Pope sends direct message to Ben

[molly bloom]

Does it match the tally of 1 billion abortions? Or even Stalin's 60 million? Or Hitler's 20 million? How about Mao? How about Pol Pot? And that's just THIS century?

Who cares ? You clearly don't, since you couldn't be bothered to get the original facts about the Inquisition correct.

Oh, and Hitler was a religious type- believed in a creator and was brought up a Catholic. Neither Mao nor Stalin were religious types, believing in a loving, forgiving god- unlike all those Dominican monks happy to see torture used on inncoent people in the name of their faith.

[molly bloom]

History is a joke subject that anyone could get a degree in.

Not when you study it properly, and clearly that's not at a university which accepted mind reading ex-pizza delivery men as students. It was quite a tough subject at my university, for instance.

[molly bloom]

It is odd that those who condemn historical revisionism fail to blame Islam for the Armenian genocide, an event that happened not all that long ago.

So a religion was responsible for the Armenian holocaust. Erm, given that the German Empire (which when I checked was a Christian organisation) kicked off the 20th Century with its first genocide, the massacre of the Hereros and Namaqua people in German South West Africa, doesn't that, using your logic, mean that Christianity was responsible for that genocide ?

And of course, as Hitler's Germany had a national church and a concordat with the Vatican, doesn't this also imply that Christianity was responsible for Europe's wrost ever genocide- the attempted eradication of Western European Jewry, as a culture, people and religion ?

But that's because it would mean admitting that Islam believes that genocide is perfectly acceptable.

The Old Testament seems to. Isn't that part of the Christian Bible ?

Could you find me the part of the Koran or the specific hadith or hadiths which say that genocide is acceptable ?

Soon we'll see you denying the holocaust.

Alas, I don't have the 'benefit' of your history degree so I have to use ordinary toilet roll and avoid making such absurd errors.

[molly bloom]

What was demonstrably incorrect?

Where should I start ?

More is written on the last 15 years than on the previous 35.

So where's the proof behind this assertion ? Let's see the survey.

Again, it's not bull****. England was a Catholic bulwark for 10 centuries prior to Henry VIII. Historical fact.

Your misreading- or partial reading.

And again - the literature of the period pales in comparison what is written about in the period from the last 15 years of Henry VIII's life to, say, Elizabeth's death.

Opinion presented as fact. Boring.

And your point is what? That there are some books written? Sure. Ask the average bloke who Edward III is and who Henry VIII is. Who is he more likely to recognize?

Shakespeare wrote a play on Henry VIII, Charles Laughton appeared in a famous film about him, Keith Michell in a B.B.C. series on the 6 wives of Henry. Henry famously founded the Church of England and split from a corrupt unreformed Roman church.

Gee, wonder why Henry's more famous than the man who won at Sluys.

Can't imagine.

Why would I be ignorant as to what you are taught in History, when I've been calling you out for the entire thread?

Because ignorance is your bliss. You don't have a clue about my education, its quality, how I was taught or by whom. It's self-evidently better than yours, and that's not a boast, just a plain fact.

Mary Queen of Scots was innocent.

Of the Jack the Ripper murders, undoubtedly.

They did, as William III, the King of the Dutch was sole king over England, as Canute himself had been long before.

The Dutch did not conquer the English, as I've demonstrated. I suggest you read '1688 The Seaborne Alliance & Diplomatic Revolution'- proceedings of an international symposium held at the Maritime Museum in Greenwich in 1988.

Of course it might be rather hard for you, as it contains an awful lot of facts.

And ruled solely by the King of the Dutch.

Prince William of Orange was a Stadholder in the Netherlands- this does not equate to King. He was not even Duke of Gelderland. Wrong Again DUMBARSE!

She executed her own heir apparent and the Queen of Scots.

Mary Stuart ceased to be Queen of Scotland on her son's taking the throne. She was not therefore a 'ruler' of anywhere when she was executed.

Again, your poor grasp of English and history lets you down- you clearly don't understand 'heir apparent', 'fief' or that 'rulers' is the plural, not singular form of the word.


Face it, you're sh!t at history, and I just trod on you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Shakespeare wrote a play on Henry VIII, Charles Laughton appeared in a famous film about him, Keith Michell in a B.B.C. series on the 6 wives of Henry. Henry famously founded the Church of England and split from a corrupt unreformed Roman church.

Gee, wonder why Henry's more famous than the man who won at Sluys.

Then my point is well taken.

If you were to ask the same bloke to describe Henry, would he give a description of him in his 20s or him in his 40s?

You don't have a clue about my education, its quality, how I was taught or by whom.

And yet I've been able to correctly call you out on what you did learn through the entire thread. Whereas you're relying on BAMs that say, "well my education was obviously better". Apparently not.

Of the Jack the Ripper murders, undoubtedly.

Right. Where's the incentive for Mary, Queen of Scots to rebel against Elizabeth when Elizabeth has agreed that James would be her heir and James has the crown of Scotland?

Where's the incentive for Elizabeth to confine her and regulate James' education apart from his mother? Quite considerable. Execution meant that she lost all influence over her son forever - she feared the Queen of Scots outliving her and overturning everything she worked towards.

The Dutch did not conquer the English, as I've demonstrated.

Yet, William III ruled solely, as Canute did centuries before.

Prince William of Orange was a Stadholder in the Netherlands- this does not equate to King. He was not even Duke of Gelderland. Wrong Again DUMBARSE!

And yet, the Prince of Orange, oddly enough is associated with the King of Netherlands, such that every King of the Netherlands has, rather randomly so, been of the Prince of Orange and his descendents. And the Heriditary Stadtholder so distinct from a King that his grandson ruled the Netherlands. If the office were 'nothing like a king' it is odd that when exercised that the office became a kingdom.

Mary Stuart ceased to be Queen of Scotland on her son's taking the throne.

Earlier on, you compared her to a Queen consort, Elizabeth's mother the Queen's mom, despite the fact that she was merely a royal consort, and not related (although very distantly), to the throne. This is a false analogy, because Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland through being the daughter of James V.

Through her mother she had a claim to the throne of England, which exceeded that of the illegitimate Elizabeth - who's mother was merely the mistress of Henry VIII, as his true wife was still alive.

She was not therefore a 'ruler' of anywhere when she was executed.

She was royalty all the same, on both thrones. As Elizabeth's kinsman - she had a duty to protect her kinsman, not execute her when she was in her care.

Again, your poor grasp of English and history lets you down- you clearly don't understand 'heir apparent', 'fief' or that 'rulers' is the plural, not singular form of the word.

Clearly you do not understand Heir Apparent. Mary Queen of Scots was Heir apparent to the throne of England prior to her execution. This is fact. Else how could her son inherit if Mary's claim were not superior?

[Elok]

As Molly demonstrated in this thread, I (who know slightly more than the average person about history in general) only knew a little about Henry VIII, and much of what I did know was incorrect. I don't recall anything specific about Edward III; I remember the Black Prince because of his cool nickname and the whole chevauchee thing, Edward I because of Braveheart, and Edward II because of Braveheart (again), Marlowe's play, and the part where they held him down and shoved a burning iron rod up his arse. I do remember reading about Sluys...but only because Timothy Zahn used that name in a Star Wars novel.

[ZEE]

Hey you guise. I'm just here to say that Elok is a nerd.

Thank you and cKontinue Poasting.

[giblets]

Hey you guise. I'm just here to say that Elok is a nerd.

Thank you and cKontinue Poasting.

Thank you for this useful post.

[Elok]

Grib, if you're that bored, the internet does offer you many exciting opportunities to masturbate. Just saying.

[giblets]

Are you speaking from personal experience or merely assuming the masturbation opportunities are exciting?

[Ben Kenobi]

only knew a little about Henry VIII, and much of what I did know was incorrect. I don't recall anything specific about Edward III

And this is precisely my point. Much, much more has been written about Henry VIII even though Edward III was one of the best English kings ever.

[kentonio]

Edward was a great king who won some sensational victories, but his later years saw a decline in England's fortunes and the death of the Black Prince and the weak reign of Richard II basically tarnished his accomplishments.

As for Henry, he reshaped England's future forever, had all that salacious scandal (death and sex always sells), sired possibly England's greatest Queen (Elizabeth not Mary before you can't help yourself) and was an incredibly fascinating character. He was big, bold, hugely intelligent and about as colourful a monarch as you could ask for. He was a bastard, but that's also a part of what makes him so interesting.

[rah]

and of course the entirely unexpected Spanish Inquisition.

Thanks Molly, that reference earned a chuckle this morning.

[Ben Kenobi]

Edward was a great king who won some sensational victories, but his later years saw a decline in England's fortunes and the death of the Black Prince and the weak reign of Richard II basically tarnished his accomplishments.

Let me put it this way. Edward II was a disaster - and if you look at the state of the monarchy then - it becomes even more impressive that not only did he put it on a solid footing - but even today - every king and queen is related to him.

He was a fantastic king that is overshadowed by his far less accomplished son who never reigned a day while he ruled for 50 years. Why is that?

As for Henry, he reshaped England's future forever

Which Henry? His father did more than Henry VIII ever did. Henry VIII is one of a few kings who isn't related to the whole line. Henry VII fixed what was broken when he married Elizabeth of York. Henry VIII was a dead end that went nowhere. Just like Queen Anne and William and Mary.

sired possibly England's greatest Queen

Uhh no. Greatest is the one we've got now, with Vicky a close second.

He was a bastard, but that's also a part of what makes him so interesting.

He was a pompous fool who couldn't fill his father's codpiece. You want to know the real magnificent bastard - look at his father.

[Sava]

All monarchs are by definition terrible.

They should all be shot and burnt in a pit.

And the dead ones should be dug up, ground to a powder and the dust thrown into latrines.