Is there still any point to the US President having to be a natural-born citizen of the United States?

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually the Hapsburgs were originally German, and Brabant was part of the "Holy Roman Empire".

They had significant ties to the Low countries going back through the House of Burgundy. Heck, the Spanish dynasty was a cadet branch. Their most famous Spanish king was born and raised in Bruges.

[molly bloom]

One wonders what Paine would have thought of the spectacle of the Dutch 'Republic' officially becoming a monarchy in 1815 through the elevation of the House of Orange.

.

Again with the almost compete absence of common sense and knowledge of Dutch history. There is no need to put republic in quotes- the Dutch had been an oligarchic republic since the 16th Century. The Stadholder was not a king in all but name, and actually represented (or was suppoprted by) those in the United Provinces who were opposed to the dominance of Amsterdam and the burgher oligarchs (simplification for the benefit of Sister Bendy).

The office of Stadholder only became hereditary in the middle part of the 18th Century- as I've previously pointed out. The Kingdom of the Netherlands was a creation of the victorious powers following the defeat of Bonaparte- and the first king of the Dutch was forced upon them by Bonaparte- as I've also previously pointed out.

Which all takes us away from the fact that you made a ridiculous statement about the Act of Settlement, failed ignominiously to quote any part of it relevant to your statement and lack the humility supposedly a constituent part of being a Christian to admit that you were, once again, spectacularly wrong.

I could be forgiven for thinking that pride was one of the seven deadly sins, what with me having had to learn my catechism and all...

[Ben Kenobi]

The Kingdom of the Netherlands was a creation of the victorious powers following the defeat of Bonaparte- and the first king of the Dutch was forced upon them by Bonaparte

Which is why the Dutch are a Republic today? Oh wait. It's been 200 years. Pretty sure they own it now. It's pretty sad when your poster boy for anti-monarchy was actually only anti Catholic.

[molly bloom]

Which is why the Dutch are a Republic today? Oh wait. It's been 200 years. Pretty sure they own it now. It's pretty sad when your poster boy for anti-monarchy was actually only anti Catholic.

'My poster boy' ? What crap. William III Orange was so anti-Catholic that he made sure Catholic private property in London and Catholic places of worship in the United Provinces were safeguarded against the attentions of less sympathetic Protestants. Also, his two main allies were Catholic Spain and Catholic Austria.

Again with the know nothing crap from you- you simply compounded your errors and lack of knowledge of Dutch history by blaming the Dutch.

You don't know anything about the situation of Catholics in the 17th and 18th Century United Provinces so instead you just come with the usual bleating about how hard done by Catholics were.

Sad, really. I've listed three rather good books which cover a multitude of aspects of Dutch and European history between the origins of the revolt and the decline of the Golden Age and later- at least two are readily available in good bookshops, and there's also an excellent biography of William and Mary that you should read.

But where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise, and you've clearly reached your version of Nirvana.

[Ben Kenobi]

'My poster boy' ? What crap. William III Orange was so anti-Catholic that he made sure Catholic private property in London and Catholic places of worship in the United Provinces were safeguarded against the attentions of less sympathetic Protestants. Also, his two main allies were Catholic Spain and Catholic Austria.

Right. Did he restore the right of Catholics to vote? No? Some 'republican'.

Again with the know nothing crap from you- you simply compounded your errors and lack of knowledge of Dutch history by blaming the Dutch.

Where do I blame the Dutch? I think they were quite enlightened by establishing a constitutional monarchy and dumping their 'Republic'.

You don't know anything about the situation of Catholics in the 17th and 18th Century United Provinces

Right. The reason I disagree with you is because I don't know what I'm talking about rather than the fact that yes, there was significant anti-Catholicism in the Dutch Republic.

so instead you just come with the usual bleating about how hard done by Catholics were.

They were.

Sad, really. I've listed three rather good books

Two written by COE clergymen and one by a communist. Yes, I'm sure they are 'reliable' sources on Catholic persecution in the United Kingdom.

But where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise, and you've clearly reached your version of Nirvana.

I find it intriguing that the best evidence you can come up with originates from the COE.

[molly bloom]

Right. Did he restore the right of Catholics to vote? No? Some 'republican'.

It would hardly have been politic to restore something only relatively recently taken away (not by him) in the light of a Catholic plot to assassinate the then King of Great Britain and a large part of Parliament- and given that Louis XIV's France was proceeding to do away completely with the Edict of Nantes and that the Catholic James II, the failed would-be autocrat was Louis' client and guest, would have been the equivalent of William wiping out his own support in Great Britain. Still, you can continue to paint William as anti-Catholic (he wasn't) because you seem by all accounts to know hardly anything about Dutch history- or William III Orange for that matter.

Where do I blame the Dutch? I think they were quite enlightened by establishing a constitutional monarchy and dumping their 'Republic'.

Oh my, how soon they forget. You came out with this classic nonsense but a short while ago, so funny I can't resist quoting it :

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. 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.

Utter unhistorical nonsense, but how very like you to blame the Dutch and Dutch history for your ignorance of them and it.

The reason I disagree with you is because I don't know what I'm talking about

Hahaha. I'll let the last gems of yours I quoted speak to that.

Two written by COE clergymen and one by a communist. Yes, I'm sure they are 'reliable' sources on Catholic persecution in the United Kingdom.

As we're discussing Dutch history, it should come as no surprise to discover I'm referring to the three works directly to do with Dutch history in its various aspects. None of which as far as I know were written by a 'communist' or Anglican clergy.

Remember C R Boxer's 'The Dutch Seaborne Empire' and Geoffrey Parker's 'The Dutch Revolt' ? When I say remember I don't mean to imply you've read them- given what you come out with it's a sure-fire thing you haven't. This is the third title : '1688 The Seaborne Alliance & Diplomatic Revolution'- proceedings of an international symposium held at the Maritime Museum in Greenwich in 1988.

I find it intriguing that the best evidence you can come up with originates from the COE.

I find it more intriguing that 'Mr. History Degree' can be so wrong about so many things so many times.

[Ben Kenobi]

It would hardly have been politic to restore something only relatively recently taken away (not by him)

Given how he owed his place on the throne to anti-Catholic prejudice, it's no wonder he would be a coward.

Louis XIV's France was proceeding to do away completely with the Edict of Nantes

And that justifies anti-Catholicism on his part? I thought you were arguing that Catholics had it good. Now I see you passing the buck.

Utter unhistorical nonsense, but how very like you to blame the Dutch and Dutch history for your ignorance of them and it.

Again, I think they were quite enlightened in ditching their 'republic' fiction. As compared to France and say, the Terror.

[molly bloom]

Given how he owed his place on the throne to anti-Catholic prejudice, it's no wonder he would be a coward.

.

Only an idiot know-nothing like you could describe William III Orange as a coward. He was neither a physical nor a moral coward and used Dutch troops to safeguard English and foreign Catholics in London. But then, you wouldn't know that.

And that justifies anti-Catholicism on his part?

I didn't use the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes to justify anything: you always act as though anti-Catholic prejudice in previous centuries just suddenly happened, with nothing and no one to cause it. When a king of England allies himself with a repressive Catholic reactionary regime overseen by an autocratic monarch who has aggressive designs on the Low Countries and the Rhineland and who furthermore has gone back on a century of toleration, don't be surprised when folks at home get a little bit worried about said English king's own Catholic faith and his autocratic tendencies. James II was actually looked at askance by a Spanish representative when he made a public show of consulting his confessor- on being questioned if that was not also the case at the Spanish court, the grandee lugubriously replied, that 'yes, and that was why Spain was so badly governed'.

I thought you were arguing that Catholics had it good.

Are you allergic to quoting me ? Or do you just not know how ? I prefer what I say, the way I say it, to your misleading and inaccurate paraphrases.

Now I see you passing the buck.

Now I see that now only are your auditory nerves defective.

Again, I think they were quite enlightened in ditching their 'republic' fiction.

It wasn't a fiction- it produced de Hooch, Grotius, Vermeer, Huyghens, Rembrandt, Spinoza, Gerrit Dou, advances in naval technology, a state bank, a stock exchange, the V.O.C. and the evenetual defeat of the Spanish Empire. Oh, and a refuge for Sephardic Jews and Huguenots expelled from rather less tolerant Catholic countries.

What, Catholic prejudice ? Say it ain't so...

The fact that you call it derisively a fiction and put 'republic' in quotes shiows just how stupid you are and how little you learn from having your previous errors rectified.

I find it intriguing that the best evidence you can come up with originates from the COE.

And further to this moronic little gem- I gave a brief account of some of Chadwick's primary sources for his book on the Reformation- published by Penguin books, not the Anglican church, by the way, and as these included the accounts of the Council of Trent and a book on the history of the Jesuits by a Roman Catholic, as well as Luther and Calvin's own works, perhaps you should just change your nom-de-plume to Big Mo Ron.

[Ben Kenobi]

Only an idiot know-nothing like you could describe William III Orange as a coward. He was neither a physical nor a moral coward and used Dutch troops to safeguard English and foreign Catholics in London. But then, you wouldn't know that.

Right. Which is why his 'republican legacy' involves granting the English Catholics the right to vote. Some Republican! He was just another king in the mold of Louis XIV - the only different is the label on the box reads 'reformed'.

I didn't use the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes to justify anything

Yeah, you did. You immediately toss it out as if to say, "look over here!" I'm not exactly sure how it's germane to the failure of supposedly 'republican' William III of Orange in granting emancipation. For a Reformer he certainly reformed little.

you always act as though anti-Catholic prejudice in previous centuries just suddenly happened, with nothing and no one to cause it.

Right - because the Catholic rank and file in England deserved to be crushed because Harry VIII wanted a divorce. What's next - blaming the Jews for Hitler?

When a king of England allies himself with a repressive Catholic reactionary regime overseen by an autocratic monarch who has aggressive designs on the Low Countries and the Rhineland and who furthermore has gone back on a century of toleration, don't be surprised when folks at home get a little bit worried about said English king's own Catholic faith

Just like the House of Orange allied with Catholic Spain and the Habsburgs?

James II was actually looked at askance by a Spanish representative when he made a public show of consulting his confessor- on being questioned if that was not also the case at the Spanish court, the grandee lugubriously replied, that 'yes, and that was why Spain was so badly governed'.

Interesting. Which undermines the case for oppression in the United Provinces.

Are you allergic to quoting me ? Or do you just not know how ? I prefer what I say, the way I say it, to your misleading and inaccurate paraphrases.

So again - the point is that Catholics were oppressed and deprived of their natural rights and presumably 'republican' William III did nothing to correct these wrongs.

It wasn't a fiction- it produced de Hooch, Grotius, Vermeer, Huyghens, Rembrandt, Spinoza, Gerrit Dou, advances in naval technology, a state bank, a stock exchange, the V.O.C. and the evenetual defeat of the Spanish Empire. Oh, and a refuge for Sephardic Jews and Huguenots expelled from rather less tolerant Catholic countries.

Why do they get credit for shepherding their co-religionists? Does France get credit for shepherding English Catholics?

The fact that you call it derisively a fiction and put 'republic' in quotes shiows just how stupid you are and how little you learn from having your previous errors rectified.

That William III is considered 'republican' despite being a king is also fiction. Fortunately William IV was far more liberal and enlightened in passing emancipation.

And further to this moronic little gem- I gave a brief account of some of Chadwick's primary sources for his book on the Reformation- published by Penguin books, not the Anglican church, by the way

Does it change the publisher the fact that he's a clergyman of the COE and thus an unreliable source on Catholicism particularly in response to the establishment of the COE?

[molly bloom]

Right. Which is why his 'republican legacy' involves granting the English Catholics the right to vote. Some Republican!

I've no idea why you keep banging about William III Orange's supposed republicanism- I've never suggested he was a republican (I think the titles Prince of Orange and King of England are somewhat more than suggestive of what he was) but that the country he was born in was a republic- which it was, and you inaccurately referred to him as the Dutch king and it as a kingdom.

He was just another king in the mold of Louis XIV - the only different is the label on the box reads 'reformed'.

No he wasn't. It's quite telling that after he was crowned king, Scotland was able to get back its original religious settlement and no longer had Anglican episcopacy foisted on it, and that Protestant Dissenters and Jews could worship openly. He had to rule with the consent of Parliament, ackowledge the Bill of Rights and respect the pre-existing English religious settlement.

So not at all like Louis XIV, you fruitcake.

[molly bloom]

Yeah, you did. You immediately toss it out as if to say, "look over here!" I'm not exactly sure how it's germane to the failure of supposedly 'republican' William III of Orange in granting emancipation. For a Reformer he certainly reformed little.

No I didn't- I mention it because it's a prime example of the kind of stupidity resulting from Catholic prejudice that benefited the states Catholic monarchies were fighting against- the Spanish expel Moriscoes and Sephardic Jews, thus enriching England, the United Provinces, Morocco and the Ottoman Empire.

France expels Huguenots thus enriching Protestant Germany, England and the United Provinces. I mention the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes because it happens to be germane to the period. Louis's bigotry was entirely detrimental to the economy of France and beneficial to those of states it was at war with.

William III Orange received funding for descent on England from Sephardic Jews and Huguenots- and Schomberg, his commander, was previously in French employ but because of his religion was forced out.


Great job, Louis.

[molly bloom]

Right - because the Catholic rank and file in England deserved to be crushed because Harry VIII wanted a divorce. What's next - blaming the Jews for Hitler?

I can't recall the crushing of the Catholic rank and file in the England of Henry VIII . By the way, do try to eschew such cliches. Oh, and avoid the urge to Godwinize.

Just like the House of Orange allied with Catholic Spain and the Habsburgs?

No idea what that's meant to mean. The Habsburgs were the enemies of the Bourbons- so was the Prince of Orange. The enemy of my enemy is my friend- certainly worked for 'Catholic' Francis I when he allowed the Turkish fleet into Toulon.

Interesting. Which undermines the case for oppression in the United Provinces.

I've no idea what that's meant to mean either.

So again - the point is that Catholics were oppressed and deprived of their natural rights and presumably 'republican' William III did nothing to correct these wrongs.

Oh, their natural rights. You're on about those again are you ? William and Mary on their coronation promised to govern

According to the statutes in Parliament agreed upon and the laws and customs of the same

and furthermore to uphold the Protestant reformed religion. Nonetheless, as I've already pointed out, and as you've clearly ignored or glossed over, William went out of his way to protect England's Roman Catholics and their property- he re-issued an order he had made immediately after arriving in England, that Papists were not to be harmed. Some bigot.

Why do they get credit for shepherding their co-religionists? Does France get credit for shepherding English Catholics?

I'm sorry, are you unwell ? I thought I was pointing out that the Dutch Republic was actually a real republic with a significant contribution to European culture and civilization. I've no idea what sheep have to do with this.

That William III is considered 'republican' despite being a king is also fiction.

I agree, and one you appear to have invented. Why, I'm not sure- because you seem largely ignorant of anything to do with William III Orange and the history of the United Provinces ?

Fortunately William IV was far more liberal and enlightened in passing emancipation.

William IV of Great Britain, do you mean ? Let's just be clear about which bit of history you're going to make mistakes about this time.

Does it change the publisher the fact that he's a clergyman of the COE and thus an unreliable source on Catholicism particularly in response to the establishment of the COE?

He's not writing as a clergyman or as a source on Catholicism- he's writing as a historian of religion, specifically in this instance on the Reformation. You're just carping on about this because you made loads of errors, you haven't read the book and you're a sore loser.



SUCKS TO BE YOU, LOSER.