What If - the Spanish Aramada had succeded

[Ben Kenobi]

Not just the Stuarts, Albert.

Every king of England from James down is in part descended from her. That is why she is significant. She is one of the few who were not Kings to hold this honour.

She is the link between Elizabeth to Edward III.

[giblets]

Wow. That's a really fascinating footnote

[Al B. Sure!]

Not just the Stuarts, Albert.

Every king of England from James down is in part descended from her. That is why she is significant. She is one of the few who were not Kings to hold this honour.

She is the link between Elizabeth to Edward III.

And you think this is significant as opposed to a mere historical footnote?

In the grand scheme of things, this matters more than Henry VIII establishing the Anglican Church or everything Elizabeth did?

[giblets]

If you don't reproduce, your existence was meaningless. Just look at the Pope.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the grand scheme of things? Yes, very much so. With perfect hindsight.

That's how it works in a hereditary monarchy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm? The only electoral monarchy still in existence today. The most important act of a pope are the people whom he ordains.

[Al B. Sure!]

You have a degree in what again?

[Ben Kenobi]

Apparently I belong to the anti-Albert school of historians. A very prestigious school.

[giblets]

Hmm? The only electoral monarchy still in existence today. The most important act of a pope are the people whom he ordains.

Yeah, they somehow find a way to replace popes. And they found someone to replace Elizabeth. Doesn't diminish her historical importance too much IMO.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, they somehow find a way to replace popes. And they found someone to replace Elizabeth. Doesn't diminish her historical importance too much IMO.

All I'm arguing here is my opinion. Elizabeth was an important Queen, and I'm not disputing this. Just I believe her historical importance is less because she wasn't willing to pass on her line. It limits her influence to the period in which she lived, rather then influencing things further down the line.

I'm aware my perspective isn't common, but I've found it useful in analyzing things from back then. Family connections are and were important things, but often we overlook them today.

[C0ckney]

well this thread has well and truly entered the twilight zone.

the reason that phillip II didn't pursue his claim to the english throne, was that it would have been completely politically unacceptable to the english to have him as a monarch. they could just about tolerate him as mary's husband as long as he wasn't actually in england or exercising any power, but that's it. the bloodline is not the only important thing when it comes to who wears the crown, political considerations are also a vital factor. in fact more often than not in history, when the two clash, the latter wins out.

ben, you're welcome to your own perspective but your method of analysis is a joke. it's an abuse of language.

[Al B. Sure!]

Ben, so you're only as good as your descendants?

What about a king who begets retards that ruin his country? A long line of retards who **** up the kingdom for the next few centuries.

Suleiman the Magnificent, as great a ruler as he was, had a dumbass for a son in Selim II and all the successive sultans with only a few exceptions until the end of the Ottoman Empire were terrible rulers. The Ottoman Empire functioned in spite of them but began a long period of decline from Selim II on.

[Barnabas]

Yeah. North America would be more like Latin America. Glad we dodged that bullet.

North America would be a brown continent, the Natives would have been screwed with the Spaniards too, but the territory of what no is the USA would be full of people with considerable amerindian ancestry, and not whites with an imaginary cherokee ancestor.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, so you're only as good as your descendants?

Edward III was not a weak king. He ruled 50 years. What sets him apart from most other English kings is that not only did he have a large family, but each branch of the family has significant influence.

Same with Victoria in more modern times. Pretty much every royal in existance today can trace part of their descent to her. It's not quality so much, but it's the quantity, not only of the kids they have, but how many, and whether they continue to have kids of their own.

Suleiman the Magnificent, as great a ruler as he was, had a dumbass for a son in Selim II and all the successive sultans with only a few exceptions until the end of the Ottoman Empire were terrible rulers. The Ottoman Empire functioned in spite of them but began a long period of decline from Selim II on.

When discussing his influence, the dynasty as a whole will get mentioned too. We're talking about some of the most important kings of history here.

As I said, it's not an empirical discussion. You can't measure the awesomest king of awesomeness. I just happen to be a big Edward III fan.

[Al B. Sure!]

I did not criticize Edward III. He was an influential king for what he accomplished during his reign, not because he sired a lot of progeny.