Random Historians Answer Questions About Historical Royals We Should Have Asked Ages Ago (17 items)

• (#16) Was Julius Caesar Popular His Whole Life Or Just Recently?

  Redditor u/dancole42 asked:

  Nearly everyone in the Western world knows the name "Julius Caesar" and recognizes his life as seminal to many modern civilizations. Has this been the case for 2,000 years, or is it the product of 18th/19th century neoclassical Roman weebs?

  Redditor u/doylethedoyle answered:

  Summing up Caesar's position throughout the last 2,000 years is somewhat difficult to do in simple terms, because his significance to Western culture varies from era to era.

  To begin with the more immediate reception of Caesar, that is in the immediate aftermath of his death, while his assassins would style themselves as liberators and freeing Rome from tyranny (Cicero goes so far as to call Caesar a tyrant and parricide of the fatherland, De Officiis 3.82f.), the people of Rome grieved and honoured Caesar as a god. This is reflected particularly in Octavian adopting the name Gaius Julius Caesar Divi Filius after Caesar's death and "ascension," and while he would go on to change his name again after assuming power, he kept the Divi Filius aspect of his name throughout.

  The peoples' veneration of Caesar was exploited quite cleverly by the Triumvirs in the wake of their victory against Brutus et al. at the Battle of Philippi (though whether this was opportunistic reverence or genuine veneration of Caesar is perhaps up for debate); the fifth month of the year, Quintilis, was renamed Iulius (July), and Caesar was officially venerated as the Divine Julius, with Octavian even founding a Temple of Caesar.

  Octavian continued to use his adoption by Caesar, and vengeance for Caesar's assassination, as justification for the moves he made in his career. His own legions were comprised of Caesar's veterans, and he continued to exploit Caesar's civic reputation to bolster his own. Even complaints about Octavian largely focussed on his reliance upon Caesar's memory.

  It's worth noting, though, that once Octavian became Augustus, Caesar's significance dwindled somewhat under the cult of Augustus (though this is not to say that Caesar became objectively insignificant); Augustus came to rely on his own reputation rather than that of Caesar's before him. Augustan literature in particular came to downplay Caesar in favour of revering Augustus himself; Horace, for example, drew a direct association between Caesar's triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and the origins of civil war (Carmina, 2.1.3f.), while Virgil's Aeneid drew attention to Caesar as a bellicose figure (see Anchises beseeching Caesar to lay down his arms, Aeneid 6.834f.) while depicting Caesar's bitter rival Cato as a lawgiver (Aeneid 8.670).

  Caesar continued to be revered throughout Imperial history, albeit at varying degrees. The month of July continued to be held in his name, of course, and the title Caesar was held by Roman Emperors throughout the period. It's perhaps worth noting, though, the significance awarded to Augustus' position over Caesar's that after the Empire's split the title of Caesar was given to sub-emperors, while the emperors themselves held the title Augustus.

  Imperial depictions of Caesar held him as the cure to the late Republic's numerous problems; he broke the cycle of aristocrats and do-nothings by installing a new sort of power. In short, he was seen as a turning point. Imperial historians, such as Velleius Paterculus and Appian, awarded Caesar perhaps disproportionate attention against later rulers; Cassius Dio devoted a tenth of his eighty books on Roman history to Caesar's career, despite this comprising only a short period of his work's 1,000-year coverage.

  By the time of the later Roman empire, however, Caesar's centrality to Roman history had diminished, and his achievements were used largely as a comparison to the superiority of writers' contemporary rulers; Caesar was no longer the turning point of Roman history, as Christianisation had seen Rome's adoption of the faith as the seminal moment of history.

  However, Caesar himself was not forgotten even after the fall of Rome; his name continued as a designation of the highest power, reflected in the Holy Roman Imperial title of "Kaiser" (and, later, in the Slavic title "Czar/Tsar").

  Caesar, as founder of the fourth great empire of Daniel's Biblical prophecy (Daniel 2:40-43), became seen as an instrument in God's divine plan, and was thus depicted as a model of chivalric virtue and the ideal king, and was even held as a comparison for contemporary rulers to aspire to. Medieval English and French writers in particular praised Caesar for his chivalry, while German writers, who saw the Holy Roman Empire as the natural successor to Rome, held Caesar as the founder of their own empire, and depicted him as an ideal ruler from as early as the 11th century (see, for example, Archbishop Anno II of Cologne's Annolied). It's worth noting as well that Caesar continued to be held as a somewhat multifaceted hero, though; while the embodiment of chivalric virtue, he was also victim to his own hubris.

  Perhaps the most notable depiction of Caesar aligning with medieval ideas of the man is Dante's Inferno; as an unbaptised soul (obviously), Caesar was condemned to Limbo but was held as the one of the virtuous there (Inferno 4.123), while his murderers Brutus and Cassius are condemned to Hell to suffer alongside even the likes of Judas (Inferno 34.61-67).

  The Renaissance brought a rejuvenation in Caesarian reverence, particularly after the "discovery" that it was in fact Caesar himself who authored his Commentarii, which was held during the Renaissance as a key text in Latin education. The Commentarii, seen as a unique glimpse into pre-Roman Gaul, even developed into a key work in the study of Gallic history. It became a work transposed even into contemporary times; poet Giannantonio de Pandoni composed a prose piece that drew on Caesar's Commentarii as inspiration for depicting his own contemporary war between Venice and Milan (albeit without drawing direct comparison). Even Pope Pius II, who himself authored an autobiographical Commentarii, appropriated the Caesarian model by portraying himself rather explicitly in the cast of Caesar, associating his own struggles against the enemies of the Papal States with Caesar's struggles in his civil war. Writers like Petrarch and Machiavelli continued to draw on Caesar as a figure of contrasting reputation; an agent of hostility to the virtues of the Republican, but simultaneously a praiseworthy genius and chivalric ideal.

  Of course, his significance is also represented in Shakespeare's own plays about Caesar and the aftermath of his death; Shakespeare's depiction of Caesar suggests that the people were familiar, or at least aware, of Caesar as a historical figure. At the very least, they will have been aware of him after the fact.

  I will bring my answer to a close here by bringing us to Caesarian reception during the Enlightenment. In this period of philosophical advancement, Caesar was regarded as one of the emblems of absolute monarchy, representing the martial prowess and cultured education that was considered the ideal for an 18th-century ruler. He was seen, as well, as a somewhat benevolent despot; using his absolute authority to impose social reform on a nation very much in need of it. Voltaire in particular, while acknowledging Caesar's failures, held Caesar as the ideal philosopher-king.

  The Revolutions of the 18th century were themselves no stranger to drawing upon Caesar as a significant figure; albeit not in the positive light he'd been awarded during earlier periods. As a symbol of absolute power, he was of course seen as contrary to the ideals of the French and American revolutionaries, particularly as a warning for the dangers of a demagogue rising to power in the face of populism. Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers in particular used Caesar as a shorthand for autocratic power, and Hamilton also called Thomas Jefferson "Caesar" in warning of his potential.
• (#11) Why Was There A Delay Between King Louis XVI And Marie Antoinette's Executions?

  Redditor u/somebodyandnobody asked:

  Why was Marie Antoinette executed 10 months after Louis?

  Redditor u/breecher answered:

  Short answer is that Louis was the main target as the living embodiment of the French monarchy, and at that time it was a huge deal to kill a monarch for being a monarch, even for hardcore republicans, so they focused on him first, before turning to Marie Antoinette when they had accomplished their goal and set a precedent.

  Contrary to popular belief the revolutionaries actually stuck to a rather complex legal procedure before executing Louis XVI, it was not done on a whim or from executive order.

  Louis was no longer king, but as the living embodiment of the French monarchy remained a target for the republican revolutionaries. As such they engaged in a lengthy process of prosecuting him, first by taking up the question in the Convention whether it would be lawful to prosecute him at all for his actions as king, and as that passed after a lengthy debate, what kind of punishment he should receive.

  Despite there being a virtual civil war in France, and despite several massacres on royalists and nobles, most notably the September Massacres, it was still a huge deal to kill off the king himself. Opposition remained not just in the forces opposing the republicans but in Convention itself, and among the populace of Paris and the rest of France. So for the revolutionaries wanting to kill off the French monarchy it was important to legitimise the process as much as possible, and as such they focused on a legal argument against the king in person and his actions in supporting various incidents where his guards killed civilians in the riots occurring in the early period of the revolution.

  The debate on whether it was legal to prosecute the monarch became very technical and it did so with intent. With retrospective it can be questioned whether it was just to prosecute a king who had already been dethroned, and if so if it was legal to do so at the Convention instead of in a proper court of law. And these exact questions were voiced publically not just by the king's chosen defender but also by several members of the opposition in the Convent. And this is what underlines the fact of how crucial it was for the republicans to try and legitimise the proceedings as much as possible, because there wasn't 100% support in the convention itself, although there was a majority by far, for the proceedings and the execution. They succeeded and with that precedent they initiated a similar process against the queen.
• (#2) Was Marie Antoinette Liked By The French Before She Was Queen?

  Redditor u/-ad-as- asked:

  What did the French people think about Marie Antoinette before she became the queen?

  Redditor u/a_mons_at_a_glans answered:

  Marie-Antoinette was very popular more or less up until she became Queen in 1774.

  The marriage between the Dauphin Louis, soon to become Louis XVI, and Marie-Antoinette was meant to consolidate the alliance between France and Austria was welcomed by the people as a promise of continued peace, if not as a coming golden age.

  As soon as Marie-Antoinette set foot on French soil in 1770 she made all the right PR moves. For example she asked the mayor of Strasbourg who was complimenting her in German to speak French to her, as of this day she wouldn't know any other language. At every stop along the way to Paris, she appeared smiling and was gracious to everyone.

  By 1774, Marie-Antoinette already had serious political and personal enemies within the court, she was apparently unable to produce an heir, and the first vicious pamphlets started appearing.
• (#3) What Was The Relationship Like Between Elizabeth I And Mary, Queen Of Scots?

  Redditor u/Hydra527 asked:

  How did Queen Elizabeth I go from being hell-bent on killing Mary, Queen of Scots to naming her son James as her successor?

  A former Redditor answered:

  The hostility between Catholics and Protestants played a huge role in the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. 

  Mary, Queen of Scots was a devout Catholic, and Scotland was torn between Catholics and Protestants. This eventually led to protestant rebellion, Mary’s imprisonment, and her abdication on 24 July 1567, which meant that the 1-year-old James was now King of Scotland. Mary escaped and made it to England in 1568, and wanted Elizabeth to help her. There was an inquiry in England to determine whether Mary was responsible for the death of her late husband, Lord Danley. Mary was neither found guilty nor acquitted, and Mary was kept in English custody for 19 years.

  While all of this is taking place, Pope Pius V issued a papal bull titled ‘Regnans in Excelsis’ in 1570 that declared Elizabeth was not the rightful heir to the English throne. It gave any English Catholics permission to disobey her and threatened to excommunicate any Catholics who did obey Elizabeth’s orders. They didn’t need to pay taxes, obey the laws and so on. This inspired many plots to remove Elizabeth from the throne, and Mary was the focal point of many of these plots. The final of the plots was the Babington Plot which was a plan to execute Elizabeth and place Mary on the English throne. Babington wrote to Mary in code and told her what he planned to do, and she replied that she agreed. She was arrested, and put on trial for treason and sentenced to death in October 1586. It’s also important to note that while Mary was in England, it’s said that she was very vocal about her belief that she was the rightful heir and should be queen.

  Elizabeth reportedly did not want to execute a queen as it set a bad precedent, and it could lead to Catholic rebellion. She eventually signed the warrant of execution in February and gave it to a member of the Privy Council and reportedly asked him not to do anything with it. Mary was executed on 8 February 1587. It isn’t clear if Elizabeth wanted Mary to be executed, as after she was told that Mary had been executed, Elizabeth declared it was against her authority.

  When it comes to the line of succession, Elizabeth refused to name an heir throughout her reign. Elizabeth reportedly would say that the person with the most right to inherit the throne would whenever she was asked. It actually wasn’t a given that James would succeed Elizabeth. Henry VIII, Elizabeth’s father, had excluded the line of his sister Margaret (who was James’ great-grandmother) from English succession in favour of his youngest sister Mary Tudor. This was stated in his will in the event that his children all died without issue, and endorsed in the third Succession Act. It prioritized what was referred to as the Suffolk claim over any claim the Stuarts (i.e. James) would have.

  Despite the other claims to the English throne and Henry VIII’s exclusion of the Stuart line, James did have a strong claim. Both of his parents were descended from Henry VII through Margaret Tudor, and James was Protestant, unlike his Catholic parents. James was a foreigner, which was not ideal, though the relationship between England and Scotland was not as hostile as it had been in the past. He was also already a King, certainly helping matters. At the time of Elizabeth’s death, James was also genealogically the closest relative. One of the other likely candidates seemed to be Anne Stanley, descended from Mary Tudor. However, the family’s religion was unclear with speculation they were Catholic, her father had been approached to be involved in a Catholic plot, and her grandmother was arrested for using witchcraft to determine if Queen Elizabeth would live much longer.

  Elizabeth’s advisor Robert Cecil played an important role in James’ succession to the English throne. Between 1601 and 1603, Cecil secretly negotiated and corresponded with James, and all but confirmed that James would be the heir. Cecil requested that their communication be kept a secret from Elizabeth, that James not broach the subject of succession with her, and that James not seek parliamentary confirmation of his claim to the throne. Shortly before Elizabeth died in 1603, James was sent a draft proclamation of his accession by Cecil and James was declared the King of England within hours of Elizabeth’s death. It's not really clear whether or not Elizabeth ever specified that James was to be her heir, though she reportedly once said that only a king is fit to succeed a Queen.

  Essentially, Elizabeth never really seemed to want Mary, Queen of Scots to die or that she had any real animosity towards her cousin. She wanted to protect the throne and Mary simply being in England was a threat to that. While Elizabeth kept Mary in custody for 19 years, Mary was afforded a relatively good lifestyle even while captive, including at least 16 personal staff, private chefs, and summers spent at a spa town. If Mary had not been found to be involved in one of the many plots on Elizabeth, she likely would have remained in custody. When it came to succession, James was the logical choice and rightful heir following the rules of primogeniture (and ignoring Henry VIII’s exclusion). Elizabeth had long stated that the person with the most right to inherit would, and as James was her closest living relative, it is not surprising he succeeded her.
• (#10) Did Queen Victoria Actually Care About The Irish During The Great Famine?

  Redditor u/Jewelofadog asked:

  Was Queen Victoria actually upset about the plight of the Irish during the Great Famine?

  Redditor u/chocolatepot answered:

  Yes, Queen Victoria was upset, although her concern was tempered. As a young princess, she was highly sympathetic to the native Irish as a whole when she learned about the historical and present oppression visited on them by her ancestors; it's been argued that her feelings were turned early in her rule by her highly influential first Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne. Ireland had been undergoing civil unrest through the 1830s due to poor crop yields and high rents charged by absentee English landowners, and when Victoria came to the throne in 1837, she came to believe that the issue was the "low Irish" (a term frequently used during this time for Irish people, particularly those that had emigrated to England, who were destitute and seen as having caused or deserving their problems through fecklessness and irresponsibility) revolting against good or at least well-intentioned local leaders. This obviously had implications for leaders farther up the chain of command! Stricter measures were taken by the government against the "low Irish, and Victoria was disinclined to visit for fear of her own safety.

  When the potato blight hit and destroyed two years' worth of crops, the queen urged her new PM Robert Peel to repeal the Corn Laws, which had put high import duties on foreign food and thus caused even more economic devastation when crops in the UK failed (such as with the Great Famine). She also limited the palace bread rations to a pound per person per day in order to cut down on the use of grain/flour, freeing up more to be sent to Ireland; she gave £2000 from her personal income and encouraged others to donate to the cause. However, she still retained her old prejudices, and while she was horrified at the suffering of the poor Irish, she was disdainful of those that revolted violently against their landlords for hoarding/diverting food.

  Eventually, the royal family did visit. The lord mayor of Dublin invited the queen to come in 1844, but the unrest (and then famine) made her and the government decide not to actually go through with it. Finally, in 1849, Victoria, Albert, and the oldest four children went on a low-budget state visit to improve relations between the Irish and stimulate trade and manufacture, which ended up costing roughly £2000 itself, canceling out her donation. Victoria and Albert were charmed by what they saw and considered it a great success - despite the desperate circumstances, there were still plenty of cheering crowds - but her itinerary was designed to keep her out of the hard-hit areas and in the long run, it did little to calm tensions. One has to wonder what might have happened if she had given Ireland the kind of patronage she gave to Scotland: would it have created a similar tourist industry and brought in more money for the region? Would there have been more sympathy on the part of the English toward the rural Irish? Would the government of Dublin have kept the statue of Albert she sent following his death, the return of which helped to make Victoria okay with neglecting Ireland for the rest of her reign? We don't know that it would have made a difference to the history of Irish separatism, but it's an interesting counterfactual to ponder.
• (#7) Why Don't English Royals Use Surnames?

  Redditor u/Ainatuoretta asked:

  What is the surname of Queen Elizabeth II ?

  Redditor u/jschooltiger answered:

  Inasmuch as she has a surname, it's Windsor. The current British royal house is the house of Windsor; that line succeeded the house of Hanover when Queen Victoria died and her son Edward VII succeeded her. Edward took his father's surname, being a member of the royal house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; the name of the house was changed to Windsor in 1917, under George V, as a result of anti-German sentiment in WWI. However, in normal usage, the royal family doesn't use surnames -- there's no ambiguity over which Elizabeth is queen of Britain, versus who's Elizabeth Smith or Elizabeth Stone.

New Random Displays    Display All By Ranking