Kate

Honestly!  I am just watching the BBC news about Kate and William having a baby.  Some professor pontificating on about the whole thing saying Harry won't mind being shoved down the pecking order because "he is hardly a Richard III type"
 
Unfortunatley I missed the name of said professor so I can't send him an e mail complaining.
 
Liz

Honestly...Give-Me-Strength....I really do despair.....! Eileen
On 3 Dec 2012, at 19:21, liz williams wrote:

> Honestly! I am just watching the BBC news about Kate and William having a baby. Some professor pontificating on about the whole thing saying Harry won't mind being shoved down the pecking order because "he is hardly a Richard III type"
>
> Unfortunatley I missed the name of said professor so I can't send him an e mail complaining.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>

Isn't it absolutely wonderful that the heir to the throne knows how to make love to his wife[!], and miracle of miracles[!], that she should conceive and give the British taxpayer yet another royal to support?
And poor thing has morning sickness!
First headline on the BBC News is something that every pregnant woman ever knows about.
Why this continuing cow-towing to royalty who are after all nowadays just a soap opera?
On wedding day I watched the whole of Band of Brothers back to back on Blue Ray. A much better use of my time!
Paul


On 3 Dec 2012, at 20:35, eileen bates wrote:

> Honestly...Give-Me-Strength....I really do despair.....! Eileen
> On 3 Dec 2012, at 19:21, liz williams wrote:
>
>> Honestly! I am just watching the BBC news about Kate and William having a baby. Some professor pontificating on about the whole thing saying Harry won't mind being shoved down the pecking order because "he is hardly a Richard III type"
>>
>> Unfortunatley I missed the name of said professor so I can't send him an e mail complaining.
>>
>> Liz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Well Paul, this isn't average morning sickness and fortunately most women "don't" know  about this variation. My aunt had this and was horrendously sick morning noon and night for the whole of her pregnancy.  Imagine puking every time you tried to eat or drink anything for that period of time.
 
As for the rest, yes they are now a soap opera thanks to the likes of the Daily Mail  but I'd still rather have them than PresidentBlair/Brown/Cameron etc.
 
Liz

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 10:33
Subject: Re: Kate

 
Isn't it absolutely wonderful that the heir to the throne knows how to make love to his wife[!], and miracle of miracles[!], that she should conceive and give the British taxpayer yet another royal to support?
And poor thing has morning sickness!
First headline on the BBC News is something that every pregnant woman ever knows about.
Why this continuing cow-towing to royalty who are after all nowadays just a soap opera?
On wedding day I watched the whole of Band of Brothers back to back on Blue Ray. A much better use of my time!
Paul

But people are starving to death in Africa, Uganda is about to pass a law so they can kill lesbian and gay men, and in Syria children are being bombed and machine gunned. So why is every front page full of this woman's difficulty? Not right at all. And is anything goes wrong, think what they will have to go through with cameras poking up every available orifice! Kate has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not generate headlines.
Paul

On 4 Dec 2012, at 11:25, liz williams wrote:

> Well Paul, this isn't average morning sickness and fortunately most women "don't" know about this variation. My aunt had this and was horrendously sick morning noon and night for the whole of her pregnancy. Imagine puking every time you tried to eat or drink anything for that period of time.
>
> As for the rest, yes they are now a soap opera thanks to the likes of the Daily Mail but I'd still rather have them than PresidentBlair/Brown/Cameron etc.
>
> Liz
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 10:33
> Subject: Re: Kate
>
>
> Isn't it absolutely wonderful that the heir to the throne knows how to make love to his wife[!], and miracle of miracles[!], that she should conceive and give the British taxpayer yet another royal to support?
> And poor thing has morning sickness!
> First headline on the BBC News is something that every pregnant woman ever knows about.
> Why this continuing cow-towing to royalty who are after all nowadays just a soap opera?
> On wedding day I watched the whole of Band of Brothers back to back on Blue Ray. A much better use of my time!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul

I don't get excited over royal babies either, but for some women 'morning
sickness' is quite serious. Most pregnant women do go through it, but for
some it can be life threatening. That's what thalidomide was prescribed for,
back when it was prescribed, before they knew the horrible things it could
do. And it's one of the possible causes of death of the pregnant Charlotte
Bronte. So, while I'm not hanging out the flag to welcome the new royal
baby, Katherine has my sympathy, as any woman in her situation would.

Karen

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:33:39 +0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Kate






Isn't it absolutely wonderful that the heir to the throne knows how to make
love to his wife[!], and miracle of miracles[!], that she should conceive
and give the British taxpayer yet another royal to support?
And poor thing has morning sickness!
First headline on the BBC News is something that every pregnant woman ever
knows about.
Why this continuing cow-towing to royalty who are after all nowadays just a
soap opera?
On wedding day I watched the whole of Band of Brothers back to back on Blue
Ray. A much better use of my time!
Paul

On 3 Dec 2012, at 20:35, eileen bates wrote:

> Honestly...Give-Me-Strength....I really do despair.....! Eileen
> On 3 Dec 2012, at 19:21, liz williams wrote:
>
>> Honestly! I am just watching the BBC news about Kate and William having a
baby. Some professor pontificating on about the whole thing saying Harry won't
mind being shoved down the pecking order because "he is hardly a Richard III
type"
>>
>> Unfortunatley I missed the name of said professor so I can't send him an e
mail complaining.
>>
>> Liz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

<Paul said:
<
<Kate has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not generate headlines.
<Paul

No it shouldn't but let's face it even if Kate wasn't pregnant, starving children, Syria etc still wouldn't be on the front page of half of this country's "newspapers".  Appalling though it is, a lot of people simply don't want to know about Syria, Darfur, etc etc. 

Liz
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 11:32
Subject: Re: Kate

 
But people are starving to death in Africa, Uganda is about to pass a law so they can kill lesbian and gay men, and in Syria children are being bombed and machine gunned. So why is every front page full of this woman's difficulty? Not right at all. And is anything goes wrong, think what they will have to go through with cameras poking up every available orifice! Kate has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not generate headlines.
Paul

It's just that as human beings we find it easier to relate to the problems of individuals than of people en masse and Kate's type of sickness is horrible and potentially very very serious.
We're only on this forum because, in this world of wars and mass starvation, we care disproportionately about a single individual, aren't we?
Marie

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> <Paul said:
> <
> <Kate has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not generate headlines.
> <Paul
>
> No it shouldn't but let's face it even if Kate wasn't pregnant, starving children, Syria etc still wouldn't be on the front page of half of this country's "newspapers".  Appalling though it is, a lot of people simply don't want to know about Syria, Darfur, etc etc. 
>
> Liz
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 11:32
> Subject: Re: Kate
>
>  
> But people are starving to death in Africa, Uganda is about to pass a law so they can kill lesbian and gay men, and in Syria children are being bombed and machine gunned. So why is every front page full of this woman's difficulty? Not right at all. And is anything goes wrong, think what they will have to go through with cameras poking up every available orifice! Kate has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not generate headlines.
> Paul
>
>
>

Well said! Women need to become educated about this very serious condition. My heart goes out to Kate. Did you know that sometimes it is indicative of twins? Talk about an heir and a spare! Maire.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It's just that as human beings we find it easier to relate to the problems of individuals than of people en masse and Kate's type of sickness is horrible and potentially very very serious.
> We're only on this forum because, in this world of wars and mass starvation, we care disproportionately about a single individual, aren't we?
> Marie
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > <Paul said:
> > <
> > <Kate has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not generate headlines.
> > <Paul
> >
> > No it shouldn't but let's face it even if Kate wasn't pregnant, starving children, Syria etc still wouldn't be on the front page of half of this country's "newspapers".  Appalling though it is, a lot of people simply don't want to know about Syria, Darfur, etc etc. 
> >
> > Liz
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 11:32
> > Subject: Re: Kate
> >
> >  
> > But people are starving to death in Africa, Uganda is about to pass a law so they can kill lesbian and gay men, and in Syria children are being bombed and machine gunned. So why is every front page full of this woman's difficulty? Not right at all. And is anything goes wrong, think what they will have to go through with cameras poking up every available orifice! Kate has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not generate headlines.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
>

Off Topic...Someone I know who had this typeof morning sickness was cured of it by one session of acupuncture....Eileen
On 4 Dec 2012, at 11:25, liz williams wrote:

> Well Paul, this isn't average morning sickness and fortunately most women "don't" know about this variation. My aunt had this and was horrendously sick morning noon and night for the whole of her pregnancy. Imagine puking every time you tried to eat or drink anything for that period of time.
>
> As for the rest, yes they are now a soap opera thanks to the likes of the Daily Mail but I'd still rather have them than PresidentBlair/Brown/Cameron etc.
>
> Liz
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 10:33
> Subject: Re: Kate
>
>
> Isn't it absolutely wonderful that the heir to the throne knows how to make love to his wife[!], and miracle of miracles[!], that she should conceive and give the British taxpayer yet another royal to support?
> And poor thing has morning sickness!
> First headline on the BBC News is something that every pregnant woman ever knows about.
> Why this continuing cow-towing to royalty who are after all nowadays just a soap opera?
> On wedding day I watched the whole of Band of Brothers back to back on Blue Ray. A much better use of my time!
> Paul
>
>
>
>

This is another very good reason why I have decided not to get pregnant



George



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Kate





Well said! Women need to become educated about this very serious condition.
My heart goes out to Kate. Did you know that sometimes it is indicative of
twins? Talk about an heir and a spare! Maire.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It's just that as human beings we find it easier to relate to the problems
of individuals than of people en masse and Kate's type of sickness is
horrible and potentially very very serious.
> We're only on this forum because, in this world of wars and mass
starvation, we care disproportionately about a single individual, aren't we?
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > <Paul said:
> > <
> > <Kate has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not
generate headlines.
> > <Paul
> >
> > No it shouldn't but let's face it even if Kate wasn't pregnant, starving
children, Syria etc still wouldn't be on the front page of half of this
country's "newspapers". Appalling though it is, a lot of people simply
don't want to know about Syria, Darfur, etc etc.
> >
> > Liz
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 11:32
> > Subject: Re: Kate
> >
> >
> > But people are starving to death in Africa, Uganda is about to pass a
law so they can kill lesbian and gay men, and in Syria children are being
bombed and machine gunned. So why is every front page full of this woman's
difficulty? Not right at all. And is anything goes wrong, think what they
will have to go through with cameras poking up every available orifice! Kate
has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not generate
headlines.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
>

Just as well....you know full well George a man could not cope with giving birth...look what they are like if they get a headcold?
On 4 Dec 2012, at 17:56, George Butterfield wrote:

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well Paul, this isn't average morning sickness and fortunately most women "don't" know  about this variation. My aunt had this and was horrendously sick morning noon and night for the whole of her pregnancy.  Imagine puking every time you tried to eat or drink anything for that period of time.
>  

Probably because I have twins, I dreamed last night that the Duchess of Cambridge delivered twin girls which received the names Mary and Victoria.

You read it here first.

Katy

George, you know you really are hilarious - I've meant to say so before.
Marie

--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> This is another very good reason why I have decided not to get pregnant
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:12 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kate
>
>
>
>
>
> Well said! Women need to become educated about this very serious condition.
> My heart goes out to Kate. Did you know that sometimes it is indicative of
> twins? Talk about an heir and a spare! Maire.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > It's just that as human beings we find it easier to relate to the problems
> of individuals than of people en masse and Kate's type of sickness is
> horrible and potentially very very serious.
> > We're only on this forum because, in this world of wars and mass
> starvation, we care disproportionately about a single individual, aren't we?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > <Paul said:
> > > <
> > > <Kate has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not
> generate headlines.
> > > <Paul
> > >
> > > No it shouldn't but let's face it even if Kate wasn't pregnant, starving
> children, Syria etc still wouldn't be on the front page of half of this
> country's "newspapers". Appalling though it is, a lot of people simply
> don't want to know about Syria, Darfur, etc etc.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 11:32
> > > Subject: Re: Kate
> > >
> > >
> > > But people are starving to death in Africa, Uganda is about to pass a
> law so they can kill lesbian and gay men, and in Syria children are being
> bombed and machine gunned. So why is every front page full of this woman's
> difficulty? Not right at all. And is anything goes wrong, think what they
> will have to go through with cameras poking up every available orifice! Kate
> has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not generate
> headlines.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

But Blair/Brown/Cameron etc are all monarchists.

If we were a Republic we'd have a much better class of politicians, rather than this bunch of crawlers.

The fact that an unborn child is being talked of as our future ruler just confirms that our country is a medieval joke.

However bad a president we got, he/she could be voted out. We get Charles for life.


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 11:25
Subject: Re: Kate


 
Well Paul, this isn't average morning sickness and fortunately most women "don't" know  about this variation. My aunt had this and was horrendously sick morning noon and night for the whole of her pregnancy.  Imagine puking every time you tried to eat or drink anything for that period of time.
 
As for the rest, yes they are now a soap opera thanks to the likes of the Daily Mail  but I'd still rather have them than PresidentBlair/Brown/Cameron etc.
 
Liz

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 10:33
Subject: Re: Kate

 
Isn't it absolutely wonderful that the heir to the throne knows how to make love to his wife[!], and miracle of miracles[!], that she should conceive and give the British taxpayer yet another royal to support?
And poor thing has morning sickness!
First headline on the BBC News is something that every pregnant woman ever knows about.
Why this continuing cow-towing to royalty who are after all nowadays just a soap opera?
On wedding day I watched the whole of Band of Brothers back to back on Blue Ray. A much better use of my time!
Paul

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> But Blair/Brown/Cameron etc are all monarchists.
>
> If we were a Republic we'd have a much better class of politicians, rather than this bunch of crawlers.


Katy says:

Don't bet on it. I live in a Republic (the USA) and I think we can match you crawler for crawler.

Katy

David wrote:
> > If we were a Republic we'd have a much better class of politicians, rather than this bunch of crawlers.
>
Katy responded:
>
> Don't bet on it. I live in a Republic (the USA) and I think we can match you crawler for crawler.
>

Carol adds:

Especially with that absurd anachronism, the Electoral College. (Awful pun, Katy!)

Carol

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> But Blair/Brown/Cameron etc are all monarchists.
>
> If we were a Republic we'd have a much better class of politicians, rather than this bunch of crawlers.

Do you really think so?
Marie

David

I very much doubt it, I have lived in the USA for 28 years and every 2
years I wish for a better political system it alternates between
Presidential elections and Congressional elections ......endlessly with
whoever the ruling party is being made to be idiots and whoever is on the
outside telling everyone how wonderful things would be if they were voted
in.

However the resulting stalemate and continual grabbing for votes means that
very little is achieved and if it was not for the inbuilt inertia of large
government agencies, policy's would change overnight.

Add to this the wealthy unnamed lobbyists and the money involved is in the
billions of dollars (2012 election costs could reach record $5.8
billion)

I love the USA for many reasons, however the political system is not one of
them!!!



George

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Kate





David wrote:
> > If we were a Republic we'd have a much better class of politicians,
rather than this bunch of crawlers.
>
Katy responded:
>
> Don't bet on it. I live in a Republic (the USA) and I think we can match
you crawler for crawler.
>

Carol adds:

Especially with that absurd anachronism, the Electoral College. (Awful pun,
Katy!)

Carol

Gosh. The electoral college is not an anachronism! King Richard would probably have supported it. Maire.

--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> David
>
> I very much doubt it, I have lived in the USA for 28 years and every 2
> years I wish for a better political system it alternates between
> Presidential elections and Congressional elections ......endlessly with
> whoever the ruling party is being made to be idiots and whoever is on the
> outside telling everyone how wonderful things would be if they were voted
> in.
>
> However the resulting stalemate and continual grabbing for votes means that
> very little is achieved and if it was not for the inbuilt inertia of large
> government agencies, policy's would change overnight.
>
> Add to this the wealthy unnamed lobbyists and the money involved is in the
> billions of dollars (2012 election costs could reach record $5.8
> billion)
>
> I love the USA for many reasons, however the political system is not one of
> them!!!
>
>
>
> George
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:29 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kate
>
>
>
>
>
> David wrote:
> > > If we were a Republic we'd have a much better class of politicians,
> rather than this bunch of crawlers.
> >
> Katy responded:
> >
> > Don't bet on it. I live in a Republic (the USA) and I think we can match
> you crawler for crawler.
> >
>
> Carol adds:
>
> Especially with that absurd anachronism, the Electoral College. (Awful pun,
> Katy!)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

George, you would certainly be the main topic of conversation if you were. The media would have a field day.
Elaine

--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> This is another very good reason why I have decided not to get pregnant
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:12 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kate
>
>
>
>
>
> Well said! Women need to become educated about this very serious condition.
> My heart goes out to Kate. Did you know that sometimes it is indicative of
> twins? Talk about an heir and a spare! Maire.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > It's just that as human beings we find it easier to relate to the problems
> of individuals than of people en masse and Kate's type of sickness is
> horrible and potentially very very serious.
> > We're only on this forum because, in this world of wars and mass
> starvation, we care disproportionately about a single individual, aren't we?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > <Paul said:
> > > <
> > > <Kate has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not
> generate headlines.
> > > <Paul
> > >
> > > No it shouldn't but let's face it even if Kate wasn't pregnant, starving
> children, Syria etc still wouldn't be on the front page of half of this
> country's "newspapers". Appalling though it is, a lot of people simply
> don't want to know about Syria, Darfur, etc etc.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 11:32
> > > Subject: Re: Kate
> > >
> > >
> > > But people are starving to death in Africa, Uganda is about to pass a
> law so they can kill lesbian and gay men, and in Syria children are being
> bombed and machine gunned. So why is every front page full of this woman's
> difficulty? Not right at all. And is anything goes wrong, think what they
> will have to go through with cameras poking up every available orifice! Kate
> has my sympathies, as do all pregnant women, but it should not generate
> headlines.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maire wrote:
>
> Gosh. The electoral college is not an anachronism! King Richard would probably have supported it. Maire.

Carol responds:

It's an eighteenth-century invention--too progressive for Richard's time, certainly, but antiquated and obsolete for ours. I've forgotten how many presidents we've elected who lost the popular vote, but even one is too many--as Richard might concede if he'd been born in 2952 instead of 1452. Then, again, if he were king--an elected king, at that--probably not.

Carol

Carol earlier:
<snip> I've forgotten how many presidents we've elected who lost the popular vote, but even one is too many--as Richard might concede if he'd been born in 2952 instead of 1452. <snip>

Carol again:

1952, not 2952! When am I going to learn to proofread before I hit Send?

Carol

Our founders wanted the smaller states to have representation. Again, America is not a democracy, it is a Republic; our founders did not want the mob to rule. (Richard would probably have appreciated that.)

If anything is wrong, it is our corrupt politicians would spend most of their time gerrymandering America into a tribal nation. Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Maire wrote:
> >
> > Gosh. The electoral college is not an anachronism! King Richard would probably have supported it. Maire.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's an eighteenth-century invention--too progressive for Richard's time, certainly, but antiquated and obsolete for ours. I've forgotten how many presidents we've elected who lost the popular vote, but even one is too many--as Richard might concede if he'd been born in 2952 instead of 1452. Then, again, if he were king--an elected king, at that--probably not.
>
> Carol
>

In fact, originally our Senators, two per state, came from the state's legislature, not popular vote. Only the U.S. Congressmen were elected by the people.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Kate


 
Our founders wanted the smaller states to have representation. Again, America is not a democracy, it is a Republic; our founders did not want the mob to rule. (Richard would probably have appreciated that.)

If anything is wrong, it is our corrupt politicians would spend most of their time gerrymandering America into a tribal nation. Maire.
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (24)                       
Recent Activity: * New Members 2 * New Photos 1
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Our founders wanted the smaller states to have representation. Again, America is not a democracy, it is a Republic; our founders did not want the mob to rule. (Richard would probably have appreciated that.)
>
> If anything is wrong, it is our corrupt politicians would spend most of their time gerrymandering America into a tribal nation. Maire.

Carol responds:

Exactly. It's a republic, but it should, in my view, be a (representative) democracy. I'm from a "smaller" state (population wise), and the Electoral College doesn't help us at all. In fact, we throw away our votes if we don't vote for the majority candidate. The Electoral College doesn't represent the people, it represents the states, and only the swing states and the states with a large electoral vote are considered worth bothering with.

Sure, we have corrupt politicians, but political gerrymandering doesn't affect presidential elections, only the House of Representatives and state elections.

You can't convince me that a system that can give the victory to a candidate who received fewer votes than his opponent (e.g., Bush vs. Gore) is a good or fair system. (Obama squeaked by with 50.7 percent of the popular vote but got a disproportionate 62 percent of the electoral vote. It was much worse with Reagan, who got, as I recall, only about 43 percent of the popular vote but more than 90 percent of the electoral vote.) The president is the president of the people, not of the states, and he should be elected by the people, not the states. Big states or swing states shouldn't have more clout than the rest of us, and those of us who vote for a candidate who loses our state shouldn't have our votes just thrown away. Why vote at all if you know that your vote won't count in your own state?

I say again that it's antiquated and it's time to get rid of it. We can already count the popular vote. Why have a redundant and potentially faulty system? Unless, like the Founding Fathers, we don't trust the people to elect their own president.

Sorry about the rant, but I feel very strongly about this topic. I also feel as if I'm on the wrong forum and will say no more about it here.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Carol:
>
>
> You can't convince me that a system that can give the victory to a candidate who received fewer votes than his opponent (e.g., Bush vs. Gore) is a good or fair system. (Obama squeaked by with 50.7 percent of the popular vote but got a disproportionate 62 percent of the electoral vote. It was much worse with Reagan, who got, as I recall, only about 43 percent of the popular vote but more than 90 percent of the electoral vote.)

Katy says:

Now that all the ballots have been totaled up (I hope) here a month after the election, Obama got about 53% of the vote to Romney's 47%. That is an indication of why the electoral college, for all its faults, is preferable to the popular vote method and why it was established in the first place -- to prevent a limbo interregnum while the millions of votes are counted.

Katy

That can also happen here:

In 1950 Churchill got fewer votes than Attlee, but won the election due to the constituency based electoral system.

If it were a straight Presidential system it would probably be a simple 51% of the vote.

I'm not an advocate of having a President either, but what we have at the moment is the worst of both: a Prime Minister (appointed by the Queen) exercising the powers of a medieval king through the Royal Prerogative. He can have Parliament dissolved anytime he wants; I don't think even the American President has that power.

Of course they all get told their policies by Bilderberg anyway, so it really doesn't matter who wins. But we like to think we have some influence. 
My computer just went all funny...


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 0:37
Subject: Re: (OT) Electoral College Was: Kate


 


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Carol:
>
>
> You can't convince me that a system that can give the victory to a candidate who received fewer votes than his opponent (e.g., Bush vs. Gore) is a good or fair system. (Obama squeaked by with 50.7 percent of the popular vote but got a disproportionate 62 percent of the electoral vote. It was much worse with Reagan, who got, as I recall, only about 43 percent of the popular vote but more than 90 percent of the electoral vote.)

Katy says:

Now that all the ballots have been totaled up (I hope) here a month after the election, Obama got about 53% of the vote to Romney's 47%. That is an indication of why the electoral college, for all its faults, is preferable to the popular vote method and why it was established in the first place -- to prevent a limbo interregnum while the millions of votes are counted.

Katy

If she has mixed twins I bet they'll say the boy was born first.  


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 18:44
Subject: Re: Kate


 


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well Paul, this isn't average morning sickness and fortunately most women "don't" know  about this variation. My aunt had this and was horrendously sick morning noon and night for the whole of her pregnancy.  Imagine puking every time you tried to eat or drink anything for that period of time.
>  

Probably because I have twins, I dreamed last night that the Duchess of Cambridge delivered twin girls which received the names Mary and Victoria.

You read it here first.

Katy

> Katy wrote
>
> Now that all the ballots have been totaled up (I hope) here a month after the election, Obama got about 53% of the vote to Romney's 47%. That is an indication of why the electoral college, for all its faults, is preferable to the popular vote method and why it was established in the first place -- to prevent a limbo interregnum while the millions of votes are counted.

Carol responds:

Actually, the "limbo interregnum" is effectively prevented by having a lame duck president remain in office from the election in November until Inauguration Day (January 20). Plenty of time to count even those "early" (read mail-in) ballots that get counted last.

Sorry; I'm really trying not to respond to this OT topic. But it's hard to imagine a more cumbersome electoral process than ours. And don't even get me started on the conventions and the mish-mash of primaries and caucuses.

Carol

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> If she has mixed twins I bet they'll say the boy was born first.  



Seems it no longer matters -- Salic Law has been repealed.

Katy

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol:

> Sorry; I'm really trying not to respond to this OT topic. But it's hard to imagine a more cumbersome electoral process than ours. And don't even get me started on the conventions and the mish-mash of primaries and caucuses.
>



Katy:

You're right -- I apologize for my part in dragging 21st century politics into a forum about the 15th century.

Katy

There is no Salic Law in the United Kingdom.  The Salic Law prevents succession of women - it was used in France to prevent the French throne from being inherited by the female descendants or male descendants in the female line of Phillippe IV from suceeding.  In England, of course, Henry II, grandson in the female line of Henry I inherited.


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 3:58
Subject: Re: Kate


 


--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> If she has mixed twins I bet they'll say the boy was born first.  

Seems it no longer matters -- Salic Law has been repealed.

Katy

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> There is no Salic Law in the United Kingdom.  The Salic Law prevents succession of women - it was used in France to prevent the French throne from being inherited by the female descendants or male descendants in the female line of Phillippe IV from suceeding.  In England, of course, Henry II, grandson in the female line of Henry I inherited.


Katy says:

See, I learned something new, again. But wasn't there, till very recently, the rule in the UK that a male child of a monarch had precedence over any females, regardless of birth order? Isn't that just Salic Law without being called Salic Law?

Katy

________________________________
No, Katy.  The Salic Law does not recognise the right of women either to inherit the crown nor pass on inheritance rights.  In the UK, up to now, boys had precedence over females regardless of birth order in relation to the Crown. In the absence of a male (ie as when George VI had only girls) a woman becomes Queen Regnant. You will notice that Princess Anne has been pushed further and further down the Line of Succession as her younger brothers were born, and then when their children were born.  Andrew's daughters now 'out-rank' the Princess Royal.  The proposed change in law, similar to Sweden's is that regardless of sex, the first born child will suceed.

However, in the peerage, just to make things complicated, some estates are male entail - only males can inherit, but I think (but do correct me if I'm wrong) a male descendant in the female line can sometimes inherit.  Titles can be held 'in abeyance' until the descending lines throw up a suitable heir.

 


--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> There is no Salic Law in the United Kingdom.  The Salic Law prevents succession of women - it was used in France to prevent the French throne from being inherited by the female descendants or male descendants in the female line of Phillippe IV from suceeding.  In England, of course, Henry II, grandson in the female line of Henry I inherited.

Katy says:

See, I learned something new, again. But wasn't there, till very recently, the rule in the UK that a male child of a monarch had precedence over any females, regardless of birth order? Isn't that just Salic Law without being called Salic Law?

Katy

England never really had a Salic Law (no queens regnant or descent through the female line allowed) - from 1553 we had a throne with no male claimants for several years. The change to "neutral primogeniture" from "male preference primogeniture" will be implemented before the birth in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth.
The 1837 situation whereby Victoria couldn't be Queen of Hanover - her father's next younger brother succeeded because that kingdom did have a Salic Law - will be avoided.

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: Kate





--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> If she has mixed twins I bet they'll say the boy was born first. Â

Seems it no longer matters -- Salic Law has been repealed.

Katy

I had normal morning sickness and that was bad enough with having a house to keep clean and go to full time work, also my husband was away on a course for the last  4 months.  The type we are talking about with Kate is the type my friend had, she lived on iced buns from 8pm onwards could not eat anything else or before that time, she lost 3 stone, but had a healthy boy. 


Kate is so slim anyway, she needs more flesh on her, this cannot be helping, also the world knowing this early, think the companies making pottery etc already should be ashamed,



________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 17:02
Subject: Re: Kate

Off Topic...Someone I know who had this typeof morning sickness was cured of it by one session of acupuncture....Eileen
On 4 Dec 2012, at 11:25, liz williams wrote:

> Well Paul, this isn't average morning sickness and fortunately most women "don't" know  about this variation. My aunt had this and was horrendously sick morning noon and night for the whole of her pregnancy.  Imagine puking every time you tried to eat or drink anything for that period of time.
> 
> As for the rest, yes they are now a soap opera thanks to the likes of the Daily Mail  but I'd still rather have them than PresidentBlair/Brown/Cameron etc.
> 
> Liz
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 10:33
> Subject: Re: Kate
>
> 
> Isn't it absolutely wonderful that the heir to the throne knows how to make love to his wife[!], and miracle of miracles[!], that she should conceive and give the British taxpayer yet another royal to support?
> And poor thing has morning sickness!
> First headline on the BBC News is something that every pregnant woman ever knows about.
> Why this continuing cow-towing to royalty who are after all nowadays just a soap opera?
> On wedding day I watched the whole of Band of Brothers back to back on Blue Ray. A much better use of my time!
> Paul
>
>
>
>







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> There is no Salic Law in the United Kingdom.  The Salic Law prevents succession of women - it was used in France to prevent the French throne from being inherited by the female descendants or male descendants in the female line of Phillippe IV from suceeding.  In England, of course, Henry II, grandson in the female line of Henry I inherited.

Carol responds:

I'm curious to know what happens (or happened) in countries with Salic law (e.g., France) when the male line ended and they couldn't turn to the female line. Did they go back through the grandfather and various great-grandfathers until they found one with a male line of descent? And what did they do if there wasn't one?

Carol

They had Salic law in Aragon, though not in Castile. When Juan, only son
of the Catholic Kings, died in 1497, Isabel and Fernando got around the
Aragonese by asking them to recognize, as heir, the son of their eldest
daughter, Isabel the younger. The baby hadn't yet been born, so they were
gambling. The baby was a boy, Miguel, but Isabel the Younger died in
childbirth and baby Miguel died at about age 2. The Aragonese deal
passedalong to the
next child of Catholic Kings, Juana and her husband Philip the Handsome,
and their eldest son, Charles.

HOWEVER: though Charles came into immediate possession of Aragon upon the
death of Fernando in 1516, his mother Juana was the queen regnant in
Castile, and this was why he joined the line-up of people who took
advantage of her, and declared her incompetent (and there has been some
research to show that Juana may not have been nearly as insane as her
husband, father and son made her out to be).

Juana died in 1555, Charles in 1558; but he abdictated in 1556, so he only
had one clear year of undisputed rule of Castile. Technically, therefore,
Castile and Aragon only became well and truly united when Philip II came to
power.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:29 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm curious to know what happens (or happened) in countries with Salic law
> (e.g., France) when the male line ended and they couldn't turn to the
> female line. Did they go back through the grandfather and various
> great-grandfathers until they found one with a male line of descent? And
> what did they do if there wasn't one?
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Yes. France is a very good example, so is Russia in later years and Spain before the Napoleonic Era.
Look at the Valois and Bourbon lines succeeding in France or the extinction of eligible agnatic Bourbons in the 1870s making the Orleanists the leading Pretenders.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:29 PM
Subject: Salic Law (Was: Kate)



Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> There is no Salic Law in the United Kingdom. Â The Salic Law prevents succession of women - it was used in France to prevent the French throne from being inherited by the female descendants or male descendants in the female line of Phillippe IV from suceeding. Â In England, of course, Henry II, grandson in the female line of Henry I inherited.

Carol responds:

I'm curious to know what happens (or happened) in countries with Salic law (e.g., France) when the male line ended and they couldn't turn to the female line. Did they go back through the grandfather and various great-grandfathers until they found one with a male line of descent? And what did they do if there wasn't one?

Carol

-"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Yes. France is a very good example, so is Russia in later years and Spain before the Napoleonic Era.
> Look at the Valois and Bourbon lines succeeding in France or the extinction of eligible agnatic Bourbons in the 1870s making the Orleanists the leading Pretenders.

Carol responds:

How so? What was their claim if not through the extinct male line or the forbidden female one? Also, please forgive my ignorance, but what does "agnatic" mean? I'm guessing from the etymology ("without birth"?) that it means without a claim through birth in the newly extinct line, but without that claim, what are the options other than right of conquest? Marriage to a woman in the line wouldn't work if inheritance through the female line is forbidden.

Salic Law sounds like a self-defeating proposition to me!

Carol

It means the passage of the Crown to a much junior all-male line as opposed to a senior mixed one. "Agnatic" means all-male descent and the opposite is "cognatic".
In reference to Edward III's descendants, the Mortimer was Richard II's heir-general (cognatic) but Bolingbroke was his heir-male (agnatic) as Lionel of Antwerp's line had passed directly through a woman but Gaunt's had not. The Duchy of Norfolk is agnatic so Sir David Frost's wife, sister of the holder, cannot inherit it.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Salic Law (Was: Kate)





-"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Yes. France is a very good example, so is Russia in later years and Spain before the Napoleonic Era.
> Look at the Valois and Bourbon lines succeeding in France or the extinction of eligible agnatic Bourbons in the 1870s making the Orleanists the leading Pretenders.

Carol responds:

How so? What was their claim if not through the extinct male line or the forbidden female one? Also, please forgive my ignorance, but what does "agnatic" mean? I'm guessing from the etymology ("without birth"?) that it means without a claim through birth in the newly extinct line, but without that claim, what are the options other than right of conquest? Marriage to a woman in the line wouldn't work if inheritance through the female line is forbidden.

Salic Law sounds like a self-defeating proposition to me!

Carol

________________________________



 
Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> There is no Salic Law in the United Kingdom.  The Salic Law prevents succession of women - it was used in France to prevent the French throne from being inherited by the female descendants or male descendants in the female line of Phillippe IV from suceeding.  In England, of course, Henry II, grandson in the female line of Henry I inherited.

Carol responds:

I'm curious to know what happens (or happened) in countries with Salic law (e.g., France) when the male line ended and they couldn't turn to the female line. Did they go back through the grandfather and various great-grandfathers until they found one with a male line of descent? And what did they do if there wasn't one?

Carol

Pamela again:

In the case of the French Capets,  their male cousin of Valois suceeded in place of the previous kings' daughters.  Edward III was the grandson of Philippe IV via his mother Isabella, and claimed the French crown on the basis that he was a closer heir than the Valois.  It isn't really clear that the Salic Law did really apply to France - it has been suspected by some historians that it was used as an excuse by the Valois and their supporters to get the crown.
Francois I was a cousin of the previous king, who left only daughters, although in that case Francois married the elder one, Claude.
When the male Valois died out, the daughters and their children were excluded in favour of Henry IV who was a Bourbon.

Maria wrote:

HOWEVER:  though Charles came into immediate possession of Aragon upon the
death of Fernando in 1516, his mother Juana was the queen regnant in
Castile, and this was why he joined the line-up of people who took
advantage of her, and declared her incompetent (and there has been some
research to show that Juana may not have been nearly as insane as her
husband, father and son made her out to be).

Juana died in 1555, Charles in 1558; but he abdictated in 1556, so he only
had one clear year of undisputed rule of Castile.  Technically, therefore,
Castile and Aragon only became well and truly united when Philip II came to
power.

Maria
ejbronte@...

Pamela:

I have a very soft spot for Juana - there is an excellent book "The Castles and the Crown" which deals with this very point.  
She is another of the people badly treated by her relatives and history.







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh, Yes, Townsend Miller's book: my late mother, who wrote two plays about
Juana, and I committed large portions of his wonderful prose to memory:
it's part of my DNA now! Miller also wrote a sympathetic biography of
Enrique IV.

Townsend Miller is kind of like the Paul Murray Kendall of the Trastamaras.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Maria wrote:
>
> HOWEVER: though Charles came into immediate possession of Aragon upon the
> death of Fernando in 1516, his mother Juana was the queen regnant in
> Castile, and this was why he joined the line-up of people who took
> advantage of her, and declared her incompetent (and there has been some
> research to show that Juana may not have been nearly as insane as her
> husband, father and son made her out to be).
>
> Juana died in 1555, Charles in 1558; but he abdictated in 1556, so he only
> had one clear year of undisputed rule of Castile. Technically, therefore,
> Castile and Aragon only became well and truly united when Philip II came to
> power.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> Pamela:
>
> I have a very soft spot for Juana - there is an excellent book "The
> Castles and the Crown" which deals with this very point.
> She is another of the people badly treated by her relatives and history.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I visited the Convent in Tordesillas where she was confined for around 50 years and have also been to her burial place in Granada.


________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>


Oh, Yes, Townsend Miller's book:  my late mother, who wrote two plays about
Juana, and I committed large portions of his wonderful prose to memory:
it's part of my DNA now!  Miller also wrote a sympathetic biography of
Enrique IV.

Townsend Miller is kind of like the Paul Murray Kendall of the Trastamaras.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Maria wrote:
>
> HOWEVER:  though Charles came into immediate possession of Aragon upon the
> death of Fernando in 1516, his mother Juana was the queen regnant in
> Castile, and this was why he joined the line-up of people who took
> advantage of her, and declared her incompetent (and there has been some
> research to show that Juana may not have been nearly as insane as her
> husband, father and son made her out to be).
>
> Juana died in 1555, Charles in 1558; but he abdictated in 1556, so he only
> had one clear year of undisputed rule of Castile.  Technically, therefore,
> Castile and Aragon only became well and truly united when Philip II came to
> power.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> Pamela:
>
> I have a very soft spot for Juana - there is an excellent book "The
> Castles and the Crown" which deals with this very point.
> She is another of the people badly treated by her relatives and history.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> It means the passage of the Crown to a much junior all-male line as opposed to a senior mixed one. "Agnatic" means all-male descent and the opposite is "cognatic".
> In reference to Edward III's descendants, the Mortimer was Richard II's heir-general (cognatic) but Bolingbroke was his heir-male (agnatic) as Lionel of Antwerp's line had passed directly through a woman but Gaunt's had not. The Duchy of Norfolk is agnatic so Sir David Frost's wife, sister of the holder, cannot inherit it.

Carol responds:

Thanks for the definitions. But what happens if there is *no* junior all-male line? In the case of Stephen and Matilda, the English had a choice between Henry I's daughter, Matilda (or Maude), his only son having drowned, or Henry's nephew, Stephen, the son of his sister--female line either way. Of course, the throne eventually went to Matilda's son, Henry II, bypassing Stephen's son or sons (imagine if England had had a King Eustace!), establishing the right of inheritance through a female line (assuming that Stephen hadn't already done so). But what would they have done if England had the Salic Law? They'd have been up a creek. It was a king through a female line or give England back to the Saxons.

BTW, that right having been established, Edmund Mortimer, not Henry IV, was the rightful heir as far as I can determine.

Carol

Pamela wrote:
>
> In the case of the French Capets,  their male cousin of Valois suceeded in place of the previous kings' daughters.  Edward III was the grandson of Philippe IV via his mother Isabella, and claimed the French crown on the basis that he was a closer heir than the Valois.  It isn't really clear that the Salic Law did really apply to France - it has been suspected by some historians that it was used as an excuse by the Valois and their supporters to get the crown.
> Francois I was a cousin of the previous king, who left only daughters, although in that case Francois married the elder one, Claude.
> When the male Valois died out, the daughters and their children were excluded in favour of Henry IV who was a Bourbon.

Carol responds:

But Henri IV was descended in the male line from a younger son of some common ancestor of his and the Valois? That wouldn't have worked in England as far as I know once the male-line descendants of Edward III ran out (pretending that the line had been strictly agnatic up till that point)--unless, of course, either Richard III or Edward of Warwick had survived to produce a male heir (or the sons of Edward IV had not been found illegitimate. The problem I see is that male lines can run out and if there are no junior branches, the country has a real problem.

"Bourbon" and "Valois" are no help to me as I don't know how they were related to the Capets and don't have time to look it up.

Carol

With Edward III, the Lancastrians overlooked Lionel of Antwerp because Richard Duke of York inherited through a double female line. RDoY's paternal line followed the Y-chromosome direct from Edmund of Langley - younger than Gaunt. Of course, they complicated the issue by looking at Edmund Crookback and claiming him to be older than Edward I although that made Blanche of Lancaster their important ancestor.
Had the female lines been strictly excluded after Henry I, then the Conqueror's sister Adele de Blois would have been an ineligible ancestress. Either Robert of Normandy's descendants (if any) or a junior branch of the Ducal family before the Conqueror - but remember the alternative name: William the Bastard - indicating that they were short of options. The Blois and Matilda options would have disputed the throne - as they did, because the exclusion is waived in emergency.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Salic Law (Was: Kate)



Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> It means the passage of the Crown to a much junior all-male line as opposed to a senior mixed one. "Agnatic" means all-male descent and the opposite is "cognatic".
> In reference to Edward III's descendants, the Mortimer was Richard II's heir-general (cognatic) but Bolingbroke was his heir-male (agnatic) as Lionel of Antwerp's line had passed directly through a woman but Gaunt's had not. The Duchy of Norfolk is agnatic so Sir David Frost's wife, sister of the holder, cannot inherit it.

Carol responds:

Thanks for the definitions. But what happens if there is *no* junior all-male line? In the case of Stephen and Matilda, the English had a choice between Henry I's daughter, Matilda (or Maude), his only son having drowned, or Henry's nephew, Stephen, the son of his sister--female line either way. Of course, the throne eventually went to Matilda's son, Henry II, bypassing Stephen's son or sons (imagine if England had had a King Eustace!), establishing the right of inheritance through a female line (assuming that Stephen hadn't already done so). But what would they have done if England had the Salic Law? They'd have been up a creek. It was a king through a female line or give England back to the Saxons.

BTW, that right having been established, Edmund Mortimer, not Henry IV, was the rightful heir as far as I can determine.

Carol

Never been to Tordesillas, but my father's family is from Granada, and
I've gone
to the Cathedral many times. It's a kind of chilling place especially because
little baby Miguel is there, too, in his little coffin; and as Miller
observes, if he had lived and Charles had never gotten his hands on
Spain, things
would have been much, much different, probably better, for all of Europe,
and most likely the New World too.

For example, if Miguel had lived, probably Isabel would have survived beyond
1504; Catherine of Aragon's position in England would not have been jeopardized
by the loss of influence in Castile by Fernando; the marriage between
Catherine and Henry VIII would likely have gone through much more rapidly.
Who knows if those lost years could have resulted in at least one more
living child.

Ah, well.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I visited the Convent in Tordesillas where she was confined for around 50
> years and have also been to her burial place in Granada.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
>
>
> Oh, Yes, Townsend Miller's book: my late mother, who wrote two plays about
> Juana, and I committed large portions of his wonderful prose to memory:
> it's part of my DNA now! Miller also wrote a sympathetic biography of
> Enrique IV.
>
> Townsend Miller is kind of like the Paul Murray Kendall of the Trastamaras.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Pamela Furmidge <
> pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Maria wrote:
> >
> > HOWEVER: though Charles came into immediate possession of Aragon upon
> the
> > death of Fernando in 1516, his mother Juana was the queen regnant in
> > Castile, and this was why he joined the line-up of people who took
> > advantage of her, and declared her incompetent (and there has been some
> > research to show that Juana may not have been nearly as insane as her
> > husband, father and son made her out to be).
> >
> > Juana died in 1555, Charles in 1558; but he abdictated in 1556, so he
> only
> > had one clear year of undisputed rule of Castile. Technically,
> therefore,
> > Castile and Aragon only became well and truly united when Philip II came
> to
> > power.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@...
> >
> > Pamela:
> >
> > I have a very soft spot for Juana - there is an excellent book "The
> > Castles and the Crown" which deals with this very point.
> > She is another of the people badly treated by her relatives and history.
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

The Lancastrian kings rather hypocritically claimed the throne of France as heirs general (through a female line), but held the English crown as heirs male, in defiance of the Mortimer line. This is why Henry IV tried to claim that his ancestor Edmund Crouchback had been the eldest son, but had been set aside due to his disability.


Inheritance was much less systematic in the 11th & 12th centuries; William the Bastard was succeeded on the English throne by his 2nd son William, while the eldest Robert had to be content with the Duchy of Normandy (he wasn't).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Curthose



Another hypocritical stance is the present government's attempt to pacify feminism by making the eldest child of the monarch 1st in line; but Dukedoms and Earldoms (which give the holder the right to sit in Parliament) are still inheritable by males only (for example the Duke of York's daughters have no right to inherit his title). Baronies in general are inherited through a female only if she is the sole daughter; otherwise the title is deemed "in abeyance" until the descendants of only one sister remain.  Some peerages have been called out of abeyance if co-claimants can be persuaded to quitclaim their right.


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 19:18
Subject: Re: Salic Law (Was: Kate)


 
With Edward III, the Lancastrians overlooked Lionel of Antwerp because Richard Duke of York inherited through a double female line. RDoY's paternal line followed the Y-chromosome direct from Edmund of Langley - younger than Gaunt. Of course, they complicated the issue by looking at Edmund Crookback and claiming him to be older than Edward I although that made Blanche of Lancaster their important ancestor.
Had the female lines been strictly excluded after Henry I, then the Conqueror's sister Adele de Blois would have been an ineligible ancestress. Either Robert of Normandy's descendants (if any) or a junior branch of the Ducal family before the Conqueror - but remember the alternative name: William the Bastard - indicating that they were short of options. The Blois and Matilda options would have disputed the throne - as they did, because the exclusion is waived in emergency.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Salic Law (Was: Kate)

Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> It means the passage of the Crown to a much junior all-male line as opposed to a senior mixed one. "Agnatic" means all-male descent and the opposite is "cognatic".
> In reference to Edward III's descendants, the Mortimer was Richard II's heir-general (cognatic) but Bolingbroke was his heir-male (agnatic) as Lionel of Antwerp's line had passed directly through a woman but Gaunt's had not. The Duchy of Norfolk is agnatic so Sir David Frost's wife, sister of the holder, cannot inherit it.

Carol responds:

Thanks for the definitions. But what happens if there is *no* junior all-male line? In the case of Stephen and Matilda, the English had a choice between Henry I's daughter, Matilda (or Maude), his only son having drowned, or Henry's nephew, Stephen, the son of his sister--female line either way. Of course, the throne eventually went to Matilda's son, Henry II, bypassing Stephen's son or sons (imagine if England had had a King Eustace!), establishing the right of inheritance through a female line (assuming that Stephen hadn't already done so). But what would they have done if England had the Salic Law? They'd have been up a creek. It was a king through a female line or give England back to the Saxons.

BTW, that right having been established, Edmund Mortimer, not Henry IV, was the rightful heir as far as I can determine.

Carol

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>


 
Pamela wrote:
>
> In the case of the French Capets,  their male cousin of Valois suceeded in place of the previous kings' daughters.  Edward III was the grandson of Philippe IV via his mother Isabella, and claimed the French crown on the basis that he was a closer heir than the Valois.  It isn't really clear that the Salic Law did really apply to France - it has been suspected by some historians that it was used as an excuse by the Valois and their supporters to get the crown.
> Francois I was a cousin of the previous king, who left only daughters, although in that case Francois married the elder one, Claude.
> When the male Valois died out, the daughters and their children were excluded in favour of Henry IV who was a Bourbon.

Carol responds:

But Henri IV was descended in the male line from a younger son of some common ancestor of his and the Valois? That wouldn't have worked in England as far as I know once the male-line descendants of Edward III ran out (pretending that the line had been strictly agnatic up till that point)--unless, of course, either Richard III or Edward of Warwick had survived to produce a male heir (or the sons of Edward IV had not been found illegitimate. The problem I see is that male lines can run out and if there are no junior branches, the country has a real problem.

"Bourbon" and "Valois" are no help to me as I don't know how they were related to the Capets and don't have time to look it up.

Carol
Pamela again:
Yes, the Valois descended from a common male Capet ancestor and the Bourbons inherited through a similar descent.  The French Revolutionaries insisted on calling Louis XVI, Louis Capet and Marie Antoinette, the Widow Capet - which irritated Louis XVI no end!