Reading this got me thinking...Was he really crazy or did he just not follow societal or leadership conventions of the time. I think about how many monarchs throughout history we have heard were mad. Were there bad genetics (and destructive inbreeding) in royal veins or were they unable to deal with the pressures of court or where they raised to have unreal/unpractical perspectives of the world they they were unable to maintain the image of sanity or were they just beyond their time in not believing in the social conventions and were therefore considered mad.
I think it is interesting to delve into what really made them be considered crazy. I have found a link that explores these mad monarchs from King George III of England to Ludwig II of Germany. This is some of what the page says about Charles VI:
In April 1392 Charles suffered from a mysterious illness which caused his hair and nails to fall out. He was hardly recovered, still suffering from occasional bouts of fever and behaving incoherently, when he set out on a punitive expedition after an assassination attempt on one of his advisors...Charles' mysterious illness of 1392 could have been typhus or encephalitis. If this disease was encephalitis, then it could very likely have been a contributory factor to the bizarre features of Charles' behaviour, for encephalitis can cause a marked character change and give rise to impulsive, aggressive and intemperate activity, similar in its symptoms to those of schizophrenia.
So it appears that he truly did suffer from constrained mental capacities. The question can then become why people tolerated being ruled by the unwell. Locke would argue that the contract between the governed and the governing had been broken. I think part of this revolt can be seen with the American revolution under King George III. Had George III not been ill would the course of history be different?
I think that his madness provoked a lot of troubles at the time. I do not think that peasants had any say at this time and the nobility was well aware of the King's madness and some tried to take advantage of that.
ReplyDeletefrom wikipedia:
"With the King mad, his uncles Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, and John, Duke of Berry, took control and dismissed Charles's advisers and various officials he had appointed. Another contender for power was the King's brother, Louis I de Valois, Duke of Orléans. This was to be the start of a series of major feuds among the princes of royal blood which would cause much chaos and conflict in France even beyond Charles's reign."
The Bourguignons, led by the duke of Burgundy, are the ones that allied themselves to the English and captured later Joan of Arc.
In a way, these nobles were trying to assume the position of Regent. Therefore, they could rule while at the same time pretend that it was for the good of the kingdom.
Your website about the various madmen is quite interesting and funny in a way.
as for the american revolution, I do not know enough about Georges III, his madness and its impact on the colonies. I thought that it was purely on the base of taxes. On the other hand, it could be argued that George III would ruled like an enlightened king and give freedom to this colony but I am a bit perplex about that. He would have probably saw Americans as his subjects and would have thus expected obedience from them.
Canada got independent after WWII yet, they were british till there and Kings or Queen that ruled the empire were not all mad.
So I am not so sure if history would have been different, it probably had a certain impact on the motivations of the settlers but why only in America and not in the recently conquered colonies of Canada?
Your point about Canada is a good point. There are two nearly located countries made up of people from similar beginnings and backgrounds. However, I did just wonder whether the US, whose founders relied highly on the works of John Locke (Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence), was more focused on the social contract of governance and how this contract might have been breeched by a king who not only was 'mad' but could not adequately meet their needs.
ReplyDelete~PB