Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Here and there. Mostly there
    Posts
    213
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    Historical biographer Michael Jones has reportedly uncovered evidence King Edward IV, who ruled England from 1461 to 1483, was the illegitimate son of a French archer[/b]
    Now, this is truly fasinating. A French archer who got "intimate" with the queen of England behind the King's back and sired a future king. Wonder what the circumstances behind that was? Sounds like the makings of a soap or at least a porno film.


    Life is short, death is long. Be kind to those you meet along the road.

  2. #12
    Daneman Guest
    Don't ya just love facts based on "reportedly uncovered evidence?"

    Sounds like hear-say to me but isn't it interesting how many people will accept fact based on one guy "reportedly (we don't know for sure but reportedly) uncovering someting?

    Ten if it turns out that the "evidence" was false then one can always just back up and say, "Well I didn't say it was true... just that I had heard something about it."

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    796
    King Micky.. a nice ring to it!


    Brisneyland Aust.

    Time flies like an arrow.
    Fruit flies like a banana.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17,908
    Originally posted by Daneman@Jan 7 2004, 04:58 PM
    Hey G-man Royal History has always fascinated me.

    What about way back to Queen Elisabeth the "###### child" of Henry VIII taht brought England to world dominace by playing France and England against each other and getting Sir Francis Drake to rob and pillage both ofteh countries trade ships?
    queen elizabeth believed that philip of spain owed england part of the treasure discovered by cortez in the "new world". this of corse belonged to the incas and the aztecs. cortez justified his "robbing" these people of their gold by calling them heathen. anyway as i was saying "good" queen bess promised a pardon to every english pirate who gave up piracy to become a "buccaneer" of the crown. men like captain kidd were then given licence to attack the spanish ships which were sailing from south america to spain laden with inca and aztec gold. just as long as "she" got her cut. it wasn't the french we were fighting but the spanish. the armada of course for the most part was sunk by the weather. but england and drake took the credit and saw this as God being on their side for being such a "godly" nation.

    Using Signlab, CorelDRAW for design and Summacut D60 for sutting

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17,908
    Originally posted by Daneman@Jan 7 2004, 04:58 PM
    Hey G-man Royal History has always fascinated me.

    What about way back to Queen Elisabeth the "###### child" of Henry VIII taht brought England to world dominace by playing France and England against each other and getting Sir Francis Drake to rob and pillage both ofteh countries trade ships?
    queen elizabeth was not the ###### child of henry 8th. she was the daughter of queen ann his second wife.

    Using Signlab, CorelDRAW for design and Summacut D60 for sutting

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17,908
    Originally posted by AuntieEm@Jan 7 2004, 05:18 PM
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
    Historical biographer Michael Jones has reportedly uncovered evidence King Edward IV, who ruled England from 1461 to 1483, was the illegitimate son of a French archer
    Now, this is truly fasinating. A French archer who got "intimate" with the queen of England behind the King's back and sired a future king. Wonder what the circumstances behind that was? Sounds like the makings of a soap or at least a porno film. [/b][/quote]
    that was not right. it was not a french archer but one of the kings archers i believe.

    Using Signlab, CorelDRAW for design and Summacut D60 for sutting

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17,908
    Originally posted by Daneman@Jan 7 2004, 05:30 PM
    Don't ya just love facts based on "reportedly uncovered evidence?"

    Sounds like hear-say to me but isn't it interesting how many people will accept fact based on one guy "reportedly (we don't know for sure but reportedly) uncovering someting?

    Ten if it turns out that the "evidence" was false then one can always just back up and say, "Well I didn't say it was true... just that I had heard something about it."
    dane it was not just a report there are french records to prove it. also the records had no intention of reporting the queen's infidelity to the king but of the kings mission of war. unfortunately because the king was away at war he couldn't possibly have been the father of the queens child. the weeks just didn't add up. from the time of conception to the time of birth gave the royal court a bit of a headache to explain. i mean how do you explain the queen being pregnant for 11 months?

    Using Signlab, CorelDRAW for design and Summacut D60 for sutting

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Sturgeon Lake, Minnesota USA
    Posts
    2,829

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17,908
    did you just say that...........IN SIGNFORUMS

    Using Signlab, CorelDRAW for design and Summacut D60 for sutting

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17,908
    of course all you scots, welsh and irish and you americans must acknowledge that the queen is not just the queen of england but the queen of breat britain and northern ireland or we may as well dismember the union flag

    Using Signlab, CorelDRAW for design and Summacut D60 for sutting


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •