Pope sends direct message to Ben

[molly bloom]

A senior in ECE at carnegie mellon isn't doing things that are "easy" or can just be picked up from surfing wikipedia.

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.

[kentonio]

Good question.

Why did they ship in a foreign ruler (William of Orange) when they could take advantage of a native born Catholic?

That's more Molly's area than mine so I'll leave it to him. My point was more that you can't expect it to happen rather than it would never happen though.

Are you not aware that Victoria tried to arrange things?

Again, so? She tried to spread the influence of her family, so did Henry. He tried with 6 different wives for goodness sake. The fact that he failed to produce a strong male line was down to genetics not a lack of effort, so painting it as some huge failure seems pretty pointless.

Once again - wikipedia is not a primary source. And scurvy? No. Are you telling me that Henry VIII didn't have access to fresh meat?

If you want to make wild claims about Henry VIII having syphilis then its on you to provide some evidence to support that.

As for scurvy however, fresh meat is not a reliable source of Vitamin C. Personally I think diabetes is far more likely, although given that no-one has any real evidence, the only honest answer is 'no-one knows'.

Which is why we have to take pains to ensure that this doesn't distort the historical record.

Don't be ridiculous, having more written evidence supposedly 'distorts' the historical record? Pretty rich coming from someone who just a few weeks ago was claiming that we should just believe various Christian claims because of a lack of contradictory evidence.

It's simple reporting bias. A good history will try to balance this out. Say you were to write a history of the Catholic church and you had 2000 pages to write it in. How many pages would the sex abuse scandal take? Maybe one. Bad ones will have up to a fifth.

Nonsense, if we were talking about biographies or character portraits of the rulers of the time then yes things like sentiment, fear of repercussions etc would have relevance, but as we're talking about actually events that occurred during his reign the larger source material is hugely useful.

You seem to be losing the point completely, pretty much everyone thinks Henry VIII was a *****, but trying to whitewash the very real things he achieved is just dishonest.

Putting a label on it doesn't mean you invented it. Of course, Al Gore tried that too.

He couldn't have created the Royal Navy because other people had built ships previously? #GolfClap

Once again - this is historical bias. The monarchy must be irrelevant ergo you have to minimize their accomplishments.

The really funny thing is that you're accusing a monarchist of displaying historical bias against the monarchy. This is new level of retarded even for you.

By and large, the English monarchy has become the most prominent in the world. Do you think this happens if Elizabeth were reclusive?

Which only has relevance to the discussion at hand if you think monarchy now is more important than monarchy in centuries gone by. Which would be really stupid.

What struggle. She's the first to visit every part.

Back on the Air Miles again. You have some very odd ideas of what is important.

"I can't refute the argument, so I'll post insults instead!"

You weren't making an argument, you were just being utterly ridiculous and then claiming you'd won a 'point'. It's the kind of thing small children do.

It depends on your perspective. You seem to believe that in the greatest scheme of things, what you do during your life matters by what things that are accomplished during your life.

Go back 500 years, and you get a different perspective.

It's a pointless discussion, because if all you care about is bloodlines then to you a ****ty king who did nothing for 20 years but eat and **** is more 'interesting' and has more 'achievements' than a great ruler just because they produced kids who went on to spread the bloodline.

If that's how you view history, then you can discuss it with someone else because that's incredibly boring.

That argument didn't refer to Elizabeth specifically. So arguing that this applies to this argument is a non-sequitor. Going by the more accepted figures still gives Elizabeth the higher toll (and it's not even close) to Mary Tudor, Queen of England.

No, it was when you claimed that Henry VIII executed 72,000 people.

As for Elizabeth, provide some proof if you want to keep repeating your nonsensical claims while trying to whitewash Mary, a woman who ordered 300 people to be burned to death for heresy.

Actually just take a second out to think about what that must have felt like, being roasted alive because you had a slightly different view of God than the ruler of the day.

I never claimed that. Are you finished making up arguments? It's easy enough to win one when you misrepresent what the other person argued.

You'll be wanting this page here. Mobius smacked you down for it, and you conveniently missed it out of your subsequent replies.

Have I said anything of the sort?

Well there are presumably only a couple of reasons why you'd feel the need to repeatedly claim that basically every serious historian in the world was wrong, and that you were right. Hubris would seem to be the most likely. I'm perfectly willing to allow that either delusion or retardation are also strong possibilities though.

I contest that the portrait of Good Queen Bess is wrong, and I have facts to back me up on this. She may have been a good Queen in some ways, but in other ways she was not.

You 'contest' that the view of a Queen held by basically every serious historian is wrong. The breathtaking arrogance there is quite incredible, and especially because you don't have any new evidence or 'facts' that anyone else doesn't have. You basically just decided that you're right because you say so.

Pretty sad really.

It made perfect sense because you understood it.

It was legible but made no sense in the context of what you were quoting and presumably trying to reply to.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would the nobility ship in a foreign ruler when they could take advantage of a space at the top themselves? Enough nobles over the years tried it when there WAS a king or queen on the throne

Good question.

Why did they ship in a foreign ruler (William of Orange) when they could take advantage of a native born Catholic?

Whats the difference? You don't get any huge kudos or blame for your descendants succeeding or failing, it's not like you pick your own genetics.

Are you not aware that Victoria tried to arrange things?

Please try not to make wild claims that cannot be supported by evidence.

Once again - wikipedia is not a primary source. And scurvy? No. Are you telling me that Henry VIII didn't have access to fresh meat?

We tend to know more about things that happened more recently, especially when that period also happens to coincide with a huge growth in literary output.

Which is why we have to take pains to ensure that this doesn't distort the historical record.

If you want to call that 'bias' then that's up to you, although it'd be interesting to hear you try and justify it.

It's simple reporting bias. A good history will try to balance this out. Say you were to write a history of the Catholic church and you had 2000 pages to write it in. How many pages would the sex abuse scandal take? Maybe one. Bad ones will have up to a fifth.

And still no-one cares.

Cool story bro.

So why when I brought up Henry VIII's establishment of the Royal Navy (something everyone credits to him) did you try to claim it was his father who did it?

Putting a label on it doesn't mean you invented it. Of course, Al Gore tried that too.

Sorry, the Commonwealth really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

Once again - this is historical bias. The monarchy must be irrelevant ergo you have to minimize their accomplishments.

By and large, the English monarchy has become the most prominent in the world. Do you think this happens if Elizabeth were reclusive?

You'd also struggle to paint it as an 'achievement' of the Queen.

What struggle. She's the first to visit every part.

Well if we're playing a game of 'who can make themselves look really stupid and ill-educated' then yes you did indeed just win a point.

"I can't refute the argument, so I'll post insults instead!"

What exactly is this obsession of yours about bloodlines? You seem to think they are more important than what people actually achieve during their lives, it's rather odd.

It depends on your perspective. You seem to believe that in the greatest scheme of things, what you do during your life matters by what things that are accomplished during your life.

Go back 500 years, and you get a different perspective.

You pulled out some wildly over-inflated figures

That argument didn't refer to Elizabeth specifically. So arguing that this applies to this argument is a non-sequitor. Going by the more accepted figures still gives Elizabeth the higher toll (and it's not even close) to Mary Tudor, Queen of England.

You then tried to claim that a set of figures that represented around 150 years of deaths were all down to Elizabeth.

I never claimed that. Are you finished making up arguments? It's easy enough to win one when you misrepresent what the other person argued.

I know you desperately want to prove every serious historian in the world wrong

Have I said anything of the sort?

pick a period for it that isn't quite as widely studied.

I contest that the portrait of Good Queen Bess is wrong, and I have facts to back me up on this. She may have been a good Queen in some ways, but in other ways she was not.

Not really, it wasn't clever or funny and didn't really make any sense.

It made perfect sense because you understood it.

[kentonio]

The House of Avis - which had been a longtime ally of the English. The founder of the dynasty was John of Avis and he married Elizabeth of Lancaster, daughter of John of Gaunt. They had a very strong claim, while not as strong as Elizabeth of York, still stronger than anyone else if Elizabeth is excluded.

Why? They were close allies with the Portuguese House of Avis. And they were legitimate heirs to the English throne.

Why would the nobility ship in a foreign ruler when they could take advantage of a space at the top themselves? Enough nobles over the years tried it when there WAS a king or queen on the throne

As opposed to being unsuccessful?

Whats the difference? You don't get any huge kudos or blame for your descendants succeeding or failing, it's not like you pick your own genetics.

And nothing to do with the fact that Harry contracted syphilis? Which caused his only son to be rather sickly? Yes, 'mere chance'.

Except that..

The theory that Henry suffered from syphilis has been dismissed by most historians. A more recent theory suggests that Henry's medical symptoms are characteristic of untreated Type II diabetes or scurvy, either of which was brought on by eating large quantities of meat without any fresh fruits or vegetables.

Please try not to make wild claims that cannot be supported by evidence.

So you're saying there is in fact historical bias favoring Henry's time?

We tend to know more about things that happened more recently, especially when that period also happens to coincide with a huge growth in literary output. If you want to call that 'bias' then that's up to you, although it'd be interesting to hear you try and justify it.

When you are the Grandson of a King, King, the father of a king and the grandfather of a king - one would expect to be related to all the subsequent Kings thereafter. Bolingbroke, oddly, is not, despite being king and the earlyness of his reign. This is quite unusual. Almost all the former kings (including Stephen of Blois), are currently ancestors of Elizabeth. Save Bolingbroke and Henry VIII.

And still no-one cares.

I'm saying that his father deserves credit for what he did do in establishing and maintaining the English naval tradition. No more, no less.

So why when I brought up Henry VIII's establishment of the Royal Navy (something everyone credits to him) did you try to claim it was his father who did it?

I would suggest that Elizabeth has made significant decisions regarding the membership and the workings of the commonwealth. Again the fact that we can point and say the existence of a Commonwealth is thanks to her. Do people talk about a commonwealth of Spain? Of France? If not, why not?

Sorry, the Commonwealth really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. You'd also struggle to paint it as an 'achievement' of the Queen.

Point, Kenobi!

Well if we're playing a game of 'who can make themselves look really stupid and ill-educated' then yes you did indeed just win a point.

Victoria, in having, and raising and marrying her children off to everyone in Europe?

What exactly is this obsession of yours about bloodlines? You seem to think they are more important than what people actually achieve during their lives, it's rather odd.

Demolished as in, "Yes, it's true, but the speculation that Mary died before her tally reached Elizabeth is not mere speculation."

You pulled out some wildly over-inflated figures and they were demolished. You then tried to claim that a set of figures that represented around 150 years of deaths were all down to Elizabeth. You've been wrong so many times about it now that it's becoming sad.

I know you desperately want to prove every serious historian in the world wrong, but maybe pick a period for it that isn't quite as widely studied.

Gosh, it's almost like that was an intended gibe.

Not really, it wasn't clever or funny and didn't really make any sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

No we probably wouldn't. Bloodlines were important but power was a lot more important. If one bloodline died out, the likelihood is that some powerful noble family would have conveniently 'discovered' a link that gave them a claim.

The House of Avis - which had been a longtime ally of the English. The founder of the dynasty was John of Avis and he married Elizabeth of Lancaster, daughter of John of Gaunt. They had a very strong claim, while not as strong as Elizabeth of York, still stronger than anyone else if Elizabeth is excluded.

It's extremely unlikely that the English people and nobility would have allowed a Spanish or Portuguese ruler to just take the throne of England.

Why? They were close allies with the Portuguese House of Avis. And they were legitimate heirs to the English throne.

Interesting but not particularly significant no. It says little or nothing about a person that their line of descendants happened to go on to be successful.

As opposed to being unsuccessful?

That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't Henry have 4 sons? It's pure genetics or mere chance, it's nothing to do with talent.

And nothing to do with the fact that Harry contracted syphilis? Which caused his only son to be rather sickly? Yes, 'mere chance'.

A) Henry came later from a time we know more about.
B) Henry is far more interesting to basically everyone other than you.

So you're saying there is in fact historical bias favoring Henry's time?

Again, who cares? Lines of succession had a lot more to do with the ability to project power rather than about bloodlines, as many weak Kings and Queens found out to their cost.

When you are the Grandson of a King, King, the father of a king and the grandfather of a king - one would expect to be related to all the subsequent Kings thereafter. Bolingbroke, oddly, is not, despite being king and the earlyness of his reign. This is quite unusual. Almost all the former kings (including Stephen of Blois), are currently ancestors of Elizabeth. Save Bolingbroke and Henry VIII.

Pretty much every achievement is built on the foundations of those who came before. You can argue that Henry VIII couldn't have established the navy without the work done by his father, but so what? The only person trying to take the credit away from Henry VIII for this is you, and you're only doing it because you hate him. It's pretty sad.

I'm saying that his father deserves credit for what he did do in establishing and maintaining the English naval tradition. No more, no less.

Elizabeth I ran a nation, Elizabeth II is a figurehead and symbol. The idea that traveling around shaking hands and opening town halls is more important than making vital decisions of state is absolutely imbecilic, and I say that as someone who is a huge fan of our current Queen.

I would suggest that Elizabeth has made significant decisions regarding the membership and the workings of the commonwealth. Again the fact that we can point and say the existence of a Commonwealth is thanks to her. Do people talk about a commonwealth of Spain? Of France? If not, why not?

Seriously give this one up, it's making you look very dumb.

Point, Kenobi!

An accomplishment by whom exactly?

Victoria, in having, and raising and marrying her children off to everyone in Europe?

As C0ckney rightly says this nonsense has been demolished only a few pages back, please stop repeating it.

Demolished as in, "Yes, it's true, but the speculation that Mary died before her tally reached Elizabeth is not mere speculation."

Democrats? What on earth are you babbling about? Republican in the sense of someone who wishes the abolition of the monarchy, not a supporter of the GOP you chump.

Gosh, it's almost like that was an intended gibe.

[kentonio]

That's a good question. Henry VII had no real royal blood whatsoever. Elizabeth was the highest ranked heiress from the York side. All the legit Lancastrians had been killed.

Without the Tudors, it was unlikely that the Scottish throne would have had the Queen of Scots either. I would say that had the throne been empty - we would have seen the Portuguese take over, or the Spanish, both of whom had claims.

No we probably wouldn't. Bloodlines were important but power was a lot more important. If one bloodline died out, the likelihood is that some powerful noble family would have conveniently 'discovered' a link that gave them a claim. It's extremely unlikely that the English people and nobility would have allowed a Spanish or Portuguese ruler to just take the throne of England.

True, but she wasn't queen even though she should have been Elizabeth the first, and she's whom our second and now third Elizabeth were named after. You don't think that's significant?

Interesting but not particularly significant no. It says little or nothing about a person that their line of descendants happened to go on to be successful.

Then why don't we have a Tudor dynasty today?

That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't Henry have 4 sons? It's pure genetics or mere chance, it's nothing to do with talent.

So why don't we hear more of Edward who actually had the more interesting reign?

A) Henry came later from a time we know more about.
B) Henry is far more interesting to basically everyone other than you.

The strange thing is that neither he nor Bolingbroke have any connection with any of the present royal family.

Again, who cares? Lines of succession had a lot more to do with the ability to project power rather than about bloodlines, as many weak Kings and Queens found out to their cost.

Half the navy was built by Henry VII. Henry VII provided the funds and the means by which the navy could be expanded. It's true that Henry VIII built on top of his father's foundation, but it's not like there was no navy previous.

Pretty much every achievement is built on the foundations of those who came before. You can argue that Henry VIII couldn't have established the navy without the work done by his father, but so what? The only person trying to take the credit away from Henry VIII for this is you, and you're only doing it because you hate him. It's pretty sad.

I would argue that Elizabeth who has travelled further than any monarch, all around the world - that the duties and responsibilities have increased, not decreased.

Elizabeth I ran a nation, Elizabeth II is a figurehead and symbol. The idea that traveling around shaking hands and opening town halls is more important than making vital decisions of state is absolutely imbecilic, and I say that as someone who is a huge fan of our current Queen.

If we're charting global influence... Wouldn't you say that the Queen who travels the Commonwealth and established a real connection with her subjects around the world is far greater than one who never travelled outside of England?

Seriously give this one up, it's making you look very dumb.

Never said that. Every single monarch and member of the European royal family is related to Victoria by blood. THAT is an accomplishment.

An accomplishment by whom exactly?

She's number two behind her father on the 'royal executions for heresy' list.

What? It's true - she executed more than every other king save Henry VIII.

As C0ckney rightly says this nonsense has been demolished only a few pages back, please stop repeating it.

As opposed to Democrats who revere an autocrat like Henry VIII who had 6 wives, murdered two and broke with the Catholic church because they wouldn't let him get divorced.

Democrats? What on earth are you babbling about? Republican in the sense of someone who wishes the abolition of the monarchy, not a supporter of the GOP you chump.

[rah]

That's what happens when it's not big enough.

[DinoDoc]

DP

You doubly penetrated a no hotlinking image?

[rah]

DP

[rah]

Damn, couldn't make it big enough

[Ben Kenobi]

You may well do. It's certainly a subject where there are lots of amateurs way more knowledgeable than me. And certainly a good amount of posters here who didn't do an astrophysics degree who know more than I do.

I wouldn't say so. I went through the courses and they are very difficult. You getting through and finishing them counts for quite a lot in my book. I've always been interested, but my interest now is purely as an amateur.

Do you have any familiarity with Stellarium? It's a fantastic program. It really captures things well for actual observing - you can look at the program and then go out and it's very easy to use.

[MikeH]

Which is why I know more than you about Astrophysics. Nice sword. Interesting how it cuts both ways.

You may well do. It's certainly a subject where there are lots of amateurs way more knowledgeable than me. And certainly a good amount of posters here who didn't do an astrophysics degree who know more than I do.

[MikeH]

You can learn a lot of computer science on your own, but that doesn't mean that the university isn't providing a valuable service. There will probably be significant gaps in your knowledge.

Did I say the University education wasn't valuable or that it wasn't providing a valuable service? The main thing it provides is guaranteed access to equipment and experts.

Anyway the point is, an undergraduate degree gives you a good grounding and broad overview of a subject but to get serious about anything you need further education in specific areas. There's no justification for saying "I've got a BA, therefore I must know better than you".

Not sure why you think I'm insulting your degree, just overly defensive I guess.

[C0ckney]

She's number two behind her father on the 'royal executions for heresy' list.

What? It's true - she executed more than every other king save Henry VIII.

"hey guys, remember the assertion i made that was utterly destroyed a couple of pages ago? well it's back! and here i am repeating it as fact."

[Ben Kenobi]

England was ruled jointly by William and Mary, who were crowned together. Cnut fought Edmund for England, and settled for England minus Wessex.

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

should be able to see the difference.

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

William could no longer rule England jointly with Mary BECAUSE SHE DIED OF SMALLPOX DUMBARSE !!!!!!!!!!

So why then did he rule solely, without her? Again - England submitted themselves to their Dutch masters out of prejudice. Hence the irony.

Later on, after the Act of Settlement, then would again appoint a king out of prejudice, a foreign king who had never set foot in England or spoke English. Why? Because they preferred foreign dominion to native Catholic rule.

In your line of thinking then, Cnut was a usurper, clearly.

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

WRONG AGAIN. The reign of Aethelraed Unraed had been a series of disasters- he was forced into exile when Swein, Cnut's father, fought to gain England.

How is this any different from William? You claim the exact same thing. "England was incompetently ruled and so they needed to be taked over by a competent ruler."

We call this ursurpation.

Its not that the English were desperately in love with the idea of Danish rule or Danes

Why not? They seemed to love William too, didn't they? And the Hanoverians later? They preferred foriegn domination to Catholicism.

Your lack of knowledge of my education grows and grows. In any case, if you paid for your education, I suggest you ask for a refund. It was clearly money wasted, or an education obtained fraudulently.

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