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

Re: bumptious britons

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Mar 4 11:54 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 11 , Mar 4 9:48 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 11 , Mar 5 12:50 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          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.