Some questions about Ivan the Terrible

[Ron]

My English history books tell me that in 1540 King Henry V111 passed a Law (ACT) in Parliament called "Cestui Que Vie".
But the New Chronology (NC) tells me that King Henry V111 did not exist, he was just a reflection of Ivan the terrible.
If the NC is correct, then I think it follows that Ivan the terrible must have passed such a Law in Russia around 1540.
So my first question is: Can anybody confirm that such a Law was passed in Russia around 1540 and that Ivan the terrible was the Tsar at that time?
If someone can confirm that it's true, then it would not only give further evidence to the NC claim that Henry and Ivan were one and the same person, but it would beg 2 more questions:

Was the Law in Russia aimed only at his lands in England? or was the Law aimed at ALL lands under his domain?
If the later is true, then there should be a "Cestui Que Vie" Law in most of the Western countries too!

Wikipedia tells me that the correct translation of the 'old' French "Cestui Que Vie" into English is
"He Who Lives". (Which seems about right in the context of that Law). But when I try French to Russian and back to English, I get dfferent results like "That's What Life Is".

It's also interesting that shortly after the (alleged) death of Oliver Cromwell (or should I say Godunov)
a new updated version of the "Cestui Que Vie" Law (ACT) was passed in Parliament in 1666! Yes, we have that 666 again and it's no coincidence. People really did think they were in the end times and of course, there was the great fire of London and there was a Plague in England. (Allegedly)

[lirik]

As far as I understand by googling this law, Russia issued a similar, and very important not even one law, but a whole set of laws in 1550.
This is the Sudebnik of Ivan IV - Sudebnik of 1550 .
Sudebnik means Judgment.

However, you have not considered the possibility that the "Cestui Que Vie" was written much later and “sent” back in time only on paper. This issue needs a separate study.

[Ron]

Thank you for your reply and the Link.

I have considered that it was written much later and sent back in time. But I also think that the original was probably written in Russian. Yes it had to be re-written into 'old' English, but Edward V1 was King in 1550 so it makes no sense to send it back to 1540 and Henry V111 (What would that acheive)?
Also, I do not think the Sudebnik is similar to the "Cestui Que Vie". From what I have read on your link,
It seems to be the opposite! But I will research it further to try and find any similarities.

Many thanks and kind regards,

[Воля]

I would suggest another translation of

Cestui Que Vie in modern Franch C'est toi qui vis - It is you who live!

[Ron]

"I would suggest another translation of Cestui Que Vie in modern Franch C'est toi qui vis - It is you who live!"

Thank you Will
It's my understanding that the 'old' French "Cestui Que Vie" translates into English as "He who lives", which translates into Russian as "The one who lives", and that translates back to modern French as
"Celui qui vit".

Of course; the name of the law is important, but it could have different names if enacted in different countries. The most important thing is, if a law with the same (or very similar) content is enacted in different countries, then that suggests that it originates from one source.

The assumption I'm making, is that while the Russia Tsar ruled England, it would be the Tsar who enacted any laws in England. And it makes sense that the Tsar would have done the same in other countries that he ruled. But I accept that, this does not mean that these laws would have been enacted in Russia as well.

[Воля]

It is simple!

C'est toi - cestui - it is you!

C'est lui - cestlui - it is he!

By the way this form "Cestui Que Vie" means that there was no symbol ' - apostrophe in 16 cent.

Usage in English

Historical development
The apostrophe was first used by Pietro Bembo in his edition of De Aetna (1496).[3] It was introduced into English in the 16th century in imitation of French practice.[4]

French practice
Introduced by Geoffroy Tory (1529),[5] the apostrophe was used in place of a vowel letter to indicate elision (as in l'heure in place of la heure). It was also frequently used in place of a final "e" (which was still pronounced at the time) when it was elided before a vowel, as in un' heure. Modern French orthography has restored the spelling une heure.[6]

Early English practice
From the 16th century, following French practice, the apostrophe was used when a vowel letter was omitted either because of incidental elision ("I'm" for "I am") or because the letter no longer represented a sound ("lov'd" for "loved"). English spelling retained many inflections that were not pronounced as syllables, notably verb endings ("-est", "-eth", "-es", "-ed") and the noun ending "-es", which marked either plurals or possessives, also known as genitives (see Possessive apostrophe, below). An apostrophe followed by "s" was often used to mark a plural;[4] specifically, the Oxford Companion to the English Language notes that:

There was formerly a respectable tradition (17th to 19th centuries) of using the apostrophe for noun plurals, especially in loanwords ending in a vowel (as in [...] Comma's are used, Philip Luckcombe, 1771) and in the consonants s, z, ch, sh, (as in waltz's and cotillions, Washington Irving, 1804)...[7][8]
Apostrophe

[Ron]

Thank you, this is very informative.
I think that it's interesting that apart from the "Cestui Que Vie" Law enacted in 1540
there was a new updated version of the "Cestui Que Vie" Law re-enacted in Parliament in 1666.
(17th century).
The name is exactly the same (no Apostrophe used), which tells me that the name has a 'unique' meaning, And in Law, the meaning of words are very important.
Food for thought!

[Воля]

Any reason to update the Law 1540 in 1666?

[Ron]

"Any reason to update the Law 1540 in 1666?"

It's a very good question and I'm still trying to research the answer.
The only obvious difference I can see at the moment, is that the 1540 Act passed all lands and properties into the hands of the Monarchy (Henry V111 / Ivan the terrible).
And the 1666 Act passed all lands and properties into the hands of the State (Godunovs?)
This seems to make sense and fits in with the New Chronology.

Also, it was suggested by Lirik that the Sudebnik Law passed in Russia was a similar Law.
But while I do not think it's similar, I do think that it could be connected and even a consequence of the Cestui Que Vie Law enacted in England.

[Ron]

"I do think that it could be connected and even a consequence of the Cestui Que Vie Law enacted in England."

I should have said the "Cestui Que Vie Law of 1540 enacted in England."

[Ron]

The New Chronology(NC) tells me that the Godunovs were the 'House of York'.
So I find it very interesting that the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, orders that all lands
of those accused of the "murder" of Charles 1, are granted to the 'Duke of York'.
And the Duke of York, at that time, was James 2nd. (Godunovs / Cromwells).

But just to make my research of these Acts more complex, I have found yet another
Cestui Que Vie Act by Queen Anne in 1707.
And Queen Anne was the daughter of the Duke of York (James 2nd / Godunovs / Cromwells).

[Елена C]

Ivan IV attempted to secularize church lands at the Stoglav Cathedral in 1551, but the delegates of the council did not support this (that is, Ivan IV made an attempt to take away land from the church). Henry VIII transferred whose lands to the monarchy? Belonging to the church?

[Ron]

"Ivan IV attempted to secularize church lands at the Stoglav Cathedral in 1551, but the delegates of the council did not support this (that is, Ivan IV made an attempt to take away land from the church). Henry VIII transferred whose lands to the monarchy? Belonging to the church?"

That is very interesting Елена C - Thank you.
I believe that this was happening in other countries too.
But the 1540 Act of Henry V111 (Ivan 1V) not only took Chrch lands, it attempted to take all lands in England into the hands of the Monarchy (Ivan 1V?).