Nevets wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
However, you seem blissfully unable to understand that your citing of one source as being authoritative, is no more persuasive than a creotard citing the bible.

You, or no-one else here, has cited one single thing.
It is all just your opinion.
Do you have a citation to show your "opinions", which include believing Denmark to be totally seperate from Normandy, are to be "simply accepted"?

More lies.

Further, when you cite one line snippets from Wikipedia, they almost invariably show that your argument is wrong.

Nevets wrote:
Oh really? William "DID" have a claim to the throne.

Read your history. All kings have had a 'legitimate' claim to a throne.

Relax.

I'm at the bar, do you want anything?

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

William did have a hereditary claim to the throne. I was talking about the claim that Edward had explicitly nominated William as his successor

Oh really? William "DID" have a claim to the throne.
Wow.
Please enlighten, who exactly was William related to that makes his invasion "Legitimate"?
Who do you believe him to be related to, that makes his claim, legitimate? I'm waiting

Why are you pretending surprise when I told you this dozens of pages ago?

William was the grandson of King Edward of England's uncle, Richard II of Normandy.

King Edward... being the King of England (and incidentally also being Anglo-Saxon) and being childless had to choose his most closely related blood relative to inherit the throne on his death... it's called 'succession'.

Now, it's entirely possible that Edward didn't choose William I, and that William I just pretended this was the case to legitimize his attempt to take the throne of England.

However, even a false claim is predicated on the fact that William I recognized the crown of England as already being in existence.

So despite your manufactured irrelevant assertion, William I was very much aware of the legitimacy of the the throne of England, and his most famous actions are wholly predicated upon that. There would have been no William the Conqueror in the absence of that claim as it would have just been an attack on a sovereign state without material support from other nobility accepting the legitimacy of his claim.

A pint of dark would be nice.

RS

campermon wrote:I'm at the bar, do you want anything?

I'm very much into my Imperial Stouts at the moment. I'll have a half of whatever you recommend.

Nevets wrote:

Svartalf wrote:Willy is NOT considered to be the first king of england, except by you and ignoramuses of the same class.

and he was not 'well connected to the carolingians' either. a) the Carolingian dynasty had stopped ruling France more than 50 years before his birth. b) he was not even well connected with the king, the relations of the duchy of Normandy with the crown were often stormy, and as a bastard, he would have been shunned by most well born nobles who could avoid dealing with him.

But what you are failing to understand, is that the dynasty got overthrown, with the consent of the papal

1) Irrelevant.
2) You mean 'Pope' - saying 'Papal' when you mean 'Pope' makes you sound like a child struggling to use words he's unfamiliar with.

Nevets wrote:
Rest of your argument is dismissed.
You do not have enough basic fundamental understanding of the subject to continue this debate.

Like I say folks: this has to be trolling.

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: Except Clovis wasn't a Carolingian, he was a Merovingian. And neither line pledged loyalty to the pope.

The Merovingian dynasty became the Carolingian dynasty

The Merovingian dynasty was thereby replaced by the Carolingian dynasty, named after Charles Martel.

Another one line entry from Wikipedia... comprised of just 14 words... and Nevets can't even parse them. His own 'citation' contradicts his assertion. Well I never.

This is not how dynasties work; it's literally antithetical to how dynasties work. You couldn't be more clueless if you tried.

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

William did have a hereditary claim to the throne. I was talking about the claim that Edward had explicitly nominated William as his successor

Oh really? William "DID" have a claim to the throne.
Wow.
Please enlighten, who exactly was William related to that makes his invasion "Legitimate"? Who do you believe him to be related to, that makes his claim, legitimate? I'm waiting

You can drop the condescension.
I point out who in the bit you quoted; William was related to Edward the Confessor.

Sendraks wrote:
However, you seem blissfully unable to understand that your citing of one source as being authoritative, is no more persuasive than a creotard citing the bible.

Yet you have cited no sources that contradict my source.
And you somehow believe Alfred the Great to have been King of England, at the sametime as believing the sources that state this, as being as unreliable as the bible.

If that is your argument, then fine, but why are you debating?

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:False.
Norman is a specific historical term that refers to the mix of Vikings and Franks that originated from the newly formed duchy of Normandy in Northern France.

Norman is "not" a time.
It is a "word".

See it's etymology. It means norse folk

Thomas said nothing about time.

You misrepresented him. Thomas, just report this chap as he keeps pulling this shit on everyone.

Nevets wrote:The rest of your obfuscating gish-gallop of misunderstandings is dismissed.
Understand the basics first.

Oops, another give-away there by using the term gish-gallop... I smell trolling.

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Cnut was a Christian Dane and had fuck all to do with the Normans.

My goodness Thomas.
It was you that came out with this argument

We all know by now that you're lying.

Nevets wrote:
This is atrocious..Rest of your posts are dismissed, until such times you can show you have a grasp on the subject

Trolling.

Nevets wrote:
I would also dispute,...

No one cares as you've shown yourself astoundingly incapable of processing information or rendering anything factual accurately.

Nevets wrote:

So this is what we are down to? On a thread discussing how the Papal was connected to Norman kings of England, ...

How the Papal....

And it wants to be taken seriously.

Nevets wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
However, you seem blissfully unable to understand that your citing of one source as being authoritative, is no more persuasive than a creotard citing the bible.

Yet you have cited no sources that contradict my source.

He doesn't need to. Your own sources contradict your claims just fine on their own.

Nevets wrote:And you somehow believe Alfred the Great to have been King of England, at the sametime as believing the sources that state this, as being as unreliable as the bible.

If that is your argument, then fine, but why are you debating?

Stop confusing your fapping fantasies for posts in this thread.

Spearthrower wrote:

Nevets wrote:

So this is what we are down to? On a thread discussing how the Papal was connected to Norman kings of England, ...

How the Papal....

And it wants to be taken seriously.

I have a little chuckle every-time he uses that made-up term.

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Clovis wasn't a Carolingian. The name comes from Charles Martel who lived several centuries later, when, all Western kingdoms were already Catholics.

More proof you have no grasp on the subject

Ansegisel was at the foundations of the Empire that would become known as Carolingian, Not Charles Martel, and he was a Duke, and Latin leader

Ansegisel (c. 602 or 610 – murdered before 679 or 662) was the younger son of Saint Arnulf, bishop of Metz.[1] He served King Sigebert III of Austrasia (634–656) as a duke (Latin dux, a military leader) and domesticus. He was killed sometime before 679, slain in a feud by his enemy Gundewin. Through his son Pepin, Ansegisel's descendants would eventually become Frankish kings and rule over the Carolingian Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansegisel

Please stop. Because you are spreading gish-gallops of disinformation.
It is horrific.

You're trolling and lying again Nevets.

Everyone reading this thread is watching you engage in gish gallops, disinformation, and horrific levels of incomprehension, so while you're trolling Thomas, remember that everyone else is thinking all this of you.

Spearthrower wrote:

Trolling.

I concur.

The quality of sock/troll/chewtoys is very poor these days.

Spearthrower wrote:

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:False.
Norman is a specific historical term that refers to the mix of Vikings and Franks that originated from the newly formed duchy of Normandy in Northern France.

Norman is "not" a time.
It is a "word".

See it's etymology. It means norse folk

Thomas said nothing about time.

You misrepresented him. Thomas, just report this chap as he keeps pulling this shit on everyone.

Frankly I can't be arsed. I wanted to report a post of his where he told me to 'sober up', but somebody else already had.

Nevets wrote:Seriously, you need to research before debating

Hold on! I'll go read a single line on Wikipedia, fail to understand it, then pretend I know what I am talking about.

Oh wait: you've already cornered the market on that strategy.

Guess I'll just have to stick to actually having a clue.