What program/film/documentary are you watching now?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Kenneth Branagh's name is pronounced the same way as Sean Bean's is. With great emphasis. [:D]

warspite1

Exactement, allow me to put it another way

Kenneth Bran R

SHORN BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNN

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Kenneth Branagh's name is pronounced the same way as Sean Bean's is. With great emphasis. [:D]

warspite1

Exactement, allow me to put it another way

Kenneth Bran R

SHORN BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNN

Yes, exactly.

[Chickenboy]

Just watched the wonderful "The Wind Rises", an anime move about the life of Jiro Horikoshi, the developer of the "Claude" and "Zero" Japanese aircraft. Well rendered anime of the tempestuous 1920s-1930s Japan and the rise of this aeronautical engineer, his ideas and inspiration in this world. The kids enjoyed it too. Highly recommended. [8D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Two excellent 3-part series about the Civil War

Downfall of a King

and

Killing of a King

I definitely should read more about this fascinating subject.

warspite1

I watched another three-parter, The Stuarts. Looks like it was made about six years ago as the referendum on Scottish independence hadn't yet happened.

This series obviously had much about the Civil War but was also, as the name implies, about the circa 100 years of Stuart rule in Britain and Ireland.

Absolutely fascinating and both sad and ironic that a king that set out to rule the three kingdoms as one, was - or at least his family was - largely responsible for the problems that were to follow..... (although having said that, what could have happened had Henry VIII kept it in his pants? It would certainly have made life easier for the Stuarts and everyone else)...

[loki100]

I'd say the problems the Stuarts had, both in power and when trying to regain it, was they had an unerring ability to minimise the possible coalition that would back them at any one time?

So by pushing the unitary kingdom, hard line catholicism and the divine right of kings up to the English Civil War they shed support all over the place. Chazza II certainly learnt this lesson so he's the unusual one and worked hard at not offending anyone (unless he really had to). James II reverted to type.

Thereafter, it takes a political genius to ensure an unpopular foreign dynasty has the default support of most of the population (Scotland and England) when you are trying to get restored to political power?

[RangerJoe]

Charles the Second had Thomas Hobbes to help him.

[loki100]

not so sure about that .. think it was more that he quite enjoyed being King and fancied living as long as possible ...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

I'd say the problems the Stuarts had, both in power and when trying to regain it, was they had an unerring ability to minimise the possible coalition that would back them at any one time?

So by pushing the unitary kingdom, hard line catholicism and the divine right of kings up to the English Civil War they shed support all over the place. Chazza II certainly learnt this lesson so he's the unusual one and worked hard at not offending anyone (unless he really had to). James II reverted to type.

Thereafter, it takes a political genius to ensure an unpopular foreign dynasty has the default support of most of the population (Scotland and England) when you are trying to get restored to political power?

warspite1

It's an interesting question though. What would have been the position had Henry VIII never broke with Rome?

[MrsWargamer]

A totally awesome experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW-UxS7itJI&t=12s

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: loki100

I'd say the problems the Stuarts had, both in power and when trying to regain it, was they had an unerring ability to minimise the possible coalition that would back them at any one time?

So by pushing the unitary kingdom, hard line catholicism and the divine right of kings up to the English Civil War they shed support all over the place. Chazza II certainly learnt this lesson so he's the unusual one and worked hard at not offending anyone (unless he really had to). James II reverted to type.

Thereafter, it takes a political genius to ensure an unpopular foreign dynasty has the default support of most of the population (Scotland and England) when you are trying to get restored to political power?

warspite1

It's an interesting question though. What would have been the position had Henry VIII never broke with Rome?

Or how about if the Pope legitimized Elizabeth the First?

But the Roman Catholic Church was a major landowner in England if I remember correctly. I think about 20% of the land was controlled by the Church and so did not financially support the Crown. I also read where a monastery in England was on the verge of inventing the blast furnace.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: loki100

I'd say the problems the Stuarts had, both in power and when trying to regain it, was they had an unerring ability to minimise the possible coalition that would back them at any one time?

So by pushing the unitary kingdom, hard line catholicism and the divine right of kings up to the English Civil War they shed support all over the place. Chazza II certainly learnt this lesson so he's the unusual one and worked hard at not offending anyone (unless he really had to). James II reverted to type.

Thereafter, it takes a political genius to ensure an unpopular foreign dynasty has the default support of most of the population (Scotland and England) when you are trying to get restored to political power?

warspite1

It's an interesting question though. What would have been the position had Henry VIII never broke with Rome?

I guess it then depends on where the succession stands first between Elizabeth and Mary and then if Elizabeth died without an heir. I'd file the first under 'not got a clue', the second I assume would have seen a much less contested Stuart accession.

Noncomformist protestants wouldn't have been happy (but then Knox and Calvin didn't have much time for happiness), there would have a much more dominant Church hierachy (even if it did carry on diverging a bit from conventional Catholicism). The Stuarts could have more readily based their power in Central Scotland and England (they did a fair bit of political, linguistic repression in the Highlands in any case).

I guess it would depend on whether with most Protestants captured within a more unified Church would the alliance of non-conformism and demands for political reform been enough to bring the country to civil war? I doubt the Stuarts would have handled it any more deftly, but there would have been far more room for mistakes this side of open revolt.

In effect, you could readily paint a picture where you end up in much the same place or quite a lot of other narratives (yeah, I'm being decisive). One dynamic is the Act of Union was sort of needed as William and then the Hannoverians had no dynastic legitimacy in Scotland. But then even if the Stuarts shuffled off, its hard to see a new dynasty just writing off what could easily have been 150+ years of personal union of the 2 thrones?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: loki100

I'd say the problems the Stuarts had, both in power and when trying to regain it, was they had an unerring ability to minimise the possible coalition that would back them at any one time?

So by pushing the unitary kingdom, hard line catholicism and the divine right of kings up to the English Civil War they shed support all over the place. Chazza II certainly learnt this lesson so he's the unusual one and worked hard at not offending anyone (unless he really had to). James II reverted to type.

Thereafter, it takes a political genius to ensure an unpopular foreign dynasty has the default support of most of the population (Scotland and England) when you are trying to get restored to political power?

warspite1

It's an interesting question though. What would have been the position had Henry VIII never broke with Rome?

I guess it then depends on where the succession stands first between Elizabeth and Mary and then if Elizabeth died without an heir. I'd file the first under 'not got a clue', the second I assume would have seen a much less contested Stuart accession.

Noncomformist protestants wouldn't have been happy (but then Knox and Calvin didn't have much time for happiness), there would have a much more dominant Church hierachy (even if it did carry on diverging a bit from conventional Catholicism). The Stuarts could have more readily based their power in Central Scotland and England (they did a fair bit of political, linguistic repression in the Highlands in any case).

I guess it would depend on whether with most Protestants captured within a more unified Church would the alliance of non-conformism and demands for political reform been enough to bring the country to civil war? I doubt the Stuarts would have handled it any more deftly, but there would have been far more room for mistakes this side of open revolt.

In effect, you could readily paint a picture where you end up in much the same place or quite a lot of other narratives (yeah, I'm being decisive). One dynamic is the Act of Union was sort of needed as William and then the Hannoverians had no dynastic legitimacy in Scotland. But then even if the Stuarts shuffled off, its hard to see a new dynasty just writing off what could easily have been 150+ years of personal union of the 2 thrones?

warspite1

No I don't think Knox was that kind of guy [;)]

But surely the story of Ireland could have been very different?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


No I don't think Knox was that kind of guy [;)]

But surely the story of Ireland could have been very different?

Well 1066 and All That correctly addressed that issue - everytime anyone answered the Irish question the Irish changed the question?

So, what drove English policy - geographical control or religion? I'd say that religion only in that it was the ready identifier that made someone both opposed to English rule and willing to co-operate with France or Spain as foreign powers? I can't imagine there would have been so much interest in deporting non-conformist protestants from West Scotland to Ulster (after Cromwell suppressed the Covenentors). So what are you left with?

Ireland with the same religion (basically), an Anglo-Irish landed elite and possibly some nascent sense of distaste for foreign rule ... but perhaps no more sustained and deep seated than say in Scotland in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: warspite1


No I don't think Knox was that kind of guy [;)]

But surely the story of Ireland could have been very different?

Well 1066 and All That correctly addressed that issue - everytime anyone answered the Irish question the Irish changed the question?

So, what drove English policy - geographical control or religion? I'd say that religion only in that it was the ready identifier that made someone both opposed to English rule and willing to co-operate with France or Spain as foreign powers? I can't imagine there would have been so much interest in deporting non-conformist protestants from West Scotland to Ulster (after Cromwell suppressed the Covenentors). So what are you left with?

Ireland with the same religion (basically), an Anglo-Irish landed elite and possibly some nascent sense of distaste for foreign rule ... but perhaps no more sustained and deep seated than say in Scotland in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?

warspite1

Well if it still all went tits up - despite all having roughly the same religion - then at least we wouldn't have the divided island (I assume) and all the carnage that brought?

Sadly my knowledge of this part of history (1600-1915) and what was really going on in the three Kingdoms, isn't sufficiently strong to have any real sense of what may or may not have been possible.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: warspite1


No I don't think Knox was that kind of guy [;)]

But surely the story of Ireland could have been very different?

Well 1066 and All That correctly addressed that issue - everytime anyone answered the Irish question the Irish changed the question?

So, what drove English policy - geographical control or religion? I'd say that religion only in that it was the ready identifier that made someone both opposed to English rule and willing to co-operate with France or Spain as foreign powers? I can't imagine there would have been so much interest in deporting non-conformist protestants from West Scotland to Ulster (after Cromwell suppressed the Covenentors). So what are you left with?

Ireland with the same religion (basically), an Anglo-Irish landed elite and possibly some nascent sense of distaste for foreign rule ... but perhaps no more sustained and deep seated than say in Scotland in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?

warspite1

Well if it still all went tits up - despite all having roughly the same religion - then at least we wouldn't have the divided island (I assume) and all the carnage that brought?

Sadly my knowledge of this part of history (1600-1915) and what was really going on in the three Kingdoms, isn't sufficiently strong to have any real sense of what may or may not have been possible.

Edmund Blackadder could have united the 3 kingdoms.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...

Well if it still all went tits up - despite all having roughly the same religion - then at least we wouldn't have the divided island (I assume) and all the carnage that brought?

Sadly my knowledge of this part of history (1600-1915) and what was really going on in the three Kingdoms, isn't sufficiently strong to have any real sense of what may or may not have been possible.

I'm not sure you can say much, since the divide between Catholicism, Anglicism and the Church of Scotland was not really theologically driven, you can assume those 3 stay broadly united and claim the religious allegiance of most inhabitants of England, Scotland and Ireland.

You then have the various non-comformist protestant groups, probably stronger as there is no anglicanism to draw off their less committed adherents.

So this GB follows the European norm? A political clash between an absolutist royal philosophy, a rising merchant and farming class that wants political involvement in return for its tax monies and no doubt unhappy peripheral regions (Highlands/Ireland but also possibly N England).

Well no European state navigated say 1600-1800 without a lot of internal angst, and there are a lot of ways those dynamics could have fallen out. We can assume that an international level relations with France, Spain and the Netherlands would have been as tricky, that this GB would have intervened in continental wars for tactical gains and those powers would have returned the favour.

The Stuarts were mostly spectacularly inept, but the pressures on them are different. And you don't have the ready triangle of Anglican/Catholic/Non-Comformist that maps so easily onto what we know happened (since we are living with the consequences). Without the Anglican/Catholic dynamic Ireland might have been less consistently rebellious but then, in Scotland, that divide fragmented opposition to the creation of a British state. So remove it, and many of the things that divided Highland opposition to Britain from Lowland opposition to Britain become very much more secondary. So maybe we get a GB of England, Wales and Ireland with a semi-detached Scotland? or not?

[redcoat]

A useful video for anyone with a war elephant problem:


https://youtu.be/8Bdk82xTNm8

[warspite1]

The Luminaries - BBC iplayer.

It's got Eva Green in it so I thought it might be worth watching. One episode in and so far so good.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The Luminaries - BBC iplayer.

It's got Eva Green in it so I thought it might be worth watching. One episode in and so far so good.

Hmmm...

I have been considering dipping my eyeballs on The Luminaries but "epic love story" is enough to give me pause.

Might try it though.

Best wishes,
Steve

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The Luminaries - BBC iplayer.

It's got Eva Green in it so I thought it might be worth watching. One episode in and so far so good.

Hmmm...

I have been considering dipping my eyeballs on The Luminaries but "epic love story" is enough to give me pause.

Might try it though.

Best wishes,
Steve

warspite1

SPOILER ALERT

Mmmmm I wouldn't have said (4 episodes in) that this is in the "epic love story" category.

I mean don't get me wrong, there may yet be a happy ending for Bono's daughter (an excellent actress) and the geezer from Yesterday (who I find to be a very watchable and engaging actor) but the whole story so far is really, really NOT a love story. The wonderful Eva Green is in it so there is always going to be an air of menace at the very least. The story has two timelines going which means for someone like me (with very little brain) it is a little confusing, but I am finding the story line engrossing and that has very little to do with the 'love' angle which is there, but very, very, very much in the background.