Musings on hearing somebody with problems (on telly) bemoaning ‘the world we live in’ as a dark and terrible place…
Actually, much brighter than it’s ever been. 1) We now have national borders that have one helpful use: they advise people where the expected manners change, they make it clear that invasions are not welcome in our little cabbage patch or suburban plot, and in general they attempt to keep pests and problems out. 2) Exposure of nasty little situations doesn’t mean the whole world is like this: in fact, it wouldn’t be news if it was. Exposure gets people worked up to try to fix it.
Where was scientific advice when our European forebears chopped down every last tree on the Isles north of Britain?
Where was international concern when armies swept through ancient China on an annual basis?
Where was World Health when the Bubonic Plague killed 50% of the population of Egypt and so decimated Europe that in some districts you couldn’t get a plow fixed because the blacksmiths had died and you couldn’t record a death because the priest had died. The death figure was something like 75 million people, and that doesn’t count the Southern Med or Central Asia, where it also existed. Not only that, it wasn’t one event: it occurred from 1300 to 1700 AD, and may have had one prior fling around 700 AD. Health care has definitely improved, and if you’re going to catch the plague, so much better to do it now.
Lifespan is longer; you rarely see (outside the third world) 3-5 successive marriages, as each wife dies trying to give birth. Literacy is common. And in the third world today (and believe me, there was a third world of supreme misery in the 1000’s AD…)there is advancing medical care—[populations just died out entirely in the old days], social attitudes are responding to the light of international attention, and changing with better education. In much of the world if you have to give birth, get sick, take a trip, acquire property, or settle a dispute with a neighbor or total stranger, you are likely to survive all these eventualities, which was certainly not a likelihood in times past for very much of the world at all.
Do we have pockets that need cleaning up? We certainly do. But we also have something else our predecessors (except the wealthiest) didn’t have—leisure time, indoor lighting, indoor plumbing, communication, and spare resources—not only that, there, dawning around the globe, the vision of what can be had, and what one can aspire to. Mediaeval thinking still persists; in a few places, Dark Ages thinking; but we’re slowly gaining on it. We glitch back a few ticks; but warlords are increasingly unpopular in most of the world.
Global conditions are now being investigated, scientifically, sociologically, medically—we’re not t-rex looking up at the light in the sky and wondering dimly if that’s a problem. Sure, we’re inundated with news out of the world’s trouble spots, and we worry about them, and a waitress in Kansas City is really worried over the plight of children in central Africa…and let me say, has a lot more accurate information about that situation than her great-grandmother would have had…but over all, civilization is perking along better in most places than it’s ever been, we’re working on fixes for our screw-ups and for what nature may do, and I think we need to quit beating the drum for how bad it all is, inject our young people with a dose of history and a sense of optimism and mission about the general trend of the world.
If you weren’t here, at this time, what epoch would you choose—if you couldn’t choose your gender or race or social class, or what area of the world you landed in—what were your odds, then versus now?
Here and now is a whole lot better than the average of your choices, in my own opinion.
I appreciate the positive perspective. Your GoH talk at ConDor was equally uplifting. I think we’re so used to hearing people bemoan every little thing; it’s good to hear someone with a wider point of view.
Humanity has dodged the bullet so many times, from the eruption of the Toba supervolcano, to the Little Ice Age, the Black Death, the great floods of the iceage meltdown…we’re a pretty clever lot, all told. I honestly think if we hadn’t mechanized when we did, climate could have caught us flatfooted and without options. I think politicizing a planetary polar meltdown (we did it/no, it’s a natural process) is beyond silly, and downright dangerous, when we really ought to be funding some of these experimental projects to deal with the situation. Who cares about fault, gentlemen? What do you propose to do as the tide rises?
Thank goodness it’s not all up to our own congress, and people in Europe are innovating—I love the floating houses in Holland, and the tide gates in Venice—while we can’t even deliver trailer homes to New Orleans without screwing it up. 😉
I’m absolutely an optimist. I think humanity as a whole will make it. We’ll just tie the Congressional rowboat on behind and let them pass measures about who bails and who rows.
Speaking of the Congressional rowboat – the contemporary political scene is the one area where I feel there really was, if not a golden era, at any rate an era of civil discourse, in the past. And it seems to be gone completely. Sure, it was civility papered over antagonism, but for the country’s first two centuries, there was discussion, and some consensus, among our public officials. Even as late as the Watergate hearings this was true. Now? Now the haters and the do-no-research-but-just-pass-on-the-juicy-rumors blogosphere seem to be running the show, and the politicians don’t lead, they react and jump on the bandwagon. It’s sad.
While in general, I’d agree, there was more civil discourse and the words “diplomacy, compromise, statesmanship, and public service” were observable, acting functions, there were also things like one senator or congressman having a duel or caning or pistol whipping an opponent, and some pretty vicious dirty campaigning back and forth. (BTW, those incidents with congressmen were well-known names in US and Texas history, pre-Civil-War era.)
Re: My Hurricane Ike comments — our city, for the most part, did remarkably well, despite the dire circumstances. People mostly got along and acted reasonably civil/adult and neighborly. Yes, there were some exceptions, but not the mass looting or hysteria one might have seen. This is partly because hurricanes are not new around here, and partly because people simply didn’t lose their heads and become total nincompoops. Whether any of that was due to good leadership is likely moot. I think it was primarily the common people themselves. People cooperated, cooked out together, and so on. Has that public spirit or community feeling remained? Only somewhat. We’re still a big city, subject to the hurry and rudeness and lack of thought common to big cities. But we’re also more friendly than some big cities.
Human beings can be horribly savage to each other, to other lifeforms, and to the environment / nature around them. Yet we humans can also be altruistic, caring, loving, good stewards. How one acts when it’s down to basics…or down to kill or be killed, eat or be eaten, is still dependent on the individual character. The thing is, the appropriate response for survival is not always to kill the other guy. Sometimes, it is to cooperate, to keep the other guy alive so you both can live.
I think that’s one thing the current style of public debate (politics, religion, families, interpersonal) has forgotten. There is, nowadays, a harsh tendency to so polarize the rhetoric, that the other guy’s way must be demonized and the speaker’s way is saintly, so that there is no room for anyone’s opinions but the speaker’s, and therefore, no room for compromise or coming together to solve problems by pooling ideas and trying multiple solutions.
But then, even the level of language is different. I was recently struck by a passage of a speech by JFK, and how sensible and down to earth, yet educated and concise it was, and how filled with meaning. Compared to some recent politicians (whether incumbent office-holders or candidates) … JFK would have been better by far. Or Lincoln. Or almost anyone. (I care not about political party, but whether he or she will do what he or she claims, and what he or she believes, says, and does.) In my state’s current campaign for governor, I’ve been struck by how a couple of candidates were either completely devoid of their own plans, evaded all answers to questions, or were inflammatory in their responses and styles. Politics as usual, maybe, but not good for getting us all out of the present messes.
On the other hand, it is far better than riots and fighting in the streets, civil war, or a tyrannical despot, or a warlord who raids your village and homestead, burns your farmhouse, barns, stables, and crops, and does unspeakable things to your women, men, or children, then enslaves, kidnaps, or kills them.
For that matter, if you visit my dad’s family’s rural family cemetery, up in the mountains, you only have to see the dates of birth and death to understand how illness, hunger, accident, or winter could ravage whole families: mothers, babies and small children, old folks, or young folks in their prime and able-bodied. Those who lived typically lived long, for back then, beyond their 50’s and into their 70’s or even 90’s at times. They were tough-minded and tough-bodied, even if not everyone was quite so tough as advertised. (Hmm, and of course, nowhere there does it say who was bookish, who was not quite as white, whose thinking wasn’t the norm among the neighbors, who was single or perhaps not straight, or many, many other qualities not listed on a headstone or even in county court records.) They were ordinary, sometimes boring or backward, perhaps, or sometimes quite brilliant and lovable. Heck, somebody loved ’em; they had friends and families who remembered and carried on.
it’s very interesting, reading the Paston letters of just before and during the Wars of the Roses, how juries, judges, and in fact anyone with a vote or in a position of power had to be “laboured” to get a favourable decision. this lubrication could be in the form of bought or persuaded numbers, or similar activity towards a powerful figure. the Lancastrian side in Norfolk kept coming along with bought numbers and big stick persuasion, and had to be headed off (the Pastons were on the Yorkist side) by the same. it all seems to have been quite open, and there is much writing of how “labouring” had to be done to get a decision ….
The problems around the time of the Wars of the Roses were mostly due to a weak king. Under weak monarchs, like Henry VI, injustice and oppression increased as powerful lords corrupted the system and look advantage of it for their own gain. They were warlords in the full meaning of the term, who could raise private armies and run their part of the country as they liked, unless a strong king kept them under control.
This is something that people today often don’t realize. The monarch was almost always seen as the champion of the ordinary people and the only power capable of keeping the lords in check.
When Henry VIII became king at the age of 18, one of the fist things he did was arrest two of the most powerful and unpopular lords, have them tried for treason on flimsy grounds, and executed. He notably said, “There is no head in this kingdom so noble that it cannot roll.”
Today we think how tyrannical and arrogant this was, but people at the time didn’t see it that way at all. He wasn’t threatening ordinary people, he was just showing the nobility who was in charge. Ordinary people loved him for it, because they were the ones who suffered if the lords got out of control.
During Henry VIII’s reign corruption was practically eliminated, in general the country was well run and the people prospered. He retained his popularity with the common people right up to end of his 38 year reign. (For the most part, the population was firmly on his side in the issues with his wives. In London people lit bonfires and danced in the streets when Anne Boleyn was executed. The Protestant/Catholic divide was a major issue in the whole country, and not just due to Henry, even if it was he who broke with Rome.) Even generations after his reign people spoke affectionately of ‘Good King Hal’ or ‘the Great Harry’. This shows how views of historical figures can change over time!
Mmm, which 2 lords in particular are you thinking of? Just curious. I know of several around that time.
You’re dead on about the politics of the time. Monarchy is a good form of government, if the monarch is good, and in many cases the monarch who did not have regional interests was a lot better than the baron who did. If the king was an activist who spent a lot of time on solving problems, not in self-indulgence, was perceived to be pious (ergo keeping heaven in a good mood), enforcing the law that protected people from thieves, and assisting the poor occasionally (thus giving people reasonable security and a bit of hope of a windfall), and above all keeping general mayhem and armed conflict from breaking out inside the kingdom, or letting it be overrun from outside, they were a ‘good king’.
The monarchy was also capable of running with a do-nothing king: the various ministers made the decisions, negotiated a system of balances with each interest at stake, and on several occasions did a good job, bettering the reputation of certain reigns.
The point at which the Plantagenet power began to diffuse itself and there was nobody to replace it without fighting about it…that was a mess. King John gets a lot of blame: as a king he was better than Richard the Lionhearted—it was Richard who taxed the country heavily for his Crusade, attacked the Jewish community in York, and generally did everything to bankrupt the country, while probably not even speaking English. John actually lived in England and had far less resource to work with: he was not popular, and various family trees can attest to the fact he slept with everybody and had bastards all over the place, which did not help stabilize the situation. The barons demanding a lessening of royal power (the Magna Carta) and the economics forced on John by Richard, and the fact John kept begetting bastards all over the map just did not make John a popular king. But he was a better king than popular opinion credited him with being…he was just tolerably weakened in his position by various forces including Richard, and could not maintain internal peace.
I was thinking of Sir Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. They were arrested two days after Henry VIII’s coronation. Both were highly unpopular for carrying out Henry VII’s harsh tax policies – and amassing great wealth for themselves in the process.
They were not strictly lords, except in the general sense of the word, but Empson was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and owned the Manors of Towcester, Easton Neston, Hulcote, Alderton, Stoke Bruerne, Shutlanger, Bradden, Cold Higham, Grimscote, Potcote and Burton Latimer, the advowsons of Bradden and Cold Higham, and lands in various other parts of the country.
Dudley was Chancellor of Exchequer and President of the Privy Council, the grandson of John, Lord Dudley de Sutton, and a member of the great baronial family of Dudley. He married the sister of Lord Windsor, and was the father of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, and grandfather of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, favorite of Elizabeth I. Since Northumberland was also executed for treason (for putting Lady Jane Grey on the throne), Elizabeth once called Leicester “the son of a traitor and grandson of a traitor”.
Ah, yes. I was wondering about Tyrell, and the Princes in the Tower matter—a bit of a mystery, that one. According to some accounts, Tyrell was the hero of the piece and got the boys out to safety, keeping the secret to his grave, though charged with the crime; in others, he was the murderer.
The best book I’ve come across on the subject is The Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir:
http://www.amazon.com/Princes-Tower-Alison-Weir/dp/0345391780/
She examines all the evidence from the original sources in detail, using careful logic and a lot of plain common sense, and dismisses the various conspiracy theories. She concludes that the conventional understanding that the Princes were murdered on the orders of Richard III is correct, and that their skeletons were probably the ones discovered in Tower in the 17th century.
Of course this doesn’t please the large number of Richard III enthusiasts, hence the mixed ratings of the book on Amazon. But I think the evidence is firmly on the side of Weir and the academic historians, not the conspiracy theorists.
Tyrell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tyrrell and http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html
There’s a lot that doesn’t add up in the accusation. My own take is that the association with Edmund de la Pole was the core of the matter. [Tyrell was an uncle of mine several centuries removed, so I rather got started on the research—I have no bias toward either verdict: I’m related to enough villains to make it one among many; but there’s a lot in the whole case that doesn’t make sense; plenty that makes sense in the relationship with the de la Poles being the cause of his fall from grace.]
The level of discourse, at least in our little forum, is rational, intelligent, and very elegantly put. I do miss certain of our late congressfolk, whose eloquence was worth listening to even if you didn’t agree with them at all points.
After reading accounts of congress during the 1830s-1870s (another high tension time in this country) I seriously doubt eloquence was widespread. In certain cases so call eloquence was punctuated with screaming, blows to the head by well crafted walking sticks, and duels were not out of question. Not to mention dinner parties had to be arranged to make sure people who hated each other didn’t have to be near each other or breath the same air. Even with all of that there were still people sleeping through sessions or absent entirely. Just like today. And thinking back on history from Washington onward, congress seems to have always been that ridiculous. Maybe there was a golden era between those times and now, but I’d expect the tradition of insults and blow hards persisted to this day. There might have been moments when those good at speaking or who had a good speech writer or who were just blessed by being good natured momentarily made the populous believe in a common purpose (JFK, Reagan, etc) but I doubt there was a real reprieve in internal conflicts or better behavior once you got past the veneer. At least every time I pick up a new book dealing with a new decade the same stories seem to play out.
Very much worth keeping in mind. At least swordcanes and firearms are discouraged. And the House of Representatives has always had less emphasis on (ahem!) decorum than the Senate.
I am glad I live now, not only for medical science, modern conveniences, etc., but also for the opportunity to have an education that means something other than being able to tell the phases of the moon and when to plant, when to reap, when to get the hell out of Dodge. In the Middle Ages, a darling kitty like Efanor or Sydney would be killed on sight, as they were thought to be scions of the devil. People were so superstitious that way that they killed the very animals that were helping to control the disease vectors of bubonic plague. (I saw the same thing with rattlesnakes in the west and all the varmints that overrun farms now.)
I am really afraid that regardless of how many times we elect a “benevolent” dictator in the White House, the 554 + 9 other people in our government are going to fight against him/her. We have bred a political class in our society, made up of the rich (and not necessarily well-educated), and like attracts like in this case. The rich are attracted to the power (to get more power), the powerful are attracted to the rich (to get more money), and everyone dismisses the average citizen as “a disgruntled” person and an isolated case.
We are shamefully wasteful of our time, technology, education, creativity, and probably the idealism that made us great. Now, we’re in debt up to our necks because of a bail-out, a recovery act, and a national health care system that the members of our government do not have to suffer. By providing the education to everyone in the world, not just to those who can afford it, and not just to the “believers” so we can keep the infidels uneducated, we will make this world better, I believe. Can we? Will we? I don’t know. Should we? Yes!
>>We have bred a political class in our society….(to get more power), the powerful are attracted to the rich (to get more money), and everyone dismisses the average citizen as “a disgruntled” person and an isolated case.
One of the biggest problems is that to run for election you have to raise so much money and owe so many people by the time you get elected you are no longer your own man/woman so to speak. You owe too many people and have too many shady things following you around. Even a good person would be hard pressed to able to be good once debts become due, appointments and jobs need to be handed out to buddies, and interest groups and people of your own party get what they want out of you.
Put those limitations on and add in attractiveness (face it, voters are pretty shallow), education/class (we don’t like the upper class until election time when suddenly we want people with exclusive degree…fickle we are) and the list of other things voters subconsciously conciser (race, religion, sex, regional accent, age, marital situation, etc) and we pretty much screw ourselves.
The one good thing about our government is that we have term limits in most cases and nothing happens quickly. So hopefully the worst of the scheming and plotting doesn’t have enough time germinate and we can hold our noses until time is up.
One of our greatest problems as a nation is our very size. One of the few warm-fuzzies in the political process is getting to talk to neighbors over the fence who know something about city politics and can tell us WHY we should vote for so-and-so. One that I voted for this time was one of the lawyers who prevented that beautiful river OSG and Jane posted pix of from having its banks asphalted over and its approaches leveled for commercial purposes. That person, so far as I’m concerned, saved Spokane.
The worst bane of our current political system is the number of people who get their history, their science, AND their permissible opinions from talk radio. You don’t fund education—fools proliferate.
I guess I should be thankful we don’t have governments that collapse due to a no-confidence vote from the Parliament/Diet/Knesset/Senat. When I was stationed in Italy, in 1979, they had their 43rd government since Mussolini was overthrown. Amazing that the country was able to survive. Japan has had the same no-confidence votes, and they’re still chugging along.
I would like term limits for Congress (which includes the Senate), which would entail a Constitutional Amendment that would limit the term for a Senator to two terms (either consecutive or broken) and a Representative to three terms (either consecutive or broken). That means that a Senator would serve no more than 12 years and a Representative no more than 6 years. When you consider the “seniority” system in place in Congress, you begin to realize that a committee chair might represent only a handful of people, but because of being able to please the voters in their district, they are re-elected time and again. That’s an enormous amount of political power for someone who purports to represent his district, but does so at the expense of the vast majority of the voters. It would take Congress to pass that Amendment and then 37 of the states to ratify it before it became an Amendment, and then it would have to be done in the time limits stipulated in the Constitution. Of course, if 37 states could get together and demand a Constitutional Congress, they could pass the amendment that way.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that we have another Dan Rostenkowski from Illinois. He held considerable power in the U.S. Senate, but represented only Illinois. Henry Waxman of California doesn’t represent the majority of voters in this country, but he holds a lot of power as a committee chair.
Proponents of the seniority system will argue that we throw our best leaders out at the time when they’re probably the most effective. If so, then why did Congress act to limit the terms of the President to no more than two consecutive terms? Because Roosevelt had made a lot of decisions at the Executive Order level, a level which is becoming more and more prevalent as Presidents come and go. Do these Executive Orders have the power of law? Some say they do, but my argument is that I don’t work for the President, he/she works for me, so since when do employees give orders to the management?
I will totally agree with you on the shallowness of the voting population in this country. “Bread and Circuses” seems to be a recurrent theme. I wonder where it all started?
When we start diverting our focus away from the future and begin to yearn for the past, or want to keep our way of life as it is, we effectively stick our heads into the sand and wait for someone to come along and kick us in the behind. If we’re smart, we’ll get out heads out of the hole, but if we don’t, we stand a chance of getting our heads snapped off at the neckline.
I see a lot of parallels (at least I THINK I DO) between the modern-day United States and Rome during the last century B.C.E. until around 27 B.C.E. We’re slipping from a republic to a monarchy, and I’m afraid it won’t be Cefwyn’s monarchy, but rather Selwyn’s or Inareddrin’s.
No government is loved. It’s their job to upset some people in the interest of fairness or national welfare. The question is whether their judgment is good.
There actually was no such thing as a Roman emperor, to start with. The institution began with the Tribunicia Potestas, the Power of the People, which could only be handled by a commoner. Augustus assumed it, because though he was adopted by and was related to the blueblooded Julius Caesar, he was first of all a proponent of the pro-Marian programs Julius had favored, and secondly because I suspect he was not actually a noble, but a commoner, being a man of two, not three, names. It allowed the veto, and sacrosanctity (protection from threat, enforced). But it was potent enough to put Augustus in supreme power. He called himself Princeps, or First Man. And he actually had less power than our president: he could issue an edict, but after—I think it was 60 days—it had to pass the Senate or be sunsetted.
I seem to recall a novel that exonerated Richard III, Daughter of Time ??, the hero was a detective
stuck in the hospital who took up the case for something to do.
Since Richard was not threatened by his nephews, was seen having dinner with their mother after the
nefarious act he was openly blamed for the case against him falls apart on evidence. The people who
came to power later had every reason to eliminate the boys because of their legitimate claim to the
throne.
I recently read a book about the cartoons and caricatures of the english press during the reign of
the three Georges (Hanoverians). It is a marvelous insight into the scurrilous nature of english
internal politics which is nowhere benign and statesmanlike. More like herding Javelina with a boat
oar.
The Perfect Captain has a set of gaming modules on the Wars of the Roses, which includes the wildly
crooked scrabblings for favor, treacheries for advantage and other excitements indulged in by the
“noble” while they trampled over someones crop. This is an online website whose free games span a
lot of history.
As far as modern politics, things look a lot different from the inside of government. The elected are
faced with a monumental task in trying to understand what the bureaucracies are supposed to doing,
then they have to figure out how to see beyond the facade to see what is really being done. This does
not become easier as you step up the ladder from local to state to national level. The media is what
was supposed to supply a view that wasn’t a prepared presentation. The Infotainment giants who are
owned by a few have no reason to present a view they dislike. The chicken littles of the talk radio
present some real information but you have to sort through tons of “the sky is falling and we’re doomed
by (insert villainous group here) to get any useful material.
We need to figure out how to reinforce one principle that forced John Lackland to sign the Magna Carta.
Convinced Cromwell to prune another king, and would make things a lot better for us now.
That is that no one is above or exempt from the law, not the president, or the bankers, or the national
security apparatus.
If you do that it also makes the churning out of new laws a lot less interesting to the people who
substitute money for votes because they are very likely to wind up in jail themselves.
If you watch John Taylor Gatto on YouTube you might want to consider whether funding the current system
of education is a good idea. It seems we’d be better off, letting the individual teacher try to do it
alone, than loading them with the current load of crap generated elsewhere by so called experts.
The fearful level of ignorance exhibited by specialists with high level credentials is amazing to me.
I truly dislike a system that takes curious eager children who are quite capable of learning things
and turns them into those who wait for someone else to tell them what to do, what to think, and whose
only response to information in a class is “Will this be on the test ?”
GRIN I’m not talking about little kids either that’s a quote from a college class on the history of
the far East, when the teacher began talking about her eyewitness experiences in the 1930s. With a
chance to get some real information they couldn’t wait to get back to the textbook ephemera.
Being wrong about things is fine, it only becomes a problem when the wrong comes secondhand from you
without your own processing applied. The consensual reality built from Weaving TV into your lifestream
isn’t the way to free yourself enough to have a life of your own.
I talk far too much.
It is Daughter of TIme, by Josephine Tey (who also wrote some other really good detective novels under that name).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daughter_of_Time
But thoughtfully, Tyr. 😉
I taught.
I taught in the day when a teacher in the classroom was the captain of the ship, and the principal stayed in his office and did administrative things—but most of all backed the teachers. Turning over admin to non-teachers (the very origin of the word ‘principal’ is ‘principal teacher’) was stupid. Turning admin over to business majors in particular was a mistake, because profit models and schools just do not mesh.
One of my favorite movies (our 4th of July movie) is 1776…which I think is probably truer than the truth is about politics at any given stage in our country.
If we had a system of connection between the city, the state and the national legislatures, I think I would prefer that. Right now the disconnects are massive, and there is a general feeling in the country that we do not personally know our legislators and they have not visited us in years. This is not a good situation. I know our local legislators do not want to hear from me, because they and I would not agree, and their mailings that disregard, even decry, my point of view, do not placate me in the least.
I think that is a national malady. We need far more contact between the real population and our legislature, not just those that can afford a 100.00 a plate dinner to go sit and schmooze.
This is not to say it has ever been better than it is…but systems can encounter a game-changer now and again; and the internet may be it. Time for our congress critters to discover it…and that little ‘poll’ utility we occasionally use.
I love Josephine Tey …. but rereading them some do seem a bit dated now, I loved her detective guy …. and Daughter of Time put me on the side of Richard lll I must say! Not keen on Alison Weir. she has just written a book about Katherine Swynford, John of Gaunt’s mistress and third wife (& my ancestress) which cannot be more than historical fiction, because there are only about 4 facts provable about her, the rest is made up, and was done very well by Anya Seaton.
I haven’t read Alison Weir’s book about Katherine Swynford, but I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. Weir’s scholarship has always been of a very high standard in all her books that I’ve read. From the reviews on the book, I gather that she gives a general history of the times and of all the people connected with Katherine Swynford, along with educated guesses about Swynford herself. Not much is known about her, but it’s certainly a lot more than 4 facts.
The thing I like about Alison Weir is that she always tells you where she got her information, she tells you when she is making an assumption, and what her reasoning is. Unlike many historians she doesn’t just present things as absolute facts dispensed from on high. She may say ‘this document says such-and-such (quoting the relevant parts) and I believe/disbelieve it for this-and-that reason’. The reader is free to agree or not, but you always know what the actual source documents say, what the known facts are, and why she has a certain opinion.
You can judge her writing for yourself, because Amazon has a ‘Look Inside’ feature for both her book on Katherine Swynford and for The Princes in the Tower. If you read the introduction and the first few chapters you can get a feel for the way she writes.
http://www.amazon.com/Mistress-Monarchy-Katherine-Swynford-Lancaster/dp/0345453247/
CJ, if you search for Tyrell in her book on the Princes (link in a previous post), you will find a number of references to him.
I have read this book, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Katherine-Swynford-History-Medieval-Mistress/dp/0750932619/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281966306&sr=1-3 which has the same researchable facts and dead ends etc in it and predates Alison Wier – I bought it before A W’s was published.
it’s probably a lot worse written than Alison Weir’s version, but I do remember thinking that there was not actually enough known about her to fill a book, and a lot of it is about what can’t be found rather than what can be. checking out your link and reading the first few pages, it seems awfully familiar, but I know it was Jeanette Lucraft’s book that I read!
any way, Alison Weir says “from her is descended every English monarch since 1461 and no fewer than 5 american presidents” and me – fun isn’t it, these ancestors. I haven’t done the research though, my great grandfather was a fellow of the royal society of geneologists, and he tracked down every last little branch of his and his relations’ families.
PS I just read what is available on the amazon look inside facility, and I agree, looks like a fascinating book, with a huge amount of background information … some of it overlapping with the book I am reading at the moment, the Illustrated Paston letters http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paston-Letters-Illustrated-Family/dp/0333480996/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281969176&sr=1-1 although
100 years later .
I wasn’t thinking so much of Augustus as Princeps, because he refused the title Imperator, choosing to be called Augustus or Princeps. As the adopted son of Julius, who was given dictatorship for life, I would have thought perhaps he would “assume” the same office based on Julius’s legacy. It was the later emperors who were the real killers of Rome. Nero, Caligula, and the like, who were at the mercy of their own circle of family/friends/guards. Caligula’s assassination by his own Praetorian Guard as an example.
I’m not saying a monarchy is bad, you could have someone like Cincinnatus, who was called to the dictatorship, solved the problem in far less time than the six months alloted to him, and immediately stepped down.
I have saved my Roman history books from college, even though they may now be 40 years out of date. I wish I could find that paper I wrote on Julius Caesar’s use of power when he crossed the Rubicon, was it consular or proconsular? That is the question. “Alea jacta est!”
Roman history has several great leaders who were called to accept the power of Dictator, which ran for 6 months or the duration of the emergency, whichever came first. And as we say a good electoral transition of power is a good test of a nation’s strength and stability, the fact that Rome could hand over near-absolute power to a leader for 6 months in the expectation that personal honor would make him relinquish that power and stand good in court for any decision taken during that time—says worlds about Rome during those periods. Cinncinnatus—dragged from his spring plowing under protest; Fabius Cunctator, whose wise and canny delaying tactics kept the enemy off balance and gave Rome time to raise a second army, (the first had been destroyed); really notable people.
Intersting rebuttal to your original post:
Just remember, if the world didn’t suck, we’d all fall off. ~Author Unknown
Sorry I coulnd’t help it. =)