G7 - France vs. England

Not entirely, as I'm not Louis any more. In the last couple of months Richard seems to have a rather original (and very inactive) way of playing France!

Without any more details, it is hard to comment, though I hope you have realised from back issues of the Herald and my comments on the forum that my policy towards England was always one of winning over the disgruntled majority, seeking to subdue rather than conquer. Perhaps I misjudged the desire to avoid another civil war in England! I sought to dispel fears of an absolute monarch in England in favour of one modelled more on Charles II. This, I thought, would be more acceptable to the people and still retained a role for Parliament. That policy seems to have failed, though, so perhaps you'll have more success.

I would still have been somewhat reluctant to blame Parliament rather than Churchill for your father's murder. That way you would retain the support in Parliament which your father enjoyed and which the more moderate elements could rally behind. Until last month it looked like this support was enough to get the treaties passed by both houses, so a majority therefore accepted you as King on those moderate terms. But, I'm sure you have your reasons and I don't want to get drawn in to comment further without reading first hand what has happened.

A death warrant for William seems reasonable, as does attacks on the Hapsburgs. I would also expect you to gain backing from the Pope (if you ask for it) which would have more serious consequences for France/Austria. The initiative is now no longer with France or Austria, but with the Pope. As stated previously I do not see how Austria can continue to attack France given Leopold's consistent argument that he was doing so to support William's claim on England, not for any other reason. Of course in the game Leopold will make things up as he goes along and is quite capable of changing his stance to deciding he wants to grab French territory instead - the alternative of withdrawing from France on the orders of the Pope would be a most bitter blow for him. If the Pope was to order Austria to withdraw from France and break its alliance with William, then if Richard is being consistent in following the way I played France, I would have accepted the will of the Pope. After all, the primary reason I backed the Jacobite cause in 1701 following a letter from the then player was to bring French policy in line with Papal wishes, which was subsequently rewarded by the Pope agreeing to sell Ancona to France.

Under the treaties you would have to request the support of France just to leave the French commanders in no doubt where their duty lies. If I was still France then I would be ordering the destruction of the English navy in the Humber (assuming it refused to surrender to you), the seizure of all towns/areas where French troops are still stationed (which gives you 70-80% of English territory) and then support a massed assault on London with overwhelming naval power (a few French galliot fleets and a blockade should remind the heretics how hot hell is for murderers). Any troops loyal to Churchill would have to leave London or be destroyed, and once he quits London he's lost.

Somehow I think there are rather a lot of Englishmen who regret not dealing with the much more reasonable King Louis. Pity they couldn't see past the propaganda!

Well, I'm impressed! Thanks to some kind soul sending me a copy of the newsletter I've been able to read the detail for myself.

Deacon - I take my hat off to you and begin to see what you are doing. You have a rock solid case and are prepared to state it forcibly. If only I could afford to return to the game as France it would be a pleasure to support a player who values honour as much as I do.

As to the Spanish/Austrian manoeuvrings, I can only laugh. Rather presumptious of Austria/Spain to announce they want Franche-Comte as part of a peace agreement with France. Personally I don't see how Austria can demand any gains from its attack on France given not just its manner (breaking the treaty), but its indirect effect (the death of King James). The only honourable course is for Austria to withdraw and do some public act of penance. The trouble is only just beginning for Austria as we saw from the hit to his honour and the opinions of his own nobles. I did chuckle at the actions of Vivaldi, as I'm sure do others who remember how keen Leopold was to grab Bach from Prussia earlier in the game.

If Spain does declare war on Churchill that would be a game changer! Though how he can fight against Austria/UDP over England and for Austria/UDP over France is a conundrum which might even puzzle that exceptionally fine player! Perhaps we might see Spain split into Bourbon and Hapsburg factions as it was at the start of the game, with the Bourbons fighting for Catholicism and honour, whilst the Hapsburgs fight for selfish family interests? Now that would be a game changer!

It seems that at last, Leopold had some bad luck, namely that the Austrian ambassador was in the room when the murder happened. This will always be exploited by King James and is unanswerable. Just as it is wrong to kill a king, so it was wrong to break a treaty and attack France. This is Austria's Achilles heel - it always has been and always will be. Any gains from dishonourable acts (be they murder or breaking treaties) are equally unjust, so I do not see that Austria has any alternative but to withdraw from France, apologise for her dishonourable actions, and do public penance. If she did that, then I can see a future French government being generous and accepting that in the interests of the Church, France should not attack a discredited Austria. Better that Leopold should live with shame than waste Catholic lives.

However, I suspect it would take many months of falling honour and diplomatic outrage for this to sink in, with the Hapsburgs digging themselves a deeper hole each month until it does! If Leopold (and their Catholic allies) sacrifice their souls to worldly gain by continuing their attacks on France, they will lose the support of Catholic states within the HRE and outside. What price then unifying the empire?

It is never honourable to break a treaty. I'm amazed after so long you still don't recognise that. Just keep digging that hole, though, if it makes you feel better. I hope your turn arrives soon.

That is a good question which I think I answered before.

Yes - because:
1. If (as it now appears) King James the elder was crowned in 1704, then he was King and accepted by Churchill and Parliament at the time the Concorde and Accession documents were passed into law.
2. The documents specified King James b.1688.
3. As the player points out in his statement in the Herald, he needs no additional coronation and succeeds his father following his murder.
4. By killing King James the elder the succession was already confirmed by those documents.

I can see what you are trying to argue, but such an argument collapses because of the unique situation whereby King James the elder was the reigning King from 1685. If restored (as appears to have happened) then his authority is simply affirmed due to his earlier coronation. Historically he never accepted he had abdicated, and by their actions in recognising him again, Parliament were clearly of that opinion as well.

Clearly when you murdered King James you expected it to end the Jacobite claim, thinking it was King James b.1688 who had died. If you had killed that King James then you would have a much stronger case.