Why are you spouting nonsense about people and beliefs? People are arrangements of molecules, and beliefs are an aspect of cognition. You're oversimplifying things to make them fit the story.
History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
Why are you spouting nonsense about people and beliefs? People are arrangements of molecules, and beliefs are an aspect of cognition. You're oversimplifying things to make them fit the story.
I see we've moved from 'tribes' and communities to molecules now...
No argument there, I should think. Perhaps you should pick your words more carefully.
I'm a bit at a loss what you are saying here. You don't mean tribe when you say tribe, then you proceed with tribalism. If you mean community (not tribe), don't use the word tribe or tribalism.
That reference leads me nowhere, except a book title.
Again, very unclear what you are saying here. "converting in the Umayyad period did not release one from property tax (my History of the Arab Peoples says otherwise), and often Jizya as well." As well as what?
From which point onwards? Again, I have no idea what this is based on. You seem to forget that during the early Umayyad period all of Arabia was converted. The initial adherents to Islam were a very small community, and you are saying all new converts weren't treated as full Muslims. Based on what, I wonder.
It would greatly help if you produced the sources you base these opinions on.
No argument there, I should think. Perhaps you should pick your words more carefully.
I'm a bit at a loss what you are saying here. You don't mean tribe when you say tribe, then you proceed with tribalism. If you mean community (not tribe), don't use the word tribe or tribalism.
That reference leads me nowhere, except a book title.
Again, very unclear what you are saying here. "converting in the Umayyad period did not release one from property tax (my History of the Arab Peoples says otherwise), and often Jizya as well." As well as what?
From which point onwards? Again, I have no idea what this is based on. You seem to forget that during the early Umayyad period all of Arabia was converted. The initial adherents to Islam were a very small community, and you are saying all new converts weren't treated as full Muslims. Based on what, I wonder.
It would greatly help if you produced the sources you base these opinions on.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
One thing always bothered me about the War of the Roses. It's presented as York vs. Lancaster conflict, but suddenly, for some reason, the Tudors enter in. Can someone give me some light on why, how and what happened?
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Oh. That makes sense. Damned royals with their bloodlines.
The War of the Roses was essentially a massive family brawl between the descendants of King Edward III. Given that the legitimate heir (Richard II) has been removed by his cousin, Henry IV (the only surviving legitimate male heir of Edward's third son, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster), it was up to the children of Richard, Duke of York, who was descended from two sons of Edward III, to crown the House of York. Richard's sons became Edward IV and Richard III. Margaret Beaufort was herself a great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, through one of his many bastards.
It also explains why the Tudors were so insecure about being the rightful kings, as Henry could only claim descent from Edward III through his mother, who was herself only descended via a bastard union, and is why he then married Elizabeth of York, Edward IV's eldest daughter. Richard III's parliament had declared Edward's children (including the Princes in the Tower) to be illegitimate with an act entitled Titulus Regius, so Henry not only repealed it on taking the throne, he even criminalised its mention.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
The Providentialist view sure was problematic.
sydhe
King of Kongs
Elizabeth of York herself had a better claim to the throne than Henry VII if she'd wanted to press it. Since her children included Henry VIII and Margaret Queen of Scots, the later British monarchs had a legitimate claim, at least till 1688.
Incidentally, it's rarely possible in medieval history to separate states from their royal families - the territory of 'England' in the Hundred Years War, for example, is much better understood as the land belonging to (often in a pretty vague sense) the House of Plantagenet.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
This insecurity is also a more favorable explanation of Henry VIII's obsession with a male heir. He didn't want the instability of the War of the Roses to come back and a male heir would ensure there was no dispute.
I wasn't expecting to be quite so popular. 
Well, if the Stuart monarchs had a legitimate claim, that applies at least until 1714, Mary II and Anne were the daughters of James VII & II. George I's claim was nearly as tenuous as Henry VII's, but at that point, Parliament was presumably desperately searching for a Protestant heir.
Well, if the Stuart monarchs had a legitimate claim, that applies at least until 1714, Mary II and Anne were the daughters of James VII & II. George I's claim was nearly as tenuous as Henry VII's, but at that point, Parliament was presumably desperately searching for a Protestant heir.
sydhe
King of Kongs
I wasn't expecting to be quite so popular.
Well, if the Stuart monarchs had a legitimate claim, that applies at least until 1714, Mary II and Anne were the daughters of James VII & II. George I's claim was nearly as tenuous as Henry VII's, but at that point, Parliament was presumably desperately searching for a Protestant heir.
William III's claim was more tenuous, since Prince Consorts generally didn't become king, especially since Mary II died in 1694.
William was Mary's first cousin and a powerful Protestant prince in his own right. I assume that Parliament's first aim was to secure a strong Protestant throne and thus wanted him as a joint king with Mary. I don't really much about the Glorious Revolution though.
William III wasn't a prince consort. He was co-regent with Mary. And Mary was only monarch at all because William had a big army and James II was, dubiously, considered to have abdicated on the grounds that he ran away with a nosebleed.
James should have followed Empress Theodora's advice (the wife of Justinian the Great) that it was better to die an emperor than to live in exile.
Of course, as fate would have it, the Stuarts that were kicked off the throne lasted for another century, as opposed to less than 30 years for the ones that we did keep.
Of course, as fate would have it, the Stuarts that were kicked off the throne lasted for another century, as opposed to less than 30 years for the ones that we did keep.
The Byzantines were quite keen on that - with the idea that an 'imperfect' person couldn't legitimately be emperor - but eventually settled on the more practical method of blinding those they didn't like.
Similar threads
