“国王的叛徒是国会议员”:以及1660–1837年法院官员扩展数据库中的其他故事

Q3 Arts and Humanities Court Historian Pub Date : 2022-05-04 DOI:10.1080/14629712.2022.2093478
R. Bucholz
{"title":"“国王的叛徒是国会议员”:以及1660–1837年法院官员扩展数据库中的其他故事","authors":"R. Bucholz","doi":"10.1080/14629712.2022.2093478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In February 1780, Edmund Burke rose in the House of Commons to explain the impending loss of America and rail against political corruption in the speech on Economical Reform. Among the speech’s most effective rhetorical refrains was to remind the honourable members, repeatedly, that true reform of a corrupt, expensive and antiquated royal administration was impossible because ‘The King’s turnspit was a member of parliament’. But was he? The answer lies in the Database of Court Officers. Since 2005, the Database of Court Officers 1660–1837, hosted by Loyola University Chicago, has sought to provide an authoritative source for the career histories of every salaried member of the British royal household for this period. Prior to 2019 it included only the servants of the sovereign’s household, but in that year, it was expanded to include the forty-nine satellite courts of the various queens (consort, mother and dowager), as well as princes and princesses of the blood — a total of 21,000 officers and servants overall. The household, among its many ceremonial, social, and domestic functions, provided places for peers and members of Parliament — the vehicle of political influence and corruption that Burke decried and sought to reform. This article introduces the expanded database and establishes the size, expense, and opportunities for patronage of the combined royal households (sovereign’s and satellite courts) across the period. It concludes with an analysis of the number of peers and members of Parliament who held household office over time with a view towards establishing 1) the identity of the offending turnspit; and 2) whether the ‘corruption’ Burke called out (i.e., the contingent of peers and MPs with positions at court) was really so large or decisive as he and other reformers alleged, determining that it was neither of those things.","PeriodicalId":37034,"journal":{"name":"Court Historian","volume":"27 1","pages":"116 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘The King’s turnspit was a member of Parliament’: And other Tales from the Expanded Database of Court Officers 1660–1837\",\"authors\":\"R. Bucholz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14629712.2022.2093478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In February 1780, Edmund Burke rose in the House of Commons to explain the impending loss of America and rail against political corruption in the speech on Economical Reform. Among the speech’s most effective rhetorical refrains was to remind the honourable members, repeatedly, that true reform of a corrupt, expensive and antiquated royal administration was impossible because ‘The King’s turnspit was a member of parliament’. But was he? The answer lies in the Database of Court Officers. Since 2005, the Database of Court Officers 1660–1837, hosted by Loyola University Chicago, has sought to provide an authoritative source for the career histories of every salaried member of the British royal household for this period. Prior to 2019 it included only the servants of the sovereign’s household, but in that year, it was expanded to include the forty-nine satellite courts of the various queens (consort, mother and dowager), as well as princes and princesses of the blood — a total of 21,000 officers and servants overall. The household, among its many ceremonial, social, and domestic functions, provided places for peers and members of Parliament — the vehicle of political influence and corruption that Burke decried and sought to reform. This article introduces the expanded database and establishes the size, expense, and opportunities for patronage of the combined royal households (sovereign’s and satellite courts) across the period. It concludes with an analysis of the number of peers and members of Parliament who held household office over time with a view towards establishing 1) the identity of the offending turnspit; and 2) whether the ‘corruption’ Burke called out (i.e., the contingent of peers and MPs with positions at court) was really so large or decisive as he and other reformers alleged, determining that it was neither of those things.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Court Historian\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"116 - 134\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Court Historian\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14629712.2022.2093478\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Court Historian","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14629712.2022.2093478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1780年2月,埃德蒙·伯克(Edmund Burke)在下议院发表了关于经济改革的演讲,解释了美国即将遭受的损失,并抨击了政治腐败。演讲中最有效的措辞之一是反复提醒尊敬的议员们,对腐败、昂贵和陈旧的皇家政府进行真正的改革是不可能的,因为“国王的叛徒是国会议员”。但他是吗?答案在法院官员数据库中。自2005年以来,芝加哥洛约拉大学(Loyola University Chicago)主办的1660–1837年法院官员数据库(Database of Court Officers 1660–183 7)一直试图为这一时期英国王室中每一位受薪成员的职业史提供权威来源。在2019年之前,它只包括君主家庭的仆人,但在那一年,它被扩大到包括49个不同女王(配偶、母亲和太后)的附属法院,以及王子和血亲公主,总共有21000名军官和仆人。家庭在其众多仪式、社会和家庭职能中,为贵族和议员提供了场所——伯克谴责并寻求改革的政治影响力和腐败工具。本文介绍了扩展后的数据库,并确定了这一时期联合王室(主权法院和附属法院)的规模、费用和赞助机会。最后,它分析了一段时间以来担任家庭职务的同行和议员的数量,以期确定1)犯罪罪犯的身份;以及2)伯克所呼吁的“腐败”(即在法庭上有职位的同僚和议员队伍)是否真的像他和其他改革者所声称的那样庞大或果断,并认定这两者都不是。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘The King’s turnspit was a member of Parliament’: And other Tales from the Expanded Database of Court Officers 1660–1837
In February 1780, Edmund Burke rose in the House of Commons to explain the impending loss of America and rail against political corruption in the speech on Economical Reform. Among the speech’s most effective rhetorical refrains was to remind the honourable members, repeatedly, that true reform of a corrupt, expensive and antiquated royal administration was impossible because ‘The King’s turnspit was a member of parliament’. But was he? The answer lies in the Database of Court Officers. Since 2005, the Database of Court Officers 1660–1837, hosted by Loyola University Chicago, has sought to provide an authoritative source for the career histories of every salaried member of the British royal household for this period. Prior to 2019 it included only the servants of the sovereign’s household, but in that year, it was expanded to include the forty-nine satellite courts of the various queens (consort, mother and dowager), as well as princes and princesses of the blood — a total of 21,000 officers and servants overall. The household, among its many ceremonial, social, and domestic functions, provided places for peers and members of Parliament — the vehicle of political influence and corruption that Burke decried and sought to reform. This article introduces the expanded database and establishes the size, expense, and opportunities for patronage of the combined royal households (sovereign’s and satellite courts) across the period. It concludes with an analysis of the number of peers and members of Parliament who held household office over time with a view towards establishing 1) the identity of the offending turnspit; and 2) whether the ‘corruption’ Burke called out (i.e., the contingent of peers and MPs with positions at court) was really so large or decisive as he and other reformers alleged, determining that it was neither of those things.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Court Historian
Court Historian Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
‘Una stalla bella e un Maestro eccellente’ In the Circle of Power: Friends of King Vladislav IV Vasa Early Modern Privacy at the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Courts Ambassadors in Golden-Age Madrid Private Celebrations at the Polish Court in the Time of Louise Marie de Gonzague-Nevers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1