Pope sends direct message to Ben

[molly bloom]

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

It's mildly interesting in a kind of semi-scientific way, when you reveal which great gaping gulfs there are in your supposed historical knowledge- Dutch history, Elizabethan history, Scottish history, European history in the 16th and 17th Centuries, confusing the supporter of absolutism with his opposite, Anglo Saxon history....

James II, before William had even reached London, gave instructions for his wife and infant son to leave the country (via Gravesend) and seek refuge in France.

2 days later, James made up his mind to flee as well- he lied to the Mayor of London and other officials, claiming he had no intention of escaping, but after burning the writs for the new Parliament and entrusting the Grand Duke of Tuscany's representative with state and personal papers, he retired, having given orders that he was to be allowed to rest.

Like the proverbial thief in the night, James had sneaked out in the early hours, throwing the Great Seal into the River Thames. Typically he blamed the disloyalty of officers in the armed forces for his cutting and running- not his misdeeds or prejudice or tyranny.

William was no nearer London than Abingdon when James II and his travelling companion, the former governor of the Tower of London, were recognized in Faversham in Kent.

Apparently James had some sort of breakdown, pleading for a boat and treating his captors to a long disquisition on a biblical text.

William convened a meeting of twelve peers of the realm to let them decide James's fate- they advised the best way to handle James was simply to let him go- to Ham House, not far away. James replied that Ham House would be cold and unpleasant in wintertime (it was December) and asked if perhaps he might be allowed to go to Rochester.

He was taken there (partly by Royal barge) and under a very light guard (which included Catholic troops) he was allowed to escape to exile in France, after having left a last communication to the English that he would not overthrow the Anglican religion or the laws even though he was going to seek foreign aid.


None of this is secret knowledge- well, except perhaps to you.

[molly bloom]

Delusion?

I think you're referring to the subject of your degree.

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

Yawn.

True - James VII/II was an Englishman deposed by William of Orange and James never threatened to execute protestants.

He didn't have to threaten to execute Protestants- after Monmouth's failed rebellion, his judges executed Protestants for him:

The Autumn Assizes of 1685 at which Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys presided and was assisted by four other judges, has gained such dreadful notoriety as the 'Bloody Assize' and has been the subject of so much vivid and exaggerated writing that it is difficult to find the truth about what really happened. The king was anxious that an example should be made to deter any other attempts at rebellion; Jeffreys was a sick man, suffering from an extremely painful illness; many of the accused were persuaded to confess, hoping for mercy after a plea of 'Guilty'. These facts, and the great differences in the legal system of that time in comparison with today, make it almost impossible to arrive at a fair and balanced view of the trials.
The Assize began at Winchester, where Dame Alice Lyle was condemned to death for helping two of the rebels-a harsh and terrible judgement on an old and kindly lady. At Dorchester the full horror of the Assize began to be felt as between 300 and 350 rebels were accused. A few were acquitted, some were fined or sentenced to be flogged, but the majority were condemned to death and handed over for execution as soon as possible. This horrifying spectacle included public hanging, disembowelling and then quartering, after which the heads and quarters were dipped in pitch and salt and sent to villages around to be displayed in public on poles. Many who were condemned to death had their sentences reduced to transportation-in effect, long years of slavery in the colonies. The judges passed on to Exeter where about 40 men were tried, and of those condemned, 12 or 13 were executed and their quarters sent for display into towns and villages in Devon.

The judges began their work in Somerset on September 17 at Taunton, in the Great Hall of Taunton Castle, and completed their work in two days. About 500 men were brought to trial and almost all were sentenced to death, but by now it was clear that transportation was to be the fate of the majority, especially as each man transported would be worth more than £12, a source of considerable profit for the Crown, The final decision was delayed for some time while the judges moved on to Bristol where there were no rebels held for trial. On September 23 they came to Wells, where, in a makeshift court held in the space under the Market Hall, shut in by wooden screens, in one day's sitting over 500 men were tried and the majority sentenced to death. Jeffreys returned to London where he and his fellow judges were formally thanked by the King.

http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Bloodyassize.htm

Oh, and on his deathbed, Jeffreys said that he and his fellow judges were not nearly 'bloody' or vindictive enough for James.

If you're claiming that William threatened to kill Catholics for nothing other than their faith, then prove it. His forces were multi-national, multi-racial and multi-faith.

You claimed James II/VII was incompetent and that Aethelred was incompetent

Quote what I actually said, liar. Otherwise, remain a liar.

And one who's attended Grammar school possesses sufficient means to determine this reliably?

Who says you have to have attended a grammar school ? I'm thinking that by now, sentience isn't even a requirement.

This is like the blind man querying the seaman's ability to navigate by sextant.

That's so unwittingly ironically amusing. Thanks for that.

Mary was Queen of Scots by her birthright, unlike Elizabeth who was declared a bastard.

Boring. Rehashing old nonsense. You described Mary Stuart as a ruler when executed by Elizabeth's government. As I pointed out, more than once, she was not ruler of Scotland or anywhere else in 1587. She was no longer a queen, and she was not Elizabeth's 'heir apparent' as you kept incorrectly repeating. Neither she no her son were directly or indirectly acknowledged as Elizabeth's legitimate heirs by Elizabeth. You were wrong.

And William's descendents, (oddly enough), did become Kings shortly after.

YOU ARE ENORMOUSLY STUPID.

The office of Stadholder (which was not king, no matter what gloss you seek to put on it) became hereditary in the House of Orange in 1747-1748. The first king of the Dutch after they won their freedom from the Spanish was imposed upon them by a French dictator. Not until the 19th Century did the Dutch avail themselves of a king from the House of Orange.

1688 until 1815 ?

Shortly ?

Idiot.

Oh and William died childless, fool.

[molly bloom]

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

He only became a king (of the English) when he was crowned joint ruler with his wife in England. He may have been born in the United Provinces (which were of course a republic) but his mother was English.

Perhaps if you didn't want to be misunderstood when employing ambiguous phraseology, you might not want to call him King of the Dutch- as you did in a previous post :

William III, the King of the Dutch was sole king over England

What, forgetting your own mistakes ? Moron.

Perhaps I was referring to someone other than William III

Perhaps you were referring to Hammurabi. Life's too short for me to try your mind reading trick of 'knowing' what all liberals supposedly think or do, or to try to fathom out all the possibilities of your ambiguous wording. I simply went on your previous performance of getting details of William's life completely wrong- that and blaming the Dutch and Dutch politics for your ignorance of Dutch history. That was a gem.

Who's the ****** now?

You're still no.1 with a bullet !

If you don't understand a reference, I suggest you ask questions to relieve your ignorance.

Oh my- if you were to do that I'd have no private or personal life. Nor would many professional historians, clearly.

I'm glad you finally admitted that prejudice was the sole motivation for the Glorious Revolution and the subsequent Act of Settlement

Alas I haven't. Steer clear of industrial strength glue. It definitely has a bad effect on you.

Yawn, which justifies him of depriving a Catholic of his birthright.

That would be ex-Anglican, Roman Catholic convert. By the way, the English had already demonstrated with an earlier Stuart what they thought of kings who tried to rule in an arbitrary fashion, ignore the wishes and privileges of Parliament, and who attempted to raise an Irish army to subdue England.

If you don't understand a reference, I suggest you ask questions to relieve your ignorance.

A thief is still a thief even if he repairs the property he has stolen.

I refer you to the Royal Navy Museum's intellectual property which you appropriated. Pot, meet kettle.

Which explains why the Netherlands was still ruled by a Catholic monarch.

Remember they were a Republic ? Can you say re-pub-lic ? Still having difficulty ? Clearly in the dark about the Thirty Years' War too, and how Catholic France allied with Lutheran Sweden...


Well, no shock there.

[molly bloom]

In any case, you're retarded.

I'm so hurt by your pungent wit.

For someone who does copious reading, you are not terribly good at it.

Izzat so ? I'm crying into my copy of 'D!ck sees Spot run' now.

[molly bloom]

Only 31 that we know the names of (not counting Foxe's book) were executed under Mary. That's it.

Oh Sister Bendy, are you sure ?

In less than four years 277 persons were burned to death. Some, like Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, were men of influence and high position, but the majority belonged to the lower orders.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09766a.htm

That's from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, by the way. Ho ho ho....

Elizabeth killed 42 named Catholic nobles, more than Mary, fwiw.

Name them. Provide the list, or remain a liar.


Now about the Catholic 'martyrs' you claimed Henry VIII killed which stemmed from your acceptance as truth of

a book review on a catholic website.

While I was re-reading 'The Roots Of Evil : A Social History Of Crime And Punishment' by Christopher Hibbert, I happened upon this :

How many criminals were hanged in all during these years (the 16th Century) cannot be ascertained. The quoted figure of 72 000 as given by Stow for the 37 years of the reign of Henry VIII is ill-founded, but there is no doubt that Bishop Rowland Lee, as Lord President of the Council in the Welsh Marches, 'hanged thives in hundreds, right and left'...

So the 'ill-founded' figure is not for Catholic martyrs or victims of the Pilgrimage of Grace or its aftermath, but an inflated inaccurate figure applied to all found guilty of hanging offences.

Poor dim trusting you.

[molly bloom]

65 year old women. Christ.

Ah, so Roman Catholics were soft on old heretics were they ?

The Guises discovered the plot and the rebels were defeated and butchered at Amboise. The torturings and hangings went on for a week and the bodies hung on the castle walls and on trees. It was suspected, though never proved, that the Prince de Condé, of the Bourbon family, had been behind the uprising.

Francis II died at the end of 1560. He was succeeded by his younger brother, Charles IX, and Catherine de Medici, the queen mother, took over as regent. In 1562, anxious not to drive the Huguenots to desperation and also to curb the power of the Guises, she issued the Edict of St-Germain, which allowed Protestant services to be held, though only in private and not in towns. A few weeks later, however, Huguenots worshipping in a barn outside a place called Vassy were massacred by the Duc de Guise and his men.

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/catherine-de-medici-signs-edict-amboise

In all that massacring and torturing, do you imagine anyone stopped to ask for a birth certificate ?

See also Alva in the Spanish Netherlands, and the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the expulsion of the Jews and Moriscos from Spain, and the three Inquisitions...

[Nikolai]

I call BS on you lame ass attempt to explain your moronic post...
In the special deck for rook, there are no aces, just numbered cards (1 - 14) and the rook card.
So the expression you used makes no sense for Rook either.

Now you will probably try to worm you way out by saying something like "well if you use a regular deck of cards to play instead of a rook deck, there are aces" but that still doesn't explain why this would be a common rook "expression" since rook decks don't have aces.

But heck, it's sure nice to see what an expert you are on a game you play.

Never heard of rook, but wikipedia claims you can play rook with normal cards, and specifically mentions the aces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_%28card_game%29

Kentucky Discard Rook may be played with standard playing cards by removing the 2s, 3s, and 4s from the deck, playing Aces high, and adding one joker to be used as the Rook Bird card. When playing with such a deck scoring changes as follows: each 5 is worth 5 points, each ace and 10 is worth 10 points, and the joker is worth 20 points. Aces always play high in tricks.

[MikeH]

Christ Rah, are you so ****ing dense that you can't ****ing parse the concept that trump beats no trump? Or are you just spooning your usual bull**** that nobody really gives a **** about? You do this every goddamn post.

The main problem with

7 No trump loses to the trump ace everytime.

Is that most people would think a 7 would lose to an Ace, because in most games Aces are high.

[rah]

Somehow I think jury rigging a regular deck to accommodate the lack of a real rock deck just makes his comment more obscure. I never questioned the truth of his statement since I have never played rook and had to look it up myself. My claim was that if he's trying to make a point using a reference that it should be one that people might recognize and not from an obscure game that even he admitted those here might not recognize. But again, when he responds he doesn't say that he should have used a difference reference, he said I should have understood the concept (Which I said I did in my post, which as always he ignored) Just another of his twisting so he doesn't have to admit that he might have used a better reference instead of one that was confusing to those not familiar with Rook.

But I do find it hilarious that a standard rook deck doesn't have aces.


Yeah, and that too Mike. Which is why I originally asked him what the heck did that even mean.

[MikeH]

Yeah. It absolutely made no sense. I assumed he was mangling a bridge term too.

[MikeH]

Nikolai's link suggests that if you are using aces, they are high, so it's even more confusing.

[Elok]

Not three months ago, BK failed basic English grammar. That he's not good with the rules of an obscure old-person card game is not that big of a deal by comparison.

[rah]

Then he shouldn't have used it as an example to make a point. Which is all that I said. But yes, not a surprise.

[giblets]

If Ben only talked about things he understood his posts would consist entirely of basic astronomy facts and Catholic dogmas.

[The Mad Monk]

...okay, so who's up for some cribbage?