14
   

Who would have been the Catholic ruler of England?

 
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 06:07 am
@saab,
Snotty son of a bitch. Your English sucks. "You" is the second person plural pronoun--the verb form you wanted was "have." You sure are a prissy, self-righteous, holier-than-thou creep.
saab
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 06:12 am
@Setanta,
Very good.
This time you corrected somebody´s English without making any mistakes in your own written English.
That has happened not only once.
You is not only second person plural, but also second person singular pronoun.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 06:17 am
@saab,
No, you're wrong. Thou is the second person singular subjective pronoun, it just is no longer used very often.

Believe it or not, you self-righteous prig, i have a right to comment on any thread at this site, with or without your approval. Your personal insults are meaningless to me.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 06:45 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
No, you're wrong.
Thou is the second person singular subjective pronoun, it just is no longer used very often.

Believe it or not, you self-righteous prig, i have a right to comment on any thread at this site, with or without your approval.
Your personal insults are meaningless to me
.
Is there any chance that u r EVER going to stop using run-on sentences??

Is it too much to ask that u say:
"Thou is the second person singular subjective pronoun; it just is no longer used very often"

or

"Thou is the second person singular subjective pronoun.

It just is no longer used very often."





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 06:53 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Snotty son of a bitch.
I think that 's daughter of a bitch, Mr. Setanta.




Setanta wrote:
Your English sucks. "You" is the second person plural pronoun--the verb form you wanted was "have."
You sure are a prissy, self-righteous, holier-than-thou creep.






David
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 06:54 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Saab's English is certainly a lot better than my Swedish.
Setanta
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 07:23 am
@OmSigDAVID,
That could well, be--i haven't paid any attention to Saab's gender, nor attempted to learn what it is.

As i speak no Swedish at all, Saab has me beat by a mile there. However, the dominant language at this site is English--not Swedish.

**********************************************

The last unchallenged Catholic monarch of England was the first Queen Mary. She had succeeded her brother Edward, who had brutally repressed Protestant dissenters--Baptists were publicly burned, for example. (One might argue that this was the policy of his bear leaders, but the effect was the same.) Mary was called Bloody Mary for much the same reason--although her motive was not the same. When Elizabeth came to the throne, she made it clear that she would have what we today call a "don't ask don't tell policy, saying that she had "no desire to make windows into men's souls." She was contemptuous of the Calvinists, soon dubbed Puritans, but she made no move to interfere with them.

She was succeeded by James I, his son Charles I, his son Charles II, and then his brother James II. I said earlier that Mary was the last unchallenged Catholic monarch of England, and the accession of James II does not refute that. His ministers would not implement any policy to make England Catholic again, and his officers would not lead the army out to impose his will, nor even to defend him. So, in 1688, he fled the country.

It doesn't matter what act may have been passed in 1701--England would have no Catholic monarch, and the English needed no act of Parliament to make that so.

This has been a wonderfully vacuous thread.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 08:54 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The last unchallenged Catholic monarch of England was the first Queen Mary.


Lady Jane Grey doesn't count as a challenge then?
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 08:55 am
@saab,
saab wrote:
What do people mean by religious.
The Americans claim we Swedes are the least religious people.
50% (last time I heard) of Americans are churchmembers.
85% of the Swedes are churchmembers. But we go to church less.
An American whatever sent people to Sweden to prove that we are not religious and it great survey was made. The Americans asked Swedes if they were religious. The majority said NO. For a Swede the word religious is very very negative and means a Biblethumbing intolerant person.
That's interesting - about the American polling group. I agree that asking about church-going habits or using the word 'religious' would not necessarily bring good poll results; rather, a simpler question, "Do you believe in God?" would have been a better choice. Actually, the only reason I can think of for polling such information is to perhaps track trends over time.

Izzy's comment about England just surprised me, since there are two or three countries I might have put in that category before England. He's most likely close to being right though. The U.S. is probably at the other end of the spectrum, frequently listed as being one of the most religious countries, I believe.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 08:56 am
@izzythepush,
No, because she wasn't the monarch--Edward was, and then Mary. You know, monarch--one person rules. And, of course, Mary was Queen after Jane Gray was dead. You won't get me to cooperate in another one of your contradiction bitch fights.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 09:04 am
@Irishk,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I don't like to published unsourced claims, but I read a survey on it quite a few years ago and can't find it. I have a lot of friends who went to work in Texas, and were astounded that many of their work colleagues expected them to go to church.

Tony Blair was frequently asked the question if he prayed with George Bush, he always ducked the answer.

Quote:
How much faith should we have in our political leaders? For once, that is not a question about spin, but about religion. If those in power claim to feel the hand of God on their shoulders, should we feel comforted, inspired or just afraid?
Tony Blair, a prime minister with Anglo-Catholic conviction, is a smart enough politician to know that, in Britain, religion does not win votes.

As soon as it mixes with political air, it tends to bring with it the whiff of hypocrisy. When Mr Blair launched the 2001 election, hymnbook in hand, against a stained glass window, the press howled their derision.

Here ended the first lesson.

When an American journalist from Vanity Fair asked the prime minister a question about belief, his former communications manager Alistair Campbell stopped the interview in its tracks: "We don't do God," he barked from the sidelines. And they didn't.


So, why is it that the British "don't do God"?

And why are American politicians apparently so much more relaxed about taking their faith into high office?

Well, firstly, of course, there's a simple matter of numbers.

Rev Barry Lynn, who runs Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, thinks that US politicians are almost bound to play the religious card, knowing that: "We have the highest church attendance rate in the western world, the highest percentage of people who believe in God, the highest percentage of people who attend religious ceremonies on a regular basis."


Most Americans really do see themselves as the Oath of Allegiance sees them: "one nation under God".
In that climate, it not only serves politicians to wear their religion on their sleeves, but on their T-shirts and any other garment that comes to hand.

Which is exactly why, in Barry Lynn's view, America's founding fathers wrote a constitution which, in its very First Amendment, erected a firewall between Church and State.

America was largely founded and peopled by religious refugees, many of whom had personally experienced the tyranny of state-sponsored religion, in Europe.

As a result, they made it unlawful for any federal government to establish or promote one faith over another, or to inhibit the free practice and expression of any individual faith. In short, although it may disturb many Conservative evangelicals to hear it, America is not a Christian country.



Its creed is liberty.

Henry's legacy

Not so the UK.

Many people now laugh at the well-meaning woolliness of the Church of England, but the fact remains that it is the religion of state.

The Queen is not, as Prince Charles has said he would like to be, "Defender of Faith", but "Defender of the Faith", the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

One of the Queen's jobs is to defend the faith

Twenty-six of her bishops have seats and voting rights in the House of Lords. No other religion is afforded this privilege.
If the US constitution formally separates Church and State, then British law formally entwines them.

And here is the real irony.

Far from making Britain a more religious place, this seems to have made it less so.

Which is precisely the effect Henry VIII was after when he devised the system, in the 16th Century. Inventing a new religion with himself at its head was Henry's way of keeping turbulent priests in their place.

To this day, the critical voice of the Anglican Church is blunted by the fact that its leading bishops are appointed by the prime minister. Very few ever bite the hand that feeds them.

Britain's Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, says we remove religion from the political landscape at our peril, because without what George W Bush once called "the vision thing", politics is reduced to short-term matters of popularity or profit.

By the same token, though, Dr Sacks is also adamant that the religious voice in politics should remain powerless.

Religion's ability to win people's hearts and minds should depend on force of argument rather than the argument of force.

Religion, he says, has at its worst been responsible for genocide, tyranny, despotism and terrorism, but always and only when it has become confused with power.

"I can't imagine anything worse than rule by religious leaders and I would have nothing to do with it. You know, in ancient Israel you had people with power called kings and you had people with no power at all called prophets. Now, can you remember the kings of Israel? I can't.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3301925.stm


izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 09:08 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

No, because she wasn't the monarch--Edward was, and then Mary. You know, monarch--one person rules. And, of course, Mary was Queen after Jane Gray was dead. You won't get me to cooperate in another one of your contradiction bitch fights.


Quote:
Lady Jane Grey (1536/1537 – 12 February 1554), also known as The Nine Days' Queen,[2] was an English noblewoman and de facto monarch of England from 10 July until 19 July 1553.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Jane_Grey

You said Mary was unchallenged, not that she was unchallenged by someone who had been crowned at a coronation. I don't wan't this to become a bitch fight, I'm just interested in the facts.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 09:17 am
@izzythepush,
The fact is that Jane Grey was promoted as Queen by an overmighty lord, Northumberland. Not only was she not formally crowned, she was rejected by the Privy Council. If you allege that she was rightful monarch by Edward's will, then she was not a challenge to Mary. If you don't take that stance, then she was not Queen. You can't have it both ways. Yes, you're just trying to pick a fight, as usual.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 10:26 am
@Setanta,
You said Mary's rule was unchallenged. That's not correct, it was challenged by Lady Jane Grey. Whether or not the challenge was successful, or whether or not she was crowned is immaterial. As is my view over her legitimacy. All that's relevant here is that she challenged Mary's claim to the throne.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just pointing out an inaccuracy. This forum is called Able2know, therefore if you see something that you don't think is 100% accurate you should challenge it, regardless of who posted it.

Someone may have come across this thread as part of their homework. If they hand in an essay that claims that Mary's rule was unchallenged, any History teacher worth their salt would pick them up on it. Now we've had this exchange, a far more accurate picture has emerged, and that same student will submit a much better essay as a result. Your last post about Northumberland and the Privy Council adds to that far more accurate picture.

As I've said before, most of the time I agree with what you post, but if I think you're not being 100% accurate I will challenge you. I expect you to do the same with my posts if you think I've posted something inaccurate.

It's not picking a fight, it's giving a more complete picture.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 10:33 am
No it's not, it's picking a fight. The official website of the British monarchy lists Jane Grey as Queen. In that case, Mary was not challenged, her legitimacy was a successful challenge to Jane Grey.

But i don't want you to have a hissy fit here . . . you're right, you're always right, how silly of me not to have known.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 10:35 am
By the way, none of your petty bullshit changes my assessment that this is a vacuous thread. After the reign of the first Queen Mary, England was not going to knowingly accept a Catholic monarch.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 10:41 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

No it's not, it's picking a fight. The official website of the British monarchy lists Jane Grey as Queen.


Does it?

Quote:
The five sovereigns of the Tudor dynasty are among the most well-known figures in Royal history. Of Welsh origin, Henry VII succeeded in ending the Wars of the Roses between the houses of Lancaster and York to found the highly successful Tudor house. Henry VII, his son Henry VIII and his three children Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I ruled for 118 eventful years.


No mention of Lady Jane Grey there, but in fairness she is listed in the brief summary alongside.

Quote:
The Tudors

Henry VII (r. 1485-1509)

Henry VIII (r.1509-1547)

Edward VI (r.1547-1553)

Lady Jane Grey (r. 10-19 July 1553)

Mary I (r.1553-1558)

Elizabeth I (r.1558-1603)


http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheTudors/TheTudors.aspx

In any event, because I challenged, you a more complete picture has emerged.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 10:43 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Saab's English is certainly a lot better than my Swedish.


She's definitely one of the posters whose opinions/information I'm most interested in reading. She often brings things to the table I wouldn't have known about, and provides a different European perspective.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 10:46 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

By the way, none of your petty bullshit changes my assessment that this is a vacuous thread.


Contrex and Fresco made that point right at the beginning. What have I posted that is innacurate. Your claim that I'm bullshitting, seems to rest solely on how you interpret 'unchallenged.' I think my interpretation is more mainstream. However, the fact that it's open to interpretation means my challenge is valid.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 10:47 am
Jesus, did you read your post before you hit submit? God what a clown. Here, i'll help you out:


From the web site you linked


The Tudors
Henry VII (r. 1485-1509)
Henry VIII (r.1509-1547)
Edward VI (r.1547-1553)
Lady Jane Grey (r. 10-19 July 1553)
Mary I (r.1553-1558)

Elizabeth I (r.1558-1603)

Her name is a "clickable" link. Fool.
 

Related Topics

A slice of English life - yours for £25m - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
A TREASURE TROVE - Discussion by Setanta
Moving to England - Question by carolinecata8b
England rocks - Discussion by Mame
NO FLY ZONE . . . IN ENGLAND ! ! ! - Discussion by Setanta
Liverpool: Attack Of The 20-Ton Spider - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Stonehenge - new theories and facts - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/04/2024 at 01:32:48