An interesting century, or so, of change, for England, largely due to accidents. Henry VIII was not raised or educated to rule yet was enthroned. His daughter, Elizabeth I was not raised for the throne but survived to take it. James had little reason to become king in England but was selected anyway and his chosen successor, trained to rule, died young and his second eldest son, like Henry VIII became king by default. So much change in England.... And the world.... Because all the careful planning was shredded and tossed to the winds leaving ruling to chance and fate.
Yes, and Mary not intended for the throne either! Edward VI dying young really put a spanner in the works. There’s also a fun alternative history to be written about Arabella Stuart becoming ruler instead of James - there was a pretty significant coup plot.
Which raises the fascinating question of why inventors were so empowered to create institutions in this civilisation and not elsewhere. China, especially under the Sung, had an inventive culture but the Sung technological and commercial efflorescence was crippled by the dynasty’s military failure. And, of course, dynasty means something rather different in China than it does in England. The only change of English dynasty that remotely resembles a change of Chinese dynasty is the Norman Conquest, and that still evidenced far more institutional continuity than was normal in Chinese dynastic change, apart perhaps from the Qin-Han and Sui-Tang transitions.
Interesting point on the severity of dynastic changes. I had not considered that, though my impression from examining Needham's work (the full volumes, rather than the shorter summary) is that quite a lot of patronage for invention was continued under the Yuan and into the Ming. That said, the rate of invention loss seems to be much higher - something that the English were often worried about too, but to a lesser extent (many lamented the dispersal of libraries because of the Reformation, for example). Using Needham's works to systematically examine the inventors themselves has been on my todo list for a few years. One day...
Side note, re: “The patent [on alum]… was used to protect a substantial investment from London merchants”
I suppose there was no support in the law for something like mineral rights on land? Were letters patent required to protect such investments, in the absence of such property rights?
An interesting century, or so, of change, for England, largely due to accidents. Henry VIII was not raised or educated to rule yet was enthroned. His daughter, Elizabeth I was not raised for the throne but survived to take it. James had little reason to become king in England but was selected anyway and his chosen successor, trained to rule, died young and his second eldest son, like Henry VIII became king by default. So much change in England.... And the world.... Because all the careful planning was shredded and tossed to the winds leaving ruling to chance and fate.
Yes, and Mary not intended for the throne either! Edward VI dying young really put a spanner in the works. There’s also a fun alternative history to be written about Arabella Stuart becoming ruler instead of James - there was a pretty significant coup plot.
Which raises the fascinating question of why inventors were so empowered to create institutions in this civilisation and not elsewhere. China, especially under the Sung, had an inventive culture but the Sung technological and commercial efflorescence was crippled by the dynasty’s military failure. And, of course, dynasty means something rather different in China than it does in England. The only change of English dynasty that remotely resembles a change of Chinese dynasty is the Norman Conquest, and that still evidenced far more institutional continuity than was normal in Chinese dynastic change, apart perhaps from the Qin-Han and Sui-Tang transitions.
Interesting point on the severity of dynastic changes. I had not considered that, though my impression from examining Needham's work (the full volumes, rather than the shorter summary) is that quite a lot of patronage for invention was continued under the Yuan and into the Ming. That said, the rate of invention loss seems to be much higher - something that the English were often worried about too, but to a lesser extent (many lamented the dispersal of libraries because of the Reformation, for example). Using Needham's works to systematically examine the inventors themselves has been on my todo list for a few years. One day...
I look forward to buying your book some day.
Thanks very much! I must get on with it!
Side note, re: “The patent [on alum]… was used to protect a substantial investment from London merchants”
I suppose there was no support in the law for something like mineral rights on land? Were letters patent required to protect such investments, in the absence of such property rights?