Mark Arbour

1. Thanks for the review.2. Sorry about the heterosex. I liked it. ;-) 3. No.

Hey..it usually works for me! Thanks for the review, and I agree with you. Cody usually does the right thing.

An interesting premise, but then, cannot sex be a wonderful healing tool?

I want to thank Centex and you for bringing this up. I'd never heard that argument about Talleyrand before, but it has fascinated me. Quite frankly, I think that Metternich may be more to blame for this than Talleyrand, but as Westie noted, that presumes the actions of others in that drama were preordained, and I'm not willing to subscribe to that theory either.

Lol. Thanks!

So true about a gilded cage. George will be miserable until he gets home. I think.

Thanks for the review, and sorry for the anachronism. We try hard to weed those out, but it looks like we missed one.

Lucky you! I think Talleyrand will make Paris interesting.

I suspect he will find an excuse to ask for more money. Granger is probably too classy to argue about it too much.

We found out in Millenium that Ella's real father is Rich Crampton, and not Fred Hayes

I hope I have not damaged your employment status/prospects, but I'm very glad you liked the chapter. Thanks so much for the review!

Thanks for the review. I think that he'll be stuck in Paris for a bit, which will actually serve his French hosts well, and also make Nelson (and Berry) happy, since they can avoid competing with him for good press. :-)

I think you're being just a bit unfair to Talleyrand. His Catholicism was casual, at best, when he was young, but then again, so it was for many young noblemen propelled into the church. It was the path that was chosen for him, not the path that he chose. The Pope at the time was Pius VI, who was chided for his own immorality and for the sleazy ways he used to raise money. He is hardly one to judge Talleyrand. In addition, it is important to remember that Pius VI was adamantly opposed to the French Revolution (which makes sense, since the revolutionary leaders disestablished the Catholic church in France...temporarily). He would not have had anything kind to say about anyone serving in the French government at that time. My personal opinion is that the French church was a good place for those who had deeper philosophical leanings, or were more focused on what we would call the field of sociology. Talleyrand was a bad bishop, but was not unusual in that regard. I think it is even more unfair to pin on him the ultimate causes of WWI. In fact, I think he was positively brilliant at the Congress of Vienna, where he managed to insinuate a defeated and occupied France into a position as a premiere power in the post-war world. I think that if he would not have achieved that goal, an embittered France may have ended up as a very dangerous world power, similar to a resurgent Germany during the Nazi years. To American eyes, the bribes he extracted were outrageous, but to the diplomatic community in Europe, they were ordinary, or at least not unexpected. Our sensibilities were incredibly inflamed by the XYZ affair, but European sensibilities were not. It was how the game was played, and we were clearly parvenus who did not understand that. In my mind, the most damning thing about Talleyrand could have been his involvement in the murder (for that is what it was) of the Duc D'Enghien. The Duc was a handsome and charming member of the French Royal Family, but he was also an idiot, choosing to live so close to the borders of France. That does not excuse his abduction and murder, but it does make one question his overall intelligence and judgement. That he was abducted from an adjacent country (Baden) and killed on trumped up charges was certainly true, and that Napoleon ordered those actions is also true. What is not certain is how involved Talleyrand (and Fouche) were in that act. The primary accuser of Talleyrand was Bonaparte, but that rings hollow, especially since D'Enghien's murder could never have happened without Napoleon's express approval. Talleyrand undoubtedly knew about D'Enghien's capture, but I am skeptical as to whether it was his brainchild. For one thing, it was diplomatic folly, and that is something Talleyrand was rarely guilty of. For another, it looks much more like one of those extreme, impulsive, and unwise acts that Napoleon so often displayed. My personal opinion on the matter is that Napoleon was an erratic tyrant, who was adamant about getting his way. Talleyrand (and Fouche) were good at both manipulating him, and in tempering some of his more erratic ideas. D'Enghien was killed in 1804, and the plot of which D'Enghien was accused was used by Bonaparte as an excuse to proclaim himself Emperor in December of 1804. To me, I see the signs of a megalomaniac. I think that the D'Enghien affair is where Talleyrand began to break from Napoleon, something which was finalized when Napoleon deposed the King of Spain and spirited him back to France, and to Valencay, where he stayed as Talleyrand's "guest." I would also point to the fact that Talleyrand served all the subsequent French monarchs (Louis XVIII, Charles X, and Louis-Phillippe) after Napoleon. I think it is unlikely that they would have allowed him to serve if there was conclusive proof he was the instigator of D'Enghien's murder. I am not trying to make the case that Talleyrand was moral, although one would have fun even defining that term, especially during that era, and especially in France. I am simply saying that he was a flawed but brilliant man, and that his crimes were not as extensive as Bonapartist historians would have us think.

Align your goals with those who can make them happen.

I think you are being a bit hard on Talleyrand. See below. In any event, Talleyrand provides him with an entre into the best salons of Paris, not that Granger would need it.

I have a much more favorable view of Talleyrand than you do. I do not hold his church positions/appointments against him because I look at them through the lenses of the time. A career in the church was not Talleyrand's choice, but the choice of his parents, and was a common venue for scions of the nobility. Piety was not a requirement. The murder of the Duc D'Enghien is even cloudier. There are many fingers pointed at Talleyrand (especially by Napoleon, who must ultimately bear the blame), but I am suspicious of those. Whether he said it or not, the following quote was often attributed to him: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder." A blunder like that would be rare for Talleyrand.

I'm glad you did. He's an intriguing character.

September 12, 1798 Marseille, France Granger watched the city of Marseille grow in size as they neared it. He was standing by the railing, watching with interest, while listening to the conversation between the captain and the pilot. Bastide had turned out to be a rather charming person, and despite his initial reluctance to host them, he was quite pleasant once they were aboard. He was probably relieved that Granger, Donegal, and Beauvilliers largely stuck to themselves.

It's a pretty distant connection. Darius' father was an unknown Iranian, while his mother (Bitty) is Billy Schluter's daughter, and Billy is half Schluter and half Crampton. I think this is safe even by non-Mississippi rules.

Yep.

Thanks for your comments. That was a really nice post. And I'd like to add my kudos to yours as regards Jeremy and his musical selections. I'm still awestruck by how he handled Chapter 42.

Thanks! I agree with you, in that the recovery is worse than the shock of the event. Speaking of shock, this is the first time I've caught you completely by surprise? Seriously? Hmmm. I'll have to work on my game. :-)

Thanks for the review, and for your insights on how people recover from traumas. I wonder if having people constantly asking you how you are detracts or assists in that process?

Thanks. Looks like you fell into that trap, with that whole double standard thing about heterosex and homosex. :-)

Been there, done that.