History Hub

When I first raised teh question which Mikestone has picked up and run with so brilliantly, I was just considering how the individual monarch's reputations might have been different (some people's reputation rises with age, but that doesn't seem generally to be the case with kings and queens

Quoted from this message

Indeed. My impression is that in most cases the earlier death is either beneficial to a ruler's historical reputation or makes little difference.

The only ruler whose memory definitely suffers by an earlier death seems to be William the Conqueror. Henry VIII is ambiguous, with far less to show in the way of achievement, but also far less to be hated for.

Stephen gains substantially, Henry II, Henry III and Edward I modestly, Edward III massively, as does Charles I if he dies at 35. If at 45 then not much change. If anything, he loses something by missing out on "martyrdom".

Elizabeth I would do best if she died at 55. That would be right after the defeat of the Armada, when her reputation stood at its max. Her last 15 years were distinctly anticlimactic. Mary I would die best at 38, when she has just seen off Wyatt's Rebellion (as well as Jane Grey's usurpation) but hasn't burned anyone yet, and in fact has so far been remarkably merciful by Tudor standards. Henry VI would need to die at about 25 (and Edward II about 28) to be seen as anything but a disaster. James II would die best at 52, just after defeating the Duke of Monmouth. From there it was all downhill for him.

It all reminds me of a comment by George Orwell, to the effect that a "great" man was one who died before things hd a chance to go wrong for him.

Henry VI would need to die at about 25 (and Edward II about 28) to be seen as anything but a disaster. James II would die best at 52, just after defeating the Duke of Monmouth. From there it was all downhill for him.

Quoted from this message

Missed one. Had Richard II died in 1397/8, ie at age 30/31, he would have died, to all appearences, a complete success. At that point he hadn't confiscated the Lancaster estates, so Bolingbroke's invasion is aborted.

Caro

Sorry to hear that you are currently not leaping around too much. Is there no way that you can transfer that to the AB Rugby team that England have to face next Saturday? Just a thought- We need all the help we can get.

I had noted the three score references earlier- (a) When you mentioned Armistice Day being your birthday,
and (b) When you suggested moving the end-date on this thread to 60.

I thought of a lifetime of birthdays on 11/II, and the process by which it became established that the Armistice should be remembered in this way.

By about 1924 the British Legion were very anxious to raise funds to look after the ex-servicemen, and it was proposed to do the old thing and hold a Charity Ball in the Royal Albert Hall. And when you think about it, it made sense. The actual Armistice Day was a day of joyful celebration with apparently total strangers just getting carried away and having sex in London parks etc.. An orgy of happiness. Not that a High Society Ball would have been anything like that: and not that High Society would have felt much like having a ball. Such families had suffered disproportionately because honourable officers led their men over the top and across No Man's Land. Field Marshall Montgomery- the son of the Bishop of Tasmania- wrote in his autobiography that he had got all the way to the German trenches and found himself confronting the enemy with no more than his ceremonial sword.. He kicked the German where it hurt most.

The Reverend Dick Sheppard- one of the people that I greatly admire- wrote a letter of complaint to the press arguing that a ball would be most unsuitable and offering to prepare a solemn commemoration 'in Memoriam' which would also aim at collecting money for charity. And that is what was done over here, and what has been done ever since. So we have no single day on which to have any kind of celebration.

Dick Sheppard's biographer, however, points out that the ticket sales for his service raised more money than the ball would have done.But he did not anticipate the overall impact on all of the ancillary trades that lived off such activities- and might have added up to a huge and much needed cash injection.

And after all there were lots of other days of the dead. Perhaps we might have decided to share Anzac Day.

Anyway just think that once you are accustomed to it you will be entitled to live The Swinging Sixties once again.

Regards

Cass

And some people can live long enough that they 'come out the other side' - Eleanor of Aquitaine was one queen whose reputation was higher at her death than in earlier times. That may happen to some modern day celebrities too perhaps.

Quoted from this message

George III would probably be the best royal example. Until his mental collapse in 1811, he ("Farmer George" and all that) was quite a popular figure - far more so than in 1773 or 1783. I should have mentioned him along with WtC.