Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

The only real difference between Philip and William is that Philip was catholic and william was protestant. Both married Mary's. Both had a solid claim to the English throne (one through James VI/I and the other through Edward III, and the House of Avis).

[Ben Kenobi]

No, it would be the fascists responsible for the attempted eradication of European Jewry- some of those giving an eager helping hand were Ukrainians too. Many were Catholic- in Lithuania, Germany, Italy and France, Croatia and Slovenia.... and the Church hid them and gave them sanctuary, and provided escape routes.

Again - Stalin executed more than Hitler ever did. You say you're a historical scholar?

[Ben Kenobi]

By the Church or the government ? There's a big difference.

The same Church that proclaims their Head to be the Queen? Let's disestablish the COE and then we can talk about a 'difference'.

By the way, were Catholics given a dispensation from the Pope to disavow allegiance to their monarch and attempt to kill her ?

You mean the papal bull of Excommunication levelled at the Queen by the Pope after 'Good' Queen Bess executed those same 40 martyrs?

That sounds quite Christian, doesn't it ?

England would have seen less persecution with the Inquisition than with Henry VIII and Bessy.

Co-rulers. Co and Rulers. Do you understand English ?

And she died and William stayed on as King. Yes, England was once a fief of the Dutch, in order that England might escape foreign rule.

Because English opponents of James II invited them to rule together.

You mean Anglicans who hated Popery?

You're trying desperately to give people the impression that deaf equals stupid. I know several deaf people who'd find that notion offensive, but then none of them are you.

I'm sure you know as many deaf people as you do black people.

a fee or feud held of a feudal lord; a tenure of land subject to feudal obligations.

Which applies to William III (as England was not a democracy in these days). He was a Feudal Lord of the Netherlands and England. Hence England was a fief of the Dutch.

To state the obvious, William III was half-English, he was co-ruler with his English wife, and the Dutch people and the Dutch state did not hold any of the three kingdoms or the principality of Wales as a fief, or have a justifiable expectation of feudal duties from the English, Scots or Irish. Or for that matter, the Welsh.

Yet he ruled over all of England himself. Odd that.

Alternatively, as sane people know it, invited a half English, half Dutch descendant of Charles I Stuart to rule with his English Stuart wife, who was daughter to the previous king. Note, the people of England invited a man and a woman to be co-regents, they did not submit to and were not conquered by, the Dutch government or people.

As opposed to a Half Dutch, Half Spanish descendent of the Plantagenets invited to co-rule England with his Queen, also named Mary? Odd that.

[molly bloom]

Hoooly **** it's an entire page of ignored posts. I can only imagine what kind of horrible turd lies beneath.

Take a good long look in the mirror, chump.

[molly bloom]

That would be Stalin and his pogroms, but I guess Ukrainians aren't 'european'.

No, it would be the fascists responsible for the attempted eradication of European Jewry- some of those giving an eager helping hand were Ukrainians too. Many were Catholic- in Lithuania, Germany, Italy and France, Croatia and Slovenia.... and the Church hid them and gave them sanctuary, and provided escape routes.

[regexcellent]

Hoooly **** it's an entire page of ignored posts. I can only imagine what kind of horrible turd lies beneath.

[molly bloom]

Small comfort for the Forty Martyrs executed by the Church of England for the crime of performing and participating in the mass.

.

By the Church or the government ? There's a big difference. By the way, were Catholics given a dispensation from the Pope to disavow allegiance to their monarch and attempt to kill her ? That sounds quite Christian, doesn't it ?

Yet she was ruled by William III without his wife. Why is that?

Co-rulers. Co and Rulers. Do you understand English ?

Why is that

Because English opponents of James II invited them to rule together.

It was a Dutch fief.

You're trying desperately to give people the impression that deaf equals stupid. I know several deaf people who'd find that notion offensive, but then none of them are you.


Let's try plain, non-hysterical English :

fief
[feef]

noun
1.
a fee or feud held of a feudal lord; a tenure of land subject to feudal obligations.

2.
a territory held in fee.

3.
fiefdom.




Origin:
1605–15; < French, variant of Old French fieu, fie, cognate with Anglo-French fe fee < Germanic; compare Old High German fihu, Old English feoh cattle, property; akin to Latin pecū flock of sheep, pecus cattle, pecūnia wealth

None of which aptly describe the role of William III as co ruler (and after his wife's death, sole ruler) of England, Ireland and Scotland.

When you end up being ruled by the enemy then yes, you lost the war and the Dutch won.

To state the obvious, William III was half-English, he was co-ruler with his English wife, and the Dutch people and the Dutch state did not hold any of the three kingdoms or the principality of Wales as a fief, or have a justifiable expectation of feudal duties from the English, Scots or Irish. Or for that matter, the Welsh.

Which is why you capitulated to the Dutch

Alternatively, as sane people know it, invited a half English, half Dutch descendant of Charles I Stuart to rule with his English Stuart wife, who was daughter to the previous king. Note, the people of England invited a man and a woman to be co-regents, they did not submit to and were not conquered by, the Dutch government or people.

Might I suggest you read 'The Dutch Seaborne Empire' by C R Boxer ? It should fill in those gaping lacunae in your lamentably poor education.

Again - if Electress Sophia's 'qualifications' includes her descent from James VI/I, then her line is only third most senior extant today and something like 20th plus in her time.

Suppresses mighty yawn. More pathetic avoidance behaviour on your part. See above, et cetera...

[Ben Kenobi]

I know my Alexander Pope, thanks. The notion of you trying to patronize my vastly superior education is rib ticklingly good though.

You are the expert in Pope and Popery, so one would expect your knowledge to extend that far.

I don't give a good goddam.

The thesis is sound.

You're being asked to show that what you claimed, a tolerance of sexualities other than plain unadorned heterosexuality, leads to population decline.

It's a contributing factor.

Other than a dubious claim about the Western Roman Empire, you haven't mentioned any other state or civilization where this is also supposedly the case.

The overriding argument that birthrates are crucial to economic expansion? I mentioned the Soviet Union. And perhaps your own native land which struggles to exert itself to affirm English as the common language.

So what worked in Western Rome didn't in Eastern Rome ?

Eventually it did - Western Europe was not as wealthy as the east - and the changes and shifts here occurred after Aurelius. I suggest you read him and enlighten yourself.

I don't see why I should have to cite sources to someone who is more knowledgeable of history than me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fabulous- so overlook the hiding of those responsible for thw worst genocide in Europe's history

That would be Stalin and his pogroms, but I guess Ukrainians aren't 'european'.

, ignore those responsible for all the 'crusades' against heresy

Oh, you mean the Church of England which attempted to eradicate popery on Albion and Erin? More died in the Famine than ever died in the Inquisition.

, ignore the encouragement given to would be assassins of Elizabeth I and William the Silent

The Good Queen who executed Mary Queen of Scots?

, the deaths of poor Catholic women worn out from repeated childbearing,

Yeah, just think about those filthy breeders!

the infcetion of people with H.I.V. when transmission is preventable by condom use

Apparently HIV is a disease that can be prevented by sodomy with a condom but cannot be prevented through refraining from sodomy altogether. It's a curious disease!

[molly bloom]

Again, completely unsurprised.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing/
"Drink deep or taste not, the Pierian Springs/
"For shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
"And drinking largely sobers us again

I know my Alexander Pope, thanks. The notion of you trying to patronize my vastly superior education is rib ticklingly good though.

I maintain that population growth is well connected with economic growth contrary to Malthusians

I don't give a good goddam. You're being asked to show that what you claimed, a tolerance of sexualities other than plain unadorned heterosexuality, leads to population decline. Other than a dubious claim about the Western Roman Empire, you haven't mentioned any other state or civilization where this is also supposedly the case.

And we're still waiting...

The ERE was richer and the depopulation in Italy had less effect there.

So what worked in Western Rome didn't in Eastern Rome ? Western tolerance of deviance was somehow much more detrimental, was it ? Odd, considering the reputation of the Hellenized Eastern Roman Empire, with those well-known puritanical areas of Arabia, Greece, and Egypt within its borders....

So you read national geographic! Good for you!

I don't, at least not with any regularity. I read books on food history, Roman history, cultural history, 'History Today'...

I said it was a contributing factor.

Uh huh.

Yes, it has, and there are good reasons for it. Drops in the birthrate have been devastating in the past.

You're stating in fairly obvious terms, that tolerance of non-heterosexual behaviour leads to drops in the bithrate, which then has a 'devastating' effect.


And you still haven't shown any evidence that tolerance of sexual activity other than that performed only for procreative puproses between a man and a woman was responsible for a declining birthrate in Western Rome. In fact, you haven't produced any figures- but that's a given for you in these kind of things.

look up the plague of Justinian.

I don't ask what were the problems of the Eastern Roman Empire during Justinian's reign. I know about the plague, the likely vectors, the mysterious disappearance of wealthy trading cities down the Nile, the demand for ivory and gold, the politics in Constantinople, his ex-prostitute wife, the Sassanid Empire, the effect his jealousy of Belisarius had on campaigns of re-conquest, the religious dissent in the Syrian and Egyptian populations...

Go read Aurelius and get back to me.

Ahem, that's not how it works. You made an absurd claim, you back it up.


Shall we set the clock tick tick ticking in anticipation ?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Anglican Church had no Inquisition. Full stop.

Small comfort for the Forty Martyrs executed by the Church of England for the crime of performing and participating in the mass.

England was not and never has been a Dutch 'fief'

Yet she was ruled by William III without his wife. Why is that? It was a Dutch fief. When you end up being ruled by the enemy then yes, you lost the war and the Dutch won.

to replace a monarch seemingly bent on returning the country to civil strife

Which is why you capitulated to the Dutch in order to escape foreign domination rather than the native-born Stuarts from Scotland. I see. No- it was all about prejudice. Anti-Catholicism.

You are aware we're discussing your inability to stick to facts. You've now strolled from a Dutch prince of part Stuart descent and his Stuart wife who were co-rulers, to a Hanoverian of part Stuart descent. Way to avoid facing facts- you got it wrong, and big time.

Again - if Electress Sophia's 'qualifications' includes her descent from James VI/I, then her line is only third most senior extant today and something like 20th plus in her time.

[molly bloom]

Given the toll of abortion - the Church will be one of the few voices in the wilderness acknowledged as opposing the forces of baby butchery.

Fabulous- so overlook the hiding of those responsible for thw worst genocide in Europe's history, ignore those responsible for all the 'crusades' against heresy, ignore the encouragement given to would be assassins of Elizabeth I and William the Silent, the deaths of poor Catholic women worn out from repeated childbearing, the infcetion of people with H.I.V. when transmission is preventable by condom use- all so long as Rome is safeguarding zygotes for future enrolment in seminaries.

I'm firm in the conviction that when all the others have fallen away to apostasy that the Catholic church will remain.

I'm beginning to think you're taking up satirizing yourself as a way of escaping ridicule....

[Ben Kenobi]

Can't help thinking that with my grammar school education in history (which I don't have a degree in and didn't study at university)

Again, completely unsurprised.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing/
"Drink deep or taste not, the Pierian Springs/
"For shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
"And drinking largely sobers us again

Hogwash. You're simply yoking two things together and wishing they come to 5.

I maintain that population growth is well connected with economic growth contrary to Malthusians who are devoted to the opposite thesis, that we can only grow in economics by culling the population. It is as much an economic as it is a historical theory.

People will comment about the failure of the Soviet Union, but few comment on the result of their abortion policy!

You have failed to show that any of a disparate number of other reasons are responsible for Roman failure in Western Europe. I note you don't mention the Eastern Roman empire, for instance.

The ERE was richer and the depopulation in Italy had less effect there.

You also don't mention, amongst other things, the propensity for Romans shipping foodstuffs in lead containers

So you read national geographic! Good for you!

No, you just typically airily assert that tolerance of some non-heterosexual behaviour was responsible.

I said it was a contributing factor.

That and religious dissent, his megalomania, his jealousy of Belisarius, and opposition from people in the West, amongst other things.

It had a drastic effect on the economics of it all. You ask, "what was the problem with the ERE - look up the plague of Justinian.

Names and works please, and exact quotes, otherwise you're as usual, wishing facts into existence.

Go read Aurelius and get back to me.

[molly bloom]

The one in which England capitulated and William of Orange ruled England.

The worst showing by the English aginst the Dutch in their wars came when Charles II was living on the teat of the Catholic French king, Louis XIV. 'England' did not capitulate to the Dutch- the political opponents of James II alarmed at his filling posts with his Catholic supporters (however unfitted and unsuitable) invited a descendant of Charles I Stuart and his wife, who was James II's daughter, to replace a monarch seemingly bent on returning the country to civil strife and subordination to a Catholic power bent on conquest.

Yes, they fought the Dutch and the Dutch won the war in the end.

Ah, so that's why they speak a form of Dutch in Manhattan now, is it ?

You really are a tool.

You're forgetting the time when England attempted to place an Englishman on the HRE throne

Not sure what Richard Duke of Cornwall has to do with 17th Century England, and you simply getting facts wrong again.

But then, that would be actual historical evidence contrary to your Catholic prejudice that England was a backwater until Elizabeth I

I've never alleged or suggested anything of the sort. I'm too well-versed in European and English history to do that. After all, Charlemagne's adviser, Alcuin, was a Saxon. And Henry VII's mother invited humanists from the Continent to come to England. And Holbein and Erasmus came before Elizabeth's ascension to the throne.

Still, if you must have your hissy-fit, go ahead, it's quite funny, but un peu triste too.

The Angevins owned more of France than France.

Oh wow, and most of it was lost again during the reign of the unfortunate Henry VI. So ?


You're a sad pathetic excuse for scholarship.

[molly bloom]

And how exactly does that warrant the usurpation from the Stuarts?

We're not discussing a 'usurpation'. We're discussing your false claim that the Dutch conquered the English. They didn't, not even culturally, although there are a few Dutch loan words in modern English.

You are aware that Electress Sophia is only the third highest extant line of descent from Charles I?

You are aware we're discussing your inability to stick to facts. You've now strolled from a Dutch prince of part Stuart descent and his Stuart wife who were co-rulers, to a Hanoverian of part Stuart descent. Way to avoid facing facts- you got it wrong, and big time.

What's vaguely irritating is that you imagined you could get away with making such an absurd claim.

Nonsense.

It's not nonsense- the two monarchs were co-rulers, the English people were not subject to the government of the United Provinces.

It's no difference from your handwringing when Mary married Philip, King of Spain.

I can't ever recall any handwringing on my part. Still trying to obscure the fundamental issue, your version of Catholicism leads you to distort historical narrative and present as fact wishful thinking on your part. England was not and never has been a Dutch 'fief'- William's rule was as his wife's husband and as a descendant of the House of Stuart himself. The English had this thing you may have heard of (but given your lamentable grasp of facts, perhaps not) called the Bill Of Rights, which set limits on what a monarch could or could not do. The English did not owe feudal duties to the Dutch, nor was William able to dispose of the country (or Scotland, or Ireland) as he might wish after Mary's death from smallpox.


Also, unlike Philip II of Spain, he seems genuinely to have been fond of his wife.

Which is why the irony is stunning that England would be ruled by the Dutch.

See above why this is an error.

What prejudice?

The kind that allows use of hysterical terminology such as 'conquer' and 'fief' when neither apply.

Tell me about prejudice

You mean like the kind that sent Michael Servetus to a fiery death ? That expelled Jews and descendants of Moors from the Spanish peninsula ? The kind evinced in the Massacre of Paris, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes ? I'm not sure i have sufficient time or inclination to re-state what is obvious to many, and what has been stated before.

The Anglican Church had no Inquisition. Full stop.