History That Inspired ASOIAF

[Alester Florent]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

But, basically, Maryland was named after Charles I's wife. Who was Catholic? But her husband "was not?". Who know with these Stuarts.

I don't think anyone these days seriously believes Charles I was a Catholic, crypto- or otherwise. He appears to have been exactly what he presented himself as: a determined Protestant, but in the High Church Anglican tradition, which was viewed as uncomfortably close to Catholicism in its trappings by the increasingly radicalising Puritan community during his reign.

It was Charles II over whom there's the big question-mark. But he was raised by a Catholic mother, spent an awful lot of time in France in his youth, and was largely dependent for quite a while on both the public and private support of Louis XIV, so his Catholic sympathies are pretty undertsandable.

9 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Are we sure about that or is that just propaganda?

I was never really clear on 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

Among other things:

• He increased the size of the standing army, and placed Catholics in command of parts of it
• Indefinite prorogation of Parliament within a year of taking the throne
• Attempts to use the royal prerogative to introduce toleration for Catholics but not Protestant dissenters (Protestant dissenters were later added).
• Appointment of Catholics to high civil offices and accepting a papal nuncio at court
• Sought a court ruling that he had the power to overrule acts of Parliament and sacked judges who disagreed
• Arrested bishops who protested against his religious policies

There was doubtless an element of paranoia about the response, but I can see why the Protestant establishment was concerned. It looked an awful lot like Charles I's behaviour in the run up to the civil war, except this time with added Catholicism.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Alester Florent

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

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.  

When was this exactly?

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

 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. 

Wasn’t the Fenian Brotherhood Catholic?

[Hugorfonics]

27 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

I don't think anyone these days seriously believes Charles I was a Catholic, crypto- or otherwise. He appears to have been exactly what he presented himself as: a determined Protestant, but in the High Church Anglican tradition, which was viewed as uncomfortably close to Catholicism in its trappings by the increasingly radicalising Puritan community during his reign.

It was Charles II over whom there's the big question-mark. But he was raised by a Catholic mother, spent an awful lot of time in France in his youth, and was largely dependent for quite a while on both the public and private support of Louis XIV, so his Catholic sympathies are pretty undertsandable.

Yea that's what I figure too. The wife was a bit more on the popery side though, right? I'm not sure about Lord Baltimore and his son but if they were lords post Elizabeth Id bet they were as Catholic as the king. Which is, not, but still something of popery. Which yea, can totally be the French youth lifestyle and not the blood of Christ or whatever.

Like I really don't think that Maryland was actually Catholic but more Anglican with Latin and red hats. But I think the caviler ,French 2nd estate, outlook of like riding your warhorse over the diggers or whatever, was pretty predominant 

[Alester Florent]

19 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea that's what I figure too. The wife was a bit more on the popery side though, right? I'm not sure about Lord Baltimore and his son but if they were lords post Elizabeth Id bet they were as Catholic as the king. Which is, not, but still something of popery. Which yea, can totally be the French youth lifestyle and not the blood of Christ or whatever.

 

Henrietta Maria was full-on Catholic, yes, and this was a major political problem for the king because she not only refused to convert but even to shut up about actively converting everyone else.

From what I gather, the Baltimores were Catholic too, which is presumably why they were given a peerage in Ireland rather than England.

[Hugorfonics]

2 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Henrietta Maria was full-on Catholic, yes, and this was a major political problem for the king because she not only refused to convert but even to shut up about actively converting everyone else.

Lol word.

3 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

From what I gather, the Baltimores were Catholic too, which is presumably why they were given a peerage in Ireland rather than England.

Oh cool. Interesting

[The Bard of Banefort]

Something I learned just recently that blew my mind was the story of Louis XIV’s second wife. That’s like. . . something out of a romance novel. (TL;DR She was an educated but lowborn widow—born in prison—who served as the governess to Louis’ illegitimate children before becoming close friends with the king, and then his lover. They entered a morganatic marriage when they were both middle-aged and stayed together for another 30 years. Wild.) George is such a mush that I’m surprised he hasn’t written a similar story within ASOIAF. It’s not like he hasn’t done something like this before (i.e. publicly dismissing all the stories where the prince marries a peasant girl only to then have Prince Duncan marry a peasant girl).

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

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

I don’t think that turning England Catholic was ever a realistic possibility in the late 17th century (although, such was the religious paranoia of the day, many people feared it).

But, such things as boosting the size of the army (which people were worried about after Cromwell) and billeting it on the population, fiercely persecuting Scottish dissenters, replacing Protestant officials with Catholics, proroguing Parliament, purging local government, certainly made the people that counted worry that he was headed towards absolutism.  

[BlackLightning]

16 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I don't think anyone these days seriously believes Charles I was a Catholic, crypto- or otherwise. He appears to have been exactly what he presented himself as: a determined Protestant, but in the High Church Anglican tradition, which was viewed as uncomfortably close to Catholicism in its trappings by the increasingly radicalising Puritan community during his reign.

It was Charles II over whom there's the big question-mark. But he was raised by a Catholic mother, spent an awful lot of time in France in his youth, and was largely dependent for quite a while on both the public and private support of Louis XIV, so his Catholic sympathies are pretty undertsandable.

Among other things:

• He increased the size of the standing army, and placed Catholics in command of parts of it
• Indefinite prorogation of Parliament within a year of taking the throne
• Attempts to use the royal prerogative to introduce toleration for Catholics but not Protestant dissenters (Protestant dissenters were later added).
• Appointment of Catholics to high civil offices and accepting a papal nuncio at court
• Sought a court ruling that he had the power to overrule acts of Parliament and sacked judges who disagreed
• Arrested bishops who protested against his religious policies

There was doubtless an element of paranoia about the response, but I can see why the Protestant establishment was concerned. It looked an awful lot like Charles I's behaviour in the run up to the civil war, except this time with added Catholicism.

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think that turning England Catholic was ever a realistic possibility in the late 17th century (although, such was the religious paranoia of the day, many people feared it).

But, such things as boosting the size of the army (which people were worried about after Cromwell) and billeting it on the population, fiercely persecuting Scottish dissenters, replacing Protestant officials with Catholics, proroguing Parliament, purging local government, certainly made the people that counted worry that he was headed towards absolutism.  

I think we are heading for a religious war in ASOIAF. I think Team Aegon will join forces with the High Septon and the smallfolk against Dany and Dany will likely at the likes of the Fiery Hand (the military arm of the R'hllor faith)

But I feel like GRRM really missed out on the lack of religious wars of conversion or separatism in his worldbuilding. Realistically, it should've happened a lot more recently between the Andals and the First Men

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

I think we are heading for a religious war in ASOIAF. I think Team Aegon will join forces with the High Septon and the smallfolk against Dany and Dany will likely at the likes of the Fiery Hand (the military arm of the R'hllor faith)

But I feel like GRRM really missed out on the lack of religious wars of conversion or separatism in his worldbuilding. Realistically, it should've happened a lot more recently between the Andals and the First Men

I have a feeling that Team Aegon and the HS will do something spectacular, like publicly burning Tommen and Margaery, the first as an abomination, the second as an adulteress.

[BlackLightning]

On 7/22/2023 at 5:09 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Tbh it sounds like the British crown is still more than just a figurehead and honestly more powerful then I thought. 

Yeah I think that that was just the way Elizabeth II ruled.

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Yeah I think that that was just the way Elizabeth II ruled.

The Monarch cannot just do any of those things without going through proper procedure though. And there are some things that while they can technically do it it would be very unwise to do so and it would jeopardise the balance of power, existence of the monarchy etc. If, for example, a monarch refused to appoint the 'correct' person as PM...

Edited July 25, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[The Bard of Banefort]

This is how Betha Blackwood is described in TWOIAF:

Quote

Aegon V had married for love, taking to wife the Lady Betha Blackwood, the spirited (some say willful) daughter of the Lord of Raventree Hall, who became known as Black Betha for her dark eyes and raven hair. . . Betha Blackwood's children proved to be as stubborn as their mother, and like their father, chose to follow their hearts when choosing mates.

Sounds a bit reminiscent of Anne Boleyn, right? We know George loves Tudor history. She even has unorthodox religious beliefs like Anne did (albeit closer to paganism than Protestantism).

[SaffronLady]

On 7/25/2023 at 10:51 PM, BlackLightning said:

Realistically, it should've happened a lot more recently between the Andals and the First Men

IIRC at least the Brackens converted to F7 due to Andal military pressure.