Carrying on

I am happy to report that I have discovered another opportunity to use the word recusant. You may recall I learned the word doing research for the unfortunate Guy Fawkes incident. I feel if one doesn't use new words, one quickly forgets them. Unfortunately, recusant isn't a word often used in my country, since people here could care less about someone's religion. Couldn't care less, I mean. Unless they are Muslim, I guess, but that is quite another story.

Recusant, I'm sure you remember, means Roman Catholic. Well, actually it means refusing to be Church of England, but Catholic is the main alternate choice that used to piss off Henry VIII, good queen Bess, James six-one (or is it one-six?), et al. Et tu. Et eggs.

"What did you have for breakfast, Tommy?"

"Teacher, I et six eggs for breakfast."

"Ate."

"Maybe it WAS eight I et."

Sigh.

It all started when I was doing research on the Order of the Garter. I think that part started when I Googled the Princess Royal by mistake, and I'm not sure the connection. I am even less sure how that led to another opportunity to use recusant. Wait... now I remember. That Parker-Bowes fellow was Anne's first boyfriend.

It's all rather circular: sir Humphrey de Trafford, millionaire multimillionaire racehorse owner, who came by his fortune through sacrifice and hard work and not through being connected to the right people, had a daughter who was the mother of the aforementioned Andrew Parker-Bowes, the guy who had the brief "relationship" with the Princess Royal whose brother quite liked one Camilla Rosemary Shand (whom I refuse to call Rosie) who later became the Dutchess of Cornwall (unless you are of the Scottish persuasion, then she's the Dutchess of Rothesay.) Well, Andrew didn't marry Anne, whom he was dating, and neither did her brother marry Camilla, whom he was more than infatuated with, so the sordid story goes. No, indeed. Andrew married Camilla right out from under him. In a manner of speaking. Then, though Andrew did marry Camilla, he, Andrew, took up with one Rosemary Pitman, descendent of the famous inventor of the Pitman system of shorthand writing, Andrew seemingly having a weakness for women named Rosemary, while the aforementioned brother of the Princess Royal never really let his affection for the Andrew-wife Camilla stay what you would call unrequited, if you get my drift. Now, if this slippery hole is still not quite deep enough for you, let me mention also that the aforementioned inventor of the famous shorthand system was a brother-in-law to an uncle of Diana, Princess of Wales. My GOD do these people have no shame!

And yet, I find I have drifted somewhat off the point in my righteous indignation. The de Traffords (racehorse guy, and so forth) are notable historical RECUSANTS. That means Andrew, who actually presumably TOUCHED the Princess Royal, was a gol-derned Catholic, same as Guy Fawkes. So was Camilla. JesusJosephandMary. And Diana? Who knows. She learned shorthand and took up with a Muslim, but she wasn't reCUsant by a long shot.

Just don't get me wound up about Camilla's ancestor, a mistress of Edward VII. Circular indeed. I know you won't.

Ireland comes under full British rule; then independence

So it was that English rule was expanded and consolidated in Ireland, the Tudor reconquest resulting in near-complete control of the country by the turn of the 17th century. So many wars and religious conflicts occurred during this time, it is difficult to list all the various factions involved, but one underlying theme seems always to be the resentment of the English and their domination, coupled with the constant friction between Roman Catholics and their influence, and the Church of England of Henry VIII.

I started this series of posts to try and discover the roots of the still-simmering animosity that continues to this very day. I can't really find one thing that could be considered the root of the conflict, and I don't believe there is one single event that one could point to as a genesis. Rather, what we have in Ireland is the age-old resentment of conquest and occupation, and a guerilla violence which often surfaces - and never really goes away - born as a result of helplessness and impotence to rid one's land of what is still perceived by [much of] the Irish population as a foreign usurper. For this, I see no answer any more than others have. From a neutral vantage point, or as neutral as I can be, it seems to me that Great Britain has given what the Catholic Irish wanted: home rule and then entire independence - retaining only the 6 counties that chose to be and are (and this I don't know for sure) pro-British. What else can one do? One cannot abandon those with long-held ties with the British. I tread lightly here, and am not entitled to an opinion since I am a foreigner to both lands.

There is no need to talk about how the Republic of Ireland came about, or of the Time of Troubles in the 1960s and 1970s. These things are recent enough that most readers are already familiar with how they played out.

I do want to talk about some specific events that happened in Ireland, though, and in the next couple of posts will do that. I will in the process get to Boston.

Partial list of job requirements to be in line to the British throne

In the old days (the old OLD days) all you had to do to be king was get together an army, kill the current king, and just move into the castle. I suppose you can still do that, but if you want to go by the actual rules, here are a few of those rules

---------

1. First, you have to be a descendant of the lady pictured above, Electress Sophia of Hanover. If you aren't, then you can just scratch your ass off the list right away.

2. You must be a protestant at the time of your accession. You must enter into communion with the Church of England after your accession.

3. Just in case you didn't get number 2, anyone who is a Roman Catholic, becomes a Roman Catholic, or marries a Roman Catholic (or maybe even just touches a Roman Catholic) is permanently excluded from the succession.

4. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Wait. That doesn't apply to British Monarchs. You must be a protestant. I can't repeat that too often, but I won't again.

5. A person who is born to parents who are not married to each other at the time of birth (a bastard) may not be included in the line of succession. ::Coff coff:: Subsequent marriage of the parents does not alter this. A child born to a married woman is assumed to be the child of her husband. ::Coff coff::

6. A monarch is always succeeded immediately by his or her legitimate descendants. Birth order matters. Gender matters: boys first, girls second.

7. Once you start, you can't go back: until you run out of children and grandchildren, your siblings are just out of luck.

---------

"British throne" today means the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.