A Call to Duty review

I am enjoying A Call to Duty.
Nevertheless, I know the timeline is completely contradictory to the history aleady established in the Harrington series and IT BUGS ME!

This is supposedly a time in early Manticore history, BEFORE Harrington's time in the RMN. But it says it is 100 years AFTER Elizabeth's ascendancy to the throne after her father's (King Roger) death. The current monarch according to this story is her son Michael who has been on the throne for many years and is now 72.

There are at least 19 previous books with the above timeline 100 years before A Call was written supposedly way before all the others occurred.

This constant little aggravation detracts from the story as I read it.

You've got the wrong Elizabeth...

Honor's monarch is Queen Elizabeth III, 16th ruler of the Star Kingdom.

King Michael was the third monarch, after Roger Winton - (later King Roger I, who was born on Earth and started the colony project) and his daughter Elizabeth.

There's an early history of Manticore at the back of 'More than Honor' (published 1998!). It's got a lot of other background used in ACtD, but the relevant table is:

More than Honor wrote: - Roger I : 1471—1474 pd (32—34 al)
- Elizabeth I : 1474—1507 pd (34—53 al)
- Michael I : 1507—[spoilers] pd (53—[?] al)
...
- Elizabeth III : 1883 pd—present (270 al—present).

Dates of monarchy, not life.
pd='post diaspora' in T-years
al='after landing' in Manticoran years (which are longer).

Roger was crowned as the first King during the Plague crisis, but died of it soon after.

No-one in this era bothers with the 'I', because there've only been three monarchs and none of them share names.

Not many do with the 'III' in Honor's time (official purposes only), because Elizabeth II died more than 300 T-years ago.

First mention of 'Elizabeth III' is in the prologue of On Basilisk Station, so the continuity really isn't broken.

Complicating matters further, Queen Elizabeth III of the Star Kingdom of Manticore is also Empress Elizabeth I of the Star Empire of Manticore.

This reminds me of the film The Madness of King George. Originally it was a play entitled The Madness of George III but when the film adaption was made the title was changed for American audiences so they would not think it was a sequel & ask what happened to Parts I & II.

As for Munroburton's post a similar situation actually arose when Queen Elizabeth christened the Queen Elizabeth the Second at John Brown's on her launch. Some Scots objected because there has only been one Queen Elizabeth of Scotland, the current monarch, which is why it was universally referred to as the QE2: (I notice they didn't object at the christening of our new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth even though this was actually named after the WWI battleship... which was named after Queen Elizabeth the First of England).

Ah, the joys of living in a monarchy.

Rincewind wrote:This reminds me of the film The Madness of King George. Originally it was a play entitled The Madness of George III but when the film adaption was made the title was changed for American audiences so they would not think it was a sequel & ask what happened to Parts I & II.

As for Munroburton's post a similar situation actually arose when Queen Elizabeth christened the Queen Elizabeth the Srcond at John Brown's on her launch. Some Scots objected because there has only been one Queen Elizabeth of Scotland, the current monarch, which is why it was universally referred to as the QE2: (I notice they didn't object at the christening of our new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth even though this was actually named after the WWI battleship... which was named after Queen Elizabeth the First of England).

Ah, the joys of living in a monarchy.

Quite a lot of things are named Elizabeth these days, including but not limited to ships, hospitals, parks, schools, roads, docks, reservoirs, courts, bridges, even airport terminals. The latest objections(not that there were/are many) are more about that, rather than the fiddly details of whom was first where.

munroburton wrote:

Rincewind wrote:This reminds me of the film The Madness of King George. Originally it was a play entitled The Madness of George III but when the film adaption was made the title was changed for American audiences so they would not think it was a sequel & ask what happened to Parts I & II.

As for Munroburton's post a similar situation actually arose when Queen Elizabeth christened the Queen Elizabeth the Srcond at John Brown's on her launch. Some Scots objected because there has only been one Queen Elizabeth of Scotland, the current monarch, which is why it was universally referred to as the QE2: (I notice they didn't object at the christening of our new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth even though this was actually named after the WWI battleship... which was named after Queen Elizabeth the First of England).

Ah, the joys of living in a monarchy.

Quite a lot of things are named Elizabeth these days, including but not limited to ships, hospitals, parks, schools, roads, docks, reservoirs, courts, bridges, even airport terminals. The latest objections(not that there were/are many) are more about that, rather than the fiddly details of whom was first where.

Actually you are wrong. In barbarholtz 1's original post she is referring to her confusion over there being a Queen Elizabeth who came to the throne a 100 years previouslymentioned & the current King being her son, Michael, whereas in the previous nineteen books the Queen of Manticore was called Elizabeth which she thought must be set 100 years BEFORE A Call to Duty yet that was set 400 years BEFORE the main series of books.

Her exact post is as follows:

barbaraholtz 1 said

I am enjoying A Call to Duty.
Nevertheless, I know the timeline is completely contradictory to the history aleady established in the Harrington series and IT BUGS ME!

This is supposedly a time in early Manticore history, BEFORE Harrington's time in the RMN. But it says it is 100 years AFTER Elizabeth's ascendancy to the throne after her father's (King Roger) death. The current monarch according to this story is her son Michael who has been on the throne for many years and is now 72.

There are at least 19 previous books with the above timeline 100 years before A Call was written supposedly way before all the others occurred.

This constant little aggravation detracts from the story as I read it.

I stand by what I said.

Well, the ignorant do help to keep it amusing:

There's never been a Queen Elizabeth of Scotland. In fact, there's never been a Queen of Scotland, whatever those uncouth louts in London might have thought. The title under which Mary I, Mary II and Anne were crowned was Queen of Scots. By the time Victoria and Elizabeth came along, it was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and [Northern] Ireland.

It's true that those who fuss over such things have been known to get it right, but it's ever so much fun when they don't.

Rincewind wrote:This reminds me of the film The Madness of King George. Originally it was a play entitled The Madness of George III but when the film adaption was made the title was changed for American audiences so they would not think it was a sequel & ask what happened to Parts I & II.

As for Munroburton's post a similar situation actually arose when Queen Elizabeth christened the Queen Elizabeth the Srcond at John Brown's on her launch. Some Scots objected because there has only been one Queen Elizabeth of Scotland, the current monarch, which is why it was universally referred to as the QE2: (I notice they didn't object at the christening of our new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth even though this was actually named after the WWI battleship... which was named after Queen Elizabeth the First of England).

Ah, the joys of living in a monarchy.

Ummm... I think that Munro was commenting on the real-world objections of real people to naming things after the real Elizabeth II

Rincewind wrote:

munroburton wrote:
Quite a lot of things are named Elizabeth these days, including but not limited to ships, hospitals, parks, schools, roads, docks, reservoirs, courts, bridges, even airport terminals. The latest objections(not that there were/are many) are more about that, rather than the fiddly details of whom was first where.

Actually you are wrong. In barbarholtz 1's original post she is referring to her confusion over there being a Queen Elizabeth who came to the throne a 100 years previouslymentioned & the current King being her son, Michael, whereas in the previous nineteen books the Queen of Manticore was called Elizabeth which she thought must be set 100 years BEFORE A Call to Duty yet that was set 400 years BEFORE the main series of books.

Her exact post is as follows:

barbaraholtz 1 said

I am enjoying A Call to Duty.
Nevertheless, I know the timeline is completely contradictory to the history aleady established in the Harrington series and IT BUGS ME!

This is supposedly a time in early Manticore history, BEFORE Harrington's time in the RMN. But it says it is 100 years AFTER Elizabeth's ascendancy to the throne after her father's (King Roger) death. The current monarch according to this story is her son Michael who has been on the throne for many years and is now 72.

There are at least 19 previous books with the above timeline 100 years before A Call was written supposedly way before all the others occurred.

This constant little aggravation detracts from the story as I read it.

I stand by what I said.

Louis R wrote:Ummm... I think that Munro was commenting on the real-world objections of real people to naming things after the real Elizabeth II

Rincewind wrote:Actually you are wrong. In barbarholtz 1's original post she is referring to her confusion over there being a Queen Elizabeth who came to the throne a 100 years previouslymentioned & the current King being her son, Michael, whereas in the previous nineteen books the Queen of Manticore was called Elizabeth which she thought must be set 100 years BEFORE A Call to Duty yet that was set 400 years BEFORE the main series of books.

Indeed, I was referring to the real world Elizabeth II and why there weren't many objections(if any) to the latest aircraft carrier being named after her.

Attitudes may change when we're forced to start naming things after Charles.

munroburton wrote: quote="Louis R"]Ummm... I think that Munro was commenting on the real-world objections of real people to naming things after the real Elizabeth II

Rincewind wrote:Actually you are wrong. In barbarholtz 1's original post she is referring to her confusion over there being a Queen Elizabeth who came to the throne a 100 years previouslymentioned & the current King being her son, Michael, whereas in the previous nineteen books the Queen of Manticore was called Elizabeth which she thought must be set 100 years BEFORE A Call to Duty yet that was set 400 years BEFORE the main series of books.

Indeed, I was referring to the real world Elizabeth II and why there weren't many objections(if any) to the latest aircraft carrier being named after her.

Attitudes may change when we're forced to start naming things after Charles. [/quote]

Technically you already are, namely the future HMS Prince of Wales. Yes, yes I know it's named after the battleship. It is like the HMS Duke of York was named after King George VI IIRC.