Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 64 of 64     «   Prev   61   62   63   64
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,545
Reply with quote  #946 
18 June
1633 – Charles I is crowned King of Scots at St Giles' Cathedral, Edinburgh

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,682
Reply with quote  #947 

June 21 1582. The death of Oba Nobunaga was followed by the ascent of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who over the next eight years managed to achieve the submission of all powerful clans - Shimazu, Mori, Chosokabe and Hojo - to unify Japan under his rule. They say that Oda would kill the bird if it didn't sing, Toyotomi would persuade it to sing, and Tokugawa would wait for it to sing.

 

 
Queenslander

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 618
Reply with quote  #948 
Their names do 'live on' in the Japan of today, largely as character blueprints, and a source of character names, in the mass media (largely Animation and Manga and live action dramas).
__________________
Yours Sincerely Queenslander
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,682
Reply with quote  #949 

June 26 1460 was the day Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick and Prince Edward, Earl of March (later Edward IV) landed in Kent from their sanctuary in France. Richard, Duke of York, was in Ireland where he was Lord Lieutenant and where Parliament issued a proclamation in Drogheda affirming its de facto independence. The Irish were overwhelmingly pro-Yorkist, which may have explained the comparative peace on the island during the Wars of the Roses. Effective control of Ireland and the English Channel was to be to the Yorkists' advantage.

Richard III became King of England 23 years later.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,808
Reply with quote  #950 
Today is the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Royal House of Windsor. There was of course no change of monarch, still less of dynasty, merely the adoption of a new name, but the date remains significant in the lengthy annals of British monarchy. Little criticised at the time due to the strength of anti-German feeling, the renaming, and particularly the accompanying disclaimer of all German styles and titles, has sometimes been seen since as ignoble and a denial of roots. I have some sympathy with the latter half of both propositions, but really George V had to do something, with the unfortunately-named Gotha heavy bombers raining munitions down on London, and the chosen designation was entirely appropriate and in any case is now immovably established.

The immovability reportedly caused some irritation to the Duke of Edinburgh, resulting in a compromise whereby agnatic descendants of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh lacking royal status (those with it requiring no surname anyway) would bear the family name Mountbatten-Windsor. Apparently this name has been used now and then for convenience when signing documents, including by the Duke of Cambridge in the marriage register for example, but nevertheless the one person to date who ought by the wording of the second linked proclamation to be known by it never is, the Earl of Wessex's daughter always being called Lady Louise Windsor.

If it is true that the Duke of Edinburgh was annoyed in this way, I have to say it seems rather silly. He had adopted his own mother's surname, just a few months before marriage, and then objected to the children of the marriage being known by their mother's surname? In any case there at countless precedents for a man marrying a heiress adopting her surname rather than she taking his, and what greater heiress could there be? As for what the relevant Wikipedia article has to say on the subject, words fail me regarding the supposed constitutional expert Edward Iwi. Constitutional idiot is more like it. Still, hyphenated and otherwise compound surnames are common enough in such circumstances, and the revised name was not in itself unreasonable, even if the reported arguments for it were.

Another change since, the adoption of equal primogeniture, makes it more likely that at some point in the future there will be another change of agnatic line. I doubt very much however that the name of Britain's royal house will ever change again. Like Orange-Nassau in the Netherlands and (by declared intention) Bernadotte in Sweden the name will pass with the Throne, regardless of the sex of the latter's occupant. In that sense the House of Windsor could reign forever. I hope very much that it does.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,682
Reply with quote  #951 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Han

This week 1100 years ago, the Southern Han empire came into being. The significance of this and the whole Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period can't be underestimated. It was the third time China was fragmented, and divided between north and south. However, such fragmentation did not inhibit economic and cultural richness - indeed, quite the opposite.

The Southern Han had present-day Guangzhou as its capital and encompassed today's Guangdong province, Hong Kong and Macau. Thus it was a foundation of Cantonese identity. It was the second longest-lasting of the southern states of this period (917-971) after Wuyue (907-978).

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,682
Reply with quote  #952 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion

The An Lushan Rebellion began on this day 755 and was considered the beginning of the end of the Golden Age of the Tang Dynasty of China. Although there was rebuilding after the rebellion, within a century imperial authority disintegrated, paving the way for the fragmentation of the 10th Century.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,682
Reply with quote  #953 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beijing_(1644)


April 25 1644: the Battle of Beijing ends as peasant rebels led by Li Zicheng and his wife (who as a military commander was one of a select group of Chinese women to fight and command troops on the field) gained control of the imperial capital of China, Beijing.

The Chongzhen Emperor, who reigned since 1627, killed himself on that day and with it was the end of the 276-year rule of the Ming Dynasty. Where the decline of the Ming Dynasty began cannot be pinpointed to any one event. For some, the 16th Century was the start with a succession of indulgent, pleasure-seeking emperors, but this obscures the fact that China was still a powerful and prosperous empire, which was pretty much secure to the end of the century.

The 48-year reign of the Wanli Emperor (1572-1620) is commonly described as one of the worst in Chinese history, but even this is more complex for he had come to the throne as a child, and scholar-bureaucrats like Zhang Juzheng ably governed China on his behalf. Until about 1600, things were quite OK but Wanli would retreat and his negligence undeniably did a lot of damage amidst factional fights.

The Tianqi Emperor (1620-27) was another example of a weak emperor, with the notorious eunuch Wei Zhongxian and royal nanny Madam Ke effectively in control, and their blatant corruption worsened matters.

In this regard, historians may have taken a more sympathetic view of the Chongzhen Emperor. He banished Wei and Madam Ke from positions of power and made some attempt to save the ailing empire, but the task was a formidable one.

The Ming Dynasty was not simply brought down by the Manchu conquest, but also by a popular uprising by rebel groups, of which Li Zicheng was the strongest, capturing the capital and making himself Emperor of the Shun Dynasty. He only held the capital for a month before the Manchus ousted him and established the Qing Dynasty. Resistance to the Manchus continued for decades thereafter, with the last pockets in Taiwan being defeated by 1683. China would enjoy a century of peace and prosperity under Manchu rule after that.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,682
Reply with quote  #954 
May 7 1659 was an important date in the lead-up to the Restoration, namely the fall from power of Richard Cromwell, who had inherited the Lord Protector position from Oliver Cromwell the previous year. The 1649-53 Commonwealth setup was restored with first the Rump Parliament and then the Long Parliament recalled, with George Monck leading the way for the Restoration under Charles II. Monck headed the Coldstream Guards, a unit which survives to this day.

From both a Cavalier and a Roundhead point of view, Richard Cromwell is more difficult to assess than his wicked father. He had no actual role in the politics of the Civil War and the beheading of Charles I, owing to his relative youth, and it is deeply ironic that he would inherit a position of power from his father. He certainly lacked his father's leadership qualities, thus causing the failure of the regime (and Thank God for that!). Following the Restoration, he would spend 20 years on the continent, writing letters and apparently hobnobbing with aristocrats, but he lived a quiet retirement back in England until his death in 1712. Perhaps this reflected on Charles II's magnanimity more than anything.
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 375
Reply with quote  #955 
Thanks for that information about Richard Cromwell. After the Restoration, the main objective of the restored Royal government was probably to apprehend and punish the individuals who'd signed the death warrant for Charles I's execution, rather than any desire to punish those who'd participated in the Parliamentary government. This probably accounts for the Royal government's lack of interest in Richard.

A good many of the regicides were actually apprehended, tried, and executed. Others went into hiding, and fled into exile. Three of the regicides (Edward Whalley, his son-in-law William Goffe, and John Dixwell) fled to New England, where they had numerous supporters in the Puritan colonial governments and clergy. (Whalley's mother was an aunt of Oliver Cromwell.) Whalley and Goffe apparently landed in Boston in the Massachusetts Bay colony around 1660, and lived for a brief time in Cambridge. Fearing discovery, they soon moved to New Haven, in the Connecticut colony, where they may have met up with John Dixwell, who was living under an assumed identity.  They evidently spent part of the summer living in a cave outside the town. Again fearing discovery, Whalley and Goffe moved north to the little settlement of Hadley on the Massachusetts frontier, where they lived for the next 15 or 16 years, sheltered by the local Puritan minister. Whalley probably died circa 1676 or so.  Goffe probably died a number of years later.

There's a stone with a plaque set into the ground  on the spot where the minister's house stood, which commemorates the hiding-place of Whalley and Goffe in Hadley, which isn't far from where I live, though I've never gone up to see it.  There's also a fanciful local legend in the town of Hadley (the Angel of Hadley legend), which deals with how an old man (supposedly Goffe) came out of hiding to rally the local inhabitants against the Indians during King Philip's War ( a local war in which a significant number of New England settlers were killed, and the local New England Indians virtually exterminated). (There may not be much truth to this legend).



__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,808
Reply with quote  #956 
The Declaration of Breda, made prior to the Restoration, offered amnesty to all who had supported the Parliamentary side or taken part in the Commonwealth, excepting only regicides. Charles II believed in honouring his publicly given word, and in fact many people who had been prominent under the Commonwealth moved seamlessly into the Royal government. Not even all the surviving regicides were executed, though most were. I have heard of these fugitives previously, and hope they had a miserable time of it in their cave.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,682
Reply with quote  #957 

May 16 1204 was the day Baldwin IX, Count of Flanders, was crowned Baldwin I, Latin Emperor following the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople. Without doubt this was the most dastardly episode of Western Christian history. The Latins or "Franks" occupied Constantinople until 1261, but held onto parts of Greece until the mid-15th Century.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,682
Reply with quote  #958 
May 21 1349: Stefan IV Uros (Stefan Dusan) promulgates what is known as Dusan's Code, the law of the land for the Serbian Empire. At its peak, the Serbian Empire encompassed not only Serbia and Montenegro, but swathes of Greece and Albania. The two Bulgarian empires of the Middle Ages did likewise!

May 22 192 AD: Dong Zhuo, Chinese warloard of the late Han Dynasty, is assassinated. Three years earlier, Dong had come to power in a coup and placed what would be the last Han Emperor, Emperor Xian, on the throne. In effect, Xian was no more than an ineffectual figurehead as China disintegrated into warlordism. Eventually, Cao Cao would emerge as the man who would rule what was left of the Empire and found one of the Three Kingdoms.

May 22 1254: Stefan Uros I, King of Serbia, signs a peace treaty with Venice. He was the first of five Serbian rulers called Stefan Uros.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,682
Reply with quote  #959 
http://www.welfen.de/GeorgVExil.htm

140 years this month since George V, last King of Hanover, died. His kingdom was unjustly taken from him in the Austro-Prussian War.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.