Pope sends direct message to Ben

[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.

[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.

[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]

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).

[molly bloom]

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

There is a difference, as any intelligent person reading a history of the kingdom of England after the separation from the Church of Rome could point out to you- the Anglican Church did not control the country or armed forces or city trained bands. The monarch did not always agree with the Church or its preachers, and England was not a theocracy. So it didn't have an Inquisition, Anglican or otherwise, although the autos da fe during the mercifully short reign of Catholic Mary Tudor came close to being a mirror of those in Spain and elsewhere in Catholic Europe.

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

No. The dates given for those 40 martyrdoms cover the period before Elizabeth became queen until the 70 some years after her death. The Papal Bull allowing English Catholics to kill their monarch (again, how very Christian of Christ's successor) was issued in 1570.

You're clearly having some trouble with dates and arithmetic as well as history. Or perhaps you just don't lie well.

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

In a thankfully brief reign, Mary Tudor accounted for nearly 300 deaths. She did want to make windows into men's (and women's souls) or failing that make them into charcoal. So try (much though you clearly don't want to) to stick with the facts, and not suppositions.

And she died and William stayed on as King.

Yes, because the English government made it that way. Surviving members of all parliaments called by Charles II were brought together and this provisional government invited William to take charge of government and send out writs for elections. The throne was declared vacant the following year, and the crown was then offered jointly to William & Mary, with administration vested in William for his lifetime.

The Bill Of Rights (previously a declaration) ensured that arbitray or dictatorial powers used by his predecessors were not to be within his or Mary's prerogative. The monarchs were appointed by an English parliament and could reign only with the agreement of that parliament.

Yes, England was once a fief of the Dutch, in order that England might escape foreign rule.

See above. Repeating something when you don't have a clue what you're talking about, doesn't make you look intelligent. It makes you look stupid and prejudiced.

You mean Anglicans who hated Popery?

No.

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

I'm sure that in this, as in so many other things, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Which applies to William III (as England was not a democracy in these days).

I know English history (well, this is obvious by now) rather better than you do, certainly with regards to adjustments to the franchise. Don't try to appear smart by dropping in bon mots about England not being a democracy in the 1680s, it doesn't do you any good.

He was a Feudal Lord of the Netherlands and England.

He was neither. He was a stadtholder in the Dutch Republic, and was a monarch in the British Isles by invitation (& permission) of Parliament. He even had to ask consent of the Dutch States General for permission to use its troops.

You don't seem to grasp the meaning of feudalism. I am not at all surprised. Again, England was not a fief of the Dutch Republic. Repeat it all you like, you just make yourself look dim.

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

Not really. It was part of the deal offered him by English politicians. See above, AGAIN.

[molly bloom]

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

I say you're not one.

The topic was genocide, not total number of people killed by regime. I'm quite aware of the numbers killed (or who died) in the pursuit of the N.E.P., Five Year Plans, WWII, Purges, Show Trials, the Civil War in Russia, the liquidation of the kulaks....

What I'm not clear is why you're so afraid to face up to Roman Catholic complicity in the genocide of Europe's Jewish population and civilization- the helpful role the Vatican and the then Pope played in that, and how members of the Vatican hierarchy helped facilitate the escape of war criminals.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is a difference

There is no difference. The Archbishop is an appointee of the Queen. Until the COE is disestablished, it is no different than the cult of the emperor.

The monarch did not always agree with the Church or its preachers, and England was not a theocracy.

Yes, England was a theocracy. Look at the Act of Supremacy if you don't believe me.

So it didn't have an Inquisition, Anglican

English Catholics and dissenters would have been better off with an Inquisition than what actually occurred in England.

No. The dates given for those 40 martyrdoms cover the period before Elizabeth became queen until the 70 some years after her death.

So again - the papal bull of Excommunication which was overdue in coming dropped on Elizabeth for her executions of Catholic laypeople and clergy. Thank you/

In a thankfully brief reign, Mary Tudor accounted for nearly 300 deaths.

And Henry VIII around 72 thousand.

Yes, because the English government made it that way.

Hence England became a fief of the Dutch.

with administration vested in William for his lifetime.

Which confirms what I said. You said it was joint, but it was not. William ruled in his own right.

The Bill Of Rights (previously a declaration) ensured that arbitray or dictatorial powers used by his predecessors were not to be within his or Mary's prerogative.

So instead they would be arbitrarily governed rather than governed by the King who had the natural right to the throne. This is an improvement?

It makes you look stupid and prejudiced.

Prejudice for stating that William III reigned only because of prejudice? It's a historical fact. Look at the Act of Supremacy.

No.

The lists are identical. Want some quotes?

I'm sure that in this, as in so many other things, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So you have fewer deaf friends at zero? Fascinating.

I know English history (well, this is obvious by now) rather better than you do, certainly with regards to adjustments to the franchise.

Which, oddly enough, excluded Catholics.

Don't try to appear smart by dropping in bon mots about England not being a democracy in the 1680s, it doesn't do you any good.

It wasn't.

He was neither. He was a stadtholder in the Dutch Republic, and was a monarch in the British Isles by invitation (& permission) of Parliament. He ven had to ask consent of the Dutch States General for permission to use its troops.

The same parliament that deprived Catholics of their natural rights? Next you'll be telling me Cromwell believed in a republic!

You don't seem to grasp the meaning of feudalism.

Nor you that of Democracy.

Not really. It was part of the deal offered him by English politicians. See above, AGAIN.

Does it hurt that England was subjugated by the Dutch due to prejudice?

[molly bloom]

There is no difference. The Archbishop is an appointee of the Queen. Until the COE is disestablished, it is no different than the cult of the emperor.

Oh my. Clearly having diffculty separating Church and state. No wonder you converted to Catholicism with its 'Vatican City State'. That's not how it works or worked in this country.

Yes, England was a theocracy.

Are you sure English is your first language ? I can understand you failing to comprehend 'fief', but now theocracy too... England was a monarchy with limitations. No amount of contradicting until you're blue in the face changes that stark fact.

Parliament stymied Elizabeth I and James I- and the Anglican Church could not call the shots, even sometimes in matters of worship alone, as was fairly obvious in the First Bishops' War.

Dear me, you are sad.

English Catholics and dissenters would have been better off with an Inquisition than what actually occurred in England.

Boring. Facts, not guesswork.

So again - the papal bull of Excommunication which was overdue in coming dropped on Elizabeth for her executions of Catholic laypeople and clergy. Thank you

Not what I said, or anything like it. You don't cover up your errors very astutely, do you ? More like the proverbial bull in the china shop.

Hence England became a fief of the Dutch.

Oh lord.

The States General of the Dutch Republic ' (we are become) a province subservient to the English King'. 1695, or thereabouts. Compounding your ignorance of English history with Dutch too. Well, why not ?

Which confirms what I said. You said it was joint, but it was not. William ruled in his own right.

You clearly know nothing about this period of British history and are just compounding your previous errors with more.

On 6 February 1689 the Crown of England was offered to Mary and William jointly. Mary had several times intimated her reluctance to assume the reins of government, not just to her husband, but also to the English politicians and her husband's friends. In the end during William's absences in Ireland and the Dutch Republic she did in fact rule with the aid of a nine man cabinet of advisers. Crown and administration- see the difference ?

Stick to what you know- it clearly ain't much.

So instead they would be arbitrarily governed

They who ? William and Mary ? Your grammar is collapsing. I could digress about James II's attempts at arbitrary rule, his character, his personal traits, the ways he set about forfeiting his throne, but I'm not paid to educate you, however obvious your need for that is.

Prejudice for stating that William III reigned only because of prejudice?

No.

[QUOTE] Want some quotes?
/QUOTE]

Why start now ?

[QUOTE]So you have fewer deaf friends at zero? Fascinating.
/QUOTE]


Poor you, adding ignorance of my private life to all your other lacunae. Good show.

[QUOTE]Which, oddly enough, excluded Catholics.
/QUOTE]

Not odd at all. Well, not odd if you recall the Marian persecutions, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Inquisition, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the War of the Spanish Succession...

all those things you overlook. Along of course with voting rights of Protestants in Catholic countries.

[QUOTE] It wasn't.
/QUOTE]

Wow. That's so astute.

[QUOTE]The same parliament that deprived Catholics of their natural rights? /QUOTE]

No, a different parliament.

[QUOTE] Nor you that of Democracy.
/QUOTE]

Government of the people, by the people ? Which Catholic kingdom or country in 17th Century Europe was a democracy ?

[QUOTE] Does it hurt that England was subjugated by the Dutch due to prejudice? /QUOTE]

Does it affect you that mindlessly repeating what is patently false makes you look obdurate and ignorant ? I'd ask for my money back on that history degree. And I mean the Canadian government should ask for its money back, since education was clearly wasted on you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh my. Clearly having diffculty separating Church and state. No wonder you converted to Catholicism with its 'Vatican City State'. That's not how it works or worked in this country.

Uh, yeah it did work that way. Executions for heresy? Check. Executions for practicing the mass? Check. Executions for performing a mass and for religious clergy? Check. Depriving people natural rights based on their creed? Check.

The Tudors did all of those things.

England was a monarchy with limitations.

Sure, under the Plantagenets this was the case. After the Tudors came to power, they converted the government into a theocracy.

Parliament stymied Elizabeth I and James I- and the Anglican Church could not call the shots, even sometimes in matters of worship alone

Right. Which is why Parliament stopped Elizabeth and Henry from executing Catholics. Oh, wait. No, they didn't. They passed the Test Act and the Act of Supremacy, depriving Catholics of their natural rights. 300 years later, this was restored and Catholics were eventually permitted to practice their religion in England. Unfortunately not all of the vestiges of theocracy have been expunged.

English Catholics and dissenters would have been better off with an Inquisition than what actually occurred in England.

Why did so many of both leave for America?

Not what I said, or anything like it.

It's the truth. Elizabeth even executed other Catholic rulers. The only question is why it took so long for her to be excommunicated.

not just to her husband

Then why did her husband rule without her? England was less of a theocracy under Mary because Philip did not take the throne despite his obvious claims from the House of Avis.

Crown and administration- see the difference ?

Philip didn't rule without Mary. See the difference?

They who ? William and Mary ?

England? It was a 'choose your own adventure king'. Spin the wheel find a name. Anything to deprive the Stuarts of their true claim. Wholly arbitrary, and the consequence of plain prejudice towards Catholicism.

Poor you, adding ignorance of my private life to all your other lacunae. Good show.

Actually I think I was spot on. You have as many deaf friends as black ones. Zero.

Not odd at all. Well, not odd if you recall the Marian persecutions, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Inquisition, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the War of the Spanish Succession

So what you're saying is that depriving catholics of their natural right was justified? Interesting. People claim the COE wasn't a theocracy, but they were.

Government of the people, by the people ? Which Catholic kingdom or country in 17th Century Europe was a democracy ?

Poland Lithuania was more democratic than the theocracy of England. It wasn't until the 19th that the theocracy was overturned and Catholics permitted to vote.

Does it affect you that mindlessly repeating what is patently false

The truth is that William's claim was inferior to the Stuarts at the time and the only reason he was crowned is because of bigotry barring Catholics from the throne of England. Bigotry, I might add, that persists to this day because the COE is the Established Church. You say they are not connected. The Act of Supremacy says otherwise.

[molly bloom]

Uh, yeah it did work that way. Executions for heresy? Check. Executions for practicing the mass? Check. Executions for performing a mass and for religious clergy?

So Catholic Spain was a theocracy ? And the entire Holy Roman Empire ? And France ? And ... et cetera. You don;t seem to grasp the fundamental difference between a theocracy and a secular realm with an official tolerated religion.

Which priests ruled England ? None.

Sure, under the Plantagenets this was the case. After the Tudors came to power, they converted the government into a theocracy.

I'm not sure it's even worth discussig history with someone who can print this nonsense. Are these the same non-Tudor dynasty who persecuted Lollards ? Richard II and Henry V's reigns both saw persecution of the Lollards and they were driven underground.

How did Henry VII convert England to a theocracy ?

Whoopsy, he didn't.

Neither did Elizabeth I, who was seen as being too tolerant of Roman Catholicism and Popish affectations by her more Puritan minded ministers and by the House of Commons.

Honestly, you're sometimes just such a tool, it's staggering.

Which is why Parliament stopped Elizabeth and Henry from executing Catholics.

Parliament pressed Elizabeth I to execute Norfolk and Mary Stuart when news of the plot for a marriage and removal of Elizabeth from the throne was revealed.

Elizabeth was so eager to kill these Catholics who had plotted treason against her, that she four times rescinded the order to execute Norfolk, at one point rising at two in the morning to do so.

Despite the numerous plots which Mary Stuart was involved in, despite the constant threat of assassination by Mary's supporters or Catholic agents from abroad, Mary was not executed fro many years- precisely because Elizabeth believed that giving Parliament the right to try Mary and to execute would have meant an even more serious diminution of the monarch's powers.

It's not like this is arcane knowledge- this is basic grammar school education.

Why did so many of both leave for America?

This is so vague it's barely worth replying to. There was a notable influx of Protestants on the death of Mary Tudor- the reactionary Catholic. Perhaps her propensity for burning people whose religious views differed from her own gives an indication of why Protestants left England durig her reign...

Catholics in Elizabeth's reign were executed for treason- at the insistence of Parliament. They had after all, the massacres of Protestants in France and the Spanish Netherlands as good examples of what happened to those not adhering to the Church of Rome had to face should King of Spain or France or Mary Stuart achieve power in England.

I can why the dissenters known as the Pilgrim Fathers left England- they believed the Elizabethan Anglican Settlement was not Protestant enough. They wanted a purer church and were so dissatisfied withthe tolerant society of the Netherlands, they went off to establish their society in North America.

Porbably not the answer you were looking for, but ask a vague question...

[molly bloom]

Elizabeth even executed other Catholic rulers.

Rulers ? I believe that a certain Mary Stuart was executed at the insistence of Elizabeth's ministers, the Protestant aristocracy, and the House of Commons, and after having been shown to be involved in several plots aimed at the removal and/or death of Elizabeth.

James, Mary's son, was King of Scotland from 1567. Ergo, Mary was not Queen of Scotland when she was executed.


You really aren't very good at this fact thing, are you ?

Then why did her husband rule without her?

Because she died of smallpox. Difficult to administer anything when you're dead.

England was less of a theocracy

Unbelievable. Mary Tudor has people executed for not believing in the Roman Catholic faith, and Elizabeth's government only enacted more repressive measures against English Catholics after Regnans In Excelsis. And that was for the treason implicit in the Pope's command to English Catholics to attempt to harm the queen.

Philip didn't rule without Mary. See the difference?

Indeed. People didn't like him, and he spent hardly any time time in England. Also seems not to have found his wife terribly attractive. Again, unlike William.

Anything to deprive the Stuarts of their true claim.

The Stuarts ? You mean Mary Stuart, daughter of James II Stuart, and William III Orange (mother: also a Mary Stuart).

What a twit.

You have as many deaf friends as black ones. Zero.

I find it odd that you imagine it difficult to believe that a white person could have black friends- or that someone lacking any significant hearing impairment could have deaf ones. You shouldn't judge other people's personal relationships based on your own failures, especially when you have no proof for your claims.

So what you're saying is that depriving catholics of their natural right was justified?

Could you point out where I said that ? And please don't go on about natural rights, it's anachronistic in a 16th/17th Century setting.

Poland Lithuania was more democratic than the theocracy of England.

The question was not 'Which Catholic country do you personally believe without any evidence to support this belief, was more democratic than England in the 17th Century ?'

It was 'Which was a democracy ?' The plain truth: none.

It wasn't until the 19th that the theocracy was overturned and Catholics permitted to vote.

Boring.

The truth is that William's claim was inferior to the Stuarts

The truth is, William III Orange's mother was a Mary Stuart, and his wife was a Stuart. The reasons they were offered the crown have more to do with James II Stuart's ineptitude, bigotry and intolerance than you care to admit.

Something to do with his being Catholic, I expect.

[Ben Kenobi]

So Catholic Spain was a theocracy ?

Unlike in England - the head of State of Spain was distinct from the head of their religion. What do you call it when the head of state declares himself to be the head of a new state religion? You call that a theocracy.

Which priests ruled England ? None.

Henry VIII declared himself pope of his new religion, the Church of England. Head of state = defender of the faith and the man in charge of the new state religion.

I'm not sure it's even worth discussig history with someone who can print this nonsense.

It's not a theory. It's what Henry VIII did. If you weren't so prejudiced against Catholics, you would see it. What do you call it when the head of state declares himself to be the head of the new state religion? A theocracy. And that's exactly what it was.

Are these the same non-Tudor dynasty who persecuted Lollards ?

Persecution which ended under Henry VIII? No.

Richard II and Henry V's reigns both saw persecution of the Lollards and they were driven underground.

So did Henry VIII. Unlike Henry VIII, Henry II was censured by Pope Alexander III after his murder of Catholic Thomas Beckett, and Henry II submitted. The Catholic church under the Plantagenets was not the theocracy that England later became under the Tudors.

Neither did Elizabeth I, who was seen as being too tolerant of Roman Catholicism and Popish affectations by her more Puritan minded ministers and by the House of Commons.

Yet she executed many prominent Catholics including Mary Queen of Scots. She had no justification for killing Mary, as we see in her elevation of her son, James VI/I to the throne of England.

Parliament pressed Elizabeth I to execute Norfolk and Mary Stuart when news of the plot for a marriage and removal of Elizabeth from the throne was revealed.

And was she involved? No. So Elizabeth had the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots executed on false pretences. That's more than enough to warrant excommunication - the execution of Catholic rulers entrusted to your care.

Elizabeth was so eager to kill these Catholics who had plotted treason against her, that she four times rescinded the order to execute Norfolk, at one point rising at two in the morning to do so.

It's not merciful when you execute someone innocent, Molly.

Despite the numerous plots which Mary Stuart was involved in, despite the constant threat of assassination by Mary's supporters or Catholic agents from abroad, Mary was not executed fro many years- precisely because Elizabeth believed that giving Parliament the right to try Mary and to execute would have meant an even more serious diminution of the monarch's powers.

You mean the same plots that the Parliament which approved of the execution of Catholics saw everywhere? Either the plots were really terribly done, or Elizabeth simple executed them because being Catholic was the same as treason in the Tudor theocracy. Which in fact it was - under the law of the time.

This is so vague it's barely worth replying to.

Not vague at all. Many Dissenters and Catholics left because the colonies had official religious toleration. You'd know that if they ever taught you this in school.

Catholics in Elizabeth's reign were executed for treason- at the insistence of Parliament.

Attending a mass or performing one was considered treasonous in Elizabethan England.

They had after all, the massacres of Protestants in France and the Spanish Netherlands as good examples of what happened to those not adhering to the Church of Rome had to face should King of Spain or France or Mary Stuart achieve power in England.

So once again, - we see that you blame others for Elizabeth's religious persecution in England. Do you think that will fare well with God? Pointing fingers and saying, "but they did even worse?!"

I can why the dissenters known as the Pilgrim Fathers left England- they believed the Elizabethan Anglican Settlement was not Protestant enough. They wanted a purer church and were so dissatisfied withthe tolerant society of the Netherlands, they went off to establish their society in North America.

Uh, they were persecuted in England. Do they not teach you that in your grammar school education?

[Ben Kenobi]

James, Mary's son, was King of Scotland from 1567. Ergo, Mary was not Queen of Scotland when she was executed.

Uhh, yeah, she was Queen of Scots, and she's of royal English descent, moreso than Elizabeth who was illegitimate, in that her mother was pregnant with her while Catherine was still alive. You can't be married to two women at the same time.

You really aren't very good at this fact thing, are you ?

Neither are you!

Because she died of smallpox. Difficult to administer anything when you're dead.

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

Unbelievable. Mary Tudor has people executed for not believing in the Roman Catholic faith

Henry VIII did that for Catholics, as did Elizabeth and Edward. The problem is that Henry VIII established a theocracy where the head of state was identical to the head of the religion - something not seen in Plantagenet England which remained devoted to orthodox Catholicism. I'm sure Henry VII would have declared his son insane after he did that, as it was contrary to everything he worked for.

Elizabeth's government only enacted more repressive measures against English Catholics after Regnans In Excelsis.

The papal bull of excommunication, dropped after her execution of Catholic nobles, priests and laymen. It's not to her credit that she stepped up the persecution of Catholics leading up to the execution of the innocent Mary Queen of Scots, who was in her care.

And that was for the treason implicit in the Pope's command to English Catholics to attempt to harm the queen.

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

Indeed.

And why? Because England was less a theocracy under Mary than it was under William III. England didn't become less of a theocracy after the Tudors, it became more of one with the passage of the Act of Supremacy and the Test act. It wasn't until Emancipation in the 19th that England, finally, took the fledgling steps towards becoming a representative democracy.

The Stuarts ? You mean Mary Stuart, daughter of James II Stuart, and William III Orange (mother: also a Mary Stuart).

Yes, let me ask you a simple question.

James VII/II
father of: James Francis Edward Stuart

or:

Charles I
father of: Mary Stuart
mother of: William of Orange

Who has the superior claim? James Francis Edward Stuart. Rightful monarch to the throne of England.

I find it odd that you imagine it difficult to believe that a white person could have black friends

I don't find it odd at all. I find it difficult to believe that you have an actual black 'friend' when you parade the 'friend' out as a token.

Could you point out where I said that ?

You said that persecution in England was justified because of persecution in Spain. Pointing fingers. Says it all really, as that concedes that the persecution did happen.

And please don't go on about natural rights, it's anachronistic in a 16th/17th Century setting.

Thomas Hobbes didn't think so.

The question was not 'Which Catholic country do you personally believe without any evidence to support this belief, was more democratic than England in the 17th Century ?'

The Sejm was far more representative than Parliament at the time. Until the Reform act and Emancipation, this would be the case. I'm sure they teach you plenty about the Sejm in English Grammar school.

The truth is, William III Orange's mother was a Mary Stuart, and his wife was a Stuart.

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

The reasons they were offered the crown have more to do with James II Stuart's ineptitude, bigotry and intolerance than you care to admit.

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

[Alexander's Horse]

Molly Vs Ben

I dunno, we lose posters this way - Ben wears people out, remember MTG?

[kentonio]

It's entertaining watching Ben get his ass handed to him this completely though. Good work Molly.