History Questions to British Heartlanders

[Husek]

Well fellas, let me explain,
I'm not British, and i live far away from UK.
So i have some question to our British Heartlanders;

1) Did the Ana Bolena stuff it's a taboo, or something that the people try to not talk about?

2) In your opinion, Elizabeth I was a bastard daughter?

3) When she decided to do not gave birth, did she killed the Tudor Dynasty?

4) She was an proud to the people and a shame to the family?

Sorry if i ofended someone with this questions.

Cheers!

[markfiend]

1) I recall a folk song about Anne Boleyn's ghost from my childhood: "With her head tucked underneath her arm, she walks the bloody tower" so not a taboo, no.

2) Do you mean "was Elizabeth really Henry's daughter"? She was declared illegitimate on the execution of her mother, but I think that was more of Henry's politicking to try to get a male heir. So, no, I don't think she was truly a bastard.

3) It's a difficult one. Technically, yes, in that she was the last Tudor monarch, but it's difficult to see how (or who) she could have married. I personally think it likely that because she was unable have her childhood friend Robert Dudley (for political reasons), she was determined to have no other husband. I don't know whether that's a commonly held view or not.

4) I think she was certainly popular throughout most, if not all, of her reign. The defeat of the Spanish Armada has come to be part of the "English national myth", and there was a great flowering of English culture during her time on the throne. (Shakespeare, Marlowe, etc.) I don't know about shame to the family; there weren't a great number of her family left; she was the last of the Tudor monarchs, and the next king, James VI and I (sixth of Scotland, first of England), was only a distant cousin (the great-great-grandson (twice over) of her grandfather Henry VII -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I#Ancestry)

I don't think anyone will be offended, this all happened over 400 years ago!

[Husek]

1) I recall a folk song about Anne Boleyn's ghost from my childhood: "With her head tucked underneath her arm, she walks the bloody tower" so not a taboo, no.

2) Do you mean "was Elizabeth really Henry's daughter"? She was declared illegitimate on the execution of her mother, but I think that was more of Henry's politicking to try to get a male heir. So, no, I don't think she was truly a bastard.

3) It's a difficult one. Technically, yes, in that she was the last Tudor monarch, but it's difficult to see how (or who) she could have married. I personally think it likely that because she was unable have her childhood friend Robert Dudley (for political reasons), she was determined to have no other husband. I don't know whether that's a commonly held view or not.

4) I think she was certainly popular throughout most, if not all, of her reign. The defeat of the Spanish Armada has come to be part of the "English national myth", and there was a great flowering of English culture during her time on the throne. (Shakespeare, Marlowe, etc.) I don't know about shame to the family; there weren't a great number of her family left; she was the last of the Tudor monarchs, and the next king, James VI and I (sixth of Scotland, first of England), was only a distant cousin (the great-great-grandson (twice over) of her grandfather Henry VII -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I#Ancestry)

I don't think anyone will be offended, this all happened over 400 years ago!

Thanks for that Mark

@Bastard thing: not exactly what i mean;
Was Elizabeth a legitimate Queen? I Mean, if the king's marriage with Anne was declared null, and she just went to the throne because she was the last Tudor.
After all these things, did the people accepted her as the queen in a easy way? or she needed to 'proof her value'?

[markfiend]

No problem

Was Elizabeth a legitimate Queen? I Mean, if the king's marriage with Anne was declared null, and she just went to the throne because she was the last Tudor.
After all these things, did the people accepted her as the queen in a easy way? or she needed to 'proof her value'?

Oh I see. According to the fount of all knowledge, there didn't seem to be much opposition to her succeeding to the throne when Mary I died. I don't know is the short answer.

[timsinister]

We aren't that concerned about our history - why do you ask, Husek?

[Husek]

We aren't that concerned about our history - why do you ask, Husek?

Early on sunday, i was having a breakfast with my girl, and our main subject was: the Tudor Dynasty(Yep, we are that boring).
And suddenly these questions appear, and well, you guys, are the unique british people that i know

[lazarus corporation]

No problem

Was Elizabeth a legitimate Queen? I Mean, if the king's marriage with Anne was declared null, and she just went to the throne because she was the last Tudor.
After all these things, did the people accepted her as the queen in a easy way? or she needed to 'proof her value'?

Oh I see. According to the fount of all knowledge, there didn't seem to be much opposition to her succeeding to the throne when Mary I died. I don't know is the short answer.

Depends on who you talk to. The Pope published a papal bull granting absolution to anyone who assassinated Elizabeth, so there was huge opposition to her from the Catholics - both abroad and in England (and indeed there were multiple assassination attempts on her sponsored by the Catholic Church).

For her part, she didn't help things by torturing and burning a load of Catholics (but that seemed to be a tradition as her sister Mary had spent her reign torturing and burning loads of Protestants - so much so that she had a cocktail named after her ).

Both of them doing so in the name of the same so-called loving and merciful god.

(Presumably this is what David Cameron means when he says he wants to reassert "Christian values")

So, Husek, it was all a cross-European political/ecclesiastical row - forming part of the Reformation - with allegations and counter-allegations. The truth is lost somewhere amongst the sound bites and political manoeuvering.

[ribbons69]

We aren't that concerned about our history - why do you ask, Husek?

Indeed,it seems strange for Husek to apologise for any offence he may have given,because,let's be honest,most of us don't care about the current royal family,nevermind one from over a hundred years ago!

[Husek]

No problem

Was Elizabeth a legitimate Queen? I Mean, if the king's marriage with Anne was declared null, and she just went to the throne because she was the last Tudor.
After all these things, did the people accepted her as the queen in a easy way? or she needed to 'proof her value'?

Oh I see. According to the fount of all knowledge, there didn't seem to be much opposition to her succeeding to the throne when Mary I died. I don't know is the short answer.

Depends on who you talk to. The Pope published a papal bull granting absolution to anyone who assassinated Elizabeth, so there was huge opposition to her from the Catholics - both abroad and in England (and indeed there were multiple assassination attempts on her sponsored by the Catholic Church).

For her part, she didn't help things by torturing and burning a load of Catholics (but that seemed to be a tradition as her sister Mary had spent her reign torturing and burning loads of Protestants - so much so that she had a cocktail named after her ).

Both of them doing so in the name of the same so-called loving and merciful god.

(Presumably this is what David Cameron means when he says he wants to reassert "Christian values")

So, Husek, it was all a cross-European political/ecclesiastical row - forming part of the Reformation - with allegations and counter-allegations. The truth is lost somewhere amongst the sound bites and political manoeuvering.

Thanks for all this explanation lazarus

We aren't that concerned about our history - why do you ask, Husek?

Indeed,it seems strange for Husek to apologise for any offence he may have given,because,let's be honest,most of us don't care about the current royal family,nevermind one from over a hundred years ago!

I just had no ideia if the royal family subject was important to UK people or not, that why i've apologise.
Just as an example, nobody cares about the Brazilian history, but the people in south 'll get rly mad if you don't 'respect' their 'war heroes'.

[rian]

We have a king here, Monarc. He is stupid as f**k. No one gives a s**t about him, but we all pay him and his family via tax. Get rid of him, and what's wrong with a Rebublic? (spell?)

[DeWinter]

Well, she was queen before Britain as such existed, so while she's up there as markfiend says in the English national psyche as one of greatest, I doubt Scots history views her as kindly after she killed off that silly cow Mary and politicking in Scottish affairs for many years to prevent an alliance with the Catholic continental powers. In Ireland she was nicknamed Bloody Bess for her actions there, which she is at least said to have regretted, claiming to have sent wolves to Ireland who left her nothing but rubble and corpses. She certainly was more moderate in terms of religion than a lot of the continental monarchs of the time, and compared to her sister who managed a pretty hefty number of deaths in a brief reign. I always view her as one of the better ones. She was good for England however you look at her.

[timsinister]

We aren't that concerned about our history - why do you ask, Husek?

Indeed,it seems strange for Husek to apologise for any offence he may have given,because,let's be honest,most of us don't care about the current royal family,nevermind one from over a hundred years ago!

Too right.

[stufarq]

Was Elizabeth a legitimate Queen? I Mean, if the king's marriage with Anne was declared null, and she just went to the throne because she was the last Tudor.

An annulment of marriage doesn't make the children illegitimate either in law or in Roman Catholic doctrine. Elizabeth was still henry's daughter and therefore still his legitimate heir.

Indeed,it seems strange for Husek to apologise for any offence he may have given,because,let's be honest,most of us don't care about the current royal family,nevermind one from over a hundred years ago!

That would depend who you ask. There are many people to whom the current royal family is hugely important (and I'm talking about those who like them, not those whose jobs are dependent on them). Some of them are even more rabid than Sisters fans. But I doubt if many royalists would be offended by questions about 16th cebtury royals.

I doubt Scots history views her as kindly after she killed off that silly cow Mary and politicking in Scottish affairs for many years to prevent an alliance with the Catholic continental powers.

Again, we don't care about something that happened centuries ago - it's history and nothing more. (Actually, that's not entirely true. A lot of narrow-minded Scots do care about stuff that happened centuries ago and allow it to shape their racist views about England but I don't think Elizabeth I features heavily. In fact, most don't really know any of the history and just hate the English for the sake of it, which is rather pathetic. It's one thing that makes me ashamed to be a Scot.)

[million voices]

This has probably been covered by others but just to reiterate the obvious
Her main claim was her re-introduction of the Protestant faith after Mary I which suited the majority of English
This meant continued opposition to the Spanish and French Empires and continued independence from Continental Europe
(which is probably why we said no to the Euro)

[DeWinter]

We have a king here, Monarc. He is stupid as f**k. No one gives a s**t about him, but we all pay him and his family via tax. Get rid of him, and what's wrong with a Rebublic? (spell?)

I suppose most Swedes think like the British, that getting rid of the monarch is more trouble than it's worth. That and the idea of yet another smarmy politician doesn't sound much more enticing than an inbred aristocrat. Much like the EU was, the monarchy is safe until it puts its head above the parapet and draws attention to itself.

[markfiend]

Much like the EU was, the monarchy is safe until it puts its head above the parapet and draws attention to itself.

...which is all well and good while Liz is on the throne, but Charlie seems incapable of keeping his idiot opinions to himself.

[lazarus corporation]

EDIT: Wrong bloody thread

[markfiend]

Spot on.

[lazarus corporation]

Spot on.

It would have been, had I posted it in the right bloody thread.

[markfiend]

No matter. The thought was there.

[DeWinter]

...which is all well and good while Liz is on the throne, but Charlie seems incapable of keeping his idiot opinions to himself.

I suspect he's one of the main agitators for the lifting of the hunt ban. Not that it's policed in any serious way anyway.

[lazarus corporation]

...which is all well and good while Liz is on the throne, but Charlie seems incapable of keeping his idiot opinions to himself.

I suspect he's one of the main agitators for the lifting of the hunt ban. Not that it's policed in any serious way anyway.

I suspect you're right.

Cameron, on the other hand, will be cautious about repealing the ban. While he supports bloodsports as a default Tory position (I don't think he's a bloodsports fanatic), he's a little more canny about how this will be perceived by the public/media.

I think he'll still repeal the ban, though - like most recent Tory leaders, he will think that the need to keep the far-right of the Tory party happy out-weighs keeping the electorate on side.

[DeWinter]

I suspect you're right.

Cameron, on the other hand, will be cautious about repealing the ban. While he supports bloodsports as a default Tory position (I don't think he's a bloodsports fanatic), he's a little more canny about how this will be perceived by the public/media.

I think he'll still repeal the ban, though - like most recent Tory leaders, he will think that the need to keep the far-right of the Tory party happy out-weighs keeping the electorate on side.

Were I him, and wanted the law repealed, I'd say it's a badly drafted law with massive loopholes in it, which it is, strike it from the statute book and give it's replacement death by commitee.
I think his party have their eye on an EU referendum at the moment though, tbh. And egging the Scots on to vote for independence without seeming to do so. Maybe they'll get Maggie to front their pro-Union campaign!
Interesting Honours List though to drift back on topic a bit. Am at a bit of loss as to what the Apple chap has done to benefit the UK particularly, never mind the financial vultures.

[markfiend]

Interesting Honours List though to drift back on topic a bit. Am at a bit of loss as to what the Apple chap has done to benefit the UK particularly, never mind the financial vultures.

Same old same old I'd imagine. Contribution to Cameron's back pocket.