If Scotland Were Independent, Would You Support A Scottish Royal Family?

[Argyll]

I'm really curious as to what you all think. I think it would be a great thing, as to bring back a lot of national identity to my people. Also, are there any surviving Scottish Stew/uarts? Or would you want to have a clan elevated to Royal status?

[Beorn]

It would be difficult as to which country Queen Elizabeth II should reign over, but I suppose we could share her.

[Wulfhere]

It would be difficult as to which country Queen Elizabeth II should reign over, but I suppose we could share her.

Just like Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc., the Scots, I believe, intend to continue to recognise the Queen as their head of state. Though, just like the aforementioned countries, presumably without paying for her.

[Loddfafner]

There are a lot of Scottish families in the US, including that of my grandmother, who have claimed to be rightful rulers of Scotland. It would be a major genealogical project to sort through all those claims and see which is closest to being genuine.

[Tarja]

I'm of clan Stewart, and my tartan is the Royal Stewart tartan, I don't know anything about it though. I don't see why we'd really need a Royal family if we were independent, no one really gives a crap about the current Royal family, I don't think it'd be too different if we had our own!

[Wulfhere]

The current legitimate Stuart claimant is Franz, Duke of Bavaria.

[Scrapple]

There are a lot of Scottish families in the US, including that of my grandmother, who have claimed to be rightful rulers of Scotland. It would be a major genealogical project to sort through all those claims and see which is closest to being genuine.

Actually it would be a Bavarian Duke
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584184/Act-repeal-could-make-Franz-Herzog-von-Bayern-new-King-of-England-and-Scotland.html

Oops got distracted at work and Wulfhere beat me to it.

[Argyll]

I'm of clan Stewart, and my tartan is the Royal Stewart tartan, I don't know anything about it though. I don't see why we'd really need a Royal family if we were independent, no one really gives a crap about the current Royal family, I don't think it'd be too different if we had our own!

You're of clan Stewart?!?!? :eek:

Anyway, I think it'd be very amazing to have a new Royal family. I read that there is this castle/manor that "it's gates will only open if a Stewart is to sit on the throne." Or we could, again, elevate one of the noble clans to Royal status. Does anyone know where the McPeeks clan came from :confused: (there's two lines under the c)

[Wulfhere]

You're of clan Stewart?!?!? :eek:

Anyway, I think it'd be very amazing to have a new Royal family. I read that there is this castle/manor that "it's gates will only open if a Stewart is to sit on the throne." Or we could, again, elevate one of the noble clans to Royal status. Does anyone know where the McPeeks clan came from :confused: (there's two lines under the c)

You're not too enamoured of a Bavarian duke, then, even though he's the legitimate claimant?

How about Idi Amin (or his heir, since he's dead), who proclaimed himself King of Scotland in the 1970s?

[Magister Eckhart]

I would support the legitimate claimant and apply for amnesty as a 6th generation descendant from a Scots family. The House of Hanover never had a legitimate claim to the throne of either England or Scotland.

Of course, I understand His Royal Highness' reluctance to accept the crown or seek it - ruling an active monarchy is a great responsibility, and even the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (especially the emotionally imbalanced and childish Victoria) has shown reluctance to fulfill its duties to the Kingdom.

[Logan]

I'm really curious as to what you all think. I think it would be a great thing, as to bring back a lot of national identity to my people. Also, are there any surviving Scottish Stew/uarts? Or would you want to have a clan elevated to Royal status?

Here's one. :coffee:

Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern, King of Bavaria

http://haquelebac.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/the-present-king-of-scotland-and-ireland/

http://haquelebac.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/the-present-king-of-england-scotland-and-ireland.jpg

Not too desperate for lodgings.
http://coreywood.net/06.05.06%20nymphenburg.jpg

[Argyll]

I would support the legitimate claimant and apply for amnesty as a 6th generation descendant from a Scots family. The House of Hanover never had a legitimate claim to the throne of either England or Scotland.

Of course, I understand His Royal Highness' reluctance to accept the crown or seek it - ruling an active monarchy is a great responsibility, and even the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (especially the emotionally imbalanced and childish Victoria) has shown reluctance to fulfill its duties to the Kingdom.

I want an actual Scottish family to rule Scotland, lol. So, I wouldn't support a Bavarian Duke to come and rule.

[Wulfhere]

I want an actual Scottish family to rule Scotland, lol. So, I wouldn't support a Bavarian Duke to come and rule.

Don't blame you - no one likes Germans. But your requirement of "Scottish only" would also rule out all those American families you mentioned, and rightly so. In fact, since the Queen is at least half Scottish (her mother was a Scot), and on her father's side she undoubtedly has a far greater claim to the Scottish throne than any other family, if one excludes the Bavarian, then your choice is obvious.

[Magister Eckhart]

I want an actual Scottish family to rule Scotland, lol. So, I wouldn't support a Bavarian Duke to come and rule.

Royals are anational; there have been national nobility, but the high aristocracy has always been European. Robert II Stuart was descent from a long line of Bretons founded by a knight named Flad (or Flaat, maybe?) who came over from France after the Crusades. The House of Stuart replaced Robert de Bruys, himself Franco-Norman with very little actual Scottish heritage. Before him was the House of Balliol, a Picard family.

You'd have to go back almost to Malcolm Canmore (around AD 1060, if memory serves) to find a native Scottish ruler of Scotland.

At any rate, the His Royal Highness would soon enough become Scottish, just as the German Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family became English, culturally speaking. Make no mistake, though; royals transcend mere nationality and embrace a higher culture. They are the strongest basis for the West that presently exists (which unfortunately isn't saying much) precisely because of the history they have of being ethnically anational.

[Argyll]

Royals are anational; there have been national nobility, but the high aristocracy has always been European. Robert II Stuart was descent from a long line of Bretons founded by a knight named Flad (or Flaat, maybe?) who came over from France after the Crusades. The House of Stuart replaced Robert de Bruys, himself Franco-Norman with very little actual Scottish heritage. Before him was the House of Balliol, a Picard family.

You'd have to go back almost to Malcolm Canmore (around AD 1060, if memory serves) to find a native Scottish ruler of Scotland.

At any rate, the His Royal Highness would soon enough become Scottish, just as the German Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family became English, culturally speaking. Make no mistake, though; royals transcend mere nationality and embrace a higher culture. They are the strongest basis for the West that presently exists (which unfortunately isn't saying much) precisely because of the history they have of being ethnically anational.

I know that they have mated with other European families, and I didn't quite understand that. I always thought that royals should mate with their own people.

[Wulfhere]

I know that they have mated with other European families, and I didn't quite understand that. I always thought that royals should mate with their own people.

That's the very, very last thing they have done, historically at least. There are exceptions of course - most of Henry VIII's wives were English, for example - but it is only in modern times, starting with Prince Charles, that they have felt it more appropriate to marry Englishwomen than foreigners.

[Osweo]

I would support the legitimate claimant and apply for amnesty as a 6th generation descendant from a Scots family.

Someone of your sept should really be supporting the descendants of the Bernician Earls, if you want a REAL Wodening on the throne.

I believe the Dunbars are the ones to track down, though that Earldom was robbed off them by a Douglas conniving with Stuarts. :mad:

[Argyll]

That's the very, very last thing they have done, historically at least. There are exceptions of course - most of Henry VIII's wives were English, for example - but it is only in modern times, starting with Prince Charles, that they have felt it more appropriate to marry Englishwomen than foreigners.

I never understood why though. Is it probably because of the whole thing where the other Royal families were "divinely ordained"? That seems to be the most plausible reason.

[Wulfhere]

I never understood why though. Is it probably because of the whole thing where the other Royal families were "divinely ordained"? That seems to be the most plausible reason.

It was mainly to cement alliances and other similar, dynastic reasons. In the Middle Ages, it was a very important diplomatic tool. A certain amount of snobbery was involved too, no doubt, but the best monarchs - the few genuinely intelligent ones - weren't snobs.

[Logan]

That's the very, very last thing they have done, historically at least. There are exceptions of course - most of Henry VIII's wives were English, for example - but it is only in modern times, starting with Prince Charles, that they have felt it more appropriate to marry Englishwomen than foreigners.

http://lagenealogy.net/images/charlesPR.jpg

[Argyll]

It was mainly to cement alliances and other similar, dynastic reasons. In the Middle Ages, it was a very important diplomatic tool. A certain amount of snobbery was involved too, no doubt, but the best monarchs - the few genuinely intelligent ones - weren't snobs.

Well, yeah, I knew that much. I guess that part slipped my mind. I was thinking more of the whole "moral" part of it.

[Wulfhere]

http://lagenealogy.net/images/charlesPR.jpg

Not forgetting his earlier illustrious European royal ancestor, Dracula (Vlad the Impaler). And Muhammad too, according to some researchers, for an even more blood-soaked, psychopathic tyrant.

[Wulfhere]

Well, yeah, I knew that much. I guess that part slipped my mind. I was thinking more of the whole "moral" part of it.

Monarchs have very rarely allowed morality to interfere with their political activities.

[Magister Eckhart]

I know that they have mated with other European families, and I didn't quite understand that. I always thought that royals should mate with their own people.

Mate with the peasants? Why? Half the trouble we have today is vulgar influence on the nobility, both spiritual and physical. I think the problem here is that you are assuming that the notion of nations being integral is very old when in reality it's only been around for the last three hundred years at most. The rightful Monarch has always been he who is annointed to rule and is answerable to God - thus Scots demanded their own King but this does not equate to that king being "one of them". He was one of them if he respected their customs and upheld Christian rule, he didn't have to be a "blood Scot".


Not forgetting his earlier illustrious European royal ancestor, Dracula (Vlad the Impaler). And Muhammad too, according to some researchers, for an even more blood-soaked, psychopathic tyrant.

Vlad Tepes was neither psychopathic nor a tyrant. He was a noble defender of his Christian nation against the incursion of Mohammedan invaders. He was a European hero, and I think deserves to be treated as such.

[Argyll]

Monarchs have very rarely allowed morality to interfere with their political activities.

Let me put it in better terms: divine and religous.

[Argyll]

Mate with the peasants? Why? Half the trouble we have today is vulgar influence on the nobility, both spiritual and physical. I think the problem here is that you are assuming that the notion of nations being integral is very old when in reality it's only been around for the last three hundred years at most. The rightful Monarch has always been he who is annointed to rule and is answerable to God - thus Scots demanded their own King but this does not equate to that king being "one of them". He was one of them if he respected their customs and upheld Christian rule, he didn't have to be a "blood Scot".



Vlad Tepes was neither psychopathic nor a tyrant. He was a noble defender of his Christian nation against the incursion of Mohammedan invaders. He was a European hero, and I think deserves to be treated as such.

Why not mate with native noble families, then?

[Wulfhere]

Vlad Tepes was neither psychopathic nor a tyrant. He was a noble defender of his Christian nation against the incursion of Mohammedan invaders. He was a European hero, and I think deserves to be treated as such.

He was certainly those things too. None of us is truly one-dimensional.

[Wulfhere]

Let me put it in better terms: divine and religous.

Medieval monarchs didn't go on about the divine right of kings, and all that guff. They were practical people. It was the Stuarts who started pushing that particular idea, and lost their throne (twice) because of it.

[Argyll]

Medieval monarchs didn't go on about the divine right of kings, and all that guff. They were practical people. It was the Stuarts who started pushing that particular idea, and lost their throne (twice) because of it.

But isn't it then that the divine right thing came around? Or even before? I remember reading about the divine right of many kings of Europe, especially France and Germany (more of the German area and the Holy Roman Empire).

[Wulfhere]

But isn't it then that the divine right thing came around? Or even before? I remember reading about the divine right of many kings of Europe, especially France and Germany (more of the German area and the Holy Roman Empire).

And look what happened to them.

A monarch, basically, has a job to do, on behalf of the state and its people. If he starts letting it go to his head, he is in grave danger of losing it (his head, that is).

Another thing about the Stuarts is this: they were incredibly stupid people.

[Magister Eckhart]

Medieval monarchs didn't go on about the divine right of kings, and all that guff. They were practical people. It was the Stuarts who started pushing that particular idea, and lost their throne (twice) because of it.

Explain why Edward III (1312-1377) chose Dieu et mon droit as his motto, then. Monarchs in the Middle Ages were answerable to God according to the anointing in their coronation with the holy oil used to consecrate priests and bishops. In fact, the notion of the King also being a priest was so stubborn that John of Salisbury complains about it in his Politicratus. Kings were believed in the early eleventh century to have healing powers granted them by their divinely-ordained position, and they took divine ordination very seriously. The whole idea of divine ordination is what got the Crusades rolling, in fact: Kings who sought to serve God in more tangible ways and to do penance for their sins. Pilgrimages to the Holy Land for penance by Kings started in the tenth century, and were performed because the King was doing homage to his Liege-Lord, who was Christ.

[Wulfhere]

Explain why Edward III (1312-1377) chose Dieu et mon droit as his motto, then. Monarchs in the Middle Ages were answerable to God according to the anointing in their coronation with the holy oil used to consecrate priests and bishops. In fact, the notion of the King also being a priest was so stubborn that John of Salisbury complains about it in his Politicratus. Kings were believed in the early eleventh century to have healing powers granted them by their divinely-ordained position, and they took divine ordination very seriously. The whole idea of divine ordination is what got the Crusades rolling, in fact: Kings who sought to serve God in more tangible ways and to do penance for their sins. Pilgrimages to the Holy Land for penance by Kings started in the tenth century, and were performed because the King was doing homage to his Liege-Lord, who was Christ.

But they didn't use that excuse to ride rough shod over the traditional liberties of their subjects, or to become megalomaniacs. Or rather, those that did - such as Richard II - were deposed and came to very unpleasant ends. In particular, in England, the monarch was never an autocrat. Some came close, notably William the Bastard, but he did so by sheer brute force, rather than any political theory.

[Albion]

Just like Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc., the Scots, I believe, intend to continue to recognise the Queen as their head of state. Though, just like the aforementioned countries, presumably without paying for her.

By default yes. But it'd be easy for them to become a Commonwealth republic or even leave the Commonwealth if the felt like it.

I don't think the Scots have any great affection for the House of Glucksber... Mountbatten-Windsor.


I'm of clan Stewart, and my tartan is the Royal Stewart tartan, I don't know anything about it though. I don't see why we'd really need a Royal family if we were independent, no one really gives a crap about the current Royal family, I don't think it'd be too different if we had our own!

I think that sums up the view of most Scots I've seen and a great lot of English, particularly in the North and West Midlands.


You're of clan Stewart?!?!?

Why are you surprised. With the clan system you basically have a few clans that make up the majority of the nation plus a few lowlanders. It's nothing like England, if you're a highlander your genealogy is easy. :D

:D Queen Tarja. I think she'd make a nice queen, she could have Balmoral.


The House of Hanover never had a legitimate claim to the throne of either England or Scotland.

I think it's up to the English what they do, the Scots could have a separated monarchy but it doesn't effect us.


I believe the Dunbars are the ones to track down, though that Earldom was robbed off them by a Douglas conniving with Stuarts.

I knew a Dunbar! :lightbul: He was a teacher when I was at school, his rather unimaginative nickname was Mr Dumb bar.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Nothing wrong with a monarch elect.

Was that not how the vikings did it?

The Hanovers were elected monarchs, and into the British royal family came back much Stuart blood, via Princess Diana, actually.

[_______]

up to them. no opinion either way.

[Óttar]

Monarchies aren't exactly en vogue these days. Ireland doesn't have an Ard Ri. I don't see it happening.

Hypothetically, I suppose the ban on those of a Romish persuasion would no longer apply.

[Steal]

If Scotland were to gain independance i would hire a team of geneticists and nazi occultist shamans and resurect William Wallace. Least the dude deserves :thumb001:

[Wulfhere]

A monarch is set apart from society, part of an elite class, trained from birth, with an aura of sacrosanct majesty. Unfortunately, heredity often produces complete dimwits that fail to live up to this role. There are other ways of achieving the same effect, though. Such as ours:

http://sovereignmercia.webs.com/matriarchy.htm

[Magister Eckhart]

A monarch is set apart from society, part of an elite class, trained from birth, with an aura of sacrosanct majesty. Unfortunately, heredity often produces complete dimwits that fail to live up to this role. There are other ways of achieving the same effect, though. Such as ours:

http://sovereignmercia.webs.com/matriarchy.htm

Name one English queen who was worth her mettle. Women are incapable of rule because of their feeble emotional failures that only lesser men possess, but are the plague of the entirety of the fair sex. From Matilda's jealousy to Elizabeth's vindictiveness to Victoria's pride, no woman has ever been an effective ruler and no woman can be an effective ruler.

I will name Isabella as an effective female ruler, but will also assert that she is most rightfully revered when she is revered with her husband, for it was the pairing and not the individuals who accomplished the purification of Spain.

[Libertas]

It's a bit rich for Scotland or at least Scottish Presbyterians to dream of a Stuart/Stewart return when these Presbyterians were Hanoverian lackeys virtually to a man and fiercely opposed the Stuart family in the 2 Jacobite revolts of 1715 and 1745-46.

[Wulfhere]

Name one English queen who was worth her mettle. Women are incapable of rule because of their feeble emotional failures that only lesser men possess, but are the plague of the entirety of the fair sex. From Matilda's jealousy to Elizabeth's vindictiveness to Victoria's pride, no woman has ever been an effective ruler and no woman can be an effective ruler.

I will name Isabella as an effective female ruler, but will also assert that she is most rightfully revered when she is revered with her husband, for it was the pairing and not the individuals who accomplished the purification of Spain.

Elizabeth I is generally regarded as one of the greatest monarchs - man or woman - that England ever had. Like anyone, she was multifaceted, and some of her actions may have been ill-advised, but in general, her memory is rightly revered. As for the other ones you mentioned, Matilda "reigned" very briefly during a civil war, and Victoria reigned at a time when the monarch's influence on government was very much on the wane.

May I also add that Elizabeth remained unmarried, and devoted her energies solely to her country. Just as we propose.

[Magister Eckhart]

Elizabeth I is generally regarded as one of the greatest monarchs - man or woman - that England ever had. Like anyone, she was multifaceted, and some of her actions may have been ill-advised, but in general, her memory is rightly revered. As for the other ones you mentioned, Matilda "reigned" very briefly during a civil war, and Victoria reigned at a time when the monarch's influence on government was very much on the wane.

May I also add that Elizabeth remained unmarried, and devoted her energies solely to her country. Just as we propose.

Perhaps popularly, but certainly not by historians or anyone who knows anything about the subject, unless they have a feminist agenda, like Antonia Fraser. Neither David Starkey nor Alison Weir, the two leaders in the field, have any use for her at all, and rightfully so-- she gets credit for the accomplishments of her father that she had the good fortune to oversee. The destruction of the Spanish Armada by Henry VIII's fleet is a wonderful example. All of the good that was done during her reign, and even some of the evil, was the direct result of her father. She inherited all of his love for the axe and certainly was no where near as conciliatory as she is portrayed popularly--indeed, less conciliatory in general even than her sister Mary, another general failure.

Women cannot lead and cannot rule effectively, and never have been able. They are too emotional, too selfish, and too vain. Men have these faults as well, but may lay them aside for reason and responsibility, something of which no English queen or empress has ever been capable.

[Wulfhere]

Perhaps popularly, but certainly not by historians or anyone who knows anything about the subject, unless they have a feminist agenda, like Antonia Fraser. Neither David Starkey nor Alison Weir, the two leaders in the field, have any use for her at all, and rightfully so-- she gets credit for the accomplishments of her father that she had the good fortune to oversee. The destruction of the Spanish Armada by Henry VIII's fleet is a wonderful example. All of the good that was done during her reign, and even some of the evil, was the direct result of her father. She inherited all of his love for the axe and certainly was no where near as conciliatory as she is portrayed popularly--indeed, less conciliatory in general even than her sister Mary, another general failure.

Women cannot lead and cannot rule effectively, and never have been able. They are too emotional, too selfish, and too vain. Men have these faults as well, but may lay them aside for reason and responsibility, something of which no English queen or empress has ever been capable.

I've never read David Starkey on Elizabeth, but in his Monarchy TV series he was hardly scathing about her. In any case, if modern historians have stuck the boot in, it's all part of the general revisionism that seeks to downplay English accomplishments in favour of the enemy, in this case Catholic Europe, which Elizabeth successfully defied for over half a century, allowing - indeed, necessitating - a flowering of English pride and self-awareness that led to a new and vibrant culture. With a "fatwa" on her head from the Pope, and the forces of Catholicism ranged against it on all sides, England was forced to turn away from Europe, and focus on the rest of the world - with results that have changed the course of world history.

In her old age, it can be argued, she allowed her indecisiveness to get the better of her - a trait she was noted for in her lifetime and, indeed, ever since. And even though her supposed last words were never actually uttered by her ("All my possessions for a moment of time"), they sum up her dogged refusal to ever give up. When she died, the nation had probably grown somewhat weary of her, and there was general cheering as James rode down from Edinburgh, making a stately procession through his new kingdom. Within 20 years, however, people knew full well that Elizabeth's reign was a true golden age.

[Magister Eckhart]

I've never read David Starkey on Elizabeth, but in his Monarchy TV series he was hardly scathing about her. In any case, if modern historians have stuck the boot in, it's all part of the general revisionism that seeks to downplay English accomplishments in favour of the enemy, in this case Catholic Europe, which Elizabeth successfully defied for over half a century, allowing - indeed, necessitating - a flowering of English pride and self-awareness that led to a new and vibrant culture. With a "fatwa" on her head from the Pope, and the forces of Catholicism ranged against it on all sides, England was forced to turn away from Europe, and focus on the rest of the world - with results that have changed the course of world history.

In her old age, it can be argued, she allowed her indecisiveness to get the better of her - a trait she was noted for in her lifetime and, indeed, ever since. And even though her supposed last words were never actually uttered by her ("All my possessions for a moment of time"), they sum up her dogged refusal to ever give up. When she died, the nation had probably grown somewhat weary of her, and there was general cheering as James rode down from Edinburgh, making a stately procession through his new kingdom. Within 20 years, however, people knew full well that Elizabeth's reign was a true golden age.

So she's wonderful because she followed her whore mother in rebellion against the evulll papists and broke England away from that ball-and-chain of Continental Europe. Lovely.

[Wulfhere]

So she's wonderful because she followed her whore mother in rebellion against the evulll papists and broke England away from that ball-and-chain of Continental Europe. Lovely.

Erm, yes, exactly. Not sure Anne Boleyn could actually be classed as a whore, but whatever she was, this was not Elizabeth's fault or responsibility. The Papists were certainly evil - reference the aforementioned "fatwa" (sentence of death, to be carried out by all loyal Catholics) on Elizabeth, and repeated attempts at invasion and destabilisation of England instigated by Europe. Indeed, the Catholics in England at the time were exactly as the Muslims are now, the only difference being Elizabeth's robust response, compared to that carried out on behalf of her current namesake.

Europe shot itself in the foot, of course. By turning England into a pariah state, the English went off and conquered the world, creating quite a few great and powerful nations in the process, that have now turned Europe into a second rate power.

[Loddfafner]

I want an actual Scottish family to rule Scotland, lol. So, I wouldn't support a Bavarian Duke to come and rule.

You might change your mind if you look into that Bavarian house (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittelsbach). One of their most illustrious members was Ludwig II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_II), Queen of Bavaria during the late nineteenth century, patron of Wagner, and an alternative focal figure for Germanic nationalism to Hitler.


Name one English queen who was worth her mettle.

True, Edward II was not one of England's more effective monarchs.

[Monty]

This reminds (http://www.libraryireland.com/ScotchIrish/South3.php) me of the remonstrance of Andrew Melville:

"There are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is King James, the head of this commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus, the king of the church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. We will yield to your place, and give you all due obedience. But again I say, you are not the head of the church."

[Magister Eckhart]

You might change your mind if you look into that Bavarian house (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittelsbach). One of their most illustrious members was Ludwig II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_II), Queen of Bavaria during the late nineteenth century, patron of Wagner, and an alternative focal figure for Germanic nationalism to Hitler.

I don't know about you, but I don't count Queen Ludwig among the most effective rulers monarchy has ever produced. A friend of the Master, yes, but at the expense of his subjects. I think this rather proves my point about women and womanly men being the worst rulers because of feminine traits in their personalities.


True, Edward II was not one of England's more effective monarchs.

Or James I, for that matter.



Erm, yes, exactly. Not sure Anne Boleyn could actually be classed as a whore, but whatever she was, this was not Elizabeth's fault or responsibility. The Papists were certainly evil - reference the aforementioned "fatwa" (sentence of death, to be carried out by all loyal Catholics) on Elizabeth, and repeated attempts at invasion and destabilisation of England instigated by Europe. Indeed, the Catholics in England at the time were exactly as the Muslims are now, the only difference being Elizabeth's robust response, compared to that carried out on behalf of her current namesake.

Europe shot itself in the foot, of course. By turning England into a pariah state, the English went off and conquered the world, creating quite a few great and powerful nations in the process, that have now turned Europe into a second rate power.

First of all, Anne Boleyn seduced Henry and used her body to manoeuvre him into heresy - easily classed as a harlot, especially considering what a temper-tantrum she threw once she was queen and was expected to give in the bedroom to her new husband. The Catholic Church excommunicated the King, which followed that none of his subjects were bound to his rule. No such order of assassination were ever issued, the comparison to the Saracen fatwa is completely absurd. Excommunication was a common practise to bring immoral monarchs into line and restore order to their kingdom-- part of a system of checks and balances between Rome and Kings dating to before the time of William the Bastard.

Usurpations instigated by Europe? Who in Europe, other than England's traditional enemies? Nothing changed because of Henry's excommunication except that the heretics used the opportunity to murder Catholics, such that when Mary took the throne she returned the favour, continuing a history of reprisals that ultimately resulted in the English Civil War - something else designed by heretics to ultimately eradicate the monarchy when they could not longer use it as a tool for corruption.

Yes, England conquered the world, and to what benefit to either her or the world itself? The spread of Mercantilism, Liberalism, and Calvinism? Look at the world you today live in: it is the world created by the British Parliamentarian and French Republican Empires, that spread their evil throughout the world by bloody thought and deed. What evil has the Church committed, among the admitted and enumerated sins of her sons and daughters, humans all, that compares the global destruction that has resulted from the Empires of Heresy?

[Monty]

What evil has the Church committed, among the admitted and enumerated sins of her sons and daughters, humans all, that compares the global destruction that has resulted from the Empires of Heresy?

She refused to reform, made her positions more strident and divided Christendom. By destroying the Hugenots, she was stuck with the Jacobins. That was the old days. Today, she is a global cheerleader for social democracy and universal human rights. That's just for starters.

[Wulfhere]

I don't know about you, but I don't count Queen Ludwig among the most effective rulers monarchy has ever produced. A friend of the Master, yes, but at the expense of his subjects. I think this rather proves my point about women and womanly men being the worst rulers because of feminine traits in their personalities.



Or James I, for that matter.




First of all, Anne Boleyn seduced Henry and used her body to manoeuvre him into heresy - easily classed as a harlot, especially considering what a temper-tantrum she threw once she was queen and was expected to give in the bedroom to her new husband. The Catholic Church excommunicated the King, which followed that none of his subjects were bound to his rule. No such order of assassination were ever issued, the comparison to the Saracen fatwa is completely absurd. Excommunication was a common practise to bring immoral monarchs into line and restore order to their kingdom-- part of a system of checks and balances between Rome and Kings dating to before the time of William the Bastard.

Usurpations instigated by Europe? Who in Europe, other than England's traditional enemies? Nothing changed because of Henry's excommunication except that the heretics used the opportunity to murder Catholics, such that when Mary took the throne she returned the favour, continuing a history of reprisals that ultimately resulted in the English Civil War - something else designed by heretics to ultimately eradicate the monarchy when they could not longer use it as a tool for corruption.

Yes, England conquered the world, and to what benefit to either her or the world itself? The spread of Mercantilism, Liberalism, and Calvinism? Look at the world you today live in: it is the world created by the British Parliamentarian and French Republican Empires, that spread their evil throughout the world by bloody thought and deed. What evil has the Church committed, among the admitted and enumerated sins of her sons and daughters, humans all, that compares the global destruction that has resulted from the Empires of Heresy?

If the Catholics had won, England might today be like Ireland, or Spain, or Italy. The Protestant Reformation, it is now clear, was merely a phase in the death of Christianity, for it is no accident that the Germanic lands that became Protestant have since seen a massive decline in Church attendance. Whilst some might bemoan this fact, it is actually very positive, because the way is open for a resurgance of Paganism and our true Northern heritage. The Christians will sell us out, but Pagans never will.

[Magister Eckhart]

If the Catholics had won, England might today be like Ireland, or Spain, or Italy. The Protestant Reformation, it is now clear, was merely a phase in the death of Christianity, for it is no accident that the Germanic lands that became Protestant have since seen a massive decline in Church attendance.

This is all true. Western Christianity has been dying, and with it Western Civilization. When they are both completely gone, if they are not already merely fossils, something will have to take their place - nature abhors a vacuum.

Perhaps intelligent Heathens will be a force for a new creation of civilization, but I have my doubts that the vulgar masses of your number will allow any sort of cultural creation; they seem, rather, to be emblematic of an age of post-history, in which one civilization has passed away and there is no sign of a second taking root. After the death of Classical civilization, it took only a century for the beginnings of Western Civilization spring forth in the form of Ulfilas, Remigius, and Boniface. Perhaps we shall see in four or five centuries that the names Plaisance (http://heathenjournal.com/) and McNallen (http://runestone.org/) enjoy such a place in History.

[Wulfhere]

This is all true. Western Christianity has been dying, and with it Western Civilization. When they are both completely gone, if they are not already merely fossils, something will have to take their place - nature abhors a vacuum.

Perhaps intelligent Heathens will be a force for a new creation of civilization, but I have my doubts that the vulgar masses of your number will allow any sort of cultural creation; they seem, rather, to be emblematic of an age of post-history, in which one civilization has passed away and there is no sign of a second taking root. After the death of Classical civilization, it took only a century for the beginnings of Western Civilization spring forth in the form of Ulfilas, Remigius, and Boniface. Perhaps we shall see in four or five centuries that the names Plaisance (http://heathenjournal.com/) and McNallen (http://runestone.org/) enjoy such a place in History.

What vulgar masses of our number? If you're looking for vulgar masses, look no further than those that inhabit the Catholic countries.

Classical civilisation was Western civilisation, in its pre-Christian phase. We are now entering its post-Christian phase.

[Magister Eckhart]

What vulgar masses of our number? If you're looking for vulgar masses, look no further than those that inhabit the Catholic countries.

Classical civilisation was Western civilisation, in its pre-Christian phase. We are now entering its post-Christian phase.

Yes, because the bearded idiots that get drunk on Fridays drinking to Odin and Thor while wearing horned helmets are just the height of culture and intelligence. You know full well most pagans are more idiotic than even the worst fundamentalist Christians in the US, and any notion otherwise is either ignorance or just trolling.

[Wulfhere]

Yes, because the bearded idiots that get drunk on Fridays drinking to Odin and Thor while wearing horned helmets are just the height of culture and intelligence. You know full well most pagans are more idiotic than even the worst fundamentalist Christians in the US, and any notion otherwise is either ignorance or just trolling.

On the contrary, most Pagans don't do that. It is not I who speak from ignorance here.

[Libertas]

If the Catholics had won, England might today be like Ireland, or Spain, or Italy. The Protestant Reformation, it is now clear, was merely a phase in the death of Christianity, for it is no accident that the Germanic lands that became Protestant have since seen a massive decline in Church attendance. Whilst some might bemoan this fact, it is actually very positive, because the way is open for a resurgance of Paganism and our true Northern heritage. The Christians will sell us out, but Pagans never will.

You are living in a dream world if you think that the decline in church attendance in Britain will bring a pagan resurgence.
The only gods worshipped by most young Brits today is cheap booze and easy sex.:eek::):):)

[Libertas]

What vulgar masses of our number? If you're looking for vulgar masses, look no further than those that inhabit the Catholic countries.

Classical civilisation was Western civilisation, in its pre-Christian phase. We are now entering its post-Christian phase.

The Germanic hordes helped to destroy classical civilisation in the west while Christian monasteries like those of the Benedictines preserved some key cultural aspects and technology for the furure.

Don't mention Theodoric the Ostrogoth. He was an exception and even he turned paranoid in old age killing leading Romans like Boethius.

[Wulfhere]

You are living in a dream world if you think that the decline in church attendance in Britain will bring a pagan resurgence.
The only gods worshipped by most young Brits today is cheap booze and easy sex.:eek::):):)

And you know this, how? Are you in any way familiar with the Pagan movement?

[Wulfhere]

The Germanic hordes helped to destroy classical civilisation in the west while Christian monasteries like those of the Benedictines preserved some key cultural aspects and technology for the furure.

Don't mention Theodoric the Ostrogoth. He was an exception and even he turned paranoid in old age killing leading Romans like Boethius.

I wasn't even going to mention Theodoric the Ostrogoth, nor anyone who betrayed his ancestors and became a Christian. The true heroes are people like Penda of Mercia, who held out against the Church.

[Libertas]

I wasn't even going to mention Theodoric the Ostrogoth, nor anyone who betrayed his ancestors and became a Christian. The true heroes are people like Penda of Mercia, who held out against the Church.

And lost.

[Wulfhere]

And lost.

He was defeated in battle, but the battle was not religious in nature, since he was allied with the Christian Welsh.

But if merely losing proves one to be in the wrong, then the Christian Church is now wrong, because it has already lost.

[ikki]

...

[Libertas]

He was defeated in battle, but the battle was not religious in nature, since he was allied with the Christian Welsh.

But if merely losing proves one to be in the wrong, then the Christian Church is now wrong, because it has already lost.

I wouldn't quite write off the Roman Catholic Church just yet.
The Protestant sects on the other hand have been pretty much routed save in the fundamentalist areas of the USA.:D

[Wulfhere]

I wouldn't quite write off the Roman Catholic Church just yet.
The Protestant sects on the other hand have been pretty much routed save in the fundamentalist areas of the USA.:D

Yes, that's exactly what I said before. Protestantism was a phase the Germanic lands went through in the gradual erradication of Christianity.

[Libertas]

Yes, that's exactly what I said before. Protestantism was a phase the Germanic lands went through in the gradual erradication of Christianity.

Apart from a few eccentrics paganism will certainly NOT fill the void left by Protestantism which was a lame copy of Old Testament Judaism.

[Wulfhere]

Apart from a few eccentrics paganism will certainly NOT fill the void left by Protestantism which was a lame copy of Old Testament Judaism.

It's not a "few". Paganism is the fastest growing spiritual movement - amongst the indigenous population, at any rate - in this country.

[Argyll]

It's not a "few". Paganism is the fastest growing spiritual movement - amongst the indigenous population, at any rate - in this country.

That's good. I'm really big into the Celtic Reconstructionalist movement.

[Wulfhere]

That's good. I'm really big into the Celtic Reconstructionalist movement.

Our primary emphasis is on the Germanic traditions, but Celtic is fine, too.

[Argyll]

Our primary emphasis is on the Germanic traditions, but Celtic is fine, too.

For some reason, I've always felt a strong calling to the British Celtic stuff (except for christianity :P). When I was a little kid, I was OBSESSED with witches. I loved them so much that I had stuffed witches and wasn't allowed to draw witches in pre-school or play with the witch puppet unless it was Halloween. I just can't quite understand the feelings I get when I'm reading about, looking at, or just anything about the Celts. I feel such a strange and homey connection with it all.

[Wulfhere]

For some reason, I've always felt a strong calling to the British Celtic stuff (except for christianity :P). When I was a little kid, I was OBSESSED with witches. I loved them so much that I had stuffed witches and wasn't allowed to draw witches in pre-school or play with the witch puppet unless it was Halloween. I just can't quite understand the feelings I get when I'm reading about, looking at, or just anything about the Celts. I feel such a strange and homey connection with it all.

Witches are Germanic.

[Argyll]

Witches are Germanic.

Okay, well let's not get into THAT conversation again :P How about just "spellcaster" then?

[Wulfhere]

Okay, well let's not get into THAT conversation again :P How about just "spellcaster" then?

If you like, as long as you remember that "spellcaster" is itself a Germanic (Old English) word - just like "witch", in fact.

[Argyll]

If you like, as long as you remember that "spellcaster" is itself a Germanic (Old English) word - just like "witch", in fact.

I'm not talking about word wise, I'm talking about what they did.

[Wulfhere]

I'm not talking about word wise, I'm talking about what they did.

Practitioners of magic have existed in all cultures.

[Argyll]

Practitioners of magic have existed in all cultures.

Yes, they have. Witch is just a general and accepted term. A more accurate Celtic term would be a Wyrd (which is Welsh). Sound familiar, that's because Weird Ones came from that word :)

[Wulfhere]

Yes, they have. Witch is just a general and accepted term. A more accurate Celtic term would be a Wyrd (which is Welsh). Sound familiar, that's because Weird Ones came from that word :)

Oh dear, sorry to disappoint your Celtic fantasies, but "wyrd" is Old English.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=weird&searchmode=none

[Argyll]

Oh dear, sorry to disappoint your Celtic fantasies, but "wyrd" is Old English.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=weird&searchmode=none

Oh, well I read a shoddy source then, thank you for correcting me. Well, we may never quite know a "true" word for the Celtic magic users, except for the priestly druids. Maybe there are Gaelic words for them.....

[Wulfhere]

Oh, well I read a shoddy source then, thank you for correcting me. Well, we may never quite know a "true" word for the Celtic magic users, except for the priestly druids. Maybe there are Gaelic words for them.....

Most of the books published in the New Age mass market are shoddy. And these include all those pushing the Celtic rubbish. I've even seen mention of "Celtic runes", for example.

The druids were the magical practitioners in Celtic society, as well as being astrologers, diviners and judges.

[Argyll]

Most of the books published in the New Age mass market are shoddy. And these include all those pushing the Celtic rubbish. I've even seen mention of "Celtic runes", for example.

The druids were the magical practitioners in Celtic society, as well as being astrologers, diviners and judges.

Unfortunately :( Do you know how hard it is to find books on real Scottish Witchcraft (yes, I know you're going to grumble at that word :D)? There are a few good ones, though. Most are really old.


I've even seen mention of "Celtic runes", for example.
:bowlol: