OT Charles and Camilla
 

Unbelievable! And they are all congratulating them. Hopefully Q Eliz
outlives him and he never ascends. IMHO.

If they show up on CanaDUHian coins,they will be fondling them in their
pockets.I have a heavy canvas bag hanging in my kitchen,when I go out
shopping,I don't like to tote any coins around with me in my
pockets.When I get back home I throw whatever coins I received in change
into that canvas bag.I once saw a website on the internet about five
years ago and the website petains to the real British Monarchy that most
Brits don't know about and a "City of London" inside the City of London
that even the Queen of England has to kow tow too.
cuhulin

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:29:49 GMT, m II wrote:

Michael Lawson wrote:

Wasn't that part of the whole C of E's reason for existence?
Henry VIII and Anne Boelyn??


For a bit of history, check out Cromwell.

The movie " A Man for all Seasons" with Paul Scofield is pretty good too.
His portrayal of Thomas More is excellent. It's worth watching.




mike


Hi Mike,

How is it hanging? I haven't talked to you in quite some time.

GayinCanada wrote:

Hi Mike,

How is it hanging?

On this planet, downwards.



I haven't talked to you in quite some time.


It seems like ages, doesn't it Steve? Thanks for mailing me that
Frederick's Hollywood Catalog. Your offer of buying me all that frilly
underwear to go with the hormone injections you are going to be paying
for is very kind.

How are things in Holland? Bet you can hardly wait for the 'Tulips'.
heh heh...




mike

"GayinCanada" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:29:49 GMT, m II wrote:

Michael Lawson wrote:

Wasn't that part of the whole C of E's reason for existence?
Henry VIII and Anne Boelyn??


For a bit of history, check out Cromwell.

The movie " A Man for all Seasons" with Paul Scofield is pretty good
too.
His portrayal of Thomas More is excellent. It's worth watching.




mike


Hi Mike,

How is it hanging? I haven't talked to you in quite some time.



Are you tryin to toss salad again. Leave mike alone.

B.H.

"m II" wrote in message

How are things in Holland? Bet you can hardly wait for the 'Tulips'.
heh heh...
mike


For Christ sake, he tip toes through tulips too?

B.H.

"NICK" wrote in message

What ugly little ****ers they would be!!




They'd be wrinkly too.

B.H.

"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"m II" wrote in message

How are things in Holland? Bet you can hardly wait for the 'Tulips'.
heh heh...
mike


For Christ sake, he tip toes through tulips too?

He puts his toes in there? My, but that's kinky. ;P

They would look like Pure ****!
cuhulin

"uncle arnie" wrote in message
...
Michael Lawson wrote:

snip

Wasn't that part of the whole C of E's reason for existence?
Henry VIII and Anne Boelyn??

It's not that simple. Do a search on the Council of Whitby, 644 AD,
if
you're interested.

Didn't say it was that simple, but it was a factor. Remember,
Henry had defended Catholicism rather eloquently before
this, so I don't believe it a simple conversion experience
that caused him to perform an abrupt 180.

The King of Northumbria decided in favour of the Roman
versus indigenous Celtic church at that time. Archbishop Cranmer,
when he
wrote up the first Book of Common Prayer, specifically returned to
the
traditions of the ancient church of the British Isles. You could
"spin"
this and say that he only took advantage of Henry's marital issues,
and you
would be cozy with the Roman Catholic propaganda of many centuries.

Considering Henry's title of "Defender of the Faith", to turn
around quickly and reject the Roman Church at the specific
time when he felt he needed heirs, needed a divorce and
wanted to marry Anne smacks of a certain Machiavellian
style, not altruism. Certainly, Henry felt he could get away
with it and not have Civil War (that came later) and still do
with what he felt he needed to preserve the throne. It wasn't
all that long before that the Wars of the Roses had ended,
and he felt he needed to preserve the line and ensure a united
England.

You
can certainly denigrate a church if you promote that the founding of
it was
based on someone's desire for divorce. That would be like saying
the Roman
Catholic Church is based on Peter's three times denial of Christ in
His our
of need.

Did I say anything denigrating the CofE?? No. I just simply
found it curious that everyone is up in arms over this, when
a precendent has already been set. One, I might add, that was
a bit more ruthless and Machiavellian than the current
scenario. Considering that many of the German barons who
supported Luther did so for both Machiavellian as well as
altruistic reasons, I see no reason why that would denigrate
what Luther accomplished. Nor the same for Henry; were
it not for him, the Protestant Sects that helped to found the
Colonies would probably not be around, nor would William
Penn found Pennsylvania, nor would Maryland be founded
as a haven for Catholics, nor Georgia as essentially a "reformatory"
experiment. The Colonies might have turned out completely
different, as might have England's relationship to it. Nor, I
would argue, would England have become the power that it
became without what Henry set in motion.

--Mike L.