Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

What value would a Henry VIII card have when a) No-one here is actually defending him and b) No-one here but you endlessly preaches about the sanctity of marriage?

The fact that you are attempting to play the James II/VII card? 7 No trump loses to the trump ace everytime.

It is amusing though watching you defending a 'fornicator' (to use your word). I guess just like everything else, your 'morals' only mean anything when it suits you.

You've just claimed that, "you don't care about fornication", and yet you are attempting to prove that James VII was unfit as a ruler because of it.

I suggest applying a winning argument sometime.

[kentonio]

/me plays Henry VIII card.

Yeah, I'm especially perturbed about James II/VII.

What value would a Henry VIII card have when a) No-one here is actually defending him and b) No-one here but you endlessly preaches about the sanctity of marriage?

It is amusing though watching you defending a 'fornicator' (to use your word). I guess just like everything else, your 'morals' only mean anything when it suits you.

[Sava]

my tablet

[Ben Kenobi]

It is funny however watching you standing up for James II, a man who kept multiple mistresses and fathered a child with at least one of them. Considering how important the sanctity of marriage is to you and all

/me plays Henry VIII card.

Yeah, I'm especially perturbed about James II/VII's infidelities.

[Hauldren Collider]

Please say you're referring to me, dimwit.

I referred to what, two websites directly- each of which was particularly concerned with the subject in question, one of which was of an exhibition based at the Maritime Museum in Greenwich- that's Greenwich London and not Connecticut- which is a few miles from where I live. The other was the website of the Dutch Royal family- something Sister Bendy is clearly in need of educating about, and again, this directly and cogently corrected Sister Bendy's appalling error.


The rest is down to my copious reading. I've read more than you- get used to it.

I hit "view post" on my tablet by accident. Damn you windows 8 for not registering that swipe as a scroll

In any case, you're retarded. For someone who does copious reading, you are not terribly good at it. Why don't you take a closer look at who I was responding to and the conversation being held at the time.

[kentonio]

Perhaps I was referring to someone other than William III - Someone who didn't speak a lick of English? Perhaps this would be referring to the Hanoverians and George I?

Who's the ****** now? Did your grammar school education not teach about him? If you don't understand a reference, I suggest you ask questions to relieve your ignorance.

Well of course, why wouldn't we assume that rather than talking about the person the conversation was about, you were actually talking about a completely different monarch who hasn't even been referenced until now.

You should really stop now, you get made to look stupid fairly regularly, but Molly is making you look utterly imbecilic.

It is funny however watching you standing up for James II, a man who kept multiple mistresses and fathered a child with at least one of them. Considering how important the sanctity of marriage is to you and all.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you're referring to William III Orange, he was not a 'foreign king'. The United Provinces were a Dutch

Yeah, he was a foreign king. He was born in the Netherlands.

Are you retarded ? Do you have some kind of hitherto unknown learning difficulty which provokes you to boast about your history degree then come out with crap like this ?

Perhaps I was referring to someone other than William III - Someone who didn't speak a lick of English? Perhaps this would be referring to the Hanoverians and George I?

Who's the ****** now? Did your grammar school education not teach about him? If you don't understand a reference, I suggest you ask questions to relieve your ignorance.

Because they preferred a half-Dutch half-English Calvinist and his Anglican English wife to a Catholic English despot.

Fully English - legitimate son to the throne rejected over religious prejudice. Thank you. I'm glad you finally admitted that prejudice was the sole motivation for the Glorious Revolution and the subsequent Act of Settlement.

One of the first things William did on entering London was secure the houses and places of worship of Catholics. Similarly, in the United Provinces, the republican government took action to prevent ant-Catholic mobs harming Catholics and Catholic churches.

Yawn, which justifies him of depriving a Catholic of his birthright. A thief is still a thief even if he repairs the property he has stolen.

That's because the allies of the United Provinces were Catholic Spain and Catholic Austria. Whose enemy was Catholic France.

Which explains why the Netherlands was still ruled by a Catholic monarch. Oh wait. I think they fought a little spat over that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Technically, James II fled the country. Actually, 'was allowed' to flee would be better. He abdicated, in other words.

Hrm? England was invaded and James II/VII was deposed by William. Same as with Bolingbroke.

I'm sure he felt he had a better claim than Edmund. As did many Anglo-Saxons, for good reasons.

Delusion?

the king gave an order to slay all the Danes that were in England. This was accordingly done on the mass-day of St.Brice [13th November]; because it was told the king, that they would beshrew him of his life, and afterwards all his council, and then have his kingdom."

As opposed to the Danes who invaded and attempted to slay Englishmen?

Not quite how the Glorious Revolution came about.

True - James VII/II was an Englishman deposed by William of Orange and James never threatened to execute protestants. There was no cause, other than prejudice to depose him.

I did not claim this. You are a liar.

You claimed James II/VII was incompetent and that Aethelred was incompetent and that the invasions that removed both were justified because they removed incompetent rulers.

How depressingly yet characteristically literal of you. What I meant was, that in all your error strewn effusions, there is no evidence, despite your popping up and down like a groundhog with a perilously full bladder, no sign of any education in English or European history.

And one who's attended Grammar school possesses sufficient means to determine this reliably? This is like the blind man querying the seaman's ability to navigate by sextant.

Someone who thinks the Dutch were ruled by a Dutch King in 1688 ? That Mary Stuart was still Queen of Scotland in 1587 ?

Mary was Queen of Scots by her birthright, unlike Elizabeth who was declared a bastard. And William's descendents, (oddly enough), did become Kings shortly after. If the Stadtholder were different from the kings in waiting - it would not be a hereditary position reserved to the House of Orange.

[molly bloom]

Indeed he was. As was William who usurped the throne from James VII/II.

Technically, James II fled the country. Actually, 'was allowed' to flee would be better. He abdicated, in other words. As for Cnut- I'm sure he felt he had a better claim than Edmund. As did many Anglo-Saxons, for good reasons.

How is this any different from William?

Oh tedium.

....the king gave an order to slay all the Danes that were in England. This was accordingly done on the mass-day of St.Brice [13th November]; because it was told the king, that they would beshrew him of his life, and afterwards all his council, and then have his kingdom."

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

This massacre almost certainly never occurred, but one of the Danes who was killed was the sister of Swein. Accordingly, Swein came to avenge her death and gain the throne of England. Eventually:

Thither came Ealdorman Æthelmær, and all the western thegns with him, and all submitted to Swegen, and gave hostages. When he had thus settled all, then went he northward to his ships; and all the population fully received him, and considered him full king. The population of London also after this submitted to him, and gave hostages;

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Not quite how the Glorious Revolution came about.

You claim the exact same thing. "England was incompetently ruled and so they needed to be taked over by a competent ruler."

I did not claim this. You are a liar.

Why not?

Research the hsitory of the Danelaw, and the reign of Alfred The Great.

Then get back to me, hopefully better educated on the subject.

Well, I suggest you call the folks listed previously if you believe my education was obtained fraudulently.

How depressingly yet characteristically literal of you. What I meant was, that in all your error strewn effusions, there is no evidence, despite your popping up and down like a groundhog with a perilously full bladder, no sign of any education in English or European history.

Someone who thinks the Dutch were ruled by a Dutch King in 1688 ? That Mary Stuart was still Queen of Scotland in 1587 ?


Change your name to Joey Demento, tout de suite.

[molly bloom]

Later on, after the Act of Settlement, then would again appoint a king out of prejudice,

If you're referring to William III Orange, he was not a 'foreign king'. The United Provinces were a Dutch

RE PUB LIC

Can you say 're-pub-lic', nitwit ? Good grief.

a foreign king who had never set foot in England or spoke English.

Are you retarded ? Do you have some kind of hitherto unknown learning difficulty which provokes you to boast about your history degree then come out with crap like this ?


William III Orange first entered England in



1670

That's fully 18 years before 1688. He landed at Margate, in November, at the invitation of Charles II, and escorted by Charles's representative the Earl of Ossory, who went on to become William's close friend.

or spoke English.

Languages spoken at the home of Mary Stuart and William III Orange while they were resident in the United Provinces : English and French.
Dutch was spoken by the servants. Rather ironic, what with your nonsense about England's 'Dutch masters'.

Why?

Because they preferred a half-Dutch half-English Calvinist and his Anglican English wife to a Catholic English despot. One of the first things William did on entering London was secure the houses and places of worship of Catholics. Similarly, in the United Provinces, the republican government took action to prevent ant-Catholic mobs harming Catholics and Catholic churches.

That's because the allies of the United Provinces were Catholic Spain and Catholic Austria. Whose enemy was Catholic France.

[molly bloom]

So why then did he rule solely, without her?

Because ruling with her corpse might have been difficult.

Again - England submitted themselves to their Dutch masters out of prejudice.

Various English nobility, politicians and a bishop went to the Dutch Republic (can you say re-pub-lic, dimbo ?) to invite the son of an English Stuart and his English Stuart wife to become rulers over England in preference to a Stuart who had shown by the imprisonment of Anglican bishops, by his opposition to Habeas Corpus, by his judge's 'Bloody Assizes' after Monmouth's failed rebellion, by his arbitrary replacement of Protestant officials and army officers by unqualified Roman Catholics, and his alienation even of those who would otherwise have been his supporters- namely, the Tories.

England and the English did not 'submit' themselves to the Dutch. Mary II was not Dutch. She was married to a amn who was half-English, half-Dutch, and in the line of succession to the English throne, along with herself.

England was not at war with the Dutch in 1688. The Dutch did not become the rulers or masters of England.


Get over it.

[Alexander's Horse]

Ben, you need the avatars of girls with the nice titties, now more than ever

[molly bloom]

And Canute ruled England solely along with his Danish crown, just as William ruled England and the Dutch.

Minor point for the historically illiterate. Cnut was the younger son of Swein. So he had to wait until his elder brother, who was childless, died, before he could go to Denmark to become King there.

Which, by the way, was after he became King of England.

English nobility submitted to the Danes just like they did to William.

Clearly Anglo-Saxon history is not your forte. Should i point out that along with studying Anglo-Saxon literature I also studied Anglo-Saxon history, art and architecture ? I'm guessing you didn't.


On Aethelred Unraed's death, a few merchants and leading Londoners offered the crown to Edmund. The rest of the country, tired of Aethelraed's family, arbitrary rule, taxes, inability to repel Viking raiders, and so on... preferred a Dane, who was already based in England, and whose father had been ruler when Aethelraed was in ignominious exile in Normandy.

As it turned out, they made the right choice- Cnut was an excellent monarch, and achieved the distinction of being recognized as such by other European monarchs, including Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor, the Pope, and the kings of Burgundy and France. He even went on pilgrimage to Rome.

He fought an alliance of Sweden and Norway, which was directly threatening Denmark, and although he didn't decisively defeat the Swedes, they were no longer in a position to offer a threat to Denmark and were effectively separated from Norway- of which realm Cnut went on to become king, after defeating their forces.

He installed his Anglo-Saxon spouse, Aelfgifu as ruler of Norway in his absence, and similarly, had a stand-in in Denmark in his absence. He went on to marry Emma, Aethelraed's Norman widow.

Take notes, if you like- you need to after all.

[Alexander's Horse]

Time for another MBT thread?

[molly bloom]

And Canute ruled England solely along with his Danish crown, just as William ruled England and the Dutch.

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

I sometimes believe I may have underestimated just how stupid and uneducated you are. William III Orange was not 'ruler of the Dutch'.

The United Provinces were a RE- PUB- LIC.

RE PUB LIC

That means no king. No queen. Do me, wait, do all of us a favour- read 'The Dutch Revolt' by Geoffrey Parker, and 'The Dutch Seaborne Empire' by C. R. Boxer.

One covers the initial period of the Dutch rebellion against the Habsburgs, the Eighty Years' War, etc, the other the evolution of the Dutch State, the Golden Age, the V.O.C. and so on. Both are written in modern English which I hope will prove helpful.

The Dutch revolt is a pivotal event in European history that remains blurry and poorly understood by most people.

From a review of Parker's book. Could almost be referring to you.