Pope sends direct message to Ben

[rah]

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

[molly bloom]

Built the first drydock at Portsmouth in 1495. Launched the Cabot expedition, supported the expansion of the navy throughout his reign. Henry VIII simply carried on what he started.

When you're directly copying and partially quoting what appears on the Royal Navy Musuem's website, isn't it at least courteous and honest to acknowledge this ? I suppose we can add this to your sin of pride. Your priest should be getting an earful at your next confession.

Henry VIII had ships built which had improved sea-worthiness and armaments, and in 1514, the Henry Grace a Dieu, the largest warship in the world, was launched. It was the first ship with heavy guns, and this led to an end of archers firing on ships and hand to hand fighting, and so developed a new technique of sea warfare. In the same year Trinity House was inaugurated to develop navigational aids such as lighthouses, buoys and beacons, the latter being used to signal the invasion of the Spanish Armada in 1588. In 1540, Henry built the first naval dock in Britain at Portsmouth, and in 1546 he established the Navy Board, which remained almost unchanged for 300 years, and created the Office of Admiralty, which set up the administrative machinery for the control of the fleet. For his achievements Henry VIII was known as the “Father of the English Navy”. From the Tudor period, England produced many eminent naval officers.

http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_naval_history.htm

The part you copied :

The Tudor period was the great age of discovery and the beginning of world expansion. In 1495 Henry VII built the first dry dock at Portsmouth. Henry VIII inherited seven warships from his father, which he increased to twenty-four in the early part of his reign

[molly bloom]

Does it change the fact that she was Mary Queen of Scots? No, not at all.

'Had been', not 'was' . Clearly they didn't teach the use of different English tenses at whichever schools were unfortunate to be saddled with your presence.

As I've pointed out, she was now the Queen Mother, no longer the Queen, and certainly not a ruler.

Do you understand the term 'heir apparent'?

As should be obvious, yes.

You, splendidly obviously, do not.

Mary, Queen of Scots was Elizabeth's nearest royal relative.

The site was clearly referring to James's ascension to the throne of England, after Mary Stuart's death. Given that on Elizabeth Tudor's death his mother was no longer alive, James was indeed Elizabeth's nearest royal relative.

AND AS I'VE POINTED OUT MORE THAN ONCE, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TERM HEIR APPARENT. SO STOP USING IT, BLOCKHEAD.

This isn't a difficult concept.

For someone who has trouble coping with simple English words such as 'ruler', simple historical facts such as the date of origin of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the meaning of 'heir apparent', I'd suggest you desist from trying to define what is or is not a 'difficult' concept.

[molly bloom]

Elizabeth was never Queen in her own right, and never heir apparent, as Mary Queen of Scots was. This is a significant difference between Queen consort and Queen.

Mary Stuart, as I've clearly pointed out, was not and could not be, Elizabeth Tudor's 'heir apparent'. You're simply to illiterate to understand that.

James I & VI referred to Mary Stuart as 'Queen-Mother' - which was the point I was making, nothing about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon being an heir to the throne in her own right.

And yet you still can't choke out 'heir apparent' to the throne of England.

Still not understanding English. No shock there.

Catherine was still alive - making Anne his mistress and Elizabeth his bastard.

No. She and Henry were divorced or Cranmer annulled the marriage- whichever way you want to look at it. Elizabeth was born to Anne Boleyn when she was married to Henry. Oh, and the Anglo-Saxons didn't mind illegitimate children inheriting the throne, by the way- so long as they proved good rulers.

She did. She executed her own cousin - Mary Queen of Scots.

Mary Stuart was no longer ruler of Scotland, and no longer 'Queen of Scots' . Her son was the legal ruler from 1567, making it twenty years by the time of her execution that she had been a ruler of anywhere. As I've pointed out, he referred to her as the 'Queen-Mother' and refused to share sovereignty over Scotland with her.


THIS MEANS SHE WAS NO LONGER A RULER.

GET THAT FACT FIXED IN THE DULL LUSTRELESS JELLY THAT PASSES FOR YOUR BRAIN, AND STOP REPEATING NONSENSE THAT I'VE ALREADY CORRECTED MORE THAN ONCE.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE=Ben Kenobi;6268000]

Why then - did they abandon the republican fiction and crown the House of Orange as King of the Dutch shortly after? The answer - they never really wanted a republic. They just wanted a local king. Hence the House of Orange.

QUOTE]

YOU'RE SO MONUMENTALLY STUPID IT SHOULD BE TATTOOED ON YOUR FOREHEAD AS A PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING.

In 1795 the last stadtholder Prince Willem V fled to England and the Netherlands became a part of the French Republic and later the French Empire of Napoleon. Between 1806 and 1810 Louis Napoleon, a brother of the Emperor Napoleon, was the first King of Holland.

In 1813 the son of the last stadtholder was chosen as sovereign. At the Congress of Vienna the Kingdom of the Netherlands was drafted and in 1815 this sovereign became King Willem I

http://www.nettyroyal.nl/netherlands.html

1688 William III, Prince of Orange becomes king of England.


1815 William VI Orange becomes king of the Netherlands.

'So soon after' ?


YOU ARE DIMMER THAN THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.

[molly bloom]

Unlike the Old Pretender who was the legitimate son of a King, at that.

Boring and not addressing the point. How unlike you.

Behind the Old pretender. That is the whole point.

No it isn't. Because the English had already shown with Charles I (and even Cnut and Swein) that they preferred the possibility of good government under a half-English ruler to a bad English king or arbitrary rule.

Real republics don't ditch their republic to make their own king.

Hilarious. Your utter ignorance of Dutch history is no great surprise, but pretending that this is anything other than you getting a simple fact wrong, is absolutely priceless.


You called William III Orange, Prince of Orange, 'the Dutch King'.

YOU WERE WRONG. CASE CLOSED, CEASE WHINING.

Neither can you. Mary was Queen and heir apparent to Elizabeth until she was executed.

Still not got the grasp of English, eh ?

Heir Apparent- the one BY LAW acknowledged to be heir, no matter who may subsequently be born

Chambers Dictionary

Mary was no longer Queen of anywhere :

...as she was held captive in a remote place, (he had no choice but that of ) declining to associate her with himself in the sovereignty of Scotland, or to treat her otherwise than as Queen-Mother.

James VI & I to Mary Stuart.

Elizabeth did not acknowledge her as heir, nor were the legal impediments preventing Mary Stuart from ascending to the throne of England in the event of Elizabeth Tudor pre-deceasing her removed.

Ergo, she was not, and could not be, Elizabeth's heir apparent.


YOU ARE STUPID.

[molly bloom]

As William did with Mary....

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.


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

Even an idiot like you should be able to see the difference.

and later, William chose to govern himself, just like Canute.

WRONG AGAIN DIMWIT.

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

When Edmund Ironside died (most likely as a result of assassination) the realm was offered to Cnut by leading English figures because they were heartily sick of the rule of Edmund's line. Edmund had a younger brother, Edwy, and two infant children- who all had a better claim to the throne of England than Cnut. In your line of thinking then, Cnut was a usurper, clearly.

And once again - England preferred to subject itself to foreign domination than the Old pretender. Out of spite and prejudice

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.

When Swein died, he was invited back to rule England PROVIDED HE GUARANTEED TO RULE BETTER, AND NOT IN AN ARBITRARY FASHION.

Its not that the English were desperately in love with the idea of Danish rule or Danes, but clearly by the time of Edmund Ironside's death, anyone was preferable to the line of Aethelraed.


Even a Dane.

Not all of us are reliant on a free one.

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.

[molly bloom]

That's right - England prior to Henry VII wasn't really England. Prejudice that's hardly shocking to hear.

I'm sorry, where does it say that in my post ?


Oh that's right, it doesn't, because I'm referring to the evolution of the English language,


YOU COLOSSAL BIGOTED IDIOT.

[Sava]

I'm not even going to read all that. But it's safe to say it's a dumb argument.

[kentonio]

Henry V came closer.

True, I was forgetting Henry V.

And I'm talking about how important those bloodlines were perceived back then. Again - if not for Elizabeth of York, it's unlikely there would be an English monarch today, if for no reason other than that there would be no claiments for it.

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.

Saying that you're the most recent person from whom every king and queen of england subsequent is descended from - is very significant.

Not really, it's an interesting fact but has no bearing on how someone performed as a ruler. It doesn't take talent or intelligence to get someone pregnant.

And once again - it was Edward who conquered it. The way history is taught is that Henry VIII did everything.

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.

The son that he staked everything on, died. His daughter married the King of Spain and his other daughter never married. Slightly more than 50 years after his death - the crown that his father worked so hard to establish a dynasty was gone. The way time has worked - it is like he never existed at all.

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.

Built the first drydock at Portsmouth in 1495. Launched the Cabot expedition, supported the expansion of the navy throughout his reign. Henry VIII simply carried on what he started.

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

So why are you arguing against me when I argue that she's been a better queen than the first Elizabeth?

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

Again - this is political bias. I has nothing to do with their actual accomplishments. Personally, I prefer the Queen who travelled the entire Empire to the one who never set foot on the continent.

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

What, in arguing that women get credit for being good moms?

In thinking that the only thing that matters about a woman's rule is whether she had children. Oh that and whether she was a good Catholic of course.

Except she executed plenty of people. And stoked the flames of sectarian bloodbath.

Except she demonstrably didn't.

It still doesn't change the fact that she executed more.

Show a little intellectual honesty for once in your life.

Sure, Mary Queen of Scots was an excellent Queen.

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.

Indeed. I'm sure attacking her for her actually having relationships is going to go over well with women.

I have no idea what you were trying to say here, please rephrase in English.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not necessarily (it depends on which of the group we are talking about). Nor the Kennedys either. Though plenty do.

[Sava]

Do you like them?

Imran would say he did if we said they suck.

He has some sort of oppositional defiance disorder.

[giblets]

Are you talking about the Bushes?

Do you like them?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What, you think having people who are born into privilege and worshiped and do nothing useful is a bad thing?

Are you talking about the Bushes?

[Ben Kenobi]

You mean apart from beating them repeatedly, imprisoning the French king, and bringing about the near complete collapse of France? Yes he didn't manage to take the final step and claim the crown, but he came closer than anyone else did.

Henry V came closer.

No, you miss the point. I'm talking about the relevance of bloodlines in terms of how the monarchs of times gone are perceived today.

And I'm talking about how important those bloodlines were perceived back then. Again - if not for Elizabeth of York, it's unlikely there would be an English monarch today, if for no reason other than that there would be no claiments for it.

Saying 'this King was crap because his bloodline didn't follow through to the current today' is a pretty poor gauge of how someone performed as a monarch.

Saying that you're the most recent person from whom every king and queen of england subsequent is descended from - is very significant.

The formal merging of the countries was under Henry VIII.

And once again - it was Edward who conquered it. The way history is taught is that Henry VIII did everything.

He was declared Defender of the Faith and Most Christian King of France by the Catholic pope, you silly little man. How exactly did he 'lose everything' when he remained King until his death? You're sounding like a mentally unbalanced idiot now.

The son that he staked everything on, died. His daughter married the King of Spain and his other daughter never married. Slightly more than 50 years after his death - the crown that his father worked so hard to establish a dynasty was gone. The way time has worked - it is like he never existed at all.

You're going to have to support that claim with some evidence.

Built the first drydock at Portsmouth in 1495. Launched the Cabot expedition, supported the expansion of the navy throughout his reign. Henry VIII simply carried on what he started.

Wow, you managed to sound like even more of an idiot than normal there, well done.

Yep, Henry VIII turned out to be the Paris Hilton of his time.

Trying to airbrush one of England's most famed Queens out of existence because of your stupid Catholic victim complex is pretty pathetic.

Arguing that Elizabeth II is the superior queen is hardly 'air brushing'. I don't think it's disrespectful to rank Elizabeth 4th of all the English Queens.

You're sounding like an idiot again. The current Queen is pretty much universally recognized as a hugely successful monarch

So why are you arguing against me when I argue that she's been a better queen than the first Elizabeth?

monarchy simply doesn't hold the relevance that it used to.

Again - this is political bias. I has nothing to do with their actual accomplishments. Personally, I prefer the Queen who travelled the entire Empire to the one who never set foot on the continent.

How typically misogynistic and primitive of you.

Arguing that a Queen having children and raising them is a significant accomplishment is misogynistic? If more parents took their duties seriously, we would be better off. It's probably the most important thing you'll do in your life is to raise your children. Now - imagine when your child is going to be king? Raising your child poorly would not only hurt the child - but the operation of the state long after you are gone.

So as a woman she could only be successful if she had children?

Victoria had children so I would argue that she was more successful than Elizabeth as she gets credit for the accomplishments of her children, whereas Elizabeth does not.

This **** is exactly why you'll never get married.

What, in arguing that women get credit for being good moms?

Except that she demonstrably didn't you imbecile. She took over in a time when the country could easily have exploded into a sectarian bloodbath, and ensured that didn't happen.

Except she executed plenty of people. And stoked the flames of sectarian bloodbath.

The only way they 'overshadow her' is in your tiny and deluded brain.

Neither Mary Queen of England nor Mary Queen of Scots resorted to kinslaying, as Elizabeth did in her paranoia.

So your response to a woman who held the throne alone for nearly 50 years is a Queen who was married to another King?

Mary Queen of Scots was Queen right from childhood - and grew up without her dad. Did Elizabeth do that? Or did Big sis help guide her along?

Your grasp on simple maths is actually embarrassing. Being unable to count and perform basic division should disqualify you from ever teaching children.

It still doesn't change the fact that she executed more.

Surprise, surprise, the bitter lonely guy who has never slept with a woman wants to whitewash over the achievements of a great female leader.

Sure, Mary Queen of Scots was an excellent Queen.

Quite sad really.

Indeed. I'm sure attacking her for her actually having relationships is going to go over well with women.