Discussion: How would History have changed, do you think...

Category: Discussion Forum / Teams

Report thread
Watch thread
Share this

Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next

Elliemental	20. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 8 2009, 6:10 PM EST \| Post edited: Nov 8 2009, 6:10 PM EST "I think that if she had a son no one would consider them bastards at all. Elizabeth was a girl and not an heir to the throne in normal means just another daughter, same as Mary so it would seem alright that they were fighting over who had was higher then the other. But I don't think anyone including the Pope at the time which were all political would dare to call the future king of england a bastard nor would any other countries." Elizabeth was the heir to the throne (prior to Anne`s execution). England, unlike France, has never been subject to the Salic Law which legally bars women from succeeding the throne, or genetically transmitting a claim to the throne. Its` well known now that there was an awful lot more to Anne`s downfall than her failure to produce a male heir. So we have to bear in mind that this may not have been enough to save Anne. However, I do agree with Reggie, that it may well have been taken as a sign from God that Henry`s union was lawful. I dunno, conjecture is harder than it looks! Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Reggie19	21. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 8 2009, 6:22 PM EST \| Post edited: Nov 8 2009, 6:22 PM EST "Elizabeth was the heir to the throne (prior to Anne`s execution). England, unlike France, has never been subject to the Salic Law which legally bars women from succeeding the throne, or genetically transmitting a claim to the throne. Its` well known now that there was an awful lot more to Anne`s downfall than her failure to produce a male heir. So we have to bear in mind that this may not have been enough to save Anne. However, I do agree with Reggie, that it may well have been taken as a sign from God that Henry`s union was lawful. I dunno, conjecture is harder than it looks!" Go on the French anyway, lol! But this whole "sign from God" thing is something i've also applied to Mary Tudor, the chances of her becoming Queen were extremely slim at the time when she ascended the throne, and still she did, and she became Queen of a Protestant England. To her, this may have been a sign that she was to become Queen for a reason in God's eyes, and that was to restore Roman Catholicism! I'm really not trying to bring this back down the Mary I route again, it's just a theory, not a point to argue, so don't kill me, lol! Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Elliemental	22. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 9 2009, 3:21 PM EST \| Post edited: Nov 9 2009, 3:21 PM EST I wouldn`t kill you, Reg! But yeah, Mary`s succession would`ve been construed as a sign from God, that it was time for England to return to the see of Rome. Sometimes I wish I wasn`t such a staunch atheist, its` that utter, unquestioning belief in God, and God`s mysterious workings, that i`ll never be able to comprehend. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Reggie19	23. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 9 2009, 3:37 PM EST \| Post edited: Nov 9 2009, 3:37 PM EST "I wouldn`t kill you, Reg! But yeah, Mary`s succession would`ve been construed as a sign from God, that it was time for England to return to the see of Rome. Sometimes I wish I wasn`t such a staunch atheist, its` that utter, unquestioning belief in God, and God`s mysterious workings, that i`ll never be able to comprehend. " I'm atheist too, and its these things, as well as some of the s*** that happens in the world that has made me so! Maybe because i was born a Catholic, i have a better insight into Mary's devotion to her religion, though i don't really think that's it. the only part of mass i ever liked was the music, lol! Post reply Do you find this valuable?
MsSquirrly	24. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 9 2009, 7:37 PM EST \| Post edited: Nov 9 2009, 7:37 PM EST "Would those sons (borne by Anne) have been accepted as legitimate? One of the big problems was that none of the other major European rulers accepted Henry and Anne`s marraige as lawful (it`d been declared null and void by the Pope after all). So any children concieved in that marraige were regarded as bastards (and we know that Elizabeth was). The circumstances surrounding the marraige had been so controversial, that maybe Anne would still have created more problems than she solved." If you take a look at Henry's own ancestry, you will see that there are several bastards (http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/ANCESTORS+of+the+King) and even Henry Fitzroy was being built up to be an heir when there was no son much to KoA's chagrin. It wouldn't really matter to other rulers that Henry and Anne's son was considered a bastard, he would still have been the son of Henry...as Elizabeth was. BUT Anne's place would have been far more secure. Of course, until Henry found himself a new love....then she would have to either shut up and accept it or be banished. I doubt very much that she would have lost her head as the mother of the King's son. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
henry's7thwife	25. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 12:03 AM EST "I wouldn`t kill you, Reg! But yeah, Mary`s succession would`ve been construed as a sign from God, that it was time for England to return to the see of Rome. Sometimes I wish I wasn`t such a staunch atheist, its` that utter, unquestioning belief in God, and God`s mysterious workings, that i`ll never be able to comprehend. " I have the same problem as you and reggie19. I am utterly unable to understand that female lol. Makes me dislike her. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Reggie19	26. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 6:24 AM EST "I have the same problem as you and reggie19. I am utterly unable to understand that female lol. Makes me dislike her." There are a lot of aspects of her life i can understand, i can definitely understand her actions better than Thomas More's that's for certain! And i don't dislike her, the only person of that era i do dislike is Henry VIII, maybe Richard Rich, but he was a snake! Post reply Do you find this valuable?
henry's7thwife	27. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 10:16 AM EST "There are a lot of aspects of her life i can understand, i can definitely understand her actions better than Thomas More's that's for certain! And i don't dislike her, the only person of that era i do dislike is Henry VIII, maybe Richard Rich, but he was a snake!" I can actually understand most of the Tudors. Most of them come across as very human. My favourites are Elizabeth I and Wyatt. I guess the problem I have with Mary is that I compare her to Elizabeth (she was not dependent on men for advice). I guess that doesn't make sense but that's the way I look at it. I mean, power all given to you in a platter and all you want is to run around asking men what to do! Sorry lol she offends the feminist in me :D. I do accept the burnings (not really, but i understand) but it was not even a political statement. It comes across as she was at the end of the rope and she thought burning a few heretics might help! I can give her credit for trying to stabilize the currency, though. I do not dislike Henry ... his problem was that he was very aware of his power and everyone else did feed that power making him feel omnipotent. The result was unavoidable. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Reggie19	28. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 12:37 PM EST \| Post edited: Nov 10 2009, 12:40 PM EST "I can actually understand most of the Tudors. Most of them come across as very human. My favourites are Elizabeth I and Wyatt. I guess the problem I have with Mary is that I compare her to Elizabeth (she was not dependent on men for advice). I guess that doesn't make sense but that's the way I look at it. I mean, power all given to you in a platter and all you want is to run around asking men what to do! I do accept the burnings (not really, but i understand) but it was not even a political statement. It comes across as she was at the end of the rope and she thought burning a few heretics might help!" I LOVE Thomas Wyatt, of course you can probably already tell that by my avatar. Just that there was someone in Henry's court that wasn't ambitious, breath of fresh air to me. Hopefully this link will interest you: http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/Members+of+Team+Wyatt%2F+King ETR has made this point in another thread, that you can't compare Mary to Elizabeth, because it's like comparing apples to oranges, both are fruit, but quite different, apples have yet to squirt me with citric acid in the eye! Both were raised in different circumstances, their teachings speak a lot about their approaches to the crown. Mary was taught by this close-minded, sexist (by our accounts) Vives character, but Elizabeth received the teachings of a Renaissance Princess, which gave her a much broader perspective! Someone else will probably elaborate better on this! As long as people can understand Mary, then that in itself is a step away from the villified image of her. I do feel, to an extent, that the burnings were a last ditch attempt effort as well, after all she only started doing them the last two years of her reign. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Elliemental	29. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 1:56 PM EST I`m nit-picking here, but Elizabeth depended heavilty on her coucil, who were of course, exclusively male. She never did anything without consulting them, but ofcourse, as Queen, the final decision was always hers. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
henry's7thwife	30. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 2:13 PM EST "I`m nit-picking here, but Elizabeth depended heavilty on her coucil, who were of course, exclusively male. She never did anything without consulting them, but ofcourse, as Queen, the final decision was always hers." You are right. But it was their job to advise her. And this was the case with all monarchs (including Henry). So it does not fall in the same category. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Elliemental	31. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 2:30 PM EST "You are right. But it was their job to advise her. And this was the case with all monarchs (including Henry). So it does not fall in the same category." Ofcourse, but it shows that she did need advice from others, and that those others were mostly men. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
CarolineZ	32. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 2:30 PM EST "I wouldn`t kill you, Reg! But yeah, Mary`s succession would`ve been construed as a sign from God, that it was time for England to return to the see of Rome. Sometimes I wish I wasn`t such a staunch atheist, its` that utter, unquestioning belief in God, and God`s mysterious workings, that i`ll never be able to comprehend. " I'm not trying to be a jerk (really) but while I am always struck at religious people's absolute faith in a personal god, I am also struck by the vigorousness of the conviction of atheists that there is no god. How can you be that sure about it? Maybe you are more of agnostic? I would be interested in any comment you would have. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Reggie19	33. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 2:54 PM EST I think it's very important to remember that feminism did not exist during the 16th Century, so we can't really base an opinion on Mary for that. They were exceptional women such as Anne Boleyn, and her daughter, but at the end of the day, they all relied on men as well! Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Brooke9/7	34. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 3:18 PM EST \| Post edited: Nov 10 2009, 3:20 PM EST "Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase." - Martin Luther King Jr. Others may not agree, but I believe this statement works well for aethiests as well as monotheists. As far as I know, in the 16th century, "natural sons and daughters" of rulers were given appropriate state and lands for their exalted rank as children of the sovereign (as MsSquirrly said), and were oftentimes as good or better in marriage negotiations. For example, Caterina Sforza, Countess of Forli was the natural (bastard) daughter of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, Duke of Milan and Lucrezia Landriani, the wife of the courtier Gian Piero Landriani, a courtier. She went on to marry a nephew of Pope Sixtus, Girolamo Riario. This match strengthened ties between the Milanese territories and the Papal states against their enemies. The Duke of Milan, her powerful warrior father had legitimate daughters (Anna Maria and Bianca Maria) who married a Duke and Holy Roman Emperor, respectively. Sorry....back to Anne B's technicality-ridden legitimate issue: I believe that even an illiegitimate (in the eyes of Christendom) healthy prince was still a son of the king and legitimate in the eyes and laws of the king and realm, and therefore would have become heir to the throne. What a cute little Henry the Ninth he would have been... ;-). Hopefully he would have thrived and become a strong, benevolent, humanist king in the tradition of the Renaissance as it flowered in the north. Maybe he would have taken a clue from his grandfather and been more circumspect in his financial affairs than his father. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Elliemental	35. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 3:45 PM EST "I'm not trying to be a jerk (really) but while I am always struck at religious people's absolute faith in a personal god, I am also struck by the vigorousness of the conviction of atheists that there is no god. How can you be that sure about it? Maybe you are more of agnostic? I would be interested in any comment you would have. " I`ve got to be honest, I have been raised as an atheist by my parents, so I haven`t come to atheism by myself, so you could argue i`m just as `brainwashed` as any `theist`. However, I can`t prove that God doesn`t exist, you can`t prove a negative. My continued non-belief is based purely on scientific advancements that contradict the bible. And it`s not only science that contradicts the bible, the bible contradicts itself. We`ll all be familiar with Deuteronomy and Leviticus, one says its okay to marry your brother`s wife, the other says you`ll be cursed with childlessness if you marry your brother`s wife. This contradiction caused a bit of a ruckus, back in the 16th century, I believe, with some vaguely famous King. But thats the bible, and the bible was written by man, just like all religion is the creation of man. I should tackle deities separately to the Holy Books. My disbeleif in creationism (and God) boils down to simple logic. It makes no sense that the whole universe, and everything in it was magicked into existence by this God figure. There is absolutely no evidence that this what happened. There is no evidence to support the existence of God (besides the word of the bible, which was written by man). There is however, a much more logical alternative to all this superstition, and though it may not be perfect, its` pretty close to being proof. Evolution is a demonstrable theory of how life began etc, etc. You can see how it works. Thats what it boils down to for me, anyway. As for Agnosticism, it doesn`t apply to me personally. I`m not hanging around waiting for proof of God, or some sign that God exists. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Elliemental	36. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 3:48 PM EST ...continued...I`m not open to the existence of God (quite narrow minded, really). And thats the fundamental difference between Atheists and Agnostics. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
CarolineZ	37. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 3:51 PM EST "...continued...I`m not open to the existence of God (quite narrow minded, really). And thats the fundamental difference between Atheists and Agnostics." Thanks for opening your mind to us--very interesting remarks. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Elliemental	38. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 3:58 PM EST "Thanks for opening your mind to us--very interesting remarks. " Sorry for going on a bit there, normally can`t say anything as straight as a stick, and go off on tangents as I try to organise the jumbled up, non-sense that clutters my tiny mind! Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Brooke9/7	39. RE: How would History have changed, do you think... Nov 10 2009, 4:18 PM EST "Sorry for going on a bit there, normally can`t say anything as straight as a stick, and go off on tangents as I try to organise the jumbled up, non-sense that clutters my tiny mind!" Quite the contrary! You have explained your beliefs very well. I also agree with you about evolution and that earth's geological proofs are an absolute refutation of Genesis and Creationism as whole. I am simply too reliant on physical evidence to believe the world was made in 7 days. The bible is mainly a basis for tradition. It is right on about Faith (in diety, oneself, fate, family) being one of the most powerful forces on earth. It ranks up there with Love! Post reply Do you find this valuable?

Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next

JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to contribute to this site.
To start contributing, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options, then try again.

Home