9 Comments
User's avatar
Larry Stevenson's avatar

I always enjoy reading your excerpts on history. The line between the Stuarts and Hanoverian lines confused me. Your telling made it clearer. Thank you.

Expand full comment
McKenzie Franklin's avatar

Thank you so much for reading! I am glad I could help clarify!

Expand full comment
Purple History's avatar

It's fascinating how different things could have turned out if only a few people made different choices. If the Stuarts remained Protestant, they could rule Britain even now, if James II's children were a bit more pragmatic, like Henry IV of France who converted for the Crown, the same could have happened even after 1688.

Expand full comment
James Becker's avatar

Part 1 of 1000 in trying to explain the English Civil War and its consequences! I’ve recently learned a bit about Henry Benedict Cardinal Stuart and his story. A fascinating figure that marks a true “what-if” in the history of the British isles.

Expand full comment
McKenzie Franklin's avatar

He is on my list to write about. Almost totally overlooked!

Expand full comment
Eliot Wilson's avatar

Worth remembering that Charles II had been crowned King of Scots at Scone on 1 January 1651, and proclaimed King of England, Ireland and France. It was a big affair: the coronation was performed by the Lord Chancellor of Scotland, the Earl of Loudoun, using the Honours of Scotland (the Scottish Crown Jewels etc), the Duke of Rothes carrying the sword and the Earl of Crawford and Lindsay the sceptre. The Marquess of Argyll, the Earl of Eglinton and Rev Robert Douglas, once and future Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, were also present (Douglas preaches for an HOUR).

Expand full comment
McKenzie Franklin's avatar

Yes! Thank you for that!! A great addition to the piece and so important!

Expand full comment
David Gemeinhardt's avatar

This idea of "distance" irks me, too. Queen Anne and George I were both great-grandchildren of James I and VI. Neither is more or less distant from him, genetically speaking. The perceived distance is only from each other, but I think that's partly because these days most of us hardly know our cousins beyond the first degree. In the context of the human family, a second or third cousin is actually a rather close relation.

Expand full comment
McKenzie Franklin's avatar

Exactly! And of course too, today many can easily keep up with more distant cousins via social media. Back then, they spoke different languages, and were culturally completely different. So while it was a change, it was not just a very distant person out of the woodwork, though, it could have seemed as such.

Expand full comment