Robert Shoemaker, for his part, has examined how duelling evolved on these islands between the Restoration and the 1800s to become more ritualised, less bloody and less common. 2 Since then other works have been produced which add to our understanding of duelling in Britain and Ireland during that era. Written in 1995, James Kelly’s book on duelling in Ireland threw even more light on the practice both there and in Britain, and has become the standard account of the phenomenon in that country, giving a compelling overview of its history there from the sixteenth into the nineteenth century. This work nonetheless retained a particularly British focus. The same decade ended with Victor Kiernan’s survey of the history of the duel in Europe. Donna Andrew’s article on the opposition to duelling in England over the course of eighteenth and nineteenth centuries at the beginning of the 1980s can be seen as an important step in this.

3 Shoemaker (2002) Manning (2003) Peltonen (2003) Cust, Hopper (2006) Banks (2010).ġ Duelling in early modern Britain and Ireland has been a subject of considerable academic scrutiny over the last four decades.

Elle conclut en effet que Charles II partageait la même conception de l’honneur que ses courtisans, ce qui implique qu’en dépit de ses efforts pour les contrôler, il ne pouvait dénier à son entourage le droit de défendre sa réputation et sa position sociale d’une manière socialement acceptable, telle que le duel. En définitive, cette étude remet en cause la thèse de Norbert Elias visant la manière dont les familles royales civilisaient et contrôlaient les pulsions violentes de l’élite et de la noblesse qui leur était attachée. Il éclaire aussi la manière dont les nobles défendaient leur implication dans ces conflits et les efforts de Charles II, pater familias de cette cour royale, pour les prévenir ou les contrôler.

En étudiant les suites de deux duels qui, directement ou indirectement, concernaient un noble irlandais, Théobald, vicomte de Taaffe, cet article examine les motifs de ces violences et le point de savoir si l’exil a modifié les pratiques de duel au sein de celle-ci. L’étude des duels d’honneur et des violences entre courtisans à la cour de Charles II d’Angleterre en exil aux Pays-Bas espagnols à la fin des années 1650 éclaire les relations de pouvoir et d’honneur entre les souverains et leurs élites à l’époque moderne.

This meant that, despite Charles II’s efforts to control violence in his own royal household, he could not deny his followers the right to defend their own good name and social standing in a socially acceptable manner, such as the duel.

It does so by concluding that Charles II shared the same concept of honour as his courtiers. Ultimately the article challenges Norbert Elias’ thesis on how royals civilised and controlled the violent impulses of their elite and noble followers. The efforts of the pater familias of this royal household, Charles II, to prevent or limit such violent behaviour are also studied. It also throws light on how the courtiers defended their involvement in such clashes. The article considers the reasons that motivated elite violence in this court and also examines if exile changed duelling practices within it. It does this by primarily studying the fallout from two duels that, directly or indirectly, involved an Irish nobleman, Theobald Viscount Taaffe. Through an examination of honour duels and violence between the courtiers within Charles II’s exiled court in late 1650s Spanish Netherlands, this article casts light on the power and honour relationships between monarchs and their elites in the early-modern period.

Street fighter duel 1640