Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

bumptious britons

Expand Messages
  • __ a n n e___
    anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems
    Message 1 of 11 , Dec 1, 2009
      anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.

      we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.


      should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
      inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.

      we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.


      william rufus faced widespread
      unpopularity.... in 1100 he was found dead...
      a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?

      we know of king
      john's clashes with his titled subjects


      henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort...at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne


      edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.


      richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned



      henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
      the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york
    • Bill Ramsay
      Hi Anne   Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of bad ends have been partly due to the book A Tale of Two Cities? Who wrote
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 1, 2009
        Hi Anne
         
        Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of "bad ends" have been partly due to the book "A Tale of Two Cities?" Who wrote that BTW, Dickens?
         
        And others incl. France have had their share of regicides or just plain "career ending capers" - just whipping a few off the top of my head, Henri IV of France, knife assault 1610?, a Valois king about 1559 (Francis?) jousting accident, King Harald of old Anglo-Saxon England 1066, King Humberto of Italy 1900 due to an Anarchist, Tsars Alexander II in 1881 (Anarchists) & Nikolai II 1918 (Bolsheviks), Franz Ferdinand (Crown Prince equivalent of Austria-Hungary 1914 (spy plot), several US Presidents (JFK-1963, ne'er do well "whiner" & possible spy plot; McKinley 1901-Anarchist; Garfield 1881 sore loser in job market; Lincoln 1865 anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer), Hendrik Voerword (South Africa, knifed in the belly in about 1967, did he set up apartheid in 1949 or something?), and on and on.
         
        You also mention Charles II as being beheaded ("frisson paragraph) - might you mean Charles I?
         
        Also, what about assassination risks of Elizabeth I? What also about Richard III (d. 1485)? Bosworth Field? What also about those two legendary small princes supposedly found in a Tower jail cell? What about the fate of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587?
         
        And what about the assassination dangers of Japanese high officials in the 1930's and 1940's? Domestic terrorism was rampant then, as well. The country's direction toward war was often accomplished by "tinder angry" field grade officers in the military hierarchy, usually The Army. The assassins would immediately aftewards commit seppuku, or hara kiri suicide. One reason that Adm. Yamamoto of Pearl Harbor infamy was moved to leadership of The Combined Fleet was that the Adm. was a "dove" toward war w/America. If Yamamoto had stayed w/the General Naval Staff in Tokyo, he well might have been assassinated himself! And domestic terrorism nearly touched The Emperor as well. An Army Major touched off an attempted coup d'etat when The Emperor had recorded a speech to end WW2 for Japan. The Commandant, commanding General of the Tokyo Military District was killed in THAT attempt. And yes, again, the Major among others committed seppuku on the Imperial Palace grounds less than a day before The Emperor's surrender speech.
         
        If this be "bumptious Britons", I'd say a whole lot of the rest of the world fits the same category. And it would seem that the late King Humberto had things the most accurate.
         
        Just my 2 cents' worth!
         
        Bill
         
        Pondering all the above added examples, might a remark attributed to King Humberto be accurate? His final assassination fate was not the 1st attempt on the good King's life. Another previous attempt had failed, and the King calmly said something like "it's a risk of the job!"


        --- On Tue, 12/1/09, __ a n n e___ <jn1947@...> wrote:

        From: __ a n n e___ <jn1947@...>
        Subject: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
        To: "sceptred" <sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 11:18 AM

         
        anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.

        we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.

        should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
        inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.

        we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.

        william rufus faced widespread
        unpopularity. ... in 1100 he was found dead...
        a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?

        we know of king
        john's clashes with his titled subjects

        henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort.. .at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne

        edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.

        richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned

        henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
        the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york


      • Kevin O'Malley
        Bill,   I think you covererd just about every head of state assasination in world history. One thing though - with Lincoln s killer... anti-Civil Rights
        Message 3 of 11 , Dec 1, 2009
          Bill,
           
          I think you covererd just about every head of state assasination in world history. One thing though - with Lincoln's killer..."anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer".
          I never heard of Booth described so colorfully - did they even use the words anti civil rights in the 1860s? LOL
           
          Kevin

          "I can only say that I am a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation"
          -General Robert E. Lee, 1864


          --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@...> wrote:

          From: Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@...>
          Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
          To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 2:52 PM



          Hi Anne
           
          Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of "bad ends" have been partly due to the book "A Tale of Two Cities?" Who wrote that BTW, Dickens?
           
          And others incl. France have had their share of regicides or just plain "career ending capers" - just whipping a few off the top of my head, Henri IV of France, knife assault 1610?, a Valois king about 1559 (Francis?) jousting accident, King Harald of old Anglo-Saxon England 1066, King Humberto of Italy 1900 due to an Anarchist, Tsars Alexander II in 1881 (Anarchists) & Nikolai II 1918 (Bolsheviks), Franz Ferdinand (Crown Prince equivalent of Austria-Hungary 1914 (spy plot), several US Presidents (JFK-1963, ne'er do well "whiner" & possible spy plot; McKinley 1901-Anarchist; Garfield 1881 sore loser in job market; Lincoln 1865 anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer), Hendrik Voerword (South Africa, knifed in the belly in about 1967, did he set up apartheid in 1949 or something?), and on and on.
           
          You also mention Charles II as being beheaded ("frisson paragraph) - might you mean Charles I?
           
          Also, what about assassination risks of Elizabeth I? What also about Richard III (d. 1485)? Bosworth Field? What also about those two legendary small princes supposedly found in a Tower jail cell? What about the fate of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587?
           
          And what about the assassination dangers of Japanese high officials in the 1930's and 1940's? Domestic terrorism was rampant then, as well. The country's direction toward war was often accomplished by "tinder angry" field grade officers in the military hierarchy, usually The Army. The assassins would immediately aftewards commit seppuku, or hara kiri suicide. One reason that Adm. Yamamoto of Pearl Harbor infamy was moved to leadership of The Combined Fleet was that the Adm. was a "dove" toward war w/America. If Yamamoto had stayed w/the General Naval Staff in Tokyo, he well might have been assassinated himself! And domestic terrorism nearly touched The Emperor as well. An Army Major touched off an attempted coup d'etat when The Emperor had recorded a speech to end WW2 for Japan. The Commandant, commanding General of the Tokyo Military District was killed in THAT attempt. And yes, again, the Major among others committed seppuku on the Imperial Palace grounds less than a day before The Emperor's surrender speech.
           
          If this be "bumptious Britons", I'd say a whole lot of the rest of the world fits the same category. And it would seem that the late King Humberto had things the most accurate.
           
          Just my 2 cents' worth!
           
          Bill
           
          Pondering all the above added examples, might a remark attributed to King Humberto be accurate? His final assassination fate was not the 1st attempt on the good King's life. Another previous attempt had failed, and the King calmly said something like "it's a risk of the job!"


          --- On Tue, 12/1/09, __ a n n e___ <jn1947@...> wrote:

          From: __ a n n e___ <jn1947@...>
          Subject: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
          To: "sceptred" <sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com>
          Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 11:18 AM

           
          anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.

          we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.

          should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
          inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.

          we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.

          william rufus faced widespread
          unpopularity. ... in 1100 he was found dead...
          a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?

          we know of king
          john's clashes with his titled subjects

          henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort.. .at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne

          edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.

          richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned

          henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
          the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york





        • stephenmlark
          Good correction, Bill. There is now an OFFICIAL Stuarts thread, chums, and it will cover a lot more than 30 January 1649.
          Message 4 of 11 , Dec 1, 2009
            Good correction, Bill.

            There is now an OFFICIAL Stuarts thread, chums, and it will cover a lot more than 30 January 1649.

            --- In sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Anne
            >  
            > Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of "bad ends" have been partly due to the book "A Tale of Two Cities?" Who wrote that BTW, Dickens?
            >  
            > And others incl. France have had their share of regicides or just plain "career ending capers" - just whipping a few off the top of my head, Henri IV of France, knife assault 1610?, a Valois king about 1559 (Francis?) jousting accident, King Harald of old Anglo-Saxon England 1066, King Humberto of Italy 1900 due to an Anarchist, Tsars Alexander II in 1881 (Anarchists) & Nikolai II 1918 (Bolsheviks), Franz Ferdinand (Crown Prince equivalent of Austria-Hungary 1914 (spy plot), several US Presidents (JFK-1963, ne'er do well "whiner" & possible spy plot; McKinley 1901-Anarchist; Garfield 1881 sore loser in job market; Lincoln 1865 anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer), Hendrik Voerword (South Africa, knifed in the belly in about 1967, did he set up apartheid in 1949 or something?), and on and on.
            >  
            > You also mention Charles II as being beheaded ("frisson paragraph) - might you mean Charles I?
            >  
            > Also, what about assassination risks of Elizabeth I? What also about Richard III (d. 1485)? Bosworth Field? What also about those two legendary small princes supposedly found in a Tower jail cell? What about the fate of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587?
            >  
            > And what about the assassination dangers of Japanese high officials in the 1930's and 1940's? Domestic terrorism was rampant then, as well. The country's direction toward war was often accomplished by "tinder angry" field grade officers in the military hierarchy, usually The Army. The assassins would immediately aftewards commit seppuku, or hara kiri suicide. One reason that Adm. Yamamoto of Pearl Harbor infamy was moved to leadership of The Combined Fleet was that the Adm. was a "dove" toward war w/America. If Yamamoto had stayed w/the General Naval Staff in Tokyo, he well might have been assassinated himself! And domestic terrorism nearly touched The Emperor as well. An Army Major touched off an attempted coup d'etat when The Emperor had recorded a speech to end WW2 for Japan. The Commandant, commanding General of the Tokyo Military District was killed in THAT attempt. And yes, again, the Major among others committed seppuku on the Imperial Palace
            > grounds less than a day before The Emperor's surrender speech.
            >  
            > If this be "bumptious Britons", I'd say a whole lot of the rest of the world fits the same category. And it would seem that the late King Humberto had things the most accurate.
            >  
            > Just my 2 cents' worth!
            >  
            > Bill
            >  
            > Pondering all the above added examples, might a remark attributed to King Humberto be accurate? His final assassination fate was not the 1st attempt on the good King's life. Another previous attempt had failed, and the King calmly said something like "it's a risk of the job!"
            >
            >
            > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, __ a n n e___ <jn1947@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > From: __ a n n e___ <jn1947@...>
            > Subject: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
            > To: "sceptred" <sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com>
            > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 11:18 AM
            >
            >
            >  
            >
            >
            >
            > anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.
            >
            > we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.
            >
            > should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
            > inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.
            >
            > we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.
            >
            > william rufus faced widespread
            > unpopularity. ... in 1100 he was found dead...
            > a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?
            >
            > we know of king
            > john's clashes with his titled subjects
            >
            > henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort.. .at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne
            >
            > edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.
            >
            > richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned
            >
            > henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
            > the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york
            >
          • sweethelly2003
            Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, maybe part of the frisson was that one of them was a woman. I suspect that there would be alot more contemporary
            Message 5 of 11 , Dec 1, 2009
              Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, maybe part of the frisson was that one of them was a woman.

              I suspect that there would be alot more contemporary accounts written of that era than some of the earlier eras.

              Though, of cause, there was alot of writings for the English Civil War. I think that Charles II later voiced the opinion that alot of the trouble was caused by the Grammar Schools etc.

              These lower orders being able to read, write and think about matters. Quite disgusting (tongue firmly in cheek).

              Helen

              --- In sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Anne
              >  
              > Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of "bad ends" have been partly due to the book "A Tale of Two Cities?" Who wrote that BTW, Dickens?
              >  
              > And others incl. France have had their share of regicides or just plain "career ending capers" - just whipping a few off the top of my head, Henri IV of France, knife assault 1610?, a Valois king about 1559 (Francis?) jousting accident, King Harald of old Anglo-Saxon England 1066, King Humberto of Italy 1900 due to an Anarchist, Tsars Alexander II in 1881 (Anarchists) & Nikolai II 1918 (Bolsheviks), Franz Ferdinand (Crown Prince equivalent of Austria-Hungary 1914 (spy plot), several US Presidents (JFK-1963, ne'er do well "whiner" & possible spy plot; McKinley 1901-Anarchist; Garfield 1881 sore loser in job market; Lincoln 1865 anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer), Hendrik Voerword (South Africa, knifed in the belly in about 1967, did he set up apartheid in 1949 or something?), and on and on.
              >  
              > You also mention Charles II as being beheaded ("frisson paragraph) - might you mean Charles I?
              >  
              > Also, what about assassination risks of Elizabeth I? What also about Richard III (d. 1485)? Bosworth Field? What also about those two legendary small princes supposedly found in a Tower jail cell? What about the fate of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587?
              >  
              > And what about the assassination dangers of Japanese high officials in the 1930's and 1940's? Domestic terrorism was rampant then, as well. The country's direction toward war was often accomplished by "tinder angry" field grade officers in the military hierarchy, usually The Army. The assassins would immediately aftewards commit seppuku, or hara kiri suicide. One reason that Adm. Yamamoto of Pearl Harbor infamy was moved to leadership of The Combined Fleet was that the Adm. was a "dove" toward war w/America. If Yamamoto had stayed w/the General Naval Staff in Tokyo, he well might have been assassinated himself! And domestic terrorism nearly touched The Emperor as well. An Army Major touched off an attempted coup d'etat when The Emperor had recorded a speech to end WW2 for Japan. The Commandant, commanding General of the Tokyo Military District was killed in THAT attempt. And yes, again, the Major among others committed seppuku on the Imperial Palace
              > grounds less than a day before The Emperor's surrender speech.
              >  
              > If this be "bumptious Britons", I'd say a whole lot of the rest of the world fits the same category. And it would seem that the late King Humberto had things the most accurate.
              >  
              > Just my 2 cents' worth!
              >  
              > Bill
              >  
              > Pondering all the above added examples, might a remark attributed to King Humberto be accurate? His final assassination fate was not the 1st attempt on the good King's life. Another previous attempt had failed, and the King calmly said something like "it's a risk of the job!"
              >
              >
              > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, __ a n n e___ <jn1947@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > From: __ a n n e___ <jn1947@...>
              > Subject: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
              > To: "sceptred" <sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com>
              > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 11:18 AM
              >
              >
              >  
              >
              >
              >
              > anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.
              >
              > we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.
              >
              > should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
              > inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.
              >
              > we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.
              >
              > william rufus faced widespread
              > unpopularity. ... in 1100 he was found dead...
              > a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?
              >
              > we know of king
              > john's clashes with his titled subjects
              >
              > henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort.. .at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne
              >
              > edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.
              >
              > richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned
              >
              > henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
              > the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york
              >
            • Bill Ramsay
              Hi Stephen   Glad I could help!   I also take note of your reference to 30 January. I m assuming that was the day The King lost his head . Your phrasing
              Message 6 of 11 , Dec 2, 2009
                Hi Stephen
                 
                Glad I could help!
                 
                I also take note of your reference to 30 January. I'm assuming that was "the day" The King "lost his head". Your phrasing also has that "feel of foreboding" - doom tone to it. So let's "fast forward" some 284 years, to 1933. Hmm! 30 January. That's the day a "bumptious" type became Chancellor in Germany, namely Herr Hitler! Somehow, I just don't like that day of 30 January!
                 
                I think we'll find lots to talk about w/the Stuarts!
                 
                Bill

                --- On Tue, 12/1/09, stephenmlark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

                From: stephenmlark <stephenmlark@...>
                Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: bumptious britons
                To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 3:47 PM

                 
                Good correction, Bill.

                There is now an OFFICIAL Stuarts thread, chums, and it will cover a lot more than 30 January 1649.

                --- In sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@ ...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi Anne
                >  
                > Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of "bad ends" have been partly due to the book "A Tale of Two Cities?" Who wrote that BTW, Dickens?
                >  
                > And others incl. France have had their share of regicides or just plain "career ending capers" - just whipping a few off the top of my head, Henri IV of France, knife assault 1610?, a Valois king about 1559 (Francis?) jousting accident, King Harald of old Anglo-Saxon England 1066, King Humberto of Italy 1900 due to an Anarchist, Tsars Alexander II in 1881 (Anarchists) & Nikolai II 1918 (Bolsheviks) , Franz Ferdinand (Crown Prince equivalent of Austria-Hungary 1914 (spy plot), several US Presidents (JFK-1963, ne'er do well "whiner" & possible spy plot; McKinley 1901-Anarchist; Garfield 1881 sore loser in job market; Lincoln 1865 anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer) , Hendrik Voerword (South Africa, knifed in the belly in about 1967, did he set up apartheid in 1949 or something?), and on and on.
                >  
                > You also mention Charles II as being beheaded ("frisson paragraph) - might you mean Charles I?
                >  
                > Also, what about assassination risks of Elizabeth I? What also about Richard III (d. 1485)? Bosworth Field? What also about those two legendary small princes supposedly found in a Tower jail cell? What about the fate of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587?
                >  
                > And what about the assassination dangers of Japanese high officials in the 1930's and 1940's? Domestic terrorism was rampant then, as well. The country's direction toward war was often accomplished by "tinder angry" field grade officers in the military hierarchy, usually The Army. The assassins would immediately aftewards commit seppuku, or hara kiri suicide. One reason that Adm. Yamamoto of Pearl Harbor infamy was moved to leadership of The Combined Fleet was that the Adm. was a "dove" toward war w/America. If Yamamoto had stayed w/the General Naval Staff in Tokyo, he well might have been assassinated himself! And domestic terrorism nearly touched The Emperor as well. An Army Major touched off an attempted coup d'etat when The Emperor had recorded a speech to end WW2 for Japan. The Commandant, commanding General of the Tokyo Military District was killed in THAT attempt. And yes, again, the Major among others committed seppuku on the Imperial Palace
                > grounds less than a day before The Emperor's surrender speech.
                >  
                > If this be "bumptious Britons", I'd say a whole lot of the rest of the world fits the same category. And it would seem that the late King Humberto had things the most accurate.
                >  
                > Just my 2 cents' worth!
                >  
                > Bill
                >  
                > Pondering all the above added examples, might a remark attributed to King Humberto be accurate? His final assassination fate was not the 1st attempt on the good King's life. Another previous attempt had failed, and the King calmly said something like "it's a risk of the job!"
                >
                >
                > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, __ a n n e___ <jn1947@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > From: __ a n n e___ <jn1947@...>
                > Subject: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                > To: "sceptred" <sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com>
                > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 11:18 AM
                >
                >
                >  
                >
                >
                >
                > anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.
                >
                > we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.
                >
                > should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
                > inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.
                >
                > we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.
                >
                > william rufus faced widespread
                > unpopularity. ... in 1100 he was found dead...
                > a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?
                >
                > we know of king
                > john's clashes with his titled subjects
                >
                > henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort.. .at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne
                >
                > edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.
                >
                > richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned
                >
                > henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
                > the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york
                >


              • Bill Ramsay
                Was the phrase used in the 1860 s? I doubt it! I just added that tidbit based on History Channel accounts where Booth s rage moved from kidnapping to
                Message 7 of 11 , Dec 2, 2009
                  Was the phrase used in the 1860's? I doubt it! I just added that tidbit based on History Channel accounts where Booth's rage moved from kidnapping to deliberate murder. Booth was reported to have been in the crowd before the White House when Lincoln talked about giving black folks the vote - and Booth was dead set against blacks having the vote! So thus, the "anti civil rights" label. I don't think that fact is generally known.
                   
                  As far as all human history? No, I don't think so! LOL I forgot some Russian ones, like Paul in 1801, Peter III of 1763, and several before that. I think Peter Veliky (Peter the Great) also was responsible for some, like his relation Sophia, was it? Or take Peter's own son. So back in those days, folks truly "played for keeps"!
                   
                  And I'm sure there have been others as well.
                   
                  Bill

                  --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Kevin O'Malley <brerkev@...> wrote:

                  From: Kevin O'Malley <brerkev@...>
                  Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                  To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 3:24 PM

                   
                  Bill,
                   
                  I think you covererd just about every head of state assasination in world history. One thing though - with Lincoln's killer..."anti- Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer" .
                  I never heard of Booth described so colorfully - did they even use the words anti civil rights in the 1860s? LOL
                   
                  Kevin

                  "I can only say that I am a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation"
                  -General Robert E. Lee, 1864


                  --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                  From: Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@ yahoo.com>
                  Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                  To: sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com
                  Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 2:52 PM



                  Hi Anne
                   
                  Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of "bad ends" have been partly due to the book "A Tale of Two Cities?" Who wrote that BTW, Dickens?
                   
                  And others incl. France have had their share of regicides or just plain "career ending capers" - just whipping a few off the top of my head, Henri IV of France, knife assault 1610?, a Valois king about 1559 (Francis?) jousting accident, King Harald of old Anglo-Saxon England 1066, King Humberto of Italy 1900 due to an Anarchist, Tsars Alexander II in 1881 (Anarchists) & Nikolai II 1918 (Bolsheviks) , Franz Ferdinand (Crown Prince equivalent of Austria-Hungary 1914 (spy plot), several US Presidents (JFK-1963, ne'er do well "whiner" & possible spy plot; McKinley 1901-Anarchist; Garfield 1881 sore loser in job market; Lincoln 1865 anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer) , Hendrik Voerword (South Africa, knifed in the belly in about 1967, did he set up apartheid in 1949 or something?), and on and on.
                   
                  You also mention Charles II as being beheaded ("frisson paragraph) - might you mean Charles I?
                   
                  Also, what about assassination risks of Elizabeth I? What also about Richard III (d. 1485)? Bosworth Field? What also about those two legendary small princes supposedly found in a Tower jail cell? What about the fate of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587?
                   
                  And what about the assassination dangers of Japanese high officials in the 1930's and 1940's? Domestic terrorism was rampant then, as well. The country's direction toward war was often accomplished by "tinder angry" field grade officers in the military hierarchy, usually The Army. The assassins would immediately aftewards commit seppuku, or hara kiri suicide. One reason that Adm. Yamamoto of Pearl Harbor infamy was moved to leadership of The Combined Fleet was that the Adm. was a "dove" toward war w/America. If Yamamoto had stayed w/the General Naval Staff in Tokyo, he well might have been assassinated himself! And domestic terrorism nearly touched The Emperor as well. An Army Major touched off an attempted coup d'etat when The Emperor had recorded a speech to end WW2 for Japan. The Commandant, commanding General of the Tokyo Military District was killed in THAT attempt. And yes, again, the Major among others committed seppuku on the Imperial Palace grounds less than a day before The Emperor's surrender speech.
                   
                  If this be "bumptious Britons", I'd say a whole lot of the rest of the world fits the same category. And it would seem that the late King Humberto had things the most accurate.
                   
                  Just my 2 cents' worth!
                   
                  Bill
                   
                  Pondering all the above added examples, might a remark attributed to King Humberto be accurate? His final assassination fate was not the 1st attempt on the good King's life. Another previous attempt had failed, and the King calmly said something like "it's a risk of the job!"


                  --- On Tue, 12/1/09, __ a n n e___ <jn1947@yahoo. com> wrote:

                  From: __ a n n e___ <jn1947@yahoo. com>
                  Subject: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                  To: "sceptred" <sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com>
                  Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 11:18 AM

                   
                  anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.

                  we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.

                  should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
                  inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.

                  we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.

                  william rufus faced widespread
                  unpopularity. ... in 1100 he was found dead...
                  a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?

                  we know of king
                  john's clashes with his titled subjects

                  henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort.. .at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne

                  edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.

                  richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned

                  henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
                  the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york






                • Kevin O'Malley
                  Bill,   True, but I think it was more than civil rights . Most history narratives describe Booth as anti-abolition (and the only one in his family with
                  Message 8 of 11 , Dec 2, 2009
                    Bill,
                     
                    True, but I think it was more than "civil rights". Most history narratives describe Booth as "anti-abolition" (and the only one in his family with these sympathies), meaning that not only voting, but denying basic freedom to african americans all around.
                     
                    Bring on the Stuarts!
                     
                    Kevin

                    "I can only say that I am a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation"
                    -General Robert E. Lee, 1864


                    --- On Wed, 12/2/09, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@...> wrote:

                    From: Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@...>
                    Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                    To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 8:00 AM



                    Was the phrase used in the 1860's? I doubt it! I just added that tidbit based on History Channel accounts where Booth's rage moved from kidnapping to deliberate murder. Booth was reported to have been in the crowd before the White House when Lincoln talked about giving black folks the vote - and Booth was dead set against blacks having the vote! So thus, the "anti civil rights" label. I don't think that fact is generally known.
                     
                    As far as all human history? No, I don't think so! LOL I forgot some Russian ones, like Paul in 1801, Peter III of 1763, and several before that. I think Peter Veliky (Peter the Great) also was responsible for some, like his relation Sophia, was it? Or take Peter's own son. So back in those days, folks truly "played for keeps"!
                     
                    And I'm sure there have been others as well.
                     
                    Bill

                    --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Kevin O'Malley <brerkev@...> wrote:

                    From: Kevin O'Malley <brerkev@...>
                    Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                    To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 3:24 PM

                     
                    Bill,
                     
                    I think you covererd just about every head of state assasination in world history. One thing though - with Lincoln's killer..."anti- Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer" .
                    I never heard of Booth described so colorfully - did they even use the words anti civil rights in the 1860s? LOL
                     
                    Kevin

                    "I can only say that I am a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation"
                    -General Robert E. Lee, 1864


                    --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                    From: Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@ yahoo.com>
                    Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                    To: sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com
                    Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 2:52 PM



                    Hi Anne
                     
                    Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of "bad ends" have been partly due to the book "A Tale of Two Cities?" Who wrote that BTW, Dickens?
                     
                    And others incl. France have had their share of regicides or just plain "career ending capers" - just whipping a few off the top of my head, Henri IV of France, knife assault 1610?, a Valois king about 1559 (Francis?) jousting accident, King Harald of old Anglo-Saxon England 1066, King Humberto of Italy 1900 due to an Anarchist, Tsars Alexander II in 1881 (Anarchists) & Nikolai II 1918 (Bolsheviks) , Franz Ferdinand (Crown Prince equivalent of Austria-Hungary 1914 (spy plot), several US Presidents (JFK-1963, ne'er do well "whiner" & possible spy plot; McKinley 1901-Anarchist; Garfield 1881 sore loser in job market; Lincoln 1865 anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer) , Hendrik Voerword (South Africa, knifed in the belly in about 1967, did he set up apartheid in 1949 or something?), and on and on.
                     
                    You also mention Charles II as being beheaded ("frisson paragraph) - might you mean Charles I?
                     
                    Also, what about assassination risks of Elizabeth I? What also about Richard III (d. 1485)? Bosworth Field? What also about those two legendary small princes supposedly found in a Tower jail cell? What about the fate of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587?
                     
                    And what about the assassination dangers of Japanese high officials in the 1930's and 1940's? Domestic terrorism was rampant then, as well. The country's direction toward war was often accomplished by "tinder angry" field grade officers in the military hierarchy, usually The Army. The assassins would immediately aftewards commit seppuku, or hara kiri suicide. One reason that Adm. Yamamoto of Pearl Harbor infamy was moved to leadership of The Combined Fleet was that the Adm. was a "dove" toward war w/America. If Yamamoto had stayed w/the General Naval Staff in Tokyo, he well might have been assassinated himself! And domestic terrorism nearly touched The Emperor as well. An Army Major touched off an attempted coup d'etat when The Emperor had recorded a speech to end WW2 for Japan. The Commandant, commanding General of the Tokyo Military District was killed in THAT attempt. And yes, again, the Major among others committed seppuku on the Imperial Palace grounds less than a day before The Emperor's surrender speech.
                     
                    If this be "bumptious Britons", I'd say a whole lot of the rest of the world fits the same category. And it would seem that the late King Humberto had things the most accurate.
                     
                    Just my 2 cents' worth!
                     
                    Bill
                     
                    Pondering all the above added examples, might a remark attributed to King Humberto be accurate? His final assassination fate was not the 1st attempt on the good King's life. Another previous attempt had failed, and the King calmly said something like "it's a risk of the job!"


                    --- On Tue, 12/1/09, __ a n n e___ <jn1947@yahoo. com> wrote:

                    From: __ a n n e___ <jn1947@yahoo. com>
                    Subject: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                    To: "sceptred" <sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com>
                    Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 11:18 AM

                     
                    anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.

                    we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.

                    should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
                    inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.

                    we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.

                    william rufus faced widespread
                    unpopularity. ... in 1100 he was found dead...
                    a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?

                    we know of king
                    john's clashes with his titled subjects

                    henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort.. .at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne

                    edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.

                    richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned

                    henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
                    the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york









                  • stephenmlark
                    I have just discovered that Charles the King and Martyr is an official Saint of the ANGLICAN Church - the first new one since the Reformation.
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 4, 2010
                      I have just discovered that "Charles the King and Martyr" is an official Saint of the ANGLICAN Church - the first new one since the Reformation.

                      --- In sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi Stephen
                      >  
                      > Glad I could help!
                      >  
                      > I also take note of your reference to 30 January. I'm assuming that was "the day" The King "lost his head". Your phrasing also has that "feel of foreboding" - doom tone to it. So let's "fast forward" some 284 years, to 1933. Hmm! 30 January. That's the day a "bumptious" type became Chancellor in Germany, namely Herr Hitler! Somehow, I just don't like that day of 30 January!
                      >  
                      > I think we'll find lots to talk about w/the Stuarts!
                      >  
                      > Bill
                      >
                      > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, stephenmlark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > From: stephenmlark <stephenmlark@...>
                      > Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: bumptious britons
                      > To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 3:47 PM
                      >
                      >
                      >  
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Good correction, Bill.
                      >
                      > There is now an OFFICIAL Stuarts thread, chums, and it will cover a lot more than 30 January 1649.
                      >
                      > --- In sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@ ...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hi Anne
                      > >  
                      > > Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of "bad ends" have been partly due to the book "A Tale of Two Cities?" Who wrote that BTW, Dickens?
                      > >  
                      > > And others incl. France have had their share of regicides or just plain "career ending capers" - just whipping a few off the top of my head, Henri IV of France, knife assault 1610?, a Valois king about 1559 (Francis?) jousting accident, King Harald of old Anglo-Saxon England 1066, King Humberto of Italy 1900 due to an Anarchist, Tsars Alexander II in 1881 (Anarchists) & Nikolai II 1918 (Bolsheviks) , Franz Ferdinand (Crown Prince equivalent of Austria-Hungary 1914 (spy plot), several US Presidents (JFK-1963, ne'er do well "whiner" & possible spy plot; McKinley 1901-Anarchist; Garfield 1881 sore loser in job market; Lincoln 1865 anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer) , Hendrik Voerword (South Africa, knifed in the belly in about 1967, did he set up apartheid in 1949 or something?), and on and on.
                      > >  
                      > > You also mention Charles II as being beheaded ("frisson paragraph) - might you mean Charles I?
                      > >  
                      > > Also, what about assassination risks of Elizabeth I? What also about Richard III (d. 1485)? Bosworth Field? What also about those two legendary small princes supposedly found in a Tower jail cell? What about the fate of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587?
                      > >  
                      > > And what about the assassination dangers of Japanese high officials in the 1930's and 1940's? Domestic terrorism was rampant then, as well. The country's direction toward war was often accomplished by "tinder angry" field grade officers in the military hierarchy, usually The Army. The assassins would immediately aftewards commit seppuku, or hara kiri suicide. One reason that Adm. Yamamoto of Pearl Harbor infamy was moved to leadership of The Combined Fleet was that the Adm. was a "dove" toward war w/America. If Yamamoto had stayed w/the General Naval Staff in Tokyo, he well might have been assassinated himself! And domestic terrorism nearly touched The Emperor as well. An Army Major touched off an attempted coup d'etat when The Emperor had recorded a speech to end WW2 for Japan. The Commandant, commanding General of the Tokyo Military District was killed in THAT attempt. And yes, again, the Major among others committed seppuku on the Imperial Palace
                      > > grounds less than a day before The Emperor's surrender speech.
                      > >  
                      > > If this be "bumptious Britons", I'd say a whole lot of the rest of the world fits the same category. And it would seem that the late King Humberto had things the most accurate.
                      > >  
                      > > Just my 2 cents' worth!
                      > >  
                      > > Bill
                      > >  
                      > > Pondering all the above added examples, might a remark attributed to King Humberto be accurate? His final assassination fate was not the 1st attempt on the good King's life. Another previous attempt had failed, and the King calmly said something like "it's a risk of the job!"
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, __ a n n e___ <jn1947@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > From: __ a n n e___ <jn1947@>
                      > > Subject: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                      > > To: "sceptred" <sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com>
                      > > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 11:18 AM
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >  
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.
                      > >
                      > > we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.
                      > >
                      > > should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
                      > > inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.
                      > >
                      > > we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.
                      > >
                      > > william rufus faced widespread
                      > > unpopularity. ... in 1100 he was found dead...
                      > > a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?
                      > >
                      > > we know of king
                      > > john's clashes with his titled subjects
                      > >
                      > > henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort.. .at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne
                      > >
                      > > edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.
                      > >
                      > > richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned
                      > >
                      > > henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
                      > > the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york
                      > >
                      >
                    • Bill Ramsay
                      That IS interesting! Isn t martyred Tsar Nikolai I also a Saint in the Russian Orthodox church? Will wonders never cease?   My own view of them both is they
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 4, 2010
                        That IS interesting! Isn't "martyred" Tsar Nikolai I also a Saint in the Russian Orthodox church? Will wonders never cease?
                         
                        My own view of them both is they were willful, didn't "get it" type men!
                         
                        Bill

                        --- On Thu, 3/4/10, stephenmlark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

                        From: stephenmlark <stephenmlark@...>
                        Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: bumptious britons
                        To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 1:54 PM

                         
                        I have just discovered that "Charles the King and Martyr" is an official Saint of the ANGLICAN Church - the first new one since the Reformation.

                        --- In sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@ ...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi Stephen
                        >  
                        > Glad I could help!
                        >  
                        > I also take note of your reference to 30 January. I'm assuming that was "the day" The King "lost his head". Your phrasing also has that "feel of foreboding" - doom tone to it. So let's "fast forward" some 284 years, to 1933. Hmm! 30 January. That's the day a "bumptious" type became Chancellor in Germany, namely Herr Hitler! Somehow, I just don't like that day of 30 January!
                        >  
                        > I think we'll find lots to talk about w/the Stuarts!
                        >  
                        > Bill
                        >
                        > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, stephenmlark <stephenmlark@ ...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > From: stephenmlark <stephenmlark@ ...>
                        > Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: bumptious britons
                        > To: sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com
                        > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 3:47 PM
                        >
                        >
                        >  
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Good correction, Bill.
                        >
                        > There is now an OFFICIAL Stuarts thread, chums, and it will cover a lot more than 30 January 1649.
                        >
                        > --- In sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@ ...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Hi Anne
                        > >  
                        > > Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of "bad ends" have been partly due to the book "A Tale of Two Cities?" Who wrote that BTW, Dickens?
                        > >  
                        > > And others incl. France have had their share of regicides or just plain "career ending capers" - just whipping a few off the top of my head, Henri IV of France, knife assault 1610?, a Valois king about 1559 (Francis?) jousting accident, King Harald of old Anglo-Saxon England 1066, King Humberto of Italy 1900 due to an Anarchist, Tsars Alexander II in 1881 (Anarchists) & Nikolai II 1918 (Bolsheviks) , Franz Ferdinand (Crown Prince equivalent of Austria-Hungary 1914 (spy plot), several US Presidents (JFK-1963, ne'er do well "whiner" & possible spy plot; McKinley 1901-Anarchist; Garfield 1881 sore loser in job market; Lincoln 1865 anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer) , Hendrik Voerword (South Africa, knifed in the belly in about 1967, did he set up apartheid in 1949 or something?), and on and on.
                        > >  
                        > > You also mention Charles II as being beheaded ("frisson paragraph) - might you mean Charles I?
                        > >  
                        > > Also, what about assassination risks of Elizabeth I? What also about Richard III (d. 1485)? Bosworth Field? What also about those two legendary small princes supposedly found in a Tower jail cell? What about the fate of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587?
                        > >  
                        > > And what about the assassination dangers of Japanese high officials in the 1930's and 1940's? Domestic terrorism was rampant then, as well. The country's direction toward war was often accomplished by "tinder angry" field grade officers in the military hierarchy, usually The Army. The assassins would immediately aftewards commit seppuku, or hara kiri suicide. One reason that Adm. Yamamoto of Pearl Harbor infamy was moved to leadership of The Combined Fleet was that the Adm. was a "dove" toward war w/America. If Yamamoto had stayed w/the General Naval Staff in Tokyo, he well might have been assassinated himself! And domestic terrorism nearly touched The Emperor as well. An Army Major touched off an attempted coup d'etat when The Emperor had recorded a speech to end WW2 for Japan. The Commandant, commanding General of the Tokyo Military District was killed in THAT attempt. And yes, again, the Major among others committed seppuku on the Imperial Palace
                        > > grounds less than a day before The Emperor's surrender speech.
                        > >  
                        > > If this be "bumptious Britons", I'd say a whole lot of the rest of the world fits the same category. And it would seem that the late King Humberto had things the most accurate.
                        > >  
                        > > Just my 2 cents' worth!
                        > >  
                        > > Bill
                        > >  
                        > > Pondering all the above added examples, might a remark attributed to King Humberto be accurate? His final assassination fate was not the 1st attempt on the good King's life. Another previous attempt had failed, and the King calmly said something like "it's a risk of the job!"
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, __ a n n e___ <jn1947@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > From: __ a n n e___ <jn1947@>
                        > > Subject: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                        > > To: "sceptred" <sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com>
                        > > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 11:18 AM
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >  
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.
                        > >
                        > > we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.
                        > >
                        > > should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
                        > > inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.
                        > >
                        > > we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.
                        > >
                        > > william rufus faced widespread
                        > > unpopularity. ... in 1100 he was found dead...
                        > > a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?
                        > >
                        > > we know of king
                        > > john's clashes with his titled subjects
                        > >
                        > > henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort.. .at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne
                        > >
                        > > edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.
                        > >
                        > > richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned
                        > >
                        > > henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
                        > > the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york
                        > >
                        >


                      • stephenmlark
                        Nikolai (Nicholas) II - yes, along with his wife and children if I recall. Obviously, saints are not particularly important to the Church of England but this
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 5, 2010
                          Nikolai (Nicholas) II - yes, along with his wife and children if I recall.
                          Obviously, saints are not particularly important to the Church of England but this is a reasonable exception.

                          --- In sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > That IS interesting! Isn't "martyred" Tsar Nikolai I also a Saint in the Russian Orthodox church? Will wonders never cease?
                          >  
                          > My own view of them both is they were willful, didn't "get it" type men!
                          >  
                          > Bill
                          >
                          > --- On Thu, 3/4/10, stephenmlark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > From: stephenmlark <stephenmlark@...>
                          > Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: bumptious britons
                          > To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
                          > Date: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 1:54 PM
                          >
                          >
                          >  
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > I have just discovered that "Charles the King and Martyr" is an official Saint of the ANGLICAN Church - the first new one since the Reformation.
                          >
                          > --- In sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@ ...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Hi Stephen
                          > >  
                          > > Glad I could help!
                          > >  
                          > > I also take note of your reference to 30 January. I'm assuming that was "the day" The King "lost his head". Your phrasing also has that "feel of foreboding" - doom tone to it. So let's "fast forward" some 284 years, to 1933. Hmm! 30 January. That's the day a "bumptious" type became Chancellor in Germany, namely Herr Hitler! Somehow, I just don't like that day of 30 January!
                          > >  
                          > > I think we'll find lots to talk about w/the Stuarts!
                          > >  
                          > > Bill
                          > >
                          > > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, stephenmlark <stephenmlark@ ...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > From: stephenmlark <stephenmlark@ ...>
                          > > Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: bumptious britons
                          > > To: sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com
                          > > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 3:47 PM
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >  
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Good correction, Bill.
                          > >
                          > > There is now an OFFICIAL Stuarts thread, chums, and it will cover a lot more than 30 January 1649.
                          > >
                          > > --- In sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@ ...> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Hi Anne
                          > > >  
                          > > > Regarding Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, might their prominence of "bad ends" have been partly due to the book "A Tale of Two Cities?" Who wrote that BTW, Dickens?
                          > > >  
                          > > > And others incl. France have had their share of regicides or just plain "career ending capers" - just whipping a few off the top of my head, Henri IV of France, knife assault 1610?, a Valois king about 1559 (Francis?) jousting accident, King Harald of old Anglo-Saxon England 1066, King Humberto of Italy 1900 due to an Anarchist, Tsars Alexander II in 1881 (Anarchists) & Nikolai II 1918 (Bolsheviks) , Franz Ferdinand (Crown Prince equivalent of Austria-Hungary 1914 (spy plot), several US Presidents (JFK-1963, ne'er do well "whiner" & possible spy plot; McKinley 1901-Anarchist; Garfield 1881 sore loser in job market; Lincoln 1865 anti-Civil Rights Confederate spy & sympathizer) , Hendrik Voerword (South Africa, knifed in the belly in about 1967, did he set up apartheid in 1949 or something?), and on and on.
                          > > >  
                          > > > You also mention Charles II as being beheaded ("frisson paragraph) - might you mean Charles I?
                          > > >  
                          > > > Also, what about assassination risks of Elizabeth I? What also about Richard III (d. 1485)? Bosworth Field? What also about those two legendary small princes supposedly found in a Tower jail cell? What about the fate of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587?
                          > > >  
                          > > > And what about the assassination dangers of Japanese high officials in the 1930's and 1940's? Domestic terrorism was rampant then, as well. The country's direction toward war was often accomplished by "tinder angry" field grade officers in the military hierarchy, usually The Army. The assassins would immediately aftewards commit seppuku, or hara kiri suicide. One reason that Adm. Yamamoto of Pearl Harbor infamy was moved to leadership of The Combined Fleet was that the Adm. was a "dove" toward war w/America. If Yamamoto had stayed w/the General Naval Staff in Tokyo, he well might have been assassinated himself! And domestic terrorism nearly touched The Emperor as well. An Army Major touched off an attempted coup d'etat when The Emperor had recorded a speech to end WW2 for Japan. The Commandant, commanding General of the Tokyo Military District was killed in THAT attempt. And yes, again, the Major among others committed seppuku on the Imperial Palace
                          > > > grounds less than a day before The Emperor's surrender speech.
                          > > >  
                          > > > If this be "bumptious Britons", I'd say a whole lot of the rest of the world fits the same category. And it would seem that the late King Humberto had things the most accurate.
                          > > >  
                          > > > Just my 2 cents' worth!
                          > > >  
                          > > > Bill
                          > > >  
                          > > > Pondering all the above added examples, might a remark attributed to King Humberto be accurate? His final assassination fate was not the 1st attempt on the good King's life. Another previous attempt had failed, and the King calmly said something like "it's a risk of the job!"
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --- On Tue, 12/1/09, __ a n n e___ <jn1947@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > From: __ a n n e___ <jn1947@>
                          > > > Subject: [sceptredisle] bumptious britons
                          > > > To: "sceptred" <sceptredisle@ yahoogroups. com>
                          > > > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 11:18 AM
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >  
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > anne... i r4ecently raisxed the question of why the roundheads be-headed charles the first. That set me to thinking of how many british monarchs had problems keeping their thrones.... or keeping their heads or assorted other body parts.
                          > > >
                          > > > we get a frisson when we think of louis and marie antoinette being executed.... but i often wonder why this is so when charles II had also been executed.... when a number of other british kings faced unfortunate ends.
                          > > >
                          > > > should we just assume that the english are more bumptious than other ethnic groups.... more given to rebellion ? It does seem to moi that an
                          > > > inordinate number of english rulers faced ugly ends... or at least experienced 'mysterious' deaths that may have been murders.
                          > > >
                          > > > we've already written of charles the second. Might as well mention his son james II of the 'bloodless revolution.' One might suggest james would also have been killed had he not fled to france.
                          > > >
                          > > > william rufus faced widespread
                          > > > unpopularity. ... in 1100 he was found dead...
                          > > > a mysterious 'hunting accident' or did his nobles do him in ?
                          > > >
                          > > > we know of king
                          > > > john's clashes with his titled subjects
                          > > >
                          > > > henry III ... the 'barons war' led by simon deMontfort.. .at one point his nobles imprisoned him. It could be argued that if his term in prison had been longer, he too would have been 'mysteriously' done--in. At times, it looked, at the very least, that henry would be lose his throne
                          > > >
                          > > > edward II ... one more 'mysterious death.' Probably done in by his aristocratic subjects.
                          > > >
                          > > > richard II... no one seems to know for sure how he met his end. Bolingbroke {eventually henry iv} had taken the throne and had richard imprisoned
                          > > >
                          > > > henry vi... very likely a man with cognitive problems and health problems.
                          > > > the war of the roses. possibly done--in by order of the house of york
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.