Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ming]

Nahhh... usually he just disappears from the thread and starts some other lame argument in another thread.. until he gets beat down again... rinse and repeat

[molly bloom]

She was a ruler and she was also Elizabeth's heir apparent.

She had been a ruler. She ceased to be a ruler when her son became King. That's how it works in other monarchies, not just the Scottish one. Remember. Elizabeth II had a Queen Mother or Queen Dowager... Boy, you're dim.

This is not difficult Molly. Elizabeth was a kinslayer.

Mary Stuart was a distant relative of the Queen whose land she was resident in, and who had aimed at the removal of England's monarch- that selfsame Queen. Elizabeth was eventually driven to sign her death warrant after numerous plots aimed at putting Mary on the throne, doing away with Elizabeth et cetera...

I'm not sure how Elizabeth felt about the Catholic Church's view of her- not much, I expect.

Elizabeth was illegitimate, as Catherine was still alive when Elizabeth was born.

Elizabeth's mother was married to Henry VIII when she was born. Next.

And yet William III was. Odd that. Apparently England was a fief of the Dutch

Repetition of a falsehood doesn't make it true. There are ample online dictionarie which explain the meaning of 'fief', 'fiefdom', 'feu' and 'feudal' : I suggest you better your miserable education by making acquaintance with several of them.

Failing that, Heer's 'The Mediaeval World' has a usful description of feudalism in the Mediaeval era.

We start with the Queen of Scots. We add a dash of Thomas Percy, the Earl of Northumberland. That's two of the nobility she executed.

Treason and rebellion. Not their faith alone. I'm asking for facts, not your unsupported opinion.


The treason statute dated from Plantagenet days, by the way.

Actually, yes, he did. He set himself up as the head of the COE, and declared that the COE was the established church. Go read the Act of Supremacy I've cited in every single post.

You've mentioned it by title- you haven't cited it. I'd have been surprised if you did.

I find it telling that you regard Wycliffe and the Lollards as evidence of persecution

Were they persecuted by Richard II, Henry IV & Henry V ? Yes.


I rest my case.

[kentonio]

Er, before you get too smug, how much of Argentina's turbulent past is due to the U.S. supporting their dictators in the name of fighting communism? I'm going to randomly guess, based on our history in the region, on an amount between "a fair amount" and "most of it."

You'll be looking for Operation Condor, sir.

[N35t0r]

I don't think we were big fans of Juan Peron or subsequent Argentinian administrations.

Perón was a relatively minor participant in the '73 coup, and thereafter the military took power to oust him, since he wasn't particularly US-friendly...

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, what precisely does the political history of Argentina have to do with N35t0r's opinions?

Arguing that the monarchy (which was established by force), a thousand years ago is less legitimate than the concept of Democracy which was established by the American Revolution, also through force makes no sense to me.

NES seems to believe that democracy magically establishes itself.

You don't get to act huffy about irrelevant comments when they're made in response to your own non sequitur, sorry.

Nes was closer to the mark in attacking the British Monarchy than you are in attacking the Revolution. You really think I'm a fan of it?

[Elok]

Well, what precisely does the political history of Argentina have to do with N35t0r's opinions? You don't get to act huffy about irrelevant comments when they're made in response to your own non sequitur, sorry.

[Ben Kenobi]

Er, before you get too smug, how much of Argentina's turbulent past is due to the U.S. supporting their dictators in the name of fighting communism? I'm going to randomly guess, based on our history in the region, on an amount between "a fair amount" and "most of it."

And what precisely does that have to do with the argument concerning the legitimacy of the British Monarchy? Last I checked Americans weren't subject to the Queen.

[regexcellent]

I don't think we were big fans of Juan Peron or subsequent Argentinian administrations.

[Elok]

Er, before you get too smug, how much of Argentina's turbulent past is due to the U.S. supporting their dictators in the name of fighting communism? I'm going to randomly guess, based on our history in the region, on an amount between "a fair amount" and "most of it."

[Ben Kenobi]

So your 'argument' is that, since Argentina has had a military coup, then whatever I say is irrelevant. Good to know. While I don't like the way you debate and don't share some of your beliefs, I generally didn't think you were such an *******.

We should put up a 'Junta timer'. BTW, how's the conversion from Pesos coming along?

[Ben Kenobi]

You said Elizabeth executed 'rulers' . In using the plural form you were wrong, and in assuming that Mary Stuart was still a ruler you are also wrong. Her son ruled in Scotland.

She was a ruler and she was also Elizabeth's heir apparent. The Church frowns on executing family members, especially when they are rulers, and especially when they are under your care. This is not difficult Molly. Elizabeth was a kinslayer.

Bigamists manage it all the time. Also, not interested in your opinion of the legitimacy or otherwise of Anne Boleyn's marriage.

Elizabeth was illegitimate, as Catherine was still alive when Elizabeth was born. By all rights the order was Mary Queen of Scots followed by the Hamiltons, (via, Edward I, Edmund of Woodstock, Joan of Kent, Thomas Holland, Margaret Holland, Joan Beaufort, and James II, King of Scotland).

He was not crowned king

And yet William III was. Odd that. Apparently England was a fief of the Dutch.

I'm so bored with you never giving any facts just opinions. Who was executed for their faith alone, by Elizabeth's orders, and when ? When by Edward ? Et cetera...

We start with the Queen of Scots. We add a dash of Thomas Percy, the Earl of Northumberland. That's two of the nobility she executed.

The Church of England is part of Christianity. Henry VIII did not set himself up as the head of Christianity.

Actually, yes, he did. He set himself up as the head of the COE, and declared that the COE was the established church. Go read the Act of Supremacy I've cited in every single post.

This is the same Plantagenet England which was so devoted to orthodox Catholicism it gave rise to Wycliffe and the Lollards.

I find it telling that you regard Wycliffe and the Lollards as evidence of persecution, but say that executing Catholics was ok because they were traitors. Go read the Act of Supremacy and get back to me. Catholics were not permitted to practice their faith.

The papal bull of excommunication, dropped after her execution of Catholic nobles, priests and laymen.
Wrong ! The Rising of the North (Revolt of the Northern Earls) Autumn 1569

Papal Bull Regnans in Excelsis February 1570

So you're confirming this was the case? Thank you, molly!

The Pope imagined the Rising either was or was going to be successful. In this (because of the distances involved) he was sadly misinformed. His actions (deplored by Catholics who knew better) led directly to the assumption that English Catholics were traitors or would-be traitors.

Yawn, perhaps Elizabeth should have refrained from persecution of Catholics if she didn't want to be excommunicated.

See above.

Ooh, See above also.

You have yet to show that England was a theocracy at all, nor how this theocracy operated.

I have. Go read the Act of Supremacy. Catholics were not permitted to practice their faith - to go to mass as it was considered treason.

Who did William have persecuted for their faith alone

Did William rescind the Act of Supremacy? The Test acts, which was passed shortly before the 'Glorious revolution'? Or did he uphold and enforce both.

England (unlike Spain or France) was not a confessional state.

The existence of the Act of Supremacy and the Test Acts is evidence contrary that England was in fact a confessional state until Emancipation, when England finally took the first steps towards becoming a representative democracy, and away from being a theocracy. Last I checked the COE has members of the Lords, does it not?

Boring. the 1832 Reform Act is a better date.

Baby steps. Emancipation was 1829. Reform came 3 years later. Imagine that - allowing Catholics to vote brought about the Reform acts swiftly thereafter. Perhaps if England desired democracy earlier, they should have emancipated earlier.

Not interested in your opinion. You talked of the Stuarts being supplanted, as if William, Mary and Anne were not themselves of Stuart descent. You were wrong.

Are you suggesting that James Francis Edward Stuart did not have the superior claim, to William, let alone Mary?

You assumed I had 'a' black friend. I certainly have 'a' Francophone woman friend from Cameroon, but then I also have friends from Nigeria (now British citizens), and friends from Sierra Leone, for instance. I don't readily think of them as my black friends, any more than I pause to think of my 'white' friends.

Yet you readily trotted them out as your black friend here. Odd that.

Did I ? Then quote me.

You did. You automatically (and reflexively state), everytime persecution of Catholics in England is exposed, with persecution in Spain and France since "Catholics deserved it". Not a great argument, Molly.

The Hobbes of 'Leviathan' ? Don't believe you've read it. Otherwise you wouldn't be confusing him with Locke.

Have read it. Actually fond of Hobbes. Didn't confuse the two. Thought Locke first and then recalled Hobbes who has the even better argument.

Was it ? Looks like we have to take your unsupported word for it, don't we ?

At last check Poland Lithuania didn't bar the franchise from Protestants making the Sejm more representative than England at the time.

Again, avoiding the point that no Catholic country was a democracy in the 17th Century.

Ooh, unsupported BAM.

I'm sure your knowledge of the workings of the Sejm is as extensive as your knowledge of the workings of Elizabethan parliaments.

Thanks Molly!

A king who forfeited his throne because of his bigotry and ineptitude.

As opposed to Anne, William and Mary II, all spectacular rulers?

No it didn't. It had everything to do with James's mismanagement of the realm. But that of course is too difficult for you to admit....

The historical evidence at the time demonstrates that it was all about Catholicism.

[N35t0r]

You can call us when your 'democracy' has lasted longer than the reign of the current queen. Sheesh. I've been posting on Apolyton longer than Argentina has been a democracy FFS!

So your 'argument' is that, since Argentina has had a military coup, then whatever I say is irrelevant. Good to know. While I don't like the way you debate and don't share some of your beliefs, I generally didn't think you were such an *******.

[Ben Kenobi]

So because my democracy has a relatively high degree of corruption (which ultimately is the fault of the voters), I can't say I prefer it to a system where the people in power got there through violence? And I can't laugh at the concept of one hereditary dictatorship being somehow more legitimate than the next?

You can call us when your 'democracy' has lasted longer than the reign of the current queen. Sheesh. I've been posting on Apolyton longer than Argentina has been a democracy FFS!

[Elok]

I was making fun of BK's belief that some branch of the kings of england, through blood ties, was somehow more legitimate than the other.

Well, according to the usual rules and standards established by and for monarchies, they were. Sort of like Todd Akin's "legitimate rape," I think.

[molly bloom]

Uhh, yeah, she was Queen of Scots,

You said Elizabeth executed 'rulers' . In using the plural form you were wrong, and in assuming that Mary Stuart was still a ruler you are also wrong. Her son ruled in Scotland.

You can't be married to two women at the same time.

Bigamists manage it all the time. Also, not interested in your opinion of the legitimacy or otherwise of Anne Boleyn's marriage.

Neither are you!

Re: facts. See above.

Then why didn't Philip do the same when Mary died?

He was not crowned king, and the agreement with him on the marriage with Mary Tudor differed from the agreement reached with William when he came to England.

Henry VIII did that for Catholics, as did Elizabeth and Edward.

I'm so bored with you never giving any facts just opinions. Who was executed for their faith alone, by Elizabeth's orders, and when ? When by Edward ? Et cetera...

The problem is that Henry VIII established a theocracy where the head of state was identical to the head of the religion

The Church of England is part of Christianity. Henry VIII did not set himself up as the head of Christianity.

something not seen in Plantagenet England which remained devoted to orthodox Catholicism.

This is the same Plantagenet England which was so devoted to orthodox Catholicism it gave rise to Wycliffe and the Lollards. As well as a marked anti-clerical feeling, expressed in its literature. You really are dim.

The papal bull of excommunication, dropped after her execution of Catholic nobles, priests and laymen.

Wrong ! The Rising of the North (Revolt of the Northern Earls) Autumn 1569

Papal Bull Regnans in Excelsis February 1570

The Pope imagined the Rising either was or was going to be successful. In this (because of the distances involved) he was sadly misinformed. His actions (deplored by Catholics who knew better) led directly to the assumption that English Catholics were traitors or would-be traitors.

Going to mass was sufficient to qualify for treason under Elizabethan England.

See above.

Because England was less a theocracy under Mary than it was under William III.

You have yet to show that England was a theocracy at all, nor how this theocracy operated. Who did William have persecuted for their faith alone ? The Act Of Toleration of 1689 would seem to indicate to any but the insane that England (unlike Spain or France) was not a confessional state.

It wasn't until Emancipation in the 19th that England, finally, took the fledgling steps towards becoming a representative democracy

Boring. the 1832 Reform Act is a better date.

Who has the superior claim?

Not interested in your opinion. You talked of the Stuarts being supplanted, as if William, Mary and Anne were not themselves of Stuart descent. You were wrong.

Again.

I find it difficult to believe that you have an actual black 'friend' when you parade the 'friend' out as a token.

I don't.

You assumed I had 'a' black friend. I certainly have 'a' Francophone woman friend from Cameroon, but then I also have friends from Nigeria (now British citizens), and friends from Sierra Leone, for instance. I don't readily think of them as my black friends, any more than I pause to think of my 'white' friends.

You said that persecution in England was justified because of persecution in Spain.

Did I ? Then quote me.

Thomas Hobbes didn't think so.

The Hobbes of 'Leviathan' ? Don't believe you've read it. Otherwise you wouldn't be confusing him with Locke.

The Sejm was far more representative than Parliament at the time.

Was it ? Looks like we have to take your unsupported word for it, don't we ?

Again, avoiding the point that no Catholic country was a democracy in the 17th Century.

I'm sure they teach you plenty about the Sejm in English Grammar school.

I'm sure your knowledge of the workings of the Sejm is as extensive as your knowledge of the workings of Elizabethan parliaments.

And his claim was inferior to James Francis Edward Stuart, who's father was a king, James VII/II

A king who forfeited his throne because of his bigotry and ineptitude. And whose daughter was William's wife, and co-ruler.

It had everything to do with bigotry towards Catholicism. James II/VII's second wife was Catholic, Mary of Modena.

No it didn't. It had everything to do with James's mismanagement of the realm. But that of course is too difficult for you to admit....