[R] "kings get the sword"
Madeleine Colvert
don't think my question could spoil anything for anyone, here goes,
just to make sure: (ye never knoweth)
s
c
r
o
l
l
i
f
y
o
u
d
o
n
t
m
i
n
d
Here's a little detail that has always bothered me, me being an
afficionada of medieval art and all that goes with it:
In 'Mort', we are told that kings and other sorts of DW royalty have a
'special' treatment upon their deaths - their souls are separated from
their bodies by a sword, not a scythe. Now, knowing that the DW Death
is clearly modelled upon the medieval image of a skeleton with a
scythe, completed with a fine sense of sarcasm, I found it strange that
he should see a difference between nobility and the commoners, and
display it like that. Didn't the whole image and 'persona' of medieval
Death ("The Great Leveller" - I think Mort's grandma's almanac tells
the same) emerge so that there would be someone to whom everyone was
the same, regardless of their status in this world?
Sorry if this had been brought up before, Deja was of no help.
Cheers,
Maddie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Oggham
skeleton with skin, the bare bone and the cloak came later.
Second, narrativium aside, I find it telling that the sword
and the scythe are apparently made of exactly the same
material.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Quantum Moth
Madeleine Colvert <col...@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:8j0j69$k5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
No real spoilers for Mort, but a tiny one for RM.
so.
a
tiny
bit
of
space.
like
this?
yeah,
pretty
much.
> Here's a little detail that has always bothered me, me being an
> afficionada of medieval art and all that goes with it:
> In 'Mort', we are told that kings and other sorts of DW royalty have a
> 'special' treatment upon their deaths - their souls are separated from
> their bodies by a sword, not a scythe. Now, knowing that the DW Death
> is clearly modelled upon the medieval image of a skeleton with a
> scythe, completed with a fine sense of sarcasm, I found it strange that
> he should see a difference between nobility and the commoners, and
> display it like that. Didn't the whole image and 'persona' of medieval
> Death ("The Great Leveller" - I think Mort's grandma's almanac tells
> the same) emerge so that there would be someone to whom everyone was
> the same, regardless of their status in this world?
>
Ah, hierarchy. It's an interesting point, and it does sit slightly
uncomfortably with the image we have of Death overall, as a character.
Take his attitude in RM; every stalk is cut individually, and carefully,
but no stalks are considered more important than others, Bill Door does
not stop, lay down his scythe and take up a sword. Yet the sword continues
to be a feature of the books. I can only assume (And doubtless there will
be someone who can verify this) that there is some basis for this in
folklore or somesuch.
On the other hand, kings and whatnot are so desperately unimportant in the
overall scheme of things on Discworld (at least from a narrative point of
view, with the notable exception of Carrot, but he's avoiding kingship at
the moment.. oh, let's not go there) that perhaps the special treatment is
a sop. My justifcation for making this possibly controversial claim comes
direct from Pterry (Okay, so it was his introduction to the second edition
of _The Carpet People_, but it counts); "I'm inclined to think that the
*real* concerns of fantasy ought to be about not having battles and doing
*without* kings." (Corgi pb, p7) As I say, though this is concerning TCP,
it certainly carries over to Discworld. The kings there simply are not
important to the narrative (and what gives the Disc more shape than
narrativium?). It's the little people what count. Or the big people, in
the case of the Dean.
Anyway, if wizards and witches expect Death to make a personal appearance
at the end of their lives, clearly there is an Established Order to which
Death subscribes.
I'm really, really tired. I'm going to post this anyway, in the hope that
it makes sense (it does in my head, and I don't want the thought to
evaporate tomorrrow morning. Okay, later today, I mean)....
--
thom willis-"Nattie's Reputation" afpianced to Peter, Mary M and Bryony
afplotting to elope with pia and eric. afprepared to settle for April.
AFP Code 2.0 (Don't blink): APA>$ d--- s++:--- a- UP+ R++ F++++ !h P---
OS--:- C+++ M pp+ L* I W- c+++ B CC00+ PT--- Pu:61 5-- X? MT e++ r* y?
Miq
Trivially teensy spoilers for 'Mort', 'Wyrd Sisters', 'Pyramids'
1
2
3
4
5
>In 'Mort', we are told that kings and other sorts of DW royalty have a
>'special' treatment upon their deaths - their souls are separated from
>their bodies by a sword, not a scythe.
In 'Mort' he also bows to the king when they meet.
But in 'Pyramids', King Teppicymon XXVII gets collected with the scythe.
So does Verence in 'Wyrd Sisters'. So either this rule is relaxed or
forgotten, or it's changed after 'Mort'. The only other time I can
remember the sword appearing is in 'Hogfather', where it's used for
quite a different purpose.
I think Death in 'Mort' is still only a partially developed character.
Several of the jokes in this book are somewhat cruder than the style
Terry develops later; I think the same is true of the central character.
Compare the two-dimensional characterisation of Ysabelle with the much
more understanding development of Susan, later. Or Mort himself with
the more convincing Eric.
--
Miq
New to afp/abp? check http://www.lspace.org/
Still stuck? Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
afp welcome message: http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/welcome.html
Rev. James Cort
<col...@virgilio.it> writes
>Although I suppose most people here have read 'Mort' entirely, and I
>don't think my question could spoil anything for anyone, here goes,
>just to make sure: (ye never knoweth)
>
>s
>c
>r
>o
>l
>l
>
>i
>f
>
>y
>o
>u
>
>d
>o
>n
>t
>
>m
>i
>n
>d
>
>afficionada of medieval art and all that goes with it:
>'special' treatment upon their deaths - their souls are separated from
>is clearly modelled upon the medieval image of a skeleton with a
>scythe, completed with a fine sense of sarcasm, I found it strange that
>he should see a difference between nobility and the commoners, and
>display it like that.
I don't know if it's relevant, but IIRC in years gone by common people
were executed with their heads on a block and the executioner used an
axe, but nobility was executed with a sword and no block (they'd kneel
down and the executioner would take a swipe at their neck).
I know it's tenuous, but is it possible that Death's use of the sword
with kings is in some way some vague reference to this?
--
"I find an axe is the most satisfying, but really any good weapon will do."
- Sacha Roscoe, explaining basic systems administration.
Margaret
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
"Rev. James Cort" <j...@whitepost.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't know if it's relevant, but IIRC in years gone by common people
>were executed with their heads on a block and the executioner used an
>axe, but nobility was executed with a sword and no block (they'd kneel
>down and the executioner would take a swipe at their neck).
>
>I know it's tenuous, but is it possible that Death's use of the sword
>with kings is in some way some vague reference to this?
I don't believe swords were usual. I seem to recall
reading of a number of cases where an ax was used on
'nobility'.
I'd always presumed that remark was a ref. to that one
of Henry 8's victims --I don't recall which, poor
woman-- for whom H8 sent specially to France for an
executioner with a good-quality sword, because he cared
for her (!!) and wanted to spare her the pain of the
standard, rather dull ax.
Margaret
Rev. James Cort
<nos...@all.thanks> writes
<spoiler space removed - not really necessary>
>I'd always presumed that remark was a ref. to that one
>of Henry 8's victims --I don't recall which, poor
>woman-- for whom H8 sent specially to France for an
>executioner with a good-quality sword, because he cared
>for her (!!) and wanted to spare her the pain of the
>standard, rather dull ax.
Makes perfect sense. IIRC, knocking someone's head off with a single axe
is quite difficult (the neck is quite strong, the axe may not be all
that sharp, and they're quite unwieldy), and on several occasions in
history the victim has required a number of blows to sever their head.
--
Give a man a match and he'll be warm for an hour... Set him on fire and he'll be
warm for the rest of his life.
karen
>
>>I don't know if it's relevant, but IIRC in years gone by common people
>>were executed with their heads on a block and the executioner used an
>>axe, but nobility was executed with a sword and no block (they'd kneel
>>down and the executioner would take a swipe at their neck).
>reading of a number of cases where an ax was used on
>'nobility'.
>
quartering.
>I'd always presumed that remark was a ref. to that one
>of Henry 8's victims --I don't recall which, poor
>woman-- for whom H8 sent specially to France for an
>executioner with a good-quality sword, because he cared
>for her (!!) and wanted to spare her the pain of the
>standard, rather dull ax.
T'was Ann Boleyn, wife #2, accused of adultery, (hah) who benefited from
the consideration of a Parisian swordswinger.
She was also accused of witchcraft on account of the extra finger as I
recall, hazily from the mists of 'doing' Tudor politics.
The axe would normally take several goes to get through the neck but
generally killed with the first chop, unless the executioner missed his
aim in which case it all got extra messy.
Katherine Howard (the #5), Mary QofS, and sundry other toffs all went to
the axeman. Eric somebody I think his name was.
ttfn,
--
Karen/hypatia Ka...@lspace.org
New? Check http://www.lspace.org
Confused? Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
AFP Welcome Message: http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/welcome.html
Laurabelle
something to the effect that:
>Makes perfect sense. IIRC, knocking someone's head off with a single axe
>is quite difficult (the neck is quite strong, the axe may not be all
>that sharp, and they're quite unwieldy), and on several occasions in
>history the victim has required a number of blows to sever their head.
My mother says this is why the guillotine was considered
humane in comparison. I don't know how sharp the blade was,
but it couldn't miss, and the weight of the blade
accelerated through the height from which it was dropped
surely meant that the sharpness didn't matter all that much.
Laurabelle
--
(Remove YOUR PANTS or use reply-to)
Mount Holyoke College:
The world's most prestigious
non-denominational convent of over-achievers.
Catrin Alun
> >don't think my question could spoil anything for anyone, here goes,
> >just to make sure: (ye never knoweth)
> >
> >s
> >c
> >r
> >o
> >l
> >l
> >
> >i
> >f
> >
> >y
> >o
> >u
> >
> >d
> >o
> >n
> >t
> >
> >m
> >i
> >n
> >d
<SNIP>
> I don't know if it's relevant, but IIRC in years gone by common people
> were executed with their heads on a block and the executioner used an
> axe, but nobility was executed with a sword and no block (they'd kneel
> down and the executioner would take a swipe at their neck).
>
> I know it's tenuous, but is it possible that Death's use of the sword
> with kings is in some way some vague reference to this?
This is probably true. Many of the Discworld books have subtle historical
referances. I can't remember most of them without looking, but in "The
Light
Fantastic", the star people thought that the star was the fault of the
wizards,
and tried to kill them all (including Rincewind).
Sounds familiar? After World War I, the Germans blamed the jews for losing
the war, and tried to kill them all under the guidence of Hitler.
Also, the esence of Discworld itself is based on history. Everyone used to
believe the world was flat, and Hindu belief was that the world was being
carried
through space on the backs of four elephants, which were carried by a giant
turtle.
Also, in TCOM, Tethis the Sea Troll said that Rincewind and Twoflower were
"made
of dirt". This is again a referance to the fact that people thought
everything was made
out of earth, water, fire and air (Tethis being made of water).
Eric Jarvis
>
> Katherine Howard (the #5), Mary QofS, and sundry other toffs all went
> to the axeman. Eric somebody I think his name was.
>
> ttfn,
>
I never!
nope! not me
you sure it wasn't Jenny somebody?
--
eric - afplanning to elope with pia and Thom, eventually
"if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing to excess"
Natalie Mayer
Eric Jarvis <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>karen wrote:
>>
>> Katherine Howard (the #5), Mary QofS, and sundry other toffs all went
>> to the axeman. Eric somebody I think his name was.
>>
>> ttfn,
>>
>
>I never!
>
>nope! not me
>
>you sure it wasn't Jenny somebody?
I think I can assure you all that though Melusine is evil (having
introduced me to Maya Glod and created an instant addict (just add
water)), it wasn't her either!
natts
--
Natalie Mayer, language geek and cute little chambermaid (?!)
Completely incomplete: http://www.zzumbouk.demon.co.uk/soubrette/
(Feel free to *vom*)
I have no pithy quote at the moment.
Daniel Goldsmith
>"Rev. James Cort" <j...@whitepost.demon.co.uk> allegedly said
>something to the effect that:
>
>>Makes perfect sense. IIRC, knocking someone's head off with a single axe
>>is quite difficult (the neck is quite strong, the axe may not be all
>>that sharp, and they're quite unwieldy), and on several occasions in
>>history the victim has required a number of blows to sever their head.
>
>My mother says this is why the guillotine was considered
>humane in comparison. I don't know how sharp the blade was,
>but it couldn't miss, and the weight of the blade
>accelerated through the height from which it was dropped
>surely meant that the sharpness didn't matter all that much.
'Twas the very reason the guillotine was invented. Monsieur Guillotine
was head of some pre-revolutionary council or other and wanted a
killing device which would completely sever the head from the body in
1/4 of a second or so. He wanted this so it could be humane.
The actual designer of the guillotine (Name forgotten - anyone?) came
up with the rather simple idea of the angled blade. The effect of the
angled blade, coupled with the fixing of the head/neck in place, was
that the neck was compressed instantly by the angle. This meant, as
Laurabelle has pointed out, that the weight/acceleration etc. would do
its assigned job rather quickly and efficiently.
Of course, the other part of Guillotine's requirement for the new
device was that it should all be done in private, allowing the
executed a semblance of decency. We all know what happened to that
particular idea and, personally, I think it terrible that his name
should be forever associated with something he would have completely
dissaproved of.
Daniel
--
"Happy the man, and happy he alone, he who can call today his own.
He who secure within can say, tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived today."
Leo Breebaart
> Many of the Discworld books have subtle historical referances.
Tell me about it... Have a look at the Annotated Pratchett File
<http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/>, and if you think anything crucial's
missing, feel free to drop me a note or post about it here.
> [...] in "The Light Fantastic", the star people thought that the star was
> the fault of the wizards, and tried to kill them all (including
> Rincewind).
>
> Sounds familiar? After World War I, the Germans blamed the jews for
> losing the war, and tried to kill them all under the guidence of Hitler.
That's an, um, interesting take on the origins of WWII.
Regardless, I doubt very much if it is what Terry had in mind when he wrote
TLF. Blaming other people is something we've all been rather good at for as
long as humanity has been in existence. The "it's all <xxx>'s fault, let's
go kill <xxx>!" idea is generic enough that I would need some (well, much)
extra evidence before I would accept that this particular instance of it is
a specific reference to the Holocaust.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Leo Breebaart
> > Have a look at the Annotated Pratchett File
> > <http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/>, and if you think anything crucial's
> > missing, feel free to drop me a note or post about it here.
>
> Well, in The Editor Speaks section there is mention of using Deja News,
> which apears to have lots its memory.
> Perhaps some mention here or there of other usenet archives to use?
Well, do you have any suggestions? Even post-lobotomy Deja still has a
twelve-month archive. If you know of any on-line archives that go back
further than that, I'd love to hear about them.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Orjan Westin
news:8j7ofg$m0l$1...@falcon.pds.twi.tudelft.nl...
> "Catrin Alun" <catri...@virgin.net> writes:
>
> > [...] in "The Light Fantastic", the star people thought that the star
was
> > the fault of the wizards, and tried to kill them all (including
> > Rincewind).
> >
> > Sounds familiar? After World War I, the Germans blamed the jews for
> > losing the war, and tried to kill them all under the guidence of
Hitler.
>
> That's an, um, interesting take on the origins of WWII.
Yes, to say the least...
> Regardless, I doubt very much if it is what Terry had in mind when he
wrote
> TLF. Blaming other people is something we've all been rather good at for
as
> long as humanity has been in existence. The "it's all <xxx>'s fault,
let's
> go kill <xxx>!" idea is generic enough that I would need some (well,
much)
> extra evidence before I would accept that this particular instance of it
is
> a specific reference to the Holocaust.
...however...
There was once, in a land far away, a people who felt a bit sorry for
themselves, due to reasons out of their control. Then a man appeared and
said "Look! Do you see those people over there? Those who are known to
meddle in things man was not meant to meddle with, those practitioners of
magic? Do you see them? It's all their fault, I say, and even if it
wasn't, they dress funny. Let's mark them with a star so we can recognise
and shun them, and everything will be fine." And the people heard him, and
found that this made sense, although they later claimed they had been
visiting their aunt at the time. But since they were now firmly set on the
path of Stupidity, they started to behave even more stupidly, harassing
and killing those who wore the star, and burning books to insure they
wouldn't be reached by any ideas or thoughts pointing out how stupid they
were.
There was once, in a land far away, a people who felt a bit sorry for
themselves, due to reasons out of their control. Then a man appeared and
said "Look! Do you see those people over there? Those who are known to
meddle in things man was not meant to meddle with, those practitioners of
magic? Do you see them? It's all their fault, I say, and even if it
wasn't, they dress funny. Let's mark ourselves with a star so we can
recognise our own, shun them, and everything will be fine." And the people
heard him, and found that this made sense, although they later claimed
they had been visiting their aunt at the time. But since they were now
firmly set on the path of Stupidity, they started to behave even more
stupidly, harassing and killing those who didn't wear the star, and
burning books to insure they wouldn't be reached by any ideas or thoughts
pointing out how stupid they were.
Orjan, who's never had any problems with OE multipostings
Orjan, who's never had any problems with OE multipostings
Orjan Westin
news:8j53m4$nsa$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Some small spoilers for TLF and TCoM doth lurk beneath.
> Also, the esence of Discworld itself is based on history. Everyone used
> to believe the world was flat, and Hindu belief was that the world was
> being carried through space on the backs of four elephants, which were
> carried by a giant turtle.
No and yes. The first statement is unprovable, but when we last discussed
it I think we reached the conclusion that by no means "everyone" believed
the world to be flat in historic times. The fact that it is spherical was
proven by Erathostenes some 2.500 years ago, and he also produced a fairly
accurate calculation of how large it is. Since he was read but quite a lot
of scholars in Greece and Rome, and influenced other writers as well, plus
the simple fact that the fly who walked on the watermelon disappeared just
like a ship, makes it likely that far from everyone believed the earth to
be flat.
The elephants and turtle do appear in Hinduic mythology, but it is likely
that most hinduists would take this as an allegory rather than a statement
of fact, if the thought even crossed their mind. They were, as all know,
busy walking carefully around cows and having sex.
> Also, in TCOM, Tethis the Sea Troll said that Rincewind and Twoflower
> were "made of dirt". This is again a referance to the fact that people
> thought everything was made out of earth, water, fire and air
> (Tethis being made of water).
Again, yes and no. While the reference to the four elements is quite
likely because of Thetis, this idea was never undisputed. I'd be more
inclined to link this to the creation of man in Genesis, where he was made
of dirt which got animated by a gust of hot air. Rather like a politician,
really.
Orjan
Morgan Lewis
>
> Certainly when Charles I got the chop, the executioner (half) missed
> on the first attempt, and C, nursing a badly cut neck, had to tell him
> "strike again, strike true" or some such flash last words.
*Half*-missed? In that case, I really doubt that's what Charlie said.
Probably his real words were not suitable to be printed in children's
history books. :)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
mle...@cs.uoregon.edu http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mlewis/
Of course, *beheadings* are perfectly acceptable for little kids
David Chapman
news:39572285...@news.indigo.ie...
> lbme...@mtholyoke.YOUR.PANTS.edu (Laurabelle) said:
>
> >"Rev. James Cort" <j...@whitepost.demon.co.uk> allegedly said
> >something to the effect that:
> >
> >>Makes perfect sense. IIRC, knocking someone's head off with a single axe
> >>is quite difficult (the neck is quite strong, the axe may not be all
> >>that sharp, and they're quite unwieldy), and on several occasions in
> >>history the victim has required a number of blows to sever their head.
> >
> >My mother says this is why the guillotine was considered
> >humane in comparison. I don't know how sharp the blade was,
> >but it couldn't miss, and the weight of the blade
> >accelerated through the height from which it was dropped
> >surely meant that the sharpness didn't matter all that much.
>
> 'Twas the very reason the guillotine was invented. Monsieur Guillotine
> was head of some pre-revolutionary council or other and wanted a
> killing device which would completely sever the head from the body in
> 1/4 of a second or so. He wanted this so it could be humane.
>
> The actual designer of the guillotine (Name forgotten - anyone?)
Dr Ignace Guillotine. You were wrong, I think; AFAIAA Dr G designed the
device bearing his name upon request. They wanted something that would
allow for mass production of headless bodies, and he supplied it.
--
I do wish you wouldn't keep on about how easier
life would be if we killed everyone who poses the
slightest inconvenience.
Paul Wilkins
> Tell me about it... Have a look at the Annotated Pratchett File
> <http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/>, and if you think anything crucial's
> missing, feel free to drop me a note or post about it here.
Well, in The Editor Speaks section there is mention of using Deja News,
which apears to have lots its memory.
Perhaps some mention here or there of other usenet archives to use?
Paul Wilkins
Anthony W. Youngman
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>,
>
>>were executed with their heads on a block and the executioner used an
>>axe, but nobility was executed with a sword and no block (they'd kneel
>>down and the executioner would take a swipe at their neck).
>>
>>I know it's tenuous, but is it possible that Death's use of the sword
>>with kings is in some way some vague reference to this?
>
>reading of a number of cases where an ax was used on
>'nobility'.
I understood the axe and block were normal too.
>
>I'd always presumed that remark was a ref. to that one
>of Henry 8's victims --I don't recall which, poor
>woman-- for whom H8 sent specially to France for an
>executioner with a good-quality sword, because he cared
>for her (!!) and wanted to spare her the pain of the
>standard, rather dull ax.
>
The only person I can think of who was executed with a sword was Ann
Boleyn. I suspect that, because the executee paid the executioner, she
was allowed to hire a swordsman because she was afraid of the axe.
Certainly when Charles I got the chop, the executioner (half) missed on
the first attempt, and C, nursing a badly cut neck, had to tell him
"strike again, strike true" or some such flash last words.
--
Anthony W. Youngman
wol at thewolery d demon d co d uk | The L-Space Web-http://www.lspace.org/
Ask Christopher Robin where it is. | The Ultimate Terry Pratchett fan site!
If replying by e-mail please mail wol.
Anything else may get missed amongst the spam.
Anthony W. Youngman
<danielg...@eircom.net> writes
> lbme...@mtholyoke.YOUR.PANTS.edu (Laurabelle) said:
>
>
>'Twas the very reason the guillotine was invented. Monsieur Guillotine
>was head of some pre-revolutionary council or other and wanted a
>killing device which would completely sever the head from the body in
>1/4 of a second or so. He wanted this so it could be humane.
>
>up with the rather simple idea of the angled blade. The effect of the
>angled blade, coupled with the fixing of the head/neck in place, was
>that the neck was compressed instantly by the angle. This meant, as
>Laurabelle has pointed out, that the weight/acceleration etc. would do
>its assigned job rather quickly and efficiently.
>
before the French... so the guillotine may well be among the numerous
things the Scots have invented.
Quite a lot of Scots nobility met their end at the hands of "The
Maiden".
Medusa
Much snippage
>...however...
>
>There was once, in a land far away, a people who felt a bit sorry for
>themselves, due to reasons out of their control.Orjan, who's never had any problems with OE multipostings
<chomp>
Actually, now that you've pointed it out...
>Orjan, who's never had any problems with OE multipostings
>
>
Yeah, honest.<G>
--
Medusa, Sister of Vetinari, and afprelated to two who seem to post no more
From Wales, where men are men and sheep are nervous
ICQ 68029514
Shim
>"Paul Wilkins" <pm...@paradise.net.nz> writes:
>
>
>> > Have a look at the Annotated Pratchett File
>> > <http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/>, and if you think anything crucial's
>> > missing, feel free to drop me a note or post about it here.
>>
>> Well, in The Editor Speaks section there is mention of using Deja News,
>> which apears to have lots its memory.
>> Perhaps some mention here or there of other usenet archives to use?
>
>Well, do you have any suggestions? Even post-lobotomy Deja still has a
>twelve-month archive.
Less, IIRC. I was searching for a post made last June (at or around 23:55
local on June 5th, to be exact) and I could only get an archive as far back
as, oh, September\October?
-Shim.
Leo Breebaart
> >Even post-lobotomy Deja still has a twelve-month archive.
>
> Less, IIRC. I was searching for a post made last June (at or around 23:55
> local on June 5th, to be exact) and I could only get an archive as far
> back as, oh, September\October?
Maybe this was true at one point, but not anymore. I just tried a search
for posts to alt.fan.pratchett between Jun 1 1999 and Jul 1 1999, and got
6575 matches, which seems about right.
The cut-off date for their archive appears to be May 15 1999. So in fact
the actually available period is now slightly larger than twelve months,
and will presumably continue to grow again.
I understand that Deja management has made vague noises about possibly
reinstating the complete archive sometime later this year. I'll believe it
when I see it.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Charles A Lieberman
Morgan Lewis
>"Anthony W. Youngman" wrote:
>> Certainly when Charles I got the chop, the executioner (half) missed
>> on the first attempt, and C, nursing a badly cut neck, had to tell him
>> "strike again, strike true" or some such flash last words.
>
>Probably his real words were not suitable to be printed in children's
>history books. :)
Well, half an hour after...
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "This will never feel like home/Too much neon
Brooklyn, New York, USA | and chrome" --Drebin
http://members.tripod.com/~calieber/home.html
Ben Hutchings
>>don't think my question could spoil anything for anyone, here goes,
>>just to make sure: (ye never knoweth)
>>
>>s
>>c
>>r
>>o
>>l
>>l
>>
>>i
>>f
>>
>>y
>>o
>>u
>>
>>d
>>o
>>n
>>t
>>
>>m
>>i
>>n
>>d
>>
>>In 'Mort', we are told that kings and other sorts of DW royalty have a
>>'special' treatment upon their deaths - their souls are separated from
>>their bodies by a sword, not a scythe.
>I don't know if it's relevant, but IIRC in years gone by common people
>were executed with their heads on a block and the executioner used an
>axe, but nobility was executed with a sword and no block (they'd kneel
>down and the executioner would take a swipe at their neck).
If I recall my English history correctly, it used to be that common
people were hanged whereas nobles were beheaded with an axe. The
use of a sword would be something out of the ordinary.
--
Ben Hutchings | personal web site: http://www.zzumbouk.demon.co.uk/womble/
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones.
Orjan Westin
news:gNMMGUAr...@euryale.demon.co.uk...
>
> >Orjan, who's never had any problems with OE multipostings
> >
> Yeah, honest.<G>
Yep, honest. Especially since I used that little trick to emphasize the
subtle difference between the two descriptions. Nice of you to notice.
Usually, multiposting means that the same post is sent twice or even more
times, but you already knew that, didn't you?
Orjan
matmosac
Madeleine Colvert <col...@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:8j0j69$k5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Although I suppose most people here have read 'Mort' entirely, and I
> don't think my question could spoil anything for anyone, here goes,
> just to make sure: (ye never knoweth)
>
> s
> c
> r
> o
> l
> l
>
> i
> f
>
> y
> o
> u
>
> d
> o
> n
> t
>
> m
> i
> n
> d
>
> afficionada of medieval art and all that goes with it:
> 'special' treatment upon their deaths - their souls are separated from
> is clearly modelled upon the medieval image of a skeleton with a
> scythe, completed with a fine sense of sarcasm, I found it strange that
> he should see a difference between nobility and the commoners, and
> Death ("The Great Leveller" - I think Mort's grandma's almanac tells
> the same) emerge so that there would be someone to whom everyone was
> the same, regardless of their status in this world?
>
> Sorry if this had been brought up before, Deja was of no help.
>
> Cheers,
> Maddie
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Sarah S.
<sp...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Also, the esence of Discworld itself is based on history. Everyone used
>> to believe the world was flat, and Hindu belief was that the world was
>> being carried through space on the backs of four elephants, which were
>> carried by a giant turtle.
>
>No and yes. The first statement is unprovable, but when we last discussed
>it I think we reached the conclusion that by no means "everyone" believed
>the world to be flat in historic times. The fact that it is spherical was
>proven by Erathostenes some 2.500 years ago, and he also produced a fairly
>accurate calculation of how large it is. Since he was read but quite a lot
>of scholars in Greece and Rome, and influenced other writers as well, plus
>the simple fact that the fly who walked on the watermelon disappeared just
>like a ship, makes it likely that far from everyone believed the earth to
>be flat.
>
>The elephants and turtle do appear in Hinduic mythology, but it is likely
>that most hinduists would take this as an allegory rather than a statement
>of fact, if the thought even crossed their mind. They were, as all know,
>busy walking carefully around cows and having sex.
>
>Orjan
>
>
It's true that many people suspected the Earth was round for quite a
while, but that's just the more learned folk. The Roman Cathloic
Church actually excomunicated Galieo for saying the Earth was round.
And while a fly does disappear while walking over a water melon, I
think that would have been hard for many people of the time to relate
to the earth - the earth would look flat (accepting for geographical
details) where ever they went. So really, you're both kind of right.
Unless I'm wrong, of course.
And I havn't had World History for a couple of years, but didn't Anne
Boyln's execution go absolutely terrible? Or was that someone else?
I seem to remember that the head and body continuted to convulse for
20 minutes after the execution, and also Boyln's toy dog went nuts and
yapped constantly at the spectacle. What are the actual facts on
that?
I also remember watching a video in class, which talked about wether
death under the gullitone really was quick and painless. Apparently,
a scientist who was sentanced to die by the chopper decided to be a
scientist to the last. He arranged to have someone count the number
of times he blinked after his head had been, um, seperated, to see how
quick he would actually die. These were to be slow, delibrate blinks.
The number counted was 18 - if you do 18 deliberate blinks yourself
you'll see that's a pretty long time, especially if you're
experiencing pain. But I thought, is that really true? how long
could the brain go without oxygen? I know chickens run about after
they've been beheaded as well. Rather a bit to contemplate, if you
can stomach it.
Sarah
Miq
>It's true that many people suspected the Earth was round for quite a
>while, but that's just the more learned folk. The Roman Cathloic
>Church actually excomunicated Galieo for saying the Earth was round.
This is coming up so often it should be in a FAQ...
The shape of the earth was never at issue in Galileo's case. For an
account of just what the Church *did* have against him, see
http://newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
--
Miq
New to afp/abp? check http://www.lspace.org/
Still stuck? Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
afp welcome message: http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/welcome.html
esmi
Dragon...@netmail.com wrote...
> It's true that many people suspected the Earth was round for quite a
> while, but that's just the more learned folk.
The Earth was already thought of as spherical in Anglo-Saxon England.
Alfred "The Great"(King of Wessex circa 871) commissioned (and carried
out himself) a number of classical translations from Latin into English
as he thought some ideas were "necessary for all men to know". Amongst
these translations was a piece devoted to explaining the solar system
which talks in clearly spherical terms, comparing the earth to the "yolk
in the middle of an egg which can move about [within the confines of] the
egg...Outside, the play of the waters, the sky, and the stars, and the
bright shell itself revolve around it every day - how long has it done
so?" [1]
Alfred is obviously talking in three-dimensional terms, as did Bede -
both basing their ideas on those of the earlier Greek philosophers.
> The Roman Cathloic
> Church actually excomunicated Galieo for saying the Earth was round.
That's actually a common misconception. What the RC Church reacted to was
the conclusions of Galileo which stated that the Earth moved around the
Sun and not vice-versa.
> And while a fly does disappear while walking over a water melon, I
> think that would have been hard for many people of the time to relate
> to the earth - the earth would look flat (accepting for geographical
> details) where ever they went. So really, you're both kind of right.
> Unless I'm wrong, of course.
It's true that many people, in earlier times, did not like venturing far
from the sight of land but this was probably due more to the dangers of
bad weather than anything else. Lief Eriksson reached the other side of
the Atlantic around the year 1000 - a voyage that would hardly have been
attempted if people truly believed that they could fall off the edge of
the earth. Any seagoer would surely have noted that the horizon curved -
both left to right and away from them.
And, finally, if all people believed the earth was flat, why did early
rulers and emperors (such as Charlemagne) use an orb to symbolise their
earthy supremacy?
> And I havn't had World History for a couple of years, but didn't Anne
> Boyln's execution go absolutely terrible? Or was that someone else?
> I seem to remember that the head and body continuted to convulse for
> 20 minutes after the execution, and also Boyln's toy dog went nuts and
> yapped constantly at the spectacle. What are the actual facts on
> that?
With regard to Anne Boleyn, I have to admit that this is a new one for me
and doesn't fit with the story of the French swordsman being used at her
execution.
esmi
[1] Alfred's "Metres of Boethius", metre 20, lines 161-175, cited in
Griffiths "Anglo-Saxon Magic" p236 [2]
[2] and how's that for citing? *grin* [3]
[3] OK...so I'm currently reading a book on the subject.
--
Lspace Web: <http://www.lspace.org/>
Need help with AFP/ABP?
Mail the Clue Fairies <cluef...@lspace.org>
esmi
wrote...
> Margaret <nos...@all.thanks> writes
> >"Rev. James Cort" wrote:
> >>I don't know if it's relevant, but IIRC in years gone by common people
> >>were executed with their heads on a block and the executioner used an
> >>axe, but nobility was executed with a sword and no block (they'd kneel
> >>down and the executioner would take a swipe at their neck).
> >I don't believe swords were usual. I seem to recall
> >reading of a number of cases where an ax was used on
> >'nobility'.
> mostly yes, unless they were scheduled for a bit of hanging, drawing and
> quartering.
Umm..err..ahh..I seem to recall that hanging (with or without the
'drawing and quartering') was very much the common man's death penalty.
Death by beheading was reserved for the nobility and I can't, atm,
recall, a single noble who was hung.
Or is my memory failing? :-)
> >I'd always presumed that remark was a ref. to that one
> >of Henry 8's victims --I don't recall which, poor
> >woman-- for whom H8 sent specially to France for an
> >executioner with a good-quality sword, because he cared
> >for her (!!) and wanted to spare her the pain of the
> >standard, rather dull ax.
> T'was Ann Boleyn, wife #2, accused of adultery, (hah) who benefited from
> the consideration of a Parisian swordswinger.
Furthermore, it wasn't dear old Henry VIII who aquired the French, sword-
wielding, executioner. Frankly, he didn't give a damn how she died as
long as she was dead. The executioner was provided by the King of France
(Henri I?) who couldn't bear the thought of Anne's execution being
botched by a blunt axe. Anne Boleyn had spent much of her early life in
the French Court and was something of a favourite of the French king's.
In fact, we have her to thank for the forks we use at meals in England
today. She introduced them to the English Court having grown used to them
in France.
> She was also accused of witchcraft on account of the extra finger as I
> recall, hazily from the mists of 'doing' Tudor politics.
She had a rudimentary sixth finger growing from the upper part of the
little finger on one hand. The song "Greensleeves", which Henry VIII is
supposed to have written for Anne Boleyn, takes it's name from the fact
that she had gowns designed with very long flowing sleeves which covered
all but the tips of her fingers in order to hide this deformity. Again,
the fashion of the day quickly followed her lead.
> The axe would normally take several goes to get through the neck but
> generally killed with the first chop, unless the executioner missed his
> aim in which case it all got extra messy.
That depended on how good your executioner was and I'm not sure that
there were always trained executioners available. I've a feeling that,
sometimes, the local butcher-cum-animal-slaughterer was used.
> Katherine Howard (the #5), Mary QofS, and sundry other toffs all went to
> the axeman. Eric somebody I think his name was.
Nah...you mean Colm, surely?
<g,d&rlb>
esmi
Colin Rosenthal
esmi <es...@lspace.org> wrote:
>In article <3963a1fe...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Dragon...@netmail.com wrote...
>
>> It's true that many people suspected the Earth was round for quite a
>> while, but that's just the more learned folk.
How can we know what the non-learned folk might have thought?
>> The Roman Cathloic
>> Church actually excomunicated Galieo for saying the Earth was round.
>
>That's actually a common misconception. What the RC Church reacted to was
>the conclusions of Galileo which stated that the Earth moved around the
>Sun and not vice-versa.
Correct. Also Galileo was never excommunicated.
It's also unlikely that _anyone_ with a modicum of sanity would have
tried to maintain that the Earth was flat a century after the first
circumnavigation!
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
Daniel Goldsmith
>In article <3963a1fe...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Dragon...@netmail.com wrote...
>
<snip flat/sphere earth stuff>
>
>> And I havn't had World History for a couple of years, but didn't Anne
>> Boyln's execution go absolutely terrible? Or was that someone else?
>> I seem to remember that the head and body continuted to convulse for
>> 20 minutes after the execution, and also Boyln's toy dog went nuts and
>> yapped constantly at the spectacle. What are the actual facts on
>> that?
>
>With regard to Anne Boleyn, I have to admit that this is a new one for me
>and doesn't fit with the story of the French swordsman being used at her
>execution.
Umm... wasn't it Mary Queen of Scots who had the apalling execution
with the yappity dog. ISTR this from the recent program about
Elizabeth on the smellovision.
On the other hand it could have been the other Ann, Cleeves, who had
the messy chop chop.
Daniel.
--
danielg...@eircom.net
~AFPcode V.2.0 ALa$/Mi$ d+ s:+ a UP R++ F++ h- P--- OS:---:--
?C !M pp--- L*+ I c-:+ B Cn !CC PT+ !PU e+++ r+++ y? ~end
Jens Ayton
>
> Lief Eriksson reached the other side of
> the Atlantic around the year 1000 - a voyage that would hardly have been
> attempted if people truly believed that they could fall off the edge of
> the earth.
The thing people often forget about this is that it's further from
Scandiwegia to Iceland than from Iceland to Greenland or Greenland to
Merkia (well, Canadadia); yet people debate/disbelieve the latter but
not the former.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/ PGP key: http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-49116/stuff/jens_ayton.pgp
Relieve hunger and guilt in one fell swoop: http://www.thehungersite.com
Eric Jarvis
>
> The thing people often forget about this is that it's further from
> Scandiwegia to Iceland than from Iceland to Greenland or Greenland to
> Merkia (well, Canadadia); yet people debate/disbelieve the latter but
> not the former.
>
no longer subject to debate IIRC...archeological evidence was
found in Canada
the remaining thing is to get it through the thick skulls of the
archeological establishment that since South American stuff has
been proven to have been in Africa since way back and African
stuff in South America, they may have to rethink the assumption
that black people can't build boats until white people show them
how to do it...which seems to be about the only reason that it
isn't accepted that the two continents were trading a couple of
millenia ago
--
eric - afplanning to elope with pia and Thom, eventually
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Andrew Nevill
>
> On the other hand it could have been the other Ann, Cleeves, who had
> the messy chop chop.
It wouldn't have been Anne of Cleeves as she wasn't executed, merely
divorced.
I don't think it was AnnBoleyn as I'm pretty sure she had the imported
French swordsman as you and others have already said.
--
Andrew Nevill DW BF (Invisius): Fratello di Vetinari: "Mimi sentii nonvisti"
AfpBro to Pia Afpfianced to Nanny Ogg (Sarah) & Charissa/Perdita
I Don't Want to Rule The World - Just This Newsgroup
New? Read the FAQs at http://www.lspace.org/faqs/
Jens Ayton
> Jens Ayton:
>>
>> The thing people often forget about this is that it's further from
>> Scandiwegia to Iceland than from Iceland to Greenland or Greenland to
>> Merkia (well, Canadadia); yet people debate/disbelieve the latter but
>> not the former.
>
> no longer subject to debate IIRC...archeological evidence was
> found in Canada
Since when has that stopped anyone? Archeological evidence was found in
Canada ages ago, people still don't belive it. (There's pretty good
evidence that they also travelled the coast as far as Mexico.)
> the remaining thing is to get it through the thick skulls of the
> archeological establishment that since South American stuff has
> been proven to have been in Africa since way back and African
> stuff in South America, they may have to rethink the assumption
> that black people can't build boats until white people show them
> how to do it...which seems to be about the only reason that it
> isn't accepted that the two continents were trading a couple of
> millenia ago
Then of course there's the issue of explaining ancient Greek tombs in
South America... and, of course, the UFO landing sites.[1] ;-)
[1] Seriously, though... where does one draw the line?
esmi
wrote...
> Jens Ayton wrote:
> >
> > The thing people often forget about this is that it's further from
> > Scandiwegia to Iceland than from Iceland to Greenland or Greenland to
> > Merkia (well, Canadadia); yet people debate/disbelieve the latter but
> > not the former.
> no longer subject to debate IIRC...archeological evidence was
> found in Canada
Between 1961 and 1968, excavations at L'Anse-aux-Meadows in Newfoundland
uncovered a number of artifacts (including the remains of eight or nine
house sites) of almost certain Norse origin which date to within a few
years of 1000AD. Funnily enough, there was also evidence of vine
cultivation which gives credence to the Norse discovery of Vinland.
Eric Jarvis
>
> Then of course there's the issue of explaining ancient Greek tombs in
> South America... and, of course, the UFO landing sites.[1] ;-)
>
> [1] Seriously, though... where does one draw the line?
>
I draw the line at any theory based on the idea that black and
amerindian people couldn't possibly learn boatbuilding and
bricklaying without tuition from aliens...which seems to be the
basic principle behind the likes of Von Daniken
I don't draw the line at crop circles...because I have a friend
who used to do exactly that...though sometimes she also drew the
circles :)
Kincaid
> > found in Canada
> Between 1961 and 1968, excavations at L'Anse-aux-Meadows in Newfoundland
> uncovered a number of artifacts (including the remains of eight or nine
> house sites) of almost certain Norse origin which date to within a few
> years of 1000AD. Funnily enough, there was also evidence of vine
> cultivation which gives credence to the Norse discovery of Vinland.
What's even more impressive is a rather nice gold dish found somewhere in
Canananada (I forget where the site is, near the US border).
Now, the inhabitants there a thousand years ago didn't work gold, so it
was assumed the Norse had brought it over. But, the really interresting
part is the origin of the dish - Isotopic analysis etc showed that it was
Chinese in origin.
It had been traded along the old silk road to the Mediterranean, then from
there back to Scandiwegia by Norse traders who regularly sailed to the med
and back, then across to america.
All that's really different now is flight and electronics - everything
else is just faster.
TTFN, Kincaid
Charles A Lieberman
Eric Jarvis
>I draw the line at any theory based on the idea that black and
>amerindian people couldn't possibly learn boatbuilding and
>bricklaying without tuition from aliens...which seems to be the
>basic principle behind the likes of Von Daniken
Bricklaying? How hard is bricklaying? I was brought up two removes from
any form of manual labor, and even I can figure out bricklaying.
--
Charles A. Lieberman Brooklyn, NY, USA
AFP Code 2.0 AGo/Li-US d(--) s: a-- U++>+ R F++ h- P! OS--:- C++ M-
!pp L(+) Ia W- c B Cn CC? PT--->++ Pu78 !5 !X MT++ e+>++ r y+* end
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html
PolloDiablo
> On the other hand it could have been the other Ann, Cleeves, who had
> the messy chop chop.
>
> Daniel.
From
http://www.larmouth.demon.co.uk/sarah-jayne/wives/wives.html
and other similar sites:
Henry VIII divorced Anne of Cleves as he didn't like her looks (Flanders
Mare, he called her).
She was born 1515, married Jan 6 1540, divorced July 1540 and died July 16
1557.
After the divorce she received the honorary title "King's Sister" and was
given some property.
The site also confirms Anna Boleyn was beheaded with a sword but I can't
find any account
of this going wrong in any way.
Hope that helps,
Pollo Diablo
Daniel Goldsmith
>
>Daniel Goldsmith .. on the subject of messy executions.
>>
>> On the other hand it could have been the other Ann, Cleeves, who had
>> the messy chop chop.
>
>divorced.
>I don't think it was AnnBoleyn as I'm pretty sure she had the imported
>French swordsman as you and others have already said.
>
comes from *television*. All I remember is that the TV show did
mention someone's dog 'spoiling' an execution during Elizabeth's
lifetime and that it wasn't Ann Boleyn. Of course ICBW, as I said, it
was the telly what told me.
Strange how some people (like me) can remember certain passages of
comedy programmes virtually correctly, but find great difficulty in
remembering a little history prog!
Daniel.
--
"Happy the man, and happy he alone, he who can call today his own.
He who secure within can say, tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived today."
Jens Ayton
> Eric Jarvis:
>>
>> I draw the line at any theory based on the idea that black and
>> amerindian people couldn't possibly learn boatbuilding and
>> bricklaying without tuition from aliens...which seems to be the
>> basic principle behind the likes of Von Daniken
>
> Bricklaying? How hard is bricklaying? I was brought up two removes from
> any form of manual labor, and even I can figure out bricklaying.
Now let's see you doing it inna straight line.
Grymma
"Jens Ayton" <jAyton_...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:3965E54C...@nettaxi.com...
> Charles A Lieberman:
> > Bricklaying? How hard is bricklaying? I was brought up two removes
from
> > any form of manual labor, and even I can figure out bricklaying.
>
> Now let's see you doing it inna straight line.
String, lotsa string involved... :o)
--
Grymma (use 'reply to')
AFPiancée to Tap, DP, Miq, XM & Chris H.; AFPhaghag; B.F.
AFPOh Goddess Of Hangovers; Giver of(frnchsd)Scottish *hugs*n*kisses*
Visit L-Space: http://www.lspace.org/ for all your Pratchetty needs <g>
Daniel Goldsmith
>
>"Jens Ayton" <jAyton_...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
>news:3965E54C...@nettaxi.com...
>> Charles A Lieberman:
>
>> > Bricklaying? How hard is bricklaying? I was brought up two removes
>from
>> > any form of manual labor, and even I can figure out bricklaying.
>>
>> Now let's see you doing it inna straight line.
>
>String, lotsa string involved... :o)
>
Ohh, i don't know about that. String is expensive these days, and I'll
have to order it special like. I can do you a nice piece of thread
though, got it in yesterday. Cost you though.
Alan R Williams
> "Daniel Goldsmith" <danielg...@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:396489d6...@news.indigo.ie...
>
> > On the other hand it could have been the other Ann, Cleeves, who had
> > the messy chop chop.
> >
> > Daniel.
>
>
> From
> http://www.larmouth.demon.co.uk/sarah-jayne/wives/wives.html
> and other similar sites:
> Henry VIII divorced Anne of Cleves as he didn't like her looks (Flanders
> Mare, he called her).
Supposedly it wasn't her looks but her BO (which must have been very
bad considering Henry's own hygeine).
> She was born 1515, married Jan 6 1540, divorced July 1540 and died July 16
> 1557.
Anne of Cleves wasn't divorced; her marriage was annulled on the
grounds of pre-contract. In those days it made a big difference
whether a marriage ended in annulment or divorce. The grounds for
a woman being divorced, e.g. adultery, were also some of the grounds
for being a queen being executed.
Anne of Cleves and Catherine Parr were the only ones to out-live him :-(
> After the divorce she received the honorary title "King's Sister" and was
> given some property.
She was apparently extremely happy to have the marriage annulled as it
left her an independent very wealthy woman.
> The site also confirms Anna Boleyn was beheaded with a sword but I can't
> find any account
> of this going wrong in any way.
Anne Boleyn's execution went OK (apart from for her). It was the
Countess of Salisbury's execution which went appallingly wrong with
her being chased around by the axeman.
> Hope that helps,
>
> Pollo Diablo
Alan
--
Alan Williams, Room IT301, Department of Computer Science,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.
Tel: +44 161 275 6270 Fax: +44 161 275 6280
Alan R Williams
> "Andrew Nevill" <dr...@anevill.freeserve.co.uk> said:
> >
> >Daniel Goldsmith .. on the subject of messy executions.
> >>
> >> On the other hand it could have been the other Ann, Cleeves, who had
> >> the messy chop chop.
> >
> >It wouldn't have been Anne of Cleeves as she wasn't executed, merely
> >divorced.
> >I don't think it was AnnBoleyn as I'm pretty sure she had the imported
> >French swordsman as you and others have already said.
> >
> Hey, you are probably certainly correct. Remember, my info on this
> comes from *television*. All I remember is that the TV show did
> mention someone's dog 'spoiling' an execution during Elizabeth's
> lifetime and that it wasn't Ann Boleyn. Of course ICBW, as I said, it
> was the telly what told me.
That was Mary Queen of Scots. After her execution, the executioner
went to pick up her head by the hair and all he got was a wig and the
head rolled about on the floor.
The dog was found to be hiding under her very big red dress. (Red was
the colour of a martyrdom.) I've no idea if she habitually had dogs
hidden under her dresses :-) After so many years in prison anything's
believable.
Mary QoS so wanted to have a dignified end as a Catholic martyr but as
usual it all went wrong because of her vanity :-(
[snip]
> Daniel.
> --
> "Happy the man, and happy he alone, he who can call today his own.
> He who secure within can say, tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived today."
Alan
Grymma
> >String, lotsa string involved... :o)
> >
> Ohh, i don't know about that. String is expensive these days, and I'll
> have to order it special like. I can do you a nice piece of thread
> though, got it in yesterday. Cost you though.
Ah but see, I inherited all my Dad's DIY stuff, including a handy-dandy
length of bricklaying string ... <brief discussion with SO> Whaddya mean,
you 'used' it? What for? A package? Oh I see... so I don't have my
heirloom bit of string any more? No, I see, thank you... <muttergrumble>
<sigh>... nice bit of thread at twice the price, is it?
:oP
Kincaid
Eric Jarvis <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> I draw the line at any theory based on the idea that black and
> amerindian people couldn't possibly learn boatbuilding and
> bricklaying without tuition from aliens...which seems to be the
> basic principle behind the likes of Von Daniken
I can recommend 'Guns, Germs,and Steel' Jared Diamond, ISBN 0-224-03809-5
as a very good treatise on why it was that Africa and America were taken
over by white Europeans - it basically boils down to Europe was luckier in
where its inhabitants started from, rather than any superiority.
TTFN, Kincaid
esmi
> "PolloDiablo" <pollo-...@home.nl> writes:
> > Henry VIII divorced Anne of Cleves as he didn't like her looks (Flanders
> > Mare, he called her).
> Supposedly it wasn't her looks but her BO (which must have been very
> bad considering Henry's own hygeine).
Ooo..where did you find that? I have to admit that I've always thought it
was Anne of Cleves' looks that were the problem. Henry didn't see her
until after the wedding (they were married by proxy) and the only picture
he had was (I think) painted by Holbein. There were some suggestion that
the artist was himself in love with her and hence painted a very
flattering portrait. However, I also remember reading that Holbein tended
to make great use of symmetry and patterns in his paintings -
unfortunately at the expense of realism - which may have contributed
greatly to a finished portrait which looked nothing like it's subject.
> > She was born 1515, married Jan 6 1540, divorced July 1540 and died July 16
> > 1557.
> Anne of Cleves wasn't divorced; her marriage was annulled on the
> grounds of pre-contract. In those days it made a big difference
> whether a marriage ended in annulment or divorce. The grounds for
> a woman being divorced, e.g. adultery, were also some of the grounds
> for being a queen being executed.
> Anne of Cleves and Catherine Parr were the only ones to out-live him :-(
Personally I think Anne got the better bargain.
> > The site also confirms Anna Boleyn was beheaded with a sword but I can't
> > find any account
> > of this going wrong in any way.
> Anne Boleyn's execution went OK (apart from for her). It was the
> Countess of Salisbury's execution which went appallingly wrong with
> her being chased around by the axeman.
Umm...Countess of Salisbury? Was she the one who was accused of murder
and possibly witchcraft?
Charles A Lieberman
Jens Ayton
>> even I can figure out bricklaying.
>
>Now let's see you doing it inna straight line.
I never said I understood it intuitively.
Catrin Alun
news:3963a1fe...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
<snippage>
> And I havn't had World History for a couple of years, but didn't Anne
> Boyln's execution go absolutely terrible? Or was that someone else?
> I seem to remember that the head and body continuted to convulse for
> 20 minutes after the execution, and also Boyln's toy dog went nuts and
> yapped constantly at the spectacle. What are the actual facts on
> that?
I think this was Elizabeth I[1], although I might be wrong. I can't
remember if I saw it on TV or made it up :)
> I also remember watching a video in class, which talked about wether
> death under the gullitone really was quick and painless. Apparently,
> a scientist who was sentanced to die by the chopper decided to be a
> scientist to the last. He arranged to have someone count the number
> of times he blinked after his head had been, um, seperated, to see how
> quick he would actually die. These were to be slow, delibrate blinks.
> The number counted was 18 - if you do 18 deliberate blinks yourself
> you'll see that's a pretty long time, especially if you're
> experiencing pain. But I thought, is that really true? how long
> could the brain go without oxygen?
I remember this story. I read it in a very informative book (erm...Horrible
History - I was bored...). The story was that a group of scientist agreed
that if any of them got sentenced to death by beheading, they would wink
at the others to see how long a human head can live without a body. The
score was...0. I know, it's a more boring number than 18, but a human brain
dies the instant it's seperated from the rest of the body. The only part of
the
body it would still have any control over would be the hair roots.
> I know chickens run about after
> they've been beheaded as well. Rather a bit to contemplate, if you
> can stomach it.
Birds and mammals are wired up differently. A chicken's body can still
control itself a bit without a brain, but I'm not sure how well.[2]
[1] Namesake of "the Elizabethan Age" which, as we all know, gave birth to a
few thousand new words meaning female genitalia
[2] I actually breed chickens, but I'm NOT going to cut one of their heads
off for afp. Not without money, anyway...
Jens Ayton
>
> [2] I actually breed chickens, but I'm NOT going to cut one of their heads
> off for afp. Not without money, anyway...
Ahh, a good cause on which to expend all those <20p>s.
Laurabelle
effect that:
<snip oodles>
>Lief Eriksson reached the other side of
>the Atlantic around the year 1000
My mother gets annoyed about the Vikings' not getting credit
for reaching the Americas first. I was gratified, the other
day, to hear a beer commercial which, first of all, credited
Lief Eriksson and his pals for making it across, and also
assumed that the listeners would know what it was talking
about. It looks like the Vikings are getting the
recognition they deserve. :-)
(OT but Really Really Cool - I have recently discovered that
if I highlight the bit in a post that I want to reply to and
then hit "follow up," Agent will only quote the highlighted
material. Voila, a pre-snipped post!)
Laurabelle
--
(Remove YOUR PANTS or use reply-to)
Mount Holyoke College:
The world's most prestigious
non-denominational convent of over-achievers.
Sakari Lintinen
Laurabelle wrote:
I'm not sure if afp:ers think they're too old for comics, but there was
this story called 'The Lost
Maps of Columbus' by the (in)famous duck-writer Keno Don Rosa. In it
there were (almost) all know theories about the founders of America
-including the first Americans (read indians). Before Vikings there were
(supposedly) an irish monk, chinese explorers and foinician sailors who
found America by accident. Bear in mind that these are theories, so
don't sue me.
Quantum Moth
Catrin Alun <catri...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:8k5bc4$hir$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Sarah S. <Dragon...@netmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3963a1fe...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>
> <snippage>
> > And I havn't had World History for a couple of years, but didn't Anne
> > Boyln's execution go absolutely terrible? Or was that someone else?
> > I seem to remember that the head and body continuted to convulse for
> > 20 minutes after the execution, and also Boyln's toy dog went nuts and
> > yapped constantly at the spectacle. What are the actual facts on
> > that?
>
> remember if I saw it on TV or made it up :)
>
is *way* off.
--
thom willis-"Nattie's Reputation" afpianced to Peter, Mary M and Bryony
afplotting to elope with pia and eric. afprepared to settle for April.
afpJames to Melody's AfpJesse. afpbout to run out of .sig space.......
I haven't been there nor have I done that. And I don't have a T-shirt.
matmosac
decapitated head can live for several min after the actual decapitation.
One gent I forget who (but an find out) used his own beheading as an
experiment and winked at his assistant after is execution.news:396489d6...@news.indigo.ie...
> es...@lspace.org (esmi) said:
>
> >In article <3963a1fe...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> >Dragon...@netmail.com wrote...
> >
> <snip flat/sphere earth stuff>
> >
> >> Boyln's execution go absolutely terrible? Or was that someone else?
> >> I seem to remember that the head and body continuted to convulse for
> >> 20 minutes after the execution, and also Boyln's toy dog went nuts and
> >> yapped constantly at the spectacle. What are the actual facts on
> >> that?
> >
> >and doesn't fit with the story of the French swordsman being used at her
> >execution.
>
> Umm... wasn't it Mary Queen of Scots who had the apalling execution
> with the yappity dog. ISTR this from the recent program about
> Elizabeth on the smellovision.
>
> the messy chop chop.
>
Morgan Lewis
>
> es...@lspace.org (esmi) allegedly said something to the
> effect that:
>
> <snip oodles>
> >Lief Eriksson reached the other side of
> >the Atlantic around the year 1000
>
> My mother gets annoyed about the Vikings' not getting credit
> for reaching the Americas first.
Well... first Europeans that we know of, anyway. :)
> I was gratified, the other
> day, to hear a beer commercial which, first of all, credited
> Lief Eriksson and his pals for making it across, and also
> assumed that the listeners would know what it was talking
> about. It looks like the Vikings are getting the
> recognition they deserve. :-)
>
Definitely a good thing. Columbus deserves no credit at all for the
discovery of America. He deserves credit only for two things:
1. Holding a press conference. (Although he thought he'd been to
India, it was telling everybody else about it that eventually led to the
Europeans coming over here. The Vikings, of course, didn't say much
about it to other people.)
2. To quote my Dad, "Founding the American way of life. When he left,
he didn't know where he would end up. When he got there, he didn't know
where he was. And when he got back, he didn't know where he'd been.
And he did it all on someone else's money."
Personally, I think it would have been better for us Native Americans
(or whatever term is politically correct for us nowadays; I'll take
anything that isn't actually derogatory) if there had been more visits
like the Vikings -- coming over for a brief period, and then leaving
(or, in some cases, being assimilated.) It would've helped re-build the
Natives' immune systems so we wouldn't have been devastated so much by
disease when the Europeans started coming en masse.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
mle...@cs.uoregon.edu http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mlewis/
Fortunately, our immune systems are at normal levels now.
Dragon Prince
Sakari Lintinen <sakari....@pp.kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:39673EFB...@pp.kolumbus.fi...
> there were (almost) all know theories about the founders of America
> -including the first Americans (read indians). Before Vikings there were
> (supposedly) an irish monk, chinese explorers and foinician sailors who
> found America by accident. Bear in mind that these are theories, so
> don't sue me.
I suspect there were lots of peoples who discovered merkia first with out
realising it, thought they were on the wron coast of europe, started walkin
west and ended up on another planet^W california
Orjan Westin
> this story called 'The Lost Maps of Columbus' by the (in)famous
> duck-writer Keno Don Rosa.
He also draws them, you know. And if you're too old for his works, you're
too vain. He's the only one I've seen coming close to, and even in some
instances surpass, the recipient of his cover-hidden D.U.C.K.
> In it
> there were (almost) all know theories about the founders of America
> -including the first Americans (read indians). Before Vikings there were
> (supposedly) an irish monk,
Brendan, yes. I've got to go to Project Gutenberg and see if they have his
tale there. You know, the whole works of JRRT was nothing but a rip-off of
Brendan. <g>
> chinese explorers, foinician sailors
Foenician? Well, they did have good ships, and a tradition of exploring.
> who found America by accident.
Well, it couldn't have been deliberate if they didn't know it existed,
could it? I mean if they had lost it, and then found it by accident whilst
looking for the mystical Eastern Isle, where the people sing and dance and
produce a pitch black liquid that's the gift of the Gods, and someone
said:
"Hey Ping! You know that beautiful place we never settled, in order to
preserve its beauty to our decendants?"
"Yes, Pong, the Aim El Eka[1]."
"That's the one. You know, I think that's the reason we can't seem to go
much further east. It's in the way."
"It is? Oh my, so that's we're it was all the time. No matter no one could
find it then."
"Yep. But we've found it."
"Only by accident, Ping."
But since I haven't heard of any proof of this theory, you can't say the
chinese found it by accident. If anything, they would have happened to
notice it in their path. To "find" implies active search, or as the Book
[2] states it: "He who searches shall be looking, and for he who knocks on
the door, the knuckles shall ache."
[1] Lit "Where the buffalo roam"
[2] Big Book of World Rules.
Orjan
Orjan Westin
news:q9ncmsgqajmq2nie3...@4ax.com...
> Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:12:29 +0200
> Jens Ayton
> >> even I can figure out bricklaying.
> >
> >Now let's see you doing it inna straight line.
>
> I never said I understood it intuitively.
So you are to bricklaying what a physicist is to changing a light bulb?
Orjan "but it's been a long time now" Westin
Eric Jarvis
>
> "Charles A Lieberman" <yvro...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
> news:q9ncmsgqajmq2nie3...@4ax.com...
> > Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:12:29 +0200
> > Jens Ayton
> > >> even I can figure out bricklaying.
> > >
> > >Now let's see you doing it inna straight line.
> >
> > I never said I understood it intuitively.
>
> So you are to bricklaying what a physicist is to changing a light bulb?
>
physicists DO NOT change lightbulbs...for one thing it's
engineering...for another whether the lightbulb is on or off it
still has the possibility of emitting a few photons...and frankly
once you've got neutrino detection worked out a few photons
should be all you need for most purposes :)
--
eric - afplanning to elope with pia and Thom, afplirting with
April
"I like my coffee the way I like my women...sweet, strong,
intelligent and with a mind and career of it's own"
Jens Ayton
> Sakari Lintinen:
>>
>> chinese explorers, foinician sailors
...
>> who found America by accident.
>
> Well, it couldn't have been deliberate if they didn't know it existed,
> could it?
> so that's we're it was
A fly seems to have done a wossname in your word here[1]...
> But since I haven't heard of any proof of this theory, you can't say the
> chinese found it by accident.
Could be they missed Japan...
[1] "No, no, the word 'were'"
[2] NMF
Sarah S.
>
>
>> The Roman Cathloic
>> Church actually excomunicated Galieo for saying the Earth was round.
>
>That's actually a common misconception. What the RC Church reacted to was
>the conclusions of Galileo which stated that the Earth moved around the
>Sun and not vice-versa.
>
>And, finally, if all people believed the earth was flat, why did early
>rulers and emperors (such as Charlemagne) use an orb to symbolise their
>earthy supremacy?
>
>With regard to Anne Boleyn, I have to admit that this is a new one for me
>and doesn't fit with the story of the French swordsman being used at her
>execution.
>
>esmi
>
Alright, I am sorry. Next time I will bother to check my information
before I post anything, it's really not fair of me to post non-facts.
At least not with out putting out an effort to have a vaild argument.
Aaron Dick
Grymma wrote in message <8k5600$1qo1t$1...@ID-6107.news.cis.dfn.de>...>news:3965f4ab...@news.indigo.ie...
>> Ohh, i don't know about that. String is expensive these days, and I'll
>> have to order it special like. I can do you a nice piece of thread
>> though, got it in yesterday. Cost you though.
><muttergrumble>
><sigh>... nice bit of thread at twice the price, is it?
How long is this piece of stri^WThread?
(Did I get that right?)
Mr. Aaron Dick, DiHI (Raven)
Mary Messall
<snip>
> Personally, I think it would have been better for us Native Americans
> (or whatever term is politically correct for us nowadays; I'll take
> anything that isn't actually derogatory) if there had been more visits
> like the Vikings -- coming over for a brief period, and then leaving
> (or, in some cases, being assimilated.) It would've helped re-build the
> Natives' immune systems so we wouldn't have been devastated so much by
> disease when the Europeans started coming en masse.
I was assigned a nice book first semester, _Changes in the Land_, which
led me to conclude that had all those settlers' ships come over without
any people on them, history might be scarily the same from a native
viewpoint.
That is, if it was just infectious microbes (never mind how they're
carried) horses and other draft animals (the book argued that the Native
American lifestyle would have been dramatically different, had oxen been
available, simply because it would have been so much easier to stay in
one place and plough a lot of land like the Europeans did) plants and
rats and insects and whatnot... All had a huge influence, eating crops
and indirectly causing floods, and at least until the forced marches
started in the 1800s, humans were pretty insignificant in terms of havoc
wreaked, compared with the other aliens they brought with.
-Mary (strange how close an ecological and an economic history are to
being the same thing...)
phil...@see.signature.uk
>> >Lief Eriksson reached the other side of
>> >the Atlantic around the year 1000
>>
>> My mother gets annoyed about the Vikings' not getting credit
>> for reaching the Americas first.
>
>Well... first Europeans that we know of, anyway. :)
No, Brendan and his monks did it in around CE 500!
>Personally, I think it would have been better for us Native Americans
>(or whatever term is politically correct for us nowadays; I'll take
>anything that isn't actually derogatory) if there had been more visits
>like the Vikings -- coming over for a brief period, and then leaving
>(or, in some cases, being assimilated.)
I understand even the Vikings found some blue-eyed, and blonde Native
Americans, which suggests that Brendan and his monks forgot their vows
or someone else got there too <G>.
Philippa, Barbarian houri!
'I was Death! Death on a horse!' - Methos, Highlander
'Dere c'n onlie be whin t'ousand!' - Pterry, CJ
Orjan Westin
"Eric Jarvis" <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3967CFA5...@last.dircon.co.uk...
> Orjan Westin wrote:
> >
> > So you are to bricklaying what a physicist is to changing a light
bulb?
> >
> physicists DO NOT change lightbulbs...for one thing it's
> engineering...for another whether the lightbulb is on or off it
> still has the possibility of emitting a few photons...and frankly
> once you've got neutrino detection worked out a few photons
> should be all you need for most purposes :)
Thanks for elaborating my point. :-)
Orjan
esmi
Dragon...@netmail.com wrote...
> esmi wrote:
> >> The Roman Cathloic
> >> Church actually excomunicated Galieo for saying the Earth was round.
> >That's actually a common misconception. What the RC Church reacted to was
> >the conclusions of Galileo which stated that the Earth moved around the
> >Sun and not vice-versa.
> >And, finally, if all people believed the earth was flat, why did early
> >rulers and emperors (such as Charlemagne) use an orb to symbolise their
> >earthy supremacy?
> >With regard to Anne Boleyn, I have to admit that this is a new one for me
> >and doesn't fit with the story of the French swordsman being used at her
> >execution.
> Alright, I am sorry.
No need to apologise. Without differing opinions, there's no discussion,
yes? :-)
> Next time I will bother to check my information
> before I post anything, it's really not fair of me to post non-facts.
> At least not with out putting out an effort to have a vaild argument.
Obmpk: Cite! Cite!
<g,d&rlb>
Morgan Lewis
>
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 14:51:03 -0700, Morgan Lewis <m...@efn.org> wrote:
>
> >> >Lief Eriksson reached the other side of
> >> >the Atlantic around the year 1000
> >>
> >> My mother gets annoyed about the Vikings' not getting credit
> >> for reaching the Americas first.
> >
> >Well... first Europeans that we know of, anyway. :)
>
> No, Brendan and his monks did it in around CE 500!
>
Interesting; I didn't know that. I have, however, heard of another
group, though it's very uncertain. (See below.)
> >Personally, I think it would have been better for us Native Americans
> >(or whatever term is politically correct for us nowadays; I'll take
> >anything that isn't actually derogatory) if there had been more
> >visits like the Vikings -- coming over for a brief period, and then
> >leaving (or, in some cases, being assimilated.)
>
> I understand even the Vikings found some blue-eyed, and blonde Native
> Americans,
Blond, huh? That's pretty much unheard of in documented cases, but I
won't rule out the possiblity -- blue eyes, though *nearly* unheard of,
have been known to happen on occasion.
> which suggests that Brendan and his monks forgot their vows
> or someone else got there too <G>.
>
> Philippa, Barbarian houri!
>
I don't remember the time period, but supposedly there was a Welsh
(Gaelic, Celtic, or something; again, the difficulty with the time
period makes for uncertainty on just which group it was) leader who led
a group of his people westward and was never heard from again; name of
Madoc. When Lewis & Clark set about their trek in the 1800's, they came
across a tribe called the Mandan Indians, who had some members with
reddish hair (as opposed to the usual dark brown and black), and some
with blue eyes. This in itself made L&C curious, because as I said,
these are nearly unheard-of traits among Native Americans. Further, L&C
swore up and down in their reports that the language of the Mandans had
eerie similarities to Welsh. Particularly their word for "first man" --
Madog. Not "tight" evidence by any stretch, but certainly interesting.
Margaret
>I don't remember the time period, but supposedly there was a Welsh
>[clip]
He was post-Leifur Eiricksson
from http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos217.htm
"Madoc (or Madog) was born about 1150, one of four
sons of the King of Wales. ... He was a well-regarded
sailor, such that his sea-faring exploits were recorded
less than 100 years later by a French historian, and
again by Dr. John Dee in the 1500's.Madoc is said to
have left Wales with 5 ships, and to have arrived in
the New World about 1172 or '73. He landed twice, once
in Central America, where he is alleged to have been
the "God" that the locals later mistook Cortez for. He
then backtracked through the Gulf of Mexico and
landed around New Orleans. He packed his men and
equipment up the Mississippi, finally stopping due to
sickness in his men. He and his able-bodied crew
floated back downriver and returned to Wales.
Madoc left Wales again around 1176, and returned to the
Mississippi river. He supposedly found that his
surviving original crew had intermarried with the local
Native American populations, and most chose not to
return to Wales. Madoc himself may have stayed, as
there is no record of his returning to Wales again.
Years later, Lewis and Clark heard fantastic tales of
"white Indians" who supposedly built forts, spoke
Welsh, and fished from "coracles," which are leather
boats totally unlike canoes. They were unable to
substantiate those claims, although they found many
"light-skinned" Native Americans, some of whom had blue
eyes and blond or blondish hair and spoke a mish-mash
of Souix and something that resembled Welsh in some
aspects. These people claimed, unlike their
compatriots, that they were descended of a "race of
giants" who built their tipis of logs and came from
"across the sea" (a sea which they had never seen,
by the way) and whose leader (Madoc?) had promised to
return for them one day. The local Native Americanswhom
they lived with supported their claims. "
Morgan Lewis
>
> Morgan Lewis wrote:
> <snip>
> > Personally, I think it would have been better for us Native
> > Americans (or whatever term is politically correct for us nowadays;
> > I'll take anything that isn't actually derogatory) if there had been
> > more visits like the Vikings -- coming over for a brief period, and
> > devastated so much by disease when the Europeans started coming en
> > masse.
>
> I was assigned a nice book first semester, _Changes in the Land_,
> which led me to conclude that had all those settlers' ships come over
> without any people on them, history might be scarily the same from a
> native viewpoint.
>
> That is, if it was just infectious microbes (never mind how they're
> carried) horses and other draft animals (the book argued that the
> Native American lifestyle would have been dramatically different, had
> oxen been available, simply because it would have been so much easier
> to stay in one place and plough a lot of land like the Europeans did)
For some that would be the case. Certainly for a lot of the West Coast
tribes, who were mainly agricultural and fish-eating to begin with. A
lot of the Plains tribes did some of each -- certain bands which stayed
in relatively the same area, farming, and other bands which roamed
around hunting. Introduction of oxen there would make the
stay-in-one-place bands larger, but probably wouldn't have eliminated
the roamers.
> plants and rats and insects and whatnot... All had a huge influence,
> eating crops and indirectly causing floods, and at least until the
> forced marches started in the 1800s, humans were pretty insignificant
> in terms of havoc wreaked, compared with the other aliens they brought
> with.
>
> -Mary (strange how close an ecological and an economic history are to
> being the same thing...)
Fair enough. However, the main cause of death for Native Americans
through that period (European settlement to mid-1900's) is still
disease, and the main reason for that is the very weak immune system.
The weak immune system comes from essentially not having any diseases
before the whites arrived. The most common theory of how the Native
Americans got here is that they came over in small groups; and in a
small group, if there's a disease, everybody catches it and either dies
or becomes immune to it. Either way, the disease dies off. By the time
the groups had settled and started interacting with each other on a
large scale again, there were no more viruses, et al, to spread around.
The only disease-related problems were food-poisoning and allergies.
(This is at least part of why many Native American stories from the time
of European settlement blame diseases on plants.) If Europeans had come
over in small waves, introducing (relatively) minor diseases in small
doses, the immune system would've built up more, and smallpox, et al,
wouldn't have devastated the numbers of Native Americans to the point of
being the smallest group in the continental U.S. (We would, in fact, be
at least 2nd biggest, and quite possibly biggest.)
The exact means of carrying the disease doesn't matter, as you say. (In
fact, after discovering the Indians' weak immune systems,
smallpox-infected blankets were a favorite tactic of the U.S.
government). But it still counts as being introduced by Europeans, and
it still would've been better had it been spread out in small waves
instead of one big tsunami.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
mle...@cs.uoregon.edu http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mlewis/
I'm probably sounding a lot more bitter than I really am.
Morgan Lewis
>
> I'm not sure if afp:ers think they're too old for comics,
Judging by the comics thread a while back, I think not. :)
> but there was this story called 'The Lost Maps of Columbus' by the
> (in)famous duck-writer Keno Don Rosa. In it there were (almost) all
> know theories about the founders of America
> -including the first Americans (read indians).
Ah, so *that's* the politically correct term for us nowadays. <BG> You
know, I rather like it. "First Americans." Has a nice ring to it,
isn't derogatory, and doesn't cause the problem of "I was born here,
therefore I'm a native American" semantic difficulties.
> Before Vikings there were (supposedly) an irish monk, chinese
> explorers and foinician sailors who
It took me a while to figure out what those sailors were. Phoenicians,
right?
> found America by accident. Bear in mind that these are theories, so
> don't sue me.
Well, sure, it's all just theory, for the most part. We know that
Confused-White-Guy Columbus made it over in 1492, but never realized
what he'd done. We know that because he told people he'd been to
India. We know that Leif Eriksson made it over circa 1000. We know
that because we've found Viking runes dating from that period over
here. We know that the Native Americans apparently beat everybody else
by quite a long time. (Exactly how long is uncertain; I've heard
everything from 5000 to 30,000 years, all by people with what looked
like decent credentials. Usual estimate is 11,000-15,000, though.) We
know that simply because they've been here whenever somebody else was
looking, and because we've found some really old stuff. (Including a
spearhead lodged in a mammoth bone, which I rather suspect rules out the
earlier estimates on arrival.) Other than that, we're just guessing.
Of course, we (we = Natives) often just say we've been here forever.
(For a given value of "forever.")
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
mle...@cs.uoregon.edu http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mlewis/
Long enough to claim tenure, anyway.
April Goodwin-Smith
> phil...@see.signature.uk wrote:
> > Morgan Lewis <m...@efn.org> wrote:
> > >> >Lief Eriksson reached the other side of
> > >> >the Atlantic around the year 1000
> > >> My mother gets annoyed about the Vikings' not getting credit
> > >> for reaching the Americas first.
> > >Well... first Europeans that we know of, anyway. :)
> > No, Brendan and his monks did it in around CE 500!
> >
>
> Interesting; I didn't know that. I have, however, heard of another
> group, though it's very uncertain. (See below.)
> > I understand even the Vikings found some blue-eyed, and
> > blonde Native Americans,
>
>
> I don't remember the time period, but supposedly there was a Welsh
> period makes for uncertainty on just which group it was) leader who
> led a group of his people westward and was never heard from again;
> name of Madoc. When Lewis & Clark set about their trek in the
> 1800's, they came across a tribe called the Mandan Indians, who had
> some members with reddish hair (as opposed to the usual dark brown
> and black), and some with blue eyes. This in itself made L&C
> curious, because as I said, these are nearly unheard-of traits
> among Native Americans. Further, L&C swore up and down in their
> reports that the language of the Mandans had eerie similarities to
> Welsh. Particularly their word for "first man" -- > Madog. Not
> "tight" evidence by any stretch, but certainly interesting.
Another interesting group is the Beotuks of Newfoundland. Their last
member died in 1829. They were found on the eastern-most coast of
Canada and some of them were reputed to have had fair skin, and pale
hair and eyes. I tried to find a web source for this, but this is
all I could find:
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/avalon/history/beothuks.html
It does not mention their physical appearance. I think my info
came from a first-year university Canadian history text - which,
of course, I no longer own.
April.
--
afpmatron of honour to Thom, afpdallying with Eric
"Things that try to look like things
often do look more like things than things.
Well known fact." Esmerelda Weatherwax (Pratchett 1988)
Alice Aforethought
>No, Brendan and his monks did it in around CE 500!
That's one of my personal stamp-out crusades - BCE and CE! Zarquon,
<takes deep breath>
IF WE ARE GOING TO DATE THE YEAR ZERO AT THE INNACURATE BIRTHDATE FO
AN OBSCURE JEWISH RELIGIOUS FIGURE, WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE BLOODY
DECENCY TO ADMIT IT!
I'm sorry, I think that BC/AD is a silliy dating system anyway, AUC
(from the founding of Rome, 753 BC) would be much more sensible . . .
it's a lost battle, but honestly, what's so Common about Common Era?
--
ALICE AFORETHOUGHT, Sister of Vetinari
AFPhianced with Ponder Stibbons, in the ORG-Y
'Vimes is Vetinari's Uncertainty Principle: It's impossible to
know where he is and what he's thinking at all times.' -Barry R
Alice Aforethought
--
ALICE AFORETHOUGHT
'Let us die young or let us live forever' - alphaville
Mary Messall
<snip>
> Fair enough. However, the main cause of death for Native Americans
> through that period (European settlement to mid-1900's) is still
> disease, and the main reason for that is the very weak immune system.
> The exact means of carrying the disease doesn't matter, as you say. (In
> fact, after discovering the Indians' weak immune systems,
> smallpox-infected blankets were a favorite tactic of the U.S.
> government). But it still counts as being introduced by Europeans, and
> it still would've been better had it been spread out in small waves
> instead of one big tsunami.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I include diseases among the non-human
passengers, and meant to suggest that they *really* wreaked more havoc
than their hapless hosts as well. The bit about "never mind how they're
carried" just dismissed the fact that if the ships really had been sent
over without humans aboard as I suggested, it would be hard for the
diseases to ride along. I don't know, it's just a funny notion, how
unimportant humans are in human history...
I did wonder why it was that Europeans didn't come down with American
infections. I'd thought something about population density: yours is the
first real theory I've seen. I buy it, anyway.
-Mary
Mary Messall
> phil...@see.signature.uk scrieb:
> >No, Brendan and his monks did it in around CE 500!
> That's one of my personal stamp-out crusades - BCE and CE! Zarquon,
> <takes deep breath>
> IF WE ARE GOING TO DATE THE YEAR ZERO AT THE INNACURATE BIRTHDATE FO
> AN OBSCURE JEWISH RELIGIOUS FIGURE, WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE BLOODY
> DECENCY TO ADMIT IT!
He's not *very* obscure. In fact, he's probably the least obscure figure
in history at the moment. I'll bet everyone on AFP has heard of him...
> I'm sorry, I think that BC/AD is a silliy dating system anyway, AUC
> (from the founding of Rome, 753 BC) would be much more sensible . . .
> it's a lost battle, but honestly, what's so Common about Common Era?
Because everyone uses it? Some people feel like hypocrites saying "in
the year of our Lord" when it's not their Lord, that's all. Since it's
only initials and usually redundant anyway, I don't think it's big deal,
but if people want to use it, by all means, let them.
-Mary
Jens Ayton
>
> IF WE ARE GOING TO DATE THE YEAR ZERO AT THE INNACURATE BIRTHDATE FO
> AN OBSCURE JEWISH RELIGIOUS FIGURE, WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE BLOODY
> DECENCY TO ADMIT IT!
But we don't.
We date the year 1 at an innacurate estimate of the birthdate of a
Jewish religious figure of questionable obscurity.
But yes, calling it "CE" is silly.
Alan R Williams
> In article <uwnbt09...@cs.man.ac.uk>, ala...@cs.man.ac.uk wrote...
> > "PolloDiablo" <pollo-...@home.nl> writes:
>
> > > Henry VIII divorced Anne of Cleves as he didn't like her looks (Flanders
> > > Mare, he called her).
>
> > Supposedly it wasn't her looks but her BO (which must have been very
> > bad considering Henry's own hygeine).
>
> Ooo..where did you find that?
I think it's in Scarisbrick (sp?). I can hunt around to find out if
you want.
> I have to admit that I've always thought it
> was Anne of Cleves' looks that were the problem. Henry didn't see her
> until after the wedding (they were married by proxy) and the only picture
> he had was (I think) painted by Holbein. There were some suggestion that
> the artist was himself in love with her and hence painted a very
> flattering portrait. However, I also remember reading that Holbein tended
> to make great use of symmetry and patterns in his paintings -
> unfortunately at the expense of realism - which may have contributed
> greatly to a finished portrait which looked nothing like it's subject.
I thought Holbein's genius was to paint realistic portraits whilst
putting in all the symbolism. If he hadn't been true-to-life then
Henry would not have trusted him to do the painting. Henry was very
concerned that his wife would not be ugly, to the extent of trying to
persuade the French king to have a collection of potential wives sent
to Calais for his inspection. (The French king refused.)
As Holbein was used by Henry after the Anne of Cleves affair (wrong
word :-> ) then I don't think his picture could have been that far
from reality.
> > > She was born 1515, married Jan 6 1540, divorced July 1540 and died July 16
> > > 1557.
>
> > Anne of Cleves wasn't divorced; her marriage was annulled on the
> > grounds of pre-contract. In those days it made a big difference
> > whether a marriage ended in annulment or divorce. The grounds for
> > a woman being divorced, e.g. adultery, were also some of the grounds
> > for being a queen being executed.
> > Anne of Cleves and Catherine Parr were the only ones to out-live him :-(
>
> Personally I think Anne got the better bargain.
Better than Catherine Parr? Probably. Parr had her heart broken by
the love of her life, Thomas Seymour, molesting (or attempting to
seduce) the princess Elizabeth even while Catherine was pregnant.
> > > The site also confirms Anna Boleyn was beheaded with a sword but I can't
> > > find any account
> > > of this going wrong in any way.
>
> > Anne Boleyn's execution went OK (apart from for her). It was the
> > Countess of Salisbury's execution which went appallingly wrong with
> > her being chased around by the axeman.
>
> Umm...Countess of Salisbury? Was she the one who was accused of murder
> and possibly witchcraft?
Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, was 72 when Henry VIII had her
executed mainly because her son, the future Cardinal Pole, was writing
propaganda against Henry's break with Rome. She had done absolutely
nothing wrong; Henry had her killed mainly to spite her son. He was
definitely `not a nice person'.
> esmi
> --
> Lspace Web: <http://www.lspace.org/>
> Need help with AFP/ABP?
> Mail the Clue Fairies <cluef...@lspace.org>
Alan
--
Alan Williams, Room IT301, Department of Computer Science,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.
Tel: +44 161 275 6270 Fax: +44 161 275 6280
Anthony W. Youngman
<gewi...@eudoramail.com> writes
>phil...@see.signature.uk scrieb:
>
>>No, Brendan and his monks did it in around CE 500!
>
>That's one of my personal stamp-out crusades - BCE and CE! Zarquon,
><takes deep breath>
>
>AN OBSCURE JEWISH RELIGIOUS FIGURE, WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE BLOODY
>DECENCY TO ADMIT IT!
>
TWENTIETH century! I WISH THE DAMN JOURNOS WOULD GET THAT RIGHT TOO!!!!!
As I expect most of you know, the concept of 0 was "invented" by the
Arab mathematicians about 1000 AD, and the year 1 was preceded by the
year -1. 2000 is the last year of the 20th lot of 100 years.
--
Anthony W. Youngman
wol at thewolery d demon d co d uk | The L-Space Web-http://www.lspace.org/
Ask Christopher Robin where it is. | The Ultimate Terry Pratchett fan site!
If replying by e-mail please mail wol.
Anything else may get missed amongst the spam.
Miq
wrote
>>AN OBSCURE JEWISH RELIGIOUS FIGURE, WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE BLOODY
>>DECENCY TO ADMIT IT!
>>
>Except there WASN'T a year zero - which is why we're still in the
>TWENTIETH century! I WISH THE DAMN JOURNOS WOULD GET THAT RIGHT TOO!!!!!
Gosh. You're right. I wish someone had pointed that out earlier.
I hope you're going to write to all the newspapers and the BBC about
this now. They'll be so grateful. After all, it's not as if they'd all
had lengthy columns and editorials about it about seven months ago.
--
Miq
New to afp/abp? check http://www.lspace.org/
Still stuck? Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
afp welcome message: http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/welcome.html
Eric Jarvis
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Anthony W. Youngman <thew...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> wrote
> >In article <396938db...@news.teleport.com>, Alice Aforethought
> ><gewi...@eudoramail.com> writes
> >>IF WE ARE GOING TO DATE THE YEAR ZERO AT THE INNACURATE BIRTHDATE FO
> >>AN OBSCURE JEWISH RELIGIOUS FIGURE, WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE
> >>BLOODY DECENCY TO ADMIT IT!
> >>
> >Except there WASN'T a year zero - which is why we're still in the
> >TWENTIETH century! I WISH THE DAMN JOURNOS WOULD GET THAT RIGHT
> >TOO!!!!!
>
> Gosh. You're right. I wish someone had pointed that out earlier.
>
> I hope you're going to write to all the newspapers and the BBC about
> this now. They'll be so grateful. After all, it's not as if they'd
> all had lengthy columns and editorials about it about seven months ago.
>
and it's so vitally important given the entirely arbitrary nature
of the calendar...oh hang on...no sorry...that should
read...since the calendar is, in fact, entirely arbitrary why
should anyone give a damn what day we choose to celebrate the
milenniennium/milenium/minellium/millenium (pick your favourite
mispelling)
incidentally, have you noticed that it's so important to everyone
that immediately they first realised the millennium was on it's
way, they all rushed off, checked the dictionary and learned how
to spell it...nope?...no neither had I
that's my last contribution to a millenienienium thread until at
least 2999...or maybe this December...it's of an order of
magnitude cosmologically speaking so it doesn't really make a lot
of difference
--
eric - afplanning to elope with pia and Thom, afplirting with
April
"all characters portrayed in this post are fictional and should
not be confused"
Jens Ayton
>
> immediately they first realised the millennium was on it's way,
Eeew... don't give me that construction so early in the morning.
> that's my last contribution to a millenienienium thread until at
> least 2999...or maybe this December...it's of an order of
> magnitude cosmologically speaking so it doesn't really make a lot
> of difference
Shirley it's three OMs on any scale? IGMC...
Eric Jarvis
>
> Eric Jarvis:
> >
> > immediately they first realised the millennium was on it's way,
>
> Eeew... don't give me that construction so early in the morning.
>
sorry...that late at night I couldn't come up with a better
translation from the original gibberish
>
> > that's my last contribution to a millenienienium thread until at
> > least 2999...or maybe this December...it's of an order of
> > magnitude cosmologically speaking so it doesn't really make a lot
> > of difference
>
> Shirley it's three OMs on any scale? IGMC...
>
nope...cosmologically it isn't worth dealing in anything less
than millions of years...so it's not even one :)
and I realise seconds is the SI unit...but how in hell do you
deal with seconds in galactic terms?
Jens Ayton
> Jens Ayton:
>> Eric Jarvis:
>>>
>>> that's my last contribution to a millenienienium thread until at
>>> least 2999...or maybe this December...it's of an order of
>>> magnitude cosmologically speaking so it doesn't really make a lot
>>> of difference
>>
>> Shirley it's three OMs on any scale? IGMC...
>>
>
> nope...cosmologically it isn't worth dealing in anything less
> than millions of years...so it's not even one :)
Rounding it off to the nearest million of years beforehand is simply
cheating, imhoe.
> and I realise seconds is the SI unit...but how in hell do you
> deal with seconds in galactic terms?
'snot relevant... 1000ish years divided by fiveish months is 2400ish,
i.e. 3 Os of M. In seconds, it's (3.11 * 10^10)/(1.30 * 10^7), which as
anyone can see is 3 Os of M. In millions of years, it's (1 *
10^-3)/(4.17 * 10^-7), which just goes to show that orders of magnitude
are by nature rather approximate...
Alan R Williams
Rose
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Anthony W. Youngman yodelled
>> >In article Alice Aforethought thought:
>> >>IF WE ARE GOING TO DATE THE YEAR ZERO
>> >>AN OBSCURE JEWISH RELIGIOUS FIGURE,
>> >>WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE
>> >>BLOODY DECENCY TO ADMIT IT!
>> >>
>> >Except there WASN'T a year zero -
>> >which is why we're still in the
>> >TWENTIETH century! I WISH THE DAMN
>> >JOURNOS WOULD GET THAT RIGHT TOO!!!!!
>
>should anyone give a damn what day we choose to celebrate the
>milenniennium/milenium/minellium/millenium (pick your favourite
>mispelling)
Milenniennium is my personal pick from /\
this crop, but I'm sure you missed some /\
possibilities here <g> /\
<cynic mode off> /\
Am I the only person in the froup who /\
thought it was cool that, despite all this /\
so many countries joined in and celebrated /\
something together for once? /\
I thought it made a nice change! /\
I am the only one??
oh well, forget I said it then...
<cynic mode back on>
<g>
Sarah
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
esmi
> es...@lspace.org (esmi) writes:
> > ala...@cs.man.ac.uk wrote...
[Anne of Cleves]
> > > Supposedly it wasn't her looks but her BO (which must have been very
> > > bad considering Henry's own hygeine).
> > Ooo..where did you find that?
> I think it's in Scarisbrick (sp?). I can hunt around to find out if
> you want.
I'd be very interested to hear more. Don't know about anyone else. :-)
[Holbien's portrait of Anne of Cleves]
> I thought Holbein's genius was to paint realistic portraits whilst
> putting in all the symbolism. If he hadn't been true-to-life then
> Henry would not have trusted him to do the painting.
Did Henry commmission the portrait or was it already in existence before
Henry's interest in Anne?
> Henry was very
> concerned that his wife would not be ugly, to the extent of trying to
> persuade the French king to have a collection of potential wives sent
> to Calais for his inspection. (The French king refused.)
Hmmm..I'd tend to assume that there were other motives for this
particular request. It's reminiscent of his daughter's (Elizabeth)
political manouvering in later years when she used her own position on
the marriage market to play one state against another. Henry VIII would
have been *quite* a catch as a husband and potential ally and I can well
imagine him dangling the prospect of an alliance with France in front of
his arch-rival, Henri I - only to attempt a humiliation by asking for the
impossible. :-)
> As Holbein was used by Henry after the Anne of Cleves affair (wrong
> word :-> ) then I don't think his picture could have been that far
> from reality.
When did Henry use Holbein again? If it was during the early stages of
his marriage with Katherine Howard or towards the end of his life, I can
quite believe that he'd (temporarily) mellowed enough to forget any
earlier "problems". He was nothing if not mercurial. :-)
> > > Anne of Cleves and Catherine Parr were the only ones to out-live him :-(
> > Personally I think Anne got the better bargain.
> Better than Catherine Parr?
Absolutely...and possibly better than any of Henry's other wives.
Katherine of Aragon - divorced and died in relative povery; Anne Boleyn -
beheaded; Jane Seymour - died in childbirth (albeit giving birth to
Henry's only legitimate son); Katherine Howard - beheaded.
> Probably. Parr had her heart broken by
> the love of her life, Thomas Seymour, molesting (or attempting to
> seduce) the princess Elizabeth even while Catherine was pregnant.
Who, IIRC, was also under suspician re the death of his first wife.
> > Umm...Countess of Salisbury? Was she the one who was accused of murder
> > and possibly witchcraft?
> Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, was 72 when Henry VIII had her
> executed mainly because her son, the future Cardinal Pole, was writing
> propaganda against Henry's break with Rome. She had done absolutely
> nothing wrong; Henry had her killed mainly to spite her son.
Ah...definitely *not* the person I was thinking of then. :-)
> He was
> definitely `not a nice person'.
In his later years (ie after his first divorce), no but I find the
difference between Henry during the first 20 years of his reign and the
Henry of the later years quite fascinating. I do wonder what happened to
cause such a change in one who was originally lauded as an example of an
ideal king - both in his physical makeup and his actions. This, after
all, was the same Henry who was awarded "Defender of the Faith" [1] by
the Pope for his defence of the Catholic Church. What happened to turn
him into a cruel, meglomaniac tyrant? Was this simply a man embittered by
his own life (and lack of a healthy male heir) or is it possible that
disease [2] affected his mental state?
esmi
[1] A title still held by the monarch in the UK today but which is now
(assmumed?) to refer to the Anglican Church.
[2] Possibly syphillis. The same illness which may have killed his older
brother, Arthur.
Richard Eney
Catrin Alun <catri...@virgin.net> wrote:
<snip 18-blinks-after-beheading story>
>I remember this story. I read it in a very informative book (erm...Horrible
>History - I was bored...). The story was that a group of scientist agreed
>that if any of them got sentenced to death by beheading, they would wink
>at the others to see how long a human head can live without a body. The
>score was...0. I know, it's a more boring number than 18, but a human brain
>dies the instant it's seperated from the rest of the body. The only part of
>the
>body it would still have any control over would be the hair roots.
Check with The Straight Dope (they have a website, I forget what). The
first-person story of the man who was in the car wreck whose friend was
beheaded was enough to convince them that death was not instantaneous
(though no blinks were mentioned).
I suspect the blinking story was derived from The Mikado.
>> I know chickens run about after they've been beheaded as well.
>
>Birds and mammals are wired up differently. A chicken's body can still
>control itself a bit without a brain, but I'm not sure how well.
Depends where the chop hit. On rare occasions a chicken has lived quite a
long time, when enough of the hindbrain and brain stem were left to keep
automatic processes going and food and water were put down the tube. One
apparently even had the pecking reflex.
=Tamar
Kincaid
Morgan Lewis <m...@efn.org> wrote:
> Confused-White-Guy Columbus made it over in 1492, but never realized
> what he'd done. We know that because he told people he'd been to
> India. We know that Leif Eriksson made it over circa 1000. We know
> that because we've found Viking runes dating from that period over
> here.
Also, Basque fishermen were fishing the Grand Banks and Georges Bank since
about 900AD, and curing the cod they caught on the nearest land
(Newfoundland?).
TTFN, Kincaid
deletenosp...@xoommail.com
> Am I the only person in the froup who
I spent new year's eve just on the Finnish side of the Finland/Sweden
border in a town called Tornio. Tornio is a twin town with its Swedish
side and for those who don't know Sweden is on CET (GMT +1) whereas
Finland is on GMT+2. So the twin town(s) organised a double millenium.
First a huge celebration happened on the Finnish side of the town and
then everyone rushed/stumbled/crawled/got dragged (I was in the
stumbling and shouting group) across the bridge and the frozen river
into Sweden in time to celebrate all over again an hour later.
The entire thing was friendly, fun and rather nice. So yeah I'm with
you!
--Steven P.
...... ......
.. I have suffered for my anger, there are wars that can't be won ..
...... ......
The Senior Wrangler
>Milenniennium is my personal pick from
>this crop, but I'm sure you missed some
>possibilities here <g>
><cynic mode off>
>Am I the only person in the froup who
>thought it was cool that, despite all this
>so many countries joined in and celebrated
>something together for once?
>I thought it made a nice change!
>I am the only one??
>oh well, forget I said it then...
>
><cynic mode back on>
><g>
>
Does that make me cynical then, having hugely enjoyed the
premature celebrations and now looking forward to another set of
parties?
John
Brian Howlett
[snip]
> nope...cosmologically it isn't worth dealing in anything less than
> millions of years...so it's not even one :)
>
> and I realise seconds is the SI unit...but how in hell do you deal
> with seconds in galactic terms?
>
One at a time...
--
Brian Howlett
----------------------------------------------------
"Pride is all very well, but a sausage is a sausage"
The Famous Gaspode, Men at Arms, Terry Pratchett
Andrew Nevill
esmi <es...@lspace.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.13d59ab01457b4709896fa@elfden...
[On the subject of holding a "beauty contest" for Henry VII to pick a wife]
> Henry VIII would
> have been *quite* a catch as a husband and potential ally and I can well
> imagine him dangling the prospect of an alliance with France in front of
> his arch-rival, Henri I - only to attempt a humiliation by asking for the
> impossible. :-)
<mode != pedant>
I'm not going into pedant mode as this could be wrong.
But if I recall my A Level History correctly wasn't Henry's great rival
Francis I of France?
</mode>
--
Andrew Nevill DW BF (Invisius): Fratello di Vetinari: "Mimi sentii nonvisti"
AFPBro to Pia. Afpianced to Nanny Ogg (Sarah) & Charissa/Perdita
I Don't Want to Rule The World - Just This Newsgroup
New? Read the FAQs at http://www.lspace.org/faqs/
ian.macphail
a
> >long time, when enough of the hindbrain and brain stem were left to keep
> >automatic processes going and food and water were put down the tube. One
> >apparently even had the pecking reflex.
>
>
> >=Tamar
> dave the ever helpful
Close, but it's http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org
Ian the also helpfull
esmi
dr...@anevill.freeserve.co.uk wrote...
> esmi wrote in message
> [On the subject of holding a "beauty contest" for Henry VII to pick a wife]
> > Henry VIII would
> > I can well
> > imagine him dangling the prospect of an alliance with France in front of
> > his arch-rival, Henri I
> <mode != pedant>
> I'm not going into pedant mode as this could be wrong.
> But if I recall my A Level History correctly wasn't Henry's great rival
> Francis I of France?
> </mode>
I think you're quite right, Andrew. :-) I'm just suprised you didn't pick
me up on that in an earlier post in this thread when I mentioned Henri I.
When no one commented on it, I assumed I must have got the right
French king. However, Francois does ring more bells than Henri I.
esmi