Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Imran Siddiqui]

sired possibly England's greatest Queen (Elizabeth not Mary before you can't help yourself)

Elizabeth I

[Sava]

no true American would a monarch

[Imran Siddiqui]

Anti-monarchism is so

[Ben Kenobi]

no true American would a monarch

Funny thing. Of the six flags - none of them was a union jack.

[molly bloom]

Then my point is well taken.

No it isn't. You're absurdly trying to claim there is some kind of anti-Catholic bias amongst professional historians worldwide because, and this is only in your unsubstantiated opinion, more books/articles have been written about Henry VIII and Elizabeth I than about the Roman Catholic monarchs of England.


Firstly, where's your proof of this ? Oh my, how very like Sister Bendy not to give us any.

Secondly- the period of English history from Henry VIII's break with Rome to the ending of the Republican Commonwealth saw a tremendous change in the English language, in English literature, in music, in art, in religion and in power.

English started on its way to becoming a world language- partly through the use of a bible written in the vernacular (England was the only major Western European country to expressly forbid a translation of the Bible into the vernacular until Henry's reign), partly through the use of the Book Of Common Prayer, partly through Anglican/Protestant sermons and preaching and of course through the works of Shakespeare. There was a positive explosion of printing in England, pamphlets, books, newspapers, dictionaries, books on English grammar, books on the English language- and of course Shakespeare's works are compulsory in secondary schools at exam level.

So there is a familiarity with the written and spoken English of the times of Henry VIII and Elizabeth that there isn't for the times of Richard I or Edward The Confessor- partly because English took until the 13th-14th Centuries to become socially acceptable for the court and upper classes -thanks, Chaucer) and partly because in case you hadn't noticed it, life for the English changed after the Black Death, the Peasants' Revolt, the end of the Wars of the Roses and naturally, the Reformation and Renaissance.

No more Anglo-Norman or Anglo-French monarchs trying to conquer half or two thirds of France or bits of the Middle East- but a concentration on English affairs and a reduction of the powers/independence of the great landowners.

If you were to ask the same bloke to describe Henry, would he give a description of him in his 20s or him in his 40s?

I have no idea which part of Tudor iconography this 'bloke' is most familiar with. However, like his counterparts in mainland Europe, Henry used iconography to sell an idea of himself and his family. Some pictures are better at this than others.

And yet I've been able to correctly call you out on what you did learn through the entire thread.

Unbelievably self-deluding.

Where's the incentive for Mary, Queen of Scots to rebel against Elizabeth when Elizabeth has agreed that James would be her heir and James has the crown of Scotland?

Where did Elizabeth agree to this ?

Produce this in evidence please.

Also, James refused to share the sovereignty of Scotland when his mother asked him to, and he was also a Protestant.

[kentonio]

Let me put it this way. Edward II was a disaster - and if you look at the state of the monarchy then - it becomes even more impressive that not only did he put it on a solid footing - but even today - every king and queen is related to him.

He was a fantastic king that is overshadowed by his far less accomplished son who never reigned a day while he ruled for 50 years. Why is that?

Because the common belief is that had the Black Prince lived he would have been able to build on the achievements of his father and perhaps even have united the thrones of England and France. This is generally helped by the fact that 'Black Prince' is a pretty frikking awesome monicker, and helps people forget that it probably wouldn't have happened. Even so, there's a real romanticism to the 'what might have been'.

Which Henry? His father did more than Henry VIII ever did. Hery VIII is one of a few kings who isn't related to the whole line. Henry VII fixed what was broken when he married Elizabeth of York. Henry VIII was a dead end that went nowhere. Just like Queen Anne and William and Mary.

No-one cares about that bloodline ****. Henry did a huge amount during his reign, and if you could put aside your Catholic hangups for a minute you'd see that is quite self evident. He oversaw the joining of England and Wales, was declared Defender of the Faith and Most Christian King of France by the pope, established a permanent navy (which in itself was hugely significant to England's future endeavours), broke from Rome and established the Church of England and many, many other events and achievements.

Wiki actually puts it quite nicely..

The complexities and sheer scale of Henry's legacy ensured that, in the words of Betteridge and Freeman, "throughout the centuries [since his death], Henry has been praised and reviled, but he has never been ignored"

Uhh no. Greatest is the one we've got now, with Vicky a close second.

The debate is between Victoria and Elizabeth I. I love our current Queen, but given the vastly reduced relevance of the monarchy in the modern age, her impact cannot be compared to the Queens of old.

Elizabeth takes it for me, because in her time the position was more vital than in that of Victoria, and Elizabeth held together a divided and fragile nation alone in a time when being a woman in power was insanely difficult. She was surrounded by rivals and potential suitors who wanted the crown, and she manipulated them and held onto her power until the end, while holding the nation together and preventing it devolving into a religious bloodbath. It's hard to overestimate quite how huge an achievement that was.

He was a pompous fool who couldn't fill his father's codpiece. You want to know the real magnificent bastard - look at his father.

This father had a good early reign and then a crappy later reign. Hardly anyone even remembers him, because the achievements and events of his son's reign were more colourful and significant in almost every way.

But let's not pretend here, you venerate his father because he was a Catholic and you hate the son because he broke England away from the Catholic church. Don't bother insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending any different.

[molly bloom]

Where's the incentive for Elizabeth to confine her and regulate James' education apart from his mother?

You seem to have some bizarre notion that Elizabeth was able to dictate to Calvinist Scottish nobles how they should behave when bringing up James I & VI.

Execution meant that she lost all influence over her son forever

'She' lost influence over whose 'son' ? When you get flustered your command of English gets worse. Elizabeth I's government paid James I & VI a pension- it was increased by £ 2 000 towards the end of Elizabeth's life.

Yet, William III ruled solely, as Canute did centuries before.

Inaccurate. Cnut ruled alongside Edmund in Wessex at first, and with the help of four ealdormen. Again, you claim that this sole rule of William's indicates that England was a 'Dutch fief' or 'conquered' by the Dutch.

Clearly you still do not know what a 'fief' is, depsite my posting a helpful description in an earlier post, and equally clearly, you don't know what conquer means. I suggest you invest in a good big dictionary. Or a good education.

Oh, and William III Orange was half English, having an English Stuart mother- which of course meant he was in the line of succession.

And yet, the Prince of Orange, oddly enough is associated with the King of Netherlands

Amazingly enough not by professional historians or people who can read English. It was a Dutch Republic William III Orange lived in, dimwit. Can you say 're-pub-lic' ?

Do you know what it means ? He wasn't king of the Dutch.


YOU GOT IT WRONG, LIKE SO MUCH ELSE.

Earlier on, you compared her to a Queen consort,

Oh tedium. You simply can't admit when you get something even relatively simple wrong, can you ? I compared her with Elizabeth Bowes Lyon as a 'Queen Mother'- which she was, in France on the death of her husband, and in Scotland, after her forced abdication and the accession of her son.

Elizabeth was born to Anne Boleyn when Henry was married to her- after the annulment/divorce from Catherine of Aragon.

She was royalty all the same, on both thrones.

I'll remind you of your earlier error, which I've already corrected, once or twice- you claimed Elizabeth I (or her government) executed 'rulers' . Iasked you who these 'rulers' were.

You then changed it to 'ruler'.

When I pointed out that James I & VI was King and therefore ruler of Scotland in 1567, 20 years before Mary Stuart, his mother's execution, you similarly change dit to 'royal'.

Do you not read or understand your own posts ?

'RULER' DOES NOT MEAN 'RULERS' AND DOES NOT MEAN 'ROYAL'.

You got it wrong. Again.

Clearly you do not understand Heir Apparent.

Oh dear.

Law) Property law a person whose right to succeed to certain property cannot be defeated, provided such person survives his ancestor

. pl.heirs apparent
An heir whose right to inheritance is indefeasible by law provided he or she survives an ancestor

heir, heritor, inheritor - a person who is entitled by law or by the terms of a will to inherit the estate of another

I don't mind you being crap at history, but English is supposedly your first language, although frankly I have my doubts.

James was Elizabeth's nearest royal relative; both were direct descendants of Henry VII, the first Tudor king. Yet in English law James's claim was uncertain. Since 1351, foreigners were forbidden to inherit English lands, which might block James from inheriting the Crown and its estates. The parliamentary succession statute of 1544 mentioned no heir after Elizabeth and her children (if any), while the 1547 will of Henry VIII debarred his Scottish relatives from the throne. More recently a statute of 1585 insisted that if any claimants should conspire against Elizabeth, all their legal rights were forfeited. Mary Queen of Scots had been executed in 1587 for her involvement in Catholic assassination plots against Elizabeth. As Mary's son and potential beneficiary of her actions, was James compromised?

The king had a cousin, Lady Arbella Stuart, another Scottish descendant of Henry VII but English-born. Exempt from the 1351 aliens statute, Arbella might be a serious contender. The wild card was the Infanta Isabella, daughter of Philip II of Spain and married to her cousin the Archduke Albert, with whom, after 1599, she ruled over Spanish Flanders. In Armada year, 1588, Philip proclaimed that his daughter's descent from Edward III made her the rightful queen of England. Isabella was dangerously close at hand in Brussels, and James was agitated by the possibility that she might re-assert that 1588 claim and urge English Catholics to rise and support her.

http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Elizabeth/

[molly bloom]

As Molly demonstrated in this thread, I (who know slightly more than the average person about history in general) only knew a little about Henry VIII, and much of what I did know was incorrect. I don't recall anything specific about Edward III; I remember the Black Prince because of his cool nickname and the whole chevauchee thing, Edward I because of Braveheart, and Edward II because of Braveheart (again), Marlowe's play, and the part where they held him down and shoved a burning iron rod up his arse. I do remember reading about Sluys...but only because Timothy Zahn used that name in a Star Wars novel.

Thanks for the compliment, and you're quite right- of England's mediaeval history we know some of the showier bits because they're entertaining- 'bad' kings like King John, Richard III, Richard II, 'good' ones like Edward Longshanks, Alfred the Great, Edward III (clearly Sister Bendy doesn't know that outside the Houses of Parliament is Rodin's 'Burghers of Calais' ) and so on.

Picturesque history has nothing to do with anti-Catholic bias and everything to do with good stories, big figures, heroic deeds, epic adventures... until relatively recently, people didn't want to know about Harrison's chronometers or Frederick the Great relying on potatoes- despite the fact they both saved lives.

Pirates and Captain Cook getting killed were much more palatable.


There's also the question of available resources, readability, and the survival of literature- Elizabethan English is recognisably English, whereas this isn't :

Betwux þam wearþ ofslagen Eadwine his eam, Norþhymbra cynincg, on Crist gelyfed, fram Brytta cyninge, Cedwalla geciged, and twegen his æftergengan binnan twam gearum; and se Cedwalla sloh and to sceame tucode þa Norþhymbran leode æfter heora hlafordes fylle oþ þæt Oswold se eadiga his yfelnysse adwæscte.

Aelfric's 'Life Of King Oswald', which yes, I had to study at university.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because the common belief is that had the Black Prince lived he would have been able to build on the achievements of his father and perhaps even have united the thrones of England and France.

Unlikely. France was quite weak under Charles VI, but so was England at the time.

And because Richard II was evil it was lost. Actually - Richard had the right idea - negotiations for peace with France. Some folks didn't like that which is why Bolingbroke usurped the throne. And hardly a decade later - everything was lost.

This is generally helped by the fact that 'Black Prince' is a pretty frikking awesome monicker, and helps people forget that it probably wouldn't have happened. Even so, there's a real romanticism to the 'what might have been'.

What people forget is that Edward was the source of the war, not the black prince and he fought for 50 years and even then it wasn't enough to defeat them.

No-one cares about that bloodline ****.

Then you miss the significance of Elizabeth of York. Henry pulled off the only thing that could work. Henry really had nothing backing him whatsoever... but with Elizabeth - he had credibility and a pedigree. The problem - again - all stems back to Bolingbroke. Henry was the eventual beneficiary and he had to establish a dynasty that would survive. The irony is that he did - in the Stuarts through a throwaway Scottish Marriage.

No Elizabeth of York and it's unlikely you have a monarchy today.

Henry did a huge amount during his reign, and if you could put aside your Catholic hangups for a minute you'd see that is quite self evident.

Which Henry? Henry VII? You need to read up more on his father and get back to me.

He oversaw the joining of England and Wales

Something that Edward did, not Henry VIII.

, was declared Defender of the Faith

Declared himself God-Emperor. And because of his childish fits - ended up losing everything. The crown and the country. Whereas - his father set things up so that they lasted.

established a permanent navy

Also Henry VII.

(which in itself was hugely significant to England's future endeavours),

From money that Henry VII saved up and put behind the exchequer for many, many years.

broke from Rome and established the Church of England and many, many other events and achievements.

He actually ruined England - he spent everything his father left him and left the nation bankrupt. All because of the hissy fit he had with Catherine. He coulda been a champion like his father, but he squandered it all.

The debate is between Victoria and Elizabeth I.

The debate is between the one we've got and Victoria.

given the vastly reduced relevance of the monarchy in the modern age

Pure historical bias prevents her from getting a fair shake. When she's gone - you'll see.

Elizabeth takes it for me, because in her time the position was more vital than in that of Victoria

Actually a false assessment.

Victoria left such a mark on the monarchy that it will never be the same again. Everyone in Europe is somehow related to Victoria and her children. Elizabeth? Just another passing footnote like Queen Anne and William and Mary.

If Elizabeth had been a truly great queen - she would have established a dynasty like Victoria did. She did not. Therefore her contribution is limited to what she did in her own lifespan.

Elizabeth held together a divided and fragile nation

Elizabeth drove apart a united and strong nation.

alone in a time when being a woman in power

Yawn. She wasn't the first or even the most notable. That would be Maud - but I doubt your courses taught about her, now did they. She wasn't even the first among her family - looking at strong women like Mary Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots who overshadow her.

She was surrounded by rivals and potential suitors who wanted the crown

And it was easy for Mary Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots? See - this is historical bias right there.

preventing it devolving into a religious bloodbath.

Given her executions far exceeded Mary's she stoked the bloodbath.

It's hard to overestimate quite how huge an achievement that was.

Yes, not really much of one at all.

This father had a good early reign and then a crappy later reign. Hardly anyone even remembers him, because the achievements and events of his son's reign were more colourful and significant in almost every way.

They should be looking to the father and not the son if they want to truly understand what was going on and why England became a world power.

you venerate his father because he was a Catholic

I think his father was an illegitimate wastrel bastard (which is a fact), who had no more nobility than the peasants on the side of the street. I don't like the father - but I respect him for what he was able to accomplish. Henry VIII had it all handed to him on the platter and was the Paris Hilton of his time.

and you hate the son because he broke England away from the Catholic church. Don't bother insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending any different.

Henry could have accomplished far more for England had he simply stayed the course with Catherine.

[molly bloom]

Thanks Molly, that reference earned a chuckle this morning.

When correcting Sister Bendy's profligate abundance of errors, I have to sneak in a wee bit of humour every now and again.

Doesn't it make you feel dirty? Treading on sh!t?

I'm breaking in my intellectual Dr Marten boots.

[Ben Kenobi]

You seem to have some bizarre notion that Elizabeth was able to dictate to Calvinist Scottish nobles how they should behave when bringing up James I & VI.

Again - she knew that everything hinged on her outliving Mary Queen of Scots. If Mary outlived her - she would lose it all if James VI came to the throne. She had to keep influence over James, which she managed successfully through incarcerating and executing his mother.

'She' lost influence over whose 'son' ?

Over James, if you're struggling to parse the language I suggest you read more carefully.

Inaccurate. Cnut ruled alongside Edmund in Wessex at first

As William did with Mary....

, and with the help of four ealdormen. Again, you claim that this sole rule of William's indicates that England was a 'Dutch fief' or 'conquered' by the Dutch.

and later, William chose to govern himself, just like Canute. And once again - England preferred to subject itself to foreign domination than the Old pretender. Out of spite and prejudice.

Or a good education.

Not all of us are reliant on a free one.

Oh, and William III Orange was half English, having an English Stuart mother

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

meant he was in the line of succession.

Behind the Old pretender. That is the whole point. The Old Pretender was the legitimate son of James VII/II, and the young one the son of the Old.

Amazingly enough not by professional historians or people who can read English. It was a Dutch Republic William III Orange lived in, dimwit. Can you say 're-pub-lic' ?

Can you say he-red-it-ary? Real republics don't ditch their republic to make their own king. The whole point of the Stadtholder is that it was from the House of Orange and not the House of Habsburg. Trading one monarch for another.

Do you know what it means ? He wasn't king of the Dutch.

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.

Oh tedium. You simply can't admit when you get something even relatively simple wrong

Neither can you. Mary was Queen and heir apparent to Elizabeth until she was executed. By virtue of her being her closest relative and cousin.

I compared her with Elizabeth Bowes Lyon as a 'Queen Mother'- which she was

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.

in France on the death of her husband, and in Scotland, after her forced abdication and the accession of her son.

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

Elizabeth was born to Anne Boleyn when Henry was married to her- after the annulment/divorce from Catherine of Aragon.

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

I'll remind you of your earlier error, which I've already corrected, once or twice- you claimed Elizabeth I (or her government) executed 'rulers'

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

When I pointed out that James I & VI was King and therefore ruler of Scotland in 1567, 20 years before Mary Stuart, his mother's execution, you similarly change dit to 'royal'.

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

Do you not read or understand your own posts ?

Do you understand the term 'heir apparent'?

James was Elizabeth's nearest royal relative

Mary, Queen of Scots was Elizabeth's nearest royal relative. After Mary's execution, James was Heir apparent.

both were direct descendants of Henry VII, the first Tudor king.

*Sigh*.

James VI/I was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, who was the Daughter of James V, King of Scotland, and Mary Tudor, the sister of Henry VII and daughter to Elizabeth of York.

The line traces back to Edward III back through Elizabeth of York, Mary Tudor, Mary Queen of Scots and then to James VI/I.

Thus, while Mary Queen of Scots was alive, and after the death of Mary Tudor, Queen of England, Mary Queen of Scots was heir apparent and Elizabeth's closest related living relative. Mary Queen of Scots, unlike Elizabeth, was legitimate. She thus had a better claim to the throne than Elizabeth.
This isn't a difficult concept.

Snip irrelevant crap.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's also the question of available resources, readability, and the survival of literature- Elizabethan English is recognisably English, whereas this isn't

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

[molly bloom]

Again - she knew that everything hinged on her outliving Mary Queen of Scots.

Bizarre thinking. If Elizabeth pre-deceased Mary Stuart, what exactly would Elizabeth lose ? She'd be already dead.

If Mary outlived her - she would lose it all if James VI came to the throne.

You have some quaint notion that a Protestant nation which had been through several religious upheavals would assent to the accession of a Catholic woman who was not even steadfast to her own faith- Mary after all married a divorced Protestant in the Protestant rite, willingly accepted the Scottish Protestant ascendancy for the sake of a throne, and was willing to share power with her Protestant son and ignore 'Regnans In Excelsis' if she could be set free.

James didn't want her in Scotland- simple as.

Over James, if you're struggling to parse the language I suggest you read more carefully.

Hilarious. I suggest you write more clearly. English prose is not your forte.

But then, what is ?

As William did with Mary....

NO, IDIOT.

They were joint rulers. Edmund ruled Wessex, Cnut the rest.


CNUT AND EDMUND WEREN'T ENGLAND'S FIRST GAY ROYAL COUPLE, DIMWIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kentonio]

What people forget is that Edward was the source of the war, not the black prince and he fought for 50 years and even then it wasn't enough to defeat them.

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.

Then you miss the significance of Elizabeth of York.

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. 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.

Which Henry? Henry VII? You need to read up more on his father and get back to me.

Given that if I'd been referring to Henry VII the Catholics part would have made no sense, I was clearly talking about Henry VIII wasn't I? Seriously, learn to read.

Something that Edward did, not Henry VIII.

The formal merging of the countries was under Henry VIII.

Declared himself God-Emperor. And because of his childish fits - ended up losing everything. The crown and the country. Whereas - his father set things up so that they lasted.

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.

Also Henry VII.

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

He actually ruined England - he spent everything his father left him and left the nation bankrupt. All because of the hissy fit he had with Catherine. He coulda been a champion like his father, but he squandered it all.

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

The debate is between the one we've got and Victoria.

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

Pure historical bias prevents her from getting a fair shake. When she's gone - you'll see.

You're sounding like an idiot again. The current Queen is pretty much universally recognized as a hugely successful monarch who has helped the UK greatly during her reign, but the monarchy simply doesn't hold the relevance that it used to. Comparing the two is daft.

Actually a false assessment.

Victoria left such a mark on the monarchy that it will never be the same again. Everyone in Europe is somehow related to Victoria and her children. Elizabeth? Just another passing footnote like Queen Anne and William and Mary.

If Elizabeth had been a truly great queen - she would have established a dynasty like Victoria did. She did not. Therefore her contribution is limited to what she did in her own lifespan.

How typically misogynistic and primitive of you. So as a woman she could only be successful if she had children? This **** is exactly why you'll never get married.

Elizabeth drove apart a united and strong nation.

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.

Yawn. She wasn't the first or even the most notable. That would be Maud - but I doubt your courses taught about her, now did they. She wasn't even the first among her family - looking at strong women like Mary Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots who overshadow her.

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

And it was easy for Mary Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots? See - this is historical bias right there.

So your response to a woman who held the throne alone for nearly 50 years is a Queen who was married to another King? Also to a woman who was thrown off of one throne and imprisoned and eventually executed for trying to claim another? Seriously, that's the best you can do?

Given her executions far exceeded Mary's she stoked the bloodbath.

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

Yes, not really much of one at all.

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

Quite sad really.

[DinoDoc]

Anti-monarchism is so

We fought a war for the right not to care about the royalty of the UK. How dare you disrespect that!