View previous topic | View next topic

Embrace General Ignorance

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

hetch
132305.  Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:55 am Reply with quote

andymac wrote:

Anne of Cleves was annulled, not divorced, meaning it was not legally a marriage.
The pope declared his marriage to Anne Boleyn to be void as he was still married to Catherine of Aragon (and since this was before Henry withdrew from Catholicism, Catholic law still applied in England).
The marriage to Catherine of Aragon was also declared invalid by the king himself, as she was previously married to his brother Arthur and it was unlawful to marry your brother's widow.
That's 3, but, since the marriage to Catherine was invalid, then the Pope's declaration would be wrong, as Henry was never really married to Catherine. So maybe 4.


The Catholic Church could have recognised three of Henry's wives. Indeed, if pushed, maybe even five.

One could argue that Henry's marriages to both Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves were valid as Henry was a widow on both occasions (following the deaths of Catherine of Aragon and Seymour herself, respectively).

However, even though he was a widow once again when he married Catherine Parr, Anne of Cleves was still alive and well and living in the country estate she received off Henry as part of their separation.

That said, and we're going into real what if territory here, the grounds for the annulment of her marriage to Henry (it had never been consummated) would also have been grounds within the Catholic Church.

So, if you really lean your head to the side and squint hard, you can make a case for Roman recognition for all of Henry's wives, aside from Anne Boleyn. Can't really do anything for her....

So that'd be three (or five) then.

 
bistmath
136720.  Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:22 am Reply with quote

Eishkimojo wrote:
Stephanee wrote:
Was there a dreadful shortage of men at that time? I mean who in their right mind wanted to sleep with that particular gentleman? I just don't get it. Death seems preferrable. Did a girl absolutely have to marry that guy for alliance sake or could she at least negotiate, say yes I will marry him but live in my own castle with guards posted at the door to shoot him on sight if he brings his hideous self my way?
Argh, the life of women back then seems so hopeless and despairing.


I wouldn't knock it. I guess he was considered very virile in his day. Plus he was a king. I guess back then, status could make up for a miserable marriage.


isn't that called Kissenger syndrome? the aphordisiac effect of power? *hasn't checked her facts and awaits the klaxon of stupidity*

 
samivel
136878.  Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:18 pm Reply with quote

Wouldn't it be anachronistic to call it Kissinger Syndrome? After all, it was 450 years ago.

 
copperbottom
137021.  Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:06 am Reply with quote

Anne of Cleves was annulled, not divorced, but in English law this does not mean it was not legally a marriage. We have the concepts both of a voidable and of a void marriage. The latter arises when the marriage was an impossibility (eg one of the participators was under age, or the two parties were too closely related, or of different species). A voidable marriage is one that could have worked, but didn't - eg non consummation. In such a case the ceremony remains valid, and, until the court pronounces the decree of nullity, the parties are in fact husband and wife.

Anne of Cleves was a wife, imhop.

 
jblackley
163708.  Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:06 pm Reply with quote

Eishkimojo wrote:
I guess back then, status could make up for a miserable marriage.


"Back then"????

 
soup
163729.  Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:14 pm Reply with quote

Asta wrote:

I always thought all the colors were legitimate except indigo, which was added in so the acronym Roy G. Biv would be a viable (and pronounceable) name.


I never heard of that acronym before. The version I heard was "Richard Of York Gave Battlle In Vain".

 
joek
189907.  Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:01 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Oh Andrew !!!

Actually of the three "facts" there - one is a commonly held belief which is wrong, one is open to debate but kind of has several answers, and one is is in fact true. (The show's explanation as to why it isn't doesn't convince me, anyways.)

But it would be making life far too easy if I said which was which, so you'll have to buy the book...

(All three matters have been discussed on this forum as it goes, but still buy the book as I'm sure there are loads more QI things in it!)


Well, I would say two are probably/ possibly right right- but depends a lot on how you define the terms- one being debatable+ one is definatley true

 
suze
189914.  Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:17 am Reply with quote

Welcome to the forums joek!

I had to look back to see what the three things referred to were, but in fact they were:

The number of wives Henry VIII had. Not six, but somewhere between one and five depending on how one interprets things. See post 63808.

The inventor of the telephone. Not Alexander Graham Bell - he merely refined an invention which had already been made.

The number of moons the Earth has. This is probably the single most debated topic in the history of these boards (with the possible exception of the televisual drama House MD). But the answer is "one". If you use the Search Forums function and look for Cruithne, you'll see just how many times we've been there!

 
Davini994
192252.  Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:40 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
...If you use the Search Forums function and look for Cruithne, you'll see just how many times we've been there!


Speak for yourself, I've never been... we've used that joke before as well, haven't we?

;)

 
Rift
363859.  Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:58 am Reply with quote

Regarding the Book of General Ignorance;

A) Should i believe everything in there?

B) There a couple of things i noticed, e.g. on a few pages (i will have to look them up and add the page numbers later) the are a few grammatical mistakes, most of which involve unneccesary repetition of words, was this done deliberately to form some kind of hidden code?

 
dr.bob
363868.  Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:04 am Reply with quote

Rift wrote:
Regarding the Book of General Ignorance;

A) Should i believe everything in there?


No.

You should never believe anything you read, that's the whole point of the book. However, it will hopefully inspire you to do some of your own research to verify if something in the book is true or not.

There are some errors in the BoGI. If you spot them, feel free to point them out here. Although probably best to do a quick search first to see if the subject has come up before.

Rift wrote:
B) There a couple of things i noticed, e.g. on a few pages (i will have to look them up and add the page numbers later) the are a few grammatical mistakes, most of which involve unneccesary repetition of words, was this done deliberately to form some kind of hidden code?


No.

You should never ascribe to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

 
Rift
363894.  Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:18 am Reply with quote

Well thats rather dissapointing. I was hoping that the Elves at QI had discovered the hidden world conspiracy and had left clues for us to discover it ourselves. Ah well. Back to YouTube for my conspiracy clues it is then.

Still a rather good book.

 
bobwilson
410976.  Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:12 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
You should never ascribe to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


Surely that's an inversion? "Never fail to seek out and discover conspiracy. Do not assume human incompetence universal".

(Bet you don't know where that comes from).

 
mckeonj
411004.  Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:58 pm Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Quote:
You should never ascribe to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


Surely that's an inversion? "Never fail to seek out and discover conspiracy. Do not assume human incompetence universal".

(Bet you don't know where that comes from).

From the QI Book of Gentle Irony?

 
djgordy
726658.  Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:12 am Reply with quote

Why would be liable to fall asleep after a day of pimp, dick and bumfit?

Incorrect answer: you would be worn out from your sexual adventures.

Correct answer: you would have been counting sheep in Westmoreland.

1 -5 = Yan, tahn teddera, meddera, pimp.

6 - 10 = settera, lettera, hovera, dovera, dick.

11-15 = yan-dick, tahn-dick, teddera-dick, meddera-dick, bumfit.

16-20 = yan-a-bumfit, tahn-a-bumfit, teddera-bumfit, meddera-bumfit, jiggot.

It is the monotony of the words which is though by some to be the cause of counting sheep sending people to sleep rather than anything to do with the sheep themselves. There are variations of the counting system all over the country. In Derbyshire it is:

Yain, Tain, Eddero, Peddero, Pitts, Tayter, Later, Overro, Covvero, Dix; then Bumfit for 15 and Jiggit for 20.

 

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group