Stuart Bailey wrote:Its a lie no one ever called King Louis a bit of a bounder.........power mad egomanic, the popish anti-christ and a tyrannt yes......bit of a bounder no.
Really Stuart, I must have missed that, but then my enemies have always been gracious in their compliments!
Having read some of the comments and received a copy of the newspaper from a kind soul, I may be able to clarify one or two things which those closer to the action may not have realised.
Firstly, I don't think there is any real doubt that RJC is dead. The duel was conducted in accordance with the rules of honour, with witnesses on both sides. The selection of Reading is not in itself suspicious as you could hardly expect the duel to take place in London. Reading is mid-way between Bristol and London, and having once been loyal to King James, then retaken by Williamites, if anything the population of the town could be expected to keep their heads down and stay neutral. Marlborough had clearly been hit by a bullet whereas the shot he fired at Norfolk missed. He was taken to an inn which presumably was where the nearest doctor could be found to treat him. The doctor would have pronounced him dead. Then we have the fire. I agree with Deacon that there is something slightly unusual with this. However, not when linked to the attempt to free prisoners from the gaol. We all know how the activities of spies don't always work out how they are expected to. I suggest that what really happened was a spy had been given orders to kill Scottish prisoners in the gaol by burning it down. However, instead of just burning the gaol down, he started a fire next to it which set the inn alight first. RJC was just unlucky in that his corpse was in the inn at the time. Another alternative explanation would be that it was a supporter of RJC who cremated him to prevent the body falling into the hands of his enemies. Remember the Pope had declared him an 'anathema', unfit for Christian burial. It could be viewed as an act of kindness to destroy the body in this way. Overall I don't think it can be seriously doubted that RJC is dead.
When I first read of this I will admit to a certain amount of satisfaction. A character who abandoned his morals so easily, betrayed everyone he dealt with, was literally sent to hell. And it was done by a gentleman of honour, who just happens to be a Catholic. It is reminiscent of a certain celebration in the Wizard of Oz. Seriously, though, I have enjoyed the antics of RJC even though they have been frustrating. Watching him twist and turn as he tried to justify more and more ridiculous stances to please his allies must have finally been to much for him. I hope the player of RJC will join another game at some point and I wish him well.
Other Jacobite Developments
In the excitement people seem to have missed what has happened elsewhere. It is unclear if Norfolk has the full backing of Parliament, but he does command the loyalty of both Protestants and Catholics and appears to be following the published wishes of King James. It is possible that the Duke of Norfolk is an agent controlled by King James, but from comments here this seems unlikely. Consequently, we have to make a working assumption that England has a new player. If this had been simply the GM adding colour (evidenced by his choice of Reading for the duel?), then the account carries an unusual amount of detail. New players are not always announced in the newspaper, and as RJC is dead perhaps an announcement was thought somewhat superfluous. As things stand, England has declared for King James.
Scotland, in a rather muddled series of events, has also declared for King James.
Ireland has previously declared for King James.
The Pope has made a direct and unequivocal statement that King James is the only King of England, Ireland and Scotland.
This all seems to have come as a surprise to you, Deacon, but if you recall I have been consistently arguing that this was the most likely outcome. I could not have predicted precisely how it would be achieved, but who cares? The important point is that those who act dishonourably can escape for a while, but eventually they will come unstuck. Not simply a moral judgement which I agree with, but it is what is stated in the rules.
And all these developments have some interesting consequences.
What is William fighting for now E/I/S are all under the control of KJ ? I could see the point in fighting whilst his supporters were at least pretending to have power, but now the peoples of E/I/S have rejected William and accepted KJ, perhaps he should decide whether he has any kind of strategy going forward. There was (for those who see the point of such things) an outside chance that at Jason's peace conference the Hapsburgs could have demanded William as King and Jason accept. However, such a demand would look extremely foolish given that events have now overtaken the diplomats. Waiting on events could have been part of Jason's inexplicable plan, though it would have been a very brave player to have gambled so much on the resolution of such complex events. Even though I predicted the outcome, I expected it to take far longer given the stubborn attitude of the players concerned.
The Hapsburg Problem
This is now the most fascinating part of the game, and far easier for me to analyse dispassionately now I am not involved. So many possibilities have been generated and quite probably by accident. I will not dwell for long on each and I’m sure that some players have realised how some of these lines will play out.
The Dutch army has crossed over Flanders into Northern France. This is a clear breach of the Treaty of Ghent. Spain is required by that Treaty to declare war on UDP and force the removal of those troops. Should Spain refuse to do so then the Treaty requires Spain to hand over Cuba to France. If nothing else this strengthens France’s hand at the negotiating table. Spain had previously affirmed the ToG with Jason, so to avoid yet another discussion on the validity of treaties, (cue squeals from various quarters), Spain has a simple choice to make. And none of the choices are pleasant.
Then we have the more pressing issue of the attack on Dublin. This needs separating into 2. There is the question of the nationality of ships attacked (it must be said) in a most cowardly way. And there is the question of the nationality of the civilians killed and the sovereignty of Dublin.
As the player who created the Dunkirkers, I will confirm the following. Those few corvettes which did so much damage to English (not Spanish) shipping were crewed by French Jacobite exiles who took refuge with King James following his defeat in Ireland in the 1690s. They sailed under a dual obligation to both France and the Jacobite cause. This ensured that when the Jacobite player became inactive, France would not have units stranded and exposed. Up until the time I left, these ships only attacked English shipping, and only during a period when France and England were officially at war. They sailed only in the Channel. There was a 2nd Jacobite fleet which supported them (the Jacobite Wolf Fleet), which did briefly journey to the Mediterrean to protect French shipping against attack, but this fleet also was under strict orders only to attack English ships. They never disobeyed their orders and only took English prizes. René Dougay-Trouin was a Contre-Amiral in the French Navy, not a privateer and certainly not a pirate. Spain knew all this as it was repeatedly made clear to him by letter and somewhere I’m fairly sure I will be able to dig out a reply by him where he accepts this. There were instances of ships flying the Jacobite flag attacking Spanish vessels over a year ago, but these were found to be pirates flying false colours. Spain accepted that Dougay-Trouin could not be in several places at once. So the attack on the Dunkirkers was clearly an act of spite by Spain against France. It was unannounced and unprovoked. There is no evidence that the Spanish trade mission was burned down by Jacobites acting on the orders of King James, and there is certainly no connection between that incident and the discipline of the Dunkirkers. Whether by design or accident Spain has committed an act of war on France.
The attack happened in Dublin. Ireland declared for King James some months ago so Spain has also committed an act of war against King James. This happened (most likely by accident) the very month that His Holiness the Pope declared King James as the true King of England, Ireland and Scotland. Such a Papal declaration may not mean much to the rabid anti-Catholic element which obsesses some characters, but it does mean a great deal to Catholics. It means even more to a Cardinal. For a Cardinal to directly disobey the Pope in this way demands sanction. I expect King James to ask His Holiness to take the appropriate action by stripping him of his authority. Put very simply, if King Charles Hapsburg of Spain is forcing the Cardinal to chose between serving him and serving God, the Cardinal is obliged to chose God, for he was created a ‘priest forever, like Melchizedek of old.’ It will be interesting to see which choice the Cardinal makes personally, but if he renounces his priesthood, then Spain will rapidly become ungovernable as the religious orders will turn on him. Already the Hapsburg family has shown an extraordinary degree of contempt for the Church, yet the effects have not been felt as they should according to history and the rules of the game.
Spain is also in trouble in another important matter. Since the start of the game Spain has largely stood above the fray, choosing to work constructively with other players including France. Even after Austria broke its treaty with France and attacked, Spain sought to act as a neutral intermediary. She was determined, as France was, to keep her word and we maintained regular communication, advising each other of treaties we had signed so as to avoid conflict between us. It was no doubt surprising to some that Spain did not declare war on France and back Austria. It was not surprising to me because of 5 years of understanding and trust built up between France and Spain. The Treaty of Ghent was much more in the interests of Spain than France, but more than that we trusted each other: our word meant something. Yes, there were times when that relationship was strained, especially when Spain refused to hand over Blackbeard to face French justice and employed him, conveniently forgetting his murder of a Spanish archbishop! But overall Spain has been a voice for peace and reasoned argument across Europe. No doubt he continued in that vein whilst negotiating with Jason.
That now appears to have changed. If Spain has followed Austria down the path of dishonour, breaking treaties and attacking without a declaration of war, then Jason can expect a Spanish army to invade southern France probably heading for Toulouse which is now in Austrian hands. Logically such a move is consistent with Austria’s objective of grabbing as much of France as he can before the peace talks begin. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to suggest that possibility for it means that the norm in G7 is for players to break their word. If players have no honour the game simply doesn’t work. The rules recognise that as do the majority of players. Unfortunately such tactics will spread to other games, so rule changes will need to happen to restore playability.
There is nothing clever in deliberately breaking the rules of the game and claiming victory by doing so. There is nothing clever in ganging up on individual players to drive them out of the game. And if such behaviour is rewarded then there really is no point in the game at all.
Home
Portal
Search
Latest images
Register
Log in
Ah well you will be Billy No Mates in the game(well except for your ether friend RKLOF) for a while. Shame as Jason was the first decent looking/acting Frenchie with a possible chance of getting genuine diplomacy moving. 
