|
|
Post by Henry Cardigan MP on Aug 18, 2020 12:53:36 GMT
"Your Grace!"
As Henri de Ceredigion, the Duke's agent in France, leapt overboard from the ship that had borne him from La Rochelle to England, every alternate breath he took as he swam towards the harbour was spent yelling a warning.
"Your Grace!"
"There is a plot...against your life...and I have come...to prevent it!"
As Henri powered his way towards the harbour, the Duke, completely unaware of what was happening, was walking along the quayside feted by the well-wishers there. As he stopped down to take a posy of flowers from a small girl, who curtsied, Henri grabbed hold of the chain on the side of the harbour and climbing up it shouted "YOUR GRACE, BEWARE!"
"Oh, hello there Henry" smiled the Duke as he spied Henri climbing up the chain, "that's an interesting way of coming to meet me. Is something the matter?"
"Your Grace?" asked a second voice and as the Duke turned to face the new speaker, Henri reached the top of the harbour and screaming "NO!" he leapt at the new speaker, wrestling him to the floor and as he twisted the man's hands behind his back, a small dagger fell out. As the Duke picked it up, he said "Henry, have you...?"
"This man has been paid by an enemy power to betray you, your Grace" replied Henri, now with the man's hands firmly behind his back and powerless to resist, "He was the man who was destined to murder you in cold blood on the orders of His Eminence, the Cardinal Richelieu of France, but as I promised you, I have saved your life!"
(I open the floor for discussions as to what would happen next!)
|
|
mach2
Banned
Posts: 70
Likes: 47
|
Post by mach2 on Sept 12, 2020 21:10:51 GMT
Interesting...
George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham had a target painted on his back and had made many enemies. In OTL he was assassinated by a disgruntled Naval Lieutenant, John Felton, in Portsmouth.
He was a man of inadequate talents, but his close relationship with King James I & VI bought him power and wealth, which he used to enrich his own family. This angered many people chief amongst them Parliament. Buckingham's first effort at international diplomacy came in 1623 when he tried to arrange a marriage between James' son Charles, Prince of Wales (later King Charles I) and the Infanta, Maria Anna of Spain. The 'Spanish Match' was part of James I & VI plan to become financially independent. The Anglo-Spanish alliance would also secure the Palatinate for his son-in-law Frederick V, who had lost his hereditary lands to Spanish and Bavarian forces. Unfortunately Buckingham was an arrogant man and he managed to alienate the Spanish and any hope of a union between the Infanta and the Prince of Wales were dashed. Buckingham returned to London and convinced James to declare war on Spain. The Anglo-Spanish War was a humiliating defeat with the crowning disaster - the Cadiz Expedition which took a great amount of resources to conduct but resulted in absolutely nothing...
By this time Charles, Prince of Wales had ascended the Throne as Charles I and he and Villiers had become close so much so that Charles simply did not acknowledge the debacle that was the Cadiz Expedition. The Duke managed to outwit his enemies for now and he went on to arrange the union of King Charles I of England and Scotland to Henriette-Marie, daughter of Henri IV of France and Marie de Medicis, in the hopes of forging an Anglo-French alliance - that too failed to materialise. This foray into international diplomacy led to war between England and France and the doomed La Rochelle expedition. The English fleet had tried to relieve the city from Louis XIII, but failed to breach the sea wall and had to limp home. In Portsmouth he met his end at the hands of an Englishman.
In ATL he survives the assassination attempt presumably Mr Felton was manipulated by the Cardinal's agents in to trying to kill the Duke. There would be many people in England that would be disappointed that Buckingham was still breathing. In OTL following his death England retreated in on itself, much to the dismay of the Protestant forces in Europe, and signed peace treaties with France and Spain.
I am not sure what the attempt on his life would do exactly. England was losing at the game of international politics. Parliament was becoming increasingly hostile towards the Court. Charles I was becoming ever more autocratic. Conflict was brewing. It was a delicate balance and one wrong move could ignite a Civil War. Parliament would not want war with France. Charles I would be incensed at the assassination attempt, but I doubt he would be willing, just yet, to topple the carefully arranged dominos. In my humble opinion I would suggest that Richelieu was attempting to take advantage of the situation and push England in to a debilitating and protracted conflict and perhaps thought that making a move against the life of the King's closest confidant was the necessary spark that would light the blue touch paper. I doubt that Richelieu would have acted on his own initiative and therefore this plot would most certainly have the blessing of King Louis XIII. In order to carry out this audacious attack the Cardinal would have had inside help i.e. a member of Parliament perhaps. The actors would however seize on this failed attempt to start a rumour. Felton would have been interrogated in Portsmouth and forced to disclose that the English Parliament was involved somehow. It is said that "a lie will gallop halfway round the world before the truth has time to pull its breeches on" and in this situation that would prove disastrously correct.
News reaches Charles I in London that his Parliament was in league with the French...
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,411 
Likes: 12,030
|
Post by stevep on Sept 13, 2020 11:51:20 GMT
Interesting... George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham had a target painted on his back and had made many enemies. In OTL he was assassinated by a disgruntled Naval Lieutenant, John Felton, in Portsmouth. He was a man of inadequate talents, but his close relationship with King James I & VI bought him power and wealth, which he used to enrich his own family. This angered many people chief amongst them Parliament. Buckingham's first effort at international diplomacy came in 1623 when he tried to arrange a marriage between James' son Charles, Prince of Wales (later King Charles I) and the Infanta, Maria Anna of Spain. The 'Spanish Match' was part of James I & VI plan to become financially independent. The Anglo-Spanish alliance would also secure the Palatinate for his son-in-law Frederick V, who had lost his hereditary lands to Spanish and Bavarian forces. Unfortunately Buckingham was an arrogant man and he managed to alienate the Spanish and any hope of a union between the Infanta and the Prince of Wales were dashed. Buckingham returned to London and convinced James to declare war on Spain. The Anglo-Spanish War was a humiliating defeat with the crowning disaster - the Cadiz Expedition which took a great amount of resources to conduct but resulted in absolutely nothing... By this time Charles, Prince of Wales had ascended the Throne as Charles I and he and Villiers had become close so much so that Charles simply did not acknowledge the debacle that was the Cadiz Expedition. The Duke managed to outwit his enemies for now and he went on to arrange the union of King Charles I of England and Scotland to Henriette-Marie, daughter of Henri IV of France and Marie de Medicis, in the hopes of forging an Anglo-French alliance - that too failed to materialise. This foray into international diplomacy led to war between England and France and the doomed La Rochelle expedition. The English fleet had tried to relieve the city from Louis XIII, but failed to breach the sea wall and had to limp home. In Portsmouth he met his end at the hands of an Englishman. In ATL he survives the assassination attempt presumably Mr Felton was manipulated by the Cardinal's agents in to trying to kill the Duke. There would be many people in England that would be disappointed that Buckingham was still breathing. In OTL following his death England retreated in on itself, much to the dismay of the Protestant forces in Europe, and signed peace treaties with France and Spain. I am not sure what the attempt on his life would do exactly. England was losing at the game of international politics. Parliament was becoming increasingly hostile towards the Court. Charles I was becoming ever more autocratic. Conflict was brewing. It was a delicate balance and one wrong move could ignite a Civil War. Parliament would not want war with France. Charles I would be incensed at the assassination attempt, but I doubt he would be willing, just yet, to topple the carefully arranged dominos. In my humble opinion I would suggest that Richelieu was attempting to take advantage of the situation and push England in to a debilitating and protracted conflict and perhaps thought that making a move against the life of the King's closest confidant was the necessary spark that would light the blue touch paper. I doubt that Richelieu would have acted on his own initiative and therefore this plot would most certainly have the blessing of King Louis XIII. In order to carry out this audacious attack the Cardinal would have had inside help i.e. a member of Parliament perhaps. The actors would however seize on this failed attempt to start a rumour. Felton would have been interrogated in Portsmouth and forced to disclose that the English Parliament was involved somehow. It is said that "a lie will gallop halfway round the world before the truth has time to pull its breeches on" and in this situation that would prove disastrously correct. News reaches Charles I in London that his Parliament was in league with the French...
Thanks for the background as I knew very little about the incident or Villiers but does sounds like him surviving isn't going to be good for England. Whether France was involved in the attempt or not and Ceredigion seems convinced they were and give how close Villiers and Charles are its likely to mean further conflict with France, which I can't see being good for England - or the rest of the union. It could also be bad for the Protestant cause - or more broadly the anti-Hapsburg one as France might be distracted from its later support of them or simply pushed onto a more anti-Protestant stance.
It might well trigger an earlier civil war but if starting during a conflict with France or after another defeat, which seems likely just about anything could happen. OTL Charles's cause was weakened by the fact he had managed to prompt rebellion in England, Scotland and Ireland but things might be different here. A win by Charles would very likely be disastrous for the country.
Steve
|
|
mach2
Banned
Posts: 70
Likes: 47
|
Post by mach2 on Sept 14, 2020 19:13:38 GMT
Interesting... George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham had a target painted on his back and had made many enemies. In OTL he was assassinated by a disgruntled Naval Lieutenant, John Felton, in Portsmouth. He was a man of inadequate talents, but his close relationship with King James I & VI bought him power and wealth, which he used to enrich his own family. This angered many people chief amongst them Parliament. Buckingham's first effort at international diplomacy came in 1623 when he tried to arrange a marriage between James' son Charles, Prince of Wales (later King Charles I) and the Infanta, Maria Anna of Spain. The 'Spanish Match' was part of James I & VI plan to become financially independent. The Anglo-Spanish alliance would also secure the Palatinate for his son-in-law Frederick V, who had lost his hereditary lands to Spanish and Bavarian forces. Unfortunately Buckingham was an arrogant man and he managed to alienate the Spanish and any hope of a union between the Infanta and the Prince of Wales were dashed. Buckingham returned to London and convinced James to declare war on Spain. The Anglo-Spanish War was a humiliating defeat with the crowning disaster - the Cadiz Expedition which took a great amount of resources to conduct but resulted in absolutely nothing... By this time Charles, Prince of Wales had ascended the Throne as Charles I and he and Villiers had become close so much so that Charles simply did not acknowledge the debacle that was the Cadiz Expedition. The Duke managed to outwit his enemies for now and he went on to arrange the union of King Charles I of England and Scotland to Henriette-Marie, daughter of Henri IV of France and Marie de Medicis, in the hopes of forging an Anglo-French alliance - that too failed to materialise. This foray into international diplomacy led to war between England and France and the doomed La Rochelle expedition. The English fleet had tried to relieve the city from Louis XIII, but failed to breach the sea wall and had to limp home. In Portsmouth he met his end at the hands of an Englishman. In ATL he survives the assassination attempt presumably Mr Felton was manipulated by the Cardinal's agents in to trying to kill the Duke. There would be many people in England that would be disappointed that Buckingham was still breathing. In OTL following his death England retreated in on itself, much to the dismay of the Protestant forces in Europe, and signed peace treaties with France and Spain. I am not sure what the attempt on his life would do exactly. England was losing at the game of international politics. Parliament was becoming increasingly hostile towards the Court. Charles I was becoming ever more autocratic. Conflict was brewing. It was a delicate balance and one wrong move could ignite a Civil War. Parliament would not want war with France. Charles I would be incensed at the assassination attempt, but I doubt he would be willing, just yet, to topple the carefully arranged dominos. In my humble opinion I would suggest that Richelieu was attempting to take advantage of the situation and push England in to a debilitating and protracted conflict and perhaps thought that making a move against the life of the King's closest confidant was the necessary spark that would light the blue touch paper. I doubt that Richelieu would have acted on his own initiative and therefore this plot would most certainly have the blessing of King Louis XIII. In order to carry out this audacious attack the Cardinal would have had inside help i.e. a member of Parliament perhaps. The actors would however seize on this failed attempt to start a rumour. Felton would have been interrogated in Portsmouth and forced to disclose that the English Parliament was involved somehow. It is said that "a lie will gallop halfway round the world before the truth has time to pull its breeches on" and in this situation that would prove disastrously correct. News reaches Charles I in London that his Parliament was in league with the French...
Thanks for the background as I knew very little about the incident or Villiers but does sounds like him surviving isn't going to be good for England. Whether France was involved in the attempt or not and Ceredigion seems convinced they were and give how close Villiers and Charles are its likely to mean further conflict with France, which I can't see being good for England - or the rest of the union. It could also be bad for the Protestant cause - or more broadly the anti-Hapsburg one as France might be distracted from its later support of them or simply pushed onto a more anti-Protestant stance.
It might well trigger an earlier civil war but if starting during a conflict with France or after another defeat, which seems likely just about anything could happen. OTL Charles's cause was weakened by the fact he had managed to prompt rebellion in England, Scotland and Ireland but things might be different here. A win by Charles would very likely be disastrous for the country.
Steve
The flame didn't need much oxygen to explode in to a fire ball. The Commons had tried to impeach Buckingham for his botched Cadiz Expedition but Charles simply dissolved them. Buckingham's exploration of international politics had plunged the country in to a war with France and Spain. Charles desperately needed money and raised a 'force loan' which was declared illegal by the Judges - he removed them. That was Charles' solution to everything if it caused him a problem remove it... The La Rochelle expedition came during Charles' third Parliament (convened March 1628) and this time he actually capitulated to Parliament's demands The four principles (1) no taxation without consent of Parliament, (2) no imprisonment without cause, (3) no quartering of soldiers on subjects and (4) no martial law in peacetime. He really had no choice Buckingham's failure to help the Huguenots had damaged the government. January 1629 Buckingham is assassinated and the Commons was becoming even more bold in its demands. Charles dissolved them and ruled for 11 years without a Parliament. Charles was forced rather humiliatingly to sign a peace treaty with France and Spain. I wonder in the ATL what if Charles is more canny in his dealing with the Parliamentarians. He was aware that Parliament was in a revolutionary mood so perhaps the rumours of a Parliamentary/French assassination attempt would not come as a surprise to him. Sensing trouble Charles sends a messenger to his northern Kingdom. In OTL Charles had alienated his northern subjects early on his reign and in 1637 he forced his religious policy on the Scots. The Scots were not happy with this and they raised a well organised army and by 8 June the King had lost. Buckingham's replaces William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Strafford the Lord Deputy in Ireland advised the King to convene another Parliament to raise money to wage war against Scotland. True to form Parliament refused and Charles dissolved it. War went on until a Scottish Army moved across the border and forced Charles to suffer a second humiliating defeat. He raises another Parliament, but this time his authority had diminished to such an extent that he had no choice but to agree to surrender the right to dissolve Parliament. If Buckingham is alive there would be no Laud or Strafford and perhaps Charles would look to his homeland and 'compatriots' for some protection. He would try to negotiate a secret treaty with the Scottish Parliament in the hopes that when the inevitable happens the Scots would be able to at least secure northern England and spirit the King away from London and to Edinburgh perhaps. From Scotland he would be able to contain the civil war to England and with Scottish assistance crush the upstart Cromwell. Just a thought... |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,411
Likes: 12,030
|
Post by stevep on Sept 15, 2020 14:25:42 GMT
Thanks for the background as I knew very little about the incident or Villiers but does sounds like him surviving isn't going to be good for England. Whether France was involved in the attempt or not and Ceredigion seems convinced they were and give how close Villiers and Charles are its likely to mean further conflict with France, which I can't see being good for England - or the rest of the union. It could also be bad for the Protestant cause - or more broadly the anti-Hapsburg one as France might be distracted from its later support of them or simply pushed onto a more anti-Protestant stance.
It might well trigger an earlier civil war but if starting during a conflict with France or after another defeat, which seems likely just about anything could happen. OTL Charles's cause was weakened by the fact he had managed to prompt rebellion in England, Scotland and Ireland but things might be different here. A win by Charles would very likely be disastrous for the country.
Steve
The flame didn't need much oxygen to explode in to a fire ball. The Commons had tried to impeach Buckingham for his botched Cadiz Expedition but Charles simply dissolved them. Buckingham's exploration of international politics had plunged the country in to a war with France and Spain. Charles desperately needed money and raised a 'force loan' which was declared illegal by the Judges - he removed them. That was Charles' solution to everything if it caused him a problem remove it... The La Rochelle expedition came during Charles' third Parliament (convened March 1628) and this time he actually capitulated to Parliament's demands The four principles (1) no taxation without consent of Parliament, (2) no imprisonment without cause, (3) no quartering of soldiers on subjects and (4) no martial law in peacetime. He really had no choice Buckingham's failure to help the Huguenots had damaged the government. January 1629 Buckingham is assassinated and the Commons was becoming even more bold in its demands. Charles dissolved them and ruled for 11 years without a Parliament. Charles was forced rather humiliatingly to sign a peace treaty with France and Spain. I wonder in the ATL what if Charles is more canny in his dealing with the Parliamentarians. He was aware that Parliament was in a revolutionary mood so perhaps the rumours of a Parliamentary/French assassination attempt would not come as a surprise to him. Sensing trouble Charles sends a messenger to his northern Kingdom. In OTL Charles had alienated his northern subjects early on his reign and in 1637 he forced his religious policy on the Scots. The Scots were not happy with this and they raised a well organised army and by 8 June the King had lost. Buckingham's replaces William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Strafford the Lord Deputy in Ireland advised the King to convene another Parliament to raise money to wage war against Scotland. True to form Parliament refused and Charles dissolved it. War went on until a Scottish Army moved across the border and forced Charles to suffer a second humiliating defeat. He raises another Parliament, but this time his authority had diminished to such an extent that he had no choice but to agree to surrender the right to dissolve Parliament. If Buckingham is alive there would be no Laud or Strafford and perhaps Charles would look to his homeland and 'compatriots' for some protection. He would try to negotiate a secret treaty with the Scottish Parliament in the hopes that when the inevitable happens the Scots would be able to at least secure northern England and spirit the King away from London and to Edinburgh perhaps. From Scotland he would be able to contain the civil war to England and with Scottish assistance crush the upstart Cromwell. Just a thought...
Possibly although that would require a substantially different Charles. His father realised the importance of compromise but he never did and seems always to seek to break any agreement he made if it restricted his divinely supplied power to rule without check. If he's a lot more rational then he could rule more like his father and avoid most of the problems he generated himself.
I remember reading a while back that the hard line Puritans were in decline by 1640 so that suggests they were stronger earlier which could be an issue as well. Cromwell only emerged some way through the OTL CW so if it started say a decade earlier he could never become a significant figures regardless of who wins. A restored absolute monarchy is possible but likely to be bad for all concerned. Especially since if Charles can break resistance in England he's likely to quickly seek to bring Scotland to heel as well. Plus unless he goes clearly catholic, which seems unlikely and would alienate even more people in both England and Scotland, he's going to have unrest in Ireland.
However even if he won in the short term I can't see Charles keeping all three kingdoms suppressed for long as there would simply be too much unrest.
Steve
|
|
mach2
Banned
Posts: 70
Likes: 47
|
Post by mach2 on Sept 26, 2020 6:00:32 GMT
The flame didn't need much oxygen to explode in to a fire ball. The Commons had tried to impeach Buckingham for his botched Cadiz Expedition but Charles simply dissolved them. Buckingham's exploration of international politics had plunged the country in to a war with France and Spain. Charles desperately needed money and raised a 'force loan' which was declared illegal by the Judges - he removed them. That was Charles' solution to everything if it caused him a problem remove it... The La Rochelle expedition came during Charles' third Parliament (convened March 1628) and this time he actually capitulated to Parliament's demands The four principles (1) no taxation without consent of Parliament, (2) no imprisonment without cause, (3) no quartering of soldiers on subjects and (4) no martial law in peacetime. He really had no choice Buckingham's failure to help the Huguenots had damaged the government. January 1629 Buckingham is assassinated and the Commons was becoming even more bold in its demands. Charles dissolved them and ruled for 11 years without a Parliament. Charles was forced rather humiliatingly to sign a peace treaty with France and Spain. I wonder in the ATL what if Charles is more canny in his dealing with the Parliamentarians. He was aware that Parliament was in a revolutionary mood so perhaps the rumours of a Parliamentary/French assassination attempt would not come as a surprise to him. Sensing trouble Charles sends a messenger to his northern Kingdom. In OTL Charles had alienated his northern subjects early on his reign and in 1637 he forced his religious policy on the Scots. The Scots were not happy with this and they raised a well organised army and by 8 June the King had lost. Buckingham's replaces William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Strafford the Lord Deputy in Ireland advised the King to convene another Parliament to raise money to wage war against Scotland. True to form Parliament refused and Charles dissolved it. War went on until a Scottish Army moved across the border and forced Charles to suffer a second humiliating defeat. He raises another Parliament, but this time his authority had diminished to such an extent that he had no choice but to agree to surrender the right to dissolve Parliament. If Buckingham is alive there would be no Laud or Strafford and perhaps Charles would look to his homeland and 'compatriots' for some protection. He would try to negotiate a secret treaty with the Scottish Parliament in the hopes that when the inevitable happens the Scots would be able to at least secure northern England and spirit the King away from London and to Edinburgh perhaps. From Scotland he would be able to contain the civil war to England and with Scottish assistance crush the upstart Cromwell. Just a thought...
Possibly although that would require a substantially different Charles. His father realised the importance of compromise but he never did and seems always to seek to break any agreement he made if it restricted his divinely supplied power to rule without check. If he's a lot more rational then he could rule more like his father and avoid most of the problems he generated himself.
I remember reading a while back that the hard line Puritans were in decline by 1640 so that suggests they were stronger earlier which could be an issue as well. Cromwell only emerged some way through the OTL CW so if it started say a decade earlier he could never become a significant figures regardless of who wins. A restored absolute monarchy is possible but likely to be bad for all concerned. Especially since if Charles can break resistance in England he's likely to quickly seek to bring Scotland to heel as well. Plus unless he goes clearly catholic, which seems unlikely and would alienate even more people in both England and Scotland, he's going to have unrest in Ireland.
However even if he won in the short term I can't see Charles keeping all three kingdoms suppressed for long as there would simply be too much unrest.
Steve
In OTL Charles I was able to make a deal with the Engager faction of the Covenantors a three year union between Scots and English Presbyterians in return for his dynastic security i.e. the continuation of the Stuart line. If he was able to bring himself to do that then I don't see why he couldn't have made such an arrangement earlier on when he knew that the English Parliament were moving against him. The issue would be Ireland rather than 'Great Britain'. Charles could seek a compromise although if memory serves he wasn't fond of Catholics - they tried to kill his father... |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,411
Likes: 12,030
|
Post by stevep on Sept 26, 2020 11:00:55 GMT
Possibly although that would require a substantially different Charles. His father realised the importance of compromise but he never did and seems always to seek to break any agreement he made if it restricted his divinely supplied power to rule without check. If he's a lot more rational then he could rule more like his father and avoid most of the problems he generated himself.
I remember reading a while back that the hard line Puritans were in decline by 1640 so that suggests they were stronger earlier which could be an issue as well. Cromwell only emerged some way through the OTL CW so if it started say a decade earlier he could never become a significant figures regardless of who wins. A restored absolute monarchy is possible but likely to be bad for all concerned. Especially since if Charles can break resistance in England he's likely to quickly seek to bring Scotland to heel as well. Plus unless he goes clearly catholic, which seems unlikely and would alienate even more people in both England and Scotland, he's going to have unrest in Ireland.
However even if he won in the short term I can't see Charles keeping all three kingdoms suppressed for long as there would simply be too much unrest.
Steve
In OTL Charles I was able to make a deal with the Engager faction of the Covenantors a three year union between Scots and English Presbyterians in return for his dynastic security i.e. the continuation of the Stuart line. If he was able to bring himself to do that then I don't see why he couldn't have made such an arrangement earlier on when he knew that the English Parliament were moving against him. The issue would be Ireland rather than 'Great Britain'. Charles could seek a compromise although if memory serves he wasn't fond of Catholics - they tried to kill his father...
Of course it all depends on what happens when he feels secure enough to break his agreement. He was notoriously bad at over-estimating his position so that could come before he can totally crush alternatives to autocratic power in England.
|
|
mach2
Banned
Posts: 70
Likes: 47
|
Post by mach2 on Sept 27, 2020 2:18:04 GMT
In OTL Charles I was able to make a deal with the Engager faction of the Covenantors a three year union between Scots and English Presbyterians in return for his dynastic security i.e. the continuation of the Stuart line. If he was able to bring himself to do that then I don't see why he couldn't have made such an arrangement earlier on when he knew that the English Parliament were moving against him. The issue would be Ireland rather than 'Great Britain'. Charles could seek a compromise although if memory serves he wasn't fond of Catholics - they tried to kill his father...
Of course it all depends on what happens when he feels secure enough to break his agreement. He was notoriously bad at over-estimating his position so that could come before he can totally crush alternatives to autocratic power in England.
It would be a thin line to walk on the one hand he would not want to alienate his English subjects, but on the other he would have to curry favour with the Scottish nobility. The English Parliament will be compliant but there would come a time, if Charles play this wrong, that they may become bold and seek to move against him. If Charles looks like he is favouring the English Parliament that could come across, to the Scots, as trying to break his agreement with them. He will also then have to be careful how he behaves because whilst the English may be weary of his wrath the Scots will not be. Then there is a possibility that the Scots and English will unite to 'remove' him... |
|
