Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RussMan

Pages: [1] 2
The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Did Anne have a choice?
« on: December 12, 2005, 03:35:47 PM »
I wasn't aware that Anne had such pressure on herself like that. Interesting. ;)

It seems to me that in that era Parliament was becomeing ever stronger, with the monarch having less and less authority. I'm not sure why she should been seen as a threat to William III. :-/

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Poll - Who's side are you on in 1688?
« on: December 12, 2005, 03:32:37 PM »
what could they have possibly done? Accept illegitimate children of James II? That would have been a big problem. Call on Italian and French relations? Really there wasn't much to be done but die out and give it over to the protestants.

I've always regarded the whole catholic/protestant rivarly as nothing more than an excuse to fight, nothing more. ;)

James II was a soveriegn was grown detached from his people long before he ever became king. He wanted to be an absolute monarch in an age of british history when that was no longer proper. ;)

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: The Interregnum
« on: October 05, 2005, 05:15:34 PM »
True. It was all what-ifs in this time. Had Oliver Cromwell not died when he did, i think it likley England never would have been restored to the monarchy.

Of course, i also believe Charles II was a committed catholic too. He died on his death bed a catholic, as were his mother and his brothers and sister. At that point, i don't think parliament wanted to risk any crap over their monarch's religion.

Of course, they start crap with James II, so i don't know. :-/

On the other hand, look at it this way. Charles I had an excellent army, but limited money. Whereas, Parliament had unlimited reserves of money, but no real army.

Had Charles left a stronger, more well paid force to his son to carry on the war, i think Charles II would have done just that. This is the same man that dug up Cromwell three years after he died and had him hung.  

Think of that; the death of Oliver Cromwell, part two. ;)

Also, had Charles II been able to rally more Irish support to his cause, i think it very likely the New Model Amry would have been cut off  from London, and Parliament captured.  ;) Thus ending the war early.  Lords for centuries had invaded England from Ireland via Cornwall, which is tough to fight in.

With more Irish support, along with his Scottish army, i think the monarchy in England would have been restored much sooner. :)

The Tudors / Re: Henry VII
« on: October 05, 2005, 05:07:30 PM »
apparently he was a very charismatic person, like edward 4th was... but the truth is that he didn't do much for england imo

unlike his father who was the total opposite

Henry 8 seems to me like a much more jolly type person, one who like to socialize, big feasts, that kind of thing. Hence, his obesity.

Cheap guys like Henry7 never seem to be as popular.

Take Charles I and II, for example. Charles II liked to party, flirt, and in general have a good time, while Charles I was serious and devoted to his family. The family type man doesn't seem to be as interesting as the party goer. Just look at our own Western society nowadays, hehehe.  ;)

I also have a suspicion that Henry 7 was a suspicious type monarch, too. Let's face it; he was always worried about any possible Yorkist revolts against him; he faced at least two.

So mi guess he just wasn't so much a warm, fuzzy type character. ;)

The Tudors / Re: Katherine Parr?
« on: October 05, 2005, 05:01:53 PM »
That pic looks like Catherine Paur to me. It's just not as high of qaulity as others. I've been to the National Portrait Gallery in London, and all the portraits i saw of Catherine looked similar to that one.

The only difference is that she seems to be looking at the artist, instead of to the side, like most other style of protraits done in this time.

The Tudors / Re: Mary Tudor, Duchess of Suffolk - cause of deat
« on: October 05, 2005, 04:59:26 PM »
She may indeed have had cancer; i think that was a very real possibility. I have also read that it was possible that she had multiple miscarriages, and these may have affected her in more ways than one.

She was also a very frail, emotionally unstable person, too. The events of her life were not pleasant. In my opinion she was not ready for the burden of the Crown, and this places additional stress on her already heartbroken psychology. :(

The Tudors / Re: Is this an accurate image of Anne Boleyn
« on: October 05, 2005, 04:56:07 PM »
Seems to me that most porttraits i've seen of Anne relfect her elegant high cheekbones. I'm not sure if that was true, however. The portrait Helen posted may have been accurate, i think, because she is wearing a lot of arsenic and powder on her face, which was popular for noble women to do at the time. :-/

The Tudors / Elizabeth and Ivan
« on: October 05, 2005, 04:53:47 PM »
I've been studying this pair, and English/Russian trade relations under their reigns. Seems to me that Ivan was a bit too transparent in his dealings with Eizabeth, and this was waht drove her  and her countrymen away from him.

From what i've read, English trade with Russia seems to peak in the late sixteenth century, then declines in the seventeenth.

Just a thought. ;)

The Russian Revolution / Re: Whites Vs Reds The Civil War
« on: September 01, 2005, 04:51:23 PM »

P.S. I do think it is a mistake to underestimate the extreme seductiveness of Communism as an ideology, especially in the 1930s, when Western intellectuals in particular were disgusted by their countries' continuing appeasement of Hitler and fascism. Communism is an all-embracing ideology that supplies a (pseudo-) scientific explanation for every wrong ever committed by mankind. .    

Sure, the idea of Communism is appealing. but let's face it, Communism doesn't work economically for flawed humans like us.

I tried to explain to my friend at work this. He thinks Communism is a fair and equal system and should be implemented. I said i agreed but the big problem with Communist countries is that many fo them cannot feed themselves.

In the US, they pay farmers not to grow food. Why? Because their growing methods and planting are so efficient that if they grew any more food than necessary it would cause economic over supplies, and ruin the American economy.

But the oppostie was true for Communist Russia and China. Farmers had no incentive to plant more than they wanted to, and so for a growing population faced food shortages and starvation for millions of the poor. Let's face it: Russia and China are excellent countries for grwoing food and crops of all kinds.

To me, this expalins best why Communism didn't work and was overthrown in Russia, and why capitalism works well in the Western World. When you're hungry, little else matters, and you're not about to tolerate your current govt.

The Russian Revolution / Re: Fatima prophecies and Russia
« on: September 01, 2005, 04:40:33 PM »
Certainly a great deal about the Fatima prophecies comes down to religious belief, but FWEIW, I, too find this fascinating. I do, however, feel that Orthodox Christians may obejct to the "conversion" of Russia. Many remained faithful to their church in spite of the terrible religious persecution by the Bolsheviks.

I thought the "conversion"of Russia was meant to change their minds away from Leninism. Russia certainly did become one the most Atheistic nations in the world after 1917  Revolutions. :-/

I don't think Mary was refferring to converting Orthodx Russia to Catholicism, because Orthodox Christians are as devoted to her as Catholics. :-/

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Willing?
« on: September 01, 2005, 04:37:13 PM »
I'm not sure. I think the Scottish Parliament put some pressure on her to marry him. I thought she was really in love with Darnley.

Hmmm, i too am unsure about this. :-/

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Tea and Coffee
« on: September 01, 2005, 04:35:15 PM »
Yeah, they also considered tobacco at the time to be bland and disgusting too. Wow! That sure did change!!! :)

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Charles I and family
« on: September 01, 2005, 04:33:45 PM »
Too bad that Charles and Henrietta Maria got into so much trouble. They were a cute royla couple. But appreantly , Charles just lost his head. :P

The Tudors / Re: Which of Henry VIII's wives...
« on: September 01, 2005, 04:29:14 PM »
I'm not sure, honestly. I definitely wouldn't want to be Catherine Howard. Eeek!!! She was good looking, true, but man, she was flirtacious, and Henry didn't have much patience with that at all, now, did he? ;)

Of course, i wouldn't want to be Anne Bloeyn either. :P

The Tudors / Re: If Henry VIII had another child . . .
« on: September 01, 2005, 04:26:58 PM »
Yes, very true. In fact, when Henry died, Mary invited Elizabeth to live with her! But the girl wanted to stay with Katherine Parr, understandably . . .

Yes, yall are right. They did get along okay, i guess. I just keep thinking back to mary's suspicion of Elizabeth, and the rumors that she was to stage a revolt against Mary. Wasn't Elizabeth put in the Tower for a while anyway?  ???

Pages: [1] 2