| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
 |
|
| Tilo Rebar wrote: | Pretenders never seem to last long on the British throne - to survive you need rock solid, indisputable provenance - usually a fabricated story to catch the imagination or the ruled. You also need forged documentation to back it up should anyone ask awkward questions, like where are all the bodies?
It is even claimed our current monarch has direct lineage to King Alfred (i.e. she is his 32nd great granddaughter). It really does beggar belief. |
William of Orange could certainly be called a pretender, but (according to the ortho history) he was invited, there was no big clash of armies, and James had scarpered, so that's all right.
In World Cup terms, The Brits had grown tired of the English team's efforts, so they invited a Dutch team over. Which did all right, for a while, then a German team was recruited. I've no knowledge of Brazilian or Argentine connections, perhaps Hattie can enlighten us?
I don't think we're supposed to think the lineage to King Alfred is via Germany. Isn't it via marriage into certain well-rooted and pre-nuptual DNA-tested Brit families?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | My model equates the two. i.e. Claudius, First King of Britain, was a Holy Roman Emperor.
He is also one of a number of Kings and Emperors who are to be equated in some sense with Henry VIII. |
Brilliant, Ishmael. If you mean Claudius I, he seems to have the right attributes to be a British monarch...
Family Lineage, the Julio-Claudian dynasty - "...They cherished the memory of the Republic and wished to involve the Senate and other Roman nobles in the government. This proved impossible and eventually led to a decline in the power and effective role of the Senate, the elimination of other aristocrats through treason and conspiracy trials, and the extension of imperial control through equestrian officers and imperial freedmen.
The Emperors' power rested ultimately on the army, of which they were commanders-in-chief, and they had to earn (as in the case of Claudius) its respect and loyalty. The army not only ensured their control in Rome but also helped maintain peace and prosperity in the provinces."
Claudious I (Emperor 41-54AD) - "Claudius was born on 1 August 10 BC in Lugdunum in Gaul into the Roman imperial family. Tiberius, the second emperor of Rome, was his uncle. Claudius suffered from physical disabilities, including a limp and a speech impediment and was therefore treated with disdain by his family, and not considered as a future emperor. When Tiberius's successor Caligula was assassinated in January 41 AD, the Praetorian Guard found Claudius in the palace and acclaimed him as emperor. The senate held out against Claudius for two days, but then accepted him.
Relations between Claudius and the senate continued to be difficult, and the new emperor entrusted much of his administration to influential Greek freedmen of low social standing, which in turn alienated the senators. He also heard trials in private, rather than allowing senators to be judged by their peers.
Although he didn't have any military reputation, the essential attribute of an emperor, in 43 AD Claudius undertook the conquest of Britain. He visited the island for 16 days, to preside over the capture of Colchester, the capital of the new province, and then returned to Rome in triumph.
Claudius had two children by his wife Messallina - Britannicus and Octavia."
Please tell us more, Ishmael...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Its a simple query really.
How many British Monarchs executed adulterous wives for treason?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | Its a simple query really.
How many British Monarchs executed adulterous wives for treason? |
How recent is it safe to go?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
A limp that was cuckolded is the Arthur Myth.
Note the traitorous foster boy Mordred/Nero........
Guenevere is conventionally tried (but not executed), this does not really change the story as....by now the ancient mysterious bonds of the Round Table/AKA symbolic Stone Circle are forever destroyed by her adultery.
Athur and Nero are examples of Redivivus
Another example is Jesus, who happens to be Nero's mirror.
You would therefore expect Jesus' mother Mary... to have cuckolded her partner.......
Joseph is thought to have been a carpenter, but the translation is disputed, he could have been a iron worker or blacksmith.
Blacksmiths limp..........and get cuckolded.
These stories are the same.
Nero is treated as history.
Arthur is treated as myth.
Jesus is treated as religion.
Redivivus is treated as a mental aberration (!) that existed in your common folk for a few centuries after Nero's death......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
This is all pretty interesting but doesn't answer the question asked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | | How recent is it safe to go? |
Is Boro OK, or has he been Dandoed?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I just received this e-mail which might interest some of you radical re-interpreters
------------------------------
The Controversy around Gunnar Heinsohn's Revised Chronology for the First Millennium A.D.
With contributions by Trevor Palmer, Jan Beaufort and Gunnar Heinsohn.
http://www.q-mag.org/
"...In the introduction to my article, I wrote that you "propose that the emperors who had reigned in Rome from AD 1 to AD 230 [Augustus to Alexander Severus] were in fact contemporaries of emperors who had reigned in the east, supposedly from AD 290 to AD 520 [Diocletian to Anastasius I]". Does that suggest that I harbour a "profound misunderstanding" of your position...?"
Trevor Palmer
"...Is religious, providentialist history the result of a conspiracy? If many people have the same fantasies about the past and write about them accordingly, have they then formed a conspiracy? If theological or political opponents attack each other with Pseudepigraphs, in order to lend an air of authority to their opinions, or to protect themselves against a charge of heresy, have they then conspired...?"
Jan Beaufort
http://www.q-mag.org/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | This is all pretty interesting but doesn't answer the question asked. |
I guess I just don't like facts, they are such stubborn, religious, bigoted little zealots.
Zero use, either to prove or...... falsify a theory.
Can anyone else help?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | ...The Controversy around Gunnar Heinsohn's Revised Chronology for the First Millennium A.D... |
Some useful ideas floating around Gunnar's brain.
This bit about King Alfred is news to me...
"Alfred the Great (9th century CE) is of special interest because he even sent Wulfstan to visit Truso, Scandinavia, on Weonod turf, and left coins in many a Viking settlement. Yet if we look for buildings at his capital, Winchester (Venta Belgarum), we fail because above the building strata of the 1st - 3rd c. Roman period one immediately lands at 11th/12th c. churches.
There are no strata anywhere between the 3rd and the 11th c. to accommodate the king's 9th c. palace. Yet, there is a 2nd/3rd c. Roman period palace in Winchester or which no one claims ownership. Moreover, Alfred - with his coin portraits - puzzles historians. He wears a Roman diadem as well as a Roman chlamys -- very much like Charlemagne and other Fankish rulers. Our students are taught that Saxons liked to brag on the cheap by putting on Roman attire. Yet, there is one palace in Winchester that fits such a manly decor well. It belongs to the Roman period ending in the 3rd c. CE.
A sufficiently Roman appearance would be required of anyone claiming ownership of the building . That's where Alfred's diadem and chlamys would fit perfectly. Anyway, Winchester's only palace available for Alfred is located in Winchester's Roman strata. What is now ridiculed as Alfred's fashion obsession may just turn out be the right thing for a Roman foederatus who does not like to be ranked below other Roman foederati.
Yet, a 9th c. Alfred in a 2nd c. stratum or Rome's 2nd c. period actually belonging to the 9th c. is difficult to accommodate. Yet, it is stratigraphy that cannot accommodate the 700 years between the 2nd and the 9th c. CE -- neither in Winchester, nor in Truso or Kaupang."
So more confirmation that the Dark Ages didn't exist and, perhaps, British Roman culture was still going strong in the 2nd c. AD. It could be that the change to Saxon culture was more about trade than conquest as we are and always have been a nation of seafaring traders...
(Reproduction of one of the Ferriby Oak Sewn Boats built ~2000 BC)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
This kinda chimes with the TME notion that Alfred was invented (or at any rate 'launched') by Tudor ideologues looking for a suitably British Dark Age Renaissance (TME pp 87-88).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tilo Rebar wrote: | | Regarding the 'last wolf in Scotland', the actual date is uncertain, but somewhere ~18th century is the given period; this following a concerted campaign of bounty hunting to rid the country of these predatory pests. |
Grrr.
Are you sure?
It turns out the "last great wolf" was a tame collie.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/animal-magic/2014/jul/21/last-wolf
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| This is all pretty interesting but doesn't answer the question asked. |
If no-one else will answer Ishmael's question:
ONE
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | If no-one else will answer Ishmael's question: ONE |
Yes. One. One British Monarch executed an adulterous wife for treason. In all of British history, it happened one and only...
...wait a second. It happened twice. And to the same guy. Weird.
But that's another story. The main point is that there's only one British Monarch who did this. Only one British King who had his adulterous wife executed for treason.
Except that's not quite right either.
There was one other.
The very first man proclaimed King of All the Brits.
Who was he?
Claudius. Emperor of Rome.
And interestingly, he never set foot in England.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Was he therefore the one who started a Right Royal tradition of being King of England while spending zero-to-little time in Ye Olde Ingerland?
Was King Cnut one of these suspects?
Then there's. King Richard (much fabled via Robin Hood stories) who preferred life in France, the same country Claudius was born in. Being portrayed by Sean Connery did nothing to hurt the legend. Not like his brother Prince John who must clearly be a very nasty piece of work if Alan Wakeman is involved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
