Guinea Weight of Queen Anne?

[Coin_Hunter 0]

Does anyone know much about this coin weight of Queen Anne? i.e. is it genuine? It's weight is approx. 8 grammes and diameter = 19 mm.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Coin_Hunter

[Rob 3,152]

Does anyone know much about this coin weight of Queen Anne? i.e. is it genuine? It's weight is approx. 8 grammes and diameter = 19 mm.

If the weight is about 8g that's ok, it doesn't pretend to be a coin that's ok, so it would appear to be genuine. Have a word with Paul Withers at Galata as this is his department and has written about them too so is clued up.

[Chris Perkins 228]

I like that. A very windswept Queen Anne.

[Coin_Hunter 0]

It was a windy day when they took the portrait.

[Red Riley 2]

I like that. A very windswept Queen Anne.

Don't think she was ever a beauty. Some sources say that her elder sister Mary was a real stunner, an opinion which I find hard to square with the frumpy double-chinned battleaxe on her joint coinage with William of Orange. And, she was only 30 when she died - do you think they used the right model?

Sorry, that probably qualifies for un-PC comment of the week.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

Don't think she was ever a beauty. Some sources say that her elder sister Mary was a real stunner, an opinion which I find hard to square with the frumpy double-chinned battleaxe on her joint coinage with William of Orange.

Mate...

How very ungallant to speak of a lady in such terms, the more so when she's not around to defend herself. She was also my Queen, I'm minded to challenge you to a duel.

I do grudgingly concede that Anne was a bit of a Moose however....

[Sylvester 15]

In some respects beauty in one era is different to beauty in another. In Tudor times beauty was all ultra slim waists and white pale complexions (only peasants had tans, because tans meant you had been outside toiling in the fields all day). In the 1700s fashions had changed, fat was in, if you were fat it meant you were rich and everyone wanted to be seen to be rich! Then there was the whole wig thing, going from the darker wigs brought in by Louis XIV and Charles II to the powered white wigs of the 1700s. Of course in modern times things have changed and beautiful women these days 'have' to be thin (so the media keeps portraying them) and a tan goes a long way, whereas deathly pale is a no no.

So Mary may well have been a stunner by late 17th century standards.

[Chris Perkins 228]

Mary looks alright. Had I been around at the time and had half a chance, I would've banged any of them if it made me a King. Or at least the father of a King/Prince!

(That was the most un-PC statement of the week, but it's what you were all thinking! ;-) )

[Red Riley 2]

Mary looks alright. Had I been around at the time and had half a chance, I would've banged any of them if it made me a King. Or at least the father of a King/Prince!

(That was the most un-PC statement of the week, but it's what you were all thinking! ;-) )

Unfortunately mary's husband William batted for the other side...

[Rob 3,152]

Mary looks alright. Had I been around at the time and had half a chance, I would've banged any of them if it made me a King. Or at least the father of a King/Prince!

(That was the most un-PC statement of the week, but it's what you were all thinking! ;-) )

Unfortunately mary's husband William batted for the other side...

Pink and Orange clash, that can't be right.

[Coin_Hunter 0]

ROFL!! can i just nominate Mr. Perkins' last comment as politically incorrect comment of the week hahaha...

[Chris Perkins 228]

It is definitely an Orange march they have in Northern Ireland, not a Pink one!

Is that true though, Wm III was a shirtlifter? I know there are rumours about certain monarchs. Wasn't there also one about Queen Anne being into like-sex too? That was clearly a match made in heaven.

[Coin_Hunter 0]

Albert Victor was next in line to the throne, but apart from that I'd never heard of an actual British regent playing for the away side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Albert_Victor,_Duke_of_Clarence_and_Avondale

Edited February 14, 2010 by Coin_Hunter

[Sylvester 15]

Monarchs that are thought to be batting for the other side, or both;

William II (Disputed, many primary sources simply had it in for him)

Richard I

Edward II (with Piers Gaveston, then Hugh Despenser)

James I (many including the Duke of Buckingham)

William III

But of course much of it could simply be contemporaries that hated certain monarchs trying to villify them. For example if George IV hadn't been so overtly into the ladies then homosexuality could have been another complaint that was laid at his doorstep along with all his other faults. Whether true or not, it didn't really matter because it was all character assasination anyhow.

It may be the case with the monarchs above. It could be that Edward II simply wasn't interested in warfare (unlike his father and son) and had close friendships with other men but none of them were sexual. To the observing medieval noble though, a king that doesn't like fighting and warfare? (Remember Edward I had left a rather large impression), well he must be a coward and womanly and well 1 + 1 and the answer will eventually lead you to 4.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

It has never been proven that William III batted left handed, it is true that after (the lovely) Mary died he was patron to many young men at court, but this could easily have been and probably was harmless. It must also be remembered that, as Sylvester notes, many were interested in discrediting him, the more so if one was Catholic as he had deposed James II and was far from popular in Ireland in particular.

He died, from complications following a fall from his horse caused by a molehill. Afterwards, the toast in Catholic circles was to 'the little gentleman in the velvet jacket'.

His achievements rank, IMO right up there with Henry VII as one of Englands more effective Kings. Perhaps his standout achievement was that he brought the concept of Fixed Interest Securities or Bonds or Gilts with him from Holland, directly giving rise to Napoleons famous rant a century or so later about England being a nation of shopkeepers. He was miffed you see, that england could raise money through a bond issue whilst he had to travel around, cap in hand asking for contributions.

It could be argued therefore that William was directly responsible for saving the world from French domination. Fine wines, haute cuisine, sensual women, efficient railways etc, etc - all those awful things.....

Anne however, was an old bag.

[Red Riley 2]

Anne however, was an old bag.

She did however have 13 children, so somebody must have liked her (can think of many ribald comments on this particular subject which I'm far too polite to mention).

I think if it could somehow be proven that William was indeed gay, it would destroy the Orange movement in Northern Ireland and go a long way to solving Ulster's problems. Those guys are to the right of Atillah the Hun and to see the Rev. Ian Paisley actively marching for a known gay monarch makes me drool in anticipation. Did you read the disgraced Mrs Robinson's views on homosexuality? I don't like to stand in judgement, but if gayness is a sin, what is adultery?

Still doesn't explain why the coinage portraits of the luscious Mary II were so unflattering.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Red Riley

[Peckris 579]

Anne however, was an old bag.

She did however have 13 children, so somebody must have liked her (can think of many ribald comments on this particular subject which I'm far too polite to mention).

I think if it could somehow be proven that William was indeed gay, it would destroy the Orange movement in Northern Ireland and go a long way to solving Ulster's problems. Those guys are to the right of Atillah the Hun and to see the Rev. Ian Paisley actively marching for a known gay monarch makes me drool in anticipation. Did you read the disgraced Mrs Robinson's views on homosexuality? I don't like to stand in judgement, but if gayness is a sin, what is adultery?

Still doesn't explain why the coinage portraits of the luscious Mary II were so unflattering.

We must not forget the "gay conspiracy theory" view of the world. I once worked in Blackpool for a season (in catering, before you ask!), and the guy ... er, gay ... who ran the main bar was an outrageous old queen who had views on every subject under the sun. One of his favourites themes was how EVERY male in the Royal Family was gay, but the Press weren't allowed to say so So, that's Philip, Charles (ESPECIALLY Charles!), Edward, the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, etc etc. Only Andrew, it seemed, was genuinely into women (or "bi" ).

So there you have it - in the Pink world, everyone else is Pink too, even if they don't admit it, even to themselves.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

She did however have 13 children, so somebody must have liked her ?

Still doesn't explain why the coinage portraits of the luscious Mary II were so unflattering.

Given previous volunteered information, I think the name 'Perkins' must be considered quite seriously ?

Reference Mary's portraiture, I actually think it's not a bad likeness ?

Scrabbling around to recover Anne's dignity, IMO, we numismatists can thank Anne for three things;

1. The 'E' mintmark and the act of union with Scotland - although not ratified by parliament for nearly a century.

2. Stealing a huge amount of silver from the Spanish in Vigo bay.

3. And ending the run of colossal noses that had been going on since the advent of milled coinage ?