The Greatest Queen Debate

[March Hare]

That would be awesome, wouldn't it? I bet he'd know exactly how to approach her, too. And she'd appreciate his company, no doubt - an intelligent man with manners and wit, who admired her. It'd be perfect.

[Smokey]

That would be awesome, wouldn't it? I bet he'd know exactly how to approach her, too. And she'd appreciate his company, no doubt - an intelligent man with manners and wit, who admired her. It'd be perfect.

Certainly would... & she'd really appreciate all the work he did in researching her life & putting such a great book together to re-evaluate her image & it worked

[Smokey]

Ok there's a couple of other things i wanted to discuss with you guys

Just had a really interesting debate with an American guy on a Facebook fan page ( Queen Mary II of England if you want to look it up ) the admin asked the question: Do you see William and Mary as usurpers or liberators? Well for me it has to be liberators as i think James II could ( & this is just my personal opinions) have been disastrous for Britain- i think he would have wanted absolute rule & would have re-in forced Catholicism back in ( which he had promised not to do- but starting doing just that). William and Mary's reign brought in the current system of 'Constitutional Monarchy' which we currently have, i also think it is pretty telling that James's overthrow is known as 'The Glorious Revolution'- because no blood was spilled & the whole country pretty much rose up.

Anyway this guy got well let's just say um a bit over emotional in defense of James II haha, saying how it's anti- catholic to agree with his overthrow etc lol & that 'Constitutional Monarchy' would have happened anyway ( fair comment but considering James II believed in 'divine right of Kings' i doubt it would have happened under his reign) but what do you guys think? Usurpers or Liberators?

Also has anyone been keeping a keen eye on the possible discovery of Richard III? Very exciting stuff, i do hope it turns out to be him

[March Hare]

If I promise I'll come back to this with a more well-informed and fair-minded answer, can I for now get away with saying that anyone who prevents Catholicism from taking over a whole country is a liberator, if only for that very reason...?

(Because in truth, that is honestly my opinion.)

[Smokey]

Of course- your well entitled to your opinion

& also i'm glad you agree that there liberators

[cuneas]

Yes, it's okay to call Freddie Mercury a Queen. Puns are sacred and beyond the reach of political correctness, and besides, he pretty much made the joke first.

Oh, wait wrong Queen debate...nevermind.

But seriously, I could debate for hours on the topic, but the short answer is Elizabeth I. Yes, she had a ruthless streak, but by the standards of her day she was practically a humanitarian. Also, given that she proved women could do things _no-one_ thought they could at the time, I honestly think that the women's movement wouldn't have gotten as far as it has yet if she had never lived.

Well, that, and Americans would be speaking Spanish.

[Smokey]

Absolutely, the women's lib movement owe a huge amount to Elizabeth, attitudes changed greatly after her reign- she certainly made it easier for the likes of Queen Victoria & the current Queen Elizabeth II- i mean when you look at when Queen Victoria came to the throne there was absolutely no question about whether we should have a female ruler- or pressure for her to marry ( although she did, but not straight away) & this was in an age when women where still a very long way off from having the right to vote.