| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| mairead |
Mary. Queen of ScotsOn this day in 1542, Queen Mary Stewart was murdered on the orders of Elizabeth 1st of England |
||||||||||
| Babygael |
I have a confession, I admire Queen Elizabeth 1 as I do Maggie Thatcher.
I know this sounds weird comming from me but I do respect strong and comitted leaders for their cause. Scotland needs leaders who have that level of passion and ability....now! |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Babygael, I am surprised to learn that you respected Maggie Thatcher, the woman who hated Scotland and the Scots, and who did so much to bring our country to it's knees. She destroyed our industries.
I respect strong women too, but I will never respect anyone, male or female who tries to destroy the land of my birth. All dictators are strong that's why they become dictators but most of them are evil megalomaniacs and she certainly was. Thank God the Tories woke up in time and got rid of her. The Thatcher years in Scotland were the most impoverished for many in a long long time. |
||||||||||
| Highlander |
|
||||||||||
| Anthropos |
She didn't destroy our industries, she simply refused to keep propping up the corpse. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Nonsense. | ||||||||||
| Anthropos |
Yeah good reply Mairead 
Now what you really meant was: "Sir, your above posting does not concur with my irrational prejudices about Scotland being a victim nation; however my almost total ignorance about matters concerning Scottish economic history is such that it is the best reply I can give." 
|
||||||||||
| Wolf of Badenoch |
Tae hell wi Thatcher.........aye anyways back tae the original point,its a pity ra heidsman stopped wi Mary Stewart. 
|
||||||||||
| Avatar |
You are a tad obsessed with assuming other people to be self-pitying "victims"
|
||||||||||
| mairead |
What a patronising and silly reply Anthropos. I am surpised at you. I do not perceive Scotland as a 'victim nation' just one that has been well screwed over by the other half of this so called union.
Having spent many years working in close contact with the tragic results of Thatcher's policies in Scotland, I actually know what I am talking about. Surprisingly enough, I was one of the fools who thought she would be good for this country and voted her into power. I learn quickly though and never did again. |
||||||||||
| Anthropos |
Not at all Avatar, but unfortunately there is a lot of it going about. Of course if people can justify it then fine, I have no problem with debate, but when it is merely historical ignorance and prejudice I think it fair to challenge it. To say that Scottish history is merely a catalogue of abuses at the hands of the English is utter nonsense, but some people clearly do believe it, and there are others who perpetuate blatant falsehoods to try and support that ideology, and of course these forums are a magnet for them. |
||||||||||
| Anthropos |
My apologies Mairead for any offence cause, my response was not justified. However the single word ‘nonsense’ did not really give me too much to go on, but I should have asked for clarification rather than responding with snide sarcasm.
Are you not contradicting yourself a bit here? I mean when the going was good and Anglo-Scottish Imperialism bestrode the world like a colossus you didn’t hear many people complaining. Of course Empires fall, natural resource run out, competitor nations overtake you, but to what extent can this be said to result from Margaret Thatcher’s tenure in Downing Street? She never caused any of those things. Your point does seem to imply that if the union is baring fruit it is acceptable.
Human sympathy is perfectly admirable, and it is not something I am devoid of, but at the same time it shouldn’t eclipse reason. What about the Scottish business class, should they not bear some of the blame for failing to develop our native industries and for over concentration in the heavy industries when they should have been moving into consumer durables? And what about the Scottish political class who for years were happy to see Scotland turned into a low skill branch plant economy for American companies? I don’t think you can just say its all Margaret Thatcher’s doing.
Perhaps she appealed to your inner Calvanist? All a bit after my time I’m afraid so I can only concern myself with the history. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Yes Anthropos I agree with what you say re the others who have subscribed to Scotland's failing industry, but Thatcher began the rot and carried it on for many years.
By the way, Is anyone aware that of £250million that Scotland pays annually in TV Licence fees, only £150m comes back to the country, and of that nearly £100m goes back to the BBC to purchase programmes. Not relevant to the topic I know, but interesting all the same. |
||||||||||
| Babygael |
Miread, just a wind up!
Actually I believe I said I respected (these two) strong and commited leaders for THEIR cause, not nescessairly MY cause!!
I certainly wouldn't trust them in a million years though!! I can admire the "auld enemy" from time to time can't I? When back in the day England and scotland had a truce, the "good" Sir James Douglas went to the crusades as you know very well. As he was leaving a large crowd gathered to see him off for he was a great man and warrior. In that crowd were English Knights who also went were there to get a glimpse of the man. I'll bet most of them would have loved to have been the one to have "despatched" The Douglas during the wars but that doesn't mean they didn't admire him. Just because I don't agree with someone,doesn't mean I have to dislike them. |
||||||||||
| Babygael |
Apologies for the double posts! Anyway Miread you say Thatcher destroyed the Industries? While I was led to believe it was the Unions that were destroying the Industries with the constant strikes and demands. Indeed I was given the impression that Moscow had a hand in there somewhere.
But what do I know! All water under the bridge anyway. |
||||||||||
| Anthropos |
Neither M. Thatcher nor the TU's destroyed the heavy industries, in the case of Coal, because Britain was the first country to industrialise its coal resources were exhausted (or at least its most accessible coal) while countries which industrialised later had largely untouched resources. Now that is neither the fault of Thatcher or TU's, it was just a resource that became depleted. The problem in Scotland was over concentration in the heavy industries, and the fact that the industries were tied together. So for example Scottish shipbuilding used Scottish steel, so if demand for ships fell then demand for steel fell too. The other important factor was the loss of Empire - Scottish industries were geared towards the production of capital goods (ships, trains, bridges etc) that were exported to the colonies, so when that market disappeared Scottish industries were left to compete with other nations like Germany who were cheaper and more efficient. The demand for replacement capital goods in the post war period kept the Scottish economy buoyant for a while, but it couldn't - and didn't - last. As for Moscow having a hand, well it is fairly reasonable to assume they would take an interest in such matters, but they played no role of any significance. However in the post Maclean, Burgess & Philby era there was quite a bit of paranoia, if Moscow could recruit such solidly establishment men like them, then Trade Unionists would be easy meat. |
||||||||||
| Babygael |
I wonder where would Scotland be if we had someone like the Iron lady on our side???
She would have acheived Independence for Scotland, she had courage and was pure Iron!!! She wuid hev pit those southern ...kers in their place one time! Sadly, she wis engerlish!!! |
||||||||||
| Blackleaf |
She wasn't murdered. She was executed by the Queen of England, Elizabeth I, for treason because she plotted against her. She also may have murdered her husband..... Mary Queen of Scots 1542 - 1587 
Mary, Queen of Scots is perhaps the best known figure in Scotland's history. Her life provided tragedy and romance, more dramatic than any legend. She was born in 1542 a week before her father, King James V of Scotland, died. Mary was sent to France in 1548 to be the bride of the Dauphin, the young French prince, in order to secure a Catholic alliance against England. In 1561, after the Dauphin, still in his teens, died, Mary returned to Scotland, a young and beautiful widow. Scotland at this time was in the throes of the Reformation and a widening Protestant - Catholic split. A Protestant husband for Mary seemed the best chance for stability. Mary fell passionately in love with Henry, Lord Darnley, but it was not a success. Darnley was a weak man and soon became a drunkard as Mary ruled entirely alone and gave him no real authority in the country. Darnley became jealous of Mary's secretary and favourite, David Riccio. He, together with others, murdered Riccio in front of Mary in Holyrood House. She was six months pregnant at the time. Her son, the future King James VI of Scotland and I of England, was baptised in the Catholic faith in Stirling Castle. This caused alarm amongst the Protestants. Lord Darnley, Mary's husband, later died in mysterious circumstances in Edinburgh, when the house he was lodging in was blown up one night in February 1567. His body was found in the garden of the house after the explosion, but he had been strangled! Mary had now become attracted to James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, and rumours abounded at Court that she was pregnant by him, Bothwell was accused of Darnley's murder but was found not guilty. Shortly after he was acquitted, Mary and Bothwell were married. The Lords of Congregation did not approve of Mary's liason with Bothwell and she was imprisoned in Leven Castle where she gave birth to still-born twins. Bothwell meanwhile had bid Mary goodbye and fled to Dunbar. She never saw him again. He died in Denmark, insane, in 1578. 
In May 1568 Mary escaped from Leven Castle. She gatheried together a small army but was defeated at Langside by the Protestant faction. Mary then fled to England. In England she became a political pawn in the hands of Queen Elizabeth I and was imprisoned for 19 years in various castles in England. Mary was found to be plotting against Elizabeth; letters in code, from her to others, were found and she was deemed guilty of treason. She was taken to Fotheringhay Castle and executed in 1587. It is said that after her execution, when the executioner raised the head for the crowd to see, it fell and he was left holding only Mary's wig. Mary's son became James I and VI of Scotland after Elizabeth's death in 1603. http://www.historic-uk.com/Histor...otland-History/MaryQueenScots.htm ------------------ She seemed like a nasty piece of work. |
||||||||||
| One O'Clock Gun |
and pray tell us Oxford don, what was she plotting?
Some would argue that there was various reasons for her being killed- religion, wars abroad etc,. What is your opinion Professor? "She seemed like a nasty piece of work" get a grip. What? In your extensive research on this subject? She seemed like a nasty piece of work according to this random, unaccredited web-site that I found on google, possibly. Coming up next on the blackleaf channel- Why Portsmouth is set to become the new Venice in 2015. That's before we take a look at why Scotland is rubbish...stay tuned! |
||||||||||
| Pip |
She was set up by Walsingham, but she did show that she was eager to go along with the non-existent conspiracy. She was just out of her depth with any kind of statecraft. | ||||||||||
| Jimbo |
Blackleaf wrote...
She wasn't murdered. She was executed by the Queen of England, Elizabeth I, for treason because she plotted against her. She also may have murdered her husband..... <quote. She seemed like a nasty piece of work. <quote. This is the kind of non-history type history that I would expect to be taught to primary 5 pupils by a propagandist working on behalf of a government trying to assimilate children into their system from an early age (Your history is not worth reading. Let me tell you about Agincourt, type of thing). Not the kind of thing you would expect from someone who pretends to a serious historical bent. Forty five years of history wrapped up in 3 or 4 paragraphs. Wonderful. Antonia Fraser could have saved herself 712 pages and just left it to you to pass on to us the full story summarised by the comment 'She seemed like a nasty piece of work.' You made this assumption after a few paragraphs? Great work. Try reading the full story That Mary was naive and lacked statecraft there is probably no doubt. She was brought up in the French court wrapped in cotton wool and brought out from time to time to be used like a puppet from an early age by unscrupulous courtiers and politicians of the time to further their own agendas then sent back to her frivolities until she was needed again. She came home to Scotland for more of the same from men inured in statecraft and intrigue. That she was set up by Elizabeth, Walsingham and Co there is no doubt. Like Wallace, she was killed out of convenience to save further embarrassment and/or problems for the English crown. Like Wallace, the charge (always a favourite of the English in medieval times) was treason. The Oxford Dictionary defines treason as 'Violation by subject of allegiance to sovereign.' Mary was not Elizabeth's subject. Elizabeth was not Mary's sovereign. She naively went to Elizabeth for safety and was treated in the same manner as by the French and the Scots, a political pawn, to be used until no longer useful then discarded. Scotland has a long and fascinating history and this kind of crap belittles it. So, thanks for the history lesson but I prefer the real thing. |
||||||||||
| Blackleaf |
Re: Mary. Queen of Scots
Surely she got what she deserved, considering that she was a Catholic who wanted to be on the throne of a Protestant nation (England) so that she could revert the English back to Catholicism against their will. She also tried to assasinate Elizabeth I. What do you expect the English to have done? Stood idly by and let her assasinate their Queen then ascent the throne and try to turn the country Catholic against the people's wishes? She was hanged, and rightly so. This is just another shameful episode of Scottish history that the Scots glorify and romanticise to make it look that they were not in the wrong, when they so patently were on this occasion. |
||||||||||
| Blackleaf |
It serves you right. You can thank Mary for that for trying to assasinate our Queen. And I don't care what the OED defies as "treason". There was no OED around during the reign of Elizabeth. And what Mary did was treason. England's Teason Act of 1351 declares treason as: "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere" In the 1580s, you didn't have to be English to commit treason against the English monarch. Stuff what the OED says. |
||||||||||
| Blackleaf |
Even the Spanish believed that Mary was plotting Elizabeth's downfall. That's why they sent the Armada to invade England just the year after Mary was executed. Whatever people say about Walsingham and his agents "concocting" plots against Maryt, there is no doubt that she DID want to oust Elizabeth. I don't see anything wrong in "fabricating" evidence just to get a would-be assassin hanged. |
||||||||||
| Jimbo |
Why do I get the feeling Blackleaf that you consider it your mission in life to rubbish Scottish history?
If you're going to make some kind of a fist of it I suggest you should read a book on the subject. May I suggest Mary Queen of Scots by Antonia Fraser as a good starting point for this particular subject. Your knowledge of history is obviously very limited Blackleaf. Also very selective, and not just selective, but in parts, misinformed, and where your short of facts, invented.
Is it?
Was she?
Personally? When did she make this attempt to assassinate her and with what?
Elizabeth was certainly a great queen of the English Blackleaf (To be expected I suppose, coming as she did from good Welsh stock), I don't think anyone would deny that, but fabricating history to promote her greatness doesn't help.
Just as in the same way you don't see anything wrong with fabricating history to suit your purpose. I can't be bothered with your drivel Blackleaf. Much as I would like to put you right, I don't have the time. Maybe Dave Coull, Holebender or Agent will take the trouble to set you straight. I would hate it for some-one to come on this forum and read your invented version of history and think it was true. |
||||||||||
| Holebender |
So... fabricating evidence to secure the conviction of a bad person is acceptable? I hope, for your sake, you never find yourself falsely accused of a crime, Blackleaf. | ||||||||||
| mairead |
Go learn your own history Blackleaf. The entire 'assassination plot' was dreamed up and executed by Walsingham. The casket letters were forged, and Mary was the victim of an ugly and evil cousin whose envy of Mary's appearance and the fact that she bore a son was well known. Mary never made or caused any attempt to be made on the life of the English Queen. If she had, she'd have done it in less than her 29 years of captivity
Naivety was the downfall of the tragic Queen of Scots since her arrival in Scotland and the fact that she turned down one of Elizabeth old lovers incensed the old witch Aye, Mary was betrayed by her own naivety alright, she trusted her English cousin. Furthermore, all the story about Elizabeth signing the death warrant unknowingly is another load of crap. No ruling monarch in those times, and especially not Elizabeth would have signed any document without scrutinizing it. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
There's absoutely no point in arguing with the Troll, Blackheid!
His entire raison d'être for being on this forum is to further discontent and sow the seeds of havoc by rubbishing anything to do with Scotland and the Scots. He never argues much. Just enough to make it look like he's taking note. He's here to cause trouble and that's all there is to it. The biggest surprise is that you all tolerate the jerk and haven't demanded Admin block him from further posts! Why? Why put yourself through it all? He's never going to agree with you. He's just an English version of Coolio! Humourless and divisive! But, at least Coolio is a Scot, judging by his posts! |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Regarding myself, the poster calling himself
The idea that Blackadder could have any grounds whatsoever for seeking to get me "banned" is of course sheer nonsense. As is the idea that being "banned" from one particular site would shut me up (it's been tried before......) But what is also nonsense is his statement that "I hold no truck with that". He is now calling for Blackleaf to be banned. The moderators of this forum have labelled Blackleaf a "confirmed troll", which serves the same function as the warnings on cigarette packets. It is up to the user whether they heed the warning or not. But now the poster calling himself Blackadder wants to go further, and have somebody banned just for expressing views he doesn't like. In demanding censorship of "Blackleaf", he also has a "go" at me:
That is just one of the terms "Blackadder" has used to refer to myself. He has also used "coolie-boy", a name which is both offensive and downright racist. Like I said
Blackadder continues to take the piss out of my own real name while sheltering, in a cowardly fashion, behind a false identity. There has been some suggestion that "Blackadder" is in fact Simon Taylor, a lecturer in Computing at Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middle Sex, phone number xxxxx xxxxxx. That may or may not be the case. Either way, if he persists in taking the piss out of the real name of a real person, he is certain to have his own identity publicly revealed in very full detail sooner or later. Now, that really WILL be very, very, funny. As for "banning" Blackleaf, as somebody or other once said, I prefer to have my enemies where I can see them. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
Oh for heaven's sake! Get a grip, Coolio. I can only think that it's your apparent lack of a sense of humour that stops you having a laugh. Honestly, you come across like that old-fashioned idea of a dour Scot. You're not doing us (or yourself) any favours by taking everything so goddamned seriously!
By the way ...
I am certainly not that person, couldn't lecture in computing to a nursery class and Middlesex is all one word ... oh ... and I'm not there either. I am most definitely in Scotland. I assume this Simon Taylor is someone else you've managed to alienate, like a few other posters on this forum. Whoever is "suggesting" I am "Simon Taylor" ... talk to me. Come on to my natural habitat (as Coolio would have it) of the General Banter where there is a thread called "Blackadder" ... and bring your questions with you! I'm looking forward to someone having the balls to question me on the latter half of Coolio's laughable comment!! 
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I have no intention of doing you any favours. As for myself, I'll take that risk.
I have already given my reasons why I never, never, take part in the "general banter" section, and also my reasons why I will not be "dared" into doing so, in school playground fashion. However, EVERY time you mention my name, or some variation of it, whatever the topic under discussion, the topic will then become the fact that you take the piss out of the real name of a real person, while yourself hiding behind a false identity, in a cowardly fashion. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
*sighs heavily*
You just love quoting out of context, don't you? Is that how you've managed to turn so many people off??? Well ... apart from having zero sense of humour and a total lack of charisma! Is that the kind of playground banter you don't like? I could get a few others of my fellow posters and we can migrate on to every thread you're on if that turns you on. We could be the Scottish Gipsy Kings!! 
Can you sing?? |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I sing every day. Not a day goes past without me singing something. Somebody will mention something, and I will say "I know a song about that", and immediately start to sing it. I frequently break into song while pushing a trolley around a supermarket, or out in the street, much to the embarrassment of my wife, or my daughter, or whoever happens to be with me. It is a statement of fact that I DO sing. Whether or not I CAN sing is a matter of opinion. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
We await the day you are carted away for "singing" in public and frightening the populace!
|
||||||||||
| kathyv |
hmmmmm, have been learning quite a lot reading through this. . . Some of it's interesting, some is just scary.
Imagine Blacky lecturing to the peasants! Sign me up, I'll sit in the back and heckle! heh heh heh! |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Blackadder,
We are not simply tolerating the Blackleaf chappie, but trying to educate him as he appears to have no knowledge at all of Scotland or its history, not that this is in anyway unusual in his part of the world, where they are even confused with the difference between England and Britain. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Dave,
and what happy songs do you sing?. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
I see what you're saying, Messheid ... but he's not interested in being "educated" in or about Scotland. He doesn't care either. His job (as he sees it) is just to drop his purloined articles around the forum to annoy Scots posters ... and run.
I like to sing. When I was a lot younger (in my rebellious days) I was lead singer with two bands. One was called after a clothing material and the other after an album by Rod Stewart.
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Well like I already said "Somebody will mention something, and I will say 'I know a song about that', and immediately start to sing it". This used to happen at work, when I was working on building sites, nowadays it can happen while pushing a trolley around at the supermarket, or whatever. I know songs about almost anything. For instance, last week my wife couldn't find her toothbrush (we had been travelling recently) and I said "I know a song about that". Which I did, and I sang it. I think it may originally have been sung by Max Bygraves. My wife is American, and we have been seeing a lot of stuff from American television stations about how various states are likely to go in the presidential election, and when the name of some state is mentioned I will say "I know a song about that". There are probably a few exceptions, but I know songs about most of the 50 states. I also know songs about loads of places in Scotland, and quite a few in Ireland, as well as other places. I'm not sure how I accumulated such a huge memory store of thousands of songs about all sorts of places and all sorts of things, it certainly wasn't anything I deliberately set out to do, it just happened. Many of the songs are happy, some are sad. When Keri and I were first getting to know each other, and we were usually on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean, I would sing "The Eriskay Love Lilt" to her over the phone. That must have made a good impression, because soon afterwards she left a nice house in California to move to a cooncil flat in Dundee, just because I was there. But I have never had any desire to make a career out of singing or anything like that, never any desire to sing with a band, it is just something I do because I happen to feel like it at the time. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
Very romantic, Coolio. Glad it worked for you. Long distances usually kill courting stone dead. Good to see it can buck the trend.
But waitasec ... whit's this ah see ... ochone fur thee ... it's a sicht tae mak yer bluid freeze ... DUNDEE?? Well now .......... that explains a whole lot of things a great deal! Thank you for disclosing that. I understand you so much better now!
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
The poster using the pseudo-name
That is just one of the terms "Blackadder" has used to refer to myself. He also refers to me as "coolie-boy", a term which is both offensive and downright racist. Like I said
Every time the poster using the false identity "Blackadder" uses some distortion of my name, whatever the topic under discussion, the topic will then become the fact that he chooses to twist the real name of a real person, while himself hiding behind a false identity, in a cowardly fashion.
I'm not from Dundee. I lived in London longer than I lived in Dundee, and I'm not from there either. Dundee is just where i happened to be about ten years ago, when Keri and I were first getting together. |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I just sent a post answering a question from Mairead about my singing, and then i realised I haven't actually commented on what this topic in the History section is supposed to be about. So, going back to Mairead's very first post on that: "On this day in 1542, Queen Mary Stewart was murdered on the orders of Elizabeth 1st of England".
There have actually been quite a few Mary Stewarts, but, so far as the one who was killed on the orders of Elizabeth the First of England is concerned, I think she was a crap ruler of Scotland. Being born into a royal family in those days meant you didn't go hungry, or thirsty, and in Winter you had warm clothes to wear and somebody kept the fire going for you, in fact you had servants to do all sorts of things for you, but it was also a high risk occupation. Maybe we should feel a wee bit sorry for her simply as a human being for the way things worked out for her, but there is really nothing to justify all the hot air which turns this relatively insignificant figure into one of the most most famous people in Scottish History. What did she ever do for Scotland? She loved France, and she claimed the throne of England, but so far as Scotland was concerned, she really wasn't much interested, except as a stepping stone to greater things. Some folk try to make her out to be some sort of saint, which she certainly wasn't. As for being a martyr, well, there may be some in the Catholic Church who would like to see her as a martyr, but a martyr for what? Not for Scotland, that's for sure. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
Mary, Queen of Scots is a much misunderstood and maligned figure in Scots history. Of course she was a puppet ... most women were in those days. And there's no doubt, her mother's family, the House of Guise ... a cadet branch of the immensely powerful Habsburg House of Lorraine ... had plans for her after Francois II died. You have to remember that France was at war with England ... they were all playing for high stakes.
Then there was the Reformation taking place with all-out hostilities between Catholics and Protestants. In England, the remarkable Elizabeth had firm control, with powerful advisors ... and they too had plans for Mary. Mary also had little chance with her half-brother working against her, Knox on the go, ranting with his anti-women sermons, a weak husband, Darnley ... and Hepburn of Bothwell waiting in the wings to take his chance. If Mary was guilty of anything, it was of making poor choices ... and having a court that had little faith in her, all wanting to use her in a grab for political supremacy. She had been raised in France to be a Queen who would please a strong husband. Unfortunately, that never happened. Do I blame Mary in any way? No ... because she was a child of her time and expected men to do all the hard work. She was a dupe, used by men and then discarded when she was no longer of any use to them. There's no doubt in my mind that her execution was nothing more than murder ... getting her out of the way of ambitious English Catholics. She's more to be pitied than anything else. And ... just one week in Dundee can taint you for life! 
If you spent 10 years there, Coolio ... well, like I said, it explains a lot!
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
The coward using the false name Blackadder persists in making reasonable discussion on historical matters virtually impossible.. The coward also seeks further information about myself, while continuing to try to hide his own identity. Sooner or later, that attempt will fail.
Who said I spent ten years in Dundee? Not me. What I said was that I was there ten years ago, which is a very different thing.
That is just one of the terms "Blackadder" has used to refer to myself. He also refers to me as "coolie-boy", a term which is both offensive and downright racist. Like I said[quote]I had been prepared to quietly let matters drop. But where quietly letting matters drop is concerned, it requires two to do that. Since my willingness to do so has not been reciprocated, I repeat that making fun of folks' names is a bit reminiscent of a primary school playground. But even that wouldn't be quite so bad if it happened between folk on equal terms. That is, if it was possible for both parties' real names to have fun made of them. Now, there is plenty of proof of who I am. Scores of folk on the internet, including many on this forum, have met me in person, loads of details about me are a matter of public record, and, despite some sceptics taking the trouble to check, everything I have ever said about myself on line turned out to be true. But "Blackadder" is just a net-name, not a personal name. Anyone who, while sheltering behind a pseudo identity, is offensive about the real name of a real person, is, in my opinion, acting in a cowardly fashion. Every time the poster using the false identity "Blackadder" uses some distortion of my name, whatever the topic under discussion, the topic will then become the fact that he chooses to twist the real name of a real person, while himself hiding behind a false identity, in a cowardly fashion. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
Okay, okay, okay ... so I messed up saying you were there for 10 years, rather than it being 10 years ago ... an easy slip-up to make. Can I phone a friend before you make ready to crucify me??
And I'm not "seeking" any kind of info about you. You wrote that stuff up quite willingly without any coercion on my part. I couldn't care less who you are, where you live, what you do, your marital status OR how old you are. Again, these are things you've written of your own accord. Why not do us all a favour and stop talking about yourself!!!
As for me "making reasonable discussion on historical matters virtually impossible" ... what a load of tosh! Anybody and everybody is welcome to throw their hat in the ring! If you have a problem with that ... look to yourself for answers! You really must lighten up, Coolio!!! |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
The coward using the false name Blackadder persists in making reasonable discussion on historical matters virtually impossible.
That is just one of the terms "Blackadder" has used to refer to myself. He also refers to me as "coolie-boy", a term which is both offensive and downright racist. Like I said[quote]I had been prepared to quietly let matters drop. But where quietly letting matters drop is concerned, it requires two to do that. Since my willingness to do so has not been reciprocated, I repeat that making fun of folks' names is a bit reminiscent of a primary school playground. But even that wouldn't be quite so bad if it happened between folk on equal terms. That is, if it was possible for both parties' real names to have fun made of them. Now, there is plenty of proof of who I am. Scores of folk on the internet, including many on this forum, have met me in person, loads of details about me are a matter of public record, and, despite some sceptics taking the trouble to check, everything I have ever said about myself on line turned out to be true. But "Blackadder" is just a net-name, not a personal name. Anyone who, while sheltering behind a pseudo identity, is offensive about the real name of a real person, is, in my opinion, acting in a cowardly fashion. Every time the poster using the false identity "Blackadder" uses some distortion of my name, whatever the topic under discussion, the topic will then become the fact that he chooses to twist the real name of a real person, while himself hiding behind a false identity, in a cowardly fashion. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
If Coolio's not going to engage in any kind of debate ... judging by his posts above ... HE's the eejit who's persisting in making reasonable discussion on historical matters virtually impossible. I'm going to continue regardless.
|
||||||||||
| carol |
Net name or not Dave, BA is a far better person than you will ever be | ||||||||||
| Cruachan |
I didn't realise this Forum was about establishing who are, and are not, "better people"?    I think we're all great.
Now, people's views well that's a different matter.... |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
Sorry, Carol ... but I'm not!
Stepping out of the online persona of my fictionalised ancestor for a brief moment ... I have to say I'm not a better person than Coolio. I might be better at him in some things, but he's probably better than me in others. Not knowing him at a personal level ... I don't like playing that game of who's the better man! I do take issue with him on what I've said already on the board, and that's not going to change any time soon. I think Coolio needs to learn a little humility ... but so do I now and again. I certainly never meant to be racist towards him. There's not a racist bone in my body ... but the fact he chooses to see it as such, is his doing ... not mine! Oh dear, I can feel my ancestor demanding to be let back on now ... stand back ... here he comes ... ... Of course I'm a better man. I'm better than all of the peasants on this forum by the very fact I was born! And if this mealy-mouthed Coolio creature wishes to continue being an arse, that's his affair. He's only showing his own prejudices up! Twonk!!!
|
||||||||||
| Holebender |
I'd like to commend Blackadder's present day persona for having the maturity and humility to recognise that we all have faults and no man is better than another (politicians excepted).
As for the ancestral A***hole...
|
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
There's nothing wrong with the "ancestral A***hole", thanks very much, Holyblender!!! He's just less diplomatic than most and has an honest worldview in which he is the centre of the Universe. He speaks his mind! I try to keep him under wraps ... but ... he demands to be let out more often than not ... and why not? Keeps everyone on their toes!!
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Acting is a very strange profession.
Personally, I think that everybody in the acting business has got something wrong with them. Maybe they were all deprived of a mother's love when they were babies, or something like that. But whatever the explanation, look at the facts. Acting, by definition, involves PRETENDING TO BE SOMEBODY ELSE. How can anybody possibly pretend to be somebody else? They must really hate themselves to want to pretend to be somebody else. (By the way, the same comments about all having something wrong with them, and maybe it was because of a deprived childhood or something like that, apply to spies, or any other profession which involves pretending to be somebody else.) My wife says it would have been completely impossible for me to even have a wee part in a local amateur dramatic production, because pretending to be anybody but me would be unbearable for me. The poster calling himself Blackadder, on the other hand, is undeniably an actor. In fact, he is an actor playing an actor who is playing the part of the totally fictional character Edmund Blackadder. How far from being a real person can you get? He must REALLY hate himself, a helluva lot.
Note that this moment of unusual honesty contains two admissions (1) this online person is a fake, and (2) even the claim to be related to somebody called Blackadder is a fiction.
I understand. Having Carol think you "a better person" must be really EMBARRASSING. It's like a U.S. presidential candidate receiving a particularly warm endorsement from George Dubbya Bush. You can see the ratings tumble, and you have to quickly deny all the nice things Dubbya has said about you.
Your "ancestor" is coming through you? I have read the works of Doctor Freud, and I thought I had quite a wide knowledge of the perversities of human nature, but Blackadder's painful condition will surely be of great interest to would-be healers of all kinds. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
I was rong abou you Coolio. You're not a boring old fart ... you're a complete whackjob!!!
That's the most convoluted and specious posting I've seen in a dog's age ... not to mention ... totally out of sync with reality!!! Your argument wouldn't stand up in a plate of porridge!!!
As for your psychiatric analysis ... I was a-freud you would come up with something like that. Personally, I 'm a huge fan of Jung! And I can assue you I was the apple of my mother's eye! Disbelieve me all you want ... I don't give a flying feck and will leave you with this wee message ... 
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Your apology is accepted. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
Don't terminate it there, Coolio. That's NOT an apology ... and before I ever apologise to you ... you'll be apologising to me!
Insufferable old git!!!!
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Calm down, dear, it's only a discussion. Mind you, Blackadder does have some lucid moments, when a more rational personality temporarily seizes the controls:
With the more rational personality temporarily dominant,
and, graciously,
but now Blackadder shifts his position, or rather, another Blackadder grabs the steering wheel
Which is a pity, but then, as Blackadder has himself admitted, he does suffer from a kind of multiple personaltiy disorder, so I suppose this must be his fictitious ancestor coming again. So, all we can say is, we sincerely hope Blackadder recovers from this painful experience. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
My name may be Blackadder ... but the slithering twists and turns Coolio makes to wriggle things around to the way he want them to look, shows him to be an even bigger snake than any of my illustrious ancestors!
And the word you were misrepresenting there was "fictionalised", old boy ... not "fictional"!!! Are you forgetting other posters can read and reason too?? They're on to you!!!
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
What did Mary "Queen of Scots" ever do for Scotland? She loved France, and she claimed the throne of England, but, so far as Scotland was concerned, she really wasn't much interested, except as a stepping stone to greater things.
It's true that women, even "royal" women, were far less free in those days than today, but SOME women were less puppet-on-a-string than Mary Q of S was. Her own mother, Mary of Guise, was a far more intelligent player. So was Elizabeth of England. It's true Mary was executed, but then, so were plenty of other women. The thing that makes Mary appear to be a far more important figure in Scottish History than she actually was is that it suits some folk politically, even to the present day, to play up her significance. Because she was executed on the orders of a protestant (Elizabeth) it suits some folk in the Catholic Church to seek to portray Mary as a Martyr for the Faith. There are problems with this. One problem is that her track record can appear more to be more "scarlet woman" than "saint". Another problem is that Mary would undoubtedly have been quite prepared to have Elizabeth killed if the shoe had been on the other foot. It also suits SOME , not all, Scottish Nationalists, just a minority of them probably, the ones of a more "Jacobite" disposition, to portray Mary as a victim of the English. But how can this woman whose dearest wish was to be recognised as Queen of England, and who did in fact have the support of some English people for that claim, be said to be the victim of "the English"? She was the victim of a rival claimant and her supporters. Okay, feel sorry for Mary simply as a human being, for the way things worked out for her. But there is really nothing to justify all the hot air which has made her more well known than far more important figures in Scottish History. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
Whatever anyone thinks of Mary ... and that can be argued till the cows come home ... she will always be associated with the romantic notions of Scotland.
There's simply no point Devious asking what did she ever do for the country. 400 years after her death, she is responsible for much of the tourism that comes to Scotland. She is, without doubt, one of the most famous Scots who ever lived! And the tourist dollars coming into the country is reason enough to be thankful for her!
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Blackadder suggested that there was simply no point asking what Mary "Queen of Scots" did for the Scots during her lifetime, because of her tourist value long after her lifetime.
I would say that the point of questioning the myths surrounding ANY historical figure is the always continuing search for historical accuracy. For folk with a real interest in studying history, that is reason enough. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
The thing is, Devious ... that better historians than you or I have researched Mary to death. The real stuff gets done by the professionals.
All you can do is chew over old bones and offer opinions, many of which are questionable, since there is a marked dearth of fact involved in your posts. That's why I prefer older material like the Arthurian traditions ... because much of it is still open to interpretation!
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
"Better" is an opinion. "More specialised" would be factual. History is something that happens all over the world and all the time. It is literally impossible for anybody to know all that much about all of history. Everybody who has a degree in history had to specialise in order to get that degree. There is no such thing at any university as a course in "History". As for "professional" historians, they are ALL specialists, they all specialise in certain geographic areas, certain time periods, certain movements, or whatever. So far as the professional journals used by "professional" historians are concerned, it's not enough that somebody has a degree in history, it's not even enough that they should be "professional", in order to contribute they have to have an acknowledged expertise on a particular field of study. However, the History forum here on Our Scotland has no such restrictions. Absolutely anybody can start a discussion about absolutely any aspect of history, and absolutely anybody can take part in that discussion.
In one way, ALL discussion of history could be described as "chewing over old bones", in the sense that nearly everybody in history is dead. Not quite "everybody", but "nearly everybody". This particular topic was started by Mairead. Her initial post stated "On this day in 1542, Queen Mary Stewart was murdered on the orders of Elizabeth 1st of England". That single sentence contains one fact, a date of death, and two opinions, the term "murdered", and who, in the opinion of the writer, was guilty of that murder. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with Mairead's initial post, it is a statement of fact that it was a mixture of fact and opinion.
Then, if opinions expressed on a historical topic are questionable, question them! That is what a History forum is FOR. Which of the opinions expressed on the topic of Mary Q of S do you consider questionable, and why? |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I have just noticed something.
I said that Mairead's initial post starting this topic contained one fact and two opinions. I have just realised that, although that initial post did indeed contain two matters of opinion, it didn't contain a single fact. 1542 was the year Mary Q of S was born. She died in 1587, if I remember correctly. Probably a simple typing error. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
1587 is entirely correct, however ....
"Probably a simple typing error" My arse!!! Bet you just LOVED flagging that one up to embarrass Mairead! It's quite clear you don't like her or Carol ... and I'm thinking the feeling is probably mutual. Is that why you don't come to General Banter? Anyway, Devious, regarding M,Qos ... you made it quite clear you think very little of the woman. Seems to be a theme in your posts. Bit of a misogynist are you? Your debate also goes nowhere. It consists of you giving your opinion and rubbishing anyone else. And on closer inspection ... you're not only chewing over old bones ... you seem to be gnawing on one particular piece at a time. How boring! Move on.
|
||||||||||
| mairead |
Do excuse my error Dave. You are absolutle correct re. the dates. However the fact that I stated was that she was murdered, which is not an opinion but an actual fact. Gloss it over how you like but it was murder, if you do not agree, exactly what would you describe it as? | ||||||||||
| schawaldowris |
I always found it interesting that Mary was found guilty of treason. She was after all, not a subject of the Crown of England. If this was the case, how could she be guilty of treason?
Although deposed and rejected by the majority of her own people she was still recognised by the major European powers as the sovereign of an independent state. Her subsequent execution by a sister monarch was therefore considered as judicial murder. In the United Kingdom, successive historians have described her as a feckless, willful, devious, conniving promiscuous homicidal b***h! On the continent of Europe, historians still regard her as a martyr! |
||||||||||
| Jimbo |
Hi schawaldowris, I'd pondered on that myself in the past. I think much of it has to do with the fact that a lot of our history is written/taken from an Anglo-centric perspective. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
Swelldowries ... in the United Kingdom ... it's mostly English and protestant historians who have described her as a feckless, willful, devious, conniving promiscuous homicidal b***h!
During her incarceration, Mary re-found her faith and went to the block a Catholic. This is one reason the continent considers her a martyr, surrounded as she was by protestant heretics! I was raised Catholic so you can guess which way she was regarded in my education!
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
It was an easy mistake to make, probably just a typing slip, like I said. I have made some far more embarrassing errors myself. And even "professional" historians can make embarrassing mistakes. When I was researching my dissertation, I read a relevant book by a prominent historian. I looked up his references, and checked out his original sources, and found to my complete astonishment that he had made a couple of glaring errors. I pointed these errors out in my dissertation. It was only later I discovered this historian was vice-principal of the university which might or might not award me a degree in history...........
Some people would have used the term "execution". In using the term "murder" rather than "execution", you were, in effect, expressing a opinion. You were also expressing an opinion when you singled out Elizabeth as the sole, or chief, "murderer". (There could be a number of other suspects.......) Personally, from my point of view, "execution" is just a form of judicial "murder" anyway. I do not draw a big distinction between these two terms, as some people do. And I have no great desire to defend the reputation of Elizabeth. But that is just MY OPINION. Blackadder had said my posts were long on opinion and short on fact. I was pointing out exactly the same thing could be said about the very first post under this topic heading.
No. I felt a bit embarassed for myself, that I hadn't spotted the mistake earlier, and I thought I'd better point it out before somebody else did.
No, that's not true. It's true Carol has been personally hostile towards me for over three years, nearer four in fact, but this personal dislike is entirely on her side, not mine. On my side, it's a matter of political disagreement. I disagree with running a "non-party-political" campaign on lines which seem (to me) more like a political party, with internal dissent restricted, and members expected to toe a party line. So far as Mairead is concerned, I think it may have been about a year ago she first contacted me, by a private message through the Our Scotland forum. Carol had been having a "go" at me, and Mairead, who had her own problems with Carol, contacted me to express solidarity with me. It's possible she may have changed her attitude since then, but there is certainly no personal hostility on MY part.
No. There are plenty of women, both historical and present day, who I deeply admire. In practice, of course, EVERYBODY has some prejudices. If you had said "You're prejudiced because you come from a very protestant background and it really annoys you that some Roman Catholics seem to regard this person with a questionable CV as practically a Saint", then you might have had a bit more of a case. But - because of gender???!!!!!!! That really is ridiculous. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
That's right out of order, discussing PMs on the forum, Devious! You could easily have contacted me by PM to tell me that instead of doing it in a public manner. There was no need to bring it up here!
All you do is open up the floodgates for recriminations to follow ... but then you knew that, didn't you? Why else write what you did so publicly! I wonder if Rin-tin-tin will have a go at you about this on the forum as he did Carol?? We'll see! Any and all disputes of a personal nature should not be public. Keep it to PMs! |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I have a dispute with yourself, Blackadder, about what I consider to be a practice that is both infantile and somewhat devious on your part, namely, twisting the names of real people while yourself hiding behind a false identity. But, so far as I am aware, you are the ONLY person currently on the Our Scotland forum with whom I have what could be described as a "dispute of a personal nature". And even that one, it could be argued, is, on my side at least, ultimately a matter of political principle. As for disagreements I may have with other posters, I would argue that, in every case, so far as I am concerned, they are clearly disagreements on matters of political principle. If some folk choose to make a disagreement on political principle into something more personal, that's their doing, not mine. As for me, I take part in the History section of Our Scotland because I am interested in history. I forget who it was that said "History isn't just the dead past. Not only is it not dead, it isn't even past" - but they had a point. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
If you have a dispute with me, I am completely unaware of it. The "names" issue is just a bit of fun for me, 'childish' or otherwise. You obviously don't go to the type of gentlemen's club I give my patronage to! If you take such deep umbrage to a name-change, then you have a problem ... not I!
The nature of your posts are very public, which is why I question them ... therefore "personal" does not apply. It is your attitude to some posters I have lots of fun with, in the Banter section, when they come on to other threads I don't like. Those too are very public ... so I don't need to be either. But you broke a cardinal rule of many forums like this in publicly giving out info from PMs. That is wrong ... and you owe the ladies in question, a very public apology. Should you refute that, you are indeed a cad. But, whatever happens, Idi Admin should be having a warning word with you! btw ... "The past is not dead. It isn't even past." William Faulkner, 1897-1962. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Dave Coull.
How bloody dare you put on a public forum any part of a PM which I sent you, (years ago and before I found out your true character). Carol and I may not be the best of friends but I sure can see why she was glad you left Inde 1st. You are at best ignorant and at worst an untrustworthy, beligerent and stupid old old blockhead. How bloody dare you breach anyone's confidentiality. To disclose the contents or part of the contents of a PM is outrageous and I will be contacting the administrators of this forum regarding your abuse of the PM system. You have done this before and both Carol and I know it, but you won't be doing it again if I can help it. There may not be hostility towards me on your part, but you can take it as read that I am extremely hostile to you now.o |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
You can't pretend that's news to you. Yes, in order for discussion of History, Politics, etc, to continue, I decided to shelve the matter. But even then, in a post sent yesterday at 6.13pm,
I would argue that is not personal hostility, it is a disagreement on a matter of principle. I believe in open-ness as a matter of principle. I'm not sure if I could bring myself to deny my identity even if there were notices with my name and "WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE" all over the place. But although I find using a pseudonym impossible, I accept that many other people feel they have good reasons for doing so. The problem, in YOUR case, was a COMBINATION of two things: distorting the real name of a real person while hiding your own identity. That still looks an unfortunate shade of colour to me. I accept that other folk don't see it like that. But I do.
I believe in open-ness. For me, this is a matter of principle. And, like I already said,
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I am willing to bet that you can not quote a single historian who has described her in those terms. Yes, it is probably true that some historians on the continent of Europe take a rosier view of Mary Q of S than some historians here. And yes, it is quite possible that this reflects the fact that a higher proportion of historians on the continent come from a Catholic background. But I still say you can't quote a single historian to support your contention that "successive historians have described her as a feckless, willful, devious, conniving promiscuous homicidal b***h". |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I agree with most of that. The only bit that I would quibble with is that it seems a bit of an over-simplification to say that it was the Tories who got rid of Mrs. Thatcher. Yes, in the end, it was. But the thing that made these Tories finally find the will to stand up to the "Iron Lady" was that we in the anti-poll-tax movement had already demonstrated that she could be beaten, and that the lady WAS for turning. |
||||||||||
| Babygael |
You know mairead,I believe I had the same thing done to me on another forum? PM's becoming Public messages!! I don't really care because I can always hit delete and in an instant, its erm history! 
As for Mrs.T, well just let me say that in some warrior cultures,the strongest,smartest warrior on the "other side "was often eaten in order to get a bit of that spirit for themselves. To me,thats Maggie T. If you keep misunderstanding me, I will......I will.....laff!! 
As a matter of fact, James Lord of Douglas, was so admired as a warrior, that even English Knights came to see him after the hostilities were over. There is nothing wrong in admiring your enemies strengths and abilities. http://uk.geocities.com/snow_man1uk/on_crusade.htm |
||||||||||
| mairead |
BG,
Wish you could press a button and delete that pain in the butt, the all knowing, sanctimonius and indiscreet Dave Coull. Boy I wouldn't like to tell that guy too many secrets. Talk about an auld sweetie wife. Duh |
||||||||||
| Rinty |
I have been asked to look at this thread by a member.
There is nothing here that would breach forum rules but revealing PM's is not good practice and negates having a PM facility. However, there is not much moderators can do about people who do this, short of criticise them for it. The rest of the thread is verging on the pathetic but of no concern to moderators other than the fact that historical threads becoming personal puts people off taking part in the forum. But, please, do think of how all of this looks to new members. You all might not care as much about the development of the forum as others but it is important to create an atmosphere that people will want to be involved in. |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Well, I did try to discuss History...............
My dictionary says "sanctimonious" means "making a show of being morally superior". In general, I make absolutely no claim to being morally superior to other people. The only respect in which it could be argued that I "claim the moral high ground" is that I tend to see disagreements in terms of political principle, whereas some other folk see them in personal terms. "Indiscreet" - well, okay, I can see you have a case for saying that. But I would argue that "discretion" is not ALWAYS the right course of action. For instance, married people who have "discreet" affairs are in effect lying. In the particular instance complained of, Blackadder had made a number of unfounded personal criticisms of myself. Mentioning the earlier personal hostility between yourself and Carol, and the absence of any such personal hostility on my own part, was relevant to answering his unfounded criticism. "All knowing" - that is the description you have the LEAST ground for. In responding to an error by yourself, I said that I had made far more embarrassing mistakes myself. I also specifically denied that either myself or anybody else could be "all knowing":
Since History is something that happens all over the world, and has been happening all over the world for a very long time, even the very best of historians will have huge gaps in their knowledge.
The most recent post actually on topic was from myself, and, personally, I would be quite happy to get back to discussing historical matters. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
I disagree with Rin-tin-tin's judgement on this thread. The smarmy and manipulative Devious Coolio thinks to hide all in his catch-all "political principle" (which is a load of old tosh!) while pissing off other posters, in particular Mairead and Carol ... and unfortunately, Rinters can't or won't see it.
It seems that Independence 1st was full of fractious people who agreed on nothing. Perhaps Idi Admin can make a PUBLIC ruling that matters from outside the forum are not to be brought up, as well as reinforcing the no leaking from PMs that Devious Coolio most certainly did! Generally, this is a decent forum ... but no-one (and I include me though I am of course so much better than all of you) is exempt from being excluded if they don't cut the crap ... and that include you more than anyone Mr Hide-behind-my-verbiage Devious Coolio!! Staying on-thread is okay when it moves forward ... but a little deviation from the norm is usually good for any thread ... unless it gets bogged down in arguments. It would be good to move forward from here ... if only the contributors would keep from getting personal .... you know who you are!!!
|
||||||||||
| mairead |
Rinty,
While I do take your point, I find it outrageous that private messages, especially from so long ago should be brought up again, no doubt for one reason, to cause animosity. Anyway, having said that, I shall now go back to the original topic and waste no more time on this person. Mary, Queen of Scots.... Her worst problem was her naivety, and yes she was murdered under the name of treason, but how could the lawful Queen of one country be accused of treason in another. Had she been poisoned by her Jailer, Paulet, as Elizabeth wanted, would that have been excecution or murder.? |
||||||||||
| Holebender |
You have completely missed the point Dave. You may believe in openness and be a completely open book yourself but when someone discloses something to you in private good manners, if nothing else, dictates that you respect the privacy of your correspondent. How can you expect anyone to trust you with anything if you are unable to respect that trust? |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
I don't think Mary was naive. She knew exactly what she was. A tool for the use of by men. Her upbringing in the French court, under the patronage of the de Guise family would have fixed that idea in her head. Her Catholicism wouldn't have helped either. Mary was never meant to be a Queen regnant, like her cousin, Elizabeth. And she knew this. | ||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
No, that wasn't the purpose. Blackadder had sought to link you and Carol together, and suggest that I was hostile towards both of you. Although in actual fact I had no personal animosity towards either of you, just disagreements on political principles, I mentioned that message in order to show that, so far as I was concerned, there was a very clear distinction between the two of you. So far as I was concerned, it wasn't about sowing hostility between you and Carol, it was about showing what Blackadder had said was wrong about ME.
So far as I personally am concerned, ALL monarchy, with its pretensions of "divine right" and spurious claims to ancient heritage, is a fraud. The truth is they make it up as they go along. However, having said that I support neither Elizabeth nor Mary, I can see why Liz's supporters considered Mary a "traitor". They had the queen they wanted, and Mary's claim, never relinquished, to the throne of England, automatically made her a traitor, so far as they were concerned. Perhaps if she had clearly relinquished all claim to England, and stuck to being Queen of Scots, that might have been different. |
||||||||||
| Rinty |
"Rinty,
While I do take your point, I find it outrageous that private messages, especially from so long ago should be brought up again, no doubt for one reason, to cause animosity." who would be a moderator? I specifically said that I agree that PMs shouldnt be repeated, so we agree. I dont see what I can do about it though, other than say that, so I dont see your point Mairead. My only comment on mairead is her reaction to this in posting that people would thin skins should stay away. I dont like PMs being made public but I also dont like forum members posting to keep others away from here. But there is no rule on that so I wont do anything about it other than comment. "I disagree with Rin-tin-tin's judgement on this thread. The smarmy and manipulative Devious Coolio thinks to hide all in his catch-all "political principle" (which is a load of old tosh!) while pissing off other posters, in particular Mairead and Carol ... and unfortunately, Rinters can't or won't see it. " Yes, I am aware that there is now a small group of people who are pushing the idea that I am being manipulated by 'devious dave' and that probably what is being asked of me is to ban Dave. I cant do that, there is no rule re PMs and, apart from saying that I dont know what I can do. There is nothing other than paranoia to suggest that I am on the side of Dave against mairead and carol, I didnt even know Mairead was involved. But it is this suggestion, now looking pretty much like a coordinated posting campaign, that means I can no longer moderate between these people. Good luck with whoever moderates it next. One thing we all have to be careful of here, as I have seen in other forums, is that we dont piss of moderators to the point that no-one will do it, then the forum will descend into a mess. If the hope is that by organising a 'rinty is against carol and mairead campaign' I will buckle and take uncalled for action against Dave then it wont work. It is quite a pathetic really. I made a moderators decision on a thread, didn't ban anyone, yellow card anyone or threaten anyone with a ban, some dont like the decision, that should be it. |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Blackadder none-too-subtly suggests that he would like to see me excluded from Our Scotland. Not one of his brighter ideas. It wouldn't be the first time some organisation has expelled me. Expulsion was like water off a duck's back, so far as I was concerned. It didn't silence me, I soon found other outlets for what I wanted to say, the organisation concerned received some extremely bad publicity for its authoritarian attack on free speech, and, within a year or so, it had ceased to function altogether.
(By the way, that doesn't refer to Independence First - I wasn't expelled from IF, I left, along with fourteen other members.) In any case, while it is certainly true that nobody is exempt from being excluded from this forum, and while there are several folk who have broken the forum rules at one time or another, they don't include me.
At least I don't hide behind a false name.
"Matters from outside the forum are not to be brought up" would be an incredibly stupid, and completely unworkable, rule. The Presidential Election in the USA is outside this forum, no discussion of that. The Scottish Parliament is outside this forum, no discussion of that either. Mary Queen of Scots is definitely outside this forum, so this whole topic would have to go. In fact, such a ridiculous rule could apply to almost ANYTHING. If, on the other hand, it is just intended to apply to Independence First, what about the Independence Convention? What about the SNP? What about the Labour Party? And if, on the third hand, (for our visitors from the second moon of Alpha Centauri IV), the split in Independence First is considered to be ancient history, on the grounds that it happened over a year ago, well then, obviously, it could be discussed under the "HISTORY" heading.
I actually agree with that, if the diversion develops naturally out of the topic. For instance, Babygael went from discussing the "weak" Mary to discussing the "strong" Elizabeth, and, from that, to discussing another "strong" woman in history, Margaret Thatcher, and that seems to me quite a reasonable deviation. I don't agree about admiring Maggie, but I agree that to discuss this is a reasonable development of the discussion.
There's a word missing from that. The word "personal" is missing. A little deviation from the norm is usually good for any thread unless it gets bogged down in PERSONAL arguments. There is nothing wrong with "argument" as such. In fact, human progress would be impossible without it. Argument - an exchange of diverging views, or a set of reasons given in support of something - can be found in virtually every book on History ever written, in every book on science ever written, etc etc. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Thank you for yuor explanation Rinty, and as I said. I am now back on topic and won't be baited into discussing this any more with anyone.
Mary, Queen of Scots. Blackadder, I do think she was naive, she certainly was naive to trust her cousin Elizabeth, She was also naive to trust Bothwell and she was naive to think she could win round that great reformer John Knox who was a one time tool of King Henry V111. |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
When things got too hot for her in Scotland, she fled south of the border and asked asylum from Elizabeth. Now, it's true that she had few other options by that stage. But the sensible thing to do would have been to make it very, very clear that she in no way considered herself to be anything but a political refugee in England, that she was very, very grateful to Elizabeth for allowing her to enter England, that she certainly didn't have any claim at all on the English throne, and that she had absolutely no intention whatsoever of having anything to do with Elizabeth's Catholic enemies. The failure to make THAT absolutely clear, while nevertheless expecting asylum, was naive. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
I am not seeking and have never sought your expulsion, Coolio. Note I've dropped the devious, cos frankly you're just not that good!
You are quite entitled not to like me calling you a nickname ... but you're the one who decided to make such a huge issue of it ... a simple "please don't" would have sufficed ... but no ... you wanted a production number. You're such a prima donna! I made several points about your posts that you were perfectly at liberty to rebut ... but again, you went off on a tangent and made it something deadly personal. Is your life so empty you needed this? I certainly don't! You don't believe I am using a real identity ... so what? I don't care what you think. It is not an issue to anyone but you! Is it because you have Asperger's or something similar?? When I mentioned "matters outside the forum" you know damn well I meant these personal issues you have with Carol and Mairead. I did not seek to link them together. You did that all by your little self! You'd have to be a real idiot to claim I meant anything other than that. But then, I've never been an SNP supporter (till recently), and certainly not the Independence 1st mob you lot were in. I would just like that stuff to be left out!! By all means, continue to contribute please ... I certainly do not believe in stifling honest debate and argument. Just be more open and not jump on anyone with the methods you have employed in the past. I for one am interested in a few of the things you add ... although I have not been enamoured of the way you do it of late. We can all afford to be a little more graceful in the way we all treat people ... and yes I know my little aristocratic idiosyncracies can be annoying ... but we're surely not here to hurt each other, are we??? |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
That kinda jars with something said previously. Regarding myself, Blackadder wrote that no-one "is exempt from being excluded if they don't cut the crap ... AND THAT INCLUDES YOU MORE THAN ANYONE" Singling me out "more than anyone" seemed to show who Blackadder had in mind when he raised the subject of "excluding". This struck me as laughable. It wouldn't be the first time some organisation has expelled me. Expulsion was like water off a duck's back, so far as I was concerned. It didn't silence me, I soon found other outlets for what I wanted to say, the organisation concerned received some extremely bad publicity for its authoritarian attack on free speech, and, within a year or so, it had ceased to function altogether. Besides, while it is certainly true that nobody is exempt from being excluded from this forum, and while there ARE folk who have broken the forum rules at one time or another, the folk who have broken the forum rules do not include me. Okay, Blackadder now says he wasn't calling for my "exclusion", but he tells me
However, I take no lectures on "open-ness" from anybody who can't bring himself to use his own name.
(1) What you actually said was "It seems that Independence 1st was full of fractious people who agreed on nothing. Perhaps Idi Admin can make a PUBLIC ruling that matters from outside the forum are not to be brought up". Your suggestion, immediately following on from a reference to Independence First, appeared to imply what was being referred to was IF. Since Mairead was never at any time a member of Independence First, there was no reason to suppose it related to her. (2) I don't have any "personal" issues at all with either Carol or Mairead. I have disagreements on matters of political principle. THEY may have personal issues with ME, but that is a totally different matter. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
This is what I mean about you ... it's not going to be PAX unless you deem it so and everyone accepts your terms.
Well then ... in the words of Gripper Stebson ... Sod that ... twonk!!!
|
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Well I agree that Mary was naive to think she could win John Knox round, but describing him as "a one time tool of King Henry VIII" is a highly prejudiced statement. It would be equally accurate, or equally inaccurate, to turn that around and say that Knox used Henry. Although their lives overlapped, their paths never really crossed. About the only thing that Knox and Henry VIII had in common was that they both fell out with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. But there the similarities end. Henry fell out with the Pope because he couldn't get a divorce. John Knox, a Catholic priest, was a genuine religious convert, the follower and closest colleague of George Wishart, who was burned at the stake for his beliefs by Cardinal Beaton. Knox himself became for a number of years a galley slave on French ships. Henry the 8th wanted a Catholic church with himself at the head, instead of the Pope, and with an heirarchy of bishops who would do his bidding. John Knox wanted far more drastic changes, including getting rid of archbishops and so on, and introducing a far more democratic style of church government. So far as Henry was concerned, all church services had to be in Latin. John Knox believed in preaching in the tongue spoken by the people. If John Knox and Henry the 8th had come in contact, it is a certainty that they would have rapidly been in conflict with each other. It is true that, for a time, after escaping from French captivity, Knox was in England, but that was after Henry the 8th was dead, and his young son Edward was on the throne. Edward lasted just a few years, dying at the tender age of sixteen, but, during that time, the protestant reformation in England was pushed much further than Henry the 8th would ever have allowed. Of course, these changes were reversed by Edward's successor, Bloody Mary, and her Spanish husband. Apart from young Edward, who held a sincere protestant faith and who believed (understandably) that he might have to soon account for himself to his Maker, John Knox fell out with every royal or aristocratic personage he ever had to deal with, and there is no reason to suppose that Henry the 8th would have been any exception, if they had met. |
||||||||||
| Blackadder |
Knox was caught up in the ecclesiastical and political events that involved the murder of Cardinal Beaton in 1546 and the intervention of the regent of Scotland, Marie de Guise. He was taken prisoner by French forces the following year and exiled to England on his release in 1549.
The exiled Knox was licensed to work in the Church of England, where he quickly rose in the ranks to serve King Edward VI of England as a royal chaplain. In this position, he became a reforming influence on the text of the Book of Common Prayer. While in England he met and married his first wife, Marjorie ... Towards the end of 1550, Knox was appointed a preacher of St Nicholas' Church in Newcastle upon Tyne. The following year he was appointed one of the six royal chaplains serving the king. On 16 October 1551, John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland overthrew Edward Seymour to become the new regent of the king. Knox condemned the coup d'état in a sermon on All Saints Day. When Dudley visited Newcastle and listened to his preaching in June 1552, he had mixed feelings about the fire-brand preacher, but he saw Knox as a potential asset. Knox was asked to come to London to preach before the Court. In his first sermon, he advocated a change for the second edition of the Book of Common Prayer. The liturgy required worshippers to kneel during communion. Knox and the other chaplains considered this to be idolatry. It triggered a debate where Thomas Cranmer was called upon to defend the practice. The end result was a compromise in which the famous Black Rubric, which declared that no adoration is intended while kneeling, was included in the second edition. Soon afterwards, Dudley, who saw Knox as a useful political tool, offered him the bishopric of Rochester. Knox refused, and he returned to Newcastle. Invited back to London several times in 1553, he gave his last sermon before King Edward VI on 12 April, at Westminster. He was also in London on 6 July when the young king died. Edward's successor, Mary Tudor, re-established Roman Catholicism in England and restored the Mass in all the churches. Protestants such as Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, and Hugh Latimer were imprisoned in the Tower. With the country no longer safe for Protestant preachers, Knox left for the continent in January 1554 on the advice of friends. On the eve of his flight, he wrote: "Sometime I have thought that impossible it had been so to have removed my affection from the realm of Scotland that any realm or nation could have been equally dear to me. But God I take to record in my conscience that the troubles in the realm of England are double more dolorous unto my heart than ever were the troubles in Scotland." He moved to Geneva where he met John Calvin, from whom he gained experience and knowledge of Reformed theology and Presbyterian polity. He created a new order of service, which was eventually adopted by the reformed church in Scotland. He eventually left Geneva to head the English refugee church in Frankfurt but he was forced to leave over differences concerning the liturgy, thus ending his association with the Church of England. Returning to Scotland, he led the Protestant Reformation in Scotland, in partnership with the Scottish Protestant nobility. A kind of revolution occurred which led to the ousting of the queen regent, Marie de Guise, governing the country in the name of her young daughter. Knox helped write the new confession of faith and the ecclesiastical order for the newly created reformed church, the Kirk, continuing to serve as the religious leader of the Protestants throughout Mary's reign. In several interviews with the Queen, Knox admonished her for supporting Catholic practices. On 29 July 1567, Knox preached James VI's coronation sermon at the church in Stirling. Mary's life was spared, and she escaped imprisonment on 2 May 1568. During this period Knox thundered against her in his sermons, even to the point of calling for her death. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
Knox did not 'escape' as such from the Galleys. His release was secured by King Henry who wanted to use Knox to stir up the Scottish Catholics. King Henry also offered Knox the Bishopric of Rochester as a reward for doing this, but Knox declined to accept it as he wanted to remain in Scotland and preach his own brand of reformation there. | ||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I previously pointed out that Mairead's use of the term "murder" rather than "execution" for the death of Mary Q of S was implicitly expressing an opinion, rather than just stating a fact. Here, regarding the "murder" of Beaton, a bit of background needs to be given. That background was, just a short time before, the burning at the stake, on Beaton's orders, of John Knox's close friend George Wishart. Cardinal Beaton was assassinated in response to him torturing George Wishart to death. At least Beaton was allowed to die more swiftly than his victim, Wishart.
"Knox condemned the coup d'état". Like I said, apart from the young King Edward, who was too young and too sickly to assert himself too strongly, John Knox came into friction with virtually every royal and aristocrat he came in contact with, and there is no reason to suppose that his relations with Henry the 8th would have been at all harmonious, if they had met.
And he would have refused any honours from Henry the 8th, if they had ever met.
In the early 20th Century, a small number of members of the Social Democratic Party of Russia, meeting in exile in western Europe,.split into the Bolsheviks ("majority" at that meeting) and the Mensheviks ("minority" at that meeting). The leader of the majority faction at that exile meeting was Lenin. The young Stalin wasn't allowed a vote, because he had not been officially delegated by any party branch, but he supported Lenin. Splits amongst small groups of people in exile can have momentous consequences. In the case of the protestant refugees from Bloody Mary's tyrannical regime, we have the divergent paths taken by the presbyterian Church of Scotland and the episcopalian Church of England. Here, also, we see the beginnings of something which would help to ensure that Scotland remained a clearly distinct and separate nation even after the Union of the Crowns, and even after the Union of the Parliaments.
Well, yes, sort of. But Scottish protestantism was more democratic, and Knox didn't automatically get his own way. The reason subsequent generations formed the impression of him as a sort of undisputed leader was that it was Knox himself who wrote The History of the Reformation in Scotland, published in his own lifetime, and still available to this day. |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
It's a miracle !!!!!!!! Henry the 8th died on the 28th of January 1547. Six months after Henry the 8th died, John Knox was captured at Saint Andrews by French forces. He spent a year and a half as a galley slave on French ships. And yet, TWO YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH, Henry the 8th managed to secure the release of John Knox from slavery!!!!!!!!!! I know protestants are generally a bit sceptical about such things, but surely this must count as a miracle? |
||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
According to Blackadder, it was John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, acting as Regent in the name of the young King Edward, who offered Knox the Bishopric of Rochester, in 1552, more than FIVE YEARS after the death of King Henry. The one thing we are all agreed on is that Knox turned the offer down. |
||||||||||
| mairead |
No need for sarcasm Mr Coull, I named the wrong King in error. But then, Unlike you, I admit to making mistakes, because I don't know or profess to know everything however, having a modocum of good manners, I certainly would never point out someone's error in that manner, but hey, what the hell, that's almost your trademark isn't it. And I mean by that, being nasty.
my opinion that M.QoS was murdered is no different to your having your opinion of execution. TREASON. (the reason for Mary's daeth warrant.) A violation of a subject of allegiance to a sovereign or state.....disloyalty..sedition..treachery etc etc. So execution for treason just doesn't cut it. |
||||||||||