Stories of King Sean

[volksmarschall]

Some quite interesting insight into the dynastic politics of the era. I wonder how different Irish history might have been if Sean had indeed died childless in those early years (though I'm sure in-universe, someone has already speculated at quite some length).

Hoping to see more, as always!

I heard a story about an English King who once killed his wives, precisely because they couldn't deliver a child (more specifically, a male heir! )

 

[aldriq]

Of course having had just one kinslayer would have been too simple, almost unlike-CK2

 

[stnylan]

Specialist290 No doubt about it, if Sean had been killed very early on it would have been game over me, the dynasty extinct as my heir was of another dynasty. Even somewhat latter, with a long Regency things would have been very different.

Asantahene Yes indeed. I have actually been sending up prayers for an heir in my current ruler (Sean's great-great-great-grand-son).

Idhrendur Very many thanks for the kind words.

volksmarschall Hehe Well, I suppose becoming Cathar would have been about equivalent to joining the Protestant Reformation.

aldriq Well I did only have the one, but it was a close-run thing

All Hoping to get another update out in the next couple of days. However, given I have just acquired EU4 it is not impossible there may be a delay here and there

 

[volksmarschall]

Hehe Well, I suppose becoming Cathar would have been about equivalent to joining the Protestant Reformation

Be careful with the Catharism jokes! I've been to the long side of the Magisterial Reformation and ended up back at St. Peter's Basilica just like Scott Hahn!

 

[stnylan]

Stories of King Sean
6 - The intervention of the Bishop of Kells​

Our next entry is taken directly from the Second Chronicle of Kells, edited only slightly. This portion of the second chronicle only survives because of a copied manuscript. Textual studies of that manuscript, and studies of the other two surviving portions of original manuscript, attest that the chronicle was generally written contemporaneously - but that at some later point the chronicle was lightly edited. The date of this revision is not known for certain, but many hypothesise it to come from the 13th century.

So it was the brave churchman challenged the king: he went into the hall and demanded to speak to the new king. The king was with his councillors, but he did not deny the servant of the Lord. “My son,” said the dear servant of Christ, “I have seen a message telling me that you are in mortal danger, your life, nay your very soul lies imperilled. For what I know will soon be known throughout the land. Were I to be struck down in this very moment, these tidings are already abroad. I beg of you my king, relive this burden that you bear, and submit yourself, lest the storm tear you apart.”

The king’s councillor’s were amazed, and knew not what to make of this, for the bishop among them ordinarily had the reputation of being a mild man. The King himself however felt the stirrings of God in his heart, and so dropped down to his knees. He clutched the bishop’s hand – and was not refused, and in his sudden grief and terror at his potential fate he wailed his confession. “I have sinned. I have slain my father.”

This scene threw the entire court into disarray, and there were some present tempted to quit the hall to make whatever mischief was on their mind. But the bishop was not done. He fixed each and every lord and lordling with his stare. “This man is a sinner, but the Lord came for sinners. This man has confessed a great crime, but he will make restitution. He is your brother and your king, and you owe him your fealty in this and in all things. For if you break with him now I will condemn you all as hypocrites and scoundrels, traitors and devils, for which among you can claim not to have wished the old king dead? Which among you truly mourn his death? I tell you all, if any one of you can stand before now and claim your heart did not leap in his breast, like salmon leap up a stream, when you first heart the news of Domnall’s demise, I will charge you to carry out the final sentence.”

No man came forward, for none could. Their own shame kept them silent. The Bishop waited a long time, and then he went about the throng and asked each lord, each man or worth, and even the very servants if they could in truth claim they bore the old king no ill will. All were forced to acknowledge their own culpability.

For all this time the King remained in a position of abject supplication, but the bishop returned, and raised him up, and it seemed to all those present that as he rose the king seemed taller than he had in the past. After that, the King and his Councillors, along with the steadfast bishop, shepherd of his flock, talked of many things.

The sinful author of this work knows not what was discussed, but when the envoy of Bishop of St Peter came to these shores with a news of the Holy Father’s forgiveness, all knew it was the gentle Bishop of Kells, faithful servant of the Lord and loved by the King and all the people who had seen this restitution through, guided as he was by the Hand of God Himself, to bring peace and prosperity to the realm of Tara. It is said that when the absolution was confirmed the good Bishop called it a blessing, for all the Britannic lands.

 

[volksmarschall]

Backstabbing politics in the Medieval Age, what a surprise!

On that note, reading the brief confession made me think of Michael Corleone's confession to the fictionalized future John Paul I from The Godfather III.

 

[Asantahene]

A marvellous contemporary update Stnylan! I wonder whether the King orchestrated the whole thing as a particularly good bit of political stage management?

 

[Specialist290]

A marvellous contemporary update Stnylan! I wonder whether the King orchestrated the whole thing as a particularly good bit of political stage management?

For my part, part of me thinks that King Sean was genuinely remorseful. I know there seems to have been no love lost between him and his father, and certainly Papal absolution would have been convenient to silence the naysayers, but somewhere in the back of my mind I get this feeling that Sean wasn't just going through the motions for the benefit of the public.

 

[volksmarschall]

For my part, part of me thinks that King Sean was genuinely remorseful. I know there seems to have been no love lost between him and his father, and certainly Papal absolution would have been convenient to silence the naysayers, but somewhere in the back of my mind I get this feeling that Sean wasn't just going through the motions for the benefit of the public.

He must've been overcome with with of those "Holy Ghost" takeovers! What man confesses murder in the middle of a crowd for all to see and hear?

 

[stnylan]

volksmarschall Not seen The Godfather Part III (only Part I). Amusingly though in my only completed AAR (In Memory of France) there was a scene in there compared to The Godfather (which I had not watched at that point), so the comparison makes me smile.

However, my chief inspiration for this scene - or for the Bishop's speech anyway - was John VIII:3-11 - when the Pharisees brought the adulterous woman before Jesus for judgement.

Asantahene In game King Sean never had the best Intrigue rating. On the other hand, he had some absolutely stellar Councillors. Indeed, iirc the bishop represented here was my Court Chaplin, but I did accidentally make him spymaster at one point because his intrigue was pretty good too.

Specialist290 I think the reality of facing possible excommunication to any relatively devout Catholic is a terrible thing and likely to bring out great contrition - and even more so to a devout Catholic in this time period, and, dare I say, especially an Irish Catholic.

volksmarschall Borrowing from another well known writer of currently good repute "Never forget who you are, because the world will not." By having it brought out into the open the Bishop makes it more difficult for it to be a cause of revolt. If King Sean survived the moment of course.

All I hope to get another update out this weekend, but usual caveats apply. Meanwhile I have reached 1267 in the actual game, and I have to say it is really rather fun. I wish there were better ways of tracking what was happening in other kingdoms. Castille - which has taken over about 60% of the Iberian peninsular plus about two-thirds of southern France, just went through a Time of Troubles like scenario with no fewer than seven revolts. Really the average Paradox game just throws up so many potentially interesting stories.

 

[Stuyvesant]

He must've been overcome with with of those "Holy Ghost" takeovers! What man confesses murder in the middle of a crowd for all to see and hear?

Either one who has been struck by an overwhelming sense of remorse, or one who has had a prior meeting with the bishop at which both men came to an agreement and conceived of a cunning plan to silence the rumors swirling around King Sean and restore his standing amongst his subjects. Call me cynical, but you can probably guess towards which option my opinion leans.

I mean, the King boldly admits to being a regicide and a kinslayer to boot, but the bishop immediately takes the sting out of the confession by pointing out that everyone present is a sinner, by virtue of the fact that the whole bunch of them were happy to see the old King dead. And only good King Sean had the decency to beg forgiveness, so how could any of the as-yet unrepentant sinners ever dare to judge him? And in the end, the Pope absolves King Sean, so all's well that ends well.

Also, nice touch to have the chronicler of these events refer to himself as a sinner, thereby reminding all those reading these words that they, too, are sinners, and should therefore focus on getting themselves right with God, instead of considering passing judgment on the (already absolved!) sins of King Sean.

So call me cynical once more, but I think the gentle Bishop of the Kells would have made a fine spin doctor in contemporary British politics.

Let none of this distract from the fact that it was a mighty fine (set of) update(s) to enjoy (while out on vacation, hence my tardiness in responding).

 

[Specialist290]

Either one who has been struck by an overwhelming sense of remorse, or one who has had a prior meeting with the bishop at which both men came to an agreement and conceived of a cunning plan to silence the rumors swirling around King Sean and restore his standing amongst his subjects. Call me cynical, but you can probably guess towards which option my opinion leans.

Not meaning to suggest that you have to be wrong about it being a manipulative act, but is it impossible for both to be true at the same time? I've never really held to the idea that a person's interactions with belief systems and the religious bodies that underpin them must be either entirely sacred or entirely secular; I think with most people, there's some mixture of both self-interest and a desire to do the right thing (filtered through their own perceptions, which may be off-kilter at times) at work, and I think that this commingling was especially prevalent in an era when the separation between the realms of the political and the religious was much less apparent, or at least cast in a very different light.

I'm fully willing to believe that both men had come together to plan this out beforehand, and that they were conscious of the fact that such a move was a calculated gamble -- but I also believe that they (or at least one of them), as well as most of their audience, believed in God's agency in a way that not even many "religious" people of the modern world do, and that any favor that King Sean's act of contrition would have bought from the people through this act would have ultimately arisen from His acceptance or rejection of this act of public humiliation. In short, God would show whether or not He accepted the confession through the reaction of the people, or so they might have thought.

In short, while I think it's possible that on some level King Sean knew this was a manipulative act, I don't think that knowledge would have necessarily conflicted with his piety (or lack thereof) in the context of the medieval conception of how God worked in human affairs.

Of course, we can't truly know the inner workings of another man's mind on these matters, but it's certainly fun to speculate.

 

[Director]

Not meaning to carp, but I had to smile when I saw you refer to the good Bishop as your "Court Chaplin". I now envision him with a painted-on toothbrush moustache, a bowler hat (with a mitre crown no doubt), waddling along madly twirling his shepherd's staff... secretly bouncing an inflatable globe behind the closed doors of his office... ah, well. My sense of humor is known to be a little odd.

I have to agree with Stuyvesant on detecting a whiff of pre-arrangement. Still, the issue must have been troubling the King a great deal or he'd never have gone through with it.

 

[volksmarschall]

Not seen The Godfather Part III (only Part I). Amusingly though in my only completed AAR (In Memory of France) there was a scene in there compared to The Godfather (which I had not watched at that point), so the comparison makes me smile.

I can somewhat understand not seeing Part III since it is the lowest of the trilogy (although I still think it's pretty good, but its so difficult to compare it to the cinematic masterpieces of the first and second)! Not seeing Part 2 earns you excommunication! Godfather 2 is the greatest movie of all-time... (my opinion)

 

[aldriq]

Of course, we can't truly know the inner workings of another man's mind on these matters, but it's certainly fun to speculate.

I think that's the beauty of only ever knowing the events through second/third-hand chronicles – you may be able to ascertain the bias of the authors and maybe even prove some facts via archeological evidence, but you will still not know the truth of thoughts and intentions...

 

[stnylan]

Stuyvesant Of course, it is naturally pure theatre - but then most great political events are so constructed, even today.

Director Lol, nice pickup I think it is fair to say that even pure theatre can be true.

volksmarschall Not true. The greatest film of all time is Blazing Saddles, admittedly for purely personal reasons which I elucidate here, should anyone be interested.

aldriq I think this is one of the reasons I am almost always as fascinated by those who write the primary and early secondary documentation (and sometimes even later secondary documentation) as I am by the events they are describing.

 

[volksmarschall]

Not true. The greatest film of all time is Blazing Saddles, admittedly for purely personal reasons which I elucidate here, should anyone be interested.

I love Blazing Saddles, and all of those extremely funny, due to satire, "older" comedies by Mel Brooks and even Leslie Nielson and the Naked Gun series. Although, as far as comedies go, I just don't think they're on the same level as "epics", but then again, that's an apples to oranges comparison. Comedies that rely on satire, like Dr. Strangelove, among my favorite movies of all time, are simply great!

 

[stnylan]

Stories of King Sean
7 - England​

The following excerpt is taken from the writings of that great eighteenth century bibliophile Seamus Gibbons. Actually it is from a letter he was writing to a good, if under-educated friend, explaining some of his research into his later magnum opus. I make no excuses for editing out the digressions.

When King Sean became King of Tara he had four primary concerns: the very real possibility of excommunication, or even interdiction due to his parricide; his lack of heir, with the attendant machinations of his sister and various Scottish factions; the apparent formation of several alliances within and without Ireland seeking to exert a check on Tara's rise; and finally the very chaotic state of England.

England dominated the British Isles – it had the power to make or break any of the other lords should it choose to exert itself. Fortunately for everyone else England had been afflicted by an almost chronic instability since the beginning of the eleventh century. This allowed other powers to coalesce, first Scotland and then later, Tara.

The tale of England's strife has its own merits. During the second half of Æthelræd's poor reign England collapsed in civil war and foreign conquest. Eventually the Dane, Knud the Great, stood atop the pile of corpses. He provided much needed stability for both England and Denmark, but upon his death it was again brother against brother in a dynastic civil war. This eventually led to the war for a scion of the old House of Wessex, Ædward, to rise to power. Ædward was however a weak king, beholden to his barons, in particular the Godwines, and it was Harold Godewineson himself who seized power upon his death in 1066.

This was a fateful year, for Harold was but one of three claimants for the English throne. From Norway came the veteran adventurer Harald Hadradr, whilst from Normandy came William. Harold could see off the first foe, but was overcome by the second, and so it was that England fell to the Norman yoke.

The House of Godewine fled to differing courts. His eldest, also called Godewine, fled to Dublin. There he bided his time at the court of King Sean's grandfather, drawing support and waiting, until in the spring of 1071 he launched an expedition to reclaim his father's throne. After two gruelling years, William was forced to submit, but he was allowed to retain some English lands as well as his Norman ones. Godewine became known as the Great in his turn, and he disputed with the French king whom was owed the fealty of Normandy. This was not an argument that Godewine was able to see to its conclusion however, because in 1093 his younger brother, Magnus, raised his standard claiming the crown.

The Brother's war was surprisingly short, and here perhaps the greatness of Godewine was fully on display. After several early reverses he apparently decided not to continue the fight, and so summoned his brother to a conference. When his brother arrived he took the crown from his own head, and placed it upon Magnus'. Thus ended the war, but Godewine was not exiled or otherwise treated as an enemy. Instead he faithfully served his brother and his realm for the rest of his live, principally as a diplomat. Never before – and never since – has a king voluntarily abdicated in such a fashion and then continued to be a trusted subordinate and statesman.

It was Magnus therefore who defeated the French, in particular by securing dominance in the Vexin region, and some trace the latter weakness of the French realm to this very moment. However, Magnus' reign was not peaceful. Firstly another younger brother set his sights on England, and then a cousin, and the second of these wars was ongoing when King Sean murdered his own father.

King Magnus died in 1116, and his son and heir, Sighere, was only ten. There was one further challenge, this time seen off by his uncle Godewine. It was not until Sighere's majority in 1122 that England's dynastic affairs appeared to settle. By that time the lords of Tara had, for three generations, been shown to be good friends of the House of Godewine.

Sighere of course had a long and prosperous reign, also earning the accolade of “the Great”, and he was a great friend to King Sean, who had always treated the younger King with great courtesy. The continued rise of Tara and the unification of Ireland cannot be understand without also understanding the long-standing alliance between these two houses, which in time would result in the formation of the Empire of Britannia.

 

[Specialist290]

A nice little snapshot of how things are going beyond Tara's borders. I'm sure keeping England either friendly or divided must have surely been in King Sean's best interests.

Also a nice little story there with Godewine and Magnus -- though, in light of the discussion that we just had over Sean's public absolution, I do have to wonder if there's more to that particular story than Mr. Gibbons is letting on...

 

[Asantahene]

A great little update! Always good to know what is going on beyond your own lands borders.

Question: isn't interdiction the same as excommunication?