Home
Portal
Search
Latest images
Register
Log in
Leo X was the Pope who excommunicated Luther. I guess this is a slightly different context to simply reading a banned book 
+14
Stuart Bailey
Richard D. Watts
Kingmaker
Basileus
Frank
The Hessian
Ardagor
Regor
Deacon
jamesbond007
baggins
Goldstar
tek_604
count-de-monet
18 posters
G7 - France vs. England
Guest- Guest
I think he started out with "Obscure Men" and then worked his way up to Martin Luther 
The Revenant- Prince
- Number of posts : 495
Location : West Yorkshire
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2008-08-03
I'm only (!) a few years into my first and only game of GoK - but in 7's current situation, am I right in thinking that Louis continues for the moment as an npc run by Richard, and that an in-game-announced change of government/sovereign will only happen when a new player takes on the French position? If that is so then I guess we have to wait and see what Richard's France makes of Marlborough's actions. Has the Treaty of Bristol been violated in his view? Will the Franco-English war re-ignite? In these sorts of situation does Richard just mark time with a position, avoiding fundamental political judgements and actions? Anyone got any experience or views on this?
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
I'm curious too if others have evidence to suggest how richard will react with France. My guess would be he won't do much, just hammer the honour of england to 0 and then let the consequences of that play out.
Guest- Guest
The Real Louis of France wrote:[/size]The Real John Churchill wrote:...the spoon dredger that was the French reason for war in the first place, has been in France all along.
Seems a rather odd assertion given you only joined the game 3 months ago and so cannot know the situation of 3 years ago. What's done is done and you will live with whatever consequences you have to. As others have commented your actions have pushed the game to new lows. It is a great shame as the character of the Duke of Marlborough, if played historically, would have brought an exciting and interesting dimension to the game. Inviting your enemy to talks then killing him does seem to be at variance with your original statements to be acting with a higher degree of honour than previous English players. I was much criticised for insisting that high honourable standards for gameplay (rulers keeping their word/treaties, playing within the conventions of the period) are essential. Seems I was right
[/justify]
The assertion was made based on what was stated in the press by the GM - which effectively means the French invasion, based on England not having sent a mission for spoon dredgers, should never have gotten as far as it did. England did send the dredger mission and it was sent before France declared war.
In addition to that, I'm not new to the game, just new to the position.
More importantly though guys, this is just a game, and not a retelling of history. The main rule book gives players scope to try whatever they please. The GM would not allow a player to do anything that isn't at least feasible as it would unbalance the game. Players who enjoy exploring history can pursue that. Players who like trying alternate histories can go ahead and try. Players who like war, diplomacy, isolation or anything else are free to do so under the guidance of the GM. Indeed, even spectators can freely comment on games and read the newspapers that Tek very kindly posts.
I respect everyone on here and value a lot of the opinions that go back and forth on these pages, and I can appreciate that some guys here put in a huge amount of hours into the game, letters, planning etc. There is no need to be rude or disrespectful to each other on the forums (as all to often happens) but again, I can appreciate that when a player has spent 10 hours researching and writing their turn, paying perhaps £20, £30 or even more for their orders only to have it scuppered by some small detail or other, they'll be pretty miffed.
But, at the end of the day, this is a game and it should be fun. RJC has done what he's done, he's given all the ingredients to end the wars and France is an NPC (there is also, clearly, plenty of reasons to continue the war if any player wants to - but at the end of the day it would be because the player choose to do so, not because they 'have to' - its a game. It really is up to the GM and the remaining combatants (the players of UDP, Austria, Russia etc) as to what happens next.
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2606
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 61
Registration date : 2012-01-29
Very fair comment from the real John Churchill..............while I agree with fairly much everything he said in his last post I this think his Character in G7 is going to be marked down as a "dodgy bit of work" from here on in and is going to have to work really hard to improve his honour ranking.
If the next French player plays his cards right Churchill could even get to fill the spiritual hole left in G7 by the departure of the "Real Louis"
as public enemy No1.
In answer to Jim's question I think Richard will run France in a defensive manner and avoid any declarations about the treaty of Bristol etc while trying to fill the jacobite and French positions with a new player's ASAP.
The new French player will then probably been seen gleefully going through pages and pages of the Real Louis carefully built up war machine and desperately trying to work out who (from the french viewpoint deservidly) gets the **** kicked out of them.
If the next French player plays his cards right Churchill could even get to fill the spiritual hole left in G7 by the departure of the "Real Louis"
as public enemy No1.
In answer to Jim's question I think Richard will run France in a defensive manner and avoid any declarations about the treaty of Bristol etc while trying to fill the jacobite and French positions with a new player's ASAP.
The new French player will then probably been seen gleefully going through pages and pages of the Real Louis carefully built up war machine and desperately trying to work out who (from the french viewpoint deservidly) gets the **** kicked out of them.
Guest- Guest
The Real John Churchill wrote:
The assertion was made based on what was stated in the press by the GM - which effectively means the French invasion, based on England not having sent a mission for spoon dredgers, should never have gotten as far as it did. England did send the dredger mission and it was sent before France declared war.
This is clearly something we will never agree on. You are of course free to believe whatever you want to and play in whichever way you feel is appropriate. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am treating you with disrespect. If you commit regicide then don't expect it to be a popular move which is applauded by observers and players of the game. If the GM wants to resurrect long dead characters and claim missions were sent before declarations of war then he can do that too if it feels it helps the game. Nothing to do with me any more. But I will never accept something I know to be untrue however much others may insist on it. If you were to check back in your Heralds you will see that after the war started one of the players for England did indeed send a dredger mission to France. This is a rather odd thing for him to do if said mission had already appeared. It is equally rather odd for France to have declared war using the non-arrival of a dredger mission as the primary justification. This aspect has already been discussed here at length and I have no intention of repeating any of it.
You may not be new to the game, but the only players who know what the situation was when war was declared was the then player for England, the GM and me, so unless you were that previous player for England who sent the mission himself, then you will have to take my word for it. The GM has the luxury of being able to rewrite history if he wishes: I don't. Although I no longer have paper copies of the Herald going back to 1700, I do recall the death of King James II being reported in the Herald in 1701 and it was mid 1701 when I received a game letter from a player who claimed to be the son of the recently deceased king. I accept Deacon's/Stuart's comment that dates of death of historic figures are often changed in the game, but find it incredible after all this time that the James Stuart everyone thought they were dealing with was not in fact the one they were. Surely this would have been pointed out to me and other players in the 4 years since his father's death? That is only common sense. I made a number of mistakes whilst playing the game, but this is not one of them. If it was then every other player is guilty of the same mistake. The James Stuart who was with the French army in England was on my asset list as being born in 1688. If this was the same James Stuart who made the trip from Bristol to London to meet the Duke of Marlborough then he seems to have aged 52 years during the journey. Something doesn't add up and common sense suggests that the GM did indeed make a mistake. It does happen.
You may not be new to the game, but the only players who know what the situation was when war was declared was the then player for England, the GM and me, so unless you were that previous player for England who sent the mission himself, then you will have to take my word for it. The GM has the luxury of being able to rewrite history if he wishes: I don't. Although I no longer have paper copies of the Herald going back to 1700, I do recall the death of King James II being reported in the Herald in 1701 and it was mid 1701 when I received a game letter from a player who claimed to be the son of the recently deceased king. I accept Deacon's/Stuart's comment that dates of death of historic figures are often changed in the game, but find it incredible after all this time that the James Stuart everyone thought they were dealing with was not in fact the one they were. Surely this would have been pointed out to me and other players in the 4 years since his father's death? That is only common sense. I made a number of mistakes whilst playing the game, but this is not one of them. If it was then every other player is guilty of the same mistake. The James Stuart who was with the French army in England was on my asset list as being born in 1688. If this was the same James Stuart who made the trip from Bristol to London to meet the Duke of Marlborough then he seems to have aged 52 years during the journey. Something doesn't add up and common sense suggests that the GM did indeed make a mistake. It does happen.
Basileus- Prince
- Number of posts : 458
Age : 63
Location : Wales/Cornwall
Reputation : 13
Registration date : 2011-07-01
I think we would all agree that it was a quite a game turn. I have sympathy with the John Churchill position and the actions arent that unreasonable. England is invaded by France in support of the Jacobins, has the Dutch declaring war in support of William. The population are starving, there is a risk that the colonies could go their own way, the Royal Navy seems finished for. The mob have taken to the street in London and Parliament is in turmoil. The army are unwilling to turn against the mob.
If this had all happened in another fictional England, who is to say a strong military leader might not have dispatched one of the claiments to the throne to save years and years of civil war. The civil wars of the seventeenth century would have filled the English with horror at the prospect of another round, not to mention Dutch and French armies devastating the land.
Churchills action whilst suprising isnt, I think, too unhistorical and certainly not impossible.
If this had all happened in another fictional England, who is to say a strong military leader might not have dispatched one of the claiments to the throne to save years and years of civil war. The civil wars of the seventeenth century would have filled the English with horror at the prospect of another round, not to mention Dutch and French armies devastating the land.
Churchills action whilst suprising isnt, I think, too unhistorical and certainly not impossible.
The Hessian- Lord
- Number of posts : 85
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2010-09-28
Having spent the last 24 hrs digesting the actions of RJC and then reading the comments of various well nknown exponents of views re events ,actions,wording and any other in period titbit they wish to discourse upon. The bottom line is RJC was in a right fix. In life Churchill was a slippery fish. keeping in somewhat with the jacobites even when Williams main generalisimo in europe. In the stated situation, it needed a leader to stand up and do what he thought was right at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and everywhere a bucket of barrack room lawyers will turn up stating you shouldnt have done that, tacky or other less then helpful comments. He did it and it has apparently saved the English crown and now he has to save the country from armed occupation by Berwicks (oops james was my daddy even if I was illegitimate}occupying army, which if history is right and generally it is, they are probably not paying for supplies and could even be taking it without permission. heaven forbid and thus causing the jolly English peasant fellow some angst as to how he will feed his family if an army of pierres have bled his farmstead dry!. Anyway good luck to you as the player of RJC, a truly gutsy call and you are spot on about this being a game, I seriously feel some people have let their character take over their real persona sometimes to the detriment of respect and civility upon this forum. It is a game and if you arent james or berwick or even Louis anymore then let the game go on and see whether RJC gets his just deserts or otherwise becomes a blinkin hero..! No doubt effigys of me are being stabbed someat rotten with pins or needles right now and maybe even a letter to the pope to excommunicate me. heaven forbid. 
Guest- Guest
Thanks to everyone for there comments. Particularly pleased to see what actual players from G7 believe as they'll have the advantage of current in game knowledge.
I'll now refrain from any further discussion on the forum (though I'll reply to the PM) until my next turn spurs more discussion. I'm pretty sure it will (though Kings are safe this time)
But you are all now aware that England has a player that will do what he thinks right for England. And that is surely a good thing (if only to keep the forum ripe with debate).
Best Regards everybody.
I'll now refrain from any further discussion on the forum (though I'll reply to the PM) until my next turn spurs more discussion. I'm pretty sure it will (though Kings are safe this time)
But you are all now aware that England has a player that will do what he thinks right for England. And that is surely a good thing (if only to keep the forum ripe with debate).
Best Regards everybody.
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
Basileus wrote:I think we would all agree that it was a quite a game turn. I have sympathy with the John Churchill position and the actions arent that unreasonable. England is invaded by France in support of the Jacobins, has the Dutch declaring war in support of William. The population are starving, there is a risk that the colonies could go their own way, the Royal Navy seems finished for. The mob have taken to the street in London and Parliament is in turmoil. The army are unwilling to turn against the mob.
If this had all happened in another fictional England, who is to say a strong military leader might not have dispatched one of the claiments to the throne to save years and years of civil war. The civil wars of the seventeenth century would have filled the English with horror at the prospect of another round, not to mention Dutch and French armies devastating the land.
Churchills action whilst suprising isnt, I think, too unhistorical and certainly not impossible.
One of the few meaty things we can do in this forum is to "arm chair quarterback" others, particularly games we don't play, since it is hard to say much about positions you play without risking stepping across the "no diplomacy in the forums."
I agree that it's all within the realm. I think the fly in the ointment is the whole idea of in-game honour. Richard's carrot and stick to get people to act in a certain manner to maintain a certain ambiance within the game. Break those rules, pay the piper. So, while I agree it is absolutely within the realm, since it happened to charles the I ~50 ago in game time, there are some important distinctions. Since Parliament had agreed to the treaty accepting King James, it has now broken treaty with the requisite honour consequences.
I would certainly expect Marlborough to argue vigorously that the treaty was adhered to, he doesn't really have any other choice, but I would equally expect that those arguments wouldn't be very persuasive. While as others point out, no one in england can be happy to be occupied by french troops and the desperate situation there, they can equally not be happy that their government has just done something that ought to enrage the French and make their situation even worse.
Of course, Marlborough could also put all the blame on himself and shoot himself or just surrender personally to France, allowing parliament to disavow his actions. Who knows?
More popcorn!
The Hessian- Lord
- Number of posts : 85
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2010-09-28
I dont remember Marlborough being a signatory of the Treaty between France and James of England? So in fact he is not guilty of anything except having disposed of an ex King . Marlborough has the power in the land and has exercised it for the good of the country. I am sure King William will be extremely pleased and also have the the man watched intently and when all settled have the army reduced and parliament put Marlborough out to contented pasture.
As for handing himself over to the french or popping his clogs via a pistol shot. Sorry but you are way off base(colonist saying). You have no idea of how England felt towards the french heck lots arent too keen even now and todays ex colonists have a particular affection towards the french involving cheese and some animal. Power does corrupt and none of us has the true inside knowledge of the english position as Richard would never reveal how truly screwed up it was until player taken over, explain so many drop outs! Good luck to RJC as those who live by the sword can quite possibly die by it
Anyway for the minority who like military action in this period get observers attached to the swedish army as they are in a titanic struggle now with the muscovite masses! Much better action ! All the french are doing is losing the war of maneovre and allowing themselves to be picked off one by one. Maybe Louis will die as he wished in a field !
As for handing himself over to the french or popping his clogs via a pistol shot. Sorry but you are way off base(colonist saying). You have no idea of how England felt towards the french heck lots arent too keen even now and todays ex colonists have a particular affection towards the french involving cheese and some animal. Power does corrupt and none of us has the true inside knowledge of the english position as Richard would never reveal how truly screwed up it was until player taken over, explain so many drop outs! Good luck to RJC as those who live by the sword can quite possibly die by it
Anyway for the minority who like military action in this period get observers attached to the swedish army as they are in a titanic struggle now with the muscovite masses! Much better action ! All the french are doing is losing the war of maneovre and allowing themselves to be picked off one by one. Maybe Louis will die as he wished in a field !
count-de-monet- Duke
- Number of posts : 379
Age : 57
Location : Reading, Berkshire
Reputation : 18
Registration date : 2008-04-20
The Great Nothern War should be good reading in the coming months (years?). Preparing to support France in the south has meant a 120,000 force is in the wrong place at the wrong time ! Don my hat to Sweden he has struck at a perfect time and caught me napping (a bit) in the North.
Rd 1 to the Swedes but its not a knock-out punch and Russia knows how to play the waiting game.
Rd 1 to the Swedes but its not a knock-out punch and Russia knows how to play the waiting game.
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
The Hessian wrote:I dont remember Marlborough being a signatory of the Treaty between France and James of England? So in fact he is not guilty of anything except having disposed of an ex King . Marlborough has the power in the land and has exercised it for the good of the country. I am sure King William will be extremely pleased and also have the the man watched intently and when all settled have the army reduced and parliament put Marlborough out to contented pasture.
As for handing himself over to the french or popping his clogs via a pistol shot. Sorry but you are way off base(colonist saying). You have no idea of how England felt towards the french heck lots arent too keen even now and todays ex colonists have a particular affection towards the french involving cheese and some animal. Power does corrupt and none of us has the true inside knowledge of the english position as Richard would never reveal how truly screwed up it was until player taken over, explain so many drop outs! Good luck to RJC as those who live by the sword can quite possibly die by it
Anyway for the minority who like military action in this period get observers attached to the swedish army as they are in a titanic struggle now with the muscovite masses! Much better action ! All the french are doing is losing the war of maneovre and allowing themselves to be picked off one by one. Maybe Louis will die as he wished in a field !
I am merely pointing out the mechanics of the game itself. You can read the rulebook as well as I. If you make a treaty, and then break it, you lose honour until you repair the breach. Not sure how you can in this situation, but there are certainly things to attempt.
To say that Marlborough isn't parliament or a signatory is to say that Parliament doesn't rule in England. Once the treaty passed parliament it is the law of the land. It's like saying since Marlborough didn't pass a law against murder, he's allowed to commit murder. Marlborough, I guess, could repudiate parliament and try to be a 'dictator for the people' or the like, but elsewise popular or not, the rules say you get hammered on honour when you break treaties. Offing the guy Parliament said was King seems about as clear a breach to me as you could ask for in a game.
I guess you could argue "we hate frenchies, so it doesn't matter if we break treaties with them", but I don't see any support in the rules for such a position. If you weren't going to accept King James, then parliament shouldn't have passed the treaties. Historical antipathy between nations isn't given an exemption in the rule book, though with Richard you never know what is going to happen...
So either the entire government is tainted with the treaty breach and the honour consequences, or you do something to explain it away, or contain it. Hence my comments.
I can't speak for Richard, but I'd be surprised if King William was happy about this turn of events. I'm sure he wanted the throne back and the damn french put in their place, but historically to my knowledge Kings were pretty picky about royal persons and didn't like when fellow monarchs got offed. It gave the rabble ideas
.I shall also enjoy hearing how things develop for Sweden and Russia. Now there's a dust-up that will shake the rafters!
Guest- Guest
The Hessian wrote:... those who live by the sword can quite possibly die by it
At last, something Hessian and I can agree on!
Otherwise I fully endorse Deacon's explanation. Churchill made the 2 Treaties King James signed with France as his own and forced their acceptance through Parliament against some opposition. These treaties recognised King James and settled peace with France on behalf of Parliament. For him to turn round and kill the accepted King (King James) is an act of regicide and however you try to justify it is dishonourable. It may be popular, but it is still dishonourable. If I had invited Leopold to Versailles and murdered him there would be justifiable outrage against France and I can just imagine the kind of things certain players would say.
Even if you claim Marlborough was simply acting as an agent for William and never negotiated with King James in good faith, it is still the equivalent of inviting your enemy for talks and then killing him under a flag of truce. As an act it is completely outside period and historical precedent.
Had Churchill secretly poisoned King James then he could have at least tried to cover his tracks, though I imagine had I done that to Leopold it wouldn't have stopped the Hapsburgs accusing me of all kinds of things. As it stands it looks like Churchill has done France an enormous favour by creating a Catholic saint and making it impossible for any Catholic to support him. I can't wait for a Papal statement on this!
English parliaments of the period were very keen on bringing down those overmighty nobles who threatened their independence. There is such a thing as the honour of the Houses of Parliament. And they had a great fear of a standing army, so if Churchill's plan is to keep England under some form of military dictatorship he would likely face a great deal of internal opposition. William may well become King, but if he endorses Churchill's action I don't see how he will ever be trusted.
Basileus- Prince
- Number of posts : 458
Age : 63
Location : Wales/Cornwall
Reputation : 13
Registration date : 2011-07-01
Nobody can say its not entertaining.
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
Basileus wrote:Nobody can say its not entertaining.
Certainly not! And since the goal of a game is to entertain, perhaps England's move was a good one
Richard D. Watts- Baron
- Number of posts : 116
Reputation : 7
Registration date : 2008-04-21
Just for the record, games of Glory of Kings usually start in 1700 and historical personalities such as King James (and for that matter King William) do not necessarily die on their historical dates of death in the game itself.
James II, the chap just killed, was indeed the James II who in the game did not die at an earlier date in the game, and I'm pretty convinced we at AGEMA never said he died in 1701 and so this wasn't an error.
It would have been odd if the above were not so, seeing in-game this James was made an honorary field marshal of Bavaria in 1703, and had a portrait of himself done by Joseph Vivien in June 1703. He clearly wasn't announced dead in 1701 then!
He was crowned - or if you prefer crowned again - at Canterbury in-game while following a player's orders to do so. Whether it was necessary to do so or not was not something AGEMA commented upon!
James Francis Edward Stuart, his son, remains alive and kicking in the game... !
James II, the chap just killed, was indeed the James II who in the game did not die at an earlier date in the game, and I'm pretty convinced we at AGEMA never said he died in 1701 and so this wasn't an error.
It would have been odd if the above were not so, seeing in-game this James was made an honorary field marshal of Bavaria in 1703, and had a portrait of himself done by Joseph Vivien in June 1703. He clearly wasn't announced dead in 1701 then!
He was crowned - or if you prefer crowned again - at Canterbury in-game while following a player's orders to do so. Whether it was necessary to do so or not was not something AGEMA commented upon!
James Francis Edward Stuart, his son, remains alive and kicking in the game... !
The Hessian- Lord
- Number of posts : 85
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2010-09-28
If I may raise a slight missing act that is English law somewhat essential. When laws in this land are passed by aprliament they then go for royal assent ie signed off! These days that is automatic but in 1700s that was not such an automatic act and sadly with 2 supposed kings in play the armchair lawyer can state that neither treaty or act were legal as neither signed into law by the lawful king of the moment King William and as such were not legally worth the scrap of paper they were written on (well maybe for historians!)
As for agreeing with Louis ...that is so wrong on so many levels to be impossible.and please why does your script always have to be so much bigger than everyone elses??
Deacon, the rule book is not 100% enforceable as it cannot in real life as no international law at this time. Please feel free to spend your time trying to introduce it. I just dont quite get where you feel you have such a feel for how King william or others would feel according to Marlboroughs actions. It is amusing and mystifying to me. Its probably the 20th century in me . Actually remind me are you in game 7 and if so which honourable state are you. I am the terrible bete noire baverie!
As for agreeing with Louis ...that is so wrong on so many levels to be impossible.and please why does your script always have to be so much bigger than everyone elses??
Deacon, the rule book is not 100% enforceable as it cannot in real life as no international law at this time. Please feel free to spend your time trying to introduce it. I just dont quite get where you feel you have such a feel for how King william or others would feel according to Marlboroughs actions. It is amusing and mystifying to me. Its probably the 20th century in me . Actually remind me are you in game 7 and if so which honourable state are you. I am the terrible bete noire baverie!
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I don't play game 7, though it is tempting . My comments are as a spectator to the game.
The rules say when you break a treaty, you lose honour until the breach is remedied. This is enforced by Richard as GM. As I said, you could argue that it wasn't a treaty breach, but I think the arguments you could make are pretty specious. Hence, I would expect Richard to hit England's honour for a treaty breach. It has nothing to do with 'enforcing' the rules. It has to do with a fundamental part of the way Richard put the game together. A point I happen to like about the game.
Marlborough agrees to the treaty terms which include naming James King, and then kills James.
I expect the consequence of that in-game would be a significant hit to England's honour.
I think, historically, most monarchs really hated regicide because that's the slippery slope that lead to things like the reign of terror. If the royal majesty of one king isn't respected, it's a pretty short road to no royal person being respected. My sense is Richard wants some gentle dignity to the game to avoid everyone just hiring a bunch of assassins and mowing through their opponents, so these kind of "just kill the guy" things are frowned on. Not to say it doesn't happen, and maybe England's back was to the wall, but the general rule I think still applies.
Whether richard agrees with me, I guess we'll find out in coming turns. I think King William is in a sticky spot, personally.
I think saying, objectively, "england signed a treaty, then broke it, their honour is going to get hit" shouldn't be very controversial. You can argue differently, but I expect Richard will see those arguments for what they are, and apply the game rules.
But who knows? Maybe the "we hate the french so much that breaking treaties with them and murdering a catholic King we accepted just makes good englishmen cheer" argument will hold.
As I've argued here, I don't think so, but Richard's logic is pretty inscrutible to me on some issues.
Looking forward to the next few turns to see how this plays out. The purpose of a game is entertainment, and this certainly is doing that!
. My comments are as a spectator to the game.The rules say when you break a treaty, you lose honour until the breach is remedied. This is enforced by Richard as GM. As I said, you could argue that it wasn't a treaty breach, but I think the arguments you could make are pretty specious. Hence, I would expect Richard to hit England's honour for a treaty breach. It has nothing to do with 'enforcing' the rules. It has to do with a fundamental part of the way Richard put the game together. A point I happen to like about the game.
Marlborough agrees to the treaty terms which include naming James King, and then kills James.
I expect the consequence of that in-game would be a significant hit to England's honour.
I think, historically, most monarchs really hated regicide because that's the slippery slope that lead to things like the reign of terror. If the royal majesty of one king isn't respected, it's a pretty short road to no royal person being respected. My sense is Richard wants some gentle dignity to the game to avoid everyone just hiring a bunch of assassins and mowing through their opponents, so these kind of "just kill the guy" things are frowned on. Not to say it doesn't happen, and maybe England's back was to the wall, but the general rule I think still applies.
Whether richard agrees with me, I guess we'll find out in coming turns. I think King William is in a sticky spot, personally.
I think saying, objectively, "england signed a treaty, then broke it, their honour is going to get hit" shouldn't be very controversial. You can argue differently, but I expect Richard will see those arguments for what they are, and apply the game rules.
But who knows? Maybe the "we hate the french so much that breaking treaties with them and murdering a catholic King we accepted just makes good englishmen cheer" argument will hold.
As I've argued here, I don't think so, but Richard's logic is pretty inscrutible to me on some issues.
Looking forward to the next few turns to see how this plays out. The purpose of a game is entertainment, and this certainly is doing that!
Last edited by Deacon on Mon May 14, 2012 11:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
The Hessian wrote:Louis ...and please why does your script always have to be so much bigger than everyone elses??
I find larger text sizes easier to read: it reduces eye strain.
Thank you Richard for clearing up the confusion over which King James was murdered. That revelation certainly makes for interesting game play from now on as it looks like Stuart was right and Churchill has killed the wrong King James. I'm sorry for any confusion I may have inadvertently caused to other players, but can only go on what my own knowledge of the game was at the time I was playing. I certainly always understood it was James Francis Edward Stuart (b.1688) who was with French forces in England, and who was the Jacobite heir to the crown of England.
The published Documents of Accession and Concorde of Bristol specified King James (b.1688) was crowned King and so perhaps this error should have been picked up back then (July 1705) by some eagle-eyed player or at least pointed out to me that I had crowned the wrong King James. As these documents were accepted in English law by Marlborough and Parliament it looks like King James (b.1688) is still king of England (though I guess another coronation may be necessary) and all Marlborough has done is kill his father. Perhaps Hessian would like to argue that the murdered King James would not have given his consent to an Act of Parliament passing the crown to his son? Still, the substance doesn't change as we still have a murdered Catholic king, and far from ending the Jacobite cause it has merely taken on a whole new dimension.
Thank you Richard for clearing up the confusion over which King James was murdered. That revelation certainly makes for interesting game play from now on as it looks like Stuart was right and Churchill has killed the wrong King James. I'm sorry for any confusion I may have inadvertently caused to other players, but can only go on what my own knowledge of the game was at the time I was playing. I certainly always understood it was James Francis Edward Stuart (b.1688) who was with French forces in England, and who was the Jacobite heir to the crown of England.
The published Documents of Accession and Concorde of Bristol specified King James (b.1688) was crowned King and so perhaps this error should have been picked up back then (July 1705) by some eagle-eyed player or at least pointed out to me that I had crowned the wrong King James. As these documents were accepted in English law by Marlborough and Parliament it looks like King James (b.1688) is still king of England (though I guess another coronation may be necessary) and all Marlborough has done is kill his father. Perhaps Hessian would like to argue that the murdered King James would not have given his consent to an Act of Parliament passing the crown to his son? Still, the substance doesn't change as we still have a murdered Catholic king, and far from ending the Jacobite cause it has merely taken on a whole new dimension.
The Hessian- Lord
- Number of posts : 85
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2010-09-28
You are right in only one matter, the game due to considerable human error has take a whole new turn but this currently alive James whatever the number is a french puppet protected by french bayonets(for now) and he is up against the rightful King William, army, navy and the vast majority pof the English population. not to mention nations vowed to see William restored to the utter damnation of the tyrant Louis!! Someone pass me an effigy of Louis so I can personally run him through as its the nearest I am going to get to him. Anyway louis think on the brightside you are not personally running this mess that is going to get a while load poopier very soon!!
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
I guess we'll see whose interpretation of events is correct in the coming months.
The law of england since the crusades is that the crown passes instantly to the next in line at the death of the former king. No coronation or act of parliament needed.
The law of england since the crusades is that the crown passes instantly to the next in line at the death of the former king. No coronation or act of parliament needed.
Guest- Guest
Deacon wrote:The law of England since the crusades is that the crown passes instantly to the next in line at the death of the former king. No coronation or act of parliament needed.
This is where it gets interesting and is probably the root problem in the game. As far as I know, no one doubts the right of the Stuarts to rule (in 1660), and at that time the crown passed to King James. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but Bavaria contends that the 1689 Act of Settlement (an Act of Parliament) stated that by leaving the country King James abandoned the throne. Parliament then invited Mary (and William, as her husband) to rule as joint monarchs. That same Act of Settlement specified that the crown would then pass to Mary's children (none extant), then Anne, then failing that William's children from another marriage. William is dead so the act clearly does not allow the current William (son of William) to claim the throne.
As Anne has so far been silent (and the real life Anne was very reluctant to claim anything whilst James Francis Edward Stuart had a stronger claim), it looks liked before the passing of the treaties in 1705 there was no living protestant monarch from William's death. So far this is a good argument, but it can only be pushed so far because the Act of Settlement 1701 was not passed in the game. It has 2 major additional problems:
1. King James never accepted he had abandoned the throne, or the right of succession due to his children and until his death (as we now know, in 1706 in the game) claimed to be King in exile. If Deacon is right then just as no coronation or act of parliament is needed to confirm the rightful succession, neither can one strip King James of his kingship. All the Treaty of Ryswick did was to call a truce until William's death (in 1705 game time), it did not confirm the House of Orange had displaced the House of Stuart, far from it. It can be strongly argued that with 75-80% of England under the control of French forces fighting for King James, and Ireland having declared for King James, then the crown was his by right of conquest. No doubt this point will cause much argument, but before people get bogged down in the detail, a far stronger point is ...
2. No Parliament can bind its successor: an earlier act can be replaced by a later one. The provisions of the 1689 Act of Settlement were undone by the Concorde of Bristol/Proclamation of Accession. Those documents, accepted by Churchill, passed by Parliament and approved by King James (the deemed kingly authority at the time, whether you like it or not), settle the succession on James Francis Edward Stuart (b.1688). That he is a Catholic is now irrelevant in law. This is one of the things I was always keen to get accepted in my negotiations with the Jacobite player: the establishment of freedom of worship for Catholics and the removal of anti-Catholic legislation. The text of the treaties have been published in the Herald and earlier in this thread, so I don't think there can be any doubt about what has been passed into English law.
In what is starting to become a habit, I agree with Bavaria that a Catholic king would be unpopular in England, that he is currently supported by a large number of French troops in England and that larger chunks of the English establishment are no doubt unhappy about what has happened. However, that is where things are. If Churchill doesn't like it then I'm sure he'll find a way to change them. Perhaps his next move will be to burn down Parliament to destroy the rest of the opposition to him and proclaim a military dictatorship? In terms of dastardly behavior from non-pirate rulers, killing a king is hard to beat. Ignoring Parliament should be easy. A long time ago in the first game of LGDR I ever played in was a character (I think Spanish) called Carlos Medina who got away with all kinds of quite outrageous behaviour, ended up with control of about 65% of the world and then went bankrupt. An extraordinary achievement. Perhaps Churchill is the reincarnation of Carlos Medina and intends to beat even that record. If so you are in for a very entertaining time.
Perhaps a more interesting question, is where is King James? If he's not with the French army any more, then is he in Rome, petitioning the Pope for a crusade against those who murdered his father?
As Anne has so far been silent (and the real life Anne was very reluctant to claim anything whilst James Francis Edward Stuart had a stronger claim), it looks liked before the passing of the treaties in 1705 there was no living protestant monarch from William's death. So far this is a good argument, but it can only be pushed so far because the Act of Settlement 1701 was not passed in the game. It has 2 major additional problems:
1. King James never accepted he had abandoned the throne, or the right of succession due to his children and until his death (as we now know, in 1706 in the game) claimed to be King in exile. If Deacon is right then just as no coronation or act of parliament is needed to confirm the rightful succession, neither can one strip King James of his kingship. All the Treaty of Ryswick did was to call a truce until William's death (in 1705 game time), it did not confirm the House of Orange had displaced the House of Stuart, far from it. It can be strongly argued that with 75-80% of England under the control of French forces fighting for King James, and Ireland having declared for King James, then the crown was his by right of conquest. No doubt this point will cause much argument, but before people get bogged down in the detail, a far stronger point is ...
2. No Parliament can bind its successor: an earlier act can be replaced by a later one. The provisions of the 1689 Act of Settlement were undone by the Concorde of Bristol/Proclamation of Accession. Those documents, accepted by Churchill, passed by Parliament and approved by King James (the deemed kingly authority at the time, whether you like it or not), settle the succession on James Francis Edward Stuart (b.1688). That he is a Catholic is now irrelevant in law. This is one of the things I was always keen to get accepted in my negotiations with the Jacobite player: the establishment of freedom of worship for Catholics and the removal of anti-Catholic legislation. The text of the treaties have been published in the Herald and earlier in this thread, so I don't think there can be any doubt about what has been passed into English law.
In what is starting to become a habit, I agree with Bavaria that a Catholic king would be unpopular in England, that he is currently supported by a large number of French troops in England and that larger chunks of the English establishment are no doubt unhappy about what has happened. However, that is where things are. If Churchill doesn't like it then I'm sure he'll find a way to change them. Perhaps his next move will be to burn down Parliament to destroy the rest of the opposition to him and proclaim a military dictatorship? In terms of dastardly behavior from non-pirate rulers, killing a king is hard to beat. Ignoring Parliament should be easy. A long time ago in the first game of LGDR I ever played in was a character (I think Spanish) called Carlos Medina who got away with all kinds of quite outrageous behaviour, ended up with control of about 65% of the world and then went bankrupt. An extraordinary achievement. Perhaps Churchill is the reincarnation of Carlos Medina and intends to beat even that record. If so you are in for a very entertaining time.
Perhaps a more interesting question, is where is King James? If he's not with the French army any more, then is he in Rome, petitioning the Pope for a crusade against those who murdered his father?
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 61
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
My understanding of the rules of how sovereignty passes in England come from some research I did for game 8 about the status of Catarina of Braganza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_is_dead._Long_live_the_King.
The English monarchy is apparently a bit atypical in that coronation is not necessary to be King, and that sovereignty passes at the death of the previous monarch to the current one.