History Hub permalink
Friday Quiz
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Morning all,
Here's this weeks quiz question:
Who was the last British monarch to lead troops into battle, and what was the name of the battle?
K
-
Message 2
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 25th March 2011
I have a feeling this question causes some controversy. Richard III did, but his winning opponent then became king, so he did too and was a monarch later. Charles 1st didn't lead his own troops, did he?
James 4th of Scotland at the Battle of Flodden Field? For all I know there might be Irish kings leading their troops later than that.
Caro. -
Message 3
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Hmm, perhaps I should have said 'the last British king to fight in battle', maybe that will make it less controversial?
K -
Message 4
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Wasn't it the fat, bad tempered one? Henry the eigth of that name somewhere over the channel in France somewhere?
-
Message 5
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Friday, 25th March 2011
think it was george ll but dont know the battle... -
Message 6
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 25th March 2011
In reply to islanddawn:
Wasn't it the fat, bad tempered one? Henry the eigth of that name somewhere over the channel in France somewhere?Â
I´ve also thought it might be him, islanddawn when he was on his last campaigne in France to take Bologne. -
Message 7
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 25th March 2011
It was indeed King George II at the Battle of Dettingen against the French in 1743.
Over to you bandick!
K -
Message 8
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Actually this is by default, as I read your first question being the last to lead an army into battle… and then you changed to clarify it to ‘who fought in battle…’…
and as I don’t know the name of the battle I really don’t feel the baton should come to me… so anyone else like to take it… -
Message 9
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 25th March 2011
To say that George II either led his army or fought at Dettingen in the War of Austrian Succession is rather an overstatement if not a complete untruth as George was a late arrival and the actual overall commander (of a combined British-Hanoverian-Austrian Force) was actually John Dalrymple, Earl of Stair.
George's "leadership" was wholly symbolic as he led his army out at the start of the battle but retired to the safety of the rear before it made contact with the French. Once the battle started his horse bolted and he spent most of its course sheltering under an oak tree guarded by a regiment of soldiers (the Cheshires used to claim the honour despite the fact that they were stationed in Gibraltar at the time!)
The last British monarch to command his army in a meaningful sense of the word is probably William III at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 (when his opponent was his predecessor, James II). The last to be killed in battle was Richard III at Bosworth in 1485 (the others being Richard I, Harold II and Alfred's three rothers). The last monarch to have fought in battle was George VI who, as a 20yo midshipman, was present at the Battle of Jutland in 1916 when he was mentioned in dispatches (he would have also liked to have been present as reigning monarch at the D-Day landings in June 1944 but was vetoed by Churchill). It might be more accurate to state that George II was the last monarch to be present at a battle in which his army participated.
In the absence of anyone else perhaps I could stick to the theme of "the last monarch to...". Who was the last British monarch to dismiss a Prime Minister who had not lost the confidence of the House of Commons and who was the Prime Minister? -
Message 10
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Hi Allan,
I wonder if it was Queen Victoria. This is just a guess.
Tas -
Message 11
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Nope (I'm sure she would have liked to dismiss a few of her PMs, especially Mr G!), but you're warm.
-
Message 12
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Well, probably not what you want, Allan, but it was Elizabeth II or at least her appointed Australian Governor-General who dismissed Gough Whitlam.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 13
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Technically, QEII didn't know about the sacking of Gough Whitlam until after the fact. Kerr acted on his own there, even though he was supposed to be acting on the Queen's behalf. Very miffied she was too, apparently.
-
Message 14
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Quite right, id. It may hacve escaped Caro's attention but Australia has been an independent country since 1900 with its own written constitution under which the Governor-General has the power to dismiss Federal Ministers (a power which Whitlam had pointed out to Kerr, who was Whitlam's appointee as G-G, when he had to deal with recalcitrant colleagues who wouldn't resign). Kerr interpreted this power to include the PM.
When Kerr delivered the bad news to Whitlam, Whitlam's reaction was, interestingly, to ask to ring Buckingham Palace (so that presumably Her Maj would overrule Kerr). However Whitlam was refused the call. Had Whitlam managed to get through the advice of the Palace would have been that it was nothing to do with the Queen.
In any event, I was parochially thinking in terms of the UK. -
Message 15
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Hmmm, is Australia more independent than New Zealand? Neither of them are republics and our GG still is considered as representing the Queen. I'm sure Australia's is too and their actions are taken on behalf of the British monarch. Kerr's action was hugely controversial at the time, and I don't think a present-day governor-general would dare take that action now.
I knew you were thinking of the UK, really. -
Message 16
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 25th March 2011
I'm going out - shall be passing a pub which has the monarch concerned's head on its sign. In full Naval uniform of the period. I suppose the PM did have a somewhat Australian flavour.
-
Message 17
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Couldn't have given better clues myself, Ur-g. Have a drink for me.
-
Message 18
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 25th March 2011
I think the constitutional position of both Australia and New Zealand as clarified by the Statute of Westminster is that they are independent, sovereign states which freely choose to be members of the Commonwealth. It is true that the Queen's powers are delegated to the Governor-General (who is invariably a citizen of the country concerned) but the appointment is made on the advice of the relevant PM, whose advice, in line with constitutional precedent, the Queen automatically accepts.
The dismissal of Whitlam is not the only controversial exercise of a Governor-General's power. There was also the so-called "King-Byng" Affair in Canada in 1926 when Lord Byng, the Governor-General, refused Mackenzie King, then Canadian PM, a dissolution despite losing a vote of confidence in the (Canadian) House of Commons. As a consequence, King resigned and the Conservative leader, Arthur Meighen, formed a short-lived minority administration. More recently Stephen Harper, the present Canadian PM, governed Canada for 4 months after proroguing Parliament without calling for a dissolution.
Interestingly, although London played no part in any of these affairs they are used as precedents in UK constitutional practice (the Meighen case was referred to during the 1931 crisis here) because of the similarity of parliamentary systems. -
Message 19
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 25th March 2011
who is invariably a citizen of the country concernedÂ
Interesting you should mention that, Allan. Just last year there was a big row in NZ when one of our (most objectionable) television presenters wondered aloud if our next GG would be a real New Zealander. The incumbent was Sir Anand Sayanyand (and I won't guarantee my spelling is correct). The announcer had to resign. Our new GG is a former soldier, been chief of the Defence Force, I think. Has a Maori name which I am, as yet, a little - no, a lot - uncertain about - Jerry Matahiki or something. Oh, Mataparae, I see it is.
I think there was some suggestion at one stage after the recent close Australian election that the governor-general might have to choose again who would lead the government.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 20
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 25th March 2011
So let's close this question down. Ur-Lugal has virtually given it away - a sailor king with a vacant plinth in Trafalgar Square and a PM with Australian and Victorian (in more than one sense of the word) connections. Can't make it any easier.
-
Message 21
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Guess we'll just have to wait until Ur-Lugal gets back from wherever he's gone to. Anyway he's got the answer so he can set the next question.
-
Message 22
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Friday, 25th March 2011
In the meantime, the republican movement in Australia and New Zealand has just been put back by 50 years by the visit of Prince William, he was so empapathetic towards people who have suffered greatly.
Gran -
Message 23
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Good for him. The monarchy's safe while there's still the prospect of Diana's son coming to the throne.
-
Message 24
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 25th March 2011
To hurry things along - how about guessing who preceded Queen Victoria on the throne and what the state capital of Victoria in Australia is and then you will have answered my question(s) and can then set your own.
-
Message 25
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Well, I don't think I want to set my own question, but it was William IV and Melbourne. I shouldn't be slightly doubtful of Australia's state capitals, but I am a little.
-
Message 26
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Got it Caro, William IV dismissed Wiiliam Lamb aka Viscount Melbourne in November 1834 for refusing to dismiss Lord John Russell from his Cabinet for proposing appropriation of Church of England revenues in favour of the Duke of Wellington. The Duke declined the offer in favour of a caretaker appointment (including that for all the Secretaries of State) whilst Sir Robert Peel was recalled from holiday in Italy. Peel's administration lasted barely five months and Melbourne returned to office in April 1835 and outlasted William IV, who died in 1837, to become Victoria's first Prime Minister until Peel won the 1841 General Election.
Since then every Prime Minister has resigned either voluntarily or at the behest of the House of Commons or the electorate. -
Message 27
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Well, I didn't know any of those details, but you fortunately didn't ask them.
I don't know how long these quizzes last, but here is a question I think I have asked before in some form:
What name do a NZ sheep station and a (fairly) well-known English novel have in common, and why do they have it in common?
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 28
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Extremely early (by my standards) tomorrow morning, I'm off to Barnsley to take part in a World Record Attempt for the largest ever Samba band, so here's a little light music to help you on the way with Caro's cunning question.
-
Message 29
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Extremely early (by my standards) tomorrow morning, I'm off to Barnsley to take part in a World Record Attempt for the largest ever Samba band, so here's a little light music to help you on the way with Caro's cunning question. helps if you include the link, I've always found.
ps - the butler did it! -
Message 30
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Ur-Lugal is dropping some very heavy-handed clues so I suppose he should get the credit but the only work I have read by this author is "The Way of All Flesh" when I was a student. However I assume you mean "Erewhon" by Samuel Butler which is an anagram of "Nowhere".
Like his near-contemporary, Joseph Conrad, he led a picaresque life before settling down to his writing career including working as a sheep-shearer in New Zealand so I assume the station was named in his honour.
As a correction to my fractured syntax above which gave the impression that Lord John Russell wished to hand over Church of England revenues to the Duke of Wellington this was not the case. In fact he wanted them used for the purposes of education. I'm sure the Duke of Wellington would have declined the offer anyway as he did William IV's offer of the Premiership. -
Message 31
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
In an effort to keep the quiz alive, at least until the rightful winner of the previous round sets a question… may I take it upon myself to slip a quickie in…
Who would now be King or Queen if Edward VIII had not abdicated?
may we all wish urgy the very best in his record breaking bid on the bongo's... -
Message 32
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
I had to go out before I could reply to this, sorry. Was going to say that Ur-Lugal should just set all the questions since he knows all the answers. Allan, Butler owned the farm which he called Mesapotamia - it is still called that, though some of the land is now known as Erewhon. He found unoccupied land and tradition has it that he raced another man back to the Canterbury (Christchurch) offices in order to register his claim first.
(second paragraph mentions him buying the land)
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 33
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
I was writing a much longer reply when my PC (or rather the internet on it) crashed so more briefly the answer is the present incumbent, H.M.The Queen, as the eldest child of the next in line, the Duke of York (who became George VI after his brother's abdication but would not have been so had his brother remained on the throne until his death in 1972).
Her rights to the succession would not have been affected by either her father's death in 1952 or by the fact that Edward VIII still had a surving brother in Henry, Duke of Gloucester alive in 1972 (he died in 1974). She would have succeeded her uncle in the same way that Victoria succeeded her uncle, William IV, in 1837 despite the fact that her own father, the Duke of Kent, had died 17 years earlier and that William IV had two surviving brothers, Ernest, Duke of Cumberland (who died in 1851) and Augustus, Duke of ussex (who died in 1843).
This did not apply to the Electorate of Hanover where the Salic Law governed the rules of succession and women were not allowed to inherit and the Duke of Cumberland inherited William's title as Ernest I, thus separating the British Crown from its German possessions, which turned out to be a considerable advantage given the rise of Bismarck. -
Message 34
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
The assumptions behind this question (and answer) is that Edward VIII would still not have had children had he been king and and if he had the marriage would definitely have been morganatic. (Why Morganatic, by the way? What does Morgan have to do with it?)
Caro. -
Message 35
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Caro sorry for bustin in on your question… I was thinking Canterbury, but for all the wrong reasons… I was thinking Chaucer… stupid boy…
Allen… Coo lummy… can’t argue with any of that…
Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 less than a year after becoming King to marry Wallis Simpson who was already twice divorced.
His younger brother Bertie became King George VI and was the father of the present Queen Elizabeth II.
He died in 1952, and Edward who had no children died in 1972.
So even if Edward had not abdicated Elizabeth would now be Queen. She would have come to the throne in 1972 instead of 1952. -
Message 36
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
The term apparently comes from a Latin phrase meaning "dowry" as follows:
The bride received a settled property from the bridegroom's clan — it was intended to ensure her livelihood in widowhood, and it was to be kept separate as the wife's discrete possession. However, when a marriage contract is made wherein the bride and the children of the marriage will not receive anything else (than the dower) from the bridegroom or from his inheritance or clan, that sort of marriage was dubbed as "marriage with only the dower and no other inheritance", i.e. matrimonium morganaticum.Â
Edward apparently put forward a proposal of morganatic marriage to Mrs Simpson (in which she would not be styled "Queen" nor would any children inherit the crown) to Baldwin as a compromise but he rejected it on the grounds that the Dominon governments were against the idea although we now know that he had not bothered to consult them.
The most famous example of a morganatic marriage is probably that between the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to Franz Josef as Austrian Emperor, and Sophia. Franz Ferdinand remained in line to inherit but his children would not have done so. However this prospect was ended by Prinzip one June afternoon in Sarajevo.
Since we are on the subject of familial sucession and going back to my favourite topic (you may have guessed by now!) of British PMs - which nephew succeeded his uncle as PM and what colloquial phrase did this give rise to?
Not too difficult, I hope. -
Message 37
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Lord (Robert) Salisbury appointed (unexpectedly) hid fasve nephew, Arthur Balfour, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury - hence
"Bob's your Uncle" - though I think the etymology is disputed.
World Record duly achieved at the great resort of Copacabarnsley! 651 other idiots there! -
Message 38
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
I didn't realise you were in Barnsley, Ian! Could have come and cheered you on. That's where my son teaches. We went on a little outing today, but took in Buxton.
Thanks for the info, Allan. I see that morganatic which I took to have a connection with the name Morgan actually comes from the word for morning.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 39
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Yes, Caro, the record-setting groove was broadcast live on Dearne FM. Blocos from as far afield as Edinburgh and Lincoln as well as our 3 from Worcestershire were there in force.
-
Message 40
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Did it sound good?
-
Message 41
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Seemed fine from my position in the middle of the bloco - bet it sounded L O U D from outside. Met a Barnsley-born US citizen from upstate N.Y. who was visiting family 2 streets away, who wanted tp know what all the racket was about, and did an Ancient Mariner upon me as I and two other Sambistas were repairing to the nearest hostelry to partake of liquid refreshment (no caipirinha available, though)
-
Message 42
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Congratulations, U-L, and more or less right about Arthur Balfour who succeeded his Uncle 'Bob' as PM in July 1902, although far from unexpectedly as he had established himself as Salisbury's deputy and heir apparent since the death of W.H.Smith, founder of the newsagent and bookseller chain, (upon whom Sir Joseph Porter, the "ruler of the Queen's Navee" in "HMS Pinafore" was reportedly based) in 1891.
Balfour was not Chief Secretary of the Treasury but (from 1891) First Lord of the Treasury and the only holder of the title who was not simultaneously recognised as PM and head of the government. Your go, as you have not only answered this but the previous two questions as well, if you're not too exhausted from your record-breaking efforts. -
Message 43
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Two authors, one English, one Irish, one Protestant, the other RC, agreed in 1936 each to write a novel, or novel sequence, one to explore travel in time, one to explore travel in space. The "time travel" ones morphed into something subtly different.
Sort them out, and name the books and authors concerned. -
Message 44
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Are you referring to C.S.Lewis (who was born in Ireland) and J.R.R.Tolkien? However I thought they were both committed Anglicans. Lewis did the space-travel books, of which there were three I think but I thought Tolkien didn't manage to complete his one. I don't think they were linked to his "Lord of the Rings" series as I think he had started those earlier.
Did Lewis' books have any influence obn his, later, "Chronicles of Narnia" series? -
Message 45
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Did Graham Greene write time travel? I thought he might be an English Catholic, but could well be wrong about both those things. Who else? I don't seem to know Irish novelists except from James Joyce and Colm Toibin. There must be hundreds. HG Wells? Surely (not very surely) he's English? Nevil Shute? No On the Beach isn't time travel.
Someone else will have to give you the actual answers.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 46
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
I see Allan has. I didn't think of Tolkein. And CS Lewis never comes to my mind.
-
Message 47
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Right authors, but you are wrong about their faiths, which seem to have been a cause of friction between the two. Tolkien's book was never finished, but elements appear to have migrated to his other works. I'd hesitate to say that much of the Ransome trilogy (except perhaps for the man/animal relationships in "Voyage to Venus") made it to Narnia.
-
Message 48
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 27th March 2011
Absolutely right, Ur-L, Tolkien was not only a Catholic but one of the old school as this anecdote by his grandson, Simon, confirms:
I vividly remember going to church with him in Bournemouth. He was a devout Roman Catholic and it was soon after the Church had changed the liturgy from Latin to English. My grandfather obviously didn't agree with this and made all the responses very loudly in Latin while the rest of the congregation answered in English. I found the whole experience quite excruciating, but my grandfather was oblivious. He simply had to do what he believed to be right.Â
Given his outlook I can understand why some critics have found "Lord of the Rings" anti-democratic or even proto-fascist. I think that's why I have always found Lewis, in both his writing and religious views, infinitely more accessible. -
Message 49
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Sunday, 27th March 2011
Right I’m going to be cheeky yet again, for with no one setting another question I will… rekindling the thread and revisiting our monarchy as a theme:
Which of our Kings or Queens reigned for the longest time? -
Message 50
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 27th March 2011
George III
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.