to the magnates.

[Hugorfonics]

14 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Four Prime Ministers in less than 18 months.

Sounds like U.K these days 

 

14 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I'm also inclined to believe that the minutiae of tax disputes was generally outwith the interest of the king and he was more concerned with the apparent lese-majésté - a situation that only arose because of North's inability or unwillingness to find a compromise over the tax situation anyway.

(The north as in New England? They just wanted equal representation in parliament)

Word, but this lese-majeste outlook is in essence super tyrannical. Right? It's a boujee word that literally means "respect my authority", its not about fairness or sensibility.

14 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

There's also the way that in British politics it wasn't uncommon to tender one's resignation as a kind of power play

Yea for sure, I get that. (In America Washington pulled that move and later Teddy although there it backfired).

It's not that over here Lord North is perceived as a good guy, he's more perceived as just a tool for the king. It's just that the idea that the king is chill but the crooked ministers are the problem is a very medieval mindset which the "enlightened" founding fathers were steering away from. And no doubt, the ministers could be crooked but in actuality the king did support the antagonism.

 

A question I have though is when did the monarch lose this power? Like if Sunak wanted to resign, I can't imagine Charles III saying no, like at all. I thought it was during Glorious times but this is after, was it Victoria?

Although they say if Edward VIII never resigned then UK woulda probably submitted to the Nazis or perhaps generally the Axis, is that from a political power or just like a inspirational thing? Or do you think that's just bullshit?

[Jon Fossoway]

Qarth has some Constantinople vibes, having the triple walls and being a passageway between the free cities and Slaver's Bay & the far east.

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Sounds like U.K these days 

You're not wrong. If Sunak loses the next election (which seems likely) that'll make six PMs in seven years.

Quote

(The north as in New England? They just wanted equal representation in parliament)

No, North as in Lord North, the PM.

Quote

It's not that over here Lord North is perceived as a good guy, he's more perceived as just a tool for the king. It's just that the idea that the king is chill but the crooked ministers are the problem is a very medieval mindset which the "enlightened" founding fathers were steering away from. And no doubt, the ministers could be crooked but in actuality the king did support the antagonism.

It's hard to know. I think the prevailing scholarly view now (which has gone back and forth over the years) is that George, while he was instinctively a Tory, essentially acted at all times on the advice of his ministers during the crisis and only knew what they were telling him in any event.

I also think that as in many such instances, as with the French Revolution, American independence started with some relatively mundane and quotidian concerns (essentially grumpiness about taxes) with the opposition party becoming increasingly radicalised as the dispute escalated, culminating in a lot of lofty ideals being retrofitted in order to present the whole thing as having always been about constitutional rights or liberties or what have you, and since that party went on to win the ensuing conflict they were able to write their own mythology of it. That the Congress appealed directly to the king to resolve things suggests they were just as in hock to that "medieval" mindset as anyone else, until he told them to get lost and they had to find another solution.

Quote

 

A question I have though is when did the monarch lose this power? Like if Sunak wanted to resign, I can't imagine Charles III saying no, like at all. I thought it was during Glorious times but this is after, was it Victoria?

Although they say if Edward VIII never resigned then UK woulda probably submitted to the Nazis or perhaps generally the Axis, is that from a political power or just like a inspirational thing? Or do you think that's just bullshit?

 

The effective power of the monarch has steadily been eroded since 1690, but this has mostly been by way of convention rather than a de jure reduction. In principle, the monarch retains the power to appoint whatever ministers they like, to prorogue (i.e. suspend) Parliament when they feel like it, and (I think) to call an end to Parliament and call a new election.

In practice, these powers are almost never used and whenever they are used it causes a shitstorm. The last time a monarch explicitly involved themselves in a real policy decision (that I know of) was in 1911 when George V intervened to break a deadlock between the houses of Lords and Commons to allow a budget to be passed. The last time a monarch appointed a PM of their own choosing was in 1963 (and that was the first time it had been done in ages) when Macmillan's government collapsed in scandal while still holding a majority, and the Queen needed to appoint someone to run the country until the election the following year. The last time a monarch prorogued parliament irregularly was in 2019, explicitly on advice from the PM, and it was immediately ruled in court that the advice given was dishonest and the prorogation illegal, leading to Parliament being recalled. A less shameless PM would have resigned at that point, but he just apologised and got on with ruining everything.

Big slips in monarchical influence happened in 1714 with the change of dynasty, during George III's reign thanks to his bouts of incapacity, and during Victoria's reign when she essentially lost interest after Albert's death, but there were other factors too.

I don't know the last time a monarch rejected a PM's resignation request. My guess would be that it was George V but I wouldn't be surprised if Liz did at some point, but in either case this would be in response to a "mock resignation" where the PM is essentially drawing attention to the difficulty of their position, rather than a genuine refusal to let a minister leave.

With regards to Edward VIII, it's really a big "what if". It is debatable whether, when the war was balanced on a knife-edge in 1940, the influence of the monarch was or could have been decisive either way on national morale, but it would certainly have made life more difficult for the "war party" if there were an active Nazi sympathiser in the Palace. What is probably the most likely scenario is that following Dunkirk Edward would have lobbied hard for a peace deal, and (assuming Chamberlain still resigned) for the appointment of Halifax as PM rather than Churchill, with Halifax being a noted appeaser even at that late stage. But it's all very hypothetical.

[The Bard of Banefort]

21 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Well, as above, it wasn't just that. He was about as popular as Catholics could get in England at the time, being both a war hero and in popular conception the saviour of London during the Great Fire. His Catholicism caused some unease but it was tolerated on the assumption that it would be just for his reign and then it would revert to a Protestant succession. Indeed, everyone who mattered stuck with him during Monmouth's rebellion.

The problem was precisely that he was (viewed as) tyrannical in the way he started to exercise personal power. To put it in US terms, he was taking executive actions that were illegal by the law of the land. Then the prospect that this wouldn't just be for his own lifetime but that he now had a Catholic heir apparent who might well be even more absolutist in tendency was just too much for the Parliamentary establishment.

The actual impact of the Glorious Revolution (i.e. the coup/Dutch invasion) is much-debated but traditionally is the origin point for the British constitution, such as it is. The Civil War a generation earlier gets much more popular attention, but in one sense both king and Parliament lost those wars in the end, and the result (after the end of the dictatorship) during the 1660s and 1670s was a fudge held together by goodwill, bad memories of the war on all sides, and the political skill of some of the period's leading lights (most obviously Charles II himself). But the constitution was still essentially the same as it had been during the war, and required another violent (if much less bloody) upheaval in order to establish and confirm the new consensus: i.e. that the sovereign entity was "King-in-Parliament", not king alone (or Parliament alone, for that matter) and the personal power of the king was to be constrained in future.

This was something James II never really grasped. By the time Anne was looking for a successor, the new system seemed sufficiently well-established that James's son would probably have been considered acceptable because the damage he could do was now limited - so long as he renounced his Catholicism, which he refused to do.

While George is most famous over here for being mad, it was essentially a harmless madness: running naked round the palace, talking to trees, mistaking a pillow for his dead son, etc. In ASoIaF terms, more Rhaegel than Aerys. In Britain, he's generally viewed as a comedic and/or tragic figure, not a villain.

With regard to American independence, while I think our standard history education covers it, it obviously does so in much less detail, and the person who gets blamed for it is Lord North, the Prime Minister at the time. To the extent George gets pulled in personally, it's for failing/refusing to intervene rather than as the driving force.

My instinct is that Americans tend to overestimate and/or overstate George's power and influence on American policy because "the tyrant king" was an obvious target for a nascent republic in a way in which "the Prime Minister" was not, and that this has led to successive generations of Americans overestimating the power and influence of the British monarch both during the independence struggle and indeed down to the present day to an extent. (Indeed, it's my understanding that before negotiations broke down completely, the Continental Congress made a direct appeal to George to overrule his ministers, as protector of their liberties, and only when he refused in snotty terms did republicanism really take hold). Meanwhile in Britain, we probably don't give George enough of the blame, because there was still such a convention of deference in the period that bad policies were blamed on ministers where possible and not on the monarch directly.

Yeah, we don’t really learn about any of the prime ministers prior to Churchill, who is very highly regarded in the public schools systems (I think we studied him more than Eisenhower, which is kind of crazy). Based on what I remember, I learned about British history more through literature, like Shakespeare and Charles Dickens (and through him the Industrial Revolution/Victorian Era).

[Hugorfonics]

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

You're not wrong. If Sunak loses the next election (which seems likely) that'll make six PMs in seven years.

Lol, wild. We're a mess too.

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

No, North as in Lord North, the PM.

Oh, lol of course.

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

It's hard to know. I think the prevailing scholarly view now (which has gone back and forth over the years) is that George, while he was instinctively a Tory, essentially acted at all times on the advice of his ministers during the crisis and only knew what they were telling him in any event.

But the Tories lose after the war right? And there were always some Whigs in parliament anyway. But for sure I agree its likely the King just agreed with his majority but, he was definitely antagonistic, he tells John Adams something along the lines of like "I was the last person who wanted to see you leave but we can still be friends" and then shit talked representative republics a bit

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I also think that as in many such instances, as with the French Revolution, American independence started with some relatively mundane and quotidian concerns (essentially grumpiness about taxes) with the opposition party becoming increasingly radicalised as the dispute escalated, culminating in a lot of lofty ideals being retrofitted in order to present the whole thing as having always been about constitutional rights or liberties or what have you, and since that party went on to win the ensuing conflict they were able to write their own mythology of it.

.Its a bit more complicated I think. For sure specific characters like Madison or Washington or whomever retrofitted their ideas, they honestly probably just wanted fame and money in the beginning, and I agree they got radicalized then. But then youve got some like Jefferson or the populace whose reading works like Common Sense who I dont think were retrofitting ideas. They were just ideas. So like, in 1775 the average American may just be mad about taxes but within a year or two hed realize that like being forced to provide board for the oversees military was neve mundane.
Same kinda with France, but probably not really. I dont think anything was mundane or retrofitted, although it was definitely radicalized.

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

That the Congress appealed directly to the king to resolve things suggests they were just as in hock to that "medieval" mindset as anyone else, until he told them to get lost and they had to find another solution.

Quote

Lol, thats a good point.

 

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

The effective power of the monarch has steadily been eroded since 1690, but this has mostly been by way of convention rather than a de jure reduction. In principle, the monarch retains the power to appoint whatever ministers they like, to prorogue (i.e. suspend) Parliament when they feel like it, and (I think) to call an end to Parliament and call a new election.

In practice, these powers are almost never used and whenever they are used it causes a shitstorm. The last time a monarch explicitly involved themselves in a real policy decision (that I know of) was in 1911 when George V intervened to break a deadlock between the houses of Lords and Commons to allow a budget to be passed. The last time a monarch appointed a PM of their own choosing was in 1963 (and that was the first time it had been done in ages) when Macmillan's government collapsed in scandal while still holding a majority, and the Queen needed to appoint someone to run the country until the election the following year. The last time a monarch prorogued parliament irregularly was in 2019, explicitly on advice from the PM, and it was immediately ruled in court that the advice given was dishonest and the prorogation illegal, leading to Parliament being recalled. A less shameless PM would have resigned at that point, but he just apologised and got on with ruining everything.

Big slips in monarchical influence happened in 1714 with the change of dynasty, during George III's reign thanks to his bouts of incapacity, and during Victoria's reign when she essentially lost interest after Albert's death, but there were other factors too.

I don't know the last time a monarch rejected a PM's resignation request. My guess would be that it was George V but I wouldn't be surprised if Liz did at some point, but in either case this would be in response to a "mock resignation" where the PM is essentially drawing attention to the difficulty of their position, rather than a genuine refusal to let a minister leave.

Cool. Thanks! Intresting stuff. 
Tbh it sounds like the British crown is still more than just a figurehead and honestly more powerful then I thought. 
I mean I get what your saying that mock resignation is just political theater, but that still requires political actors.
(Yea that was Boris, right? I think I remember that... Good stuff that the courts ruled it illegal but wild imo that it could even happen.)

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

With regards to Edward VIII, it's really a big "what if". It is debatable whether, when the war was balanced on a knife-edge in 1940, the influence of the monarch was or could have been decisive either way on national morale, but it would certainly have made life more difficult for the "war party" if there were an active Nazi sympathiser in the Palace. What is probably the most likely scenario is that following Dunkirk Edward would have lobbied hard for a peace deal, and (assuming Chamberlain still resigned) for the appointment of Halifax as PM rather than Churchill, with Halifax being a noted appeaser even at that late stage. But it's all very hypothetical.

Are kings allowed to lobby? Did George lobby for Churchill? Has Charles III or Liz recently?
Like how far can they go? A public handshake, a speech on their campaign tour?

[The Duck and the Field]

Recently I saw a YouTube video outlining several parallels between the Targs of HotD and several members of the Komnenos dynasty of the Byzantine Empire.

These include:

• Emperor Manuel (Viserys) was chosen to be emperor over someone who came ahead of them in primogeniture succession.
• He was obsessed with prophecy, being particularly concerned with a prophecy regarding his successor and the future of his dynasty.
• His wife gave him a single living daughter before dying, leaving him much aggrieved. Because of this, he decides to enact a controversial succession plan.
• Andronikos (Daemon) is his unruly relative. He is described as being magnetic yet arrogant in his personality.
• Because of their shared childhood, Manuel often forgave Andronikos for his many transgressions, including eloping with his niece, going on unapproved military adventures, and feuding with his one-eyed nephew. 
• Despite these many transgressions, which even included outright sedition, Andronikos always did something to redeem himself in his kinsman's eyes and was welcomed back.

It seems like the parallels are there. Link to the video.

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, The Duck and the Field said:

Recently I saw a YouTube video outlining several parallels between the Targs of HotD and several members of the Komnenos dynasty of the Byzantine Empire.

These include:

• Emperor Manuel (Viserys) was chosen to be emperor over someone who came ahead of them in primogeniture succession.
• He was obsessed with prophecy, being particularly concerned with a prophecy regarding his successor and the future of his dynasty.
• His wife gave him a single living daughter before dying, leaving him much aggrieved. Because of this, he decides to enact a controversial succession plan.
• Andronikos (Daemon) is his unruly relative. He is described as being magnetic yet arrogant in his personality.
• Because of their shared childhood, Manuel often forgave Andronikos for his many transgressions, including eloping with his niece, going on unapproved military adventures, and feuding with his one-eyed nephew. 
• Despite these many transgressions, which even included outright sedition, Andronikos always did something to redeem himself in his kinsman's eyes and was welcomed back.

It seems like the parallels are there. Link to the video.

I can definitely see a parallel between Daemon and Andronikos, and Manuel's tolerance of Andronikos mirrors Viserys's of Daemon somewhat.

But I don't see many parallels between Viserys and Manuel otherwise. Manuel was a warlike emperor who we can fairly safely assume was at least a capable warrior himself, who led troops from the front, even if it seems clear that his martial accomplishments were somewhat exaggerated and his reputation as the greatest knight of the age was heavily burnished.

[James Arryn]

To be clear, the original aspect, the greatest of the Intolerable Acts and the only one that prompted several FF’s to complain to George III directly (and write pamphlets about, a la Franklin, Adams, etc.) was the Quebec Act, specifically the toleration of Catholicism in the British Empire. I can’t explain the reasoning, but the conclusion was literally ‘allowing Catholics to be Catholic = tyranny’, not exaggerating. Heroes rarely survive scrutiny. 

[The Duck and the Field]

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

But I don't see many parallels between Viserys and Manuel otherwise. Manuel was a warlike emperor who we can fairly safely assume was at least a capable warrior himself, who led troops from the front, even if it seems clear that his martial accomplishments were somewhat exaggerated and his reputation as the greatest knight of the age was heavily burnished.

I see what you mean, but I think this could be said for most of the "historical parallels" in ASOIAF. Aegon the Elder is obviously supposed to be a parallel to King Stephen of England in terms of his role as a usurper over a female claimant, but he doesn't really resemble Stephen in character very much. I think GRRM takes inspiration from people's political positions and situations as much as he does their personal traits, and he always likes to add his own twists on people, or at least to combine them with some other persons. Even if Viserys I is partially based on Manuel, he's definitely also based on Henry I, among other people probably. I also think that the theory and the video draw more from the show than from F&B.

[Hugorfonics]

24 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

To be clear, the original aspect, the greatest of the Intolerable Acts and the only one that prompted several FF’s to complain to George III directly (and write pamphlets about, a la Franklin, Adams, etc.) was the Quebec Act, specifically the toleration of Catholicism in the British Empire. I can’t explain the reasoning, but the conclusion was literally ‘allowing Catholics to be Catholic = tyranny’, not exaggerating. Heroes rarely survive scrutiny. 

Oh yea! They were a stone thrown away from being Puritans, in fact Sam Adams actually was and got really upset about Freedom of Religion. And by freedom of religion I think they meant at the time it was freedom to worship your branch of Protestantism within your specific state boundaries. (a puritan in SC or a Quaker in MA I think would get the side eyed glance even post 1787)
Most of em were slavers, I dont think that any of the founding fathers can be called heroes really. Even the ones against slavery, which sometimes were slavers, carry serious baggage. Its a strange word anyway, hero. Like Batman? He can be an asshole too 

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Oh yea! They were a stone thrown away from being Puritans, in fact Sam Adams actually was and got really upset about Freedom of Religion. And by freedom of religion I think they meant at the time it was freedom to worship your branch of Protestantism within your specific state boundaries. (a puritan in SC or a Quaker in MA I think would get the side eyed glance even post 1787)
Most of em were slavers, I dont think that any of the founding fathers can be called heroes really. Even the ones against slavery, which sometimes were slavers, carry serious baggage. Its a strange word anyway, hero. Like Batman? He can be an asshole too 

More in the sense that even now, 250 years later the principal high-level legal debates about how to resolve current conflicts revolve around trying to figure out what these fuckers intended way back then.

[SeanF]

46 minutes ago, The Duck and the Field said:

I see what you mean, but I think this could be said for most of the "historical parallels" in ASOIAF. Aegon the Elder is obviously supposed to be a parallel to King Stephen of England in terms of his role as a usurper over a female claimant, but he doesn't really resemble Stephen in character very much. I think GRRM takes inspiration from people's political positions and situations as much as he does their personal traits, and he always likes to add his own twists on people, or at least to combine them with some other persons. Even if Viserys I is partially based on Manuel, he's definitely also based on Henry I, among other people probably. I also think that the theory and the video draw more from the show than from F&B.

No one is a one on one equivalent to any historical figure.

They’re more equivalent to literary versions of historical figures.

Robert owes quite a lot to Shakespeare’s Edward IV, Tyrion to his Richard III.

Tywin and Cersei owe much to Philip the Fair and Isabella in The Accursed Kings.

[Hugorfonics]

26 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

More in the sense that even now, 250 years later the principal high-level legal debates about how to resolve current conflicts revolve around trying to figure out what these fuckers intended way back then.

Yea it's not great. I do think generally or maybe minimally specifically these fuckers had some groovy ideas, but definitely other stuff notably the 3/5 compromise was/is looked at as divinely inspired which is just nuts and still fairly puritan so maybe they're actually on to something lol.

[The Bard of Banefort]

14 hours ago, James Arryn said:

To be clear, the original aspect, the greatest of the Intolerable Acts and the only one that prompted several FF’s to complain to George III directly (and write pamphlets about, a la Franklin, Adams, etc.) was the Quebec Act, specifically the toleration of Catholicism in the British Empire. I can’t explain the reasoning, but the conclusion was literally ‘allowing Catholics to be Catholic = tyranny’, not exaggerating. Heroes rarely survive scrutiny. 

Well, Puritan Massachusetts was eventually overrun with Irish Catholics, so how’s that for irony? Maryland also had a large Catholic population from the beginning.

[Hugorfonics]

On 7/23/2023 at 1:42 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

Well, Puritan Massachusetts was eventually overrun with Irish Catholics, so how’s that for irony?

On 7/23/2023 at 1:42 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

Maryland also had a large Catholic population from the beginning.

I find early Maryland really interesting. I wish I knew more. All of the colonial world really, but especially the American English Civil War, and also the American Glorious revolution. I just feel like these were such shattering events in GB so it's weird there's so little emphasis on what happens across the pond in America.

But, basically, Maryland was named after Charles I's wife. Who was Catholic? But her husband "was not?". Who know with these Stuarts. But in all Caviler fashion, the Stuarts tried to bring Maryland back to 1066. You know the pattern on the sleeves of the Baltimore Ravens, that was the sigil for Lord Baltimore, on some House Lannister shit. American colonies are really fascinating, the origin story on some is so specific and different then it's sisters. Anyway, while New England was for puritans and VA was for conquest and NY was for money, it really seems like Maryland was for A Game of Thrones. But alas, when you play there is no middle ground. Charles and his Cavilers lost their heads and Maryland too held battles of the English Civil War where the Puritans, like in Ireland, went in. Probably not that bad, but bad. 

I'm pretty sure that by the time the continental Congress was freaking out over Quebec, 150 years later, there weren't that many Catholics in Maryland anymore.

[James Arryn]

14 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I find early Maryland really interesting. I wish I knew more. All of the colonial world really, but especially the American English Civil War, and also the American Glorious revolution. I just feel like these were such shattering events in GB so it's weird there's so little emphasis on what happens across the pond in America.

But, basically, Maryland was named after Charles I's wife. Who was Catholic? But her husband "was not?". Who know with these Stuarts. But in all Caviler fashion, the Stuarts tried to bring Maryland back to 1066. You know the pattern on the sleeves of the Baltimore Ravens, that was the sigil for Lord Baltimore, on some House Lannister shit. American colonies are really fascinating, the origin story on some is so specific and different then it's sisters. Anyway, while New England was for puritans and VA was for conquest and NY was for money, it really seems like Maryland was for A Game of Thrones. But alas, when you play there is no middle ground. Charles and his Cavilers lost their heads and Maryland too held battles of the English Civil War where the Puritans, like in Ireland, went in. Probably not that bad, but bad. 

I'm pretty sure that by the time the continental Congress was freaking out over Quebec, 150 years later, there weren't that many Catholics in Maryland anymore.

Another kind of unknown period was when KKKers would go on raids across the border into Canada…usually Quebec, burning out or lynching Catholics, etc.  edit: different from the Fenian raids where Americans would do all the same kinds of raiding/burning/killing, but with slightly different motivations, though still principally about Catholicism. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by James Arryn

[BlackLightning]

On 7/22/2023 at 4:15 AM, SeanF said:

James II wanted to rule England in the same manner as Louis XIV and align England with France.  Neither was acceptable to the magnates.

Are we sure about that or is that just propaganda?

I never understood what James actually DID WRONG to make people legitimately believe he was destroying the integrity and authority of Parliament and turning England into an absolutist Catholic hellhole

Edited July 24, 2023 by BlackLightning

[Craving Peaches]

James II actually issued a document that supposedly gave complete religious freedom...