Comments on: Tax and subsidy, part 2 http://bellagerens.com/2009/09/02/tax-and-subsidy-part-2/ inde vides agilem bella gerentem Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:35:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: bellagerens http://bellagerens.com/2009/09/02/tax-and-subsidy-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-514 bellagerens Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:55:02 +0000 http://bellagerens.wordpress.com/?p=432#comment-514 That doesn't sound too off-track, I think. The English in the time of James's father, Charles I, had to a certain extent already rejected absolutism, even if, in the end, they decided it was both possible and preferable to have a monarch who wasn't absolute. And the religious element probably folds into this: absolutism and Roman Catholicism, being also heavily centralised and bureaucratic, would have been mutually reinforcing. I would not, however, characterise James as a 'revolutionary' for this; rather, he was part of a long line of English monarchs, going back at least to Henry VII, who had worked to centralise control, believing at first that this was the best way to prevent the sort of civil conflict that had been such a feature of the 15th century, and then that it was the best way to achieve stability in a rapidly changing economic landscape. Did the English throw out James II because of this, though? Probably not. We underestimate the religious question if we assume it was simply a matter of toleration vs. persecution, because it was also a question of sovereignty: when the monarch was a Roman Catholic, he was not the ultimate authority; he was beholden to the needs and wishes of the pope. Whenever the interests of the English people and the interests of the pope were in conflict, the monarch was paralysed - this was especially a problem once England had become a Protestant country. So a Catholic king, however tolerant he might have been, was always a potential danger to the interests of his Protestant subjects. That doesn’t sound too off-track, I think. The English in the time of James’s father, Charles I, had to a certain extent already rejected absolutism, even if, in the end, they decided it was both possible and preferable to have a monarch who wasn’t absolute. And the religious element probably folds into this: absolutism and Roman Catholicism, being also heavily centralised and bureaucratic, would have been mutually reinforcing. I would not, however, characterise James as a ‘revolutionary’ for this; rather, he was part of a long line of English monarchs, going back at least to Henry VII, who had worked to centralise control, believing at first that this was the best way to prevent the sort of civil conflict that had been such a feature of the 15th century, and then that it was the best way to achieve stability in a rapidly changing economic landscape. Did the English throw out James II because of this, though? Probably not. We underestimate the religious question if we assume it was simply a matter of toleration vs. persecution, because it was also a question of sovereignty: when the monarch was a Roman Catholic, he was not the ultimate authority; he was beholden to the needs and wishes of the pope. Whenever the interests of the English people and the interests of the pope were in conflict, the monarch was paralysed – this was especially a problem once England had become a Protestant country. So a Catholic king, however tolerant he might have been, was always a potential danger to the interests of his Protestant subjects.

]]> By: teqjack http://bellagerens.com/2009/09/02/tax-and-subsidy-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-513 teqjack Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:55:51 +0000 http://bellagerens.wordpress.com/?p=432#comment-513 Not really on topic, but does this sound familiar? On why there was a rebellion deposing James II in 1688 - <i>"James turned out to be a revolutionary, Mr. Pincus suggests, working to transform England's ­government into a centralized bureaucracy."</i> http://parajr.blogspot.com/2009/09/glorious-revolution-of-1688-when.html Not really on topic, but does this sound familiar? On why there was a rebellion deposing James II in 1688 -

“James turned out to be a revolutionary, Mr. Pincus suggests, working to transform England’s ­government into a centralized bureaucracy.”

http://parajr.blogspot.com/2009/09/glorious-revolution-of-1688-when.html

]]> By: wh00ps http://bellagerens.com/2009/09/02/tax-and-subsidy-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-512 wh00ps Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:18:14 +0000 http://bellagerens.wordpress.com/?p=432#comment-512 There was a discussion about this on Samizdata recently; they call it the "meta-context" . You may have missed it due to your nuptials (congratulations by the way!) What to do about it I don't know, apart from starting with ourselves and correcting ourselves whenever we get caught in these mental traps. I'm as guilty of it as you are! There was a discussion about this on Samizdata recently; they call it the “meta-context” . You may have missed it due to your nuptials (congratulations by the way!)
What to do about it I don’t know, apart from starting with ourselves and correcting ourselves whenever we get caught in these mental traps. I’m as guilty of it as you are!

]]>