Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

Lucy Worsley versus Brexit.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Hanesyddol - Historical
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 243

PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:22 pm    Post subject: Lucy Worsley versus Brexit. Reply with quote

BBC show, the 4.5 wives of Henry VIII: the analogy of Renaissance and Brexit, Church of Britain becomes free of foreign domination.

Worsley whinges and whinges and whinges. How dare Britain vote to stop priests from burning people? How dare Britain vote to stop priests raping children? All hail the Pope! All hail Donald Trump God Emperor of Political Correctness! She would say that wouldn't she?

Henry VIII is famous for religious Brexit. He is infamous for genetic Brexit.

King Haraldr Godwinson married a Brit. All the subsequent kings married foreign princesses. Edward IV and Henry VII and James II married one Brit each. Henry VIII BREXITED by marrying 4 Brits, genetic Brexit indeed.

Everyone makes a big deal of Hal and religious Brexit; no-one mentions genetic Brexit. Current royals are doing genetic Brexit too.

Marrying foreign princesses earns us no alliances these days. Harry marries Angela Merkel's daughter. Germany won't help us in negotiations.
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 2402

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:04 pm    Post subject: worsley Reply with quote

My real mother saw Lucy Worsley on a dumbed down TV history show and took an instant dislike to her. What I dislike about her is that she is irritating, and that she urged us to vote for Jane Seymour as Henry viii's top queen on the grounds that she was the only one who produced a boy who survived - at least to the age of 15.

I love Edward vi,and all my surviving kids are boys too, but this is absurd. I'd love to think boys were something special as I've made some, but the calm voice of reason tells me that:

a, girls are just as good

and

b, it is the father who determines the sex of a child; a mother can only pass on an x chromosome.

Did you know, Moritz, that Lucy Worsley is related to the Duchess of Kent nee Katherine Worsley? She and her children are a disturbing fanatical Roman Catholic enclave within the royal family. We can only hope they don't come to the throne. I will discuss the ramifications with my usual impartial fairness in a later post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 2402

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:43 am    Post subject: dicydicky Reply with quote

I notice you didn't say Richard iii Brexited genetically. So have you come round to the view that Ann Nevill was not queen?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 243

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:28 am    Post subject: Re: worsley Reply with quote

marianneh wrote:
My real mother saw Lucy Worsley on a dumbed down TV history show and took an instant dislike to her. What I dislike about her is that she is irritating, and that she urged us to vote for Jane Seymour as Henry viii's top queen on the grounds that she was the only one who produced a boy who survived - at least to the age of 15.

I love Edward vi,and all my surviving kids are boys too, but this is absurd. I'd love to think boys were something special as I've made some, but the calm voice of reason tells me that:

a, girls are just as good

and

b, it is the father who determines the sex of a child; a mother can only pass on an x chromosome.

Did you know, Moritz, that Lucy Worsley is related to the Duchess of Kent nee Katherine Worsley? She and her children are a disturbing fanatical Roman Catholic enclave within the royal family. We can only hope they don't come to the throne. I will discuss the ramifications with my usual impartial fairness in a later post.

I forgot Richard III.

This explains why her show is a non-stop Papish rant.
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2853

PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crying or Very sad

Oh - I thought that was excessive laughter but it says " cry "

Rolling Eyes

I really do find this very funny but what about those without Catholic beliefs eg like Charles or his dad ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 243

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

David Starkey even more so. He does a show about Thomas Beckett. it's Brexit all over again. Priests do celibacy at children: should they be tried by Jury or tried in the European court? Starkey totally supported celibacy. More than that he called Beckett's cause "Independence of the Church of England"???

From Starkey's POV, "Independence" - absolute domination by a foreign tyrant and antichrist.
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 2402

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:04 pm    Post subject: becket Reply with quote

We've mentioned before that Becket moved priests from one parish to another when parents complained that they had been raping their sons.Some eternal verities don't change.

I don't say that he should have been summarily slaughtered in the cathedral. He should have been dealt with by due process of the common law that Henry ii was trying to introduce. But doesn't it make you feel good to think of his last word, ''Whoreson!'' squeaked out in his proto-Cockney accent before the top of his skull was sliced off and his brain splurged out on the floor?

When Henry asked,''Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?'', it was, of course a rhetorical question. He didn't mean for two knights to go and take Becket out.It's a pity he had an attack of morbid conscience and I don't just mean submitting to public scourging. If that's what floated his boat, who cares? But he went totally belly up and gave Becket a posthumous victory.

I often say that the Roman church was like a franchise in England. Other franchises such as the County Palatine of Cheshire were also effectively independent of English law. This might sound glorious, but it really meant that the local magnate could hang his own serfs without any outside interference.

The bishopric of Durham was, of course, an ecclesiastical franchise.

Starkey is confusing us as usual. Becket wanted the Church to be independent of secular law, not independent of Rome. So a priest could commit murder, mayhem and buggery, and get off with five hail Marys.

The strange thing is that Chaucer was rather anti-clerical. He was arrested for assaulting a friar in Fleet Street. Yet he thought it worthwhile to go on pilgrimage to Becket's shrine in Canterbury. The cult of Becket was part of the fabric of English life. It gave us the word 'canter', contracted from 'the Canterbury gallop', as pilgrims spurred their horses on for the last few miles to Canterbury.

Henry viii put a stop to that nonsense at the Reformation. He dug Becket up and put him on trial. I can't now remember what happened to his corpse afterwards.

The fact is that even after the Reformation, the Catholic Church has continued to behave as if it is above secular law. Priests would be excommunicated if they confessed that they were paedophiles to the secular authorities.

Roger knew a psychologist who was approached by two women who wanted to get something off their chests. But first, they asked her if it would be totally confidential. She said that, of course, it would be.

But she had more than she bargained for. They had committed murder, and now they felt uneasy about it. She didn't have much of a struggle with her conscience. Almost immediately, she went to the police and grassed them up.

A Roman Catholic priest who did that would be defrocked and excommunicated. All confessions are under the seal of the confessional no matter what. The Church has no interest in protecting the general public from -say - a serial killer.

Catholics in Ireland - and perhaps still in Northern Ireland - have been an oppressed ethnic group. In the USA too, they were picked on by the KKK.

I can't condone this but don't know what to say when people belly ache about how awful it was that JFK has been the only Roman Catholic president of the USA, and it was hard for him to come across as a credible candidate, given the bigotry against Catholics.

Was it pure bigotry? Or was there some horse sense mixed in with it?Kennedy became an acceptable candidate only after he publicly declared that he was entirely independent of the Vatican. Perhaps the public was entitled to ask for that reassurance.

But life and people are nuanced. It's not all black and white. Here's the bad news. Henry ii was also a paedophile. He made a marriage alliance with France.A French princess, Alice was sent over to be brought up and educated with Henry's son, Richard the Lionheart.

They were supposed to marry later. They were probably both about three.Henry began shagging Alice, his son's fiancee, perhaps straight away, and kept it up throughout her childhood and youth.

It's thought that after years of sustained abuse, the arrangement led to the birth of a child. Richard the Lionheart refused to marry Alice after all as she was shop soiled.


In a historical novel, Henry's wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine asks what will it be next. Will Henry be hanging around lying in hospitals? This was the old word for maternity hospitals.

Maybe, that's why his wife and sons turned against him in the first place. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 2402

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:07 pm    Post subject: bad king john Reply with quote

King John followed his father's example and I don't mean by voluntarily expanding secular law. He had brexited genetically by marrying a woman variously known as Hawise or Isabella of Gloucester, undoubtedly because she had a lot of land.

He also brexited religiously when the Pope placed England under interdict. Or maybe it's that he was brexited.

Shortly after he and Hawise/Isabella were crowned together, John was out with his hunting birds in the Langue d'Oc. He noticed a ravishing little girl in the woods.

She was the fiancee of his vassal Hugh de Lusignan, and had been in Hugh's household since infancy for acclimatisation and educational purposes. They weren't going to marry until she grew up.

John became very excited. With the connivance of her parents, he abducted the child, Isabelle d'Angouleme, and married her, divorcing Hawise.

John's sisters had married at about eight but had not been expected to do sex things until they were 15. That was part of the arrangement. John had a Lolita like relationship with Isabelle from the beginning. He lost most of the land he held in right of his mother in the Midi, partly because he was too busy being a paedophile to look after it, and partly because he had turned Hugh and his other vassals against him.

Observers said that Isabelle looked as if she might be twelve which would then have been legal, but she was most probably about eight. Of course, John was a crap king and a terrible person at all levels. But it is said that he's given us more with his flaws than other kings did with their good sense and reliability. After all, Magna Carta is still in force, isn't it?

I note that some Muslims get sulky on websites about westerners slagging off Mohammed for marrying a nine year old when King John may have married an eight year old. There is a difference.

Mohammed is held up as a perfect figure whom the faithful should model themselves on. John, even in his own day, was reviled as a 'treacherous whelp', someone whose presence would pollute Hell itself.

You can't argue with Muslim apologists though, when they say that the Catholic Church is riddled with paedophilia. I don't see that it gets Mohammed off the hook, but let's face it. Ripping people off and abusing children is what the Catholic Church is about. The rest is just window dressing.


Last edited by marianneh on Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 2402

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:02 pm    Post subject: deliverance Reply with quote

I was in the library today. Mr Beale, who helps people with family history, was expounding to a client that Bloody Mary was the only queen whose death was ever celebrated regularly. He said it was not discontinued until Victorian times.

He might have been slightly out with the date, but our history book at school said that November 17 was celebrated for 200 years.It was advertised more as the accession day of Good Queen Bess.

No one could say that the Protestant Richard Greenham was a great poet. But the clunkiness of his verse makes it all the more moving. He recounts how the people longed for regime change throughout the charred sterile nastiness of Mary's reign.

The last Marian martyrs went to their deaths on November 11 1558.He ends:

'Six days after these were burnt to death
God sent us our Elizabeth!'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 2402

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:46 pm    Post subject: a queen in drag Reply with quote

In 2011, Roger and I received a beautiful invitation card giving us the opportunity to attend a garden party at a neighbour's house. It was to celebrate the wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton.

There were no street parties because of health and safety concerns. A purist republican might have said we shouldn't have gone. But we were touched to be asked, and we did go.

One of the other guests began to discuss with me what sex the first child of William would be. Should it be allowed to be queen if it was a girl, and then had younger brothers? Did women make good queens? I riposted jovially, ''No, a man in drag would be a much better queen!''

As the law then stood, boys took precedence, that is within the nuclear family. It could work out to an individual girl's advantage. Prince Andrew's daughters Beatrice and Eugenie, were closer to the throne than Peter Phillips, the son of his elder sister Princess Anne.

The other guest revealed that she was a Catholic. That morning, the Roman Catholic priest had been holding forth to his flock on how they didn't have equality. William was to marry Kate who was supposedly a Protestant.

In law, he could just as well marry an atheist or a Buddhist. But if he married a Roman Catholic, he would have to give up his claim to the throne. Out of politeness, I didn't argue with her.

But the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope himself had opposed an equality bill that the British parliament had been about to pass, and destroyed it. It was a radical bill which would - for instance - have allowed women to be Roman Catholic priests.

I thought, ''What are they moaning for? They oppose equality for everyone else. They can't have it both ways!'' Oh, but they can!

I was too polite to say we'd never had an evil atheist queen who set Protestants on fire. Nor had we had an evil Buddhist queen, but it could happen if Queen Aung of Burma invades the UK.

We had evidence that Roman Catholic monarchs were bad things. I remember writing in an exam essay in school that Bloody Mary might have stopped the Reformation in its tracks, if her heir had been a co-religionist. As it was, she just ensured that the country would never again tolerate a Catholic monarch.

I wasn't looking ahead to October 2011 when that nob David Cameron brought in the effective repeal of the Act of Settlement. As William and Kate's first child was a boy, George, it doesn't matter much about sex blind succession. All that happens is that the second child Charlotte will retain her place even if the third child, which will soon be born, is a boy.

I found out later that the monarch still can't be a Roman Catholic. But they can now marry one. What is wrong with this? The Roman Catholic Church demands that the Protestant or other non Catholic spouse convert. It also expects the children to be brought up in the RC church.

Charles I was an Anglican, thinking it the only religion fit for a gentleman. But his wife Henrietta Maria had a mission, backed by her mother and the Pope, to reconvert England and Scotland. She refused to attend Charles' Anglican coronation or to be crowned herself.

Once, she led a hunting party through a Protestant ceremony. She had a concessionary RC chapel, and encouraged Protestants to attend it. She also took her children along at an impressionable age.

Was it successful indoctrination? Legend has it that her son Charles ii was a secret Papist who openly converted on his deathbed. Dafydd refuses to believe this. And after he was dead, he couldn't confirm or deny it.

His brother, the future James ii, might have been softened up by his mother but it was his own spouse who brought about his conversion, shortly after going over to Rome herself. James was not faithful to Anne Hyde, but in all matters 'other than his codpiece, she led him by the nose.'

After this, they were forbidden to have charge of the religious education of their own children, Mary and Anne Stuart, and both girls had an absolute contempt for the Roman Church. Mary married her Protestant cousin William from the Netherlands. Anne later married a Danish Protestant prince.

People were grudgingly prepared to tolerate a short reign of the Catholic James, thinking the Protestant succession was safe for the future. But after the death of Anne Hyde, he married the Catholic Maria Beatrice from Italy, who was rumoured to be none other than the eldest daughter of the Pope.

She too had been primed to bring about the reconversion of Britain at all costs.
As it was too late to stop the marriage, people demonstrated, demanding that it not be consummated.

But, of course, it was. The birth of their son James Edward Stuart, was not a cause for celebration for long. It triggered invasion by William from the Netherlands, and the Glorious Revolution.

The Protestant succession was now enshrined in law. Neither James Edward Stuart nor his son Charles Edward Stuart could have any claim to the throne unless they gave up their Roman faith. And they wouldn't do that. Didn't Charles' brother Henry Benedict Stuart become a Roman Catholic cardinal?

My Croatian husband was brought up in a country where history and religion had been abolished in favour of Communism.He conflated Catholicism with Christianity. He couldn't see how you could be a Christian and not a Catholic.

We had an argument about whether Queen Elizabeth ii was a Catholic. I said she might or might not be an Anglo-Catholic, but if she became a Roman Catholic or even married one, it would be tantamount to abdication. She would no longer be queen.

Andrej argued that she must be a Catholic. She sat in front of a Christmas tree when she made the annual Christmas Day TV broadcast. I said, ''Do you think only Catholics are allowed to own Christmas trees?''
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 243

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Queen Elizabeth is not just a member of the Catholic Church, she is Head of the Catholic Church.
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 2402

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:21 pm    Post subject: pab Reply with quote

You might say that Elizabeth ii is a member of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Head of the Anglican Communion. And it may be that she tends to Anglo-Catholicism.

But she could equally be a rather doctrinaire Protestant, and still be an Anglican. Elizabeth i wanted a Church that was broad enough to encompass all these views. She never went for the extreme Protestantism of Edward vi and Lady Jane Grey.

The present queen may be a Catholic but she is not a Roman Catholic. She does not accept the sovereignty of the Pope. She is not a Papist.

I'd like to be glad that organised religion has gone into free fall. But I was surprised and not too delighted to hear the following anecdote. A friend told me
that he had heard someone aged about 50, expounding in a local pub that Lent was a Muslim festival!

Perhaps I should have been thrilled that the poison of Christianity is working its way out of our bloodstream. Instead I was perturbed. We don't need indoctrination but we could all do with an outsider's manual of what other people believe.

I thought sarcastically, ''Oh of course it's so obvious, isn't it? 'Lent' is an Arabic word!It's definitely not English is it?'' As a matter of fact, 'Passover' is linguistically an English word, so my sarcasm may be a bit misplaced.What do we call it in Welsh? 'Pasg y Iddewon' of course. Is Lent 'Grawys'? I suppose Dafydd knows.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 2402

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:43 pm    Post subject: ja Reply with quote

I read today that Jacob Rees-Mogg says that he puts loyalty to the Vatican above loyalty to the UK. I wonder if it's true?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 243

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Politician speaks the Truth.

Very rare.
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2853

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More recent history ... what do you think ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Lynette_White_Cardiff_Murder
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 243

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lent = 40 days

Quadraginta = Carawys
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Hanesyddol - Historical All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 :: 
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games