The Catholic Book Club discussion

9. This is a fairy-historical novel, which occurs some time in the past, but in a different world. At what equivalent time in our own past do you think the argument is taking place?

CBC wrote: "9. This is a fairy-historical novel, which occurs some time in the past, but in a different world. At what equivalent time in our own past do you think the argument is taking place?"

From what I've heard, it's Tudor England, but I'm not sure. The fact that it was an alternate history made me interested in this book. I love alternate histories, and I recommend the video I recorded with Jaime Blanch Queral, Professor Manuel Alfonseca, and Don Alberto Balayla titled "Three Friends Talk About Science Fiction." There, I discussed my passion for dystopias, utopias, and alternate histories, which the Rino Cammilleri's book "Monsters of Reason."Los monstruos de la razón: viaje por los delirios de utopistas y revolucionarios

Considering the Duke's suggestion that they could say the dragonet came from America, I think the historical time would be around the 17th or 18th century. But I'm also not sure.

Difficult to say, Emmanuel notes the reference to America, which in our timeline would seem to put it no earlier than the late 16th century or maybe early 17th, and the existence of a strong Queen with a long-reign would align with the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in that time frame. But there are no firearms, and matchlocks and wheellocks were developed in our world long before then. Finally, there is no sign of a Reformation, which would push it back prior to the 16th century. In short, we can only say this is not our world. :-)

John wrote: "Difficult to say, Emmanuel notes the reference to America, which in our timeline would seem to put it no earlier than the late 16th century or maybe early 17th, and the existence of a strong Queen ..."

That's why this story should be viewed as a fictional story, or an alternative history. If we ignore Queen Elizabeth, the next queen would have to wait for Mary II, then her sister Anne, and, less likely, Queen Victoria. But the contexts of those queens don't fit with the historical context.

I thought about it being the early 16th century, but a lot of things about the setting made me picture the Church during the Ancien Régime, between the Council of Trent and the French Revolution. Still, as John said, there's no mention of firearms.

On the other hand, it could be a mix of various centuries in a world that never saw the Reformation. Honestly, that would be a clever thing and would make the story even more interesting.

Emmanuel wrote: "On the other hand, it could be a mix of various centuries in a world that never saw the Reformation. Honestly, that would be a clever thing and would make the story even more interesting."

This is what Corinna Turner answered me when I asked her this question, some time ago:

It is set in an alternative-reality, pseudo-Elizabethan London... But it is a fantasy version, so historical accuracy is loose... by 'pseudo-Elizabethan' I really mean an Elizabethan era in which the Protestant Reformation had not occurred! Indeed, I sometimes describe it as a Catholic version of Elizabethan London.

I had the same question (When did this occur?), and your answers stretch my mind! When were "urchins" common? Why would pre- or post-Reformation have to enter into it?
I also wondered if the story matches London geography, street names, neighborhoods, etc.

Jill wrote: "I had the same question (When did this occur?), and your answers stretch my mind! When were "urchins" common? Why would pre- or post-Reformation have to enter into it?
I also wondered if the story matches London geography, street names, neighborhoods, etc."

This is GEMINI's answer to your first question: Urchins, referring to impoverished street children, were common in London throughout the Victorian and early 20th-century periods. But surely there have been poor children in most times.

I have some ideas about the answer to your second question: Elizabeth Tudor was called by Spenser "The Faerie Queene." So it would be appropriate to locate an elfish England in the time of this queen.

As to your third question, I am not familiar with the geography of London in the second half of the sixteenth century.

I'm answering Emmanuel because it's very interesting. Elfling isn't the only case from a late medieval or early modern world. The first use of firearms in Europe is in the 14th century, a battle between Charles of Valois and Edmund of Kent. Even so, firearms aren't seen in the saga of Baldur's Gates like they are in "Elfling."
Paradoxically, although the late Elizabethan period has better writers—William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, Ben Johnson, and Greene—I prefer the Stuart era, hence my vote for Oddsfish (although I ultimately voted for "King's Achievement"), but I'm more interested in "Oddsfish" because it was more interesting, and I hadn't read it. Sergio Gómez Moyano couldn't give me more information about it either. I can now say that on my channel I'm going to talk about two very interesting books, they will probably be video number 102 and 103, "The Censor of Shakespeare" by Federico Trillo-Figueroa (the former minister), and "An Instance for a Fingerpost," this one being more interesting because it deals with the Restoration and is more fascinating. In his last article, Joseph Pearce in Imaginative Conservative talked about certain books about the persecution of Catholics, "Treason" by Dena Hunt, "Execution of the Justice" by Elisabetta Sala, and "The Day Who Died Shakespeare" by Hugh Ross Williamson. I'm mentioning it because I found it interesting.

Fonch wrote: "I'm answering Emmanuel because it's very interesting. Elfling isn't the only case from a late medieval or early modern world. The first use of firearms in Europe is in the 14th century, a battle be..."

Talking about firearms, I've just asked Mr. Google about the historical use of crossbows. It seems they were used as a means of personal defense until at least the 18th century, which makes sense when you consider how practical and silent crossbows were in comparison to early firearms.

In fact, the crossbow is key, and the longbow gave the English an advantage over the French in the Hundred Years' War. I believe Pope Innocent III prohibited its use, but they ignored him.

Pope Innocent II banned the use of crossbows, longbows and apparently all missile weapons in wars between Christians. And yes, he was largely ignored.

John wrote: "Pope Innocent II banned the use of crossbows, longbows and apparently all missile weapons in wars between Christians. And yes, he was largely ignored."

I misspoke about Innocent. I apologize. Thanks for the correction, John.