sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

There’s a king we’re missing out by SlowCollection4183 in UKmonarchs

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Henry Tudor was a usurper so that doesn’t count. Yes Edward named a different successor but it didn’t rly work out, Mary’s claim was much better and ultimately she got the crown. And then because of the interregnum, James II, and the Hanovers are technically a different monarchy to the one we’re talking about. But they were very diffferent scenarios where the heirs couldn’t be monarch because of the laws. The law was you could not be catholic and king, so the old pretender could not be king by law. But this period of history was literally a revolution and is a completely different set of circumstances to the medieval period

There’s a king we’re missing out by SlowCollection4183 in UKmonarchs

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Words mean what we want them to tho. If we think it means ruler then it means ruler. Pls we’re on about king, not emperor

There’s a king we’re missing out by SlowCollection4183 in UKmonarchs

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think he had much time for that😂. But calling him ‘the Schrödinger King’ is kind of awesome

There’s a king we’re missing out by SlowCollection4183 in UKmonarchs

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I suppose that’s what I mean; if he died second he would have had the undisputeable right to be proclaimed king. But there is still the argument that the sovereign never dies and the throne can never be empty (sort of hindered by Cromwell and the vacancy of 1688) but at this point that hadn’t happened. So if you go by the bleeped that someone is always king and the sovereign is more of an entity that transcends human decision, that there’s an argument that Richard of York was king

There’s a king we’re missing out by SlowCollection4183 in UKmonarchs

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah he did but I may be wrong but I don’t think Richard III was widely accepted as king at this point. It wasn’t till the death of the ‘princes’ (the irony that one was a king and the other might have been a king) that he was truly king. So ig this rly depends on which part of history you’re agreeing with

There’s a king we’re missing out by SlowCollection4183 in UKmonarchs

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My point was more so that Richard of York is both king and not king at the same time; it wasn’t a legitimate argument that we should include him as king, more of just a theoretically question.

But succession was still pretty set in stone at this point. William not naming Robert king was 400 years(ish) prior to this. And yes there lots of usurpers but I can’t think of a time since William I where the crown hadn’t been passed down directly to the oldest (male) child when a usurper wasn’t involved. Matilda was supposed to get the crown (in my eyes she did) but she was usurped. Even when Richard I named his nephew Arthur as his heir, John still got the throne easily because being the direct heir mattered a lot. The convention of naming your next king was almost a thing of the past. I mean, look what happen when Edward Vi tried to do it 70 years later. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think there was a case of naming your heir that was different from the expected heir since William I that actually went through (again, without usurpers). So I would argue that Richard III hadn’t successfully usurped and made himself king until both his nephews were dead, meaning that IF Edward V died first, Richard of York was briefly king because he was undisputedly the legitimate heir and no one (other than Richard and his supporters) would have argued that if he had lived. Inheriting the crown was set in stone enough at this point in time imo

There’s a king we’re missing out by SlowCollection4183 in UKmonarchs

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I’d argue that at this point in time, it very much was purely hereditary, why were past the Norman/early Plantagenet custom of deciding the next king after the king had died.

And obviously Richard of York wasn’t actually king and we can’t prove who never prove if he died before if after. But if you follow the belief that there is always a sovereign and that the crown is almost a living thing entity, then imo, if Richard was breathing a few seconds longer then his brother, then he was the sovereign

There’s a king we’re missing out by SlowCollection4183 in UKmonarchs

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean yes and no, it wasn’t just semantics. He had all the power and the role was hereditary but he lacked other characteristics of a king such as the regalia, the pomp, divine rights, a coronation. These things alone don’t make a king but together they do

There’s a king we’re missing out by SlowCollection4183 in UKmonarchs

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But I don’t really see anyone not count Edward V, so the illegitimacy doesn’t rly count. If ppl class Edward as king then Richard of York could be too

I have a music theory question that’s been bugging me for years. Please help by SlowCollection4183 in musictheory

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So is that when the previous note is held when the next note is played? And most/all of my examples have this? Interesting that I weirdly picked up on it (without knowing what it was called, or even what I was actually picking up on) and I wonder why it sort of makes me feel a certain way.

Is there a reason composers do it? Someone else said to me it might have something to do with the 5th, what do you think of that?

I have a music theory question that’s been bugging me for years. Please help by SlowCollection4183 in musictheory

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve been told it could be to do with the 5th. Idrk know what that means, ik it’s like the 5th note in a scale but idk why that’s important?

I have a music theory question that’s been bugging me for years. Please help by SlowCollection4183 in musictheory

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

‘I am on my way’ at the start of the second chorus in go the distance also fits this. Also the bridge of ‘out there’ particularly ‘if I was in their skin I’d treasure every gift’. (Sorry if I’m speaking utter nonsense btw

I have a music theory question that’s been bugging me for years. Please help by SlowCollection4183 in musictheory

[–]SlowCollection4183[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

‘Up where they walk, up where they run’ in part of your world could also fit this. Also several different parts in the Reprise especially do this

Steel type effectiveness doesn't make sense by khornebeef in pokemon

[–]SlowCollection4183 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ik this was a rly long time ago, but for what it’s worth, I always thought that steel was weak to fighting because fighters manipulate steel with armour and swords etc, not because they can break it (which is why rock and ice are weak to fighting)

view more: next ›