| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
Mr. Scott. I found your post to be so very encouraging, and I want to encourage you to do more research!
I really don't know much of anything of British History beyond what I see in the movies.
I do have some further insights and observations to come. I never seem to have time to focus on anything.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
Keep going :) I feel you're really breaking new ground. Not just with this, but with a lot of the other observations too, like the Machu Picchu stuff above and all the other Americas stuff on this thread. There's quite a grand re-visioning emerging.
Sadly I don't quite have the vision to see the overall picture, but I'd definitely like to help flesh it all out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Anything more you can do with genealogies would be most welcome.
At the moment, I am continuing my "research" by watching the most excellent BBC miniseries, Wolf Hall. The same old story is told once again of the first divorce of Henry Ocatvius. Funny how this one brief moment of history captures the dramatist's imagination while so much of history is ignored---and equally interesting that this story may well have begun as drama (the play, All is True, by "Shakespeare").
Anyway, this time, Cromwell is the hero. And episode one was very enjoyable.
But I noticed some things I'd missed before.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Reflections on Wolf Hall, Part I
Religious Authority Sent into Exile
In the first episode, Cardinal Wolsey is removed from office and "sent into exile" at Esher Place. The use of this word "exile" immediately excited my imagination. I was put to mind of the Avignon Papacy--the 70 year "Babylonian Captivity" of the Popes from Rome.
As you may well know, I believe the events of the reign of the monarch, Henry VIII, in Britain, to be a microcosm of the real events, which must have occurred over the whole of Europe. This means that Wolsey may be, quite literally, the British double of the Pope in Rome (or wherever the Pope was at the time).
Though the "historical" Avignon Papacy takes place much earlier than the Tudor period, the real events after which the Henry story is patterned may involve the deposing of a Pope.
Then right on cue, during last night's episode, while Henry seeks his great divorce, we are informed that the city of Rome has been sacked by the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V (who I regard as the most likely original template for the King Henry character). The Pope, further research indicates (thank you Wikipedia) is initially deposed, fleeing into exile. Subsequently, he is restored to office under the protection of the Emperor.
Now this whole story has another British echo (one I have also long suspected to be a duplicate of the Henry Octavius incident).
Apparently, Charles' army was acting on its own authority when it sacked Rome, but believed it was doing so on the King's behalf, as the Pope and Charles were involved in a dispute (Wikipedia). And we are all thus reminded of the immortal words, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", suggesting Britain's Henry II as another double of Charles V and linking Wolsey, Becket and Clement VII all as one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roger Stone
In: conclusive
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | It is a rare fool who will publish a foolish argument so easily deconstructed by any old fool. I am therefore suspicious of those who allege Fomenko to be such a rare fool. |
The context of Fomenko's publishing needs to be considered. Yes, if you are an intelligent and perceptive person, you would hesitate to publish a wildly improbable theory in a world where educated and free-speaking others could expose you as a fool and fantasist; but what if you live in a society where 'the truth' is largely determined by political dogma, as in Russia; or where large groups of people appear to be able to believe just about anything, as in the US?
It is one thing to question assumptions that "everyone knows", including widely held academic beliefs, and to seek and test the underlying evidence; it is quite another to make assertions based on a selection of the available evidence, and to affirm that any evidence to the contrary is forged, or is the work of the devil constructed to confuse man. Fomenko, to my ears, is someone who has lost touch with reality.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Roger Stone wrote: | | The context of Fomenko's publishing needs to be considered....what if you live in a society where 'the truth' is largely determined by political dogma.... |
And I am certain you have read Fomenko.
The only thing that needs to be considered is Fomenko's argument. Something you have failed to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| N R Scott wrote: | | Recently I've been playing around with the (admittedly far-fetched) idea that Mary I of England and Mary Queen of Scots were one and the same person. |
Let's take it further.
The "name" Henry, as in Henry VIII, was more typically rendered at the time as Henri---or HENRI. Fomenko declares that this word is not a name but a title. In fact, it is a title used throughout Europe and it means "Home Ruler" (Hen = Home, Ri(c) = Ruler).
This means that Britain's "Henris" may have been anyone.
But what of Britain's "Marys". Funny thing is, these names were also written, at the time, as MARI. If HENRI is a title than shouldn't the same be true of MARI. And what does MARI mean?
The second part seems clear enough. It still means "ruler." But what of the first syllable? Well I have previously identified "Ma" as a word/sound element that universally indicates that something is "feminine" or related to the female realm (i.e. Mother, Maternity, Matriarch, Mansion, Madonna, Mountain, etc.).
Does MARI simply mean "Female Ruler?" ie. Queen (as in, the Queen of Heaven).
I think that's exactly what it means. That it isn't a name at all.
This means that HENRI OCATAVIUS need not have had two daughters with both becoming Queen. He may have had but one daughter who reigned as MARI. Her name might have been anything. It might have been Elizabeth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
What evidence is there that Elizabeth and MARI are the same woman?
Well both are said to have had red hair---a coloration that is rare and even rarely duplicated between sisters.- Both women reigned as Queens of England.
- Both are said to have been childless.
- Both were declared illegitimate.
- Both became Queen after having been removed from the line of succession by their father, the King.
- Both were sent away from court to live with persons other than a parent.
- Mary's governess and godmother was executed for a plot to overthrow the King; Elizabeth's household governor (Edward Seymour) was executed for a plot to overthrow the King's Lord Protector.
- Both were engaged to Phillip of Spain (Mary married him).
- Both were suspected of involvement in plots against the reigning monarch.
- Both imprisoned rival Queens (Elizabeth imprisoned a Queen named Mary; Mary imprisoned a Queen named Elizabeth and a Queen named Jane).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
THE FOLLOWING POST CONTAINS ERRONIOUS INFORMATION.
The portrait I represented as that of Thomas Cromwell is that of Erasmus of Rotterdam. On the meaning of the resemblance I cannot speculate.
------------------------------------------
| This, in turn, would make James V of Scotland a reflection of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. They even look remarkably similar. |
On the subject of people who look "remarkably similar," I submit....
HENRI TUDOR
King of England
Thomas Cromwell
Servant of HENRI OCTAVIUS, King of England
How in hell could these men be the same man? I don't know. I'm not necessarily suggesting they are. I merely happened to note the similarity between these two paintings.
But I do find it interesting that there was indeed a Cromwell who, like his former namesake, rose from low commoner to high rank---even becoming a kind of King of England. That man was Oliver Cromwell.
Does it mean anything? I have no idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
RANDOM FACT...
The Basques are said to have worshipped a pagan goddess named "Mari." I found this small detail most interesting......legend presents Mari as wife to the Lord of Biscay [a region of Spain], Diego Lopez I de Haro. This marriage may symbolize the legitimacy of the dynasty, much in the style of the Irish goddess marrying the kings of that island as a religious act of legitimacy. In any case, the condition that Mari imposes on her husband is that, while he could keep his Christian faith, he was obliged to keep it outside the home. I notice three things. - Queen Mary, like the Goddess Mari, imposed "conditions" on her husband. In Mary's case, Phillip I was to be King in England, in name only. He could have power only outside of England. In Mary's home, she ruled alone.
- The use of the word "home", seemingly in parallel with its appearance with the Tudor monarchy and the HENRIs, associated with Mary. Could it be that this title, HENRI, appears specifically because of a division of authority between England and the Empire over which the King in question ruled?
- If Elizabeth is the real MARI, was the religion she was protecting from HENRI, Protestantism? Philip's Catholic religion was to be kept outside of England, and this was the true nature of Mary/Elizabeth's agreement with her husband.
Finally, if Elizabeth is Mary, it explains why Elizabeth never married; she was already married. Was the Spanish Armada launched by her jilted husband to claim lands he believed rightfully his and rightfully Catholic, having reneged on his bargain?Once, apparently after discovering that his wife [Mari] had a goat leg instead of a normal human foot, [Diego Lopez I de Haro] made the sign of the cross. Immediately after that act, Mari took her daughter, jumped through the window and disappeared, never to return.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
|
Wow!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
RANDOM THOUGHT
MARI is the anti-Catholic monarch.
MARIUS is the "first Christian Heretic" and, I suspect, a duplicate of MARtin Luther.
Is there some meaning in the fact that MAR or MARI is present in the names of both of these reformers? Keep in mind that I think the rise of Protestantism is synonymous with the rise of Christianity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Personally, I keep thinking how much the best of Holbein's paintings resemble the work of Reynolds. It's the lips that give it away.
Holbein also has at least three distinct styles. Does it really look like the work of one painter from a single period in art history? Not to my eye it doesn't.
Anyway. This is just a thought. Not a very well developed analysis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
DAMNIT.
I made an error. That picture of Thomas Cromwell above is not Thomas Cromwell. It's Erasmus of Rotterdam. I apologize for this error made in the enthusiasm of the moment.
That painting came up in a search for Thomas Cromwell. I was shocked when I saw how much it resembled a painting I had only just viewed of Henry Tudor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Thomas Cromwell
Thomas More
Erasumus
Henry Tudor
Painter used the same model every time?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
