@ScourgeofInfidels yes she was, well more reddish blonde/auburn haired. Oh and Henry was gorgeous in his youth but his overindulgence and leg injury affected him. Although I do agree with you that in the later seasons The Tudors didn't show him as he was.
@Carpetoretano Furthermore, how can Muslims and Romans be different? Please read what I wrote: I was referring to the Roman conquest, sack, and subjugation of France (anciently known as "Gallia") and Tunisia (formerly known as "Carthage"). Maybe the Roman history in Hispania was different, but I highly doubt it since you fail to provide evidence to prove your point. One thing is clear: your defense of the Romans and vilification of the Muslims/Arabs prove your bias and prejudice. Be objective.
@melancholicme123 not to mention the conquest and sacking of the celtics up in england ex. Boadicea have you read her story? pretty interesting minus wat happended to her and her daughters -_-;
@Carpetoretano My "descendants British women and a man"? Again, your thoughts are deeply confusing. True: the U.S. is a racist country, but not the most racist country in the world. Spain had laws requiring "blood purity" for centuries, killed millions of people, destroyed entire civilizations, and still continues to be a racist country to its foreign immigrants (that's a fact). So are France, and England, and Italy, not to mention the South African apartheid. You, Sir, be objective.
@Carpetoretano 1. I think we can both agree to keep a respectful conversation. I never called you names or insulted you. You, however, called me Mr. hypocrisy for no reason. That shows your maturity level. 2. Please, learn to know how to write proper English, and then your ideas will be more successfully understood. I still don't understand your main point because of the way you're presenting your arguments. 3. How do you know which country I come from? I never said I was from the U.S.!
@Carpetoretano Sorry, I don't understand a word or what you´re trying to say. The Muslims entered Spain killing and raping? Yes, they did, so did the Romans, who for instance decimated the Gauls in what now is France, and the Cartagenese in what now is Tunisia. And what about the Spaniards and other Europeans in the Americas? Did they not kill and rape and murder and torture? By Isabella's time, Spain was also the land of the Muslims that lived there.
Sorry. I can't accept the physical appearance of characters. There are people who are not Europeans there. Many actors look indigenous Americans, how come?? America wasn't discovered yet! Isabella's hair was blonde and wavy, btw. Fail.
As for Catholicism. I'm afraid Catholics were the only Christians at the time. The others didn't exist.
Elizabeth I did persecute Catholics. Why is it so hard for people to accept this truth? I read in a new Tudor bio that she sometimes offered Catholics she'd had sentenced to death pardon...if only they'd attend Anglican services!!!! Wtheck? So much for tolerance and 'not building windows into men's souls'.
I found this diary doubtful, this book I mean. I found it unbelievable that Isabel would have an ex Jew for a friend when her anti semitism was close to Hitler's. I felt that that was a whitewash of her. The only reason Isabella is risen to a level of greatness is her patronage of Columbus. Elizabeth was a much better queen.
@evaperonfan I do agree that Elizabeth I was a much better Queen due to her religious tolerance. Catholics and Protestants can live in coexistence under her rule. If only Isabel and Fernando were more like Elizabeth I, Spain would be a better country to live and will continue to see the rich mix of different cultures as seen during Al-Andalus, except that of course it's ruled by Catholic monarchs instead.
@mjay22 Sorry to disagree, but Elizabeth's religious policy was no better. In fact, she was very intolerant with regards to Catholics (she harshly persecuted them). Isabella and Ferdinand were not truly convinced about casting the Jews out of Spain --that was a Roman concoction, via Torquemada, the Queen's confessor. They did it for political, not religious reasons. Spain is already a good country to live, and it's experiencing an enriching mixture of cultures again due to immigration.
Then why did the Muslims and Jews have to practise their respective religions in secret and yet publicly display themselves as Catholic to avoid getting expelled since 1492? Of course, 20th century (except during Franco's time) and present Spain is a different story, having immigrants coming from different nations - that I agree with the enriching mixture of cultures again in the present day.
Of course, I don't blame it on Catholicism for bringing intolerance, but just the Catholics involve in wanting to force the non-Catholics to become Catholics or get expelled or tortured.
@mjay22 Which is exactly what protestants did in England under Ellizabeth. As you can see, history repeats itself, and roles are the same, but with different names.
@mjay22 Why? Because Isabella and Ferdinando made the terrible mistake of permitting the Catholic church (i.e., Rome) to exert political power over Spanish territories in order to unite the country under one "identity" (a Christian/Catholic one). A project which, BTW, was followed by Elizabeth and her idea of making England one nation under one faith: the Church of England. That's why the English catholics were persecuted, or killed, or fled the island, just like Jews and Muslims in Spain.
@melancholicme123 thats not true, Elizabeth didnt hate catholics its just a lot of people who wanted her off the throne just happened to be catholic. mary queen of scots wanted her off the throne and was catholic by cousiadence.
@GoMidoriIsCool Yes it is, my friend. Don't believe me? I can recommend you many books on the subject. Elizabeth hated Catholics as much as she hated her half-sister Mary Tudor ("Bloody Mary"), who was, oh surprise, a convinced catholic. Catholicism was a menace to the Elizabeth's soveraignty project. That's history, not an opinion.
@melancholicme123 no, she belived that all people should chose their own reilgons and made a law as such, but you dont have to take my word for it, u can look it up
@GoMidoriIsCool In 1581 an Act was passed that made it treason to withdraw English subjects from allegiance to the Queen or her Church. Elizabeth thought that Catholicism posed a huge threat to her power, and thus made it illegal, and virtually all Catholics were taken for traitors. I happen to study these facts because of my academic activities, so I don't know what "law" are you talking about, Midorils. You seem to have serious lacunes in English history.
@GoMidoriIsCool I wish I could agree with you on this one, but unfortunately I don't. The Catholics that were not executed lived in fear and felt unsafe in their own land, and had to emigrate just like the dissident Puritans. Even Jesuit priests were executed because they were considered "dangerous." Elizabeth was not a tolerant monarch when it came to religious liberties, and the Church of England was pretty much an imposition (in fact a bloody one), not a choice as you imply.
@GoMidoriIsCool Really? I'd like to know which documentaries, documents, books and online info you're basing your opinions on. See, the problem is, people think they know all about a particular topic just because they've watched a 1-hour extra-simplified documentary or read some very superficial (and unreliable) data some moron has posted online. So, go ahead, believe what you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously. Goodbye.
@GoMidoriIsCool How typical an answer from a person who lacks arguments. My whole point was to try to make you understand that history is not a matter of believing whatever we want to believe. Instead, you're basing your opinions on a documentary series for TV? Great! No wonder why you wanted to end this "debate."
@melancholicme123 and books documents quoats from THEIR time. so dont tell what you "know" to small childern and mislead them. you're a good for nothing stuffy idoit!! i'd bid you farewell, but you'd just come back!!
@GoMidoriIsCool Oh, BTW, calling me idiot, arrogant or prevaricator for stating FACTS is just priceless! You NEVER provided any reliable sources or even tried to make a coherent comment; in fact, you're even uncapable of spelling right! That makes you an ignorant distorter and a tragic illiterate, for whom I feel most deeply sorry. For the record, I have no idea who PARTNER93630 is, so save your words for a better occasion. Farewell, you poor delusional child.
@melancholicme123 now you're telling lies about spelling, it wont be long before u say to people geroge washington was our 51st president, so remember my comment on your channel, also i should have known u had so many victims of lies u couldnt even keep track of them!! and of couse i didnt spell right, i was trying to make it easier for you, as that IS your way of spelling.
good day sir, remove yourself, and what else? oh yes, STOP LYING!!!
@GoMidoriIsCool Is your immaturity for real? I don't lie about your spelling mistakes: you discredit yoursel every time you flaunt your ignorance! I don't tell lies, unlike you, who not only tells them but actually believes them!! What victims are you talking about? Again: you're either a) DELUSIONAL, or b) OBTUSE. Do us all a favor and GET URGENT HELP, you mentally challenged girl! STOP YOUR IGNORANCE!!!
@melancholicme123 but here's at least one source supporting my theroy:
“I never had any meaning or intent that my subjects should be troubled or molested by examination or inquisition in any matter either of their faith or for that matters of ceremonies, as long as they shall in their outward conversation show themselves quiet and not manifestly repugnant to the laws of the realm.”
@GoMidoriIsCool Again, you're wrong!! If no one knows, there are DOCUMENTS from the specific times you're focusing on. When there are no documents, then a historian must rely on the references thar are closest in time to the particular fact you're investigating. These serve as PROOF, as EVIDENCE, as TESTIMONY. But you're light-years away from understanding this. Again, it's NOT WHAT YOU WANT.
And, about the boomerang thing, that applies to you too, sweetheart.
@melancholicme123 uhh, last time i checked i was the one who wanted to end this debate, not you. and i would like to see proof supporting YOUR theroy, oh, i forgot you dont have any because as i said before, YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LIAR!!
@melancholicme123 ah ha! a journal of CATHOLIC thoughts, of course they said stuff like that! some wanted her off the thorne! next time READ the books and dont just ponit them out!
@GoMidoriIsCool Do you mean the source is not valid because it's a journal of Catholic thoughts? Really? Do you mean only Protestants are entitled to write about Catholics? By the same token, only Muslims could write about Judaism; or Chinese historians' thoughts would be the only valid ones in American History books. Do you even realize how ridiculous this is? BTW, MOST Catholics wanted Elizabeth off the throne, NOT JUST SOME as you say. I DO READ my sources, unlike you, you pathetic ignoramus.
@GoMidoriIsCool Do you really think she was tolerant of Catholics? Oh, sweetheart, how blatantly wrong you are! According to many historians, including Mr. Tarragó, on one occasion Elizabeth had about eight hundred Catholics executed for restoring the Mass in a few towns. Is this your definition of “tolerant”? I see. Not only are you ignorant, but also cynical. BTW, Mr. Tarragó was born in Cuba—not precisely a Catholic nation.
@melancholicme123 yes i agree most of them wanted her off the throne. and she executed them ONLY because of that. she said it dosent matter if we're catholic or prosdent etc. we all worship the same god and i agree.
@GoMidoriIsCool WRONG AGAIN! She executed/KILLED/MURDERED them NOT ONLY because they wanted her off the throne, but because they were Catholics! I could quote over and over again the 1591 declaration, and the 1581 Act making it illegal to be a Catholic per se, but you could as well keep manifesting your ignorance! It's easier to extract some wisdom from a stone than it is to expect some understanding from you! Really!
@GoMidoriIsCool Oh no, it's I who feel deeply sorry for your ignorance. You haven't proven I'm lying! You know why? Because I'm NOT!! Plain and simple. You're just ridiculing yourself on account of your lack of general knowledge and basic reading skills.
@melancholicme123 hmm... seems like i posted links to websites and other stuff proveing you ARE lying, nobody likes to admit they're wrong. you just have too, because i will NEVER back down
@GoMidoriIsCool Really? Where are your sources? In your confused little imagination? In your little invisible world? You just keep contradicting yourself, sweetheart. I will NOT admit I'm wrong because reason is with me, and anybody who reads my posts can prove me right. Anybody who reads yours, on the contrary, will only find hatred, immaturity, nonsense, and tons of ignorance. How sad!
@melancholicme123 “I never had any meaning or intent that my subjects should be troubled or molested by examination or inquisition in any matter either of their faith or for that matters of ceremonies, as long as they shall in their outward conversation show themselves quiet and not manifestly repugnant to the laws of the realm.”
---- Queen Elizabeth I
i put it up eariler but you chose not to acknowagle it
@GoMidoriIsCool And I asked you just exactly where did you take this quotation from, but you chose not to respond. When did the queen supposedly say this? To whom? In what year? What was the context? I'm afraid you just don't have the answers.
@melancholicme123 i got that quote @ the same website i put up previously, you know, the one you didnt look at because you wont do your duty of admiting you're wrong.
@GoMidoriIsCool What website? Where? What's the URL? Who composed it? What were their quality standards? Were they peer-reviewed? Ad these questions to the unresolved ones I posted earlier. And, until you continue to fail to demonstrate your so-called "theories", FACTS will continue to prove me RIGHT. And not only that, but also you are just onpenly ridiculing yourself under the illusion of knowing things just by watching documentaries. How sweet!
@melancholicme123 let me put it this way, unlike u, i read books, i looked at stuff online, and i watched over 50 documentaries! also unlike you i posted the info i found rather rant about how wrong you are! i think all would agree I'M the REAL historian with the REAL answers!! you sir, im sad to say, are hopeless. here's another link to a wikipedia stateing im right
@GoMidoriIsCool NEVER did I say I was a historian. I only said I study these facts on account of my professional interests (my field, being part of the Humanities, is closely related to history). But you arrogantly claim to be "the REAL historian". At age 18? Where did you get your title from? From the University of the Self-Deluded? How can one possibly believe you based your opinions on serious sources, when YOU state on your own YT profile that, "i dont read much, thank you very much!"?
@GoMidoriIsCool Oh, and 50 documentaries? You have not been able to quote not even 5 so far! In fact, not even 3 or 2! As per your online "stuff", I'm afraid you've been reading bogus material --assuming you have indeed been reading at all. Wikipedia? The resource of the lazy. But, since you won't give credit to the books I cited, I'll use the your own source to prove you wrong once more. Here's a series of quotes from Wikipedia, under the "English Reformation" entry (don't thank me, hun):
@GoMidoriIsCool 1. “When Mary (Tudor) died childless in 1558, Elizabeth inherited the throne. One of the most important concerns during Elizabeth’s early reign was religion. Communion with the Roman Catholic Church had been reinstated under Mary, BUT WAS AGAIN SEVERED BY ELIZABETH. She relied primarily on her chief advisors, Sir William Cecil, as her Secretary of State, and Sir Nicholas Bacon, as the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, for direction on the matter.”
@GoMidoriIsCool 2. “Parliament was summoned in 1559 to consider the Reformation Bill and to create a new church. (…) Parliament was prorogued over Easter, and when it resumed, the government entered two new bills into the Houses – the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity.
The Act of Supremacy validated ten Acts that Mary had repealed and confirmed Elizabeth as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. (…)”
@GoMidoriIsCool 3. “ Elizabeth's changes were more wholesale than those of her half-brother, Edward VI. All but one (Anthony Kitchin) of THE BISHOPS LOST THEIR POSTS, A HUNDRED FELLOWS OF OXFORD COLLEGES WERE DEPRIVED; MANY DIGNITARIES RESIGNED RATHER THAN TAKE THE OATH. THE BISHOPS WHO WERE REMOVED FROM THE ECCLESIASTICAL BENCH WERE REPLACED BY APPOINTEES WHO WOULD AGREE TO THE REFORMS.”
@GoMidoriIsCool 4. “(…) in 1561 the Queen herself ordered the demolition of all lofts.[69] Thereafter, the determination to prevent any further restoration was evidenced by the more thoroughgoing DESTRUCTION OF ROODS, VESTMENTS, STONE ALTARS, DOOMS, STATUES AND OTHER ORNAMENTS. THE QUEEN ALSO APPOINTED A NEW PRIVY COUNCIL, REMOVING MANY ROMAN CATHOLIC COUNSELLORS BY DOING SO. (…) The Act of Supremacy had passed without difficulty.”
@GoMidoriIsCool 5. “However, the Act of Uniformity 1558 which FORCED PEOPLE TO ATTEND SUNDAY SERVICE IN AN ANGLICAN CHURCH, at which a new version of the Book of Common Prayer was to be used, was passed by only three votes.(…)What succeeded more than anything else was the sheer length of Elizabeth's reign; while Mary had been able to impose her programme for a mere five years, Elizabeth had more than forty.”
@GoMidoriIsCool 6.“Elizabeth's reign saw the emergence of Puritanism, which encompassed those Protestants who, whilst they agreed that there should be one national church, felt that the church had been but partially reformed. (…) Grindal was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1575 and chose to oppose even the Queen in his desire to forward the Puritan agenda.”
@GoMidoriIsCool 7. “‘Bear with me, I beseech you Madam, if I choose rather to offend your earthly majesty than to offend the heavenly majesty of God’, he (Grindal) ended a 6,000 word reproach to her. HE WAS PLACED UNDER HOUSE ARREST FOR HIS TROUBLE AND THOUGH HE WAS NOT DEPRIVED, HIS DEATH IN 1583 PUT AN END TO THE HOPES OF HIS SUPPORTERS. HIS SUCCESSOR, ARCHBISHOP WHITGIFT MORE REFLECTED THE QUEEN'S DETERMINATION TO DISCIPLINE THOSE WHO WERE UNPREPARED TO ACCEPT HER SETTLEMENT.”
@GoMidoriIsCool 8. “(…) there were still huge numbers of Roman Catholics (...); VESTMENTS WERE STILL HIDDEN, GOLDEN CANDLESTICKS BEQUEATHED, CHALICES KEPT. (…) BOTH ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND LAITY LIVED A DOUBLE LIFE, APPARENTLY CONFORMING, BUT AVOIDING TAKING THE OATH OF CONFORMITY. (…) By the 1570s AN UNDERGROUND CHURCH WAS GROWING FAST, AS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND BECAME MORE PROTESTANT AND LESS BEARABLE FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS. (…)”
@GoMidoriIsCool 9. “(…) fines for refusal to attend church were raised from 12 d. per service to £20 a month, fifty times an artisan's wage; it was now treason to be absolved from schism and reconciled to Rome; THE EXECUTION OF PRIESTS BEGAN – the first in 1577, four in 1581, eleven in 1582, two in 1583, six in 1584, fifty-three by 1590 (…)"
@GoMidoriIsCool So, you're admitting that Elizabeth did kill Catholics. Every tyrant in history has tried to suppress any form of dissidence, from the Romans to Isabel, from Elizabeth to the Nazis, from Napoleon to Castro. This is a very common trait of paranoia amongs megalomaniacs. Do you see why Elizabeth cannot be regarded as a model of religious tolerance now?
@GoMidoriIsCool 10.“IT BECAME TREASONABLE FOR A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST ORDAINED ABROAD TO ENTER THE COUNTRY. FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS, THE CHOICE LAY BETWEEN TREASON AND DAMNATION. (…) IN GENERAL, THE LIST OF CATHOLIC MARTYRS OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION WAS EXTENSIVE. (…) Roman Catholicism, supported by foreign or expatriate priests, came to be seen as treasonous.”
@GoMidoriIsCool 11. In his "English Reformations" (Oxford, 1993). Christopher Haigh, stated on p. 262f: "...England judicially murdered more Roman Catholics than any other country in Europe". Mind you.
@GoMidoriIsCool 12. Also on Wikipedia (to quote your sources), under "Catholic Church in England and Wales", you can read that, "Mary's sister, Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558, re-established independence from Rome in a 1559 settlement and was finally excommunicated in 1570. CATHOLICISM (...)WAS SUBJECT TO VARIOUS FORMS OF PERSECUTION, WITH MOST RECUSANT MEMBERS (EXCEPT THOSE IN DIASPORA ON THE CONTINENT OR PART OF THE ARISTOCRACY) GOING UNDERGROUND FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES...”
@GoMidoriIsCool First of all, you conveniently did not quote this entry in your posts. Now you're insinuating I have the power to modify it! I see your strategy: confuse, lie, and accuse. No matter what you do, you're simply wrong, darling.
@GoMidoriIsCool 13. With the abundant evidence I presented to prove I'm right, it is you, madam, the one who is tragically hopeless. If you want to continue to feed your delusions, go ahead and good luck with that. Have a nice life.
@GoMidoriIsCool well it says in an old history book from civl war time called "Parley's Common School History Of the World" and other books i read stating she did not. and i watched millons of documentaries on the subject stating she did not. and found quoates from the queen stateing she did not. and i found websites stated she did not. so i think YOU'RE right. and if he/she comes back all the time just ignore him/her and remember YOU'RE right not him/her
@QueenOfAllHistory Oh, another deluded one! Millions of documentaries? Elizabeth did persecute and murder Catholics. Tolerant, she was not! Please refer to the abundant reading material I just cited/quoted, and maybe then will you be able to state an informed opinion. Thank you.
@melancholicme123 no need 2 be rude! listen, i read lots of history books and not one, i repeat, not one said she prescuted Catholics. maybe GoMidoriIsCool kept coming back because of your being rude. did you ever think of that?
@QueenOfAllHistory I was not rude to you! But I apologize if you think I was. And I invite you to read my posts: It's her who called me an idiot, a prevaricator, and some other most delightful names. I reapeat, you're wrong. I simply don't know what books you're refering to, when even the Encyclopaedia Britannica state Elizabeth was a Catholic-persecutor. But then again, don't believe me. Ask your professors and read serious sources.
@GoMidoriIsCool Me being "just an under educated little boy"? How sweet of you, darling! That's called a projection. You must be very frustrated with your own life, hun, but it's not my fault that you failed kindergarten and were subsequently promoted of year thanks to your teachers' immeasurable pitty. Elizabeth persecuted and murdered Catholics, and that's a fact whether you like it or not. Period.
@GoMidoriIsCool Really? And what would you call that? Extreme tolerance? Religious liberty? No wonder why is hard to make you understand simple things. Catholics were not only denied their rights and imposed a different one, but were also, AGAIN, murdered, executed, tortured or expelled from England! Puritans suffered from her intolerance too. Is that a monarch who wanted her subjects to have their own religious views? Bravo, you've convinced me! For the record, I'm not even Catholic.
@melancholicme123 Both Catholics and Protestants both believe in God and their constant wars and strife were just an excuse for intolerance, greed, power-struggle. God clearly has spoken when He told us that there are many roads that lead to his Kingdom. These monarchs and other people who use religion as an excuse to hurt others or to steal, should be ashamed of their dishonor. It's disgusting
@WeeeWriter Indeed, it's disgusting! I completely agree with you, only I don't believe that "God" or any divinity for that matter has ever spoken to humankind (I'm neither a Catholic nor a Protestant, nor a Mormon, or a Jew, or a Muslim; I'm simply non-religious, or an agnostic if you will). Peace.
@melancholicme123 Disagreeing with a person's opinion is perfectly good, we all have minds of our own. Thank you for your input Melancholicme123. Peace to you as well. I'm religious but I'm very spiritual. No middle man.
@GoMidoriIsCool Well, here are two Wikipedia entries for you to have fun (and perhaps learn something, although I find it highly unlikely). By the way, I already saved you the work of summarizing the info by posting it here for everybody to see how ridiculously wrong your claims are. Here you go:
en. wikipedia . org / wiki / English _ Reformation # cite _ ref-77
en. wikipedia . org / wiki / Roman _Catholicism_in_England_and_Wales
Elizabeth I. “By the Queene. A declaration of great troubles pretended against the realme by a number of seminarie priests and Iesuits, sent, and very secretly dispersed in the same, to worke great treasons vnder a false pretence of religion, with a prouision very necessary for remedy thereof. : Published by this her Maiesties proclamation. Imprinted at London: By the deputies of Christopher Barker, printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie, 1591.”
@melancholicme123 also, i didnt want to end this debate because im of little arugements, i wanted to end it as a chance for peace which you clearly didnt take. proveing how dumb you are.
@GoMidoriIsCool Oh, so you weren’t short of arguments? God gracious! I cannot even imagine your definition of scarcity! This is not a war, honey, so no need to look for a “chance for peace”. But then again, how should one explain this to an intellectually impaired poor little child?
@GoMidoriIsCool 7- As you everybody can see, I have provided you with FACTS, solid sources, NOT THEORIES. Were you saying something about me being nothing but a liar, dear? *Cough* (insert guffaw here) *Cough* Can you even read this, you poor child? Do you need some drawings perhaps? I might as well be talking to a wall. One more little thing: I said goodbye when I had to, not when you wanted to. Again, no wonder why you wanted to end this “debate”.
@melancholicme123 you're right you're not a liar like i thought you were.
BUT YOU ARE AN IDOIT! I BET YOU DIDNT EVEN READ THOSE BOOKS! I BET YOU CANT EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO! UNLIKE YOU I CHECKED OUT DANGER TO ELIZABETH AND IT STATED SHE ONLY KILLED THE DANGEROUS CATHOLICS! NOT ALL CATHOLICS! so next time, READ YOUR SOURCES!!
@GoMidoriIsCool Aw! Calling me an idiot again! Is that the only word you know how to say? How sweet! Your “(she) only killed the dangerous Catholics” statement becomes tragic when put into context: THOUSANDS of Catholics were executed for being considered “dangerous”. Elizabeth was NO different from the most fanatic monarchs of history. Unlike you, I won't prescribe you to read your sources; no, darling, I'm advising you to JUST READ! Books don't bite, you know?
@GoMidoriIsCool Oh, and about your "theory", here's one last thought by R. Tarrego (whose book I cited above): "Mary is criticized because she burned Protestants whom she considered heretics, but Elizabeth is praised as shrewd for persecuting Catholics, who did not accept laws passed during her reign making her both secular and spiritual ruler. Violations of these laws were considered an act of treason punishable by hanging, drawing, and quartering."
@GoMidoriIsCool You mean, Mr. Rafael Tarragó's not a Cuban historian who does not work at the U of Minnesota; who's not penned several articles; and who's not published anything relevant? How very interesting! Do you live in a parallel universe, sugar? That'd explain your poor intelligence level on this earth. If not, what can one expect from someone who won't read books and bases her dubious theories on some random information she superficially finds online?
@melancholicme123 you never fail to asmuse me with your lies and mistakes. remember what i said about danger to elizabeth? unlike u i READ the book and it stated she only got rid of the catholics who wanted her off the thorne. and even if mr. tarrago's real, he must have indeed been a crazy liar like yourself. i read, saw, watch, and looked up evdince stated Elizabeth didn't execute anyone just for having the catholic faith, so just get on with your life if u have one!
@GoMidoriIsCool Hahaha!!! You're indeed like a circus animal! Every time I find you new talents! First calling me a liar, then calling me not a liar, then calling me an idiot, and now calling me a liar again! You're officially bipolar! Calling historians crazy liars won't make you any smarter, sweetie! It will just continue to prove your deeply low maturity level. You don't read; you just elaborate absurd non-facts based on ignorance, that's all. Get it right: Elizabeth hated Catholics!
@GoMidoriIsCool And who said I was an American? See? You just assume things and spit them off of your narrow little mind. As for your ludicrous assertion, the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA states otherwise, proving you WRONG for the umpteenth time! You poor creature, seriously!
@GoMidoriIsCool And just exactly which country is yours, hun? Am I trying to lie? How so, if I haven't even told you where I'm from? My native language is not even English! The fact that I live in the U.S. doesn't make me an American; it makes you unintelligent for keep assuming things! Move on, you poor unreasonable narrow-minded child.
@GoMidoriIsCool You know? Taking the time to actually write on my channel just to call me slurs full of hate speaks a lot about your maturity level, sweetheart. Silly me. What could I expect from an 18 year-old who doesn't read books, after all? To insult me won't change history, it'll just show your true ignorant colors, darling. Thus far I have addressed you with respect and serenity, but you seem to not be able to control your liver --is it even connected to your brain, hun? Bye, bye.
@melancholicme123 lets just end this and belive what we want to. im willing to end debate if you are, THUMBS UP IF YOU GUYS THINK WE SHOULD ND THIS DEBATE!!
@GoMidoriIsCool History is not a matter of believing what we want or not. It's about FACTS. Sure you're free to believe that the Earth is flat, for example, but that's just not a FACT. Having said this, yes, let's end this conversation.
@GoMidoriIsCool That's no excuse. You just can't prove it. You're like a childe who can only tell lies (or accuse someone else of lying) when caught doing something wrong.
@evaperonfan Anti-Semitism aside, Isabella seized the crown of Castile and ruled both her kingdoms and her husbands. She gave birth to 5 children around whom the history of Europe and the New World revolved; was an active promoter of the arts; pacified a rebellious nobility; made Spain the first global superpower; and, almost by accident, financed Columbus journeys. In sum, she was the first Queen of the Renaissance, a role model to Elizabeth herself.
lol american accent? Really?
xTashaKateWoodx 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
PrincessKarrah 5 months ago in playlist PrincessKarrah's Favorited Videos
@PrincessKarrah yes she is katherine of aragons mother
Shazz26 4 months ago
@PrincessKarrah yep
littleangel7900 1 week ago
Well the movie is ok I guess
belbel2101 6 months ago
i love their outfits its awsomely beautiful
Mandinko23 9 months ago
@Mandinko23 but very historically inaccurate
CaitlinSk 9 months ago
Wasn´t Isabella blond haired? What´s next, a skinny and handsome Henry VIII?
Oh, they already did it in the Tudors.
ScourgeofInfidels 11 months ago
@ScourgeofInfidels Henry actually was very good looking in his youth, but age effects everybody.
cherryblossomlover01 10 months ago 2
@ScourgeofInfidels @yes she was, well more auburn haired. Oh and Henry was gorgeous in his youth but his overindulgence and leg injury affected him.
CherryBlossomBlyue 9 months ago
@ScourgeofInfidels yes she was, well more reddish blonde/auburn haired. Oh and Henry was gorgeous in his youth but his overindulgence and leg injury affected him. Although I do agree with you that in the later seasons The Tudors didn't show him as he was.
CherryBlossomBlyue 9 months ago
Muslims Fucked up spain and pourtogaL 800 Years LOOOOOOOL Shame on you Christians
llmoonll 11 months ago
Its amazing that a series based on Children Books is causing so much debate and fighting. O_o; Why not just enjoy the movie?
ninjaharuki 11 months ago 5
@Carpetoretano Furthermore, how can Muslims and Romans be different? Please read what I wrote: I was referring to the Roman conquest, sack, and subjugation of France (anciently known as "Gallia") and Tunisia (formerly known as "Carthage"). Maybe the Roman history in Hispania was different, but I highly doubt it since you fail to provide evidence to prove your point. One thing is clear: your defense of the Romans and vilification of the Muslims/Arabs prove your bias and prejudice. Be objective.
melancholicme123 11 months ago
@melancholicme123 not to mention the conquest and sacking of the celtics up in england ex. Boadicea have you read her story? pretty interesting minus wat happended to her and her daughters -_-;
Tekirai 8 months ago
@Carpetoretano My "descendants British women and a man"? Again, your thoughts are deeply confusing. True: the U.S. is a racist country, but not the most racist country in the world. Spain had laws requiring "blood purity" for centuries, killed millions of people, destroyed entire civilizations, and still continues to be a racist country to its foreign immigrants (that's a fact). So are France, and England, and Italy, not to mention the South African apartheid. You, Sir, be objective.
melancholicme123 11 months ago
@Carpetoretano 1. I think we can both agree to keep a respectful conversation. I never called you names or insulted you. You, however, called me Mr. hypocrisy for no reason. That shows your maturity level. 2. Please, learn to know how to write proper English, and then your ideas will be more successfully understood. I still don't understand your main point because of the way you're presenting your arguments. 3. How do you know which country I come from? I never said I was from the U.S.!
melancholicme123 11 months ago
@Carpetoretano Sorry, I don't understand a word or what you´re trying to say. The Muslims entered Spain killing and raping? Yes, they did, so did the Romans, who for instance decimated the Gauls in what now is France, and the Cartagenese in what now is Tunisia. And what about the Spaniards and other Europeans in the Americas? Did they not kill and rape and murder and torture? By Isabella's time, Spain was also the land of the Muslims that lived there.
melancholicme123 11 months ago
I love this series!
TheDebbylover 1 year ago
Sorry. I can't accept the physical appearance of characters. There are people who are not Europeans there. Many actors look indigenous Americans, how come?? America wasn't discovered yet! Isabella's hair was blonde and wavy, btw. Fail.
As for Catholicism. I'm afraid Catholics were the only Christians at the time. The others didn't exist.
SpanishHunkyGuy 1 year ago 5
i hate the angle at 1:01
meandher2ofus 1 year ago
7.00, it's a mexican stand off
StarfishRogers 1 year ago
Elizabeth I did persecute Catholics. Why is it so hard for people to accept this truth? I read in a new Tudor bio that she sometimes offered Catholics she'd had sentenced to death pardon...if only they'd attend Anglican services!!!! Wtheck? So much for tolerance and 'not building windows into men's souls'.
dizzy365 1 year ago
@dizzy365 Precisely! Bravo!
melancholicme123 1 year ago
Is this the mother of Katherine of Arragon
blackxbamboo 1 year ago
Comment removed
QueenOfAllHistory 1 year ago
THIS IS HORROR
maisondecouture 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
the acting is pretty bad
crixsnbhagi 1 year ago
3:05 - What did she say?
JA268 1 year ago
I found this diary doubtful, this book I mean. I found it unbelievable that Isabel would have an ex Jew for a friend when her anti semitism was close to Hitler's. I felt that that was a whitewash of her. The only reason Isabella is risen to a level of greatness is her patronage of Columbus. Elizabeth was a much better queen.
evaperonfan 1 year ago
@evaperonfan I do agree that Elizabeth I was a much better Queen due to her religious tolerance. Catholics and Protestants can live in coexistence under her rule. If only Isabel and Fernando were more like Elizabeth I, Spain would be a better country to live and will continue to see the rich mix of different cultures as seen during Al-Andalus, except that of course it's ruled by Catholic monarchs instead.
mjay22 1 year ago
@mjay22 Sorry to disagree, but Elizabeth's religious policy was no better. In fact, she was very intolerant with regards to Catholics (she harshly persecuted them). Isabella and Ferdinand were not truly convinced about casting the Jews out of Spain --that was a Roman concoction, via Torquemada, the Queen's confessor. They did it for political, not religious reasons. Spain is already a good country to live, and it's experiencing an enriching mixture of cultures again due to immigration.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
Then why did the Muslims and Jews have to practise their respective religions in secret and yet publicly display themselves as Catholic to avoid getting expelled since 1492? Of course, 20th century (except during Franco's time) and present Spain is a different story, having immigrants coming from different nations - that I agree with the enriching mixture of cultures again in the present day.
mjay22 1 year ago
Of course, I don't blame it on Catholicism for bringing intolerance, but just the Catholics involve in wanting to force the non-Catholics to become Catholics or get expelled or tortured.
mjay22 1 year ago
@mjay22 Which is exactly what protestants did in England under Ellizabeth. As you can see, history repeats itself, and roles are the same, but with different names.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@mjay22 Why? Because Isabella and Ferdinando made the terrible mistake of permitting the Catholic church (i.e., Rome) to exert political power over Spanish territories in order to unite the country under one "identity" (a Christian/Catholic one). A project which, BTW, was followed by Elizabeth and her idea of making England one nation under one faith: the Church of England. That's why the English catholics were persecuted, or killed, or fled the island, just like Jews and Muslims in Spain.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 thats not true, Elizabeth didnt hate catholics its just a lot of people who wanted her off the throne just happened to be catholic. mary queen of scots wanted her off the throne and was catholic by cousiadence.
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Yes it is, my friend. Don't believe me? I can recommend you many books on the subject. Elizabeth hated Catholics as much as she hated her half-sister Mary Tudor ("Bloody Mary"), who was, oh surprise, a convinced catholic. Catholicism was a menace to the Elizabeth's soveraignty project. That's history, not an opinion.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 no, she belived that all people should chose their own reilgons and made a law as such, but you dont have to take my word for it, u can look it up
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool In 1581 an Act was passed that made it treason to withdraw English subjects from allegiance to the Queen or her Church. Elizabeth thought that Catholicism posed a huge threat to her power, and thus made it illegal, and virtually all Catholics were taken for traitors. I happen to study these facts because of my academic activities, so I don't know what "law" are you talking about, Midorils. You seem to have serious lacunes in English history.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 well, some catholics were executed but only the dangerous ones, thumbs up if you argee with me in this debate!!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool I wish I could agree with you on this one, but unfortunately I don't. The Catholics that were not executed lived in fear and felt unsafe in their own land, and had to emigrate just like the dissident Puritans. Even Jesuit priests were executed because they were considered "dangerous." Elizabeth was not a tolerant monarch when it came to religious liberties, and the Church of England was pretty much an imposition (in fact a bloody one), not a choice as you imply.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 well im still going to depart from this debate and belive what i learned from documentries, documents, books, and online
goodbye
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Really? I'd like to know which documentaries, documents, books and online info you're basing your opinions on. See, the problem is, people think they know all about a particular topic just because they've watched a 1-hour extra-simplified documentary or read some very superficial (and unreliable) data some moron has posted online. So, go ahead, believe what you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously. Goodbye.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 most of them were david starkey documentaries, and perhaps it is you who shouldnt expect to be taken seriously.
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool How typical an answer from a person who lacks arguments. My whole point was to try to make you understand that history is not a matter of believing whatever we want to believe. Instead, you're basing your opinions on a documentary series for TV? Great! No wonder why you wanted to end this "debate."
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 and books documents quoats from THEIR time. so dont tell what you "know" to small childern and mislead them. you're a good for nothing stuffy idoit!! i'd bid you farewell, but you'd just come back!!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
Comment removed
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Oh, BTW, calling me idiot, arrogant or prevaricator for stating FACTS is just priceless! You NEVER provided any reliable sources or even tried to make a coherent comment; in fact, you're even uncapable of spelling right! That makes you an ignorant distorter and a tragic illiterate, for whom I feel most deeply sorry. For the record, I have no idea who PARTNER93630 is, so save your words for a better occasion. Farewell, you poor delusional child.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 now you're telling lies about spelling, it wont be long before u say to people geroge washington was our 51st president, so remember my comment on your channel, also i should have known u had so many victims of lies u couldnt even keep track of them!! and of couse i didnt spell right, i was trying to make it easier for you, as that IS your way of spelling.
good day sir, remove yourself, and what else? oh yes, STOP LYING!!!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Is your immaturity for real? I don't lie about your spelling mistakes: you discredit yoursel every time you flaunt your ignorance! I don't tell lies, unlike you, who not only tells them but actually believes them!! What victims are you talking about? Again: you're either a) DELUSIONAL, or b) OBTUSE. Do us all a favor and GET URGENT HELP, you mentally challenged girl! STOP YOUR IGNORANCE!!!
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 but here's at least one source supporting my theroy:
“I never had any meaning or intent that my subjects should be troubled or molested by examination or inquisition in any matter either of their faith or for that matters of ceremonies, as long as they shall in their outward conversation show themselves quiet and not manifestly repugnant to the laws of the realm.”
Elizabeth I
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool And just exactly where did you take this quote from? Was it from a doubtful online source? I see...
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 also in history we HAVE to believe what we want sometimes like when noone knows
i'd bid u farewell but your like a boomerang who wont admit they're wrong!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Again, you're wrong!! If no one knows, there are DOCUMENTS from the specific times you're focusing on. When there are no documents, then a historian must rely on the references thar are closest in time to the particular fact you're investigating. These serve as PROOF, as EVIDENCE, as TESTIMONY. But you're light-years away from understanding this. Again, it's NOT WHAT YOU WANT.
And, about the boomerang thing, that applies to you too, sweetheart.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 uhh, last time i checked i was the one who wanted to end this debate, not you. and i would like to see proof supporting YOUR theroy, oh, i forgot you dont have any because as i said before, YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LIAR!!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Here you go, darling:
1- Tarrago, Rafael. “Bloody Bess: The Persecution of Catholics in Elizabethan England.” Logos. Volume 7, Number 1, Winter 2004.
2- Plowden, Alison. Danger to Elizabeth; the Catholics under Elizabeth I. New York: Stein and Day, 1973.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 ah ha! a journal of CATHOLIC thoughts, of course they said stuff like that! some wanted her off the thorne! next time READ the books and dont just ponit them out!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Do you mean the source is not valid because it's a journal of Catholic thoughts? Really? Do you mean only Protestants are entitled to write about Catholics? By the same token, only Muslims could write about Judaism; or Chinese historians' thoughts would be the only valid ones in American History books. Do you even realize how ridiculous this is? BTW, MOST Catholics wanted Elizabeth off the throne, NOT JUST SOME as you say. I DO READ my sources, unlike you, you pathetic ignoramus.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool And there’s three more:
3- Holmes, Peter. Resistance and compromise: the political thought of the Elizabethan Catholics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
4- Petti, Anthony. Roman Catholicism in Elizabethan and Jacobean Staffordshire: documents from the Bagot Papers. Staffordshire Record Society, 1979.
5- Encyclopaedia Britannica. “English Catholics In the Reign of Elizabeth”.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 and danger to elizabeth shows she was torlant of catholics and not people who wanted her off the throne
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Do you really think she was tolerant of Catholics? Oh, sweetheart, how blatantly wrong you are! According to many historians, including Mr. Tarragó, on one occasion Elizabeth had about eight hundred Catholics executed for restoring the Mass in a few towns. Is this your definition of “tolerant”? I see. Not only are you ignorant, but also cynical. BTW, Mr. Tarragó was born in Cuba—not precisely a Catholic nation.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 yes i agree most of them wanted her off the throne. and she executed them ONLY because of that. she said it dosent matter if we're catholic or prosdent etc. we all worship the same god and i agree.
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool WRONG AGAIN! She executed/KILLED/MURDERED them NOT ONLY because they wanted her off the throne, but because they were Catholics! I could quote over and over again the 1591 declaration, and the 1581 Act making it illegal to be a Catholic per se, but you could as well keep manifesting your ignorance! It's easier to extract some wisdom from a stone than it is to expect some understanding from you! Really!
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 i shouldn't be mad at you i should be sorry for u. u fell victim to lies\
ifonlyu'd stop spreading them
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Oh no, it's I who feel deeply sorry for your ignorance. You haven't proven I'm lying! You know why? Because I'm NOT!! Plain and simple. You're just ridiculing yourself on account of your lack of general knowledge and basic reading skills.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 hmm... seems like i posted links to websites and other stuff proveing you ARE lying, nobody likes to admit they're wrong. you just have too, because i will NEVER back down
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Really? Where are your sources? In your confused little imagination? In your little invisible world? You just keep contradicting yourself, sweetheart. I will NOT admit I'm wrong because reason is with me, and anybody who reads my posts can prove me right. Anybody who reads yours, on the contrary, will only find hatred, immaturity, nonsense, and tons of ignorance. How sad!
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 “I never had any meaning or intent that my subjects should be troubled or molested by examination or inquisition in any matter either of their faith or for that matters of ceremonies, as long as they shall in their outward conversation show themselves quiet and not manifestly repugnant to the laws of the realm.”
---- Queen Elizabeth I
i put it up eariler but you chose not to acknowagle it
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
Comment removed
melancholicme123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoMidoriIsCool And I asked you just exactly where did you take this quotation from, but you chose not to respond. When did the queen supposedly say this? To whom? In what year? What was the context? I'm afraid you just don't have the answers.
melancholicme123 1 year ago 2
@GoMidoriIsCool or she
QueenOfAllHistory 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 i got that quote @ the same website i put up previously, you know, the one you didnt look at because you wont do your duty of admiting you're wrong.
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool What website? Where? What's the URL? Who composed it? What were their quality standards? Were they peer-reviewed? Ad these questions to the unresolved ones I posted earlier. And, until you continue to fail to demonstrate your so-called "theories", FACTS will continue to prove me RIGHT. And not only that, but also you are just onpenly ridiculing yourself under the illusion of knowing things just by watching documentaries. How sweet!
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 let me put it this way, unlike u, i read books, i looked at stuff online, and i watched over 50 documentaries! also unlike you i posted the info i found rather rant about how wrong you are! i think all would agree I'M the REAL historian with the REAL answers!! you sir, im sad to say, are hopeless. here's another link to a wikipedia stateing im right
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool NEVER did I say I was a historian. I only said I study these facts on account of my professional interests (my field, being part of the Humanities, is closely related to history). But you arrogantly claim to be "the REAL historian". At age 18? Where did you get your title from? From the University of the Self-Deluded? How can one possibly believe you based your opinions on serious sources, when YOU state on your own YT profile that, "i dont read much, thank you very much!"?
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Oh, and 50 documentaries? You have not been able to quote not even 5 so far! In fact, not even 3 or 2! As per your online "stuff", I'm afraid you've been reading bogus material --assuming you have indeed been reading at all. Wikipedia? The resource of the lazy. But, since you won't give credit to the books I cited, I'll use the your own source to prove you wrong once more. Here's a series of quotes from Wikipedia, under the "English Reformation" entry (don't thank me, hun):
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 1. “When Mary (Tudor) died childless in 1558, Elizabeth inherited the throne. One of the most important concerns during Elizabeth’s early reign was religion. Communion with the Roman Catholic Church had been reinstated under Mary, BUT WAS AGAIN SEVERED BY ELIZABETH. She relied primarily on her chief advisors, Sir William Cecil, as her Secretary of State, and Sir Nicholas Bacon, as the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, for direction on the matter.”
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 2. “Parliament was summoned in 1559 to consider the Reformation Bill and to create a new church. (…) Parliament was prorogued over Easter, and when it resumed, the government entered two new bills into the Houses – the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity.
The Act of Supremacy validated ten Acts that Mary had repealed and confirmed Elizabeth as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. (…)”
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 3. “ Elizabeth's changes were more wholesale than those of her half-brother, Edward VI. All but one (Anthony Kitchin) of THE BISHOPS LOST THEIR POSTS, A HUNDRED FELLOWS OF OXFORD COLLEGES WERE DEPRIVED; MANY DIGNITARIES RESIGNED RATHER THAN TAKE THE OATH. THE BISHOPS WHO WERE REMOVED FROM THE ECCLESIASTICAL BENCH WERE REPLACED BY APPOINTEES WHO WOULD AGREE TO THE REFORMS.”
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 4. “(…) in 1561 the Queen herself ordered the demolition of all lofts.[69] Thereafter, the determination to prevent any further restoration was evidenced by the more thoroughgoing DESTRUCTION OF ROODS, VESTMENTS, STONE ALTARS, DOOMS, STATUES AND OTHER ORNAMENTS. THE QUEEN ALSO APPOINTED A NEW PRIVY COUNCIL, REMOVING MANY ROMAN CATHOLIC COUNSELLORS BY DOING SO. (…) The Act of Supremacy had passed without difficulty.”
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 5. “However, the Act of Uniformity 1558 which FORCED PEOPLE TO ATTEND SUNDAY SERVICE IN AN ANGLICAN CHURCH, at which a new version of the Book of Common Prayer was to be used, was passed by only three votes.(…)What succeeded more than anything else was the sheer length of Elizabeth's reign; while Mary had been able to impose her programme for a mere five years, Elizabeth had more than forty.”
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 6.“Elizabeth's reign saw the emergence of Puritanism, which encompassed those Protestants who, whilst they agreed that there should be one national church, felt that the church had been but partially reformed. (…) Grindal was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1575 and chose to oppose even the Queen in his desire to forward the Puritan agenda.”
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 7. “‘Bear with me, I beseech you Madam, if I choose rather to offend your earthly majesty than to offend the heavenly majesty of God’, he (Grindal) ended a 6,000 word reproach to her. HE WAS PLACED UNDER HOUSE ARREST FOR HIS TROUBLE AND THOUGH HE WAS NOT DEPRIVED, HIS DEATH IN 1583 PUT AN END TO THE HOPES OF HIS SUPPORTERS. HIS SUCCESSOR, ARCHBISHOP WHITGIFT MORE REFLECTED THE QUEEN'S DETERMINATION TO DISCIPLINE THOSE WHO WERE UNPREPARED TO ACCEPT HER SETTLEMENT.”
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 8. “(…) there were still huge numbers of Roman Catholics (...); VESTMENTS WERE STILL HIDDEN, GOLDEN CANDLESTICKS BEQUEATHED, CHALICES KEPT. (…) BOTH ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND LAITY LIVED A DOUBLE LIFE, APPARENTLY CONFORMING, BUT AVOIDING TAKING THE OATH OF CONFORMITY. (…) By the 1570s AN UNDERGROUND CHURCH WAS GROWING FAST, AS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND BECAME MORE PROTESTANT AND LESS BEARABLE FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS. (…)”
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 9. “(…) fines for refusal to attend church were raised from 12 d. per service to £20 a month, fifty times an artisan's wage; it was now treason to be absolved from schism and reconciled to Rome; THE EXECUTION OF PRIESTS BEGAN – the first in 1577, four in 1581, eleven in 1582, two in 1583, six in 1584, fifty-three by 1590 (…)"
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 yeah, because like i said before THEY WANTED HER OFF THE THRONE!!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool So, you're admitting that Elizabeth did kill Catholics. Every tyrant in history has tried to suppress any form of dissidence, from the Romans to Isabel, from Elizabeth to the Nazis, from Napoleon to Castro. This is a very common trait of paranoia amongs megalomaniacs. Do you see why Elizabeth cannot be regarded as a model of religious tolerance now?
melancholicme123 1 year ago 18
@melancholicme123 and @GoMidorilsCool
What the Hell! It is a children's books. Tone it down a little!
Posionlily96 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Posionlily96 Children do not need to be told lied, mind you.
melancholicme123 4 months ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 10.“IT BECAME TREASONABLE FOR A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST ORDAINED ABROAD TO ENTER THE COUNTRY. FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS, THE CHOICE LAY BETWEEN TREASON AND DAMNATION. (…) IN GENERAL, THE LIST OF CATHOLIC MARTYRS OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION WAS EXTENSIVE. (…) Roman Catholicism, supported by foreign or expatriate priests, came to be seen as treasonous.”
melancholicme123 1 year ago 2
@GoMidoriIsCool 11. In his "English Reformations" (Oxford, 1993). Christopher Haigh, stated on p. 262f: "...England judicially murdered more Roman Catholics than any other country in Europe". Mind you.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 12. Also on Wikipedia (to quote your sources), under "Catholic Church in England and Wales", you can read that, "Mary's sister, Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558, re-established independence from Rome in a 1559 settlement and was finally excommunicated in 1570. CATHOLICISM (...)WAS SUBJECT TO VARIOUS FORMS OF PERSECUTION, WITH MOST RECUSANT MEMBERS (EXCEPT THOSE IN DIASPORA ON THE CONTINENT OR PART OF THE ARISTOCRACY) GOING UNDERGROUND FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES...”
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 that was NOT there when i looked at it! how do i know you didn't go back there and edit it?
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool First of all, you conveniently did not quote this entry in your posts. Now you're insinuating I have the power to modify it! I see your strategy: confuse, lie, and accuse. No matter what you do, you're simply wrong, darling.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 13. With the abundant evidence I presented to prove I'm right, it is you, madam, the one who is tragically hopeless. If you want to continue to feed your delusions, go ahead and good luck with that. Have a nice life.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 very well, and have fun misleading people
Monsieur Lies beaucoup
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool You're very welcome, Madame la Trompeuse.
And keep enjoying accusing others, confusing your mind, distorting history, contradicting yourself, and ignoring facts at your own whims.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool admiting he's wrong about what?
QueenOfAllHistory 1 year ago
@QueenOfAllHistory he's just an under educated little boy who think Queen Elizabeth I of England perscuted Catholics, when really she did not
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool well it says in an old history book from civl war time called "Parley's Common School History Of the World" and other books i read stating she did not. and i watched millons of documentaries on the subject stating she did not. and found quoates from the queen stateing she did not. and i found websites stated she did not. so i think YOU'RE right. and if he/she comes back all the time just ignore him/her and remember YOU'RE right not him/her
QueenOfAllHistory 1 year ago
@QueenOfAllHistory Oh, another deluded one! Millions of documentaries? Elizabeth did persecute and murder Catholics. Tolerant, she was not! Please refer to the abundant reading material I just cited/quoted, and maybe then will you be able to state an informed opinion. Thank you.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 no need 2 be rude! listen, i read lots of history books and not one, i repeat, not one said she prescuted Catholics. maybe GoMidoriIsCool kept coming back because of your being rude. did you ever think of that?
QueenOfAllHistory 1 year ago
@QueenOfAllHistory I was not rude to you! But I apologize if you think I was. And I invite you to read my posts: It's her who called me an idiot, a prevaricator, and some other most delightful names. I reapeat, you're wrong. I simply don't know what books you're refering to, when even the Encyclopaedia Britannica state Elizabeth was a Catholic-persecutor. But then again, don't believe me. Ask your professors and read serious sources.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 im not intersted in listing to your "facts"
goodbye
QueenOfAllHistory 1 year ago
@QueenOfAllHistory Well then, I'm sorry to hear that. A narrow mind is always closed to knowledge. Goodbye.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Me being "just an under educated little boy"? How sweet of you, darling! That's called a projection. You must be very frustrated with your own life, hun, but it's not my fault that you failed kindergarten and were subsequently promoted of year thanks to your teachers' immeasurable pitty. Elizabeth persecuted and murdered Catholics, and that's a fact whether you like it or not. Period.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 oh, i wouldn't call taking away their rights to make them equel to other reilgons "perscuted"
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Really? And what would you call that? Extreme tolerance? Religious liberty? No wonder why is hard to make you understand simple things. Catholics were not only denied their rights and imposed a different one, but were also, AGAIN, murdered, executed, tortured or expelled from England! Puritans suffered from her intolerance too. Is that a monarch who wanted her subjects to have their own religious views? Bravo, you've convinced me! For the record, I'm not even Catholic.
melancholicme123 1 year ago 13
@melancholicme123 But I am! Thank you, my friend!
PrincipessaDellOpera 1 year ago
@PrincipessaDellOpera You're very welcome. : )
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 Both Catholics and Protestants both believe in God and their constant wars and strife were just an excuse for intolerance, greed, power-struggle. God clearly has spoken when He told us that there are many roads that lead to his Kingdom. These monarchs and other people who use religion as an excuse to hurt others or to steal, should be ashamed of their dishonor. It's disgusting
WeeeWriter 1 year ago
@WeeeWriter Indeed, it's disgusting! I completely agree with you, only I don't believe that "God" or any divinity for that matter has ever spoken to humankind (I'm neither a Catholic nor a Protestant, nor a Mormon, or a Jew, or a Muslim; I'm simply non-religious, or an agnostic if you will). Peace.
melancholicme123 1 year ago 2
@melancholicme123 Disagreeing with a person's opinion is perfectly good, we all have minds of our own. Thank you for your input Melancholicme123. Peace to you as well. I'm religious but I'm very spiritual. No middle man.
WeeeWriter 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 look up "Elizabethan Religious Settlement" on wikipedia then under "Act of Uniformity" if Know how type rather then copy and paste
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoMidoriIsCool Well, here are two Wikipedia entries for you to have fun (and perhaps learn something, although I find it highly unlikely). By the way, I already saved you the work of summarizing the info by posting it here for everybody to see how ridiculously wrong your claims are. Here you go:
en. wikipedia . org / wiki / English _ Reformation # cite _ ref-77
en. wikipedia . org / wiki / Roman _Catholicism_in_England_and_Wales
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 6- Lastly:
Elizabeth I. “By the Queene. A declaration of great troubles pretended against the realme by a number of seminarie priests and Iesuits, sent, and very secretly dispersed in the same, to worke great treasons vnder a false pretence of religion, with a prouision very necessary for remedy thereof. : Published by this her Maiesties proclamation. Imprinted at London: By the deputies of Christopher Barker, printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie, 1591.”
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 also, i didnt want to end this debate because im of little arugements, i wanted to end it as a chance for peace which you clearly didnt take. proveing how dumb you are.
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Oh, so you weren’t short of arguments? God gracious! I cannot even imagine your definition of scarcity! This is not a war, honey, so no need to look for a “chance for peace”. But then again, how should one explain this to an intellectually impaired poor little child?
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool 7- As you everybody can see, I have provided you with FACTS, solid sources, NOT THEORIES. Were you saying something about me being nothing but a liar, dear? *Cough* (insert guffaw here) *Cough* Can you even read this, you poor child? Do you need some drawings perhaps? I might as well be talking to a wall. One more little thing: I said goodbye when I had to, not when you wanted to. Again, no wonder why you wanted to end this “debate”.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 you're right you're not a liar like i thought you were.
BUT YOU ARE AN IDOIT! I BET YOU DIDNT EVEN READ THOSE BOOKS! I BET YOU CANT EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO! UNLIKE YOU I CHECKED OUT DANGER TO ELIZABETH AND IT STATED SHE ONLY KILLED THE DANGEROUS CATHOLICS! NOT ALL CATHOLICS! so next time, READ YOUR SOURCES!!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Aw! Calling me an idiot again! Is that the only word you know how to say? How sweet! Your “(she) only killed the dangerous Catholics” statement becomes tragic when put into context: THOUSANDS of Catholics were executed for being considered “dangerous”. Elizabeth was NO different from the most fanatic monarchs of history. Unlike you, I won't prescribe you to read your sources; no, darling, I'm advising you to JUST READ! Books don't bite, you know?
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Oh, and about your "theory", here's one last thought by R. Tarrego (whose book I cited above): "Mary is criticized because she burned Protestants whom she considered heretics, but Elizabeth is praised as shrewd for persecuting Catholics, who did not accept laws passed during her reign making her both secular and spiritual ruler. Violations of these laws were considered an act of treason punishable by hanging, drawing, and quartering."
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 hmm.. well, i look up mr. tarrego and i am afraid he does not exsit, much like your theroy
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool You mean, Mr. Rafael Tarragó's not a Cuban historian who does not work at the U of Minnesota; who's not penned several articles; and who's not published anything relevant? How very interesting! Do you live in a parallel universe, sugar? That'd explain your poor intelligence level on this earth. If not, what can one expect from someone who won't read books and bases her dubious theories on some random information she superficially finds online?
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 you never fail to asmuse me with your lies and mistakes. remember what i said about danger to elizabeth? unlike u i READ the book and it stated she only got rid of the catholics who wanted her off the thorne. and even if mr. tarrago's real, he must have indeed been a crazy liar like yourself. i read, saw, watch, and looked up evdince stated Elizabeth didn't execute anyone just for having the catholic faith, so just get on with your life if u have one!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Hahaha!!! You're indeed like a circus animal! Every time I find you new talents! First calling me a liar, then calling me not a liar, then calling me an idiot, and now calling me a liar again! You're officially bipolar! Calling historians crazy liars won't make you any smarter, sweetie! It will just continue to prove your deeply low maturity level. You don't read; you just elaborate absurd non-facts based on ignorance, that's all. Get it right: Elizabeth hated Catholics!
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 another thing, i base most of my sorcuces on forigen people too.
BRITSH people, i trust they know a great deal about their country. and they state she beileved all should chose their own faiths
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool And who said I was an American? See? You just assume things and spit them off of your narrow little mind. As for your ludicrous assertion, the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA states otherwise, proving you WRONG for the umpteenth time! You poor creature, seriously!
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 trying to lie again i see, i know where your country as it is mine so cut the lies!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool And just exactly which country is yours, hun? Am I trying to lie? How so, if I haven't even told you where I'm from? My native language is not even English! The fact that I live in the U.S. doesn't make me an American; it makes you unintelligent for keep assuming things! Move on, you poor unreasonable narrow-minded child.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 i try to move on but you pull me back always
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool You mean like now? I see.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool You know? Taking the time to actually write on my channel just to call me slurs full of hate speaks a lot about your maturity level, sweetheart. Silly me. What could I expect from an 18 year-old who doesn't read books, after all? To insult me won't change history, it'll just show your true ignorant colors, darling. Thus far I have addressed you with respect and serenity, but you seem to not be able to control your liver --is it even connected to your brain, hun? Bye, bye.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 also, by leaving our plesant talk as your recent acts, well thats just sad! i'd say goodbye but you just cant let it go!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoMidoriIsCool It's you who just can't let it go! That's sad!
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 lets just end this and belive what we want to. im willing to end debate if you are, THUMBS UP IF YOU GUYS THINK WE SHOULD ND THIS DEBATE!!
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool History is not a matter of believing what we want or not. It's about FACTS. Sure you're free to believe that the Earth is flat, for example, but that's just not a FACT. Having said this, yes, let's end this conversation.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool Prove I'm lying. You can't, because it's you who's avoiding truth by referencing some doubtful sources!
melancholicme123 1 year ago
@melancholicme123 i would, but you'd just say it's my sources who are lying
GoMidoriIsCool 1 year ago
@GoMidoriIsCool That's no excuse. You just can't prove it. You're like a childe who can only tell lies (or accuse someone else of lying) when caught doing something wrong.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
Comment removed
yukicross2010 1 year ago
@evaperonfan Anti-Semitism aside, Isabella seized the crown of Castile and ruled both her kingdoms and her husbands. She gave birth to 5 children around whom the history of Europe and the New World revolved; was an active promoter of the arts; pacified a rebellious nobility; made Spain the first global superpower; and, almost by accident, financed Columbus journeys. In sum, she was the first Queen of the Renaissance, a role model to Elizabeth herself.
melancholicme123 1 year ago
i read cleopatra elizabeth and isabel! now i am reading anastsia they are so good
kellybarzi789 1 year ago
Comment removed
keishabaxter2 2 years ago
I think the girl who played Isabel was very pretty, but her voice sounded annoying.
mckfrr 2 years ago 7
@mckfrr She is off Mrs Doubtfire...and she looks and sounds like that even when she is older LOL
keishabaxter2 2 years ago 6
thank you so much! please post part 3 soon <3
xoxo1101 2 years ago 4
Yes, please put up part 3 for both Isabel and Cleopatra as soon as you are able to
kikihappy54 2 years ago 7
Part 3 please
babymadlen 2 years ago 6
The actress playing Catalina is beyond gorgeous!
PrincessMioneKag 2 years ago 6
When will part 3 be up??
babymadlen 2 years ago 6
PLEASE GET PART 3 UP SOON!!! <3
SingingPrincess247 2 years ago 11
3rd part please :)
issabella13x 2 years ago 8
thank uu! i gotta read these books!!
XoXoLaLaLandXoXo 2 years ago 4
Yay for things filmed in my province! WOOOOT
slytherinpuddle 2 years ago 6
Finally, when will part two of Cleopatra be up. This was great. :)
DanaScullyMulder 2 years ago 6
OMG! FINALLY! THANK U SOOOO MUCH!
babymadlen 2 years ago 7