Recent reading + some RL stuff

[luzula]

Some ways in which the war has so far touched my own social contexts: The math department got a letter from the Ukrainian math association about their situation, thanking all the Russian mathematicians who have expressed horror at the war. I have colleagues at the department both from Russia and Ukraine. My union has a migrant workers' section which is collecting money to help their Ukrainian members who are there now, which obviously I have donated to. Finally, my environmental organization was asked to sign a petition to block Russian exports of timber (which we are for), but on the other hand, the petition also asked the FSC (an environmental certification) to suspend all Russian certificates, which we are not sure about. The reason being that it might take tools away from Russian environmental organizations who rely on the FSC, flawed as it is, to protect forests.

Light from Uncommon Stars by Ryka Aoki (2021)
For book club. This did not work for me, and I didn't finish it. As one of the book club members said, it felt like the result of a party game where someone had said: come up with a plot containing violins, aliens, donuts, and demons! All these components did not really come together for me. And the romance was so uninteresting! It was just the violinist walking into the donut shop, whereupon she and the alien (in a human body) who kept the shop got instant crushes on each other.

The Road not Taken: how Britain narrowly missed a revolution 1381-1926 by Frank McLynn (2012)
This is the author who wrote what seems to be the definitive biography of Charles Edward Stuart, which I'm not planning to read. But I thought I could get the gist of his opinions on the period if I read the chapter on the '45 in this other book. I might go back and read other bits of it later as well, about the English Civil War and Chartists, for example.

There's nothing new for me about the course of the war, but I learned two new things about the economics of the period which I'm surprised I haven't come across elsewhere. Why has no one said this before? The first is that the anti-Catholic feeling in Britain had (among other things) an economic basis. The so-called Abbey lands were taken from the Catholic Church, and the owners of that land were afraid that if the country became Catholic again, then these lands would be taken from them, even in the 18th century. This was a third of Britain’s land! Of course it had changed hands a lot of times since then, and now often belonged to various members of the aristocracy. The Stuarts from James II onwards never intended to give that land back to the Catholic Church, but it was used as a Whig scare tactic against them.

The second thing I learned is about the importance of Britain's national debt. Apparently William of Orange needed a lot of money for his wars, and the monarchs after that borrowed too. There was a whole system of financial capitalism set in place after 1688, like the Bank of England and the South Sea Company. The Whigs were very worried that if James II or BPC ended up on the throne, they would repudiate the national debt since it had been pledged by illegitimate monarchs (from the Jacobite POV). Obviously the debt holders were rich and powerful people, allied with the Whigs or Whig politicians themselves. This was the primary reason for the stock market crashes connected with Jacobite attempts. And unlike the situation with the Abbey lands, James III or BPC might very well have done that. Many of James III’s advisors apparently counseled him to do so. BPC equivocated in 1745, and it's unclear what he would have done if he had won. Obviously it would have been good for state finances, but bad for (relations with) the debt holders including the Dutch. It would also have allowed James III/BPC to lower the high taxes, which was a major Jacobite criticism of the Whigs, and conciliate the people on whom the taxes fell.

Also, McLynn agrees with Szechi about the increasing radicalism of Jacobite politics and how far it had come from the divine right of James II.

Comments

[osprey_archer]

Oh, gosh, that petition is maybe doing too much at once. Perhaps "block Russian exports of timber" and "suspend Russian FSC certificates" should be separate petitions, as one could easily want to do one without the other.

[luzula]

Yes, we felt that way too!

[chestnut_pod]

Re: the Abbey lands: isn't this always the way! This is very interesting and I mean to look more into it.

[luzula]

It's funny that I've been reading for two years about this period and had not come across this very relevant fact before! Of course, maybe it would have been obvious to someone who was up on what was going on 200 years before that, but I'm afraid I've mostly only gone back to the 17th century for context...

ETA: Since you were interested: here's a sample of propaganda from the time. Henry Fielding, in 1745: I will not on this occasion descend to consider particular interests; I will not remind all those who are possessed of Abbey lands or forfeited estates, or who are interested in the Funds, how much they are concerned to oppose a torrent which threatens to overwhelm their fortunes. (Except obviously he does descend to that.)

[chestnut_pod]

Love a bit of praetoritio!

[luzula]

Thanks for teaching me a new word! : )

[nnozomi]

Some ways in which the war has so far touched my own social contexts: The math department got a letter from the Ukrainian math association about their situation,... I have colleagues at the department both from Russia and Ukraine. My union has a migrant workers' section which is collecting money to help their Ukrainian members who are there now, which obviously I have donated to. Finally, my environmental organization was asked to sign a petition to block Russian exports of timber (which we are for), but on the other hand, the petition also asked the FSC (an environmental certification) to suspend all Russian certificates, which we are not sure about
Such a good illustration of what an all-encompassing mess this is ;( (and thank you for doing what can be done)

[luzula]

Well, I certainly haven't done much. But yeah, it's reaching tendrils everywhere, even if I am myself far from the war.

[regshoe]

That point about the Abbey lands seems obvious in hindsight, but it had never occurred to me either (and I hadn't appreciated quite how much land they covered, either)—very interesting! And I've come across various references to the National Debt (and taxes!) as an important point of political contention, but that's some fascinating background on why it was so important to the Jacobite conflicts in particular. Very good stuff—I really ought to start reading some of these political history books on the Jacobites...

[luzula]

It's cool to still be coming across new things like this after reading for two years--it's all so complicated... : )

[feroxargentea]

My admittedly ill-informed thoughts, re: the Catholic lands appropriated by Protestant upper classes, is that (a) it does seem fairly obvious, given the number of such places (at least two of Jane Austen's heroes live in ex-abbeys, for a start!), and also (b) it's also quite surprising people would have taken the threat seriously, I think? Because of possession being nine-tenths of the supposed law, and because of the way people expect to be compensated even for ill-gotten gains, q.v. plantations owners in the West Indies later being "compensated" for freed slaves. Would Whig mutterings about re-confiscation really have hit their mark? (Maybe they would.)

[luzula]

Well...here is Henry Fielding, for example, in 1745: I will not on this occasion descend to consider particular interests; I will not remind all those who are possessed of Abbey lands or forfeited estates, or who are interested in the Funds, how much they are concerned to oppose a torrent which threatens to overwhelm their fortunes. (Except obviously he does descend to that.)

I hadn't thought about the Austen characters, but yeah, you're right!