• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

The Coffee Shop

  • Thread starter The Fallen Angel
  • Start date
Go to CruxDreams.com
Praefectus Praetorio said:
Don't trust those High Stewards, they have been known to steal the throne and then change their name to Stewart and then to Stuart! A smarmy lot!
Click to expand...
The first Stewart King of Scots was Robert II, grandson of Robert I, The Bruce, and son of Marjorie, the Bruce's daughter, and Walter the Steward. He inherited the crown because his uncle/ Marjorie's brother/ Robert the Bruce's son, David II, had died without issue. So hardly stolen.

James VI and I inherited the throne of Scotland from his mother Mary, Queen of Scots, and the throne of England from both her and his father Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, both of whom were grandchildren of Henry VII through his daughter Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII's older sister). The spelling Stuart seems to have been adopted by Darnley to distinguish his branch of the family from his wife's, and it was inherited by his son, who probably preferred it for similar reasons, it was politically expedient to re-fashion himself as a new-style monarch of a newly United Kingdom, distanced from the Stewarts in Scotland and the Tudors in England.
 
Eulalia said:
The first Stewart King of Scots was Robert II, grandson of Robert I, The Bruce, and son of Marjorie, the Bruce's daughter, and Walter the Steward. He inherited the crown because his uncle/ Marjorie's brother/ Robert the Bruce's son, David II, had died without issue. So hardly stolen.

James VI and I inherited the throne of Scotland from his mother Mary, Queen of Scots, and the throne of England from both her and his father Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, both of whom were grandchildren of Henry VII through his daughter Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII's older sister). The spelling Stuart seems to have been adopted by Darnley to distinguish his branch of the family from his wife's, and it was inherited by his son, who probably preferred it for similar reasons, it was politically expedient to re-fashion himself as a new-style monarch of a newly United Kingdom, distanced from the Stewarts in Scotland and the Tudors in England.
Click to expand...
Sounds like whatever the Scottish term for bullshit is. The death of Edward Bruce in battle was highly suspicious; first the battle was named Faughart, clearly made up, and Robert was "Steadfast behind" the king in Battle. Was there an autopsy to see if the fatal wound was in the back? Not hardly! The new king wouldn't allow it.
 
Praefectus Praetorio said:
We don't need not stinkin' French! Lafayette we can do it alone!
Click to expand...
Praefectus Praetorio said:
Don't trust those High Stewards, they have been known to steal the throne and then change their name to Stewart and then to Stuart! A smarmy lot!
Click to expand...
Eulalia said:
The first Stewart King of Scots was Robert II, grandson of Robert I, The Bruce, and son of Marjorie, the Bruce's daughter, and Walter the Steward. He inherited the crown because his uncle/ Marjorie's brother/ Robert the Bruce's son, David II, had died without issue. So hardly stolen.

James VI and I inherited the throne of Scotland from his mother Mary, Queen of Scots, and the throne of England from both her and his father Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, both of whom were grandchildren of Henry VII through his daughter Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII's older sister). The spelling Stuart seems to have been adopted by Darnley to distinguish his branch of the family from his wife's, and it was inherited by his son, who probably preferred it for similar reasons, it was politically expedient to re-fashion himself as a new-style monarch of a newly United Kingdom, distanced from the Stewarts in Scotland and the Tudors in England.
Click to expand...
"Stuart' was a French spelling, right? And often still pronounced in French on the continent: 'Stouaard'. Accentuation on the second syllabe!
 
Eulalia said:
The first Stewart King of Scots was Robert II, grandson of Robert I, The Bruce, and son of Marjorie, the Bruce's daughter, and Walter the Steward. He inherited the crown because his uncle/ Marjorie's brother/ Robert the Bruce's son, David II, had died without issue. So hardly stolen.

James VI and I inherited the throne of Scotland from his mother Mary, Queen of Scots, and the throne of England from both her and his father Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, both of whom were grandchildren of Henry VII through his daughter Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII's older sister). The spelling Stuart seems to have been adopted by Darnley to distinguish his branch of the family from his wife's, and it was inherited by his son, who probably preferred it for similar reasons, it was politically expedient to re-fashion himself as a new-style monarch of a newly United Kingdom, distanced from the Stewarts in Scotland and the Tudors in England.
Click to expand...

it’s enough to make one’s head swim :confused:
 
Jollyrei said:
Okay, coffee time. I've just posted the new section of The Old Firm. Torture, mayhem, death, and rumours of naked amazon warriors.
I had some reservations about it, but I think it's okay. :)
Click to expand...

Banned in Boston, but otherwise suitable for most audiences. :p
 
Eating Squirrels ?! Never mind all that.....
WHERE'S MY EFFING COFFEE !?
Dammit I've been waiting AGES for my ,(now cold),beverage.... :(
I've a good mind to complain about this lousy service,where's the Management ??
I demand a summary Crucifixion.
 
Last edited:
connoisseurs said:
I`m sure that are facts which matter to a lot of people, but I never understood why someone should be qualified for a challenging job only because he/she is a child of someone. There are a lot of examples in history that prove the contrary.
But it sure creates a lot of wonderful pictures :)
Click to expand...
Made me think. I suppose social mobility wasn't really on the cards back in the feudal day; peasants' sons were supposed to become peasants, bankers' sons -- bankers, noblemens' sons -- noblemen, and so all the way to the top. Daughters? Oh well, y'know. The ways to escape the system were few -- the church, the gang, later the army-navy-colonies way of the adventurous. Joan of Arc was a flagrant :firedevil: exception.

It's true again I have little experience of government. But, then, have you more? I at least have lived with the imperial family who has ruled this empire ever since you so spinelessly handed it over to us. I've observed it working more closely than any of you. Is your experience better than that?
Click to expand...

Claudius from the 1976 TV series defends the hereditary principle in the empire that hadn't yet adopted it; the Principate never formalized the succession anyway. Indeed, could Rome function as a world-state with two annually changing magistrates on top? Perhaps not. Centuries later, Poland experimented with elected kings and powerful 'parliament' in times of feudalism. It was fun while it lasted, the neighbours rewarded the Poles for it in the late 18th century. :demon7:

Nowadays in the UK and Europe :lily:, 'monarch' (i.e. a well-dressed person whose job is to sign papers, read aloud and smile) is hardly a challenging job. West Asia is another matter. TV Claudius' words still apply, even if a certain oil-rich country might have Caligula '18 on their hands. Anyway, it's not like any alternative method of selecting the head of state has worked better over there.

Or perhaps anywhere. Indeed, what are the odds in the ballot-box lottery as against the bullet and the chromosomes' versions?
 
Marcius said:
'monarch' (i.e. a well-dressed person whose job is to sign papers
Click to expand...
Would you really say Elizabeth II is well dressed? Those hats?

It's interesting how often people end up picking "the son of"-Bush II, Trudeau II, for example. And when they pick a "self-made man who only borrowed $ 1 million from Dad and paid it back with interest", well, it tirns out that may not have been strictly true:D:rolleyes::popcorn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom