Mark Allen
@markallen23.bsky.social
PhD in history from Cambridge University. Examined coexistence & religio-political crises in early Stuart London through a case study of the Catholic queen's & embassy chapels.
https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.117058
https://doi.org/10.1017/bch.2022.21
https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.117058
https://doi.org/10.1017/bch.2022.21
I get the point about the need to sell books, but it's hard to imagine Lucy Worsley being so biased to the point that she publicly admits she hates the Stuarts. Lucy treats these subjects in an objective way and is richly rewarded for it. Isn't the whole idea of the discipline to be objective?
September 11, 2025 at 6:47 PM
I get the point about the need to sell books, but it's hard to imagine Lucy Worsley being so biased to the point that she publicly admits she hates the Stuarts. Lucy treats these subjects in an objective way and is richly rewarded for it. Isn't the whole idea of the discipline to be objective?
Probably. Laws are ignored today, when it suits. But I don't think the argument Scottish James VI was ineligible stands up to scrutiny. But probably unsurprising from a self-avowed Stuart hater, as she admitted on a podcast to promote the book. But not declared in the book.
September 11, 2025 at 6:41 PM
Probably. Laws are ignored today, when it suits. But I don't think the argument Scottish James VI was ineligible stands up to scrutiny. But probably unsurprising from a self-avowed Stuart hater, as she admitted on a podcast to promote the book. But not declared in the book.
The English right-wing and anti-Scottish press are obviously loving this, but is it good history?
September 11, 2025 at 6:34 PM
The English right-wing and anti-Scottish press are obviously loving this, but is it good history?
That important point is not made in the book, btw.
September 11, 2025 at 4:21 PM
That important point is not made in the book, btw.
I think an important question here is, shouldn't historians with such a reach take even greater care to be balanced and not so obviously biased to the point of announcing on a podcast that you're a Stuart hater.
September 11, 2025 at 4:21 PM
I think an important question here is, shouldn't historians with such a reach take even greater care to be balanced and not so obviously biased to the point of announcing on a podcast that you're a Stuart hater.
excluded them too.
Henry VIII's will was also of uncertain legal force (arguably not validly executed, and never reconfirmed by Parliament). It had been ignored by both Edward VI and Mary I, setting a precedent. By Elizabeth’s death, the Suffolk line was politically dead.
James was the...
Henry VIII's will was also of uncertain legal force (arguably not validly executed, and never reconfirmed by Parliament). It had been ignored by both Edward VI and Mary I, setting a precedent. By Elizabeth’s death, the Suffolk line was politically dead.
James was the...
September 11, 2025 at 3:53 PM
excluded them too.
Henry VIII's will was also of uncertain legal force (arguably not validly executed, and never reconfirmed by Parliament). It had been ignored by both Edward VI and Mary I, setting a precedent. By Elizabeth’s death, the Suffolk line was politically dead.
James was the...
Henry VIII's will was also of uncertain legal force (arguably not validly executed, and never reconfirmed by Parliament). It had been ignored by both Edward VI and Mary I, setting a precedent. By Elizabeth’s death, the Suffolk line was politically dead.
James was the...
... apply? Also by the 17th and 18th centuries, when common law was fully developed, several monarchs acceded, despite being foreign-born, namely William III from the Netherlands, and George I and George II from Hanover (Germany). If foreign birth disqualified James, then surely it should have...
September 11, 2025 at 3:53 PM
... apply? Also by the 17th and 18th centuries, when common law was fully developed, several monarchs acceded, despite being foreign-born, namely William III from the Netherlands, and George I and George II from Hanover (Germany). If foreign birth disqualified James, then surely it should have...
* as a ‘foreigner’, since common law barred ‘aliens’ from inheriting land, and
* by Henry VIII’s will, which favoured the Suffolk line over the Stuarts.
But I don't think this argument stacks up. Isn't it the case that the Crown was never treated like ordinary property, so the ‘alien’ rule didn’t..
* by Henry VIII’s will, which favoured the Suffolk line over the Stuarts.
But I don't think this argument stacks up. Isn't it the case that the Crown was never treated like ordinary property, so the ‘alien’ rule didn’t..
September 11, 2025 at 3:53 PM
* as a ‘foreigner’, since common law barred ‘aliens’ from inheriting land, and
* by Henry VIII’s will, which favoured the Suffolk line over the Stuarts.
But I don't think this argument stacks up. Isn't it the case that the Crown was never treated like ordinary property, so the ‘alien’ rule didn’t..
* by Henry VIII’s will, which favoured the Suffolk line over the Stuarts.
But I don't think this argument stacks up. Isn't it the case that the Crown was never treated like ordinary property, so the ‘alien’ rule didn’t..
Congrats, Katie. That's great news!
July 22, 2025 at 5:13 PM
Congrats, Katie. That's great news!
Looking forward to hearing this!
April 11, 2025 at 1:57 PM
Looking forward to hearing this!
Good to see it in print, Katie, and also have some insight on the relationship between anti-popish sentiment and what Catholics were doing, particularly in London. I very much enjoyed reading it.
April 4, 2025 at 8:26 AM
Good to see it in print, Katie, and also have some insight on the relationship between anti-popish sentiment and what Catholics were doing, particularly in London. I very much enjoyed reading it.
Many thanks, Harry. I will let you know when that is, but hopefully late May.
February 3, 2025 at 10:59 AM
Many thanks, Harry. I will let you know when that is, but hopefully late May.
Just seen this Zoë. Yay, congrats!
February 3, 2025 at 7:36 AM
Just seen this Zoë. Yay, congrats!