Scottishmoney Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 All the negatives about Queen Anne, I must be inclined to add a positive, she was one of the more sensitive British monarchs and quite charitable. She had a sad life, and was a victim of her circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedeadpoint Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 ]the fact that all 14 or so children and her husband predeceased her Who succeeded her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Who succeeded her? George I did, he was the first British monarch of the House of Hanover. He was Anne's closest Protestant relative who was still living even though dozens of Catholic relatives had a stronger claim to the throne the "Act of Settlement" passed in 1701 prevented Catholics from inheriting the position of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 George I did, he was the first British monarch of the House of Hanover. He was Anne's closest Protestant relative who was still living even though dozens of Catholic relatives had a stronger claim to the throne the "Act of Settlement" passed in 1701 prevented Catholics from inheriting the position of power. At present this law is still in place, Catholics are still barred from the British throne. There has been some talk about changing it, presumably whilst they are going through the lengthy proceedure they'll also alter the other issue of male precedence over female relatives, since this contravenes European equality regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Who succeeded her? Circa 1710. Queen Anne. Rev. FVNDAMENTVM QVIETIS NOSTRAE. ECCLES. ANGL. Brass 26mm. by Lazarus G. Lauffer Nuremburg. And her successor Circa 1714. George 1st. Rev. FVNDAMENTVM QVIETIS NOSTRAE. ECCLES. ANGL. Brass 26mm. FVNDAMENTVM QVIETIS NOSTRAE. ECCLES. ANGL means The Church of England is the basis (or foundation) of our Peace. These were early propaganda tokens/jetons stressing that the protestant church was the way to maintain peace in Great Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottO Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 EU should stick thier noses out... its how its always been done.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Circa 1710. Queen Anne. Rev. FVNDAMENTVM QVIETIS NOSTRAE. ECCLES. ANGL. Brass 26mm. by Lazarus G. Lauffer Nuremburg. And her successor Circa 1714. George 1st. Rev. FVNDAMENTVM QVIETIS NOSTRAE. ECCLES. ANGL. Brass 26mm. FVNDAMENTVM QVIETIS NOSTRAE. ECCLES. ANGL means The Church of England is the basis (or foundation) of our Peace. These were early propaganda tokens/jetons stressing that the protestant church was the way to maintain peace in Great Britain. I can see the family resemblence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 The relationship was fairly distant, both having a common ancestor in James VI(I), so they were distant cousins many times removed. That said, Anne really tried to convince her Jacobite relations to convert to protestantism in order to assure the succession. Of course it was to no avail, and sadly, it may have been for the better as the lifestyle of Bonnie Prince Charley after the '45 would suggest, Britain may have been the better for the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 ...it may have been for the better as the lifestyle of Bonnie Prince Charley after the '45 would suggest, Britain may have been the better for the result. I dunno George IV springs immediately to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 I dunno George IV springs immediately to mind. Well, I appreciate what he did to Windsor Castle. Even if he did hide pretty much everything else behind a façade of modern stone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Well, I appreciate what he did to Windsor Castle. Even if he did hide pretty much everything else behind a façade of modern stone... I was thinking more of his alcoholism, drug addiction and general gluttony. But he did invest heavily in the arts and architecture side of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 I was thinking more of his alcoholism, drug addiction and general gluttony. Curses. I suspected so. Well, at least he kept his mistresses to a minimum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 I dunno George IV springs immediately to mind. What about Eddie the VIII? Everytime England has had an eight regnally named monarch there has been a problem. Now conjecture is that Eddie the VIII was a closet Nazi supporter. He and Wallis are two more that Great Britain should be glad got sidelined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Curses. I suspected so. Well, at least he kept his mistresses to a minimum... George V and George VI were probably the first male monarchs in recent British history that did not keep a raft of mistresses. Charles II is believed by most accounts to have fathered 27 illegitimate children by his assorted mistresses, many of them would go on to join the peerage and their descendants are still quite prominent in Britain. If conjecture is true, even Victoria kept a Mr., thus the moniker she had in the 1880's Mrs. Brown. Going back to George IV, there was the matter of Mrs. Fitzgerald that suggests he was actually married privately to her, all the whiles sending Princess Caroline on grand tours of Europe. Oh British monarchs and their peculiar proclivities, a never ending story and one quite fascinating to study upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ætheling Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 George II, William IV and Edward VII weren't exactly behind the post with the mistresses either. Then there's Richard I, Edward II and William III who were slightly more interested in men than women. William III was later assasinated by a mole (yes the little furry creature), at least that's how the Jacobites looked at it. George V on the other hand was particularly unkind to his children, it's rumoured that it was he that caused George VI's stammer, by forcing him to write right handed, which is known to cause quite a bit of psychological trauma (not sure quite how it works), but he used to have George's left hand tied to a piece of string and every time he tried to write with it he'd have it yanked away. The stammer is what caused George to be uncomfortable in public speaking and thus he smoked heavily to calm his nerves and subsequently died from lung cancer. Actually on of the funniest (or most tragic depending how you look at it) is Prince Frederick (George II's eldest son), now it was well known that none of the Georges got on with their sons, George I and II were persistently arguing (probably much to do with the fact that George I had his wife locked up to keep her out of the way), George III and IV didn't exactly get on either. The best though is George II and Frederick. Frederick had an unfortunate accident playing cricket, the ball hit him on the head and killed him, his father's only comment was something along the lines of 'good riddance' (i forget the exact quote), never mind because George II later died from over straining himself whilst visiting the bathroom. British history has always been full of unfortunate twists of fate and larger than life monarchs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Then there's Richard I, Edward II and William III who were slightly more interested in men than women. William III was later assasinated by a mole (yes the little furry creature), at least that's how the Jacobites looked at it. James VI(I) was a bit effeminate also and may well have been at least bi. Actually on of the funniest (or most tragic depending how you look at it) is Prince Frederick (George II's eldest son), now it was well known that none of the Georges got on with their sons, George I and II were persistently arguing (probably much to do with the fact that George I had his wife locked up to keep her out of the way), George III and IV didn't exactly get on either. The best though is George II and Frederick. Frederick had an unfortunate accident playing cricket, the ball hit him on the head and killed him, his father's only comment was something along the lines of 'good riddance' (i forget the exact quote), never mind because George II later died from over straining himself whilst visiting the bathroom. Rumour have it that George the II was taking or rather giving a $#!+ and the strain of it caused his death. But when you think about it, Victoria was not exactly happy with Eddie the VII, and in fact blamed him for Prince Albert's death in the aftermath of Eddie the VII being found in a tent with an Irish girl in 1861. The whole parent and child thing in the British monarchy is fraught with miserable relationships. Perhaps the first somewhat normal relationship was GVI and then Princess Elizabeth. British history has always been full of unfortunate twists of fate and larger than life monarchs. No doubt the shallow gene pool contributed greatly, what coupled with hemophilia, porphyria etc that coursed through the bloodlines, no small wonder there were so many nutcases in British history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Bringing this back on topic: An upgrade for me, now if I can find the 1 Escudo from that time I will be very happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiho Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 If you truly want to see a lot of beautiful women, all over the place, come to Ukraine. Agreed. My wife was born in Rhode Island but she's Ukranian on both sides, and she's still very pretty. I have been around the world and the two best places to see drop dead gorgeous women IMHO are Amsterdam and New York City. The difference is the girls in Amsterdam will actually talk to you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 I have been around the world and the two best places to see drop dead gorgeous women IMHO are Amsterdam and New York City. The difference is the girls in Amsterdam will actually talk to you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 The difference is the girls in Amsterdam will actually talk to you... But I don't speak dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 No bother, everybody in Netherlands speaks English, and a lot of the adverts around Amsterdam are in English anyway and television seems to be about half English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 Agreed. My wife was born in Rhode Island but she's Ukranian on both sides, and she's still very pretty. I have been around the world and the two best places to see drop dead gorgeous women IMHO are Amsterdam and New York City. The difference is the girls in Amsterdam will actually talk to you... I think you should retract those last two sentences then. You shouldn't be the thinking of the Amsterdam soiled doves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabbs Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 EU should stick thier noses out... its how its always been done.. "Their" noses? For some odd reason the UK insisted on joining, so it's your noses too until you get out. Of course you may then discover that it's your own government http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/2...sm.catholicism1 which is considering such changes. You may also wonder why the EU does not actually care about succession rules in Spain (male children first) or Sweden (Lutherans required) but oppresses the poor British only ... However, you do have some beauties on coins: Christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabbs Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 Here are some from France, somewhat abstract but elegant: These are from a series which shows the Sower in motion so to say. Christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 However, you do have some beauties on coins: I do like the Britannias. Especially this design: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.