A little-known (although published in 1995) anecdote, in The Times, about the traitor Churchill, commander in the Army of James II. You may remember Belloc's account of the treacheries that followed the Dutch Invasion of 1688, which dispossessed the Stuarts, the ancient British Royal Family, replacing it ultimately with the present governing house.
Belloc wrote:
"Whenever I recollect that business of the fall of the Stuarts, two things stand out in my mind: so much pageantry and so much comic stuff. For, to my thinking, there is something comic in the financing of the expedition with Dutch money, secured upon taxes promised beforehand as sure to be levied from the English (specifically on their tobacco), should it succeed. This way of making the victim pay for his own execution without his knowing it, and without consulting him, is full of the spirit of comedy.
"There are a hundred other comic detals. Churchill leaning his handsome, villainous face over the dinner-table of the inn and trying to persuade the unfortunate James to come out for a ride on that fine moonlit night; Churchill well knowing how, on that fine moonlit night, the scouts of the enemy were waiting to carry off the King.
"And, again, the picture of the subsequent dinner at Andover: James dining with his daughter [Anne]'s husband, the Prince of Denmark, and that great bagful of stupidity repeating to everything that was said, Est-il possible!; then he and his suite excusing themselves for a moment to attend to some business; James, the King, wondering when they would return to the room.
"They never returned. That business on which they had excused themselves was treason ..."
So what is the newer info recorded in The Times by Max Hastings about the Traitor Churchill?
Back to the previous reign, that of King James's elder brother King Charles II. That king had a mistress--Louise de Kerouaille, a Breton noblewoman and a prezzie from King Louis (and ancestress of our Dukes of Richmond). Charles once caught Churchill in this lady's bedroom cupboard. His Majesty commented: "I have nothing to say to you, my poor fellow. You do this for your advancement."
Perhaps the moral is: Let a libertine off the hook and he'll reward you with treachery.
5 comments:
Remember, remember
The fifth of November
Dutch invasion and plot
I see no reason
Why Churchill's treason
Should ever be forgot
Selective use of words! The Scottish throne was indeed held by the house of Stuart from 1315. The dynasties in England which may be called ancient would be the Plantagenets, 245 years, the Tudors, 118 years, and only then the Stuarts, 111 years. The house of Hanover subsequently clocked up 187 years which in the grand scheme of things would seem to give them winner's rights. I can trace descent from the Plantagenets, like a significant slice of the population, but that doesn't equate to a meaningful claim to the Crown. The start point for deciding the ancient claim to the British crown is only 1603 and I wouldn't call 111 years ancient. Didn't Old Parr live that long? So 1 generation.
It appears lèse-majesté lechery
Was the thin end of Churchill’s vile treachery.
The just prize for his venom
Was the the palace of Blenheim,
Which caused him and his wife nought but wretchery.
And, twenty years later:
Malbrough s'en va-t-en guerre,
mironton, mironton, mirontaine,
Malbrough s'en va-t-en guerre,
Ne sait quand reviendra.
Winston Churchill's biography of Marlborough. Oh, man, both interesting and appalling.
I could see why he sympathized with his ancestor, but the guy was just a walking reason for the American Revolution. You could practically go point by point. George III was less of a reason.
Post a Comment