"What is wrong with being a white supremacist? God is a racist and a white supremacist,"
"Someone or group has to be supreme and that group is the whites of the world ... someone or something has to be inferior ... In all history in sub-Saharan Africa, no two-story building or a waterproof boat was ever made."
Chosen people, the Jewish people, as expressed in the idea that they have been chosen by God as his special people. The term implies that the Jewish people have been chosen by God to worship only him and to fulfill the mission of proclaiming his truth among all the nations of the world. This idea is a recurring theme in Jewish liturgy and is expressed in many passages of Scripture, as for example: “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people of his own possession, out of all the nations that are on the face of the earth” (Deut. 14:2). The term chosen people is a free translation of the biblical terms ʿam segullah (“treasure people”) and ʿam nahallah(“heritage people”).
The idea of the chosen people has had a profound and lasting effect on the Jews because it imparted a special significance to their relationship with God. It implied a covenant between God and the people of Israel whereby Israel was to be faithful to God and obey his commandments, and God in turn was to protect and bless his faithful people. Being chosen brought to Israel not more privileges but, rather, special obligations to carry out the will of God: “Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you” (Jer. 7:23). Being God’s chosen people carried with it greater spiritual responsibilities and implied more demanding standards and the necessity to develop a spiritual vigour worthy of those whom God had selected to preserve and transmit his revelation to all the world.
The Old Testament contains two variant traditions as to when God selected Israel to be his chosen people; some passages imply the covenant was made when God led them out of Egypt, whereas others state that God had already chosen Israel at the time of Abraham and the other patriarchs.
Critical analysis of the Old Testament has revealed a long and complex evolution of this doctrine in the history of ancient Israel. The notion evidently originated in the basic concept of Israel’s early nationalistic religion that Yahweh
was Israel’s one and only national God and that in turn Israel was God’s people and his alone.
But the new concepts of world unity and of God as a universal deity that later arose in Israel during the 8th century BC conflicted with this, since God as the deity of Israel alone was obviously contradictory to the new conception of him as the creator of the universe and the God of all humanity.
Sound Like a Crazy Concept... #crazy You know you Are...
You're Fucking Crazy!!! Yeah!!!
Near the end of the Babylonian Exile, Deutero-Isaiah brought the doctrine to the climax of its evolution. This prophet emphatically denied the existence of all gods except Yahweh. He asserted that the events of history and the destinies of all nations were shaped toward the fulfillment of God’s purpose and that this purpose was to ultimately unite all humanity as one people in their acknowledgment of him as God. Israel was to be God’s instrument to accomplish this great revelation and would serve as the messenger and witness of God’s reality and law to all the other nations of the earth. The people of Israel would exemplify and teach God’s statutes to the rest of humanity and would thus help bring the entire human race to salvation. Israel would be the saviour of humanity and the national embodiment of the messiah, even if this meant suffering for Israel in the performance of its divinely appointed mission. In this way the Jewish people’s perilous historical situation was inextricably linked to their sense of religious mission and spiritual destiny, and the concept of the chosen people came to form perhaps the strongest link in the Jewish group identity.
Thou shall not steal, but thou shall scam one another regardless of race and faith... (Breaking The Law!!!)
After Deutero-Isaiah the idea of the chosen people underwent little change, all-sufficient as it already was in reconciling Jewish nationalism with belief in a universal deity. The eternal nature of the Jewish people’s covenant with God formed the bulwark of the rabbinic community’s response to the new religion of Christianity, which claimed that its believers were now the elect of God and constituted the true Israel. Because Jews believed that the Jewish people’s covenant with God was for all time, Christianity’s challenge was bound to appear obviously invalid to Jews. Similarly, the Jews interpreted their sufferings upon the loss of their homeland and throughout all the peregrinations of the Diaspora as both a consequence and a partial fulfillment of the covenant. They believed their dispersion and persecution to be in part due to their sinfulness and failure to keep God’s commands, and they viewed their sufferings as manifestations of his love, for through faithfully enduring God’s chastisement they would eventually regain his favour. The Jews interpreted their very persecution as the sign that God had indeed chosen them to carry out his purpose.
Race
HUMAN
Race, the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. Genetic studies in the late 20th century refuted the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century.
The Many Meanings Of “Race”
The modern meaning of the term race with reference to humans began to emerge in the 17th century. Since then it has had a variety of meanings in the languages of the Western world. What most definitions have in common is an attempt to categorize peoples primarily by their physical differences. In the United States, for example, the term race generally refers to a group of people who have in common some visible physical traits, such as skin colour, hair texture, facial features, and eye formation. Such distinctive features are associated with large, geographically separated populations, and these continental aggregates are also designated as races, as the “African race,” the “European race,” and the “Asian race.” Many people think of race as reflective of any visible physical (phenotypic) variations among human groups, regardless of the cultural context and even in the absence of fixed racial categories.
The term race has also been applied to linguistic groups (the “Arab race” or the “Latin race”), to religious groups (the “Jewish race”), and even to political, national, or ethnic groups with few or no physical traits that distinguish them from their neighbours (the “Irish race,” the “French race,” the “Spanish race,” the “Slavic race,” the “Chinese race”, etc.).
For much of the 20th century, scientists in the Western world attempted to identify, describe, and classify human races and to document their differences and the relationships between them. Some scientists used the term race for subspecies, subdivisions of the human species which were presumed sufficiently different biologically that they might later evolve into separate species.
Humans Show Racial Bias Towards Robots of Different Colors: Study
Do people display different racial biases towards black robots and white robots? A new study says yes
By Evan Ackerman
The majority of robots are white. Do a Google image search for “robot” and see for yourself: The whiteness is overwhelming. There are some understandable reasons for this; for example, when we asked several different companies why their social home robots were white, the answer was simply because white most conveniently fits in with other home decor.
But a new study suggests that the color white can also be a social cue that results in a perception of race, especially if it’s presented in an anthropomorphic context, such as being the color of the outer shell of a humanoid robot. In addition, the same issue applies to robots that are black in color, according to the study. The findings suggest that people perceive robots with anthropomorphic features to have race, and as a result, the same race-related prejudices that humans experience extend to robots.
Christoph Bartneck, the lead author of the study and a professor at the Human Interface Technology Lab at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, presented the results at the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI) in Chicago earlier this year.
“We hope that our study encourages robot designers to create robots that represent the diversity of their communities,” Bartneck told me. “There is no need for all robots to be white.”
Bartneck suspected the research could prove controversial, but he and his collaborators—from Guizhou University of Engineering Science, China; Monash University, Australia; and University of Bielefeld, Germany—were determined to pursue the issue. “The discussion on this topic was like walking through a minefield,” he said, adding that their paper received extensive scrutiny from reviewers, some of whom accused the authors of sensationalism.
IEEE Spectrum: Why hasn’t this topic been studied before, and what made you decide to study it? Why is this an important thing to study?
Christoph Bartneck: Many engineers are busy working on implementing the basic functions of robots, such as enabling them to walk and to navigate their environment. This does occupy much of their attention and the social consequences of their work are not particularly high on their priority list. Often robots are designed from the inside out, meaning that first all the functional parts of the robots are built and tested. Only at the end some sort of cover is added. How this cover affects the human users, or more broadly, how the robot as a whole is perceived by its users is more often than not only an afterthought.Therefore, racism has not been on the radar for almost all robot creators. The members of the Human-Robot Interaction community have worked already for many years to better understand the interaction between humans and robots and we try to inform robot creators on how to design the robots so that they integrate into our society. Racism is causing considerable damage to people and to our society as a whole. Today racism is still part of our reality and the Black Lives Matter movement demonstrates this with utmost urgency. At the same time, we are about to introduce social robots, that is, robots that are designed to interact with humans, into our society. These robots will take on the roles of caretakers, educators, and companions.
FUTURE WORLD... My Beauty, My Robot... And it shall be White, Black, Yellow??? Have'Em All. Yeah!!!
Of Clay, Fire & MUD!!! Be And It Shall BE!!!
Let us go back to the story of how the first Prophet of the Muslims, Christians and Jews; that is, Adam; was created and the reason why Iblis (aka. Archangel), who held a ‘high position’ in heaven at par with the other angels, was excommunicated. And Iblis’ only crime was that he thought he was far superior to another of God’s creation, man. And if Iblis, a more superior creation to man, can suffer this fate just because he was arrogant in thinking he is superior to man, just imagine the fate of those who harbour this same attitude towards fellow man?
(Archangel: Occultists sometimes associate archangels in Kabbalistic fashion with various seasons or elements, or even colors. In some Kabbalah-based systems of ceremonial magic, all four of the main archangels (Gabriel, Michael, Raphael and Uriel) are invoked as guarding the four quarters, or directions, and their corresponding colors are associated with magical properties.[36] Lucifer or Sataniel in Christian traditions, or Iblis in Islam,[citation needed] is considered an archangel by Satanists and many non-Satanists, but non-Satanists consider him evil and fallen from God's grace.)
Muslims are told that Allah moulded Adam with His own hands. Allah took a handful of dust from the earth and mixed it into various colours – white, black, yellow, red, and so on. This is why there are many different ethnicities in this world.
When Allah mixed the dust with water it turned into potter’s clay and, from this clay, Allah made Adam. The lifeless form of Adam was then left to stand for forty days. Iblis passed by and wondered what was going on. Iblis kicked this clay sculpture and it made a sound. On further investigation, Iblis found that it was hollow inside, as it did not yet have any internal organs – that was why it made a sound when kicked. After forty days, Allah blew His spirit into the lifeless form of Adam to give it life. Adam’s body quivered as life entered it. This is explained in the following verses of the Quran:
Verily, when He intends a thing, His Command is, “be”, and it is! (Ya Sin, chapter 36 verse 82) The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was. (Ali Imran, chapter 3 verse 59)
After Allah had breathed a spirit into Adam, He instructed all other creations such as Angels and Jinns to bow down to Adam as the following verse from the Quran reveals:
“When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him.” (Al Hijr, chapter 15 verse 59)
I AM MADE OF FIRE, HE OF CLAY!!! Why Would or should I prostrate upon? Why prostrate (throw oneself flat on the ground) upon its creations and not just the Creator?
Adam opened his eyes and saw all the Angels prostrating before him except for one creature that was standing at a distance. Iblis refused to prostrate to Adam because he regarded Adam, who was made from mere earth, as weaker and therefore inferior to Jinns, who were made from fire. In his vanity and belief that he was better than Adam, Iblis dared defy Allah.
Though Iblis was not one of the Angels but a Jinn, Allah brought him into Paradise and put him at par with the Angels. Iblis was then given a choice to bow to Adam and therefore maintain his status in Paradise. Iblis, of course, tried to explain or justify his disobedience as the following verse of the Quran reveals:
(God) said: What prevented thee from bowing down when I commanded thee?” He said: “I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay.” (Al A’raf, chapter 7 verse 12)
Iblis debated with Allah and tried to defend his actions, how misguided they may have been – which is what man do most times. Iblis explained that man, who was created from clay, is inferior to Iblis, who was created from fire. Basically, Iblis was arrogant and guided by vanity – his belief in his superiority over man. For that Allah punished Iblis and evicted him from Paradise.
Allah chided Iblis saying that he is but a humble creature. How could he be so arrogant and defy Allah? Iblis, still refusing to repent, asked Allah for a postponement of punishment till the Day of Judgment. Iblis did not want forgiveness. Neither did he want to repent to redeem himself. He accepted the punishment for his crime of disobedience but merely wanted the punishment delayed till the Day of Judgment.
And the reason Iblis wanted time was so that he could take revenge on man for what happened to him. Iblis wanted to trap man and mislead him as explained in the following verse of the Quran:
He said: “Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way.” (Al A’raf, chapter 7 verse 16)
In short, Iblis wanted to punish man for the fate he had suffered and, at the same time, prove to Allah that his argument as to why he refused to bow to man was justified – that is, man is weak and could be easily led astray.And, to this day, Iblis’ main mission in life is to lead man astray and bring man to Hell together with him as is further explained in the following verse of the Quran:
“Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude (for thy mercies).” (Al A’raf, chapter 7 verse 17)
FADE To Black It BE!!! Fated to be fade to black. If One could not find something worth living for; Find something worth dying For... Yeah!!! #fadetoblack
Iblis had predicted that he could lead man astray thus fulfilling his mission in life and prove that man is weak. Allah accepted Iblis’ challenge and said that if anyone followed Iblis, then he too would be condemned to Hell just like Iblis. This is clarified in the two following verses of the Quran:
(God) said: “Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee,- Hell will I fill with you all.” (Al A’raf, chapter 7 verse 18)
From the (earth) did We create you, and into it shall We return you, and from it shall We bring you out once again. (Ta Ha, chapter 20 verse 55)
The above incident sums up the creation of man, Iblis’ disobedience, the reason for this disobedience, and Iblis’ promise to bring man to Hell together with him. Iblis accepted his punishment for disobeying Allah. Iblis did not ask for forgiveness or repented. Iblis stood firm on his decision to disobey Allah. He merely asked that his punishment or ‘sentence’ be delayed to give him time to lead man astray.
Allah granted Iblis this reprieve but Iblis chose the time granted by Allah to take revenge on man rather than to redeem himself with Allah. Iblis promised Allah he would do his worst and bring man to Hell with him. Allah accepted Iblis’ challenge and warned that any man who followed Iblis would end up in Hell together with Iblis.
Man is given a choice. Follow Allah’s command and be rewarded with Paradise or follow Iblis and end up in Hell. The prerogative is left to man. Man is in charge of his own destiny and man has a choice in changing this destiny. And anyone who chooses to follow Iblis’ example by thinking he is superior to other creations of Allah, or is a being or race that is superior to another, then he is Iblis’ comrade and will share a space in Hell with Iblis.
This Allah has promised.
God's Law, Law of God: Thou shall not Steal!!!
We must remember that all religions are patriarchal and not matriarchal. Hence religions always favour men and are unfavourable towards women. Before the time of Muhammad, women could marry more than one husband (and women like Khatijah could propose marriage). Later on women got stoned to death for marrying more than one husband while men can marry more than one wife and became the property of the husband.
HUDUD: God's Law...
Hudud (Arabic: حدود Ḥudūd, also transliterated hadud, hudood; plural of hadd, حد) is an Arabic word meaning "borders, boundaries, limits". ... Hudud punishments range from public lashing to publicly stoning to death, amputation of hands and crucifixion.
In the religion of Islam it refers to punishments that under Islamic law (shariah) are mandated and fixed by God. ... The offenses incurring hudud punishments are zina (unlawful sexual intercourse such as fornication), unfounded accusations of zina, drinking alcohol, highway robbery, and some forms of theft.
Most Muslims believe that Hudud, in particular the law on stoning adulteress women to death, was a law that was introduced by Prophet Muhammad. Actually it was not. This law was introduced by Umar ibn Al-Khattāb, the Second Caliph who took over after the death of Abu Bakar As-Ṣiddīq. Hence it was Umar and not Prophet Muhammad who made this into law.
Umar was actually a very strict disciplinarian and was most feared for his temper and harsh treatment of women and ‘deviants’. He even punished those he caught writing what today we refer to as Hadith or sayings of the Prophet. Hence during Umar’s time no Hadith were allowed unless you want to get whipped and kicked. It is therefore no wonder that the Hadith were written more than 150-250 years after the time of Umar.
Before the time of Umar, women could pray side-by-side with the men and even joined the men to go to war. Islamic history reports that Prophet Muhammad’s first wife, Khatijah, was a successful and prosperous businesswoman. And it was she who proposed marriage to Prophet Muhammad and not the other way around. Hence women were more liberated in that society more than 1,000 years before western women understood the meaning of women’s liberation.
That, however, changed when Umar took over as Caliph. Umar tried to confine women to their homes and forbade them from joining the men in prayer in the mosques. He also enforced segregation between men and women and introduced harsh laws against women.
One of these harsh laws was the stoning to death of adulteresses. There is no verse in the Qur’an supporting this law but Umar agued that this law was actually part of the revelation but was somehow excluded when the text of the Qur’an was formalised after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Umar, however, did not explain how this law was accidentally excluded from the Qur’an.
Since then various Hadith were created, almost 200 to almost 300 years after the death of the Prophet, to support the argument that it was Prophet Muhammad who introduced the law of stoning to death for adulteresses. This is not true. It was not Prophet Muhammad but Umar who did this.
Till Death Do Us Part!!!
This is something most Muslims would not want to admit. In fact, most Muslims do not even know where the Hudud law of stoning adulteresses to death came from. They believe that this law came from God through Prophet Muhammad because most Muslims put the Hadith above the Qur’an. And when they argue their case they would quote the Hadith and not the Qur’an. And if you dispute this they would label you as anti-Hadith and therefore an apostate or heretic. And people like Kassim Ahmad have been arrested and charged for the so-called crime of disputing and/or rejecting the Hadith.
Hence very few Muslims would dare dispute or question the Hadith, in particular those concerning the Hudud law of stoning to death for adulteresses.
So, if it was not God through Prophet Muhammad who introduced the law of stoning to death for adulteresses and if this law is one of the laws of Hudud, did Hudud come from God through Prophet Muhammad or was Hudud a later invention of male Muslims who wanted to dominate female Muslims?
Hudud is one part of Islamic criminal law. Islamic criminal law, meanwhile, is just one part of the Syariah, the entire legal system in an Islamic state.
In Islamic criminal law, there are generally three types of crimes. The most serious crimes are known as hudud – crimes “against God” or “against limits ordained by God”. In an Islamic state, the sovereign is tasked to punish these crimes if individuals have transgressed them. The punishments for these crimes are fixed and the judge cannot reduce or change them if the offender is found guilty.
Because of their seriousness, these crimes are limited in number. Most scholars agree that hudud crimes are theft, highway robbery, drinking alcohol, illegal sexual intercourse (zina) and false accusation of zina. Scholars are split on the crime of apostasy; some say it is a hudud crime while others disagree.
Apart from hudud crimes, other types of crimes under the Syariah are ta’zir, qisasand diyat. Ta’zir crimes are crimes against the state and they are discretionary; the state has the discretionary powers to punish these crimes. Qisas are crimes punishable on the principle of “an eye for an eye”. Diyat are crimes that may be punishable like qisas but instead, the victim may accept compensation or “blood money” instead.
The burden of proof to establish a hudud crime is extremely high. It is far heavier than the burden of proof that we have in our current system of “beyond reasonable doubt”. To find a person guilty of a hudud crime, there must no doubt at all as to the guilt of the person. If there is any doubt, the judge must not find the person guilty of a hudud crime and instead commute it down to ta’zir crime, for which the punishment is discretionary.
In other Muslim countries, non-Muslims also get punished under Sharia laws and they are beheaded for certain crimes, just like the Muslims are. So, either abolish the Sharia or make non-Muslims subjected to the Sharia and Hudud as well. Then the ICERD can be ratified because only then will every citizens be equal before the law.
It Be My Way Or The Highway!! Cause I want it that Way!!!
Are Laws A Violation Of Our Civil Liberties?
Henry VIII broke away from Rome and created the Church of England, and introduced the Sedition Act to silence all dissent
(Civil Liberty : the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech.)
England was constantly at war and the nation was practically bankrupt. The Crown needed to raise money so one way was to increase taxes. The Nobles had to pay more taxes than before but the Church was exempted from paying any tax. The Church was rich because it owned 20% of all the land in England and it was sending huge sums of money to Rome, making the Vatican even richer.
So, King Henry broke away from Rome, made himself the head of the Church of England, and confiscated all the church property. Overnight, King Henry became the richest monarch in Europe. And as a bonus, King Henry managed to marry his second wife as well.
But the many Papists who were still loyal to Rome opposed this. They also refused to accept that King Henry was God’s representative on earth. So the Crown introduced the Sedition Act that made questioning or opposing the Monarch a crime. Questioning the King tantamount to questioning God. And for that you can be put to death or the very minimum have both your ears cut off.
A man could no more attack a king than a king could attack an angel, than an angel could attack God. This madness of the Pope broke the unwritten agreement that one earthly monarch would never encourage the subjects of another earthly monarch to rise up against them.
All through English history many bastard children succeeded the throne of England. There was also the added problem of many of the Kings and Princesses being gay, or at least bisexual. In fact, one King of England was even having a gay relationship with the King of France (any wonder they were expert sword fighters?). And though the Kings never visited their Queen’s bedchamber (they never slept in the same room and always slept in separate rooms) since their honeymoon, the Queen still managed to get pregnant and it was suspected that it was the Queen’s young, handsome advisers who were the real fathers of those children.
We must understand that marriage in those days was not for sex or out of love. It was to seal political alliances. If you married the sister or daughter of the King of another country then that country would not attack your country because you were now related — either brother-in-law or son-in-law. So, after marrying your Queen, you locked her away and spent your time chasing other women — or other men as the case may be.
The most notable ‘bastard’ Ruler of England was probably Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry VIII from his second wife, Anne Boleyn. The church did not recognise Elizabeth because divorce was not allowed so Henry broke away from the church and formed his own church to legitimise his divorce from the Queen and his marriage to Anne (but Rome still regarded her as a bastard).
Because of this they wanted Mary, Henry’s granddaughter, to inherit the throne. But since she was Catholic (and French), and Catholics were put to death if they confessed to being Catholics, Elizabeth got the throne instead. Mary was later executed for her crime against God — for being a Catholic. Mary was of course known as Mary Queen of Scots but it was the Scots who betrayed her and handed her to Elizabeth to be jailed for many years before she was executed. (The Scots have been betraying their Rulers since time immemorial).
Kings, Queens and members of the Royal Family were bonking away and breeding like rabbits outside of marriage. Many preferred sex partners of their own gender or many partners at the same time in orgies where the gender of the sex partners were of little concern as long as they were bonkable.
To solve the succession problem, rightful heirs to the throne mysteriously died in their sleep so that those not eligible to succeed the throne could then take the throne. Courtiers got ahead and received titles, position and land at the pleasure of the King. And the King’s pleasure would be guaranteed if your wife got sent to the King’s bedchamber for the night where she would whisper in the King’s ear in between bonking sessions: what happened to my husband’s request…etc, etc. With all this going on how could they allow the people to talk? And with 1,000 servants and courtiers hanging around the palace how does one prevent people from talking? So they had this thing called sedition laws so that anyone who talked could be punished.
And on 1st January 2010, Britain abolished the Sedition Act — not because people no longer talked about their Monarchy or that the Monarchs of today are better behaved, but because with the Internet you can no longer catch those who talk anyway.
Droit du seigneur (/ˈdrɑː də seɪˈnjɜːr/; French: [dʁwa dy sɛɲœʁ], 'lord's right'), also known as jus primae noctis (/ʒʌs ˈpraɪmi ˈnɒktɪs/; Latin: [ju:s ˈpri:mae̯ 'nɔktɪs], 'right of the first night'), refers to a supposed legal right in medieval Europe, allowing feudal lords to have sexual relations with subordinate women, in particular, on their wedding nights.
Master Secretary, His Holiness is considering a ruling that will say that heretical monarchs can be justly defied by their subjects, and that such a defiance, even to armed rebellion, is no sin.
Cecil leaned back in his padded chair and reread the letter, making sure that he had made no error in the double translation, out of code and then out of Latin. It was a message of such enormity that he could not believe it, even when it was in plain English before him.
It was a death sentence for the queen. It assured any disgruntled Catholic that they could plot against her with impunity, actually with the blessing of the Holy Father. It was a veritable crusade against the young queen, as potent and unpredictable as a Knights Templar attack on the Moors. It licensed the deranged assassin, the man with a grudge, indeed, it put the dagger into his hands.
It broke the eternal promise that an anointed monarch commanded the obedience of all his subjects, even those who disagreed with him. It broke the harmony of the universe that placed God above the angels, angels above kings, kings above mortal men.
A man could no more attack a king than a king could attack an angel, than an angel could attack God. This madness of the Pope broke the unwritten agreement that one earthly monarch would never encourage the subjects of another earthly monarch to rise up against them.
The assumption has always been that kings should stick together, that nothing was more dangerous than the people with a licence. Now the Pope was to give the people the licence to rise up against Elizabeth and who knew how many might avail themselves of this permission?
Cecil tried to draw a sheet of paper towards him and found that his hands were shaking. For the first time in these anxious months, he truly thought they would be defeated. He thought that he had aligned himself to a doomed cause. He did not think that Elizabeth could survive this.
There were too many who had opposed her from the start; once they knew that their treasonous plotting was no longer a sin, they would multiply like headlice. It was enough that she had to struggle with the church, with her council, with her parliament; none of which were in full support, some of which were in open opposition. If the people themselves were turned against her she could not last long.
He thought for a moment, for only a moment, that he might have done better to have supported Henry Hastings as the best Protestant claimant for the throne, since the Pope would surely not have dared to summon a rebellion against the king. He thought for another moment that perhaps he should have urged Elizabeth to accept the raising of the Host, to have kept the church in England as papist for a year or so, to ease the transition of reform. He gritted his teeth. What was done had been done, and they would have to live with their mistakes, and some would die for them. He was fairly certain that Elizabeth would die, to name only one.
He clasped his hands together until they were steady again, and then started to plan ways to try to ensure that an assassin did not reach Elizabeth at court, when she was out hunting, when she was on the river, when she was visiting.
It was a nightmare task. Cecil stayed up all night writing lists of men he could trust, preparing plans to see her guarded, and knew at the end that if the Catholics of England obeyed the Pope, as they must do, then Elizabeth was a dead woman, and all Cecil could do for her is to delay her funeral.
Page 80-82, The Virgin’s Lover, by Phillipa Gregory
Henry VIII wives…
Beauty, Beauties On the Wall; Is it a Sin to have them All!!! For only the King could have them All... #sin #sinners #king #rich #wealthy #beauties
It's A SIN!!!
1. Catherine of Aragon
Henry VIII’s first wife was Catherine of Aragon, daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain. Eight years before her marriage to Henry in 1509, Catherine was in fact married to Henry’s older brother, Arthur, who died of sickness at just 15 years old. Together, Henry and Catherine had a daughter, Mary – but it was a son that Henry wanted. Frustrated that Catherine seemed unable to produce a male heir to the throne, Henry had their marriage annulled (cancelled) in 1533. But there’s more to the story, gang – towards the end of their marriage, Henry fell in love with one of Catherine’s ladies-in-waiting (woman who assisted the queen) – Anne Boleyn…
2. Anne Boleyn
Anne Boleyn became Henry’s second wife after the pair married secretly in January 1533. By this time, Anne was pregnant with her first child to Henry, and by June 1533 she was crowned Queen of England. Together they had a daughter, Elizabeth – the future Queen Elizabeth I. But, still, it was a son – and future king of England – that Henry wanted. Frustrated, he believed his marriage was cursed and that Anne was to blame. And so, he turned his affections to one of Anne’s ladies-in-waiting, Jane Seymour. And Anne’s fate? Following accusations of numerous crimes, including witchcraft and treason (plotting to kill the king), she was arrested and beheaded. Eek!
3. Jane Seymour
On 30 May 1535, King Henry married Jane Seymour. Unlike his previous wives, however, Jane never had a coronation and so was never crowned Queen of England. Some people believe this was because Henry wanted her to provide an heir to the throne first. And in October 1537, the time had finally come – Henry became the proud father of Prince Edward. But the prince came at a price – Jane took ill and died just two weeks after the birth. She was buried in a tomb at Windsor Castle, and would later become the only one of Henry’s six wives to be buried with him.
4. Anne of Cleves
Henry was single for two years after Jane Seymour’s death. But as time passed, the King and his ministers felt that England needed a foreign ally – and so the hunt for a new bride began! Henry sent a talented painter called Hans Holbeinto Germany to paint portraits of the Duke of Cleves’ daughters, Anne and Amelia. Anne’s portrait pleased him, and arrangements were made for the pair to wed. But Anne’s arrival in England proved to be a bit of a disaster to say the least. Seeing her in person, Henry took an instant dislike to Anne and, finding her ugly, referred to her as “The Mare of Flanders”. Poor Anne! Too late to cancel, their wedding took place 6 January 1540, only for the marriage to be annulled a few weeks later.
5. Kathryn Howard
Next in line to marry King Henry VIII was young Kathryn Howard – lady-in-waiting to Anne of Cleves and first cousin to Henry’s second wife, Anne Boleyn. By the time they married in July 1540, Henry was 49 years old, overweight and unable to walk, and Kathryn a lively teenager. Delighted with his new wife, Henry is said to have spoilt Kathryn with gifts and called her his “rose without a thorn”. But trouble lay ahead for Kathryn – two years into their marriage, she was accused of being unfaithful to the king. Her fate..? Beheaded!
6. Catherine Parr
The last of Henry VIII wives was Catherine Parr. An educated woman who loved to learn new things, Catherine married Henry on 12 July 1543. She proved to be a kind wife who looked after Henry in his sickness, and a good stepmother to the king’s three children, Mary, Elizabeth and Edward. But yes – you guessed it – she didn’t have it easy with Henry! Her interest in Protestantism (a new religious faith) made her enemies in court – enemies who tried to turn the king against her and have her arrested. Luckily for Catherine, she managed to convince Henry that she was loyal to him and his religion, and was spared execution. Phew! Henry died in 1547, leaving Catherine widowed and free to marry her former love, Thomas Seymour.