posted
Comment: John Handcock did not intentionally sign the Declaration of Independance in such a flowery fashion to impress anybody. He did it because he was the first person to sign it, and received no instructions on how to sign it. When Jefferson, and primarily Franklin saw how he signed it, they realized that if everybody signed in such a large manner that they couldn't fit all the names on the document. Subsequent to that, they asked those who "really" signed the document to go down the page and sign one after the other in smaller script. I say "really" because Franklin forged a lot of the signatures. He did so because they were unable to make themselves available to sign.....or were afraid to do so. I do realize that that contention is in dispute. Franklin never hestitated to do what HE thought was best whenever it suited him. Remember what an arrogant individual he was.
The original "Declaration" was thrown in King Charles' fireplace without being read. Who knows who's signatures were on it, who signed them, or who didn't.
Don't believe me? Look it up....it's what you do.
Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
snopes, you avatar just seems especially suited to "We've Got Mail" letters like this.
-------------------- "I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, EVIL stuff... and I want in."- Homer Simpson Posts: 2161 | From: Delaware | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That certainly explains why Charles didn't bother reading it, since he (either Charles I or Charles II, take your pick) died about a century before it was written.
quote:Originally posted by Tootsie Plunkette: King... Charles?
You know, I was so flummoxed by the part about Benjamin Franklin forging all those signatures that I missed that bit.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by snopes: That certainly explains why Charles didn't bother reading it, since he (either Charles I or Charles II, take your pick) died about a century before it was written.
- snopes
Perhaps it said Send To Charles III
-------------------- Focus On The Family- An opinion group who think more about Gay Sex than gay people do- Rick Mercer Posts: 590 | From: Rawdon, Quebec | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by franjava: I kinda like "Hand-cock."
Many, many men would agree with that one.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The original "Declaration" was thrown in King Charles' fireplace without being read.
So perhaps King George III was in the Queen Elizabeth I parlor, sitting in the King Henry V chair, next to the King Charles (I or II) fireplace, sipping tea from the Queen Mary II teacup, when he received the "Declaration."
quote:I do realize that that contention is in dispute.
How can a fact be in dispute when the emailer just made it up?
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tootsie Plunkette: So perhaps King George III was in the Queen Elizabeth I parlor, sitting in the King Henry V chair, next to the King Charles (I or II) fireplace, sipping tea from the Queen Mary II teacup, when he received the "Declaration."
How did you come up with that? My guess was Louis XIV, in the Courtyard, with the Guillotine.
-------------------- "I'm singing and deranged!" Posts: 239 | From: Georgia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I have that surreal Monty Python skit in my head of George III going crazy ("Oh dear! I'm not supposed to go mad until 1800!") and a bunch of "Supremes"-type singers in the background singing.
-------------------- I would prefer not to. My blog Posts: 4789 | From: Rhode Island | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
"Mary I of England " There has never been a Queen Mary I of England. I think you mean Mary Queen of Scots, at that time a completely different country. Also, as a young woman she was renowned for her looks even if she did grow matronly in captivity. Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
quote:Mary Tudor was a cousin, once removed, of Mary, Queen of Scots, with whom she is often confused by those unfamiliar with British history.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Queen Mary I, daughter of King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon never existed? Bet that was a big shock to Elizabeth I and all those Protestants she had killed. Of course, Elizabeth I had plenty of Catholics killed, too. Maybe that's why I've always had trouble passing Tudor-Stuart History. It's not because I forget to read the books or skip class too much. It's because these people never existed. Don't think that excuse will go over so well with the prof.
-------------------- "I have a very cunning plan." Posts: 506 | From: Texas | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I think both you and the e-mailer are just a little confused, Karmyn.
Mary I existed. In fact, it was Mary I who threw the Declaration of Independence into the fireplace.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by snopes: Mary Queen of Scots, at that time a completely different country.
Scots is a country? In case that was meant to be Scotland, I'm sure this person would love to spend some time in, say, Glasgow talking to the natives about how Scotland is now the same country as England. Scottish people love hearing the glorious story of how that merger took place and swell with pride whenever they're referred to as English.
No really, it's true! Posts: 315 | From: Berlin, Germany | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose this person is right in that there is no "Mary I" of England, as you don't get "I" added to your title until and unless there is a II. Hence "King John," not "King John I." The fact that neither Mary nor John have so far got to add a "I" indicates what excellent role models they were as rulers.
Thank God Scotland and England are now the same country, though. That saves building some sort of enormous wall to keep out the immigrants.
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops! I stand corrected: I completely forgot that there was indeed a Mary II, which turns Mary Tudor into Mary I, as snopes correctly indicates.
In fact, thinking about it, there have actually been at least three Queen Elizabeths: Liz I, Liz II, and Liz II's mum. So numbers must apply to monarchs rather than queens. Mary II is a special case, as a joint monarch (the only case of joint monarchs in the UK?) and never reigned independently.
I wonder why it is that Jane Grey is never spoken of as "Queen Jane." That she was queen for nine days is rarely disputed.
ETA: Four, including Elizabeth of York.
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liz II's mum wasn't really queen. She was a Queen Consort, the wife of a King. The same thing as Price Phillip is not a King, but he just doesn't get a title that could be confused with the real reigning monarch.
posted
Well, "Queen Consort" is the official title, but during her husband's reign, she would still have been referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" (and later "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother"). This is markedly different in the case of Prince Consorts, like Philip, who are not referred to as king in any sense (although apparently they used to be).
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glowy Chloe: Mary II is a special case, as a joint monarch (the only case of joint monarchs in the UK?) and never reigned independently.
Well, Canute and Edmud Ironside had a "split" rule, but I guess that really can't count since they ruled different parts and it definately wasn't the UK back then. Ok, looking at this again, it's not even remotely close to William and Mary.
-------------------- Bender: Though you may have to make a metaphorical "deal with the devil". And by "devil", I mean the robot devil, and by "metaphorically" I mean get your coat. ------------ My sad site: A new way to be bored. Posts: 722 | From: Colorado | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Spooky Cactus
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales
posted
quote:Originally posted by Glowy Chloe: I wonder why it is that Jane Grey is never spoken of as "Queen Jane." That she was queen for nine days is rarely disputed.
Jane Grey had a small, rushed corination ceremony without any of the usual dignitaries not least the Archbishop of Canterbury, and therefore wasn't really officially crowned Queen.
Queen Consort is a completely different title than the one given to a female reigning monarch. Usually in history books queen consorts are referred to by name or whatever other title they might already have held before marrying the king. You generally talk about Catherine of Aragon, wife of Henry VIII, not Queen Catherine. Prince Phillip is often referred to as the Duke of Edinburgh.
Queen consort wouldn't be the only noble title which sounds the same as another. For example, a Knight of the Order of the Garter and a Knight Bachelor (such as Paul McCartney or Cliff Richard) are both called Sir (Firstname), but they are very different titles indeed.
ETA: The Queen mother's official title was Queen Dowager.
-------------------- 'When the world is dead and gone, we will still be Rocking On!' (J.P.McCartney) Posts: 154 | From: Yorkshire, England | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Spooky Cactus: ETA: The Queen mother's official title was Queen Dowager.
Only after George VI died, though, presumably?
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But how do "the history books" refer to the Queen Mother during her husband's reign, before she was either Queen Dowager or Queen mum? royal.gov.uk refers to "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth," not "King George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon." There are also the "King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Diamond Stakes."
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by snopes: Comment: John Handcock did not intentionally sign the Declaration of Independance in such a flowery fashion to impress anybody. He did it because he was the first person to sign it, and received no instructions on how to sign it.
I wasn't aware that men back in the 18th century needed to be told how to sign things. That must have made it rather awkward to transact business in the colonies. *Let's see, should I sign this with my real name, or my nom de guerre, or maybe with just an X? There's so many choices! I need someone to tell me how to sign this!*
Okay, sorry, that was kind of bad, but I couldn't help myself.
-------------------- Triumphs cannot be given. They must be taken, and the worse the odds, and the fiercer the resistance, the greater the honor. -- A Civil Campaign, Lois McMaster Bujold Posts: 638 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Spooky Cactus: ETA: The Queen mother's official title was Queen Dowager.
Only after George VI died, though, presumably?
Before her husband Albert ascended the throne (and took the title HM King George VI), she was HRH The Duchess of York.
She was Queen Consort during the King's reign and her official title was Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Empress of India.
She became Queen Dowager on the death of the King.
However, she did not like that title, so she changed it to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (because she could).
quote:Queen Consort is a completely different title than the one given to a female reigning monarch.
A reigning Queen is referred to as Regnant rather than Consort.
-------------------- "I always tell the truth. Even when I lie." - Tony Montana Posts: 890 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Spooky Cactus: Jane Grey had a small, rushed corination ceremony without any of the usual dignitaries not least the Archbishop of Canterbury, and therefore wasn't really officially crowned Queen.
You do not have to have a coronation to be regarded as 'King' or 'Queen'. Edward VIII never had a coronation and so was not officially 'crowned' but he is still regarded as a king.
My understanding has always been that the wife of a king can be called 'queen' (but not a ruling queen), but the husband of a ruling 'queen' is a consort.
There is still controversy over what Camilla will be called if Charles becomes king. She has been reported as saying that she does not want to be cvalled 'queen', but is that just an attempt to placate 'anti-Camilla' feeling? Personally I would be happy to see her referred to as 'Queen Camilla', but I am not sure how many people share my view.
-------------------- Andrew, Ware, England Posts: 1709 | From: Ware, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glowy Chloe: In fact, thinking about it, there have actually been at least three Queen Elizabeths: Liz I, Liz II, and Liz II's mum. So numbers must apply to monarchs rather than queens. ETA: Four, including Elizabeth of York.
Five now. Elizabeth Wydville, queen of Edward IV. Mother to the above Elizabeth of York and her brothers The Princes in the Tower.
-------------------- Focus On The Family- An opinion group who think more about Gay Sex than gay people do- Rick Mercer Posts: 590 | From: Rawdon, Quebec | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glowy Chloe: Well, "Queen Consort" is the official title, but during her husband's reign, she would still have been referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" (and later "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother"). This is markedly different in the case of Prince Consorts, like Philip, who are not referred to as king in any sense (although apparently they used to be).
In the case of Philip, husband of Mary I, he became King Regnant of the country with Mary taking a secondary role - she believed women were not fit to be monarchs. I think he was the only one though - Mary II and William III were indeed truly joint monarchs and of our other reigning queens, one never had a husband, one I know nowt about (Anne) and the others' husbands were/are Prince Consorts.
As for Jane Grey, IIRC it's because Henry VIII declared via an Act of Parliament - the Act of Succession - that his line of succession was to be his son, followed by his two daughters. Edward VI never got round to making his own Act of Succession so when he died, the person he wanted to become the monarch after him - his Protestant cousin Jane (he regarded Elizabeth as illegitimate) as opposed to his Catholic half-sister Mary - was not the official monarch, and Henry's official Act overruled Edward's unofficial wish.
-------------------- Silence should never under any circumstances be construed as agreement. A lot of the time, it's simply a reflection that someone just said something so stupid that no response could possibly do it justice. - Ramblin' Dave Posts: 8528 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Mr. Furious
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Andrew of Ware, England: There is still controversy over what Camilla will be called if Charles becomes king. She has been reported as saying that she does not want to be cvalled 'queen', but is that just an attempt to placate 'anti-Camilla' feeling? Personally I would be happy to see her referred to as 'Queen Camilla', but I am not sure how many people share my view.
quote:When The Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, she will be known as HRH The Princess Consort.
So she won't be Queen Camilla. If the sentiment that I saw in my brief time in London is any indication, that is a welcome decision.
ETA:
quote:My understanding has always been that the wife of a king can be called 'queen' (but not a ruling queen), but the husband of a ruling 'queen' is a consort.
I asked about this when I was in London, and I was told that the reason behind this is that the title of "queen" is subordinate to the title of "king," so if a female monarch's husband was considered a king, he would, in effect, be the monarch and not her.
Just thinking about "King Philip" makes me shudder.
posted
Forget Jane Grey, what about Queen Matilda? She was the legitimate heir to Henry I and while King Stephen did usurp the throne, she did rule (though uncrowned) for about half a year in 1141. I believe some histories do count her as Queen.
pinqy
-------------------- Don't Forget! Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming! Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[dunce]](graemlins/dunce.gif)
