Kings Fall Apart: Or, It's Not Always Good to be King, Mr Trump

TRUMP has been trying to make himself the first King of the USA since a revolting people gave George III the boot in 1776. Laying aside the argument that the Donald is a much worse leader than the last king, the King of Orange should think twice about being on a throne, however golden. George III, a Far Better Man Than Trump

The history of monarchy in the British Isles, which I know best, should not inspire a desire to play Macbeth and Don a crown. Few kings or queens have been able to enjoy their reigns, short or long. Only one British king has been called "The Merry Monarch," Charles II, and even he faced a sea of troubles, partly of his own making. 

Charles II did manage to last twenty-five years and die in bed with his crown on his head, a fate denied many other monarchs. The last Anglo-Saxon king, Harold, was killed in battle against the 1066 Norman Invasion led by Duke William of Normandy. Tradition holds that an arrow landed in Harold's eye. He had been king for only a few months. 

William I, Harold's Conqueror, did much better time-wise. But he had to deal with an Anglo-Saxon populace which did not welcome being ruled by a king who rewarded his French-speaking warriors with their lands. He dealt with the opposition by killing lots of peasants and destroying their homes. His corpulent body exploded when he was being forced into a too small tomb, emitting a foul smell and showering those nearby with unmentionables.

William II, the Conqueror's eldest son, had a nasty and short reign, cut short by an arrow again. On this occasion, the archer may have been an assassin hired by his brother Henry, who succeeded as king. Henry I he had a fairly lengthy reign. Legend has it that he died from eating a surfeit of lampreys. It is more probable that  a stroke killed him. Or maybe he died of worry about the succession.

Henry had no male successor, only a daughter, Matilda. He named her as his heir, but when he died, the alpha males among his barons decided they could not stomach being ruled by a woman, and chose his nephew Stephen as king. Those familiar with the US election of 2024, when Americans chose Trump over Kamala Harris, will understand. 

The result was nearly twenty years of fighting between the supporters of Stephen and those of Matilda. The Anarchy, as this period is called, was not a good time for anybody, except for some robber barons. Peasants, as always, paid a heavy price. 

In the end, the two sides reached a deal: Stephen would remain king, but on his death, the throne would pass to Matilda's son Henry of Anjou. When Henry II became king in 1154, he started a line of kings known as the Angevins or Plantagenets. Henry also inherited a large part of France, directly, or through his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was always moving about to keep control his large and diverse territories. He faced many rebellions among his nobles and vassals. The rebels eventually included his sons and Eleanor. 

Two of his sons became king after him. Richard and John, of Ivanhoe and Robin Hood fame. That's all fantasy, but so is Richard's "Lion-Heart" reputation. He is the only king to have a statue outside of Parliament, for some unfathomable reason. Richard spent a mere six months of his ten year reign in England, and like Trump, treated the country like a cash cow. He massacred thousands of Muslims, Jews, and even Christians while Crusading for Christ in the oddly named Holy Land. He also died when struck by an arrow, while besieging a rebel castle. Gangrene set in, and that did for him.

Richard I had no children. Enter his brother John, the only English king of that name. Let's see why. (NB: This is not John)

End of Part I.

 

Remarkable Charlestonians in the American Revolution

 

The Death of Major Pierson by John Singleton Copley, 1782. Tate Britain 

The American Revolution was a struggle for liberty, but not in the uncomplicated way we learned in school. The traditional story holds that Patriots fought to free themselves from arbitrary taxation by a tyrannical king, George III. In truth, the tyrant, if there was one, was the British Parliament, which passed the laws that angered the colonists. That was true enough. What is left out is that supporters of the British government also fought for liberty, but of a different sort. People on both sides viewed their actions as patriotic, even if they were sometimes self-serving.

Enslaved blacks fought to free themselves from slavery. The War for Independence, especially in  the southern colonies, was also in part a war to to preserve slavery. Slaveholders feared that an arbitrary British government might grant their slaves freedom after Lord Mansfield declared slavery illegal in English law in 1773. In that sense the Revolution had more in common with the later Civil War than is generally acknowledged. 

Many white Loyalists throughout the thirteen colonies supported the mother country because they believed that the constitutional monarchy, checked by Parliament, was the best protector of their inherited liberties.  

Charleston, South Carolina is famous as the place where the American Civil War began. Less well known is its significant role in an earlier civil war. For South Carolina, the American War for Independence was more truly a civil war than the conflict of 1861-1865. During the 1860s, South Carolinians were united in defense of their state. During the Revolutionary War, they were bitterly divided. South Carolina witnessed some of the most violent episodes of the conflict.

Remarkable Charlestonians of the American Revolution relates the stories of a spectrum of the city's residents during the is turbulent time. Its subjects were famous, obscure, rich, poor, black, white, men and women. Some supported the "Patriot" cause; others were loyal to the British crown, or tried to remain neutral. A few switched sides, one more than once. Collectively, their experiences highlight the often grim reality of the revolutionary era. If you are convinced that Mel Gibson portrayed the Revolution correctly in "The Patriot" this book may not be your cup of tea. ( Pun intended).

The public memory of the American Revolution is encrusted with layers of convenient forgetfulness, dubious facts, distorted legends, and outright myths. History, as Sir Lewis Namier wrote, is not a visit of condolence. Nor should it be. This book seeks to portray the complexity of a chaotic, turbulent, and fascinating time. Its pages provide, I hope, a nuanced sense of what it was like to live in Charleston during the American War for  Independence, 250 years ago. It also, I believe, sheds light on the situation in the USA today. 

The premise of Remarkable Charlestonians is that people on both sides of the War for Independence fought for liberty, although with a different sense of what liberty meant. The majority black population wanted to rid themselves of enslavement, and many joined the British, who promised them freedom. Many white Loyalists believed that the British government was the best protector of "the rights of Englishmen" against what they saw as mob rule. White revolutionaries (Patriots) opposed what they perceived as the arbitrary actions of the British government. One of the things they feared and fought to prevent was the possibility that an overpowerful Parliament would declare slavery illegal in the colonies. 

For more information, visit Remarkable Charlestonians in the American Revolution – Arcadia Publishing $24.95 

Available at all good bookstores and even some bad ones.