Prelude to the Glorious Revolution

"The Highland Charge" was interesting to watch. It was the custom of those brave lads to set aside their plaid kilts before battle, fire a volley, then run full tilt at the enemy with broadswords, wearing only their shirts. And a big smile, I suppose.

---------

It would be hard to put an estimate on the number of email requests I have received from Americans, mostly from the Midwest, asking me - practically begging, actually - to make a series of posts that would, once and for all, finally explain the ins and outs of the Jacobite Risings which were semi-rife starting in the latter part of the 17th century in Great Britain and Ireland. Those in Iowa primarily were interested in the Orange William gentleman.

In response to this evident thirst for something to mentally chew on during the regular corn-growing season in breadbasketville, you are now reading the first of what will probably be a dozen or so posts on the fascinating subject. Boy, is it ever.

I am also going to try to pull this off without once mentioning the name Guy Fawkes (oops!) or using the words recusant or undercroft. (Dang!)

I suppose I should first mention that Jacobus is Latin for James. I don't know if that clears anything up or not, but I feel it is important. I am foggy as to whether Latin in Scotland at the time was important because James II (and VII) was Catholic, or whether it was just a carryover from ancient Roman occupation. Be that as it may...

The demise of the childless Elizabeth in 1603 pretty much bit it, historically speaking, for the Tudors. Well, bit it except for the fact that Henry VIII had an older sister, I guess. Thus did come forth the Stuarts upon the scene, descending from the north. Everyone loved them.

First, of course, you had your James I and VI, who was, lo, the great-grandson of the aforementioned esteemed elder Tudoress. This, in case you are keeping score already, was known as the Union of the Crowns. Thus did it come to pass in 1604 that the King of Scotland became also the King of England and Ireland. As was usual for British monarchs of the age, he also called himself King of France (though of course he wasn't) mostly just to anger the French in general and keep them agitated.

The above is only for historical review and really doesn't actually constitute any red meat with regards to the Jacobite Risings, yet seems almost necessary if you are to place James II and VII in proper historical context. I hate to admit it, but some Iowans OFTEN have that trouble. You know who you are. Oddly, they know instinctively, however, that Jacobean refers to James I and VI, while JacoBITES refers to James II and, ah, VII.

Well, sir, long story short, James I and VI, normally uninterested in women to the extreme, finally had it called to his attention that women were necessary if an heir was to be produced and so he married a 14-year-old Dane named Ann who got shiprwrecked in a storm on the way to Britain and ended up in Norway, whereupon her beloved James, whom she had not yet had the pleasure of meeting, came to collect her in person with 300 or so of his buddies. My God, but it was romantic.

To quote the Brothers Four and the lyrics to Eddystone Light, "From this union there came three, a porgy and a porpoise and the other was me." (Yo ho ho, etc.) Actually it WASN'T me but was, rather, he who was to become Charles I after the porgy and the porpoise died ahead of him. Well, to be absolutely honest, Charles I died as well, but not before becoming king and trying to rule without Parliament and bringing on the English Civil War wherein Charles REALLY lost his head. And that's a fact.

After the republicans had mucked about for a bit, kings were reinstalled and you had your Charles II (and XXVVII??) and James II. And VII. Sigh. THEN came the Jacobite (rhymes with "take a bite") Risings.

Please don't be angry that I make you wait until the next post before talking about Scottish clans. You may be sure it will be worth the wait. Not to tease you needlessly, but if there is time I will also tell of the War of Jenkins' Ear.

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.

At this rate, Boston Irish knowledge is many miles down the road

When one tries to give an overview of a country's history - say, Ireland's history - it is important not to go too far back in time. People don't want TOO much information, after all. This would seem to be especially true if the information were being given in a blog post. Accordingly, we are going to skip right over the Ice Age and the Bronze age and like that.

Actually, since this is really trying to be a history of only Ireland's POLITICAL association with England and, later, Great Britain, I am also going to skip right on over St. Patrick and the Norman Evasion. (I think the Normans more or less evaded Ireland; it may have been an oversight.) A few years after the Norman invasion of England, though, they DID begin to take notice of Ireland. You must understand this was back when Ireland still had trees.

Would that I could also skip right over the Roman Catholic church in Ireland. Or ANY church. No offense.

I DO want to fast-forward as much as possible, though, trying desperately to fly right up to Henry VIII's time, which, I think, at least, was quite a turning point for Ireland.

In order for me to do that you are just going to have to fill in the mental blanks about Ireland being invaded with some regularity by this or that king, resulting in various English kings more or less just assuming Ireland was, well, THEIRS.

You did have your Normans, accompanied by your assorted English. The Norman aggression in Ireland was led by Richard de Clare, I declare, who was also known as "Stongbow" due to his prowess with...... arrrrgh! don't make me say the obvious.

As you probably surmise, Norman/English history does not call this land grab an "aggression." It was more like, "We-just-wanted-Ireland-so-we-took-it." Like that.

Then there was more fighting and more treaties and finally some Bull by a papal, and, boy, when the papal bulled, the Normans listened, and you can take that to the bank, Betty.

Still not getting much closer to Henry VIII. I must leave even more out.

In the 14th century, following the Black Death, the Normans went into decline in Ireland. This was largely because they had all died in the Black Death. That's not precisely true, of course, since only 60% of Europe died of the Black Plague. But enough Norman descendants died so that a kind of hybrid Hiberno-Norman culture evolved. ::shudder::

To combat this cultural invasion-by-proxy, if you will, the Irish Parliament decreed that those buggers must speak only English and observe English laws and customs, so as to keep themselves obviously apart from the "real" Irish. No assimilation wanted, thank you very much. These were known as the statues of Kilkenny. Ummm... Statutes of Kilkenny.

The English paid as much attention to the Irish Parliament as they usually did, though, and, by 1494, everything the Irish Parliament did was subject to an okey-dokey by the English Parliament.

This brings us, historically-speaking, much closer to an event known as the Tudor reconquest of Ireland. If the name Tudor rings a bell, then you are up to speed with me.

There is even more.

You betcha.

Note: You would be wise not to click on Sue Thompson's album cover. Just a casual warning.