Carolo Magno [Charlemagne] Of Franks: The Story Behind the King Who Built An Empire (c.742-814)

There had been much thought about which historical figure we would approach on this blog. Considerations were made that, at least, we should turn our eyes to France in the medieval period. But who would be? A few names crossed our minds before Carolo Magno, or how he is better known as Charlemagne, was chosen. But why?

In truth, whilst so many admire him, others might not share the same sentiment, which makes this historical character who lived centuries away from us be surrounded in myths or only the straight sense that praises him by the benefict of the distance in time. It is hardly our intention to make use of this post to denegrate an image of this legendary man, but instead to enlight him as a man of his days as we have been doing with others who left their marks in history. Therefore it is less about the myth that shaped him as a monarch than the society he was in that turned Carolo in Charlemagne.

Carolo Magno was born between the years of 742 and 748, though the date of his birth more acceptable is 742. Little is known regarding his childhood and education, but of his family we know that he was the son (whether being the oldest or the youngest we cannot be sure) of Pippin III (known best as Pippin the Short), who was a "major of the palace, an official serving the Merovingian king but actually wielding effective power over the extensive Frankish kingdom". It is also suggested that:

"[...] he received practical training for leadership by participating in the political, social, and military activities associated with his father's court. His early years were marked by a succession of events that had immense implications for the Frankish position in the contemporary world. In 751, with papal approval, Pippin seized the Frankish throne from the last Merovingian king, Childeric III. After meeting with Pope Stephen II at the royal palace of Ponthion in 753-754, Pippin forged an alliance with the pope by committing himself to protect Rome in return for papal sanction of the right of Pippin's dynasty to the Frankish throne."

A primary resource¹ written by a scribe of name Einhard states that:

"Pepin [...] was raised by decree of the Roman pontiff, from the rank of Mayor of the Palace to that of King and ruled alone over the Franks for fifteen years or more [752-768]. He died of dropsy [Sept 24, 768] in Paris at the close of the Aquitanian War, which he had waged with William, duke of Aquitania, for nine successive years, and left his two sons, Charles and Carloman, upon whim, by the grace of God, the succession devolved."

In other words, this act could be interpreted as of usurpation that was, however, legitimized by chuch in power relations that helped to extend Christianity's influence over the world, more than what already had been so far, though it would not be until the year 1000 that Denmark, Sweden and Norway would convert to the religion. But by Pippin's death, inheritance was not well defined, for back then there was not yet the costume of passing the throne for the oldest living son and heir. As we can see below, from the same source of the last paragraph, it is stated that:

"The Franks, in a general assembly of the people, made them both [Carolo and Carloman] kings [Oct 9, 786] on condition that they should divide the whole kingdom equally between them, Charles to take and rule the part that had to belonged to their father, Pepin, and Carloman the part which their uncle, Carloman had governed. The conditions were accepted, and each entered into the possession of the share of the kingdom that fell to him by this arrangement; but peace was only maintained between them with the greatest difficulty, because many of Carloman's party kept trying to disturb their good understanding [...]. Carloman had succumbed to disease after ruling two years [in fact more than three] in common with his brother and at his death Charles was unanimously elected King of the Franks."

What we interpret from this is the possibility of a clash of interests between the two brothers, considering what we know of Carolo's ambition that would make him emperor years later. But this is merely speculation, though in other websites here consulted the rilvary between two brothers is mentioned. Whatever the case, he allied with the king of Lombards, whose sister became his consort, but any suspicious of an upcoming conflict ended with Carloman's death in 771.

A characteristic of Carolo, or Charles as we see here often being mentioned, is one obvious for those who are well acquainted with his history or at least heard of him once, but nonetheless still important to sublime: his warrior skills. Accordingly,

"By Frankish tradition he was a warrior king, expected to lead his followers in wars that would expand Frankish hegemony and produce rewards for his companions. His Merovingian predecessors had succeeded remarkably well as conquerors, but their victories resulted in a kingdom made up of diverse peoples over which unified rule grew increasingly difficult."

Hence why his reign was marked with wars and conquests, as his social role as sovereign reflected what society expected from their kings. Power relations within the court of the period can be better seen below:

"[...] the Frankish social system, which had been based on kinship ties, on bonds linking war leaders and their comrades in arms, and on ethnicity, was being overlaid by social bonds created when one individual commended himself to another, thereby accepting a condition of personal dependence that entailed the rendering of services to the superior in return for materal considerations granted to the dependent party. Moreover, the world beyond Francia was being reshaped politically and economically by the decline of the Easter Roman Empire, the triumphal advance of Arab forces and their Islamic religion across the Mediterranean world, and the threat posed by new Scandinavian, Slavic and Central Asian invaders."

Where foreign matters are concerned, there is one in particular that has captured our attention. The excerpt below tells us how Carolo Magno dealt with his Saxon enemies:

"No war ever undertaken by the Frank nation was carried on with such persistence and bitterness, or cost so much labor, because the Saxons, like almost all the tribes of Germany, were a fierce people, given to the worship of devils, and hostile to our religion and did not consider it dishonorable to transgress and violate all law, human and divine.[...] In this way the Franks became so embittered that they at last resolved to make reprisals no longer, but to come to open war with the Saxons [772]. Accordingly war was begun against them, and was waged for thirty-three successive years with great fury; more, however, to the disadvantage of the Saxons than of the Franks. It could doubtless have been brought to an end sooner, had it not been for the faithlessness of the Saxons."

In truth, though we are enlightened with such events by a primary resource as we have formerly mentioned it, we must nevertheless be careful upon looking at it. The choice of words and how some of these events are presented to the reader are naturally to praise Carolo Magno's person as a ruler, as a man and as the one chosen by God. It is, nonetheless, very interesting to point out he sent to death circa of 30,000 pagans during this war against the Saxons. He was, as it must constantly be said in order to prevent modern judgements to cloud the purpose of understanding him better as a historical character even if this post is not a specific study about it.

As a result of this, we come to comprehend a bit of the military character of this sovereign. However, it must also be remembered that Carolo's link with the Church would bound him to move forward the ambition of making himself the great emperor, as if he was the responsible for bringing it back the ancient Roman Empire. So in short analyzis we can state that:

"The distinguishing mark of Charlemagne's reign was his effort to honour the age-old customs and expectations of Frankish kingship while responding creatively to the new forces impinging on society. His personal qualities served him well in conforting that challenge. The ideal warrior chief, Charlemagne was an imposing physical presence blessed with extraordinary energy, personal courage, and an iron will. He loved the active life- military campaigning, hunting, swimming- but he was no less at home at court, generous with his gifts, a boon companion at the banquet table, and adept at establishing friendships. Never far from his mind was his large family: five wives in sequence, several concubines, and at least 18 children over whose interests he watched carefully."

That being aside, we turn to another face of his that is lessen discussed: his personal life. As already mentioned in the paragraph quoted above, Carolo Magno had an impressive family. It seems he was close to his mother until the end of his life and was apparently a gentle, thoughtful man to the standards of those days where the care of his descendants were concerned. Here's an account of this familiar side that not all of us is acquainted with:

"[...] He married a daughter of Desiderius, King of the Lombards, at the instance of his mother; but he repudiated her at the end of a year for some reason unknown, and married Hildegard, a woman of high birth, of Suabian origin. He had three sons by her- Charles, Pepin and Louis- and as many daughters- Hruodrud, Bertha, and Gisela. He had three daughters besides these- Theoderada, Hiltrud, and Ruodhaid- two by his third wife, Fastrada, a woman of East Frankish (that is to say, of German) origin, and the thrid by a concubine, whose name for the moment escapes me. At the death of Fastrada [794], he married Liutgard, an Alemannic woman, who bore him no children. After her death [Jun 4, 800] he had three concubines- Gersuinda, a Saxon by whom he had Adaltrud; Regina, who was the mother of Drogo and Hugh; and Ethelind, by whom he lead Theodoric. Charles' mother, Berthrada, passed her old age with him in great honor; he entertained the greatest veneration for her; and there was never any disagreement between them except when he divorced the daughter of King Desiderius, whom he had married to please her. She died soon after Hildegard, after living to three grandsons and as many granddaughters in her son's house, and he buried her with great pomp in the Basilica of St Denis, where his father lay. He had an only sister, Gisela, who had consecrated herself toa religious life from girlhood, and he cherished as much affection for her as of his mother.[...]"

That is how we suspect he was an affectionative man. We say 'suspect' because the author, throughtout his story of Carolo Magno, hardly points out a flaw of his character, which must again be said that the events here described must be studied carefully. This does not stop him, however, from being an affectionative person as we said. It is still surprising, for those of us who until this research were not so acquainted with his historical person, to see what a large family he had and how close to it he likely was for such days.

As a monarch, he was a legend, surpassing all expectations projected over him. As a man, it would make him less human to his admirers to understand he was a reflection of the socialization he went through. He was a medieval man born to be a king who grew to be crowned emperor of the Franks not by divine blessing or merely luck, but because he had skills for it. For:

"Charlemagne possessed considerable native intelligence, intellectual curiosity, a willingness to learn from others, and religious sensibility- all tributes which allowed him to comprehend the forces that were reshaping the world about him."

He was indeed a great ruler, builder of an empire that would remain an inspiration for monarchs of the next generations. A legend is what he became, but it must be necessary to bring the man he was out of it and even through the praises generally written about him and his life, to understand who he was and how society's demands reflected directly upon him. To close this post, a citation about the end of his life is written below:

"Toward the close of his life [813], when he was broken by ill-health and old age, he summoned Louis, Kigi of Aquitainia, his only surviving son by Hildegard, and gathered together all the chief men of the whole kingdom of the Franks in a solemn assembly. He appointed Louis, with their unanimous consent, to rule with himself over the whole kingdom and constituted him heir to the imperial name; then, placing the diadem upon his son's head, he bade him he proclaimed Emperor and is step was hailed by all present favor, for it really seemed as if God had prompted him to it for the kingdom's good [...] While wintering there [at Aix-la-Chapelle], he was seized, in the month of January, with a high fever [Jan 22 814], and took to his bed. As soon as he was taken sick, he prescribed for himself abstinence from food, as he always used to do in case of fever [...] He died January twenty-eighth, the seventh day from the time that he took to his bed, at nine o'clock in the morning, after partaking of the holy communion, in the seventy-second year of his age and the forty-seventh of his reign [Jan 28, 814]."

Bibliography:

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charlemagne

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

-Einhard: The Life of Charlemagne, translated by Samuel Epes Turner (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1880)¹

-https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/einhard.asp#Charlemagne's Accession¹

-https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/stgall-charlemagne.asp

King George II of Great Britain (1683-1760) and the Jacobite Rebellion: History Behind "Outlander"'s Story.

Our post today, although concerning the forgotten British king George II, closes the trilogy of posts about the transition of power between the Stuarts to the Hanovers' dynasty through the background of the Jacobite rebellion that had set its beginning from Queen Anne's reign and ended in King George II's. We intend to discover throughout the post who was George II as a monarch in days where kings had no more the power they once had, as a (historical) person but even so how the Jacobite rebellion shaped his reign and how it affected the Anglo-Scottish relationship that were bounded into one Parliament under the reign of Anne Stuart.

From the beginning, George II was, like his father, the product of a century and the man of another. Born in the year of 1683 in the city of Hanover, he was the oldest and only legitimate son of George I who was by then Elector of Hanover and his stranged wife Sophia Dorothea of Celle. George had a younger sister, also named Sophia Dorothea, who was born three years later.  

In matters of his education, it appears that he received an education that was not much different from those of his rank. George was able to speak German, French and English, but it appears he was not the brightest of the men elsewhere: in terms of politics, it was generally regarded that his wife, Caroline of Ansbach, was the mind behind the crown when he inherited the English crown years later.

As for his military career, George

"participated in the Battle of Oudernarde in the vanguard of the Hanoverian cavalry; his horse and a colonel immediately beside him were killed, but George survived unharmed. The British commander, Marlborough, wrote that George 'distinguished himself extremely, charging at the head of and animating by his example [the Hanoverian] troops, who played a good part in this happy victory."

We can assume, from this excerpt, that George was not only interested in military affairs but played a good part in it from his youth accordingly to the expectations of those days towards young men and the army in general. But not much is said after that and most of what we will report onwards regards his life as king of Great Britain. 

As for his personal life, around 

"June 1705, under the false name of 'Monsieur de Busch', George visited the Ansbach court at their summer residence in Triesdorf to investigate incognito a marriage prospect: Caroline of Ansbach, the former ward of his aunt Queen Sophia Charlotte of Prussia. The English envoy to Hanover, Edmund Poley, reported that George was so taken by 'the good character he had of her that he would not think of anybody else'. A marriage contract was concluded by the end of July. On 22 August/ 2 September 1705. Caroline arrived in Hanover for her wedding, which was held the same evening in the chapel at Herrenhausen."

Caroline, in turn, was born in the mentioned German principiality of Ansbach and before she was married to George, she was under the cares of George's aunt, Sophia Charlotte of Prussia. The two ladies were very close to each other, with the Queen always addressing Caroline as her adoptive daughter. This relationship turned Caroline to a very prospective match for European royals, and her typical beauty (being blonde with blue eyes and pale skin) and the attributes addressed to her personality and bright mind quickly drawn George. Though at first Caroline and George's relationship began as affectionative, she was then acquainted with George's mistresses and he was always telling her about his affairs. Nonetheless, it appears their relationship remained respectful and Caroline's brightness helped her to hold more influence over her husband after he became King than his own mistresses. As a queen, and even before, she held her own court filled with intellectuals, promoting Voltaire and the advancing of  medicine. However, she was very discrete in such matters as the king had a dislike for her doings.

As for George's relationship with his father, it was never one of the bests, though, but it grew worse after he became King George I. As we have said in the former post concerning George's father, the first Hanoverian king held a dislike for his oldest son, who in turn represented the opposition for George I's policies. He was even

"Banned from the palace and shunned by his own father, for the next several years the Prince of Wales was identified with opposition to George I's policies, which included measures designed to increase religious freedom in Great Britain and expand Hanover's German territories at the expense of Sweden. His new London residence, Leicester House, became a frequent meeting place for his father's political opponents, including Sir Robert Walpole and Viscount Townshend, who had left the government in 1717."

However, there was an attempt of reconciliation when by 1720,

"Walpole encouraged the king and his son to reconcile for the sake of public unity which they did half-heartedly. Walpole and Townshend returned to political office, and rejoined the ministry. George was soon disillusioned with the terms of the reconciliation; his three daughters who were in the care of the king were not returned and he was still barred from becoming regent during the king's absences." 

During this time when George and his wife retired from public life, he and Caroline developed a strange relationship with their oldest son, Frederick. Like George with his father, when the former ascended as George II, the new prince of Wales would live stranged from his parents and hold a court in opposition to George II's policies. Nonetheless, when Frederick died, it was said that he wept with Frederick's widow, princess Augusta, though he claimed that the death of Louise, his favourite child, pained him the most.

When George became King George II, he was clever enough to have "courted popularity with voluble expressions of praise for the English, and claimed that he had no drop of blood that was not English". By then, George held also the title of Duke of Brunswick-Lünebrug (Hanover), Archtreasurer and Prince-Elector of the Holy Roman Empire. In other terms, he was quite the image of Protestant, warrior and powerful royal that was expected. In his first years, he was also popular for not going to his father's funeral, since that George I's travels to Hanover was not seeing with good eyes by the English, who held a strong dislike for foreigners as their rulers. 

In domestic affairs, there was a proper establishment for the Tories and Whigs as the system that until our present days marks the British government. It was Caroline mostly the "bridge" between Walpole and George II's political relationship, though this does not mean George II was merely a puppet for the ministers as the british historiography for so long believed. However, what matters for our discussion today was his relationship with the Jacobites and how did the Hanovers managed to secure their crown... For if the Jacobites had moved south and not north, perhaps the Stuarts would be on today's throne and not the House of Windsor.

The French, as usual, historically supported British's pretenders or whomever that could mess with their long time enemies. By then, there was a war concerning the Austrian Succession and the British held quite an empire that Louis XV was eager to dismount, for the lack of better word. So that way he motivated Charles Edward Stuart, otherwise known as Bonnie Prince Charlie, who was the grandson of the late and ill fated king James VII/II, to pursue his crown 'by right'. This rebellion is shown in the popular tv show "Outlander", where we have Claire Beauchamp trying to prevent it to happen as she knows the truth that will come out of this effort. To have a better comprehension of what was this rebellion and the extent of it, we have an excerpt of the letter of Bonnie Prince Charlie for his father, the Old Pretender. 

"There is one thing and but one, in which I have had any difference with my faithful highlanders, it was about setting a price upon my kinsman's head, which knowing your majesty's generous humanity I am sure will shock you are much as it did me, when I was shown the proclamation setting a price on my head. I smiled and treated it with the disdain it deserved, upon which they flew out into a most violent rage and insisted on my doing the same by him as this flowed solely from the poor men's love and concern for me I did not know how to be angry with them for it, but tried to bring them to temper by representing to them that it was a mean and barbarous practice among princes that must dishonour them in the eyes of all men of honour, that I could not see how my cousin having set me the example would justify me in imitating that which I blame so much in him. But nothing I could say would satisfy them, some went even so far as to say, shall we go and venture our lives for a man who seems so indiffierent about preserving his own? Thus I have been drawn in to do a thing for which I can damn myself. Your majesty knows that in my nature I am neither cruel or revengeful and God who knows my heart knows that if the very prince who has forced me to this (for it is he that has forced me) was in my power, the greatest pleasure I could feel would be treating him as the brave, black Prince treated his prisoner, the king of France, to make him ashamed of having shown himself so inhumane an enemy to a man for attempting a thing which he himself if he has any [sincerity] would despise for not attempting."¹

What can be implied of this letter below is that resentment and a self sense of being the heir of a crown usurped by his Hanoverian cousin motivate Bonnie Prince Charlie to carry on with the expeditions his father lost and was defeated in the reigns of Queen Anne and King George I. We have not found, unfortunately, nothing written concerning George II's own personal thoughts of the occasion. Nevertheless, we thought interesting to share the thoughts of George's enemy to comprehend the purpose of this rebellion. In the following paragraph, there is another excerpt of the letter written by Bonnie Prince Charlie concerning his plans in case he succeeds in overthrowing George II and his Hanoverian dynasty:

"[...] But should it happen that any Foreign Power contributed to place me on the Throne, it must be visible to all thinking men, that I can neither hope to keep it, nor enjoy Peace and Happiness upon it but by gaining the Love and Affections of my Subjects. I am far from approving the mistakes of former Reigns. I see, I feel the Effects of them, and should be void of all Reflection did I not propose to avoid them with the utmost Care. And therefore I do not entertain the least thoughts of assuming the Government on the footing my Family left it.[...] This Declaration was written in Consequence of the sentiments and Reflections expressed in this Letter. It contains a General Indemnity [compensation] without Exceptions, for all that has passed against me and my Family."²

In other words, he, like the foreign princes before him and even as George II did in the begin of his reign, attempted to use his English/Scottish blood as royal connection to gain the support of the British people, who, as already said before, held a certain kind of reputation for looking upon those foreigners who tried to govern their countries. It was what Queen Anne did after the death of her brother-in-law and George II to distinguish himself from his father, who was constantly travelling to Hanover. But Prince Charles was also aware of the event that culminated in such a situation he was now in: the Glorious Revolution that resulted in James VII of Scotland and II of England being sent to the exile if he did not want to lose his head like his father did. In fact, he makes sure to distance himself from his grandfather in this aspect and even more so from George I, which is why his reign and that of his aunt before the Hanovers, were mentioned although subtle so. 

And the result of those letters whose content clearly pointed out to a determined man that would not give his claim to the throne he genuinely believed to be his by right, is the letter written by Charles Edward Stuart's ally, probably the same old duke of Argyll who in the past supported the Old Pretender against George I. The excerpt of the declaration of "war" is seen here:

"the positive Orders we have from  his most Christian Majesty are to attack all his Enemies in this Kingdom, whom he has Declared to be those who will not immediately Join, or assist as far will ly in their Power, the Prince of WALES, Regent of Scotland etc. His Ally, and whom he is resolved, with the Concurrence of the King of SPAIN, to Support in the taking Posession of SCOTLAND, ENGLEAND, and IRLAND, if Necessary at the Expence of all the Men and Money, he is Master of, to which three Kingdoms, the Family of STEWART, have so Just and indisputeable a Title."³

To comprehend better this tense and complex situation, see it below:

"In July 1745, the Old Pretender's son, Charles Edward Stuart, popularly known as Bonnie Prince Charlie or the Young Pretender, landed in Scotland, where support for his cause was highest. George, who was summering in Hanover, returned to London at the end of August. The Jacobites defeated British forces in September at the Battle of Prestonpans, and then moved south into England. The Jacobites failed to gain further support, and the French reneged on a promise of help. Losing morale, the Jacobites retreated back into Scotland. On 16/27 April 1746, Chales faced George's military-minded son Prince William, Duke of Cumberland, in the Battle of Culloden, the last pitched battle fought on British soil. The ravaged Jacobite troops were routed by the government army. Charles escaped to France, but many of his supporters were caught and executed. Jacobitism was all but crushed; no further serious attempt was made at restoring the House of Stuart."

In fact, the Duke of Cumberland was later known as 'Butcher Cumberland' "for the actions of his troops after Culloden and in the subsequent suppression of the whole Highland way of life." And this effective end of the gallic language and the mentioned Highland way of life can be seen in the "extracts from a sketch of regulations proposed to be made in Scotland, 28 June 1746".:

"A Bill, to empower the King to issue a Commission or Commissions of Enquiry with proper Powers to enquire concerning the Behaviour of the Clans, within certain Districts, from the Beginning & during the Course of the Rebellion: whether the Inhabitants remained at the Places of their Habitations; to what Places they went; whether armed or not; whether they continued in their Allegiance or joined or assisted the Rebells. [...] It is to be wished that the abolishing the Names of some of the worst clans, may be of use. But, the MacGregors, tho' forbid by Law, continued always to be called so in the Hills, and on all Troubles, publickly took up that Name again, it is to be fear'd, nothing but Transplanting can succeed. [...] Not to call or write themselves by that Name, under Pain of Transportation. [...] for religious worship in Scotland where the King & family shall not be prayed for by Name."

We can see, from this act in particular, the concern of the British in erasing from History the existance of the rebels and how the name and surname were so important for those clans that were even used as defiance, as a way of resisting the English' rule. We see it so in "Outlander" as the enemy clans reunite, and how proud they were of their lineage. Unfortunately, this sad episode in George II's reign mark the complete dominium of the English over his long time enemy, the Scots. This does not mean however the blame is solely on the figure of King George II. He was the head of the State, but figures as the Walpole mininster ruled more actively. But also he had to protect his crown, and in days of "civil war", self protection at any cust was what mattered. Had it been otherwise, certainly George II would have faced a different destiny that Charles Edward Stuart did when the latter fleed back to France. 

For better or worse, that was how history worked, made of men and their power. Towards the end of his reign, George II, who by then had "lived longer than any of his English or British predecessors", left his marks in some of the British universities and encouraged scientists and philosophers, though hardly no more than his late wife Caroline did. He was a men of his days, but mostly the product of another century. Like his father, George II was the "best" of both worlds. He died possibly of aortic aneurysm at the age of 77 and was succeeded by his most famoust grandson who became King George III, also known as the Hanoverian who lost the colonies, but this is for another time.

Bibliography:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_II_of_Great_Britain

-http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/659

-http://blogs.bl.uk/untoldlives/2015/10/the-coronation-of-george-ii-and-queen-caroline.html

-http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usbiography/monarchs/georgeii.html

-https://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=george2

-http://www.historyextra.com/article/military-history/profile-life-facts-george-ii

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/flora-macdonald/

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/laws-control-scotland/

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/charles-edward-stuart/¹

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/catholic-threat-1745/²

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1745/jacobite-declaration-war/³

King George I And The Rise Of A New Dynasty: A German On The British Throne (1660-1727)

Previously on this blog, we have written about the last female of the Stuart lineage to be crowned Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland. Anne Stuart was the daughter of the problematic king James II of England and VII of Scotland, who did much to what we know of today's Great Britain as explored in the post before. But Anne died with no heirs, despite her eighteen pregnancies, no child survived adulthood and even William, duke of Gloucester, died at age 11. The crown, after much reluctance of her part, was passsed by her German cousin Georg, Elector of Hanover, who was the great-grandson of King James VI Stuart, who in turn was the son of the ill-fated Mary, Queen of Scots. 

Georg was the Protestant heir the British wanted to. But was he the only heir to succeed British's crown? In the very same post concerning Anne, we saw that, ironically, it was the birth of a son of his catholic wife Mary of Modena that culminated in his exile to France. James Francis Edward, later known as the "Old Pretender", was offered the British crown if he convered to Anglicanism, something he refused. Therefore, Anne had no other choice but to acknowledge her detested cousin Georg of the House Hanover as her heir. If it's in Anne's late reign, we have James Francis Edward, who self entitled as King James VIII upon his father's death and thus being acknowledged so by Louis XIV of France (something which he would later undo), first attempt invasion that ended in nothing, it is in the reign of King George I that we have the development of the infamous Jacobite rebellion that we see in "Outlander". The Catholic Stuarts would not give their claim until later defeat by the reign of King George II, the next topic of this blog. For now, we will discuss about this figure who was the father of a dynasty that is still on the British throne today, except by a more anglicized name we know as Windsor.

So who was George I as king? Can we understand his personal character that was, until then, deeply associated with government? What aspects of his reign can be associated with the Jacobite rebellion? What were the fruits of the relationship of both dynasties? Having those questions in mind, if we cannot answer at least one of them, it is our intention to at least provide a better comprehension of the connection of George Hanover as person and monarch to the rebellion we hereby intend to write about.

George I of Great Britain, Ireland, France and Hanover was born George Louis (German: Georg Ludwig) of Brunswick-Lüneburg. He was the oldest son of Sophia of Palatinate, who was in turn a daughter of Elizabeth Stuart (the Queen of Winter, whom we have already discussed on this very blog), and Ernest Augustus. Regarding his childhood, what we know is that "in her letters, Sophie describes George as a responsible, conscientious child who set an example to his younger brothers and sisters". Later, at age of 15, he was introduced to matters of war by bringing him to a "campaign in the Franco-Dutch War with the deliberate purpose of testing and training his son in battle."

Aside of the informations above, little can be speculated, except that he might have received a good education, appropriated for the standards of a man of his status. What we know next is the "marriage of State" with Sophia Dorothea of Cella, a match with the purpose of ensuring a

"healthy annual income and assisted the eventual unification of Hanover and Celle. His mother was at first against the marriage because she looked down on Sophia Dorothea's mother (who was not of royal birth), and because she was concerned by Sophia Dorothea's legitimated status. She was eventually won over by the advantages inherent in the marriage."

The marriage was unhappy due to the infidelity of both parts. Nonetheless, Sophia produced two legitimate children, the future George II and a girl named Sophia, who was the mother of Frederick "the Great" (this one also being a subject of one of our previous posts). Yet this did not prevent the divorce that marked their relationship and George locked his ex-wife at a Tower (with, however, a proper treatment for someone of her status: though she never received permission in leaving the place, she was well treated, having a good number of servants and living to certain extent in comfortable; however, Sophia was not allowed to see her children again and she was not acknowledged by the title of Queen of Great Britain), and it probably explains the sour relationship George had with his oldest and only legitimate son, the Prince of Wales George. To have a better understanding of the relationship between George and Sophia, we can read the next excerpt below:

"[...] but there were no other pregnancies. The couple became estranged - George preferred the company of his mistress, Melusine von der Schulenburg-, and Sophia Dorothea, meanwhile, had her own romance with the Swedish Count Philip Cristoph von Königsmarck. Threatened with the scandal of an elopement, the Hanoverian court, including George's brother and mother, urged the lovers to desist, but to no avail. According to diplomatic sources from Hanover's enemies, in July 1694 the Swedish count was killed, possibly with the connivance of George, and his body thrown into the river Leine weighted with stones."

Whatever the case, George's personal life remained separated from Sophia's, and he was rather seen in the company of a few mistresses even after his ascension as the new British king. In the meantime, must it be said that

"England's whig politicians began to court his favour, but many Tories remained loyal to the Old Pretender. When George's mother died on June 8, 1714, he became heir to the throne, and on the death of Queen Anne (Aug. 1, 1714) the Whigs, who had just gained control of the government, ushered him into power."

It must be remembered, however, that in our previous post, when we discussed Queen Anne's reign, James Francis Edward, at first supported by the French King Louis XIV as James VIII, attempted a first invasion into England, but failed. James would not give up though and when George, then elector of Hanover, became King George, he was well aware of  the Tories' sympathies concerning the 'Old' pretender. In truth, we have speculated that Anne herself might have been eager to support her brother's succession had he accepted converting to Anglican's religion, which he refused. If we consider the possibility of such, there would be no Hanover dynasty or even our present queen, Elizabeth II, who is a direct descendant of George I. It is no wonder, thus, why George favoured the Whigs and for so long there were no Tories in power. As we can see here:

"Naturally, George formed a predominantly Whig ministry. Although the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1719 were readily suppressed, he was far from popular in England. [...] He attempted dilligently, however, to fulfill his obligations to his new kingdom. Since he could not speak English, he communicated with his ministers in French. Although he stopped attending Cabinet meetings, he met with key ministers in private- a step that led to the decline of the Cabinet, which had largely controlled the government during Queen Anne's reign. His shrewd diplomatic judgment enabled him o help forge an alliance with France in 1717-18. Nevertheless, he often found it difficult to get his way in domestic politics, in which he had to deal with such strong-willed mininsters as Robert Walpole (later earl of Oxford), James Stanhope, and Viscount Charles Townshend."

It is also important to remember that this small struggle perceived in the last paragraph through the tensions of such strong-willed ministers and the king is explained by the fact that, as Elector of Hanover, George learned to command his province of a certain extent quite freely. Naturally, this foreign sovereign felt more inclined to the homeland where he was born and raised. Must be added that any foreign in any situation, sociologically speaking, to better adjust to a different society where the individual sets in, he "translates" his values in order to shape them according to that new society's he is to live in. Otherwise, he stands as an outsider and treated as such, which might explain the "anti-German" feeling expressed by some part of the British society and why the Scots in particular hoped to place "one of their kind" on the throne again.

"George mainly lived in Great Britain after 1714 though he visited his home in Hanover in 1716, 1719, 1720, 1723 and 1725; in total George spent about one fifth of his reign  as King in Germany. A clause in the Act of Settlement that forbade the British monarch from leaving the country without Parliament's permission was unanimously repealed in 1716. During all but the first of the King's absences power was vested in a Regency Council rather than his son, George Augustus, Prince of Wales."

As for the already mentioned James Francis Edward, who was self entitled as James VIII, we have explained about the division in George's government due to the former support to the late Queen Anne's brother from the Tories and the subsequent favour in terms with the Whigs. This can be still reflected in 1715's rebellion as we see best explained below:

"Several members of the defeated Tory Party sympathised with the Jacobites, who sought to replace George with Anne's Catholic half-brother, James Francis Edward Stuart (called "James III and VIII" by his supporters and "the Pretender" by his opponents). Some disgruntled Tories sided with a Jcobite rebellion with became known as "The Fifteen". James's supporters, led by Lord Mar, an embittered Scottish nobleman who had previously served as a secretary of state, instigated rebellion in Scotland where support for Jacobitism  was stronger than in England.[...]"

To corroborate this, here's a small excerpt original content¹ of the said Lord Mar's letter concerning the discussed event above:

"Barock Sunday the 13th November 1715.

            Mar's Letter to the Governor of Perth

            I  thought you would be anxious to know the fate of this day. We attacked the Enemy on the end of the Sheriff Muir at 12 of the Cloack [clock] this day on our Right and Centre, and Carry'd the day entirely, and pursued the Enemy to the little hill on the south of Dunblain [Dunblane], And there I got most of our horse, and a pretty good number of our foot brought again into some order, We knew not then what was become of our Left so we returned to the field of Battle, We discovered a Body of the Enemy to the north of us, consisting mostly of the Grey Dragoons and some of the Black [Dragoons] and We also discerned a body of their foot a little. (...) I send you a List of the Officers names who are prisoners here, beside those who are dangerously wounded, and could not come along whose words of honour were taken. Two of these are the Earl of Forfar, who I'm afraid will dye, and Captain Urghart of Burdsyards who is very ill wounded, We have also a good number of private men prisoners But the number I do not exactly know (...) But that I am yours [Mar]. P.S. We have taken a great many of the Enemy's army."

As we know, however, 

"'The Fifteen' (...) was a dismal failure; Lord Mar's battle plans were poor, and James arrived late with too little money and too few arms. By the end of the year the rebellion had all but collapsed. In February 1716, faced with impending defeat, James and Lord Mar fled to France. After the rebellion was defeated, although there were some executions and forfeitures, George acted to moderate the Government's response, showed leniency, and spent the income from the forfeited estates on schools for Scotland and paying off part of the national debt."

There was another account² about the 'Fifteen' concerning a different point of view about what happened in the mentioned event, which the reader can find in the bibliography towards the end of this post. However, as the last paragraph mentioned, George was forced to measure his actions towards such treason. Looking back at the British history, probably monarchs of the Tudor dynasty or even some of the Stuarts would have responded so by violent means, at least some of them would do so in order to have his power and authority uncontested. But this is early 18th century, only a few generations after Glorious Revolution, which in turn is the direct fruit of Puritan Revolution, so the Parliament is a more active political instrument where royal authority is concerned. There is a surviving letter petitioning royal pardon from a dowager countess to her son, who supposedly participated or was at least associated with the Jacobite rebels. 

One of the results of this rebellion was how watchful were the British loyalists to small acts of the noblemen (or not), such as the toast. In official dinners, it was quite common to offer a toast to the sovereign of the country. To refuse doing it so was consistent to treacherous acts and could be seen with suspicious and association with the Jacobites. Such was the perspective or rather fear of another rising in order to context the Hanoverian succession. Nonetheless, rebellion was a failure and James Francis Edward Stuart would not give trouble for a while, rather leaving it for the next generation when Charles Stuart, later known as 'Bonnie Prince Charlie', was born.

In domestic affairs, looking back to George's small family (if compared to George II, George III and other's family, in numbers George only had two children with his lawful wife), we observe how father-son relationship was one of the marks of the Hanovers, since George II did not get along well with his son, Frederick of Wales, either. George III laterwards had a clearly dislike for the future George IV and they had a sour relationship as well, preferring -and sometimes favouring- his daughters instead. It was not until Robert Walpole, the mentioned earl of Oxford, who insisted improving their relationship and for a time it worked out for the sake of Britain's unity policies. As we see in the next paragraph:

"George Augustus, Prince of Wales, encouraged opposition to his father's policies, including measures designed to increase religious freedom in Britain and expand Hanover's German territories at the expense of Sweden. In 1717 the birth of a grandson led to a major quarrel between George and the Prince of Wales. [...] The Prince's new home, Leicester House, became a meeting place for the King's political opponents. George and his son were later reconciled at the insistence of Robert Walpole and the desire of the Princess of Wales, who had moved out with her husband but missed her children who had been left in the care of the King. [...]"

As in foreign affairs, aside of the issue concerning the Jacobite Rebellion which we have already explored, 

"In 1717, he contributed to the creation of the Triple Alliance, an anti-Spanish league composed of Great Britain, France and the United Provinces. In 1718 the Holy Roman Empire was added to the body which became known as the Quadruple Alliance. The subsequent War of the Quadruple Alliance involved the same issue as the War of the Spanish Succession. The Treaty of Utrecht (1713) had recognized the grandson of King Louis XIV of France, Philip, as the King of Spain on the condition that he gave up his rights to succeed the French throne."

What can it be said regarding King George's controversial character? It certainly divided opinions, but the "anti-German" feeling is no more different than the British's commonly known despise for foreigners on the throne, which explains why his image is damaged to certain extent and does not cause any curiosity in trying to get to know him more. Which is a pity for, as any other monarch before and after his time, George is an interesting character and no better or worse than some of his counterparts. He was curiously the product of two centuries (mid 17th and early 18th centuries) and managed to combine the inheritances of different historical and social contexts after an uneasy struggle for his throne. Finally, 

"the British perceived him as too German, and in the opinion of historian Ragnhild Hatton, wrongly assumed that he had a succession of German mistresses. However, [...] he was seen as a progressive ruler supportive of the Enlightment who permitted his critics to publish wihout risk of severe censorship and provided sanctuary to Voltaire when the philosopher was exiled from Paris in 1726. European and British sources agree that George was reserved, temperate and financially prudent; George disliked to be in the public light at social events, avoided the royal box at the opera and often travelled incognito to the house of a friend to play cards. Despise some unpopularity, the protestant George I was seen by most of his subjects as a better alternative to the Roman Catholic Pretender James."

King George died of a stroke during his trip to Hanover. He was succeeded in the year of 1727 by his oldest and stranged son also named George, who became King George II and will be the next subject on this blog to close the topic of the Jacobite rebellions.

Bibliography:

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-I-king-of-Great-Britain

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_of_Great_Britain

-https://www.biography.com/people/george-i-38166

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1715/account-sheriffmuir/

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1715/john-eldridge-court-case/

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/jacobite-timeline.jpg

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1715/benjamin-taylor-wells/

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1715/petition-john-blackwell/

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1715/report-john-blackwell/

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1715/jacobites-earl-mar-sheriffmuir/¹

-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1715/lord-argyll/

Anne of Great Britain: The Last Stuart Queen (1665-1714)

Motivated by the recent popular tv show based on a series of books named "Outlander", we questioned ourselves about the extent of the facts that led the Hanovers to deal with two Stuart pretenders, one known as the 'old pretender' was named James, this being the son of exiled King James II of England and VII of Scotland; and then his son, named Charles, commonly associated as 'Bonnie Prince Charlie'. Thinking of this, we considered writing a small series connecting two dynasties and their struggle for the crown of Britain. Does it sound familiar for the reader? Indeed it does, or at least should be, for England has quite a history involving royal cousins battling against each other for the possession of its crown. From Matilda days to Queen Anne's, wars were fought for different reasons yet for the same desire in governing a very resourceful and respected country whose tradition remains admirable even to the present days.

Bearing in mind that when the word queen and England are associated in one sentence where its history is concerned, those are very associated to Anne's Tudor predecessors, the most famous being Mary I and, more often, to Elizabeth I. In fact, it is with the latter that Anne would be inspired to, which can be quite an irony if one sees that Anne is the great-great granddaughter of Elizabeth's deadly rival, Mary, Queen of Scots. But, as we will see following the next paragraphs, not only would Anne adopt Elizabeth Tudor's personal motto "Semper Aedem" ("Always the Same"), as she too were to live a rivalry with a sister named Mary and, mostly important to understand not only today's post about Anne as Queen but on the following posts concerning the Hanovers as upcoming Britain's new dynasty, a bittersweet refusal in acknowledging Sophia of Hanover as her heiress. Comprehending that this queen has unfairly not been the subject of many studious or at least capturing the attention of the public eye, we attempt to bring Anne Stuart back to life in the hopes that her deeds make her as inspiring as woman and her queenship as admirable as were her predecessors Mary and Elizabeth and even afterwards when Victoria reigned for quite a while. A link between women as Matilda, Elizabeth, Anne and Victoria we are amused to find is that they all were the "last" of their lines and yet what they left for England and perhaps for Europe to some extent still remains nowadays.

Every story has a beginning. This could not be different. By the time Anne was born, she was hardly the heiress her parents and all of England were expecting for. Bear it in mind that by 1665, her uncle Charles Stuart was on the British throne as King Charles II. He, in turn, was the son of the ill fated King Charles I, who, like his grandmother before him Mary of Scotland, lost his head accordingly to the English laws of treason. When Charles II was invited to return to England, he was already acknowledged as sovereign of Scotland by being the second of his name to wear its crown. In a previous post, we have written about Charles' reign from a different perspective when we wrote about his consort, the forgotten Queen Catherine, the Portuguese Infanta of the House of Braganza. So that way, with Charles II on the throne and well married by then, James, Anne's father, was entitled as Duke of York and was already the father of another girl, Anne's oldest sister named Mary. Until their growth, neither were expected to assume the throne for Charles II was proving to be very healthy, in the lack for a better word, since he fathered more than a few illegitimate children, though none by his lawful wife.

Whatever were the circumnstances of Anne's birth, she was born at St James's Palace, located in London, on the 6 February 1665. She was the fourth child of James, then Duke of York, and his first wife, Lady Anne Hyde. Of the children the Duke and his wife had, only Anne and her oldest sister, Mary, survived adulthood. Throughout her life, Anne suffered of a poor health and we see the first signs of it as a child, when she "suffered from an eye condition, which manifested as excessive watering known as 'defluxion'". As a result, she spent her early years in France to receive treatment for her health, first at the household of her paternal grandmother, the Dowager Queen Henriette Marie, until the death of the latter, and then to the household of her aunt, the Duchess of Orléans, Henriette Anne. But the duchess too would die soon and it was then that Anne would return to England, where she shared a household with Mary.

By this time, Charles II, seeing that he would lack heirs to succeed him, had his eyes to his nieces and began to provide their marriages. But first, he'd see they were to receive an Anglican education as Anne and Mary settled household at Richmond Palace where they were raised as Protestants. Bishop of London, Henry Compton, would be Anne's own preceptor. As a result of such Anglican education, Anne would grow "distrustful of Catholics and 'popery' which would further complicate the family situation, when before his remarriage, the Duke of York converted to Catholicism." It would far from help his cause when reaching the throne that James married a Catholic princess named Mary of Modena. Though it was generally accepted that James would succeed Charles, it was, quite ironically, expected that Mary of Modena would not give James a male heir otherwise things would go quite complicated. Nonetheless, despite this apparent tension, Anne did get well along with James, who was said to be a caring and loving father, and her stepmother. 

Following Mary's marriage to Prince of Orange William, in an event which Anne could not attend due to an attack of smallpox, it was arranged for Anne to marry a Danish prince, the younger brother of King Frederick III of Denmark named George. Before that, however, it was apparently expected that the Elector of Hanover, also named George, would marry her when he "visited London for three months from December 1680, sparking rumours of a potential marriage between them." 

The apparent decline of George of Hanover's part in marrying Anne is, some would say, partly the reason of her great dislike towards the House of Hanover and why she would stubbornly refuse to acknowledge him as her heir, reflecting also the rivalry Anne would later engage to her cousin Sophia, who was the daughter of Elizabeth Stuart, known as the Winter Queen of Bohemia. Elizabeth, whom we have also spoken on this very same blog, was in turn the daughter of King James VI, hence why the Hanovers were the closest Protestants heirs to the British throne by the time of Anne's death. But, by now, what matters is to understand the arrangement that would bring England and Denmark close together again (a reminder that James VI's consort was a Danish princess, Anne). As we can see below:

"Bishop Compton officiated at the wedding of Anne and George of Denmark, on 28 July 1683 in the Chapel Royal. Though it was an arranged marriage, they were faithful and devoted partners."

By this time, the future Sarah Churchill entered Anne's retinue and became chief lady of bedchamber. Their early friendship would endure for quite some years ahead still and would provide to be an important key role during Anne's reign as a queen. For now, Anne was mostly concerned with her handsome husband, though some would address him as a "chronic asthmatic", "nonentity", and even regarding him as dull, but with pleasant manners. Whatever the case, Anne and George were devouted to each other and, despite George's special affection for wine, they would get along just fine. 

Finally, towards the year of 1685, King Charles II died without legitimate heirs. This would thus make James, then Duke of York, as King James VII of Scotland, the II of England and Ireland. His ascension would give the English protestants cause for concern due to the fact that 

"[...] James began to give Catholics military and administrative offices, in contravention of the Test Acts that were designed to prevent such appointments. Anne shared the general concern and continued to attend Anglican services. As her sister Mary lived in the Netherlands, Anne and her family were the only members of the royal family attending Protestant religious services in England. When her father tried to get Anne to baptise her youngest daughter into the Catholic faith, Anne burst into tears. "The Church of Rome is wicked and dangerous", she wrote to her sister. [...] Anne became estranged from her father and stepmother as James moved to weaken the Church of England's power."

Because his daughters were still James' heirs, 

"[...] people were accepting of him, because his Catholicism was seen as a temporary abhorrence. This would all change in 1688, when Anne's half-brother James was born to Mary of Modena. He would, of course, be raised as Catholic, the religion of his parents. This was unacceptable to a Protestant clergy and nobility. Rumours began to fly immediately that the child was not a Prince, King James' son had died, and the baby of a peasant brought in to take his place. Although there were many witnesses, Anne was not among them, and she wrote to her sister Mary saying she would never be satisfied the child was really her brother."

Despite this sense of strangeness before the birth of a prince, the very unwanted heir, which is a very irony in great contrast to figures of the past who were in desperate need of male heirs as was the case of Henry VIII, must it be written here though in short paragraphs the birth of Prince James and why it's so important to understand how his birth reflected the fears of a society that, by then, was still cultivating the wars of religion that began to spread amongst all Europe from the century before with Luther and other reformists contesting Catholic Church's corruption and among other things they thought well to reform, in a movement that led to what was called Protestantism. This being said, there was the fear in most Englishmen's minds of what the rule of a Catholic could do to England. With the benefict of a century and half, Queen Mary I's reign would not be seen with eyes of understanding people that what she did was a result of her beliefs that other European monarchs that stood for Catholicism shared. No one would remember the positive politics concerned to Mary Tudor, because her image, from Elizabethan age on, maculated by the Protestant perspective that a Catholic sovereign that burns heretic is nothing but the image of devil spreading evil and terror to a holy and sacred land. The most "refreshing" memory to the Englishmen was to the image of the beheaded king Charles Stuart, whose flirtations to Catholicism and an arrogant queen who refused to take Anglican rites out of respect for her beliefs, led, amongst other reasons, to a Civil War. 

So as James Francis Edward was born on 10 June 1688, "a Catholic succession became more likely" and set such a public alarm that eventually the crisis culminated in an event we now know by the name of "Glorious Revolution", where the English and Scottish Parliaments invited Mary and her husband William of Orange to take the crown as the true Protestant heirs to the lands. As seen below:

"In January 1689, a Convention Parliament assembled in England and declared that James had effecitvely abdicated when he fled, and that the thrones of England and Ireland were therefore vacant. The Parliament or Estates of Scotland took similar action, and William and Mary were declared monarchs of all three realms. The Bill of Rights 1689 and Claim of Right Act 1689 settled the succession. Anne and her descendants were to be in the line of succession after William and Mary, and they were to be followed by any descendants of William by a future marriage. On 24 July 1689, Anne gave birth to a son, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, who, though ill, survived infancy. As King William and Queen Mary had no children, it looked as though Anne's son would eventually inherit the Crown."

As for James VII, it is recorded that his reaction of the event that led him to exile in France alongside his son and wife, was of disappointment. He recalled that he was forsaken by his own daughters. But apparently, Anne would manage to make peace with her father laterwards.

Anne's relationship with William and Mary worsened after this, as they saw with no good eyes the relationship Anne had with Sarah Churchill, due to the heavy influence this latter had on the princess. For this reason, Mary and Anne were constantly in personal battles and they would not reconcile until Mary was dead. When William realized he was not only rulling solely but also lacking heirs, he sought for a reconciliation with his sister-in-law and Anne regained her position, was once more visited by courtiers and held a court of her own.

She would finally become queen on 8 March 1702, and was very popular. It is said that

"[...] in her first speech to the English Parliament, on 11 March, she distanced herself from her late Dutch brother-in-law and said, "As I know my heart to be entirely English, I can very sincerely assure you there is not anything you can expect or desire from me which I shall not ready to do for the happiness and prosperity of England."

She did something that Elizabeth Tudor did closely in the last century, when the Tudor queen appealled by the English pride to distance herself from the foreign rule of Mary Tudor's Spanish blood and her Spanish husband. Also, by adopting Elizabeth I's personal motto "Always the Same", as we have mentioned before, it makes us question how far did Anne admire her Tudor cousin and what were the lessons Elizabeth might have taught this Stuart Queen. But this can only be speculated.

One of Queen Anne's first actions as sovereign was to reward the Marlborough's by granting great offices and positions to Sarah and her husband, the latter growing to be an excellent general during the wars England would win within a few years. Following it, Anne was crowned on St George's Day, 23 April 1702. It is said that "[...] afflicted with gout, she was carried to Westminster Abbey in an open sedan chair, with a low back to permit her train to flow out behind her."

The matter of the Queen's poor and deteriorate health would constantly provoke discussions. In politics especially, now that we witness the rise of two political parties: the Whigs, defended by the late king William III, and the Tories, the latter being favoured by the Queen. Both would sustain the inheritance issue and whilst the Whigs supported the Hannovers, it can be possible to state that were Jacobites (a latin name for James, this was used for those who supported James Francis Edward as heir to the English throne) amongst the Tories. It is claimed that to James it was offered the position of an heir had he converted to Anglicanism, which he refused. By then, when this proposal was offered, James was already proclaimed as James III of England and VIII of Scotland as Louis XIV of France acknowledged him. As we can see below:

"Upon the death of James II in 1701, the French king Louis XIV proclaimed James King of England. James's adherence to Roman Catholicism caused the English Parliament to pass a bill of attainder against him in 1701. In 1708 the Pretender set out in French ships to invade Scotland, but he was driven away by the British before he could land. He distinguished himself fighting in the French army in the War of the Spanish Sucession (1701-14). In 1714 he refused to accept suggestions by Robert Harley and Viscount Bolinbroke that he renounce Roman Catholicism and become Anglican in order to be designated Queen Anne's heir to the throne of England."

This was the beginning of a struggle between Stuarts and Hannovers that would only end circa of thirty years after Queen Anne died. In the meanwhile rumours were being spread that Anne herself was more than willing in having her half-brother to the British throne due to the fact she refused to invite the Hanovers to land in England, she was forced to deal with more important matters as her health. The Queen had never a strong health ever since she was born and to worse things, she not only was pregnant for eighteen times, but most of those times she miscarried or gave birth to stillborn children. As we briefly mentioned in the paragraph above, Anne had one son to survive infancy and his name was William. But he too died at the age of 11, which much caused her grief and led her household to commemorate his death every date he passed away. As seen below:

"It is widely believed that the reason behind Queen Anne's miscarriages and stillborn children is because she suffered from Antiphospholipid Syndrome, an immune disorder that turns the body against itself. It is also widely known that Queen Anne suffered with chronic illnesses, most notably gout, which was even so extreme she had to be carried in to her coronation. It could be argued that this illness, as well as the Monarch's excessive drinking, led to the ultimely death's of her young children."

Like her cousin Elizabeth before her, due to the lack of heirs, Anne must have felt pressed to constantly appoint an heir and though she eventually agreed that Sophia of Hanover and her heirs would do so, she would not discuss the matter and even so rivalries between the two houses remained. Some claim that Anne felt pleased that the proud Sophia did not make to inherite the crown herself. Whatever the case, this would only present a great issue to James Francis Edward in the future.

In terms of the politics of her reign, it is characterized by three councillors she trusted the most. Those were the names of Marlborough, at least before his fall, whose wife Sarah Churchill was then in good terms with the Queen; Godolphin and Robert Harley. After all, 

"Between them, the three held most of the important political position in the land and between 1702 and 1704 they worked with the Earl of Nottingham [Secretary of State] while the War of Spanish Succession was being fought. Marlborough, via his wife Sarah, advised Anne onf successful government: the Queen must maintain her powers of appointment and that the Queen should administer patronage through a non-party manager."

One important aspect of Anne's domestic politics in her reign is the union of Scottish and English Parliaments that resulted in the Great Britain, which made Scotland and England one kingdom under her realm. Although mostly Scottish nationalists and others blame Queen Elizabeth I for passing the English throne to King James VI of Scots, it was not until Queen Anne's reign that these two realms would be united under one sole crown. It is said that, in spite of opposition, Anne was a "consistent and ardent supporter of union" and even "attended a thanksgiving service in St. Paul's Cathedral" when she achieved her main goal.

As a result, 

"The union of England and Scotland, which Anne fervently supported, created Europe's largest free trade area. The political and diplomatic achievements of Anne's governments, and the absence of constitutional conflict between monarch and parliament during her reign, indicate that she chose mininsters and exercised her prerogatives wisely."

Another aspect of her reign that is just as important as the Union Act was the development of two partisans that constituted in Anne's reign but would grow in influence and power with the Hanovers. This system was divided in Tories, who "were supportive of the Anglican church and favoured the 'landed interest' of the country gentry", while the Whigs "were aligned with commerical interests and Protestant Dissenters." Due to her religious nature, Anne was more inclined to support the Tories. 

In other words, what can be said of Anne's reign is summoned in one paragraph as we see in the following excerpt:

"Her reign would last twelve eventful years, in which we would see the Acts of Union between Scotland and England, the War of Spanish Succession, and an attempted invasion by her half-brother, the Catholic James Stuart. Anne is also the last British monarch to deny Royal Assent to a Parliamentary bill. Her health declined further throught the years, especially after the death fo her husband in 1708. Already seriously afflicted with gout at her accession and unable to walk, by 1713, the concerns for her health were very serious. She was ill several times throughout the year, eventually recovering until she had a stroke on July 30th, 1714. Anne died the next day, aged forty-nine."

As for Anne's character, whilst it certainly had its faults, was certainly marked by a deeply religious nature, which led us to believe that in terms of Succession, she would not pass the crown for her brother so easily as we wrote concerning the rumours over the matter in paragraphs above. But this does not mean we must exclude such possibility. It appears that in her final years, she felt somewhat remorse for the actions done in past, and believed that the reason why she had no surviving children was God punishing her for it. Perhaps a reconciliation was attempted and that Bolinbroke's proposal for James to change religion in order to accept the crown was her idea. We might never know. It is almost certainly that she favoured her brother as successor rather than passing to a house she held bitter grudges over the years. But one might suspect that even still religion and good sense drove her to what her ministers eventually believed to be a wise choice, and yet whose results we will see in the following posts.

Anne was buried in the Henry VII chapel on the South Aisle of Westminster Abbey, being put to rest next to her husband and children on 24 August. Sophia of Hanover, who rumour has it hoped to have see written in her tomb 'Queen Sophia of Britain', had died two months prior, which some might say this giving Anne's pleasure for knowing it there would be no Queen Sophia to succeed her. Yet, like it happened a century earlier between Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth Tudor, Anne's crown would go to her rival's son, George, the Elector of Hanover, who was now King George I of Great Britain, Ireland and France.

Bibliography:

-http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/death-queen-anne/

-https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2014/07/18/queen-anne-of-great-britain-a-guest-post-by-samantha-arbisi-hanson/

-http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/stuart-england/queen-anne/

-http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/stories-of-the-stuarts-queen-annes-18-pregnancies-47524

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anne-queen-of-Great-Britain-and-Ireland

-https://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=anne

-http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Queen-Anne/

-http://historythings.com/queen-anne-first-monarch-great-britian/

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Edward-the-Old-Pretender

-http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/death-queen-anne/

Nzinga, the Warrior Queen of Ndongo and Matamba (1583-1663)

 

Motivated by the recent posts concerning the sovereigns that compounded the royals that governed Egypt in different times of its History, we began to ask ourselves about other royals that left their own marks in the realms they ruled throughout Africa's continent. Following that curiosity, we leave Ancient Egypt behind, at least for now, in order to move quite some milleniuns ahead to speak of this formidable queen who resisted bravely the Portuguese. So who was she? And what exactly were her deeds? Why is her name associated to the resistance against the Portuguese who by then were part of the powerful Spanish empire?

For a start, Nzinga was born in the year of 1583 as the daughter of ngola (which was the title used for a sovereign, equal to 'king', for example) named Kia Samba and his wife, Guenguela Cakombe. We are not certain whether she was the oldest or the youngest of Kia Samba's offspring, but what we do know is that Nzinga had two sisters and a brother, the latter being the heir of Ndongo's throne. Apparently, she receives this name because

"[...] her umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck [...]. It was said to be an indication that the person who had this characteristic would be proud and haughty, and a wise woman told her mother that Nzinga would become queen one day."

In terms of her education, it is said that she was well educated in diplomacy and tride. She could also write, read and speak Portuguese very well and practiced archery, aside of enjoying hunting trips. The development of such skills are possibly the result of the favour she enjoyed of her father, as she recollected it laterwards. This favour was an indicative of the shaping of her skills as a "true politician, [...] true military and intellectual genius.", as she attended her father's council meetings, thus witnessing how "he governed his kingdom", sometimes even following him at war.

The political context that characterized Ndongo, later attributed the name of Angola by the Portuguese, can be better explained below:

"Around the turn of the 17th century, the independent kingdoms and states of the Central African coast were threatened by the Portuguese attempts to colonize Luanda (Luanda, today the capital of Angola, was founded in 1576). Portugal sought to colonize the region in order to control the trade in African slaves, and attacked many of their old trading partners to further this goal."

Also, by 1622 the Portuguese "invited Ngola (king) Mbande to attend a peace conference there to end the hostilities with the Mbundu. Mbande sent his sister Nzinga to represent him in meeting with Portuguese Governor João Correia de Souza". But even with Nzinga's skills as diplomat, when she arranged a peaceful treaty between two parts, it did not prevent the actions of Portugal's government in breaking into Ndongo and slaving its people once they were captured and taken prisoners once Portugal did not honor the treaty. As a result, Ngola Mbandi, Nzinga's brother and king, committed suicide. It was a difficult period for Ndongo, subdued by the Portuguese forces, but until Nzinga became their queen, some changes in the political scenario were expected.

Nzinga became queen in 1623, when she was forty-one years of age. Apparently, "she forbade her subjects to call her Queen. She preferred to be called King, and when leading an army in battle, dressed in men's clothing.". It is also said that when she took the control of her country, she firstly became regent for her nephew Kaza before having him murdered, some claiming so by her own hands. At first she styled herself Lady of Andongon (Portuguese: Senhora de Andongo), but "in a letter of 1626 she now called herself 'Queen of Andongo' (Rainha de Andongo), a title which she bore from then on." Rumour has it that when she attended meetings with Portuguese governors or other diplomats, she took favourites with her and these were curiously dressed in woman's clothes.

Whatever the case was,

"As the new sovereign of Ndongo, Nzinga re-entered negotiations with the Portuguese. At the time, Ndongo was under attack from both the Portuguese and neighboring African aggressors. Nzinga realized that in order to achieve peace and for her kingdom to remain viable, she needed to become an intermediary. She allied Ndongo with Portugal, and was baptsided as Ana de Souza Nzinga Mbande with the Portugal colonial governor serving as her godfather. By doing this she acquired a partner in her fight against her African enemies, and ending Portuguese slave raiding in the kingdom."

Her conversion to Catholicism in 1622 was indeed more an instrument to a change of political alliances, since it was more advantageous for Nzinga, or Ana as she was now called, to attempt an approach to Portugal and by peaceful means to stop the slave raiding rather than follow her brother's path and rebel at any sight. At first, she was not very Catholic, but because she was respectful towards the priests and jesuits that there went, she was respected for it.

However hard were her attempts in making peace with Portugal through this conversion, again the arrangement was broken when

"Portugal betrayed Ndongo in 1626, and Nzinga was forced to flee when war broke out. Nzinga took over as ruler of the nearby kingdom of Matamba, capturing Queen Mwongo Matamba and routing her army. Nzinga then made Matamba her captial, joining it to the kingdom of Ndongo."

She also "offered sanctuary to runaway slaves and Portuguese-trained African soldiers. She stirred up rebellion among the people still left in Ndongo, now ruled by the Portuguese. Nzinga also reached out to the Dutch and invited them to join troops with her." By then, she had no other option but swift alliances, since Portugal constantly broke the deals and peaceful treaties she attempted to forge to protect her people. By 1627, the Queen

"[...] led her army against the Portuguese, initiating a thirty-year war against them. She exploited European rivalry by forging an alliance with the Dutch who had conquered Luanda in 1641. With their help, Nzinga defeated a Portuguese army in 1647. When the Dutch were in turn defeated by the Portuguese [...] Nzinga continued her struggle against the Portuguese. Now in her 60s she still personally led troops in battle. She also orchestrated guerilla attacks on the Portuguese which would continue long after her death and inspire the ultimately successful 20th century armed resistance against the Portuguese that resulted in independent Angola in 1975."

During this time of war against the Portuguese, Nzinga was

"respectful of priests when they were captured by her, and she permitted Portuguese prisoners and Christian Africans to have sacraments. Following the peace treaty of 1657, she became very pious, according to the Capuchin witnesses Gaeta and Cavazzi and Gaeta at least regarded her as a model Christian."

Afterwards, what we know as the result of this long time war against the Portuguese was, eventually, a deal with the Church in which she once again converted to Catholicism. A treaty with Portugal was signed but with no prospects of victory by the side of Nzinga, however resistant she was throughtout those long years she reigned as Queen of Ndongo and Matamba. Finally,

"This great African Amazon Warrior Queen died in 1663 fighting for her people at an old ripe age of eighty-one, which was followed by the massive expansion of the Portuguese slave trade."

Nzinga is until nowadays remembered as a political leader of strong personality who resisted Portugal's colonization which only ended in 1975. As already discussed, her deeds as warrior and sovereign inspired the next generations and left a mark in her country that should be remembered by historians still in our present days.

Bibliography:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nzinga_of_Ndongo_and_Matamba

-https://afroetic.com/2011/11/19/who-was-queen-ann-nzingha-of-ndongo/

-http://www.tidridge.com/uploads/3/8/4/1/3841927/collapse_of_the_kingdom_of_kongo.pdf

-http://www.amazingwomeninhistory.com/anna-nzinga-mbande-fearless-africa-queen/

-http://www.blackpast.org/gah/queen-nzinga-1583-1663

-https://afrolegends.com/2013/03/18/queen-nzingha-great-queen-of-angola/