History questions not worth their own thread V

[say1988]

I read somewhere on another forum that the Seven Years War was started by an ambush by George Washington. It got me thinking since I really don't know what started the Seven Years/French and Indian war. What exactly started it? The Prussians or something else?

This is probably oversimplified and Dachs or others will point out how wrong it is but here goes:

The war started in North America. Two years later the French launched the first attack in Europe (resulting in Byng's infamous defeat at the Battle of Minorca) the British then secured an alliance with the Prussians who then launched a preemptive attack on Austria's ally Bavaria and other European powers joined in and it spread to other colonies including the third Carnatic War.

In North America it started as a simple territorial dispute (the most contentious disputes were centred around modern Pittsburg). The British colonies' westward expansion ran into French Louisiana and there were disputes over control of territories. Particularly the French claims were limiting the British fur trade (this same pattern, limited westward expansion would be one of the causes of the revolution as the British limited what French territories acquired in the war could be settled).

Over a number of years the duspute continued, the French attacked attacked a group natives allied and trading with the British and constructed a series of forts in the disputed territories.

In 1854 Virginia sent Washington and a militia force to demand the French to withdraw, but they withdrew when the French refused their demands.

A separate Virginian force was sent to establish a small fort in the diputed territory, but were forced to withdraw by the French. Washington, who had been sent to reinforce this position then ambushed and destroyed a French patrol at the Battle of Jumonvilled Glen.

Following this he established Fort Necessity nearby and was reinforced by additional militia and some British regulars. The fort was besieged by the French and Washington surrendered on condition of being allowed to withdraw with his men.

Upon hearing of this the British decided to send an army to attack the French and the French sent reinforcements to fight the British, resulting in an expansion of the war thoughout the North American colonies in 1855 and leading to war in Europe in 1856.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The French and Indian War was in the 18th century, mate.

 

[say1988]

The French and Indian War was in the 18th century, mate.

That was stupid of me. I caught the fact that I inititally wrote 19XX and "corrected" it to 18XX .

 

[Cutlass]

To what extent did Queen Victoria actually run the government while she was on the throne? Was she a good/competent leader, or just lucky enough to have good times? What of her policies were notably good/bad for the Empire of her day?

 

[Plotinus]

As far as I can tell, Queen Victoria's role in governing Britain and the empire was pretty much the same as Queen Elizabeth II's role in doing the same thing.

 

[Cutlass]

Ceremonial figurehead?

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, and occasional mediator between squabbling statesmen - she wrote a letter to Parliament as the electoral reform agitation reached its head - I think in 1867 - and the Lords seemed hell-bent on stalling any possibility of passing a Reform Act, essentially urging all sides to stop being idiots and to pass the bloody thing.

 

[Antilogic]

EDIT: Never mind, I think I misread the post.

 

[Cutlass]

So at what point, and why, did the Monarchs lose effective control of the government?

 

[Flying Pig]

About the point that the government started cutting their heads off.

 

[Phrossack]

Just how Breton was the medieval Breton nobility? I get the impression from what vanishingly little I know that their ruling houses at least were pretty culturally and linguistically French, but what of the others? Was Breton just a peasant's tongue at the time?

 

[sophie]

So at what point, and why, did the Monarchs lose effective control of the government?

It was a rather gradual process, kicking up prominently once parliament started getting control of the government's purse-strings through the Tudor and Stuart eras (in large part caused by the bankrupting of the crown that Henry VIII and Elizabeth enacted). But the big tipping point was the Restoration of Charles II, who sacrificed a lot of regal authority to get his throne back, and then William III, who did the same.

 

[Masada]

Just read about the Bedchamber Scandal for an indication of how much influence Queen Victoria actually had.

 

[Lord Baal]

It was a rather gradual process, kicking up prominently once parliament started getting control of the government's purse-strings through the Tudor and Stuart eras (in large part caused by the bankrupting of the crown that Henry VIII and Elizabeth enacted). But the big tipping point was the Restoration of Charles II, who sacrificed a lot of regal authority to get his throne back, and then William III, who did the same.

Let's not forget that the influence and power of the Crown actually increased under William III's heirs though, to the point that some folks - *cough-Bolingbroke-cough* - seemed to think the UK might actually become an absolute monarchy again. Victoria's reign halted the loss of parliamentary prestige and swung things sharply away from the Crown once more. I have never, for the life of me, been able to figure out why. I assume it was her youth upon ascending the throne that enabled Parliament to re-assert itself.

 

[Plotinus]

It must have helped that she spent a considerable portion of her reign basically not caring about anything at all and moping about indoors on the Isle of Wight.

 

[Lord Baal]

It must have helped that she spent a considerable portion of her reign basically not caring about anything at all and moping about indoors on the Isle of Wight.

No doubt. The strange thing is that while Victoria was undoubtedly a weak sovereign, she wasn't that much weaker than her predecessors. It's a bit surprising that the Crown's power and influence takes a sudden dive during her reign.

 

[Flying Pig]

Bear in mind that her reign was several times longer than that of most of her predecessors: it was about the same length as the reigns of William IV, George IV, George II and Anne put together.

 

[Lord Baal]

Bear in mind that her reign was several times longer than that of most of her predecessors: it was about the same length as the reigns of William IV, George IV, George II and Anne put together.

Exactly. A reign of such length should have enabled her to consolidate her position.

 

[Cutlass]

So Parliament was ascendent because Vicki didn't really attempt to assert herself? And it worked out because that was a very good era for the Empire for other reasons?

 

[Flying Pig]

Exactly. A reign of such length should have enabled her to consolidate her position.

Equally, if we assume that the change in the relationship between parliament and monarch is an ongoing process in English history, it makes sense that it happened to the greatest extent under Victoria because she happened to occupy the largest number of years in which it was occurring. Besides, I really don't think that it could have gone the other way by that time. George III was so often mad that Parliament had to run the country from his reign: to me, that was the point of no return. Even then, the first de facto Prime Minister served under George I, so the process was well underway even before George III.