@ItsMoriashkiBitches I believe she is in mourning for her late husband Charles I. Remember that when Prince Albert died Queen Victoria wore only black.
I think she fits the part because she is such a versatile actress...and, I feel that it is more important to get her behaviorism, rather than her appearance, accurately.
Anglicanism (and Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc.) is a species of the genus Protestantism. Along with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, they’re all part of the CATHOLIC family. Thus, mainstream Protestantism (“Catholic Protestantism”) is evangelical or reformed catholicism. Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer all argued that PROTESTANTS were the TRUE catholics and that ROMAN Catholicism was a corruption of true catholicism. Thus, they condemned Rome as unreformed (or even deformed) catholicism
On the other hand, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other “Catholic Protestants” are rightly distinguished from “sectarian Protestants”--e.g., Mennonites, Amish, and other Anabaptists--since the latter reject many of the main teachings and practices of the patristic church, as found in the ancient creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian) and the first four Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon). So, Anglicanism IS “catholic”--as are Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc.--
They accept the patristic church's main doctrines: the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, etc.
But Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc., are PROTESTANT too, a REFORMED or EVANGELICAL version of catholicism. Thus, Anglicanism’s 39 Articles affirm a broad form of Protestantism, rejecting Roman Catholicism and Anabaptism but permitting most views in between. The “reformed” or “evangelical” side of Anglicanism and other “catholic” forms of Protestantism is seen in many ways
E.g., their insistence that worship (and the Bible) must be in the vernacular, NOT Latin (which Rome rejected until Vatican II in the 1960s). Also, they assert “Sola Scriptura”--Scripture alone is the supreme authority for the church’s teachings and practices--and thus reject the Catholic view that popes and ecumenical councils are equal with Scripture (see the Council of Trent, 1545-63). Of course, Anglicans and their fellow Protestants deny that the Apocrypha has the authority of Scripture
As for justification, these Protestants insist it’s by grace and faith alone, not by merit and works too--and they say all sins are mortal or deadly (deserve hell), thus rejecting the idea of venial sins, the treasury of merit, supererogatory works, and Rome’s version of purgatory (see Article 22 of Anglicanism’s 39 Articles)
Alas, John Henry Newman perpetuated the myth that Anglicanism isn’t a branch of Protestantism, that it’s a via media (middle way) between Protestantism and Catholicism
He did this to get Anglicans to accept transubstantiation and other Catholic doctrines, despite Anglicanism’s explicit rejection thereof (see Articles 28 and 29 of the 39 Articles)
But Anglicanism IS a subset of Protestantism. See the 1701 Act of Settlement--it bypassed the Catholic Stuarts so the LUTHERAN Hanoverians would assume the throne. Or consider that in 1588 England celebrated victory over the Catholic Armada because of the “PROTESTANT Wind” that saved their PROTESTANT land and queen
And in 1689 the Bill of Rights justified forcing Catholic James II off the English throne and inviting DUTCH CALVINIST William of Orange to be England’s king (as William III) because England was a “PROTESTANT kingdom” and thus had to have a “PROTESTANT” monarch (ever since, England has had a Protestant monarch). And in 1789 American Anglicans named their church the PROTESTANT Episcopal Church in the USA (PECUSA), the first large denomination to use the word “PROTESTANT” in its name.
a note on the Puritan movement....i guess in Europe, it faded out totally by the late 18th century?................but, here in North america, it was almost intact in the South Eastern USA up to the 1960's!!! in some southern states and counties, dancing was banned! partying was illegal too!
Cromwells enlgand was a dictatorship, a millitary junta, he was all that was keeping it together so after he died, no-one really had a clue what to do
@ChaosDynamics Because he and the Puritans would have lost free election. Charles I became a national hero almost as soon as he was executed. The Barebones parliamentarians were viewed with contempt. Cromwell had no alternative but to be a dictator, and by the time of his death he was feigning the style of a monarch, but one which hadn't the guts to call itself King.
@ChaosDynamics Because to him electing a head of state is no different that crowning a king. to him there was only parlament and the people and the only thing higher than that is god.
Standing up to Henry made her a head short, if thats brilliant and strong then it didnt do her much good. She was arrogant and sexually depraved, and interested in only herself.
Charles 2 was a good king he got rid of those annoying puritins lol, although they did end up moving to North America and cause some of the religous fanatisim thats in the States today.
Barbara Palmer is described as pretty, with brown hair hazelnut, violet eyes in the books. That Barbara Palmer, can not be beautiful in face, but it is charming, has great manners and is a courtesy. At that time it also had enough. Although in some books and also in the series, saying that Barbara had great attributes in bed. What ends up being a ideial.
Anne Boleyn didn't know her place? And what place would that be? One in which she blindly obeyed everything the king, "her master" said? She was one of the only people in the Tudor court to think for herself and one of the few people to stand up to Henry. She was brilliant and strong, not a monster.
@eandmdashwood Thank you. Henry had a reputation for becoming smitten with strongheaded women - Anne is just the most prime example. Anne's personality wasn't suited to the King's megalomania, and then there was the fact that she couldn't give him the son he wanted. Anne wanted her opinions to be heard, she might have made for a better queen a few hundred years into the future with another king.
But they didn't realize back then that Henry was the one to blame for that. ;)
Charles was very gallant. He was loyal to his women and loyal to the children he had by them. Indeed, loyalty to those he felt obliged to be loyal was his principal characteristic.
I think Charles II as a poor King, but as a person he was not without redeming qualities.
Well. . . It is hard to forget that he entered into a secret treaty with his cousin, Louis XIV, in which he made Britain's foreign policy subservient to Louis' "grand design" for Europe in return for money that would allow him to govern with summoning parliament. That to me is treasonous even in a King. That no other King of England as, to my knowledge, every done. And I think that makes Charles bad.
Fair point. My knowledge of history is patchy, but I always thought Charles got a better deal than Louis. C got money, and had the Dutch been defeated, huge overseas trading opportunities would have opened up. And given Charles' rather shiftless history, I doubt he would have kept any such treaty with Louis the moment his self-interest lay elsewhere. Not England's; his. Which is the other point; as a Stuart, he seemed to think like Louis: l'etat, c'est moi. But I dunno.
Charles was Louis' pensioner! Why would British interests have benefitted instead of French interests if he had succeeded in destroying Dutch power. Indeed, history shows that it was when the British shifted to supporting the Dutch against France that Britain began to peal away the Dutch Empire as the price to pay. States don't do anything for nothing!
Charles needed Louis' gold because he wished to rule without Parliament, the source of state revenue. Lack of money had brought Charles I down.
I mean, AFAIR, Charles' only material contribution was troops sent against the Dutch--Siege of Maastricht. And for that, and his promises, he got a ton of cash that allowed him to rule as you said; given Stuart beliefs WRT absolute monarchs, I doubt Charles saw this as treason at all. But as I said, it's been a while since I looked into this, and I could be totally wrong.
Treason is having concourse with the King's enemies. But the Rump charged Charles I with treason, i.e., with betraying himself or rather the Crown he wore.
In a confrontation between James I and Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice, over the King's efforts to stay judicial verdicts, Coke explained to the King tthat he was breaking the law. The King said, "But I am the law", to which Coke replied, "Your Majesty is the law, but Your Majesty does not understand the law." James sacked him forthwith.
Yes! James I, Charles I and James II were disasters. Charles II understood that if he didn't keep together the forces that upheld the monarchy, especially the Church of England and most of the upper landed gentry, he would "resume his wanderings" again. This prevented him from being excessively guided by vague abstractions. However, England did not prosper during his reign. It took off under William and Mary. William layed the foundations of the British Empire. William prepared the way for Anne.
Yeah, but C2's reign was still a lot more stable than it could have been, given recent history. But yeah, the British Empire didn't take off till the 18th Century.
Still, I have a soft spot for Charles II. Seemed like a decent human being, if not a great king; sadly, kings are rarely decent, and it may be that to be a great king you can't be a decent person. I dunno.
@mc0558 And the then the Empire hit its zenith with Victoria hundreds of years later. Yes, I agree with you.
On another note, I had the joy of checking out Hampton Court Palace outside of London, and took a tour of the whole place - including the add-ons made under William and Mary. They've got a garden with a statue of Apollo turning his eyes away from the Throne room because he was "overwhelmed by the magnificence."
@mc0558 William's longtime contemporary - the Sun King Louis XIV. The additions to Hampton Court under William and Mary were supposed to eclipse Versailles. I found the section to be unique in its own right, but absolutely nothing in my eyes will eclipse the opulence of Versailles....except perhaps Peterhof Palace in Russia, which was modeled directly after Versailles. But I haven't been to Russia, so I can't say, LOL.
@singerinwhite i wonder how they can justify the presence of a greek god in their courts. when they long ago casted out the ppl that worshipped them as heathens and pagans. doesn't make sense the hypocrisy huh
@fleurgi I see what you mean, but I think you're reading a little too much into it. This was at the dawn of the Enlightenment, where there was a resurgence and a new rebirth in learning and free-thinking in ways that we recognize free thinking today. And in the case of Louis XIV, he was probably interested in the alliteration that resulted from connecting himself to Apollo. He wanted to be seen as the "Sun" of France, and was probably also fascinated by Apollo's power and wanted to emulate it.
@fleurgi Oh - and when I mean the rebirth of free-thinking as we know it today, I was just talking about the basic concept of representative democracy. :)
But I also think you're looking at the hypocrisy of Louis in a wrong situation. What's really more hypocritical/ ironic is how Louis XIV was striving for France to be so magnificent when he impoverished his people and put his government on a path to bankruptcy while constructing Versailles - his symbol for his power and the power of France.
@singerinwhite i see what u mean. but i'm still just a little puzzled by the presence of greek gods and so forth in these so called european powers courts when they claim to be defenders of the faith. i find ithypocritical just how it can be ok for them to be painted in the likeness of these gods and not see the issue if they call others heathens. as for the versailles point louis bulit it as a way of keeping all the nobles in france in his presence. he knew the power lay with them
@fleurgi if he had them all in one place he had supreme control or that is how my history teachers explained it to me. the correlation between him being the sun king and apollo the sun god does make a lot of sense. thanks for trying to help me understand. much appreciated :)
@fleurgi Well, you have to remember in the time of Louis XIV, the French royals thought that their faith was the supreme faith and that everyone should submit to it. In France's case, it was the Catholic Church.
Do you know of the Edict of Nantes? Early on in his reign, Louis XIV revoked it. It was a decree that gave religious freedom to the French protestants - and also to the French Jews by default. He revoked it for centralization and "solidarity" purposes I think.
So basically, when Louis was calling himself a "defender of the faith," he really meant, "Defender of the Roman Catholic Faith."
Same goes with Charles II as well, only the faith he "defended" was the Church of England, or the Anglican faith. But the twist in England in Charles's reign was that his predecessor Oliver Cromwell had issued a proclamation allowing Jews to return to England - after having been expelled for nearly 300 years. They of course, had issues with Catholics for awhile.
@londongoth7 Yeah. And there are a large amount of similarities between the Anglican faith and the Catholic faith. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Anglicanism is pretty much a weaving of Catholicism and Protestantism? Or is it incredibly similar to Catholicism and they just don't submit to the Pope? When I studied abroad in England, I went to a number of Cathedrals on field trips, and they had a lot of the same trappings as Catholic Churches do.
@singerinwhite yeah the only difference b/w catholicism and anglicanism is the pope. the rituals have diverged over time, but back then it was the same mass and same sacraments and everything.
well he took care of them and the children he had by them. charles liked women and, although he could not make them all queens (and The Queen always came first), he made them duchesses and ladies. charles is admirable in this regard.
you know if Barbara Villiers wasnt at all married & she kept herself from the king, she would have been just like Anne Boleyn. she was a monster when it came to the King. he always did her bidding. anything she wanted, but she never knew her place.
Anne Boleyn was not a monster, she was just doing what her father told her to do. King henry VIII was the monster he beheaded two wives and ruiened the lives of countless people
Anne Boleyn would have been saluted today as a cunning brainstress after all sh was simply fantastic at Spin...put most of the labour parties cronies and Tories to shame
@nationalist19 After the Queen and her son the Prince of Wales dies then will be time to chop the heads off all the other little rich kids who think because they were lucky to be born with blue blood they are better then me. Of cause I am only a poor old British taxpayer and pay for the lot off them.
Off with there heads I say.....................................Smile
why was charles' mother dressed like a nun?
ItsMoriashkiBitches 1 month ago
@ItsMoriashkiBitches I believe she is in mourning for her late husband Charles I. Remember that when Prince Albert died Queen Victoria wore only black.
nationalist19 5 days ago
@Gladys8it2 Doesn't she also play Sheree Blair in The Queen? She gets on my nerves
counterhon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Le gorge! I remember watching this then i was 12. It was amazing!! ;0
ColumRogers 2 months ago
Comment removed
ColumRogers 2 months ago
He was already inside of her why did she make him pull out
renjilovesmoi 3 months ago
I think she fits the part because she is such a versatile actress...and, I feel that it is more important to get her behaviorism, rather than her appearance, accurately.
53orion 3 months ago in playlist THE POWER AND THE PASSION/CHARLES II
I'm also disappointed with the casting of Barbara Villiers, she was supposed to be a stunning beauty.
mgaraito 4 months ago
@mgaraito Barbara was more handsome than a stereotypical beauty.
TheNuharoo 3 months ago
Anglicanism (and Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc.) is a species of the genus Protestantism. Along with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, they’re all part of the CATHOLIC family. Thus, mainstream Protestantism (“Catholic Protestantism”) is evangelical or reformed catholicism. Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer all argued that PROTESTANTS were the TRUE catholics and that ROMAN Catholicism was a corruption of true catholicism. Thus, they condemned Rome as unreformed (or even deformed) catholicism
Erlo3 5 months ago
On the other hand, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other “Catholic Protestants” are rightly distinguished from “sectarian Protestants”--e.g., Mennonites, Amish, and other Anabaptists--since the latter reject many of the main teachings and practices of the patristic church, as found in the ancient creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian) and the first four Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon). So, Anglicanism IS “catholic”--as are Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc.--
Erlo3 5 months ago
They accept the patristic church's main doctrines: the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, etc.
But Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc., are PROTESTANT too, a REFORMED or EVANGELICAL version of catholicism. Thus, Anglicanism’s 39 Articles affirm a broad form of Protestantism, rejecting Roman Catholicism and Anabaptism but permitting most views in between. The “reformed” or “evangelical” side of Anglicanism and other “catholic” forms of Protestantism is seen in many ways
Erlo3 5 months ago
E.g., their insistence that worship (and the Bible) must be in the vernacular, NOT Latin (which Rome rejected until Vatican II in the 1960s). Also, they assert “Sola Scriptura”--Scripture alone is the supreme authority for the church’s teachings and practices--and thus reject the Catholic view that popes and ecumenical councils are equal with Scripture (see the Council of Trent, 1545-63). Of course, Anglicans and their fellow Protestants deny that the Apocrypha has the authority of Scripture
Erlo3 5 months ago
As for justification, these Protestants insist it’s by grace and faith alone, not by merit and works too--and they say all sins are mortal or deadly (deserve hell), thus rejecting the idea of venial sins, the treasury of merit, supererogatory works, and Rome’s version of purgatory (see Article 22 of Anglicanism’s 39 Articles)
Alas, John Henry Newman perpetuated the myth that Anglicanism isn’t a branch of Protestantism, that it’s a via media (middle way) between Protestantism and Catholicism
Erlo3 5 months ago
He did this to get Anglicans to accept transubstantiation and other Catholic doctrines, despite Anglicanism’s explicit rejection thereof (see Articles 28 and 29 of the 39 Articles)
But Anglicanism IS a subset of Protestantism. See the 1701 Act of Settlement--it bypassed the Catholic Stuarts so the LUTHERAN Hanoverians would assume the throne. Or consider that in 1588 England celebrated victory over the Catholic Armada because of the “PROTESTANT Wind” that saved their PROTESTANT land and queen
Erlo3 5 months ago
And in 1689 the Bill of Rights justified forcing Catholic James II off the English throne and inviting DUTCH CALVINIST William of Orange to be England’s king (as William III) because England was a “PROTESTANT kingdom” and thus had to have a “PROTESTANT” monarch (ever since, England has had a Protestant monarch). And in 1789 American Anglicans named their church the PROTESTANT Episcopal Church in the USA (PECUSA), the first large denomination to use the word “PROTESTANT” in its name.
Erlo3 5 months ago
why is he called the last King, or is that a stupid question?
1000paulineanne 5 months ago
a note on the Puritan movement....i guess in Europe, it faded out totally by the late 18th century?................but, here in North america, it was almost intact in the South Eastern USA up to the 1960's!!! in some southern states and counties, dancing was banned! partying was illegal too!
acerb45666555 6 months ago
My God that red gown the woman is wearing is positively EDIBLE!!! So rich and gorgeous..
RhiannonULlewelyn 9 months ago
@nationalist119
Here here
austreneland 11 months ago
it's compelling to watch the differences between this version, and the US edition. i like it.
bastianskaye 1 year ago
0:26 ...was there any way we could've made a swap for Charles I and she gets the chop instead?
Zeruel3 1 year ago
Cromwells enlgand was a dictatorship, a millitary junta, he was all that was keeping it together so after he died, no-one really had a clue what to do
Zeruel3 1 year ago
@ChaosDynamics Because he and the Puritans would have lost free election. Charles I became a national hero almost as soon as he was executed. The Barebones parliamentarians were viewed with contempt. Cromwell had no alternative but to be a dictator, and by the time of his death he was feigning the style of a monarch, but one which hadn't the guts to call itself King.
mc0558 1 year ago
@ChaosDynamics Because to him electing a head of state is no different that crowning a king. to him there was only parlament and the people and the only thing higher than that is god.
nationalist19 1 year ago
What strange camera work...But a great mini-series! It just doesn't get better than Rufus Sewell.
Arangutang 1 year ago
@ChristianCoulsonFan What is it that you don't understand?
loystloystloyst 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristianCoulsonFan What don't you understand, can you be more specific?
GhostDragon10 1 year ago
Standing up to Henry made her a head short, if thats brilliant and strong then it didnt do her much good. She was arrogant and sexually depraved, and interested in only herself.
vettedreams 1 year ago
Comment removed
singerinwhite 1 year ago
I have no words to describe the conduct of Lady Palmer or better 'Lady Whore´
They just met each other and there they are, making out on a mere table.
If I were a King I would rather better for me.
Who cares about beauty if it is used in such low utilities
King's brother is so right :O
AdrienneVilliers 2 years ago
Charles 2 was a good king he got rid of those annoying puritins lol, although they did end up moving to North America and cause some of the religous fanatisim thats in the States today.
Godzilla52 2 years ago
I was badly trying to use into the counter-reformationist style of argument of the time. lol
besides, it's now been argued that it was
Henry VIII giving Anne syphilis that gave her the inability to bare children.
maybe if Henry had not been a notorious philanderer to Catherine of Arragon , the course of religious hatred might have changed also.
The8thDOCTOR 2 years ago
LMFO @ the Anne Boylen comments.
she died 150 years before this is set.
Anyway, her death was justified, she a reformist, usurper whore who could not provide a male heir to the King.
The8thDOCTOR 2 years ago
Cool, it's ancient tennis XD
kurenaisama 2 years ago
The actress playing Lady Palmer had a role in 'Enduring Love' the drama based on the book by Ian McEwan and starring Daniel Craig.
CULAVE 2 years ago
Barbara Palmer is described as pretty, with brown hair hazelnut, violet eyes in the books. That Barbara Palmer, can not be beautiful in face, but it is charming, has great manners and is a courtesy. At that time it also had enough. Although in some books and also in the series, saying that Barbara had great attributes in bed. What ends up being a ideial.
Barbara is a great blackmailer...
Thank you for the video.
AdrienneVilliers 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anne Boleyn didn't know her place? And what place would that be? One in which she blindly obeyed everything the king, "her master" said? She was one of the only people in the Tudor court to think for herself and one of the few people to stand up to Henry. She was brilliant and strong, not a monster.
eandmdashwood 2 years ago 24
@eandmdashwood Thank you. Henry had a reputation for becoming smitten with strongheaded women - Anne is just the most prime example. Anne's personality wasn't suited to the King's megalomania, and then there was the fact that she couldn't give him the son he wanted. Anne wanted her opinions to be heard, she might have made for a better queen a few hundred years into the future with another king.
But they didn't realize back then that Henry was the one to blame for that. ;)
singerinwhite 1 year ago
@eandmdashwood I suppose my dear you knew her well and speak fro first hand experience?
TZAVELENA 1 year ago
@eandmdashwood Totally agree with you. I just can't understand why some people call her a monster. What give them the idea anyway?!
JunkFoodShirt 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
anne boleyn was never a monster.she was brave
and stood up to the stupid king.thats were her
doughter elizabeth gets her bravenes from.
rude1boii 3 years ago 3
YIKES! barbera, its called concealer! shes not wearing any make up at all!
rossluvsarsenal 3 years ago 3
Charles and his women!
mc0558 3 years ago
Charles didn't care what his women were like. all he cared about was what he would get in return.
nationalist19 3 years ago
Charles was very gallant. He was loyal to his women and loyal to the children he had by them. Indeed, loyalty to those he felt obliged to be loyal was his principal characteristic.
I think Charles II as a poor King, but as a person he was not without redeming qualities.
mc0558 3 years ago 8
A poor king, but hardly the disaster his father and brother were--indeed, among the Stuart monarchs of England, he wasn't half-bad.
BrachiatingApe 2 years ago
Well. . . It is hard to forget that he entered into a secret treaty with his cousin, Louis XIV, in which he made Britain's foreign policy subservient to Louis' "grand design" for Europe in return for money that would allow him to govern with summoning parliament. That to me is treasonous even in a King. That no other King of England as, to my knowledge, every done. And I think that makes Charles bad.
mc0558 2 years ago
Fair point. My knowledge of history is patchy, but I always thought Charles got a better deal than Louis. C got money, and had the Dutch been defeated, huge overseas trading opportunities would have opened up. And given Charles' rather shiftless history, I doubt he would have kept any such treaty with Louis the moment his self-interest lay elsewhere. Not England's; his. Which is the other point; as a Stuart, he seemed to think like Louis: l'etat, c'est moi. But I dunno.
BrachiatingApe 2 years ago
Charles was Louis' pensioner! Why would British interests have benefitted instead of French interests if he had succeeded in destroying Dutch power. Indeed, history shows that it was when the British shifted to supporting the Dutch against France that Britain began to peal away the Dutch Empire as the price to pay. States don't do anything for nothing!
Charles needed Louis' gold because he wished to rule without Parliament, the source of state revenue. Lack of money had brought Charles I down.
mc0558 2 years ago
I mean, AFAIR, Charles' only material contribution was troops sent against the Dutch--Siege of Maastricht. And for that, and his promises, he got a ton of cash that allowed him to rule as you said; given Stuart beliefs WRT absolute monarchs, I doubt Charles saw this as treason at all. But as I said, it's been a while since I looked into this, and I could be totally wrong.
BrachiatingApe 2 years ago
Treason is having concourse with the King's enemies. But the Rump charged Charles I with treason, i.e., with betraying himself or rather the Crown he wore.
In a confrontation between James I and Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice, over the King's efforts to stay judicial verdicts, Coke explained to the King tthat he was breaking the law. The King said, "But I am the law", to which Coke replied, "Your Majesty is the law, but Your Majesty does not understand the law." James sacked him forthwith.
mc0558 2 years ago
I didn't know all this; darn interesting. Thanks for posting.
BrachiatingApe 2 years ago
Yes! James I, Charles I and James II were disasters. Charles II understood that if he didn't keep together the forces that upheld the monarchy, especially the Church of England and most of the upper landed gentry, he would "resume his wanderings" again. This prevented him from being excessively guided by vague abstractions. However, England did not prosper during his reign. It took off under William and Mary. William layed the foundations of the British Empire. William prepared the way for Anne.
mc0558 2 years ago
Yeah, but C2's reign was still a lot more stable than it could have been, given recent history. But yeah, the British Empire didn't take off till the 18th Century.
Still, I have a soft spot for Charles II. Seemed like a decent human being, if not a great king; sadly, kings are rarely decent, and it may be that to be a great king you can't be a decent person. I dunno.
BrachiatingApe 2 years ago 3
@mc0558 And the then the Empire hit its zenith with Victoria hundreds of years later. Yes, I agree with you.
On another note, I had the joy of checking out Hampton Court Palace outside of London, and took a tour of the whole place - including the add-ons made under William and Mary. They've got a garden with a statue of Apollo turning his eyes away from the Throne room because he was "overwhelmed by the magnificence."
Guess who Apollo is a euphemism for? LOL.
singerinwhite 1 year ago
@singerinwhite I have no idea who the Apollo statue is a euphemism for, but I'd love to know. Please tell me!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 William's longtime contemporary - the Sun King Louis XIV. The additions to Hampton Court under William and Mary were supposed to eclipse Versailles. I found the section to be unique in its own right, but absolutely nothing in my eyes will eclipse the opulence of Versailles....except perhaps Peterhof Palace in Russia, which was modeled directly after Versailles. But I haven't been to Russia, so I can't say, LOL.
singerinwhite 1 year ago
@singerinwhite i wonder how they can justify the presence of a greek god in their courts. when they long ago casted out the ppl that worshipped them as heathens and pagans. doesn't make sense the hypocrisy huh
fleurgi 1 year ago
@fleurgi I see what you mean, but I think you're reading a little too much into it. This was at the dawn of the Enlightenment, where there was a resurgence and a new rebirth in learning and free-thinking in ways that we recognize free thinking today. And in the case of Louis XIV, he was probably interested in the alliteration that resulted from connecting himself to Apollo. He wanted to be seen as the "Sun" of France, and was probably also fascinated by Apollo's power and wanted to emulate it.
singerinwhite 1 year ago
@fleurgi Oh - and when I mean the rebirth of free-thinking as we know it today, I was just talking about the basic concept of representative democracy. :)
But I also think you're looking at the hypocrisy of Louis in a wrong situation. What's really more hypocritical/ ironic is how Louis XIV was striving for France to be so magnificent when he impoverished his people and put his government on a path to bankruptcy while constructing Versailles - his symbol for his power and the power of France.
singerinwhite 1 year ago
@singerinwhite i see what u mean. but i'm still just a little puzzled by the presence of greek gods and so forth in these so called european powers courts when they claim to be defenders of the faith. i find ithypocritical just how it can be ok for them to be painted in the likeness of these gods and not see the issue if they call others heathens. as for the versailles point louis bulit it as a way of keeping all the nobles in france in his presence. he knew the power lay with them
fleurgi 1 year ago
@fleurgi if he had them all in one place he had supreme control or that is how my history teachers explained it to me. the correlation between him being the sun king and apollo the sun god does make a lot of sense. thanks for trying to help me understand. much appreciated :)
fleurgi 1 year ago
@fleurgi Well, you have to remember in the time of Louis XIV, the French royals thought that their faith was the supreme faith and that everyone should submit to it. In France's case, it was the Catholic Church.
Do you know of the Edict of Nantes? Early on in his reign, Louis XIV revoked it. It was a decree that gave religious freedom to the French protestants - and also to the French Jews by default. He revoked it for centralization and "solidarity" purposes I think.
singerinwhite 1 year ago
So basically, when Louis was calling himself a "defender of the faith," he really meant, "Defender of the Roman Catholic Faith."
Same goes with Charles II as well, only the faith he "defended" was the Church of England, or the Anglican faith. But the twist in England in Charles's reign was that his predecessor Oliver Cromwell had issued a proclamation allowing Jews to return to England - after having been expelled for nearly 300 years. They of course, had issues with Catholics for awhile.
singerinwhite 1 year ago
@singerinwhite "defender of the faith" was a title bestowed by the pope, so yeah, it would be a catholic.
londongoth7 1 year ago
@londongoth7 Yeah. And there are a large amount of similarities between the Anglican faith and the Catholic faith. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Anglicanism is pretty much a weaving of Catholicism and Protestantism? Or is it incredibly similar to Catholicism and they just don't submit to the Pope? When I studied abroad in England, I went to a number of Cathedrals on field trips, and they had a lot of the same trappings as Catholic Churches do.
singerinwhite 1 year ago
@singerinwhite yeah the only difference b/w catholicism and anglicanism is the pope. the rituals have diverged over time, but back then it was the same mass and same sacraments and everything.
londongoth7 1 year ago
well he took care of them and the children he had by them. charles liked women and, although he could not make them all queens (and The Queen always came first), he made them duchesses and ladies. charles is admirable in this regard.
mc0558 2 years ago
you know if Barbara Villiers wasnt at all married & she kept herself from the king, she would have been just like Anne Boleyn. she was a monster when it came to the King. he always did her bidding. anything she wanted, but she never knew her place.
sweetab24 3 years ago
Anne Boleyn was not a monster, she was just doing what her father told her to do. King henry VIII was the monster he beheaded two wives and ruiened the lives of countless people
irishroses 3 years ago 3
Anne Boleyn would have been saluted today as a cunning brainstress after all sh was simply fantastic at Spin...put most of the labour parties cronies and Tories to shame
prawnbutters 3 years ago
"Oliver Cromwell is dead!" That'smusic to my ears.
nationalist19 3 years ago 32
Here here!! The traitous bag o' bones lol!
audie83 3 years ago 2
@nationalist19 After the Queen and her son the Prince of Wales dies then will be time to chop the heads off all the other little rich kids who think because they were lucky to be born with blue blood they are better then me. Of cause I am only a poor old British taxpayer and pay for the lot off them.
Off with there heads I say.....................................Smile
yot5000 9 months ago