History Hub聽 permalink
Friday Quiz
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hello everyone,
Here's the Friday Quiz question:
How many Tudors ruled Britain? And who were they? (In date order please!)
Katy
-
Message 2
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Is this one too easy?!
-
Message 3
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Possibly, although I was criticised on last week's thread for being suspicious of an "easy" question (although not one set by you, I hasten to add!)
The answer in school text-book terms is 5: Henry VII (1485-1509), his son Henry VIII (1509-47) and his three children, Edward VI (1547-53), Mary I (1553-58) and Elizabeth I (1558-1603). However purists might add the "9 Days Queen" - Lady Jane Grey, great-niece of Henry VIIi, whom John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, tried to place on the throne following the death of Edward VI in 1553. As for rulers, one would have to subtract Edward VI, who was a minor, and replace him with the two regents of his reign - Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset (until 1552) and the aforementioned John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (until 1553). Both, needless to say, came to a sticky end.
Hope this answers your question, Katy. -
Message 4
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Thats great! Very detailed
Over to you Allan D...
Katy -
Message 5
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Ok, then, mention of the Tudors prompts me to a Welsh question also connected with royalty.
In 1911 the ceremony of the investiture of the Prince of Wales was revived, or perhaps more properly created, at the suggestion of the then Constable of Caernarvon Castle, the local MP and also Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George.
However who was Constable of Caernarvon ( and, as far as I know, still is) when the present Prince of Wales was invested there in 1969 and who was also responsible for organizing the ceremony? -
Message 6
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Objection!
No Tudors ever ruled Britain - they merely ruled England and Wales.
-
Message 7
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
I thought there was a catch!
Although James V was half a Tudor (as Henry VIII's nephew) and his daughter Elizabeth I's cousin and heir apparent (unluckily for her!) and her son the King of England (and Wales) (as well as Scotland) thanks to his Tudor (rather than his Stuart) bloodline. So the English have the Tudors to thank (or otherwise) for the Stuarts and the Scots similarly for the union of the two crowns.. -
Message 8
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Friday, 1st April 2011
I reckon James I and VI's protestantism had rather a lot to do with his being an acceptable heir to the English throne...
-
Message 9
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Maybe, but as the Puritans found out at the Hampton Court Conference he wasn't Protestant enough for their liking and when it came to his son, who married a Catholic, some argued it was hardly apparent at all. However his religious views would have counted for nought if he had not been blood-related to Elizabeth I. Robert Cecil would have been forced to consider some of he English claimants to the throne that he was determined to exclude.
I may have to go out soon, Catigern, so if you want to set a question, as you were technically correct in your response to Katy's original query, and nobody appears to want, or be bothered, to answer the one I set, please feel free. -
Message 10
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 1st April 2011
You don't think it's more likely that no one's able to, or like me has only just opened this thread? I have seen quite recently pictures of Charles being invested as Prince of Wales, but don't remember who was the Constable of Caernavon at the time. A well-known political Welshman? Unlikely to be a woman, I think.
-
Message 11
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
You're right, Caro, it wasn't a woman but also not a political figure although someone very well-known at the time but who has since disappeared from the headlines (but still remembered). He has a very Welsh name and title but was not born in Wales (as neither was Lloyd George!) and is not immediately thought of as Welsh (unlike Lloyd George!).
-
Message 12
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 1st April 2011
It wasn't Tony Armstrong Jones, Lord Snowdon was it? There's a faint glimmer of something lurking in the synapses.
-
Message 13
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Friday, 1st April 2011
lord snowdon
-
Message 14
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 1st April 2011
He has a very Welsh name聽
He must be called Stephen Jones then. I suppose there are some Welshman not called Stephen Jones, but they don't seem to play for the national rugby team.
Otherwise I only know Welsh literary figures (and even then I probably mean I know of Dylan Thomas, but surely he was born in Wales). -
Message 15
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Exactly right, Ferval, just pipped Bandick to the post. Your go, as Catigern seems to have passed.
-
Message 16
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Bandick, if you've got a question, go ahead. I'm busy cooking, the family always come on a Friday and I can't guarantee to get to the computer. If they're not keeping me busy, they've commandeered it themselves. Wish the quiz was any other day.
-
Message 17
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
You're right, Caro, he's called Jones (although not often, I should imagine!) and not a rugby player although he did cox the winning Cambridge crew in the 1950 Boat Race.
-
Message 18
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Friday, 1st April 2011
i cant set aquestion i have nothing ready... got the doctors with me again too.
-
Message 19
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
O dear, everyone's got an answer but no questions! In the absence of anyone else and to keep the thread going I'll set this one, inspired By Katy's numerous Tudors:
Which British Royal House contains only one monarch?
(i'm going out now but will be back soon but feel free to keep the thread going in my absence). -
Message 20
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 1st April 2011
I'm trying to work my way through this. I think all the Yorks and Lancastrians were the House of Plantagenet so not Henry 6th of Lancaster, I don't think. Then all those Tudors and Stuarts and Hanoverians.
The house of Orange? Though Mary was a Stuart. Or whatever Victoria was? -
Message 21
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Is this another dastardly trick question? The first *British* monarch was poor old Queen Anne, famous only for her very nice houses. So it must be the House of Stuart - before the Hanover lot took over? -
Message 22
Posted by Aloof Nudist (U1727083) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Which British Royal House contains only one monarch?聽
Saxe-Coburg? -
Message 23
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Surely there were two Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, Edward VII and George V pre-1917.
Alternatives both by marriage with a Mary - Willem Alexander Paul Frederik Lodewijk van Oranje-Nassau especially after Mary's death, and Philip of Spain, a Hapsburg. Of the two, William has the better claim, as he remained as sole monarch after Mary's death. -
Message 24
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Further thoughts : "British" rather than "English" presumably rules out Hapsburg (Philip), and Blois (Stephen).
-
Message 25
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Surely that means it must be King Stephen of Blois! Nephew of Henry I and cousin of Matilda, Henry I's choice and daughter. Her son was Henry II first of the Plantagents.Thinking aloud.
-
Message 26
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
I'm glad my "tricky" question (although not intended to be so) has provoked some debate and apologies for absence. Again, like the first question set by Katy we seem to have become tangled up with the word "British".
I could be naughty and argue that Cymbeline or Caractacus (or one of his predecessors whose name has escaped me) was the first British monarch i.e King of the Brythons but I'm not sure if they had separate ruling houses or, if they did, their names have not been preserved.
I think Temperance will find, however, that the first British monarch in the modern sense i.e. King of England, Wales and Scotland (and I suppose, arguably, Ireland) was James I and VI not Queen Anne, in whose reign the parliaments not the crowns were united, giving Great Britain (a term first used in the reign of James I) a full complement of Stuarts.
That would exclude therefore Stephen of Blois as he was most definitely an English rather than a British monarch, but even if I have committed the Sassenach mistake, of which both Katy and I were guilty at the top of this thread, of using 'British' as a synonym for 'English' Stephen claimed the throne as the Conqueror's grandson and it is he, not his uncle, Henry I, who is generally accounted the last of the Normans before Henry II became popularly accounted as the first of the Plantagenets, borrowing the name, in an era when surnames were uncommon, from his father.
If the House of Plantagenet is subdivided into the Houses of Lancaster and York - each has 3 entries apiece by my reckoning with Henry IV, Henry V and Henry Vi in the House of Lancaster and Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III in the House of York.
Now we come to the tricky part - the two prime candidates are William III in the House of Orange and Edward VII in the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The argument against the House of Orange is not that William III was not a member of it - he most certainly was - but it was a Dutch not a British royal house. From 1689-94 he was joint sovereign with his wife, Mary II, who was most definitely, as the daughter of James II, a Stuart and was succeeded in 1702, by his sister-in-law, Queen Anne, as the last of the Stuarts on the British throne. He also claimed the throne not only as the husband of a Stuart but as one himself, as the grandson of Charles I.
So, unless you can argue that there were two royal houses in position simultaneously and that the succession of Queen Anne marked a Stuart Restoration, which clearly it did not, then William III ought, by my reckoning to be included in the House of Stuart (although admittedly there was a divergence in the Stuart line with the abdication/removal of James II which became most marked after the Hanoverian Succession of 1714).
This brings us to the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, a truncated Anglicized version of the name of Edward VII's father, Prince Albert, who came from the ruling dynasty of Coburg in Germany. Victoria herself should have borne this name and she, rather, than her son, should be accounted the first of this house but, like the present Queen, as regnant Queen she did not change her name on marriage and is thus accounted the last of the House of Hanover despite, due to Salic Law, not ruling that state.
So if Edward VII is the first in the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is he also the last? To answer Ur-Lugal's point Edward's son, George V, who succeeded in May 1910 did indeed not change the name of the royal house to Windsor (after toying with suggestions such as "Plantagenet" and "Tudor") until July 1917 - more to assuage public opinion in the US which had just entered the war 3 months earlier and to assure its citizens that the war was not a quarrel between two Germanic dynasties rather than in Britain, as is still popularly believed (strong anti-German feeling had surfaced at the outset of the war in 1914 which would have been a more appropriate time for George V to make the change had he been principally concerned with British opinion).
So why isn't George V included in the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Simply because of the fiction that a royal house changes when the monarch does not when he says it does and, like William III, a monarch cannot belong to more than one royal house at once (at least not in the same country). Thus George V's name change was backdated to the start of his reign 7 years previously as he became the first of the House of Windsor which includes our present Queen. Will Charles III be the first monarch of the House of Mountbatten-Windsor? Will William V be the first monarch of the House of Spencer-Mountbatten? Only time will tell.
So, I award the prize to "that cantankerous Yank" if he's still around and, if not, to anyone else who has taken part in the above discussion or simply wants to set a question - and I thought mine was easy! I should have known better!! Apologies for a longer absence than I anticipated as well as a longer answer! -
Message 27
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Saturday, 2nd April 2011
So what鈥檚 the answer鈥?
-
Message 28
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd April 2011
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
-
Message 29
Posted by Aloof Nudist (U1727083) on Saturday, 2nd April 2011
What's this I hear that if Victoria had been born a boy, she (well, he) would have been King of both Great Britain and Germany and World Wars 1 and 2 would never have happened?
-
Message 30
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 2nd April 2011
Had Victoria been born a boy, she'd have been king of both the UK and Hanover, not the UK and all of Germany. There's no guarantee that the world wars wouldn't have happened, as the rest of Germany might still have been united under Prussia, or Prussia might still have taken over Hanover or we might even have had a 'world war' over Hanover, between Britain and her allies and Prussia and her allies.
-
Message 31
Posted by Aloof Nudist (U1727083) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
What was Hanover? A Germanic province of some sort?
Did the nation of Germany (as we know it today) even exist in 1837 or was it just a loose confederation of local principalities ruled by petty kings? -
Message 32
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
Yes, Hanover was a Germanic principality (or Electorate) which provided an alternative to the Catholic Stuart line (the son of James II) when Queen Anne died in 1714 (George I was James I's great-grandson). Germany did not exist by 1837 but the number of states had been extensively rationalised since the days when the German states had come out from under the thumb of the Holy Roman Empire following the Treaty of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years' War in 1648 and were coming under the increasing influence of Prussia which had extended its territories to the economically productive areas of the Rhinelands (you have to view the process of German unity rather like a number of smaller and inefficient enterprises being bought out by a more efficient and ruthless competitor).
Prussia already dominated much of northern Germany both politically and economically and this dominance was achieved by economic rather than military means through the use of the Zollverein (or customs union) initially introduced in 1818 to unify the central part of Prussia in the east with its economically more productive territories in the west but gradually extended throughout the whole of northern Germany.
By the 1850s few doubted that Germany would eventually be united under Prussian leadership and Prince Albert educated his eldest daughter, Victoria, with a view to her becoming part of the Prussian Royal Family (she was betrothed to the second-in-line to the Prussian throne in 1855, at the age of 14). The argument was whether this unification would be under a largely absolutist monarchy, such as that of Austria-Hungary or Russia, or a constitutional monarch such as that of Britain (and Scandinavia and the Low Countries). Thanks to Bismarck, and despite Albert's best efforts and intentions, it turned out to be the former rather than the latter model.
The Duke of Cumberland, Queen Victoria's uncle and 5th son of George III, who succeeded as King (it had been raised from an Electorate by the Congress of Vienna as there was no longer, thanks to Napoleon, a Holy Roman Emperor to elect) Ernest I of Hanover in Victoria's stead illustrated some of the problems that might have been faced had Britain and Hanover still shared a joint head of state.
He opposed the Zollverein but was eventually forced to join in 1850, a year before his death. His son, George V (not that one), argued for neutrality in Bismarck's war with Denmark in 1864 and refused to send troops to support Prussia's claims unlike many other German states. In 1866 he supported Austria in the Austro-Prussian War which led to Bismarck annexing Hanover by force - a rare example of Prussia extending his territory in this way - most of the German states voluntarily accepted Prussian suzerainty and was forced into exile.
Had Hanover been ruled directly by the British sovereign at the time there is no doubt that such an action would have been viewed as a casus belli in Britain and so far from Britain's connexion with Hanover being a cause of amity with a Prussian-led Germany it would have been quite the opposite and successive British governments must have breathed a sigh of relief that, due to the gender of the monarch, they were not drawn directly into disputes over the Zollverein, the Schleswig-Holstein Question or membership of the German Confederation, the last two turning violent.
However ignoring the rise of Prussian militarism in the 19th century led to it having to be confronted, on a far larger scale, in the 20th.
There is an interesting parallel regarding the British (or English) monarchy between Normandy and Hanover. Both produced royal dynasties yet both became separated from the Crown and absorbed into foreign countries. The Conqueror, who regarded his two domains of England and Normandy as equally significant, separated them between his sons. By the time of King John Normandy had fallen under the sway of the Angevin Kings of France and the monarchy gradually turned from being a French to an English dynasty.
George I, who spoke no English, spent more of his time in Hanover than he did in Britain and was buried there. In 1837 the personal link was severed and in 1866 so was the dynastic link as a Germanic dynasty in Britain was rapidly Anglicizing itself. -
Message 33
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
As That Cantankerous Yank hasn't set another question, may I offer one - it's nice to keep the quiz alive all week.
It was a gift from a desperate king of France and Henry VIII was able to use it to show that he intended to keep the Church well and truly under the thumb.
Why was the French king desperate and what was his gift called? -
Message 34
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Wednesday, 6th April 2011
was this anything to do with the field of the cloth of gold...?
-
Message 35
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
I'm afraid not, bandick.
Funnily enough, Jonathan Rhys Meyers is very vaguely connected - a part he played in 2003. He was better than Timothy Dalton. -
Message 36
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
mmm鈥 only thing I know about Mr. Dalton is as James Bond, and although Henry VIII may have found a useful place for him in court鈥 its unlikely to be the answer.
Could be an idea for a Blackadder type of storyline鈥 James Bonds family through the Tudor period鈥 but who鈥檇 play Baldrick鈥? -
Message 37
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Nowt to do with James Bond, Blackadder or Baldrick, bandick.
I'm running rings round you with this one (clue). -
Message 38
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Jonathan Rhys Meyers was in Bend it like Beckham which must be about 2003 (or maybe earlier) but I can't see what that could have to do with anything. I don't know what else he's been in beside the Tudors.
-
Message 39
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Here he is:
-
Message 40
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Better add this - Jonathan Rhys Meyers is shown here as King Philip II of France. He wasn't the king of France mentioned in the question, but he's still very important. -
Message 41
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Right鈥 did the French king鈥 got to be a Louis the something鈥 offer his sister to our Henry to keep him from claiming his rights as a claimant to the French throne鈥 nah! Was it our Henry offered his sister to Louis鈥 coz鈥︹, coz鈥 sisters can be such a pain鈥 I don鈥檛 know and I鈥檝e lost the plot.
Yes鈥 I knew he was in the bendy Beckham thing鈥 but fraid football has a strange effect on me eyes and so I couldn鈥檛 watch it鈥 this clue to the clue is running rings around you鈥 mmmm
This clue鈥 was it the ring鈥 or in the ring鈥 god I wish I was on the drugs now鈥 at least I鈥檇 have an excuse for talking such utter rubbish. Like the Irish police inspector said when interviewed on the TV news about the hunt for Sherga鈥 鈥淭o be honest, we haven鈥檛 a clue where the god dam horse is, but we have the clairvoyants working on it鈥. Must have inspired a lot of confidence.
And I haven鈥檛 got a clue either. -
Message 42
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Thought everyone had given up, bandick.
It was indeed a Louis. He was really desperate for help and actually travelled to England himself to offer the gift. But which Louis? And to whom was this costly gift offered and why?
Louis the Desperate is linked to the character played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Timothy Dalton in 'The Lion in Winter'.
Henry VIII ended up grabbing the gift for himself and then used it to give a thumbs up sign to Rome.
It's not Friday, so googling and research are not only permittted but actively encouraged!
I'm not so well tonight, so please hurry up! I'm off to bed soon. -
Message 43
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Temps鈥 I鈥檓 googling away like it鈥檚 going out of fashion, I can鈥檛 see the connection and I don鈥檛 want to rush it by just lightly skimming over this stuff, so you toddle off to bed, sweet dreams and I鈥檒l enjoy myself reading while your fast asleep in your ivory towers.
It鈥檚 a wee bit too interesting to rush鈥 and by the way I have just got the books I ordered from the mobile library for my scaffolding research鈥 Time Travellers Guide by Ian Mortimer鈥 and The Spire by William Golding鈥 so I鈥檝e one ek of a lot to read, so little time to do it.
Just re read your not so well鈥 working too hard鈥? Need a holiday鈥? Take a day off鈥 tell them I said it was ok鈥
Regards鈥 carry on with this latter. -
Message 44
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Friday, 8th April 2011
Temps hi鈥 thank gawd you鈥檝e revealed the answer on the fresh quiz page coz it was driving me nuts.
Despite hours spent reading鈥 I missed every clue that was almost jumping off the page and slapping me around the face.
Didn鈥檛 have a clue from start to finish, and in the end couldn鈥檛 see the wood for the trees.
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 聽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
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 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.