Game 10

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Jason wrote:Scotland is a little miffed at his Holiness, we tend to not take kindly to those who make out our allies, who are independent sovereign nations, are 'rebel provinces' nor seem to have missed out that whole Glorious Revolution song and dance...pretty sure we put posters up everywhere that the Stuarts were no longer kings of Scotland...perhaps we need to put a few up in Rome in Latin to get the point across.

As to who is nicking our mail...could it be some very desperate stamp collectors?  I guess Scottish stamps might be quite rare on the continent.

Collectors probably keen to get hold of rare Scots Stamps showing the head of King William.  Since when the Jacobite restoration happens these stamps could become even rarer.  

Oi, this ain't G7! We'll see a French corsair on the papal throne before we see a Stuart on the Scottish throne...hold on a minute

Just to be clear, I am not supporting the Pope's position here, nor am I disagreeing with it. I am not of the modern idea that one should have an opinion on every topic. Most of the burning issues will be decided by others, most notably France and the Holy Roman Empire.

I'm just trying to point out that the Pope sees, as he should, the world through the lens of his faith. The outrage that the Pope might attack folks who are 'heretics' and who 'rebelled' against their catholic lords seems a bit pointless. Unless France or Spain decide to attack the UDP, the Pope's words on the subject are irrelevant. And if they decide to, then the Pope's words are still mostly irrelevant because I'm sure either of them can come up with a dozen Cassus Belli each that don't require any Papal support. I can't imagine either of them starting that war because of a Papal comment. They'd do it for their own reasons.

As a catholic ruler in G10, I don't give a fig what the archbishop of Canterbury says, for example. I'm sure the archbishop thinks me a nasty heretic who needs spiritual reformation. But unless a secular power is going to attempt to do that and has the armies to back it up, it seems to be giving him far too much attention to comment on it. Otherwise he's just another religious leader raging at all the people in the world who are 'wrong'. Those are hardly in short supply. I imagine the Archbishop has sad nasty things about the Papist French more than a few times!

I think the player who is Pope is going at it with a great vengeance and my hat is off to him. He is certainly making the game more interesting.

But... the power of the Pope in period is limited. He can counsel and cajole. He can build alliances and coalitions. But, he can't command on secular matters and all the people holding the big power positions know it.

So, somebody may, in fact, someday invade the UDP. But, it won't be because the Pope told them to. They'll do it for their own reasons. (My tea leaf reading suggests no such invasion is forthcoming in the foreseeable future.)

I don't know Deacon, in my sardonical moments I think that even by the early 1700s the CoE had become a convenient dumping grounds for third sons, you know, the ones who were nice but just a bit ineffectual. I suspect the Archbishop of Canterbury would think you a spiffing chap who he just has a few minor disagreements with over unimportant religious stuff that could easily be resolved if you both spent the afternoon together hunting butterflies.

Who knows?

In game 8, the archbishop was kind of a jerk who got very upset at the idea that Catarina of Braganza would be called the Queen Dowager of England, Scotland and Ireland. Never mind that she _is_ the Queen Dowager being the widow of Charles II.

Fortunately, he either died, or just shut up about it (perhaps he realized arguing that history didn't happen wasn't a winning argument.)

Fire and brimstone from the pulpit seems to common to a lot of faiths.

Isn't the Catholic Church itself largely global it means a clever player can exploit that after all raising spies in a country your faith is in could be simple and if the king or queen is offended the Pope could officially say the agent is a church official and to handle heresy for example. The Inquisition for example is outside the secular and he can order heretics killed using assassins if needed. I wouldn't say he's not a threat in other ways.

tkolter wrote:Isn't the Catholic Church itself largely global it means a clever player can exploit that after all raising spies in a country your faith is in could be simple and if the king or queen is offended the Pope could officially say the agent is a church official and to handle heresy for example. The Inquisition for example is outside the secular and he can order heretics killed using assassins if needed. I wouldn't say he's not a threat in other ways.

I think that's really far-fetched. It might work well for Scrabble which has a more over-the-top feel.

First, anybody can raise agents around the world. Maybe the pope could do a better job, but anybody could raise agents anywhere. The pope has no particular special ability here. If you want to raise agents in Europe, go for it.

Second, any secular leader can boot someone who was causing a pain. The pope claiming they were acting officially wouldn't help that. You might want to be more diplomatic about how you boot one of the pope's agents, but it wouldn't be hard.

Lastly, the Pope cannot order heretics killed. Even historically, he couldn't.  The executions were all done by secular authorities after a trial by the church. Secular authorities would be more than outraged if the pope just started killing people. That right belongs solely to local secular authorities. I believe that protestant courts followed the same procedure. I would think that Papal assassins killing people would likely cause a major schism.

I guess we could have a player who tried to do all this as Pope or frankly any player, but I imagine it would end very badly. It might be a crazy wild ride as you crashed and burned though!

Get the feeling the current Papal player is trying to play historically with in the confines of the game. The treaty of Westphalia not only ended the 30yrs war but also the 90 years war between Spain & UDP with Spain recognising UDP as an independant Nation , UDP electing to no longer be apart of the Heliges Römisches Reich. The treaty of Ryswick which ended the Nine years war saw Louis recognising UDP independence along with Mary & William as Monarchs of England,Scotland & Ireland

Historically Austria even as an ally to UDP didn't recognise the Protestant succession in England until 1726, not sure when the Papacy did the same.

In game despite the diplomatic slip up of calling UDP a rebel province the Papal player has accepted an Ambassador from UDP & sent letters using the correct title so in theory he has recognised the UDP a as nation & William as its defacto head of state. As head of the Catholics he can obviously not accept James Stuarts cowardly flight & exile as the true state of affairs. Still

That he has a problem with the status of James Stuart is obviously historical play. To be honest Scotland, England & UDP also have a problem with James Stuarts status, in that he isn't dead......yet!

Anyone can use agents and order an assassination and historically the Papacy may have been involved in a few plots to murder William the Silent, Queen Elizabeth I etc but I doubt if Papal Assassins are any better than any other position. The Pope is not a Italian version of the old man of the mountains!

However, if England & UDP have economic advantages and Swedes seem to make the most deadly troops I would not be unreasonable for the Papacy to have superior information gathering ability in areas with a Catholic Population.

The Papacy and other Religious leaders can also use religious sanctions against a character or state. If the Pope applies religious sanstions this tends to at laughed at by Protestants, Muslims, Orthodox, Gallic Catholics but can knock the honour of Roman Catholic. While being sanctioned by a Muslim Cleric tends to hit a muslims honour score but gets ignored by non muslims.

But what it basically does it make the sanctioned player a TARGET! Other player's do not need to think up a reason to have a go at you but can now pick up lots of cheap honour points by going on Crusade/Jihad etc.

Speaking as someone who has had characters excommunicated, cursed with bell, book and candle and condemned as the Son of Satan by the Grand Mufti (sometimes at the same time!) by recommendation is:

1) Get your own Clerics/Propaganda machine to go on the counter attack - Think mine claimed the Grand Mufti was a agent of the Shah, gualty of Shirk as well as being a senile old goat for insulting a true Ghazi Hero.

I note from pages G47 & G48 in the Miscellany that if you are French and under Papal attack you are walking in the footsteps of St Louis, Phillip Augustus and the founders of the French State and by 1703 have 500 years of defences already in place. If your are Savoy or Portugal you may have more of a problem even though past Popes have called lots of Crusades against the Lords of Milan without denting them.

2) If a Crusade/Jihad is called against you threaten blood feud and absolute war to the death against anyone who answers the call. I find most players care far more about their EH and other objectives than they do about their honour score which tends to go back down if Nobles Estates start to burn.

Ref G10 - Wonder if we could see the King of France excommunicated - a Crusade called against him and the Gallic Church - leading to letters of Marque with no expiry date

Deacon wrote:

tkolter wrote:Isn't the Catholic Church itself largely global it means a clever player can exploit that after all raising spies in a country your faith is in could be simple and if the king or queen is offended the Pope could officially say the agent is a church official and to handle heresy for example. The Inquisition for example is outside the secular and he can order heretics killed using assassins if needed. I wouldn't say he's not a threat in other ways.

I think that's really far-fetched. It might work well for Scrabble which has a more over-the-top feel.

First, anybody can raise agents around the world. Maybe the pope could do a better job, but anybody could raise agents anywhere. The pope has no particular special ability here. If you want to raise agents in Europe, go for it.

Second, any secular leader can boot someone who was causing a pain. The pope claiming they were acting officially wouldn't help that. You might want to be more diplomatic about how you boot one of the pope's agents, but it wouldn't be hard.

Lastly, the Pope cannot order heretics killed. Even historically, he couldn't.  The executions were all done by secular authorities after a trial by the church. Secular authorities would be more than outraged if the pope just started killing people. That right belongs solely to local secular authorities. I believe that protestant courts followed the same procedure. I would think that Papal assassins killing people would likely cause a major schism.

I guess we could have a player who tried to do all this as Pope or frankly any player, but I imagine it would end very badly. It might be a crazy wild ride as you crashed and burned though!

Hello everyone,

I have created a new topic for a discussion about Papal Powers, since there seems to be much interest.   To reply to specific points here:
1.    Tkolter is correct that the Catholic Church is global so all clergy are to some extent the eyes and ears of the Pope.  I can order them to report on what is going on in a certain country and make statements, but I can't order them to do most things a 'spy' can do.  The guideline is that it must further the faith and be in keeping with the faith, so the Pope cannot order Catholics to kill an unpopular catholic ruler.
2.    But, that doesn't mean that individuals might decide to take direct action even if they have not been ordered to do it.  Indeed, it seems to be happening more frequently - after reading statements in newspapers, characters are carrying out what they believe is something which will find favour with their ruler.
3.    Secular leaders do not have the right to "boot out someone who was causing a pain" without infringing the rights and liberties of the church, which in itself is an excommunicable offence.  This is why kings were keen to influence the appointment of bishops who served in their country.   Much Canon Law is founded on the principle that clergy lose the privileges of nobility (to defend their honour, fight duels, etc), and that secular nobility (including princes) therefore allow them freedom of movement and expression.  To attack the clergy in any way is to break the code of nobility and is always a cowardly act which earns those who indulge in it, the contempt of their peers not just in their own country, but around the world.
4.    The Church accepts that secular rulers are supreme within their own territories and must have the freedom to make and enforce laws for the good of their nation, but the church is always superior to states - something even protestants accept.  Consequently, on ordination or admission to religious orders, clergy cease to be subjects of that secular ruler and become subjects of the church (not subjects of the Papal States), ruled by Canon Law, not secular law, administered by Papal Courts in the Vatican, of which the Pope is the head.
5.    Difficulties inevitably arise in 3 situations:
           a)    When the secular ruler seeks to control the church.  The classic example in English history is the murder of St.Thomas Beckett by Henry's henchmen ("who will rid me of this turbulent priest")
           b)    When the church seeks to control the secular ruler.  This can be done in 2 ways: (i) by micromanaging the lives of the faithful (this happened in the later middle ages and again in the avalanche of catholic social teaching in 19th/20th centuries).  It can be argued that this placed political obligations on the faithful which are not intrinsic to salvation and therefore infringed the rightful competencies of the state to decide on political matters. (ii) by direct condemnation of one secular ruler for non-religious reasons, when other secular rulers do not suffer the same condemnation.  Of course it is easy for rulers to believe they have been treated differently when the Pope is probably just looking at the special situation in each country and the way the rulers in question have responded.
           c)    When there is no secular ruler or a disputed succession.  In such situations the Pope has historically judged the merits of competing claims and tried to preserve the peace, if necessary through political reform.  Of course at times judgements are disputed, but it is very difficult for an excommunicated noble to rule a strongly catholic nation and what tends to happen is either the nation rebels or the ruler dies without heir.
6.    Deacon's point about the Pope ordering heretics killed is broadly correct, but the situation changed over time.  The Inquisitions did not happen because the Pope ordered them, but because secular rulers asked for them.  Indeed, the Pope condemned the violence of the Spanish Inquisition and it was only when there was a Spanish Pope that he sanctioned what had happened.  In Italy, where the religious and secular authorities were often related by blood, it was very difficult for the secular authorities to refuse the church, so although legally Deacon is correct, it is slightly disingenuous to suggest the church did not have blood on its hands, during the 1500s-early1600s anyway.   In England, the Pope did order the death of Elizabeth and there are plenty of examples of foreign (and domestic) Catholics who entered England for that purpose.  Whether any were specifically sent by the Pope is not proven, but I suspect they were not because the Pope did not need to compromise himself in this way.
7.    JFlower's point about the Treaty of Westphalia and Papal attitude towards UDP is discussed on the Papal Powers thread.
8.    Stuart's point about the Galician Church is also noted there, but with the proviso that I am not going to be drawn on what may or may not happen to the Galician Church or speculation about its situation in G10.  If this arises in the game then it will be first announced in the newspaper. Previous posts have revealed Stuart's interest in the Italian wars, but it is worth remembering that the 1500s were atypical, so just because something extreme happened, it does not follow that is the normal Papal response, nor give license for the same to happen in 1700. The French had a few problems in 1789 and the subsequent decade, but I don't think that level of violence can be considered typical.
9. I do indeed collect stamps, but have no need to intercept letters from Scotland.

And thank you for all those who have welcomed me to the forum,

Jason wrote:

The Papacy did indirectly in 1766.  They recognised the old pretender but when he died in 1766 they didn't then recognise the young pretender instead; this was taken as a subtle recognition by the Pope of the Hannoverian kingship.  It does mean that technically the Pope never recognised the Williamite kingship.  

An interesting point, but there were reasons for this.   In 1748 Charles Edward Stuart (Young Pretender) was expelled from France as part of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle which brought an end to the Anglo-French war.  Since the 1745 rebellion had failed and he was dependent upon French support, this basically ended his chance for a foreign-sponsored invasion.  So he agreed to convert to the Church of England in 1750 if it would secure him the crown.  It didn't and merely upset what French support he had so despite plans being made in 1759 for another French invasion of England, Charles couldn't convince the French that the invasion would succeed.  In 1766 when his father died, the Papacy was in a difficult position - there was no point in recognizing a Stuart who was not committed to the Catholic Church and equally pointless in dividing the anti-Hanoverian factions by trying to find a suitable Catholic heir.  His brother, Henry Benedicta Stuart was by then a bishop, later Cardinal, and despite claiming the thrones on the death of Charles, the French revolution (and his age) interrupted any plans he might have made to turn this into action.

So Jason is right that the Pope never recognized 'King' William, but neither did he recognize 'King' George, etc.  Relations did improve in the 1800s with the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act.  King George IV was well thought of in Rome because he paid for the restoration of monuments to the Stuarts and showed a genuine desire to achieve diplomatic closeness to Rome.  Just goes to show how the Papacy thinks in terms of centuries where others think in terms of years. Also worth pointing out that between 1689 and 1829 (the date of the Act), there were no attempts by the Papacy to declare war on Scotland!  And that despite all the efforts of Calvinists to wipe out Catholicism in Scotland over 300+ years, Catholicism not only survived, but prospered.  What we now know as Jacobite legends owed a lot to Victorian interest, supported by the freedom of Catholics to practice their faith from 1829.   King George IV may have had his faults, but at least he was pragmatic enough to realise that if he was going to rule 3 kingdoms with different religious traditions, he had to try to accommodate Catholics.

Eek! Suddenly the Wikipedia info I found on Rozwi's (possible) religious beliefs seems rather scant in its detail
(I say possible, as who knows if what you read on Wikipedia is correct)

Cracking and interesting read you've provided over the two threads, Papa Clement

Thanks Rozwi, look forward to your next game letter.  There's always something interesting happening in Africa.

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:Eek! Suddenly the Wikipedia info I found on Rozwi's (possible) religious beliefs seems rather scant in its detail
(I say possible, as who knows if what you read on Wikipedia is correct)

Cracking and interesting read you've provided over the two threads, Papa Clement

Conversion of Rozwi to the Roman Catholic Faith and bringing in Jesuit advisors would bring many advantages.

In the short term it may cause a few problems with spirits and pagans but looked at from the Catholic long view think of the advantages to the Rozwi Royal line if they can claim a Royal Saint and Martyr!

Kerensky wrote:Well, on the basis it has been an rough 24hrs, especially for whoever Richard just put in the naughty chair

Yep, I'll admit that I had to contact Richard the other week to ask him to investigate if I'd inadvertently 'played the game outside of the game' and possibly influenced Game 10. Soon as I realised what I'd thought I'd done, I contacted Kingmaker (as moderator) and Richard (as GM) and offered up the info for them to look into it. Its very easy to write something and then realise you've made a mistake. And I'll hold my hands up and admit that I'm a guilty party.

Anyway. I've disabled my PMs, so I cannot receive or send any in the future, just to make certain I don't fall foul of the same error. What I did is known by Richard and steps will be taken by him (should they be needed) to slow down events in Game 10, concerning my own Rozwi position - to reflect the slower speed of in-game letters offering advice and not the instant PM method of this forum or Facebook. In this matter regarding Rozwi, no one else is to blame except myself as it was something I wrote which created a situation of advantage. So no need for anyone else to come forward, really.

Apologies everyone.

Hi Rowzi,
Life & a career in Financial Crime Investigation has taught me two things. Everyone makes mistakes. What they do with their mistakes is often what ends up defining who they are. Your first instinct was to come hold up your hand. That is who you are, a decent chap who came clean, not your mistake.
In FCI, when we have a self-declaration, we often check the environment for ‘similar parameters’. The communique implies a wider set of activity.
Which has me nervous... could my attempt to secure a copy of the stolen Scottish diplomatic letters on ‘The Darkweb’ been detected by Watt’s algorithms!

KJ

I rather suspect that the culprits in the "Scottish Papers Affair" were under the mistaken impression that Whisky was being transported. No doubt they are all very sad right now.

Maybe they thought the top secret locations of the breeding grounds of the last Wild Haggi were revealed in the Scots Letters. Certainly damage national security if this leeks out.

To ensure their safety, the details of the Wild Haggi location are never written down but committed to memory by the members of a small Highland clan, all of whom are mute and communicate only through the medium of interpretative dance

Those who read the newspaper carefully may have noticed that last turn I introduced universal education.  I didn't specify a curriculum, and would appreciate comments from anyone who has successfully done this, whether it actually produced benefits and if so what they were?

I started researching the kinds of things taught and came across this fascinating site: letsreadgreek.com/comenius

John Amos Comenius (1592-1670) used the modern picture method to teach students Latin and Greek.  His Orbis Sensualium Pictus (World in Pictures), 1657, was the most famous and widely circulated school textbook until the mid-1800s.  Pages on this site include some of the original illustrations and translations underneath.  I don't know how effective it is as a method, but as someone who has always struggled with languages it seems like an interesting approach. I also wonder if something similar could be used to help overcome the communications problems in Africa?  Unfortunately Comenius was Protestant, so before children in the Papal States use this book to learn basic Latin and Greek, it will need some subtle revisions.

Now if I can get some ideas on the rest of the curriculum, perhaps I can track down some more textbooks c.1700?

@ Papa Clement on UE. I have been looking myself, but no luck yet on Catholic Textbooks. My best lead so far is Spain, and the schools they introduced in the New World. There seems to have been very well structured curricula across several subjects.
Another reference I came across (damned if I can find it again), that there was a search to recreate the pedagogy of the Ancient Greeks.
Latin would be the primary core, without a doubt. Then, as now, there was a focus on Classical Latin as a baseline. It is easier & more rules based than Medieval (Church) Latin. Similar gradient of complexity between Classical (Athenian) Greek & Byzantine Greek.
I could see a real opportunity to ‘research’ a Latin Primer, around a core text. I would (totally personal preference and view on the clean simplicity of the prose), build it around Caesar’s Bello Gallico.
The second core would be Mathematics. We have just experienced the dawn of Calculus and several other key mathematical theorems. It would be not unreasonable to take the genius of Fontanelle (or similar) in popularising recent discoveries and again, turn into a research project to produce a set textbook, capturing key elements of your own views of a mathematical curriculum.
A boundless area to research, and certainly one that will bring a nation even more to life in the imagination.

Thanks Kerensky – it is strange how we have both struggled to find what should be obvious evidence (a textbook) of how Italians were educated.  As you point out, the Spanish clearly had a curriculum and schools in the New World, which must have been linked to an approved Catholic education.  Also Catholic religious orders usually ran schools and they must have had something as basic as a text book or at least an outline of what was to be taught.

Your idea about the Greeks did set me thinking though.  Perhaps I am looking at this the wrong way round and trying to solve several issues at once?  Instead of trying to find out what was happening in 1700 and then trying to change it to something else, it might be more beneficial to decide what I want to change towards and then find a way of getting there which avoids previous pitfalls.

The Renaissance isn’t really my period and I’m sure there are others on here who know far more about it than I do, but my understanding is that within Italy, Latin and Italian history were fairly well studied, but what drove the Renaissance was the rediscovery of ancient Greek authors and ideas.  If we take Plato as a base, the core would be grammar, dialectic(logic), rhetoric, then the 4 applications of number (as he saw it): arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy.  That ties in to your point about mathematics.  But many of these sources were brought back from Arabia where they had either been translated into Arabic or otherwise corrupted which caused some serious difficulty in philosophy (Averroes/Aristotle being the classic example).   Quite how this affected Islamic philosophy is again an interesting question others might like to pursue.  It may have contributed to the Sunni/Shia split?

From a Catholic viewpoint I suggest that the biggest difficulty was that stimulating though the rediscovery of these old ideas may have been, it did lead to an admiration of Pagan philosophies and culture which in turn contributed to the exaltation of man over God and put the church on the defensive.  In previous centuries monasteries had preserved culture from the ravages of war, and the church had been an active sponsor of intellectual development and education.  For this role to be reversed and the church to be seen as a censor, undermining ‘progress’, was uncomfortable for everyone.  The church struggled in this unfamiliar role and made mistakes which it never finds easy to admit, whilst some scientists emigrated to protestant countries so they could concentrate on their work without risking it being misunderstood, usually to find different barriers appeared as different protestant sects objected.  There was no clear separation between experimental science (observations/investigation of the natural world) and philosophy or theology.  This may have been partly due to the Platonic idea that number can embody all knowledge (and therefore truth).  Even if new mathematical methods could calculate the orbits of planets, it did not follow that this proved theology (or church teaching) was wrong.  So perhaps the first step to sorting out a curriculum is for the church to clarify its position on different branches of knowledge and what does (and does not) legitimately need addressing by theology.  The second step would be to separate the study of science/maths from its cultural/historical context, so it would be quite proper to study Euclid’s geometry without reference to Euclid the man, his life and times.  The third step, which may appear naturally from this, would be to place ancient knowledge within a firmly Christian context, an extension of what St.Thomas Aquinas did with Aristotle.

I suspect to achieve this transformation completely may require a research breakthrough, so I will have to ask advisors.  The Miscellany (page27) does discuss ‘improved education’, but only in terms of increasing loyalty to monarch/church, not in terms of its benefit of increasing the chance of research breakthroughs.  So I might be misunderstanding how this all works in the game, hence part of my original question asking if anyone had introduced universal education and what benefits they found it brought to them.

The modern way of doing this would be for the Pope to issue an encyclical, or position statement, which would probably be ignored by some, denounced by others (as the Pope interfering in academic discourse), and after several decades of dispute, the academic consensus may well concede he was right.  But since the change in approach will also impact on the way institutions work, perhaps an encyclical is inadequate in the game.

The other way to approach this could be to call an Ecumenical Council, since it involves clarifying how the church responds to changes in science and that could help other Catholic countries to boost their research.  Although the church is hierarchical and authoritarian, its historic role was more of an enabler than a censor.  That is certainly how I intend to approach it and if I can find/develop an argument which will appeal to the bishops in council, then hopefully all Catholic countries will benefit.  Of course whilst it is assembled, a Council could deal with other matters arising, depending on what other countries suggest.  It has been 140 years since the end of the Council of Trent which did act to clarify doctrine and equip the church with new tools to meet the challenge of protestants.  I’m not convinced of the need for doctrinal changes, but following the precedent set by Trent it would be historical for bishops collectively to highlight areas where the church’s authority has been compromised and ask for either clarification or support to deal with problems before they spiral out of control.  Some matters can of course be dealt with purely by the Pope and Trent did confirm the extent of Papal power, but an ecumenical council would demonstrate the backing of the whole church and be in keeping with allowing players to make their views known in a formal setting.  If players ask for it in game then I will give it serious consideration.  Meanwhile I’ll continue thinking/researching about historic text books and how to get education to improve the application of the people’s intelligence rather than just increase their loyalty to the state/church which may be a problem for some countries, but doesn't appear to be in the Papal States.

I cop to the "improved education" research advance.

I wanted to do standardized education with a developed curriculum in game 8 and set about researching it. That is what Richard gave me. The increased loyalty wasn't exactly what I was going for, but isn't bad.

It would be interesting to explore the possibility of developing some version of universal education that the Catholic Church could deliver across its very broad territory.

Stuart Bailey wrote:


Just hope the Spanish Merchant Marine are happy after having had a arm and a leg spent on them!

If you've now got a lot of one-armed, one-legged sailors, aren't they going to find it hard to sail your new boats?

J Flower wrote:

Historically Austria even as an ally to UDP didn't recognise the Protestant succession in England until 1726, not sure when the Papacy did the same.

I'm always reminded of that bit from "Good Morning Vietnam" about the UK recognising Singapore (I think) when it comes to political recognition

Why ? What was it ?