Mordant

I finished Twenty Years After. I was curious about other people's reaction to Mordaunt. He did go to far with his desire for murder but, there were times I could feel sorry for the guy. Left an orphan at three. Losing his money and postion. I felt with a few twists and written from his point of view Mordaunt could make a case for himself like the Count of Monte Cristo.

Sorry about the misspelling. The thoughts are faster then the spelling.

That's what Dumas uses to get you as a reader where he makes Mordaunt pleed to get him in the little lifeboat when our friends escape...

I really thought so too but then we see how bad he really is...

Although Dumas did a good job serving that surprise to you as a reader. :thumbs_up

I wonder to what extent Dumas intends us to associate Mordaunt with Cromwell and the Puritan movement. The later Monk episode slightly redeems this bunch but for the most part Mordaunt and that vibe is the face we see of Protestantism and Puritanism. Furthermore, after portraying Richlieu as the big antagonist in book one, suddenly he is lionized in book 2.

And what are we to make of the hints that Mazarin is the father of Louis XIV? What do you kids think? Plausible?

Considering puritanism, Felton was also a very nice image of it... Of course Dumas was writing about a time when protestants were supposed to be vilains, so it is natural that he makes them look bad... And Cromwell, after all he cut off the head of the king, so in a certain way he made himself a vilain. Certainly, I suppose, in the eyes of the royalists.
Concirning Richelieu, he is not only made a great person in Vingt Ans Après, already at the end of The three Musketeers he is made better than he was. I think most of the blame is to put with Mylady, who made use of his jealousy towars Buckingham, to make a war between the Queen Anne and the cardinal, so that Buckinghal would be taken away from the court, so she could kill him... By the end he realises and is made a normal man again, by doing something for d'Artagnan.
In both books the English play the role of vilains. Of cours because of the wars between the two countries, but probably also because the French have never liked the English and vice versa.
Aramis says it: 'Ils sont toujours grossiers, comme tous les gens que boivent de la bière.' ('they are gross, like all people who drink beer'). There is a profound disliking in that sentence. Not of a certain person, as Mordaunt, for example, or the protestants, or Cromwell, but just a hate towards the nation. And then it was easy on a scene of war to make one the villain and one the good guy...
Concirning the relationship between Mazarin and Anne, in fact, there were rumours going on in the 19th century and before that Mazarin and Anne would have been married. Mazarin was a cardinal, but was not a priest who made a promise to remain celibatary, so it was possible. But the marriage was not made public because Anne wanted to keep her power as regent to her son, which, if the marriage would have been made public, the cardinal would have taken over, being the husband. Whether Mazarin was considered the father of Louis XIV, I don't know, but I seem to think that Mazarin entered services after Louis XIV had been born. Dumas writes that the king had a profound disliking towards Mazarin, and I don't think that he would have written that if Mazarin would have been considered as his father, but I might be wrong.
Of course afterwards it was proven that this 'marriage' had absolutely not taken place, but Dumas still used the old theory.

all probability lovers. I just went through my second reading of this book, and I think I got more out of it by reviewing some historical facts. There were actually three Frondes during the time of Mazarin. The first Fronde pitted the people of Paris against Mazarin and Queen Anne, the second Fronde involved the Duc de Guise. The third and last Fronde was short lived and Louis XIV's reign was assured. The term Fronde means a civil war, but a Fronde was a sling shot used to break the windows of the Lourve to show the people's rage against Mazarin, the first minister of France.

As always, Dumas brought some historical facts into his novel. The Duc de Beaufort was a prince of the blood who escaped Mazarin's holding him captive. The castle he was held at still exists and has a moat around it where de Beaufort hit his tennis balls.

When Charles I was executed, the regular executioner couldn't be found. But all of a sudden, another took his place. Mordaunt? To this day, no one knows who the person was, he was masked, who beheaded Charles I. Fifty-nine members of parliament signed the execution order. Only one of these regreted Charles I's regicide. When Charles II was made King, these 59 members of parliament were tried for regicid. Only the one who was against the execution was spared, along with Fairfax, the commanding general of the puritans before Cromwell, who refused to sign the execution order. Many of these members were dead by the time Charles II was crowned, but that didn't stop #2. He had their corpses dug up, then they were hanged or drawn and quartered or both. Cromwell's corpse hung at Tyburn for a number of years. His head was found in the 19th century and reunited with the body and reburied or reintombed.

An excellent movie to watch is Cromwell, with Richard Harris playing the title role. Alec Guiness is Charles I. The execution is very close to what actually happened at the scafold outside the dining hall of Whitehall castle. The kind of knitted skull cap which Charles tucked his hair in to get it off his neck still exists today, along with the two undershirts worn by Charles. It was a chilly day in January, and Charles didn't want to shiver since he was afraid viewers of the execution would think him afraid. Charles I was a bad ruler, but a very brave man.