Accywebbers Fav. King and/or Queen? - Page 3

LancYorkYankee · 26-02-2007, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

The worst forms of execution were carried out on the general population... Royals were allowed to be killed a more dignified manner. There is the case of Edward 2nd... executed (or murdered) by having a red hot poker shoved up the jacksey!

Forgive my ignorance but was Mary Queen of Scots not considered a Royal nor Edward II as noted above?? Or are you saying that the general public received even worse treatment.

Brian

Mancie · 26-02-2007, 20:34

Mary and Edward were both Royals...I don't think it took 15 attempts with the axe to de-capitate her.. maybe 2 or 3. When I say the Royals and Lords were allowed a dignified execution I meant they would have a supposedly quick death i.e have the head chopped off, as compared to being hung drawn and quartered or burnt at the stake.
King Edward 2nd was not executed officially... he was killed while imprisoned.

garinda · 26-02-2007, 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by LancYorkYankee

I had forgotten about this post!

Thanks for all the contributions. Mancie appreciate you going back into English History for both your favs and not so favs.!

I'm curious, with such a long history, do you guys believe many English students are taught an accurate history of the Royals or a slanted view from English Historians?

Brian

I don't know about now, but I was taught very little Royal history at school. What I know now, I read about and researched myself. I know more about Roman Britain, or the Industrial Revolution, than I do about the Plantagenets.

Though being a republican I'd be happy for all monarchist knowledge to be confined to history.

garinda · 27-02-2007, 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

There is the case of Edward 2nd... executed (or murdered) by having a red hot poker shoved up the jacksey!

He was supposedly given 'the horn' first.

In September 1327, a knight named Gurney joined Lord Maltravers as gaoler. They inserted a straight cow horn with the point removed into Edward's anus, then a red hot iron was pushed through the cow horn and into the body, burning out his entrails. This killed him while leaving no marks on his body, making it appear as if he had died of natural causes.

grannyclaret · 27-02-2007, 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

He was supposedly given 'the horn' first.

In September 1327, a knight named Gurney joined Lord Maltravers as gaoler. They inserted a straight cow horn with the point removed into Edward's anus, then a red hot iron was pushed through the cow horn and into the body, burning out his entrails. This killed him while leaving no marks on his body, making it appear as if he had died of natural causes.

ooh my god ,i would rather have my head chopped off..

LancYorkYankee · 27-02-2007, 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

He was supposedly given 'the horn' first.

In September 1327, a knight named Gurney joined Lord Maltravers as gaoler. They inserted a straight cow horn with the point removed into Edward's anus, then a red hot iron was pushed through the cow horn and into the body, burning out his entrails. This killed him while leaving no marks on his body, making it appear as if he had died of natural causes.

That's what I get for pressing my curiousity! That's awful but kinda interesting if actually historical!

Brian

US Angel · 07-03-2007, 07:03

I am with you granny

Eric · 01-04-2007, 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

He was supposedly given 'the horn' first.

In September 1327, a knight named Gurney joined Lord Maltravers as gaoler. They inserted a straight cow horn with the point removed into Edward's anus, then a red hot iron was pushed through the cow horn and into the body, burning out his entrails. This killed him while leaving no marks on his body, making it appear as if he had died of natural causes.

Does this come with chips?

And my vote. William 1V.

grannyclaret · 01-04-2007, 00:19

I must say our queen has done a sterling job,, but how do you follow that..?I think Princess Anne would be a much better Monarch than any of her brothers...

Mancie · 01-04-2007, 01:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by grannyclaret

I must say our queen has done a sterling job,, but how do you follow that..?I think Princess Anne would be a much better Monarch than any of her brothers...

I agree Granny..our present Queen has upheld her dignity through thick and thin.. never waverd.
Imagine a life when you can never have a few drinks.. never cry.. never let your feelings known.. never show any hint of weakness.. never be impolite..never show grief.. allways face the world head on?
This Queen should be marked down alongside Victoria and Elizabeth 1st as a Queen who did her duty as she saw it!

MargaretR · 01-04-2007, 08:30

I am anti-monarchy in principle, but if I had to say I liked any of them I would pick Charles II - there was a chap who knew how to have FUN (we paid for it) After the extreme puritian republicanism dished up by Oliver Cromwell, he must have seemed like a breath of fresh air.

Mancie · 01-04-2007, 09:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I am anti-monarchy in principle, but if I had to say I liked any of them I would pick Charles II - there was a chap who knew how to have FUN (we paid for it) After the extreme puritian republicanism dished up by Oliver Cromwell, he must have seemed like a breath of fresh air.

Yeah great fun had by all margaret

apart from the great plague,the fire of London, and the fact that he left his thrown to his manic depressed brother.. must have been fun times

garinda · 01-04-2007, 16:35

I watched the Helen Mirren film The Queen this weekend, and it's made me more of a Republican than ever. All that walking backwards out of the room, because you can't turn your back on the monarch, how ridiculous, especially when it's our elected Prime Minister who is doing the backwards shuffle.

A nice enough woman, and if the majority of people had voted her to be our Head of State, I'd have no argument with her, but all that annointed as God's representative on Earth, is a load of old tosh in my opinion.

Eric · 01-04-2007, 22:12

The best argument for a heriditary head of state: George W. Bush. Eilzabeth Windsor is head of state of Canada. Don't find too many people over here who want to change that (outside of la belle province that is). Think of the economic benefits; how many tourists would flock to England to see the pomp,cicumstance, and palace of President Smith?

Many of the values that people in this group seem to want to preserve ... things that are slipping away ... would disappear faster without the monarchy.

Ancient Canadian saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

garinda · 01-04-2007, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

The best argument for a heriditary head of state: George W. Bush. Eilzabeth Windsor is head of state of Canada. Don't find too many people over here who want to change that (outside of la belle province that is).

Well that's fine and dandy, but would you stand, when told to do so, when the Queen's cousin's wife, Princess Michael of Kent, entered a room? As we were asked to do, when I was sat directly behind her at a concert at the Barbican in London. (I didn't stand by the way.) All that silly protocol should be consigned to the history books.

To me respect is something you earn, and not something which is just a result of the lottery of your birth.