Tea at Trianon: Blessed Karl and the First World War

Charles, the Holy Roman Emperor and family

War isn't my thing. Blood, guts and the thought of death never appealed to me.  Instead, I focus on other aspects the religious and social aspects of history. Oddly enough when I tell people I majored in history, they always ramble on about this battle or that. Memorizing battles isn't history. Instead, history comes from the individuals who lived it and their interpretations. For the past couple weeks, however, I've wanted to write another article on World War I. Not about the battles, but the people. The blog "Tea at Trianon," has a wonderful article about the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles, desperately seeking a peace treaty with the Allies during World War I. Unfortunately, Charles failed in his gallant attempt and "the rest they say, is history."

Tea at Trianon: Blessed Karl and the First World War

Be Careful Who You Mess With, For They May Hide a Laxative in Your Food.

"Pray good people be civil, I am the Protestant whore." ~Nell Gwynne

Nell Gwynne is not a name you hear much anymore, but in 17th century England she was all the rage.  Perhaps not all the rage, but she was an immensely popular mistress to the notorious Charles II.  Unlike his father, the loving and loyal Charles I, Charles II had as many as thirteen mistresses and fourteen illegitimate children.

When I wrote my post "What Do President Kennedy, Queen Elizabeth and Mary, Queen of Scots Have in Common?", I commented how raw and emotional the debate is between Queen Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots' supporters.  Historical, as well as contemporary cat fights, enthrall us all.  As we turn the pages of history, each infamous cat fight is revisited and argued anew.

Surprisingly, a lady like Nell has disappeared from history, despite being the wittiest, least greedy and best cat fighter of Charles' II mistresses.  Nell came from a poor family, had a successful acting career and wooed the king.  Nell's cat fighting with the other mistresses was never due to religious or ideological agendas.  Instead, it arouse from jealousy (try sharing a man with several women) and general annoyance with the other mistresses.

 Moll Davis, also an actress and mistress of Charles, annoyed Nell by her vulgar displays of wealth she had accumulated as a royal mistress.  Irritated, a bit jealous and motivated by spite, Nell got her revenge the best way she knew how, by placing a laxative in Moll's meal before she slept with Charles.  After that night, Moll's services were no longer needed by the king.

Moll, however, wasn't her biggest annoyance.  Louise de Keroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth was her greatest rival.  Louise hated Nell for her low birth and had a strong religious agenda.  Being Catholic, she desired for Charles II to covert.  Charles, being more political savvy than his father, refused and remained marginally Protestant.

I would write something witty about Louise de Keroualle, but it wouldn't be up to Nell's standards.

Bitter words and mockery were the only things to pass between Louise and Nell.  Although Louise wanted the "orange wench" gone, she was never able to get rid of her. Nell was simply to loyal, witty and genuinely in love with Charles, which made her a impenetrable rival.  Unfortunately, all of Nell's love wasn't enough to be with Charles on his deathbed.  She didn't have a title and all the begging in the world couldn't gain her access to the king.  Fortunately for Nell, Charles begged his brother, the Duke of York and future king, to watch over her.  Perhaps there was a little of his father in Charles II, the loyal yet ineffective king whom loved his wife above all things.  Nell, was his Henrietta Maria after all.

You might also like:
"What Do President Kennedy, Queen Elizabeth and Mary, Queen of Scots Have in Common?"
Move Over Xena:  Isabella was a True Warrior Princess.


You might also enjoy:

These Ain't Your Mama's Puritans!

I was reading the book, "A Royal Passion: The Turbulent Marriage of King Charles I of England and Henrietta Maria of France," last night and was reminded of a lesson I taught at a local community college several years ago.  I was fresh out of school and had landed a part-time position, teaching two American history classes.  I was desperately trying to make history fun, while giving my students a different perspective of history and it's actors.

The topic that week wasn't easy.  There was no war, gruesome battles or exciting characters I could use.  "Darn, those Puritans," (I was more liberal in my word choice, but this is a family blog) I thought, "my students are going to fall asleep within the first five minutes, instead of the first ten!"  After all, most people think Puritans were religious extremists, who were judgmental, critical, stuffy and prudish. 

King Charles I of England certainly would not have argued with those statements.  As an Anglican, married to a Catholic, he sought to suppress those who wanted to "purify" the church, otherwise known as Puritans.  The Puritans felt that the Anglican church didn't go far enough during the reformation.  They detested the office of bishop in England, the elaborate masses, the communion of saints and other relics of "popery."

Charles felt the Puritans were dangerous and after several bad parliamentary sessions with the Puritans demanding that Henrietta's Catholic entourage be returned to France, he refused to call another Parliament for a decade.  Feeling that their rights as Englishmen had been violated, many Puritans emigrated to Massachusetts.  However some stayed behind in England, attempting to rid England of the corrupting influence of Archbishop Laud and Henrietta.

After a decade of exuberant spending, Charles needed money to fight the Scottish Presbyterians in the north.  With no money and thinking that the Minister's of Parliament would feel passionate about his crusade against the Scots, he called Parliament.  Making a long story short, the Puritans demanded greater freedom of religion, a regular meeting of parliament, the ability to chose the servants in the King's household and hold trails of those accused of treason.

Charles, not wanting to violate his conscious and unable to make decisions, wouldn't agree to their terms.  The Puritans, incensed, became radicalized and within a couple of years, the English Civil War would begin.  At the end of the war, Charles was a mere prisoner of parliament.  After a long argument on whether Parliament could even try a king for treason, Charles was sentenced to death.  After he was executed, Parliament, at the urgings of Oliver Cromwell, abolished the monarchy.

In the modern era, none of this seems shocking.  Few nations even have kings or queens, Congress meets regularly, we are free to worship as we chose and many kings, queens, czars and dictators have shared the same fate as Charles I.  We must remember, however, that Charles's execution by his own people was unthinkable during his day.  These rebellious Puritans in Parliament changed the way society viewed monarchy and paved the way for democracy.  Now what do you think of the Puritans?  Perhaps you still want to cling to the Nathanial Hawthorne version of the Puritans, but for those who desire a new view; take a drink of some hard cider.  The Puritans believed it was good for your health.