Ha ha, well, I am Swedish, and we unfortunately also have our monarchy still...
But, yes, it is very easy to love and admire these French brave republicans who were committed to liberty and the empowerment of the people and stayed true to their ideals (when everyone around them were compromising theirs), as well as true to each other ♥
Oh, definitely!
I will say that in the context of historical novels, I do appreciate the appealing trope where the protagonists are royalists deeply loyal to their (opposing) kings
You are going to enjoy Flight of the Heron in that case. : ) Though I will say that the book also does show the flaws of both causes, which is nice!
also, I think that in that context most such romantic historical protags tend to be royalists out of a love of a well-meaning sovereign and a loyalty to their country, not because they'd support divine right of kings and indentured servitude and widespread oppression and injustice towards their subjects?
Well, yes, of course they are not for oppression and injustice. : ) But they might in fact be for the divine and hereditary right of kings. From what I've read, I think a common argument for the landed gentry and nobility went like this: that it's very important to them to pass on their estates to their sons, that in fact to them, the family going on could be more important than individual members of the family. And the hereditary succession of the kings is this same thing writ large, and if you can just switch out the king, what's to stop the same thing happening to their families? (Of course I personally am not sympathetic to this argument, because such a society obviously had huge inequalities of resources and power.)
But I find it interesting that a cause like that (wanting the "rightful king" back on the throne) also attracted all kinds of other people, for other reasons. Like, the large numbers of smugglers in Kent and Sussex were Jacobites, and I doubt they cared about the "rightful king". They wanted to avoid import taxes and avoid English protectionism in trading, and avoid the power of the state, and I guess because they traded with France, and the Stuarts were in France, they became Jacobites? But I wonder how much sense that actually makes, because it's not like the Stuarts, when they were actually on the throne, did not want to strengthen the power of the state and make people pay taxes. Maybe it's just too hard to imagine another social system, so by default it becomes, "I guess the other king is better"?
Re: Les Mis, I am probably too deeply immersed in my current fandom to tackle it right now. But if/when I do, I actually think sewer systems sound interesting. : )
no subject
But, yes, it is very easy to love and admire these French brave republicans who were committed to liberty and the empowerment of the people and stayed true to their ideals (when everyone around them were compromising theirs), as well as true to each other ♥
Oh, definitely!
I will say that in the context of historical novels, I do appreciate the appealing trope where the protagonists are royalists deeply loyal to their (opposing) kings
You are going to enjoy Flight of the Heron in that case. : ) Though I will say that the book also does show the flaws of both causes, which is nice!
also, I think that in that context most such romantic historical protags tend to be royalists out of a love of a well-meaning sovereign and a loyalty to their country, not because they'd support divine right of kings and indentured servitude and widespread oppression and injustice towards their subjects?
Well, yes, of course they are not for oppression and injustice. : ) But they might in fact be for the divine and hereditary right of kings. From what I've read, I think a common argument for the landed gentry and nobility went like this: that it's very important to them to pass on their estates to their sons, that in fact to them, the family going on could be more important than individual members of the family. And the hereditary succession of the kings is this same thing writ large, and if you can just switch out the king, what's to stop the same thing happening to their families? (Of course I personally am not sympathetic to this argument, because such a society obviously had huge inequalities of resources and power.)
But I find it interesting that a cause like that (wanting the "rightful king" back on the throne) also attracted all kinds of other people, for other reasons. Like, the large numbers of smugglers in Kent and Sussex were Jacobites, and I doubt they cared about the "rightful king". They wanted to avoid import taxes and avoid English protectionism in trading, and avoid the power of the state, and I guess because they traded with France, and the Stuarts were in France, they became Jacobites? But I wonder how much sense that actually makes, because it's not like the Stuarts, when they were actually on the throne, did not want to strengthen the power of the state and make people pay taxes. Maybe it's just too hard to imagine another social system, so by default it becomes, "I guess the other king is better"?
Re: Les Mis, I am probably too deeply immersed in my current fandom to tackle it right now. But if/when I do, I actually think sewer systems sound interesting. : )