Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

The House of Avis - which had been a longtime ally of the English. The founder of the dynasty was John of Avis and he married Elizabeth of Lancaster, daughter of John of Gaunt. They had a very strong claim, while not as strong as Elizabeth of York, still stronger than anyone else if Elizabeth is excluded.

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.

Why? They were close allies with the Portuguese House of Avis. And they were legitimate heirs to the English throne.

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.

As opposed to being unsuccessful?

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.

And nothing to do with the fact that Harry contracted syphilis? Which caused his only son to be rather sickly? Yes, 'mere chance'.

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

So you're saying there is in fact historical bias favoring Henry's time?

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.

When you are the Grandson of a King, King, the father of a king and the grandfather of a king - one would expect to be related to all the subsequent Kings thereafter. Bolingbroke, oddly, is not, despite being king and the earlyness of his reign. This is quite unusual. Almost all the former kings (including Stephen of Blois), are currently ancestors of Elizabeth. Save Bolingbroke and Henry VIII.

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'm saying that his father deserves credit for what he did do in establishing and maintaining the English naval tradition. No more, no less.

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.

I would suggest that Elizabeth has made significant decisions regarding the membership and the workings of the commonwealth. Again the fact that we can point and say the existence of a Commonwealth is thanks to her. Do people talk about a commonwealth of Spain? Of France? If not, why not?

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

Point, Kenobi!

An accomplishment by whom exactly?

Victoria, in having, and raising and marrying her children off to everyone in Europe?

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

Demolished as in, "Yes, it's true, but the speculation that Mary died before her tally reached Elizabeth is not mere speculation."

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.

Gosh, it's almost like that was an intended gibe.

[MOBIUS]

Ben, give up already...

[kentonio]

The House of Avis - which had been a longtime ally of the English. The founder of the dynasty was John of Avis and he married Elizabeth of Lancaster, daughter of John of Gaunt. They had a very strong claim, while not as strong as Elizabeth of York, still stronger than anyone else if Elizabeth is excluded.

Why? They were close allies with the Portuguese House of Avis. And they were legitimate heirs to the English throne.

Why would the nobility ship in a foreign ruler when they could take advantage of a space at the top themselves? Enough nobles over the years tried it when there WAS a king or queen on the throne

As opposed to being unsuccessful?

Whats the difference? You don't get any huge kudos or blame for your descendants succeeding or failing, it's not like you pick your own genetics.

And nothing to do with the fact that Harry contracted syphilis? Which caused his only son to be rather sickly? Yes, 'mere chance'.

Except that..

The theory that Henry suffered from syphilis has been dismissed by most historians. A more recent theory suggests that Henry's medical symptoms are characteristic of untreated Type II diabetes or scurvy, either of which was brought on by eating large quantities of meat without any fresh fruits or vegetables.

Please try not to make wild claims that cannot be supported by evidence.

So you're saying there is in fact historical bias favoring Henry's time?

We tend to know more about things that happened more recently, especially when that period also happens to coincide with a huge growth in literary output. If you want to call that 'bias' then that's up to you, although it'd be interesting to hear you try and justify it.

When you are the Grandson of a King, King, the father of a king and the grandfather of a king - one would expect to be related to all the subsequent Kings thereafter. Bolingbroke, oddly, is not, despite being king and the earlyness of his reign. This is quite unusual. Almost all the former kings (including Stephen of Blois), are currently ancestors of Elizabeth. Save Bolingbroke and Henry VIII.

And still no-one cares.

I'm saying that his father deserves credit for what he did do in establishing and maintaining the English naval tradition. No more, no less.

So why when I brought up Henry VIII's establishment of the Royal Navy (something everyone credits to him) did you try to claim it was his father who did it?

I would suggest that Elizabeth has made significant decisions regarding the membership and the workings of the commonwealth. Again the fact that we can point and say the existence of a Commonwealth is thanks to her. Do people talk about a commonwealth of Spain? Of France? If not, why not?

Sorry, the Commonwealth really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. You'd also struggle to paint it as an 'achievement' of the Queen.

Point, Kenobi!

Well if we're playing a game of 'who can make themselves look really stupid and ill-educated' then yes you did indeed just win a point.

Victoria, in having, and raising and marrying her children off to everyone in Europe?

What exactly is this obsession of yours about bloodlines? You seem to think they are more important than what people actually achieve during their lives, it's rather odd.

Demolished as in, "Yes, it's true, but the speculation that Mary died before her tally reached Elizabeth is not mere speculation."

You pulled out some wildly over-inflated figures and they were demolished. You then tried to claim that a set of figures that represented around 150 years of deaths were all down to Elizabeth. You've been wrong so many times about it now that it's becoming sad.

I know you desperately want to prove every serious historian in the world wrong, but maybe pick a period for it that isn't quite as widely studied.

Gosh, it's almost like that was an intended gibe.

Not really, it wasn't clever or funny and didn't really make any sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would the nobility ship in a foreign ruler when they could take advantage of a space at the top themselves? Enough nobles over the years tried it when there WAS a king or queen on the throne

Good question.

Why did they ship in a foreign ruler (William of Orange) when they could take advantage of a native born Catholic?

Whats the difference? You don't get any huge kudos or blame for your descendants succeeding or failing, it's not like you pick your own genetics.

Are you not aware that Victoria tried to arrange things?

Please try not to make wild claims that cannot be supported by evidence.

Once again - wikipedia is not a primary source. And scurvy? No. Are you telling me that Henry VIII didn't have access to fresh meat?

We tend to know more about things that happened more recently, especially when that period also happens to coincide with a huge growth in literary output.

Which is why we have to take pains to ensure that this doesn't distort the historical record.

If you want to call that 'bias' then that's up to you, although it'd be interesting to hear you try and justify it.

It's simple reporting bias. A good history will try to balance this out. Say you were to write a history of the Catholic church and you had 2000 pages to write it in. How many pages would the sex abuse scandal take? Maybe one. Bad ones will have up to a fifth.

And still no-one cares.

Cool story bro.

So why when I brought up Henry VIII's establishment of the Royal Navy (something everyone credits to him) did you try to claim it was his father who did it?

Putting a label on it doesn't mean you invented it. Of course, Al Gore tried that too.

Sorry, the Commonwealth really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

Once again - this is historical bias. The monarchy must be irrelevant ergo you have to minimize their accomplishments.

By and large, the English monarchy has become the most prominent in the world. Do you think this happens if Elizabeth were reclusive?

You'd also struggle to paint it as an 'achievement' of the Queen.

What struggle. She's the first to visit every part.

Well if we're playing a game of 'who can make themselves look really stupid and ill-educated' then yes you did indeed just win a point.

"I can't refute the argument, so I'll post insults instead!"

What exactly is this obsession of yours about bloodlines? You seem to think they are more important than what people actually achieve during their lives, it's rather odd.

It depends on your perspective. You seem to believe that in the greatest scheme of things, what you do during your life matters by what things that are accomplished during your life.

Go back 500 years, and you get a different perspective.

You pulled out some wildly over-inflated figures

That argument didn't refer to Elizabeth specifically. So arguing that this applies to this argument is a non-sequitor. Going by the more accepted figures still gives Elizabeth the higher toll (and it's not even close) to Mary Tudor, Queen of England.

You then tried to claim that a set of figures that represented around 150 years of deaths were all down to Elizabeth.

I never claimed that. Are you finished making up arguments? It's easy enough to win one when you misrepresent what the other person argued.

I know you desperately want to prove every serious historian in the world wrong

Have I said anything of the sort?

pick a period for it that isn't quite as widely studied.

I contest that the portrait of Good Queen Bess is wrong, and I have facts to back me up on this. She may have been a good Queen in some ways, but in other ways she was not.

Not really, it wasn't clever or funny and didn't really make any sense.

It made perfect sense because you understood it.

[kentonio]

Good question.

Why did they ship in a foreign ruler (William of Orange) when they could take advantage of a native born Catholic?

That's more Molly's area than mine so I'll leave it to him. My point was more that you can't expect it to happen rather than it would never happen though.

Are you not aware that Victoria tried to arrange things?

Again, so? She tried to spread the influence of her family, so did Henry. He tried with 6 different wives for goodness sake. The fact that he failed to produce a strong male line was down to genetics not a lack of effort, so painting it as some huge failure seems pretty pointless.

Once again - wikipedia is not a primary source. And scurvy? No. Are you telling me that Henry VIII didn't have access to fresh meat?

If you want to make wild claims about Henry VIII having syphilis then its on you to provide some evidence to support that.

As for scurvy however, fresh meat is not a reliable source of Vitamin C. Personally I think diabetes is far more likely, although given that no-one has any real evidence, the only honest answer is 'no-one knows'.

Which is why we have to take pains to ensure that this doesn't distort the historical record.

Don't be ridiculous, having more written evidence supposedly 'distorts' the historical record? Pretty rich coming from someone who just a few weeks ago was claiming that we should just believe various Christian claims because of a lack of contradictory evidence.

It's simple reporting bias. A good history will try to balance this out. Say you were to write a history of the Catholic church and you had 2000 pages to write it in. How many pages would the sex abuse scandal take? Maybe one. Bad ones will have up to a fifth.

Nonsense, if we were talking about biographies or character portraits of the rulers of the time then yes things like sentiment, fear of repercussions etc would have relevance, but as we're talking about actually events that occurred during his reign the larger source material is hugely useful.

You seem to be losing the point completely, pretty much everyone thinks Henry VIII was a *****, but trying to whitewash the very real things he achieved is just dishonest.

Putting a label on it doesn't mean you invented it. Of course, Al Gore tried that too.

He couldn't have created the Royal Navy because other people had built ships previously? #GolfClap

Once again - this is historical bias. The monarchy must be irrelevant ergo you have to minimize their accomplishments.

The really funny thing is that you're accusing a monarchist of displaying historical bias against the monarchy. This is new level of retarded even for you.

By and large, the English monarchy has become the most prominent in the world. Do you think this happens if Elizabeth were reclusive?

Which only has relevance to the discussion at hand if you think monarchy now is more important than monarchy in centuries gone by. Which would be really stupid.

What struggle. She's the first to visit every part.

Back on the Air Miles again. You have some very odd ideas of what is important.

"I can't refute the argument, so I'll post insults instead!"

You weren't making an argument, you were just being utterly ridiculous and then claiming you'd won a 'point'. It's the kind of thing small children do.

It depends on your perspective. You seem to believe that in the greatest scheme of things, what you do during your life matters by what things that are accomplished during your life.

Go back 500 years, and you get a different perspective.

It's a pointless discussion, because if all you care about is bloodlines then to you a ****ty king who did nothing for 20 years but eat and **** is more 'interesting' and has more 'achievements' than a great ruler just because they produced kids who went on to spread the bloodline.

If that's how you view history, then you can discuss it with someone else because that's incredibly boring.

That argument didn't refer to Elizabeth specifically. So arguing that this applies to this argument is a non-sequitor. Going by the more accepted figures still gives Elizabeth the higher toll (and it's not even close) to Mary Tudor, Queen of England.

No, it was when you claimed that Henry VIII executed 72,000 people.

As for Elizabeth, provide some proof if you want to keep repeating your nonsensical claims while trying to whitewash Mary, a woman who ordered 300 people to be burned to death for heresy.

Actually just take a second out to think about what that must have felt like, being roasted alive because you had a slightly different view of God than the ruler of the day.

I never claimed that. Are you finished making up arguments? It's easy enough to win one when you misrepresent what the other person argued.

You'll be wanting this page here. Mobius smacked you down for it, and you conveniently missed it out of your subsequent replies.

Have I said anything of the sort?

Well there are presumably only a couple of reasons why you'd feel the need to repeatedly claim that basically every serious historian in the world was wrong, and that you were right. Hubris would seem to be the most likely. I'm perfectly willing to allow that either delusion or retardation are also strong possibilities though.

I contest that the portrait of Good Queen Bess is wrong, and I have facts to back me up on this. She may have been a good Queen in some ways, but in other ways she was not.

You 'contest' that the view of a Queen held by basically every serious historian is wrong. The breathtaking arrogance there is quite incredible, and especially because you don't have any new evidence or 'facts' that anyone else doesn't have. You basically just decided that you're right because you say so.

Pretty sad really.

It made perfect sense because you understood it.

It was legible but made no sense in the context of what you were quoting and presumably trying to reply to.

[molly bloom]

A senior in ECE at carnegie mellon isn't doing things that are "easy" or can just be picked up from surfing wikipedia.

Please say you're referring to me, dimwit.

I referred to what, two websites directly- each of which was particularly concerned with the subject in question, one of which was of an exhibition based at the Maritime Museum in Greenwich- that's Greenwich London and not Connecticut- which is a few miles from where I live. The other was the website of the Dutch Royal family- something Sister Bendy is clearly in need of educating about, and again, this directly and cogently corrected Sister Bendy's appalling error.


The rest is down to my copious reading. I've read more than you- get used to it.

[molly bloom]

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

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

I sometimes believe I may have underestimated just how stupid and uneducated you are. William III Orange was not 'ruler of the Dutch'.

The United Provinces were a RE- PUB- LIC.

RE PUB LIC

That means no king. No queen. Do me, wait, do all of us a favour- read 'The Dutch Revolt' by Geoffrey Parker, and 'The Dutch Seaborne Empire' by C. R. Boxer.

One covers the initial period of the Dutch rebellion against the Habsburgs, the Eighty Years' War, etc, the other the evolution of the Dutch State, the Golden Age, the V.O.C. and so on. Both are written in modern English which I hope will prove helpful.

The Dutch revolt is a pivotal event in European history that remains blurry and poorly understood by most people.

From a review of Parker's book. Could almost be referring to you.

[Alexander's Horse]

Time for another MBT thread?

[molly bloom]

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

Minor point for the historically illiterate. Cnut was the younger son of Swein. So he had to wait until his elder brother, who was childless, died, before he could go to Denmark to become King there.

Which, by the way, was after he became King of England.

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

Clearly Anglo-Saxon history is not your forte. Should i point out that along with studying Anglo-Saxon literature I also studied Anglo-Saxon history, art and architecture ? I'm guessing you didn't.


On Aethelred Unraed's death, a few merchants and leading Londoners offered the crown to Edmund. The rest of the country, tired of Aethelraed's family, arbitrary rule, taxes, inability to repel Viking raiders, and so on... preferred a Dane, who was already based in England, and whose father had been ruler when Aethelraed was in ignominious exile in Normandy.

As it turned out, they made the right choice- Cnut was an excellent monarch, and achieved the distinction of being recognized as such by other European monarchs, including Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor, the Pope, and the kings of Burgundy and France. He even went on pilgrimage to Rome.

He fought an alliance of Sweden and Norway, which was directly threatening Denmark, and although he didn't decisively defeat the Swedes, they were no longer in a position to offer a threat to Denmark and were effectively separated from Norway- of which realm Cnut went on to become king, after defeating their forces.

He installed his Anglo-Saxon spouse, Aelfgifu as ruler of Norway in his absence, and similarly, had a stand-in in Denmark in his absence. He went on to marry Emma, Aethelraed's Norman widow.

Take notes, if you like- you need to after all.

[Alexander's Horse]

Ben, you need the avatars of girls with the nice titties, now more than ever

[molly bloom]

So why then did he rule solely, without her?

Because ruling with her corpse might have been difficult.

Again - England submitted themselves to their Dutch masters out of prejudice.

Various English nobility, politicians and a bishop went to the Dutch Republic (can you say re-pub-lic, dimbo ?) to invite the son of an English Stuart and his English Stuart wife to become rulers over England in preference to a Stuart who had shown by the imprisonment of Anglican bishops, by his opposition to Habeas Corpus, by his judge's 'Bloody Assizes' after Monmouth's failed rebellion, by his arbitrary replacement of Protestant officials and army officers by unqualified Roman Catholics, and his alienation even of those who would otherwise have been his supporters- namely, the Tories.

England and the English did not 'submit' themselves to the Dutch. Mary II was not Dutch. She was married to a amn who was half-English, half-Dutch, and in the line of succession to the English throne, along with herself.

England was not at war with the Dutch in 1688. The Dutch did not become the rulers or masters of England.


Get over it.

[molly bloom]

Later on, after the Act of Settlement, then would again appoint a king out of prejudice,

If you're referring to William III Orange, he was not a 'foreign king'. The United Provinces were a Dutch

RE PUB LIC

Can you say 're-pub-lic', nitwit ? Good grief.

a foreign king who had never set foot in England or spoke English.

Are you retarded ? Do you have some kind of hitherto unknown learning difficulty which provokes you to boast about your history degree then come out with crap like this ?


William III Orange first entered England in



1670

That's fully 18 years before 1688. He landed at Margate, in November, at the invitation of Charles II, and escorted by Charles's representative the Earl of Ossory, who went on to become William's close friend.

or spoke English.

Languages spoken at the home of Mary Stuart and William III Orange while they were resident in the United Provinces : English and French.
Dutch was spoken by the servants. Rather ironic, what with your nonsense about England's 'Dutch masters'.

Why?

Because they preferred a half-Dutch half-English Calvinist and his Anglican English wife to a Catholic English despot. One of the first things William did on entering London was secure the houses and places of worship of Catholics. Similarly, in the United Provinces, the republican government took action to prevent ant-Catholic mobs harming Catholics and Catholic churches.

That's because the allies of the United Provinces were Catholic Spain and Catholic Austria. Whose enemy was Catholic France.

[molly bloom]

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

Technically, James II fled the country. Actually, 'was allowed' to flee would be better. He abdicated, in other words. As for Cnut- I'm sure he felt he had a better claim than Edmund. As did many Anglo-Saxons, for good reasons.

How is this any different from William?

Oh tedium.

....the king gave an order to slay all the Danes that were in England. This was accordingly done on the mass-day of St.Brice [13th November]; because it was told the king, that they would beshrew him of his life, and afterwards all his council, and then have his kingdom."

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

This massacre almost certainly never occurred, but one of the Danes who was killed was the sister of Swein. Accordingly, Swein came to avenge her death and gain the throne of England. Eventually:

Thither came Ealdorman Æthelmær, and all the western thegns with him, and all submitted to Swegen, and gave hostages. When he had thus settled all, then went he northward to his ships; and all the population fully received him, and considered him full king. The population of London also after this submitted to him, and gave hostages;

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Not quite how the Glorious Revolution came about.

You claim the exact same thing. "England was incompetently ruled and so they needed to be taked over by a competent ruler."

I did not claim this. You are a liar.

Why not?

Research the hsitory of the Danelaw, and the reign of Alfred The Great.

Then get back to me, hopefully better educated on the subject.

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

How depressingly yet characteristically literal of you. What I meant was, that in all your error strewn effusions, there is no evidence, despite your popping up and down like a groundhog with a perilously full bladder, no sign of any education in English or European history.

Someone who thinks the Dutch were ruled by a Dutch King in 1688 ? That Mary Stuart was still Queen of Scotland in 1587 ?


Change your name to Joey Demento, tout de suite.

[Ben Kenobi]

Technically, James II fled the country. Actually, 'was allowed' to flee would be better. He abdicated, in other words.

Hrm? England was invaded and James II/VII was deposed by William. Same as with Bolingbroke.

I'm sure he felt he had a better claim than Edmund. As did many Anglo-Saxons, for good reasons.

Delusion?

the king gave an order to slay all the Danes that were in England. This was accordingly done on the mass-day of St.Brice [13th November]; because it was told the king, that they would beshrew him of his life, and afterwards all his council, and then have his kingdom."

As opposed to the Danes who invaded and attempted to slay Englishmen?

Not quite how the Glorious Revolution came about.

True - James VII/II was an Englishman deposed by William of Orange and James never threatened to execute protestants. There was no cause, other than prejudice to depose him.

I did not claim this. You are a liar.

You claimed James II/VII was incompetent and that Aethelred was incompetent and that the invasions that removed both were justified because they removed incompetent rulers.

How depressingly yet characteristically literal of you. What I meant was, that in all your error strewn effusions, there is no evidence, despite your popping up and down like a groundhog with a perilously full bladder, no sign of any education in English or European history.

And one who's attended Grammar school possesses sufficient means to determine this reliably? This is like the blind man querying the seaman's ability to navigate by sextant.

Someone who thinks the Dutch were ruled by a Dutch King in 1688 ? That Mary Stuart was still Queen of Scotland in 1587 ?

Mary was Queen of Scots by her birthright, unlike Elizabeth who was declared a bastard. And William's descendents, (oddly enough), did become Kings shortly after. If the Stadtholder were different from the kings in waiting - it would not be a hereditary position reserved to the House of Orange.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you're referring to William III Orange, he was not a 'foreign king'. The United Provinces were a Dutch

Yeah, he was a foreign king. He was born in the Netherlands.

Are you retarded ? Do you have some kind of hitherto unknown learning difficulty which provokes you to boast about your history degree then come out with crap like this ?

Perhaps I was referring to someone other than William III - Someone who didn't speak a lick of English? Perhaps this would be referring to the Hanoverians and George I?

Who's the ****** now? Did your grammar school education not teach about him? If you don't understand a reference, I suggest you ask questions to relieve your ignorance.

Because they preferred a half-Dutch half-English Calvinist and his Anglican English wife to a Catholic English despot.

Fully English - legitimate son to the throne rejected over religious prejudice. Thank you. I'm glad you finally admitted that prejudice was the sole motivation for the Glorious Revolution and the subsequent Act of Settlement.

One of the first things William did on entering London was secure the houses and places of worship of Catholics. Similarly, in the United Provinces, the republican government took action to prevent ant-Catholic mobs harming Catholics and Catholic churches.

Yawn, which justifies him of depriving a Catholic of his birthright. A thief is still a thief even if he repairs the property he has stolen.

That's because the allies of the United Provinces were Catholic Spain and Catholic Austria. Whose enemy was Catholic France.

Which explains why the Netherlands was still ruled by a Catholic monarch. Oh wait. I think they fought a little spat over that.