MONDAY, MAY 19
My Man Johnny deserves it. Aside from being the
greatest catcher in the history of the game he’s a good Republican!
KINDNESS OF STRANGERS
Today my little friend (the child who was molested) received this magical “care package” from ML and Robyn and the wonderful people at the Cat Blogsphere I don’t know when I’ve encountered such blatant kindness and such nit-picky malice all in the same day. The actions of ML and Robyn have restored my faith in people. I just can’t get over what these women did. Chris, my god-daughter’s mother, said she couldn’t believe the change in the child when her package arrived,
Help Technorati has stolen my fans! I have none. Funny how the blog has grown, but my so called authority is getting even less. This whole thing is a crock!
THE TROUBLES
I think I have most of the problems of the day solved. I’ve spent hours trying to fix things. I did not need that you know what today. Rumsfeld kept me up until 5AM. He was barking at the tarp the condo maintenance people took off the pool Saturday. I still don’t feel good. I finally fell asleep about 8AM or so. My mother woke me up at 11 with a phone call. We were meeting the architect at 1:30 for lunch. I was 30 minutes late after discovering my little problem.
RUMSFELD AND THE DINOSAUR
A few weeks ago the condo board finally added TCM and AMC to the condo cable. I have Dish on my main set upstairs, but use the condo cable in my bedroom. Since I’ve not been sleeping (for a month now) I’ve been watching a heck of a lot of old movies on these two channels – most of the night. The other night the David Hedison/Jill S. John version of The Lost World was on. About the time when the little toy poodle “Frosty” started barking at those lizards dragged up to look like “dinosaurs” Rumsfeld was sitting on the edge of the bed, playing with Bubbles. He heard the barking and started yapping. In the movie, “Frosty” was trying to chase a dinosaur. I realized yep, that was Rumsfeld. He’d be the toy poodle out there yapping at a T-Rex as it rampaged the neighborhood.
THAT CUTE THING THE CAT DID TODAY…
Rumsfeld is piddle pad trained. There’s no way I can take him out to walkie-poo in the evenings. When I moved here, 10 years ago, I took Clancy out every night for a long walk. We can’t do that now. There are too many animals outside that would either cause a nasty odor (skunks) or lions (mountain), coyotes, or bears – oh my, not to mention the local Bigfoot stories. I just can’t take the little guy out at night, so we have piddle pads. This morning Rums did his usual piddle on one. I looked over and Bubbles was trying to cover it over with her paw. Then – and I swear this is true – she went over to the empty piddle pad, scratched, and piddled on it. She then tried to cover it. I guess this is logical, considering Rumsfeld has been known to lift his leg in the cat box when it is spanking clean.
CHAMBERS BOOK OF DAYS
Born: John Theophilus Fichte, German philosophical writer,
1762, Rammenau; Professor John Wilson, poet and miscellaneous writer,
1785, Paisley.
Died: Flaccus Alcuinus, learned theologian, 804, Tours; Anne Boleyn, queen of England, beheaded, 1536; John Bales, 'the ever memorable' scholar and critic, Eton; Adam Billaut, French poet, 1662; Thomas Gent, printer, of York, 1778; James Boswell, author of Life of Dr. Johnson, 1795; Charles James Apperley, writer on field sports, 1483.
Feast Day: St. Prudentiana, virgin, 1st century; St. Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, 988. St. Peter Celestine, Pope, 1296.
ANNE BOLEYNDied: Flaccus Alcuinus, learned theologian, 804, Tours; Anne Boleyn, queen of England, beheaded, 1536; John Bales, 'the ever memorable' scholar and critic, Eton; Adam Billaut, French poet, 1662; Thomas Gent, printer, of York, 1778; James Boswell, author of Life of Dr. Johnson, 1795; Charles James Apperley, writer on field sports, 1483.
Feast Day: St. Prudentiana, virgin, 1st century; St. Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, 988. St. Peter Celestine, Pope, 1296.
The unhappy fate of Anne Boleyn
has been celebrated in the popular histories of England, as that of an
innocent woman sacrificed by her husband for the sake of a new
affection. And to the acceptance of this view of her character and
history, it can scarcely be doubted that her connection with the
advance of the Protestant cause has largely conduced: it had become, as
it were, a point of faith among the friends of the reformed religion,
to suppose only what was favourable of the lovely woman from whose
bright eyes the light of truth had first shone. We may attribute even
more importance to the influence exercised by the popular veneration in
which the unfortunate queen's daughter, Elizabeth, was held, and the
necessity felt for upholding the idea of her legitimacy against the
views of the Roman Catholics. During the reign of the Virgin Queen,
when Protestantism had such a struggle with its antagonists, it became
a political point of the greatest consequence to assert the innocence
of Anne Boleyn, because on that, to some degree, depended the soundness
of the queen's pretentions to the throne.
In our age, there is no consideration of any kind to interfere with a true verdict regarding Anne Boleyn. A modern historian may discuss the question, if he pleases, in an impartial spirit, without fear of blame from any quarter. We find that Mr. Fronde, in his History of England under the Reign of Henry VIII, makes what he believes to be an effort to this effect, but perhaps not quite with success.
During seven years, while Henry was endeavouring to get quit of his first queen, Catherine of Aragon, on the shewing that his union with her was illegal, as she had previously been the wife of his brother, Anne Boleyn allowed herself to be entertained as a queen-elect in the royal household. There is presumably no guilt connected with her position there; but it argued a want of delicacy and just feeling on her part. At length the king wedded her in a private manner, and her coronation was soon after celebrated with extraordinary magnificence, as if to make up for any flaw that might be thought to derogate from her state as queen-consort.
In due time Anne gave birth to a daughter, afterwards the famous Queen Elizabeth, and for two years and a half more she and her husband appeared to live in harmony. At length in April 1536, Henry professed to be troubled in mind by various rumours which had reached him regarding his wife. By his orders, four gentlemen of the court were arrested as having been guilty of adultery with the queen. Afterwards the queen's brother, Lord Rochfort, was put in custody on the same charge, to which, of course, his relationship gave a deeper hue. From the first, one of the four gentlemen, Smeton, a musician, confessed the truth of the charge.
Mr. Fronde shews, very conclusively, that the trials of the alleged participants in criminality, and of the queen, were conducted with even an unusual degree of solemnity and care. The special commission which first acted in that business was composed of the most respectable men connected with the administration, and it included the queen's father and uncle. The indictment found by the grand jury of Middlesex made no vague charges, but indicated certain days on which the offences were alleged to have been committed. The queen and her brother Rochfort were tried before twenty-seven of the peers of highest character in the realm. Unfortunately, the proceedings on the trials have not been preserved, but Mr. Froude sees no reason to doubt that they were perfectly fair. Smeton, the musician, as before, admitted his guilt; the three commoners, his companions, were found guilty by the jury; and all were condemned to die the death of traitors.
Anne and her brother were, in succession, found guilty by the House of Peers, and adjudged to die. 'We can form no estimate of the evidence,' says Mr. Fronde, 'for we do not know what it was. . . . But the fact remains to us, that these twenty-seven peers, who were not ignorant, as we are, but were fully acquainted with the grounds of the prosecution, did deliberately, after hearing the queen's defence, pronounce against her a unanimous verdict. . . Men of all parties united in the sentence.' Including the grand jury, the petty jury, and the twenty-seven peers, 'we have,' says Mr. Fronde, 'the judicial verdict of more than seventy noblemen and gentlemen, no one of whom had any interest in the deaths of the accused, and some of whom had interests the most tender in their acquittal; we have the assent of the judges who sat on the commission, and who passed sentence after full opportunities of examination, with all the evidence before their eyes.' Our author also states, that none of the male convicts denied, while several acknowledged their guilt on the scaffold. The queen, indeed, denied her guilt; and Mr. Fronde admits its 'antecedent improbability.' On the other hand, 'we have also the improbability, which is great, that the king, now forty-four years old, who in his earlier years had been distinguished for the absence of those vices in which contemporary princes indulged themselves, in wanton weariness of a woman for whom he had revolutionised the kingdom, and quarrelled with half Christendom, suddenly resolved to murder her.' Mr. Froude further remarks the full approval given to the sentence on Anne and her paramours by parliament, the month after the execution, a fact to which he attaches great importance.
After all, however, the question of the criminality of the queen must be held as matter of doubt. It looks ill for the theory of Henry's belief in Anne's guilt, that, the very day after her death in the Tower green, he married Jane Seymour. We must also remember, that to get rid of one wife in order to obtain another, does not stand solitary in the history of King Henry. On the whole, it seems most probable that the poor queen had been simply imprudent in speaking with levity to those young courtiers, and that their confessions referred merely to gay and licentious talk, in which they had indulged in compliance with the lady's humours. The complaisance of ministers, courtiers, parliaments, and even judges to the imperious Tudor sovereigns, scarcely needs to be pointed out by us.
In our age, there is no consideration of any kind to interfere with a true verdict regarding Anne Boleyn. A modern historian may discuss the question, if he pleases, in an impartial spirit, without fear of blame from any quarter. We find that Mr. Fronde, in his History of England under the Reign of Henry VIII, makes what he believes to be an effort to this effect, but perhaps not quite with success.
During seven years, while Henry was endeavouring to get quit of his first queen, Catherine of Aragon, on the shewing that his union with her was illegal, as she had previously been the wife of his brother, Anne Boleyn allowed herself to be entertained as a queen-elect in the royal household. There is presumably no guilt connected with her position there; but it argued a want of delicacy and just feeling on her part. At length the king wedded her in a private manner, and her coronation was soon after celebrated with extraordinary magnificence, as if to make up for any flaw that might be thought to derogate from her state as queen-consort.
In due time Anne gave birth to a daughter, afterwards the famous Queen Elizabeth, and for two years and a half more she and her husband appeared to live in harmony. At length in April 1536, Henry professed to be troubled in mind by various rumours which had reached him regarding his wife. By his orders, four gentlemen of the court were arrested as having been guilty of adultery with the queen. Afterwards the queen's brother, Lord Rochfort, was put in custody on the same charge, to which, of course, his relationship gave a deeper hue. From the first, one of the four gentlemen, Smeton, a musician, confessed the truth of the charge.
Mr. Fronde shews, very conclusively, that the trials of the alleged participants in criminality, and of the queen, were conducted with even an unusual degree of solemnity and care. The special commission which first acted in that business was composed of the most respectable men connected with the administration, and it included the queen's father and uncle. The indictment found by the grand jury of Middlesex made no vague charges, but indicated certain days on which the offences were alleged to have been committed. The queen and her brother Rochfort were tried before twenty-seven of the peers of highest character in the realm. Unfortunately, the proceedings on the trials have not been preserved, but Mr. Froude sees no reason to doubt that they were perfectly fair. Smeton, the musician, as before, admitted his guilt; the three commoners, his companions, were found guilty by the jury; and all were condemned to die the death of traitors.
Anne and her brother were, in succession, found guilty by the House of Peers, and adjudged to die. 'We can form no estimate of the evidence,' says Mr. Fronde, 'for we do not know what it was. . . . But the fact remains to us, that these twenty-seven peers, who were not ignorant, as we are, but were fully acquainted with the grounds of the prosecution, did deliberately, after hearing the queen's defence, pronounce against her a unanimous verdict. . . Men of all parties united in the sentence.' Including the grand jury, the petty jury, and the twenty-seven peers, 'we have,' says Mr. Fronde, 'the judicial verdict of more than seventy noblemen and gentlemen, no one of whom had any interest in the deaths of the accused, and some of whom had interests the most tender in their acquittal; we have the assent of the judges who sat on the commission, and who passed sentence after full opportunities of examination, with all the evidence before their eyes.' Our author also states, that none of the male convicts denied, while several acknowledged their guilt on the scaffold. The queen, indeed, denied her guilt; and Mr. Fronde admits its 'antecedent improbability.' On the other hand, 'we have also the improbability, which is great, that the king, now forty-four years old, who in his earlier years had been distinguished for the absence of those vices in which contemporary princes indulged themselves, in wanton weariness of a woman for whom he had revolutionised the kingdom, and quarrelled with half Christendom, suddenly resolved to murder her.' Mr. Froude further remarks the full approval given to the sentence on Anne and her paramours by parliament, the month after the execution, a fact to which he attaches great importance.
After all, however, the question of the criminality of the queen must be held as matter of doubt. It looks ill for the theory of Henry's belief in Anne's guilt, that, the very day after her death in the Tower green, he married Jane Seymour. We must also remember, that to get rid of one wife in order to obtain another, does not stand solitary in the history of King Henry. On the whole, it seems most probable that the poor queen had been simply imprudent in speaking with levity to those young courtiers, and that their confessions referred merely to gay and licentious talk, in which they had indulged in compliance with the lady's humours. The complaisance of ministers, courtiers, parliaments, and even judges to the imperious Tudor sovereigns, scarcely needs to be pointed out by us.
Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Allie is Wired, McCain Blogs, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Cao's Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Dime con quien andas y te digo quien
eres.
08 Bloggers Alliance
">
View my page on Political Voices of Women
![Pink Flamingo [Home]](http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/blog_photos_album/flamingo_crossing.jpg)
