British Empire/Commonwealth Fae

[Con]

So we have two WOJ's on the Fae in Australia.

The first during the 2015 QnA.

"I was talking with a friend about the faerie courts, and since we live in Australia, we were both wondering what the explanation is for the seasons being reversed in the southern hemisphere. Does Titania take a vacation down south for Christmas? Or is there a seperate pair of courts for the south?

"Oh, no, they'll just rotate interests. Mab has more power in the southern winter, Titania in the southern summer. Though, as fundamentally northern-hemisphere, basically Western European beings, they don't have the kind of absolute reign there that they enjoy in other parts of the world, and their relationships there consist more of strong alliances and consensus influence among a much larger population of Wyld fae."

and this more recent one from the Dresden Files Podcast.

"
If you're a king or a queen it's different because there's actual magical stuff associated with being a king or a queen. For example Mab does not disrespect Elizabeth in England, period. She just does not. Because the queen of England is the /queen of England/ and she can do things. And we'll get to see more of that as we go.

But she doesn't care if she's like in Australia or Canada or any of those.

If it's in part of her realm, yeah, that's a big deal. You don't screw with her in her realm but if she comes to America she doesn't necessarily have access to all that stuff. She's not walking on the ground that her family's been ruling for hundreds of years so."

So thats as much as we know about Australian Fae.

Does this mean Aussie and Canadian Fae are protected from the Child Tribute Tax?

Personally if old Queen Elizabeth is protecting us Aussie's from Mab's domain thats a plus for me.

Personally I have headcanons of the Rainbow Snake (Aboriginal Dreaming story) being a Dragon cpitol D. I also have a character whose an Indigenous Elder Wizard, friend of Listens to Winds but more bitter and less forgiving.

So the only other references to Australia is Hannah Ascher who was hunted be Wardens for scorching three guys and killing a couple of Wardens in self defence. Also she was apparently a member of the Order of St. Giles

There was also a brief mention about Margaret le Fey being able to Walk the Nevernever to Melbourne at will.

So thats about it.

[Arjan]

I do not think wildfae are subject to that tax anyway. They would be winter if they paid tax.

[Snark Knight]

If you're a king or a queen it's different because there's actual magical stuff associated with being a king or a queen. For example Mab does not disrespect Elizabeth in England, period. She just does not. Because the queen of England is the /queen of England/ and she can do things. And we'll get to see more of that as we go.
But she doesn't care if she's like in Australia or Canada or any of those.
If it's in part of her realm, yeah, that's a big deal. You don't screw with her in her realm but if she comes to America she doesn't necessarily have access to all that stuff. She's not walking on the ground that her family's been ruling for hundreds of years so."

Which is odd, because the Queen of England is also the Queen of Australia, Canada, etc. Back when they were changing the succession law from eldest son (or daughter if there is no son at all) to eldest child period, all the commonwealth countries that share the monarch as head of state had legislation changing their succession at the same time, so a firstborn daughter wouldn't split which royal is the figurehead where.

Maybe it's something to do with which land is actually the monarch's home. But that gets even fuzzier for the other parts of the UK  besides England. Is Balmoral still home turf for HRH, as far as Mab is concerned?

[Bad Alias]

Which is odd, because the Queen of England is also the Queen of Australia, Canada, etc. Back when they were changing the succession law from eldest son (or daughter if there is no son at all) to eldest child period, all the commonwealth countries that share the monarch as head of state had legislation changing their succession at the same time, so a firstborn daughter wouldn't split which royal is the figurehead where.

Maybe it's something to do with which land is actually the monarch's home. But that gets even fuzzier for the other parts of the UK  besides England. Is Balmoral still home turf for HRH, as far as Mab is concerned?

When I was listening to it, I took him to mean that it doesn't matter which part of her realm she is in. Canada, Australia, England. All the same. But in America, she's just some lady.

[Arjan]

Kings in the past have always tried to legitimize and strengthen their rule with religion. Sometimes they were gods, sometimes they had godly ancestors but always they tried to make resistance against them equal to resistance against god. There is a lot of mythology around kingship as a result of this because winners not just write history, they write mythology as well and Jim plays with that.

We here have a king and I am not impressed but the myth undeniably has some power left. In spite of all scandals and idiocy we can not get rid of them.

[Con]

When I was listening to it, I took him to mean that it doesn't matter which part of her realm she is in. Canada, Australia, England. All the same. But in America, she's just some lady.

That was my interpretation as well. Her Realms her Realm. Although admittedly Northern Irelands a little tricky.

Kings in the past have always tried to legitimize and strengthen their rule with religion. Sometimes they were gods, sometimes they had godly ancestors but always they tried to make resistance against them equal to resistance against god. There is a lot of mythology around kingship as a result of this because winners not just write history, they write mythology as well and Jim plays with that.

We here have a king and I am not impressed but the myth undeniably has some power left. In spite of all scandals and idiocy we can not get rid of them.

Yep. At the very least King Arthur and Salahadin had some sort of divine backing.

[Bad Alias]

There is a lot of mythology around kingship as a result of this because winners not just write history, they write mythology as well and Jim plays with that.

Kind of a side note, I was watching a historian talk about the History of the Peloponnesian War. He noted it was the first "history" written. He also noted it was written by the loser. I always find that amusing.

Yep. At the very least King Arthur and Salahadin had some sort of divine backing.

George Washington too.

[Arjan]

That was my interpretation as well. Her Realms her Realm. Although admittedly Northern Irelands a little tricky.

Yep. At the very least King Arthur and Salahadin had some sort of divine backing.

Only according to their supporters. According to their enemies it was all the devils work.

[Mira]

Only according to their supporters. According to their enemies it was all the devils work.

Yeah one thing is certain, "God is on their side.."

[Con]

George Washington too.

Still find that one a little troubling for ethical reasons, but that can be a trigger subject.

[Arjan]

Still find that one a little troubling for ethical reasons, but that can be a trigger subject.

You don’t have to look far to find a lot of dirt but I find the idea of charlemagne as knight of the cross equally disturbing.

[Con]

You don’t have to look far to find a lot of dirt but I find the idea of charlemagne as knight of the cross equally disturbing.

I mean yeah even Salahadin had his slaughteey moments. But Charlemagne doesn't bother me as much cause in verse it can be explained by Charlemagne launching campaigns against supernatural creatures and nations. Inverse Dark Ages were caused by Nicodemus releasing the black plague, OG Merlin establishing the Catholic Church to preserve knowledge and Vikings fighting a Bigfoot army. I can sort of write off Charlemagne of being a uniting force for christianity against those threats.

[Arjan]

I mean yeah even Salahadin had his slaughteey moments. But Charlemagne doesn't bother me as much cause in verse it can be explained by Charlemagne launching campaigns against supernatural creatures and nations. Inverse Dark Ages were caused by Nicodemus releasing the black plague, OG Merlin establishing the Catholic Church to preserve knowledge and Vikings fighting a Bigfoot army. I can sort of write off Charlemagne of being a uniting force for christianity against those threats.

https://www.medievalists.net/2014/02/was-charlemagne-a-mass-murderer/

There are also accounts of blinding prisoners and so on. He was a bloody mass murderer who’s favorite conversion tool was the sword.

But he was a devout Christian, bible inspired even:

the most likely inspiration for the mass execution of Verden was the Bible. Exasperated by the continual rebellions, Charlemagne wanted to act like a true king of Israel. The Amalekites had dared raise their hand to betray God’s people, and it was therefore right that every last one of them should be exterminated. Jericho was taken and all those inside had to be put to the sword, including men, women, old people, and children, even the oxen, sheep, and donkeys, so that no trace would be left of them. After defeating the Moabites, David, with whom Charles liked to compare himself, had the prisoners stretch out on the ground, and two out of three were killed. This, too, was part of the Old Testament from which the king drew inspiration, and it is difficult not to discern a practical and cruelly coherent application of that model in the massacre of Verden.

Why all those rebellions?

Usually “pagan” populations rebelled against Christian monarchs in early medieval western Europe. The Saxon rebellions were followed by the rebellions of the western Slavs and the balts needed a centuries long crusade to get “converted”.

Christianity was a tool and a justification for the power of the monarchy. Especially in places without a tradition of strong centralized power.

People did not want to be told what to believe and who to pay taxes to. Local leaders who wanted to rebel had no lack of support. Local monarchs sometimes embraced Christianity to expand their power. Norway and Poland are good examples. They also had to face internal opposition.

Charlemagne was inspired into Old Testament cruelty.