Heartland

markfiend wrote: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 wrote: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'?

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

markfiend wrote:No problem

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

lazarus corporation wrote:

markfiend wrote:No problem

Husek wrote: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 wrote:

timsinister wrote: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!

ribbons69 wrote:

timsinister wrote: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 wrote: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.

ribbons69 wrote: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!

DeWinter wrote: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.

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

markfiend wrote: Spot on.

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

DeWinter wrote:

markfiend wrote: ...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 wrote:

DeWinter wrote:
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.

DeWinter wrote: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.