If You Want

[Travis In Austin]

I thought Revenge of Geography was a very interesting read, it was controversial, but had some interesting thoughts about foreign policy being ultimately determined by the fate of geography. 

 

Here is a mixed review by the WSJ.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443686004577633490631541260

 

• Robert D. Kaplan is the bestselling author of sixteen books on foreign affairs and travel translated into many languages, including Asia's Cauldron, The Revenge of Geography, Monsoon, The Coming Anarchy, and Balkan Ghosts. He is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a contributing editor at The Atlantic, where his work has appeared for three decades. He was chief geopolitical analyst at Stratfor, a visiting professor at the United States Naval Academy, and a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Foreign Policymagazine has twice named him one of the world's Top 100 Global Thinkers.

[MORE KLIPSCH PLEASE]

The last time I was back in England was 1988....... I didn't like it.......

 

MKP :-)

[Wolfbane]

14 hours ago, wvu80 said:

 

I like to think I know a good amount of history, but you just blew me out of the water! 

 

If you want to understand exactly where the House of Windsor originated from you have to go back to Alfred the Great and the end of the 9th Century (the original 'royal house' for what is today Great Britain). Alfred's family tree was the House of Wessex. I believe there were at least nine royal houses with crown head's between the House of Wessex and the House of Hanover. That includes Royal Houses which includes the York's, Tudor's, Plantagenet's, Stewart's, Stuart's, Lancaster's, etc. etc. The crown heads of Europe mostly married to seal alliances and all of them are related in one or way or another if you go back far enough (i.e. after the fall of Rome).

 

Even the English House of Plantagenet (think Richard II and the War of the Roses) has some of their distant bloodline represented in today's Europeon Royal Families.

 

With the advent of World War I, Great Britain and Russia were at war with their royal cousin in Germany.

[jimjimbo]

When I lived in Singapore, I went to a few high level Ping Pong matches....Seeing it live is incredibly more impressive even than on TV.

[Islander]

Speaking of European monarchies, as I understand it, just a couple of centuries ago, six inter-related families ruled the whole continent.  That sounds like some kind of cartel to me.

 

To show how inter-related they were, when the bodies of the Romanovs (the Tsar of Russia's and his family) were discovered a few years ago, Prince Phillip of England, who's actually from Greece, was contacted to provide a DNA sample to help confirm the identities of the suspected Romanov bodies.

 

Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, is mentioned in the last line of this story.  The Bolsheviks went to extreme lengths to destroy the bodies.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/25/russia.lukeharding

 

According to this article, Tsar Nicholas II's cousin was King George V of England:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002829/Remains-Russian-Emperor-family-massacred-1917-revolution-exhumed-amid-doubts-authenticity.html

 

This article states that the bodies were buried in a shallow grave near a roadside because the truck transporting them to the mine broke down on the way there.

 

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/romanovs-forensic-identification-tsars-grave.html

 

Cousins George and Nicky, looking regal:  http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/king-george-tsar-nicholas-1913/

 

That last article explains more of the connections.  In it, I just learned that Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was nicknamed "the grandmother of Europe", because her descendants occupied the thrones of Denmark, Greece, Norway, Germany, Romania, Russia, Spain, and the United Kingdom at the time World War I broke out.

 

There's no end of this stuff, so I'm stopping here.

[Zen Traveler]

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 0:54 PM, dwilawyer said:

I thought Revenge of Geography was a very interesting read, it was controversial, but had some interesting thoughts about foreign policy being ultimately determined by the fate of geography. 

 

Here is a mixed review by the WSJ.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443686004577633490631541260

 

• Robert D. Kaplan is the bestselling author of sixteen books on foreign affairs and travel translated into many languages, including Asia's Cauldron, The Revenge of Geography, Monsoon, The Coming Anarchy, and Balkan Ghosts. He is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a contributing editor at The Atlantic, where his work has appeared for three decades. He was chief geopolitical analyst at Stratfor, a visiting professor at the United States Naval Academy, and a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Foreign Policymagazine has twice named him one of the world's Top 100 Global Thinkers.

I clicked on the link and it only allowed me this:

 

Geography is a redoubtable enemy. It beat Napoleon in Russia, Alexander in India, Cambyses in the Sahara and America in Vietnam, where vast distances and an unfamiliar environment impeded logistics and enervated the troops. It sank much of the Spanish Armada and fended the Mongols from Japan.

 

On that note and not really knowing where it was going to go I think Geography in regard to natural resources is where the "fate of geography" is going to be the most significance going forward...The Middle East is where borders and conflicts are going to have a major impact on countries that are nowhere near the region  and have proved so going into this millennium.

[Zen Traveler]

28 minutes ago, Islander said:

Speaking of European monarchies, as I understand it, just a couple of centuries ago, six inter-related families ruled the whole continent.  That sounds like some kind of cartel to me.

It has been a while since I studied European History but the escapade of the royals ARE the stories of legend and intrigue...The story of King Ludwig and the Neuschwanstein Castle in Fussen are interesting if for no other reason the Disney Castle was modeled after it. Reportedly, the folks got upset with him spending more money on artistic ventures than war and he was found floating in his own pool... If one ever gets the chance to go to Bavaria there are several of his family's castles in the area and well worth exploring on foot.

[Coytee]

.

[Travis In Austin]

On 10/21/2016 at 2:41 PM, Wolfbane said:

On 10/21/2016 at 2:41 PM, Wolfbane said:

On 10/21/2016 at 2:41 PM, Wolfbane said:

 

If you want to understand exactly where the House of Windsor originated from you have to go back to Alfred the Great and the end of the 9th Century (the original 'royal house' for what is today Great Britain). Alfred's family tree was the House of Wessex. I believe there were at least nine royal houses with crown head's between the House of Wessex and the House of Hanover. That includes Royal Houses which includes the York's, Tudor's, Plantagenet's, Stewart's, Stuart's, Lancaster's, etc. etc. The crown heads of Europe mostly married to seal alliances and all of them are related in one or way or another if you go back far enough (i.e. after the fall of Rome).

 

Even the English House of Plantagenet (think Richard II and the War of the Roses) has some of their distant bloodline represented in today's Europeon Royal Families.

 

With the advent of World War I, Great Britain and Russia were at war with their royal cousin in Germany.

If you want to understand exactly where the House of Windsor originated from you have to go back to Alfred the Great and the end of the 9th Century (the original 'royal house' for what is today Great Britain). Alfred's family tree was the House of Wessex. I believe there were at least nine royal houses with crown head's between the House of Wessex and the House of Hanover. That includes Royal Houses which includes the York's, Tudor's, Plantagenet's, Stewart's, Stuart's, Lancaster's, etc. etc. The crown heads of Europe mostly married to seal alliances and all of them are related in one or way or another if you go back far enough (i.e. after the fall of Rome).

 

Even the English House of Plantagenet (think Richard II and the War of the Roses) has some of their distant bloodline represented in today's Europeon Royal Families.

 

With the advent of World War I, Great Britain and Russia were at war with their royal cousin in Germany.

If you want to understand exactly where the House of Windsor originated from you have to go back to Alfred the Great and the end of the 9th Century (the original 'royal house' for what is today Great Britain). Alfred's family tree was the House of Wessex. I believe there were at least nine royal houses with crown head's between the House of Wessex and the House of Hanover. That includes Royal Houses which includes the York's, Tudor's, Plantagenet's, Stewart's, Stuart's, Lancaster's, etc. etc. The crown heads of Europe mostly married to seal alliances and all of them are related in one or way or another if you go back far enough (i.e. after the fall of Rome).

 

Even the English House of Plantagenet (think Richard II and the War of the Roses) has some of their distant bloodline represented in today's Europeon Royal Families.

 

With the advent of World War I, Great Britain and Russia were at war with their royal cousin in Germany.

This stuff has always fascinated me.  As I mentioned earlier, we were only required to go back to  William 1 (the Bastard, or The Conqueror).  QE 2 is a direct lineal descendant of W1.  She is his 22nd great-granddaughter (or there about) of William 1.  The reason why we only looked back to William is while the crown heads did  try to seal alliances, the other  way to become a legitimate monarch is by the Right of Conquest, which is how the Danish/French William did it and because William instituted the original law reforms, courts and codes which was what we were most concerned with.

 

Prior to the house of Wessex the Vikings were creating havoc all time and I only know a smidgeon of that complex history.  From the House of Wessex, (the descendants of the Angles, from which "England" gets its name and the Saxons, two Germanic tribes), you have the House of Denmark, by conquest, and one of my favorites, Swen Forkbeard, back to Wessex, than back to House of Denmark and King Cunut for awhile, and Wessex (restored, part deaux) and then the Norman Conquest.  From there they went to France and tapped the  House of Anjou which morphed into the Plantagents (and the  previously mentioned War of the Roses),  Then came the  illegitimate grandchildren of Edward III and the Battle of Bosworth field, launching the Tudor dynasty, Henry the VIII separating from the Catholic Church and ended with Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen (yeah right)  (by 3rd Succession Act) and started the House of  Stuart ending with Charles !.  Parliament figured  out they could fire their King (with extreme prejudice, "behold the head of a tyrant") and tended to make and approve their choices based on religion from that point.

 

Then the long Interregnum where they were ruled by a Protectorate (dictator), the Cromwells, which led to the  Stuart's (restored) until they fired James II.  That led Parliament to invite William and Mary to give it go.  BUT, they didn't have any kids and all of the rest of the Stuarts were Catholic.  That resulted in the Act of Settlement of 1701 (which was still in effect until 3 years ago).

 

The law on succession came more and more under the power and approval of Parliament.  Succession had more and more to do with religion. 

 

Parts of that history, from the Norman invasion up to the present time, are essential to understanding constitutional theory, especially ours as it derives from England/GB.

 

The Act of Settlement of 1701 provided that the monarch be Protestant and marry one, and gave preference to a male heir.  Then something happened, the Montbatten heirs (as the dynasty will be probably be named upon QEII's death), started getting married, notably Prince William.  There was a great amount of talk about what if he should  have a daughter before having a son.  This led to a surge for an amendment to the Act of Settlement, which required all of the Constitutional Monarch's to agree to, including Australia and Canada.  This was finally approved in 2013, and so from that point forward a British monarch can now marry a Catholic, and no preference is given to males or females as heir to the throne.  The Montbatten heirs that will probably take the throne are:  :

 

Charles, Prince of Wales and heir apparent

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge

Prince George of Cambridge

 

 

 

 

[Wolfbane]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

Speaking of European monarchies, as I understand it, just a couple of centuries ago, six inter-related families ruled the whole continent.  That sounds like some kind of cartel to me.

 

To show how inter-related they were, when the bodies of the Romanovs (the Tsar of Russia's and his family) were discovered a few years ago, Prince Phillip of England, who's actually from Greece, was contacted to provide a DNA sample to help confirm the identities of the suspected Romanov bodies.

 

Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, is mentioned in the last line of this story.  The Bolsheviks went to extreme lengths to destroy the bodies.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/25/russia.lukeharding

 

According to this article, Tsar Nicholas II's cousin was King George V of England:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002829/Remains-Russian-Emperor-family-massacred-1917-revolution-exhumed-amid-doubts-authenticity.html

 

This article states that the bodies were buried in a shallow grave near a roadside because the truck transporting them to the mine broke down on the way there.

 

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/romanovs-forensic-identification-tsars-grave.html

 

Cousins George and Nicky, looking regal:  http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/king-george-tsar-nicholas-1913/

 

That last article explains more of the connections.  In it, I just learned that Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was nicknamed "the grandmother of Europe", because her descendants occupied the thrones of Denmark, Greece, Norway, Germany, Romania, Russia, Spain, and the United Kingdom at the time World War I broke out.

 

There's no end of this stuff, so I'm stopping here.

 

George V and Tsar Nicholas were also 1st cousins to Kaiser Wilhelm. George V being a constitutional monach, Wilhelm less so... with Tsar Nicholas being the only absolute monarch in 1914. Of all the major powers monarchs only the British royal family maintained the throne. Thanks to the Magna Carta which is the document on which the US Bill of Rights is actually derived from.

 

Today the only 9 significant monarchs in Europe are the Kings/Queens of diamonds, hearts, spades, clubs and the Queen of the UK.

 

If you really want to cut to the chase of who's who in European royal houses pick up or borrow the latest edition of the Almanach de Gotha. This reference source was originally published in French but switched to English in 1998. English today has replaced French as the language of diplomacy in Europe.

[Zen Traveler]

Coytee, that's what I'm talkin about and I don't have similar pics digitized yet-- Ultra cool! Did you also visit Dachau?

[oldtimer]

1 hour ago, dwilawyer said:

That led Parliament to invite William and Mary to give it go.  BUT, they didn't have any kids

Probably a good thing since they were first cousins.

[Travis In Austin]

12 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Probably a good thing since they were first cousins.

We're they true first cousins, or first cousins once removed (child of a first cousin, like Jerry Lee Louis to Myra)?

 

I knew they were cousins, but I can't remember the details who was who'should aunt or uncle etc.  I think we had about 6 or 7 charts we were using to try and track all of this stuff.

 

What was really interesting to me is that if there was no heir apparent  (Succession crisis) how creative they got (going to children of mistress, etc.) and how in depth they looked at what religion a potential heir was raised in.

 

Likewise, if you became a potential heir to the throne you could end up being locked up, or worse, as in the case of The Two Princes.

 

It is a fascinating history especially the legal and constitutional side of it.

 

Travis

 

[Wolfbane]

54 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Probably a good thing since they were first cousins.

 

First cousin marriage was never uncommon in royal matrimony.  William and Mary had no children most likely due to William's sexual preference (he was homosexual).

 

As to finding suitable heirs, the rules of morganatic marriage was applied in Europe until 1918 (i.e. if one married below their station their offspring were officially disinherited). Morganatic marriage origins go back to Imperial Roman rule.

 

What makes this rather interesting today is there is not a single direct heir to Napoleon Bonaparte sitting on any Europeon throne. There are at least 5 direct heirs to Napoleon's 1st wife Josephine currently sitting on thrones (Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg and Sweden).

 

Ironically, Napoleon's imperial heir, Napoleon II, was the grandson of Josephine, not Napoleon.

 

 

[oldtimer]

1 minute ago, Wolfbane said:

First cousin marriage was never uncommon in royal matrimony.

How charming.

[oldtimer]

Maybe he was bi:  (from Britannia.com)

 

Mary II, born in 1662, was the daughter of James II and Anne Hyde. She was married to William of Orange as a matter of Charles II's foreign policy; she and William had no children. Mary died of smallpox in 1694. William III (William of Orange), born in 1650, was the son of William, Prince of Orange, and Mary Stuart (daughter of Charles I). Husband and wife were also first cousins, both being a grandchild of Charles I. William, one of the most significant players on the continent, constantly strove to spread Protestantism and decrease the Catholic influence of France and Spain. He died in 1702 from complications after being thrown from his horse.

William and Mary began their marriage under duress. She was twelve years younger than he and found him repulsive. Although terribly homesick while living in Holland, she eventually came to love both the man and his country. William maintained a long-lasting affair with Elizabeth Villiers, one of Mary's ladies-in-waiting, which prompted Mary to be completely devoted and subservient to her husband. William's demeanor towards Mary seemed cold and indifferent on the surface, but his deep grief over her death indicated just how much he relied upon and respected her.
 

[Wolfbane]

4 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Maybe he was bi:  (from Britannia.com)

 

Mary II, born in 1662, was the daughter of James II and Anne Hyde. She was married to William of Orange as a matter of Charles II's foreign policy; she and William had no children. Mary died of smallpox in 1694. William III (William of Orange), born in 1650, was the son of William, Prince of Orange, and Mary Stuart (daughter of Charles I). Husband and wife were also first cousins, both being a grandchild of Charles I. William, one of the most significant players on the continent, constantly strove to spread Protestantism and decrease the Catholic influence of France and Spain. He died in 1702 from complications after being thrown from his horse.

William and Mary began their marriage under duress. She was twelve years younger than he and found him repulsive. Although terribly homesick while living in Holland, she eventually came to love both the man and his country. William maintained a long-lasting affair with Elizabeth Villiers, one of Mary's ladies-in-waiting, which prompted Mary to be completely devoted and subservient to her husband. William's demeanor towards Mary seemed cold and indifferent on the surface, but his deep grief over her death indicated just how much he relied upon and respected her.
 

 

Nope, not a switch hitter and only swung in one direction.

[oldtimer]

It's certainly sounding like revolution was the better way to go.

[Coytee]

10 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Coytee, that's what I'm talkin about and I don't have similar pics digitized yet-- Ultra cool! Did you also visit Dachau?

 

 

 

 

Yep

[Travis In Austin]

13 hours ago, Wolfbane said:

 

Nope, not a switch hitter and only swung in one direction.

I'm not finding anything definitive on that.  Churchill isn't clear, and seems to be a great deal of debate with modern historians.

 

There are more clear examples, William Rufus, James II, etc.

 

Not sure who has made a compelling case one way or the other.