Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Felch]

Liberal arts degrees are little more than proof of literacy.

[Elok]

The vast majority of students never use the vast majority of the things they learn in school. No matter what they study. Which raises the question: what is the purpose of education in general?

[Aeson]

The vast majority of students never use the vast majority of the things they learn in school. No matter what they study. Which raises the question: what is the purpose of education in general?

Keeping kids out of the workforce as long as possible so that older folk can enjoy their jobs a little while longer ... ?

[Ben Kenobi]

Empty thrones always have claimants. What exactly do you think would have happened? If you Which wasn't what we are discussing and has basically no relevance.

That's a good question. Henry VII had no real royal blood whatsoever. Elizabeth was the highest ranked heiress from the York side. All the legit Lancastrians had been killed.

Without the Tudors, it was unlikely that the Scottish throne would have had the Queen of Scots either. I would say that had the throne been empty - we would have seen the Portuguese take over, or the Spanish, both of whom had claims.

Not really, it's an interesting fact but has no bearing on how someone performed as a ruler.

True, but she wasn't queen even though she should have been Elizabeth the first, and she's whom our second and now third Elizabeth were named after. You don't think that's significant?

It doesn't take talent or intelligence to get someone pregnant.

Then why don't we have a Tudor dynasty today?

Except that it isn't taught that Henry conquered Wales, it's just another interesting aspect of his reign that the joining of the nations officially happened then.

So why don't we hear more of Edward who actually had the more interesting reign?

You seem to have a rather weird obsession with this stuff. He ruled until his natural death, as did two of his daughters. In terms of rulers, that's really not a bad result.

The strange thing is that neither he nor Bolingbroke have any connection with any of the present royal family.

The Royal Navy was established under Henry VIII. Trying to dilute that because his dad built a drydock is pretty bizarre.

Half the navy was built by Henry VII. Henry VII provided the funds and the means by which the navy could be expanded. It's true that Henry VIII built on top of his father's foundation, but it's not like there was no navy previous.

Because the duties and responsibilities of the modern monarchy hold nothing like those of the past. It's a stupid comparison.

I would argue that Elizabeth who has travelled further than any monarch, all around the world - that the duties and responsibilities have increased, not decreased.

Luckily the performance of monarchy is not usually judged on their number of air miles.

If we're charting global influence... Wouldn't you say that the Queen who travels the Commonwealth and established a real connection with her subjects around the world is far greater than one who never travelled outside of England?

In thinking that the only thing that matters about a woman's rule is whether she had children.

Never said that. Every single monarch and member of the European royal family is related to Victoria by blood. THAT is an accomplishment.

Oh that and whether she was a good Catholic of course.

Victoria was a good Catholic?

Except she demonstrably didn't.

She's number two behind her father on the 'royal executions for heresy' list.

Show a little intellectual honesty for once in your life.

What? It's true - she executed more than every other king save Henry VIII.

Which is why the Scots threw her off the throne, and she spent 18 years scheming under house arrest until her execution. A clear example of a great ruler. If you're a Republican.

As opposed to Democrats who revere an autocrat like Henry VIII who had 6 wives, murdered two and broke with the Catholic church because they wouldn't let him get divorced.

[Ben Kenobi]

A driven, enthusiastic amateur will know more than an average degree student. IMO.

Which is why I know more than you about Astrophysics. Nice sword. Interesting how it cuts both ways.

[Ben Kenobi]

England was ruled jointly by William and Mary, who were crowned together. Cnut fought Edmund for England, and settled for England minus Wessex.

And Canute ruled England solely along with his Danish crown, just as William ruled England and the Dutch.

should be able to see the difference.

What difference? English nobility submitted to the Danes just like they did to William.

William could no longer rule England jointly with Mary BECAUSE SHE DIED OF SMALLPOX DUMBARSE !!!!!!!!!!

So why then did he rule solely, without her? Again - England submitted themselves to their Dutch masters out of prejudice. Hence the irony.

Later on, after the Act of Settlement, then would again appoint a king out of prejudice, a foreign king who had never set foot in England or spoke English. Why? Because they preferred foreign dominion to native Catholic rule.

In your line of thinking then, Cnut was a usurper, clearly.

Indeed he was. As was William who usurped the throne from James VII/II.

WRONG AGAIN. The reign of Aethelraed Unraed had been a series of disasters- he was forced into exile when Swein, Cnut's father, fought to gain England.

How is this any different from William? You claim the exact same thing. "England was incompetently ruled and so they needed to be taked over by a competent ruler."

We call this ursurpation.

Its not that the English were desperately in love with the idea of Danish rule or Danes

Why not? They seemed to love William too, didn't they? And the Hanoverians later? They preferred foriegn domination to Catholicism.

Your lack of knowledge of my education grows and grows. In any case, if you paid for your education, I suggest you ask for a refund. It was clearly money wasted, or an education obtained fraudulently.

Well, I suggest you call the folks listed previously if you believe my education was obtained fraudulently.

[C0ckney]

She's number two behind her father on the 'royal executions for heresy' list.

What? It's true - she executed more than every other king save Henry VIII.

"hey guys, remember the assertion i made that was utterly destroyed a couple of pages ago? well it's back! and here i am repeating it as fact."

[MikeH]

You can learn a lot of computer science on your own, but that doesn't mean that the university isn't providing a valuable service. There will probably be significant gaps in your knowledge.

Did I say the University education wasn't valuable or that it wasn't providing a valuable service? The main thing it provides is guaranteed access to equipment and experts.

Anyway the point is, an undergraduate degree gives you a good grounding and broad overview of a subject but to get serious about anything you need further education in specific areas. There's no justification for saying "I've got a BA, therefore I must know better than you".

Not sure why you think I'm insulting your degree, just overly defensive I guess.

[MikeH]

Which is why I know more than you about Astrophysics. Nice sword. Interesting how it cuts both ways.

You may well do. It's certainly a subject where there are lots of amateurs way more knowledgeable than me. And certainly a good amount of posters here who didn't do an astrophysics degree who know more than I do.

[Ben Kenobi]

You may well do. It's certainly a subject where there are lots of amateurs way more knowledgeable than me. And certainly a good amount of posters here who didn't do an astrophysics degree who know more than I do.

I wouldn't say so. I went through the courses and they are very difficult. You getting through and finishing them counts for quite a lot in my book. I've always been interested, but my interest now is purely as an amateur.

Do you have any familiarity with Stellarium? It's a fantastic program. It really captures things well for actual observing - you can look at the program and then go out and it's very easy to use.

[rah]

Damn, couldn't make it big enough

[rah]

DP

[DinoDoc]

DP

You doubly penetrated a no hotlinking image?

[rah]

That's what happens when it's not big enough.

[kentonio]

That's a good question. Henry VII had no real royal blood whatsoever. Elizabeth was the highest ranked heiress from the York side. All the legit Lancastrians had been killed.

Without the Tudors, it was unlikely that the Scottish throne would have had the Queen of Scots either. I would say that had the throne been empty - we would have seen the Portuguese take over, or the Spanish, both of whom had claims.

No we probably wouldn't. Bloodlines were important but power was a lot more important. If one bloodline died out, the likelihood is that some powerful noble family would have conveniently 'discovered' a link that gave them a claim. It's extremely unlikely that the English people and nobility would have allowed a Spanish or Portuguese ruler to just take the throne of England.

True, but she wasn't queen even though she should have been Elizabeth the first, and she's whom our second and now third Elizabeth were named after. You don't think that's significant?

Interesting but not particularly significant no. It says little or nothing about a person that their line of descendants happened to go on to be successful.

Then why don't we have a Tudor dynasty today?

That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't Henry have 4 sons? It's pure genetics or mere chance, it's nothing to do with talent.

So why don't we hear more of Edward who actually had the more interesting reign?

A) Henry came later from a time we know more about.
B) Henry is far more interesting to basically everyone other than you.

The strange thing is that neither he nor Bolingbroke have any connection with any of the present royal family.

Again, who cares? Lines of succession had a lot more to do with the ability to project power rather than about bloodlines, as many weak Kings and Queens found out to their cost.

Half the navy was built by Henry VII. Henry VII provided the funds and the means by which the navy could be expanded. It's true that Henry VIII built on top of his father's foundation, but it's not like there was no navy previous.

Pretty much every achievement is built on the foundations of those who came before. You can argue that Henry VIII couldn't have established the navy without the work done by his father, but so what? The only person trying to take the credit away from Henry VIII for this is you, and you're only doing it because you hate him. It's pretty sad.

I would argue that Elizabeth who has travelled further than any monarch, all around the world - that the duties and responsibilities have increased, not decreased.

Elizabeth I ran a nation, Elizabeth II is a figurehead and symbol. The idea that traveling around shaking hands and opening town halls is more important than making vital decisions of state is absolutely imbecilic, and I say that as someone who is a huge fan of our current Queen.

If we're charting global influence... Wouldn't you say that the Queen who travels the Commonwealth and established a real connection with her subjects around the world is far greater than one who never travelled outside of England?

Seriously give this one up, it's making you look very dumb.

Never said that. Every single monarch and member of the European royal family is related to Victoria by blood. THAT is an accomplishment.

An accomplishment by whom exactly?

She's number two behind her father on the 'royal executions for heresy' list.

What? It's true - she executed more than every other king save Henry VIII.

As C0ckney rightly says this nonsense has been demolished only a few pages back, please stop repeating it.

As opposed to Democrats who revere an autocrat like Henry VIII who had 6 wives, murdered two and broke with the Catholic church because they wouldn't let him get divorced.

Democrats? What on earth are you babbling about? Republican in the sense of someone who wishes the abolition of the monarchy, not a supporter of the GOP you chump.