Nevets wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: At least make the effort to read the source you quote.
William was Duke of Normandy, not king.

I never ever said he was. I said William was "the first Norman king of England".t

Abject fucking lie.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam ... l#p2736043

Nevets wrote:And if we go to William the conquror in 1066, he was a direct descenant of Rollo, the Roman Catholic, and William was also the first king of England, a position he assumed during the early Norman invasions

Your argument is extreme.
The Normans became catholicised.
The whole point is how they connect to the pope.
My link clearly says, First Norman King of England.
If i said "first king of England", it is because i made a typo error, and forgot to include Norman, which goes against my whole point, which is pointing out the Norman conquer of England in 1066 and its Catholic elements.
But the entire argument is based around the Norman invasion, and implimentation of Catholicism, and religion.
You are strengthening my argument by pointing out my typos. Not weakening.

I suspect you will now pick me up on "the normans becoming catholicised", because you will take it literal, and claim that i am claiming this means "all" normans in the world became catholicised, and not only just those rulers from Normandy, even though i did not explicitly include that in my statement.

You're talking shit Nevets. Everyone can see I made no 'argument' at all - just pointed out your lie (in red) where you claimed not to have said X yet I cited you saying exactly that.

In the previous thread, you made a claim that was wrong. I corrected the claim. Rather than acknowledge your error, you just waltz off into La La land spinning out more and more distractions that aren't confusing anyone.

And you're lying again. You expressly claimed that William the Conqueror was the first King of England. I cited you saying it, I cited the link wherein you said it, and I don't think it's really difficult to convince people at this point that the reason you abandoned that thread to start this one is because you want to bullshit that the prior conversation never happened.

There were no 'typos' and you're just blagging an argument now that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of conversation that was being discussed when you made that false claim.

I don't know if you think you can sow enough confusion here to sneak this bullshit past people, but you're going to find that people are just a bit too clued up to be misled.

But the entire argument is based around the Norman invasion, and implimentation of Catholicism, and religion.

William was raised Catholic from birth.

England was already Catholic long prior to William of Normandy's invasion.

So your brand new argument (distraction) is also just another clusterfuck of confusion on your part.

Spearthrower wrote:

William was raised Catholic from birth

Correct

Spearthrower wrote:England was already Catholic long prior to William of Normandy's invasion

That may be so, but just a little so.
The Norman conquest did not happen overnight.
They first had to remove the previous incubants, of Vikings, that were "Pagan".

Æthelstan encountered resistance in Wessex for several months, and was not crowned until September 925. In 927 he conquered the last remaining Viking kingdom, York, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan

Aethelstan was well connected to the benedictine, and Athelstan was also "anglo-saxon", not Breton

Æthelstan or Athelstan (/ˈæθəlstæn/; Old English: Æþelstan[a] or Æðelstān;[b] Old Norse: Aðalsteinn meaning "noble stone"; c. 894 – 27 October 939) was King of the Anglo-Saxons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan

His household was the centre of English learning during his reign, and it laid the foundation for the Benedictine monastic reform later in the century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan

But the Norman conquest was complete when William the conqueror became first Norman king of England

William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman King of England, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror

Nevets wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

William was raised Catholic from birth

Correct

Spearthrower wrote:England was already Catholic long prior to William of Normandy's invasion

That may be so, but just a little so.
The Norman conquest did not happen overnight.
They first had to remove the previous incubants, of Vikings, that were "Pagan".

Æthelstan encountered resistance in Wessex for several months, and was not crowned until September 925. In 927 he conquered the last remaining Viking kingdom, York, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan

Aethelstan was well connected to the benedictine, and Athelstan was also "anglo-saxon", not Breton

Æthelstan or Athelstan (/ˈæθəlstæn/; Old English: Æþelstan[a] or Æðelstān;[b] Old Norse: Aðalsteinn meaning "noble stone"; c. 894 – 27 October 939) was King of the Anglo-Saxons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan

His household was the centre of English learning during his reign, and it laid the foundation for the Benedictine monastic reform later in the century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan

But the Norman conquest was complete when William the conqueror became first Norman king of England

William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman King of England, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror

Utter gibberish again.

Also, King of the Anglo-saxons, is not the samething as King of England.
The anglo-saxons still had to defeat the Viking Pagans, and convert the Celts, or Bretons, who did not look upon those Catholics as their kings, before the Anglos could consider a "King of England".

So William the conqueror, may well be also the first king of England.

As king of the anglo-saxons, which is all Aethelstan was, is not the samething as King of England

Nevets wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:England was already Catholic long prior to William of Normandy's invasion

That may be so, but just a little so.

By hundreds of years.

It started in the first or second century, was strengthened dramatically in 597 with a Gregorian Mission that also included the building of the original Canterbury Cathedral. Æthelberht of Kent converted to Christianity in 600. The process was largely complete in the 7th century, that is three hundred years prior to the Norman invasion.

Nevets wrote:
The Norman conquest did not happen overnight.
They first had to remove the previous incubants, of Vikings, that were "Pagan".

And here we go with fantasy being asserted as fact.

Nevets wrote:

Æthelstan encountered resistance in Wessex for several months, and was not crowned until September 925. In 927 he conquered the last remaining Viking kingdom, York, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan

Yet again: you're supposed to be talking about the Normans, you claim that the Normans had to deal with pagan vikings, then you cite one sentence from Wikipedia which corroborates absolutely nothing you've claimed, and is clearly completely irrelevant.

Æthelstan lived 200 fucking years prior to William the Conqueror.

Seriously, are you taking the piss?

At this point, I have to say the options are few: you're either trolling, incredibly stupid, have mental health issues, or are on some serious drugs.


Edit: typo

Nevets wrote:Also, King of the Anglo-saxons, is not the samething as King of England.
The anglo-saxons still had to defeat the Viking Pagans, and convert the Celts, or Bretons, who did not look upon those Catholics as their kings, before the Anglos could consider a "King of England".

So William the conqueror, may well be also the first king of England.

As king of the anglo-saxons, which is all Aethelstan was, is not the samething as King of England

You quite clearly don't know your arse from your elbow.

Spearthrower wrote:

By hundreds of years.

It started in the first or second century, was strengthened dramatically in 597 with a Gregorian Mission that also included the building of the original Canterbury Cathedral. Æthelberht of Kent converted to Christianity in 600. The process was largely complete in the 7th century, that is three hundred years prior to the Norman invasion.

Yet again: you're supposed to be talking about the Normans, you claim that the Normans had to deal with pagan vikings, then you cite one sentence from Wikipedia which corroborates absolutely nothing you've claimed, and is clearly completely irrelevant.

Æthelstan lived 400 fucking years prior to William the Conqueror.

Seriously, are you taking the piss?

At this point, I have to say the options are few: you're either trolling, incredibly stupid, have mental health issues, or are on some serious drugs.

What is the point of this ramble?

Normans are people from Iceland, Norway, and Denmark, and "dare i say", Sweden

The settlements in France followed a series of raids on the French coast from mainly Denmark, but also Norway, and Iceland, and they gained political legitimacy when the Viking leader Rollo agreed to swear fealty to King Charles III of West Francia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans

The Vikings were also Norman.

Normandy was named after the Normans, when the Vikings established Normandy.

They come from Norman royal households, such as the The Ynglings for example

The Ynglings were the oldest known Scandinavian dynasty, originating from Sweden. It can refer to the clans of the Scylfings (Old Norse Skilfingar), the semi-legendary royal Swedish clan during the Age of Migrations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Kn%C3%BDtlinga

which lead to more modern houses, such as

The House of Munsö,[1] also called House of Björn Ironside, was a protohistoric Swedish royal dynasty, reportedly founded by King Björn Ironside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Muns%C3%B6

which led to House of Knýtlinga

House of Knýtlinga The Danish House of Knýtlinga (English: "House of Cnut's Descendants") was a ruling royal house in Middle Age Scandinavia and England. Its most famous king was Cnut the Great, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Kn%C3%BDtlinga

I am astounded you think Norman people only relate to the time of Normandy.

It was however, in Normandy, and around that time, that Normans in and around that area, including Britain, to varying degrees, began to become Catholicised. And a little more popeish, and Holy Roman Catholic, than housey of Odin

And yes, there was a type of Norman civil war going on, between Catholicised Vikings, and Pagan vikings

You will also see from my last link, that by the time House of Knytlinga was formed, their royal dynasty also now included "England"

Also, King of the Anglo-saxons, is not the samething as King of England.

Did somebody say otherwise?

Did anyone here say "King of the Anglo-Saxons is the same thing as King of England"?

No? So irrelevant.

The anglo-saxons still had to defeat the Viking Pagans, and convert the Celts, or Bretons, who did not look upon those Catholics as their kings, before the Anglos could consider a "King of England".

This potted history has basically nothing to do with historical fact, and is just a mish-mash of unconnected ideas from across a swathe of the history of the region. On top of that, there's an idea in there that involves converting people to a religious belief which has fuck all to do at that time with the Kingdom of England.

So William the conqueror, may well be also the first king of England.

Which he categorically wasn't, and you've jumped a couple of hundred years.

As king of the anglo-saxons, which is all Aethelstan was, is not the samething as King of England

And you're talking about Aethelstan because? No one's mentioned him in this thread, so I have to assume you've scampered around on Wikipedia, found out that he's listed as the first King of England, then rather than acknowledging your error and updating your knowledge, you've decided to double down on the idiocy.

And really... not the same as England?... Do you not know the etymological root of the term England? The Anglo-Saxons in England called themselves the Engle or Angelcynn, and the geographical region they called Engla Land; the land of the English. So 'England' was the entire region of Anglo-Saxon Kings in the British Isles, originally comprised of minor kingdoms that were slowly swallowed up, until eventually becoming the Heptarchy of East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. When those kingdoms were united under a single king, that's the moment that there was a first King of the English, and that chap was Aethelstan.

Between Aethelstan and William of Normandy there were 12 other kings of England.

So no... absolutely not... in no way, manner, shape or form, regardless of bluster, bullshit, or bravado, can William the Conqueror be considered the first King of England.

Nevets wrote:
What is the point of this ramble?

Sorry, I didn't think.

It's called 'actual historical fact' - I realize this must all be new to you.

Nevets wrote:Normans are people from Iceland, Norway, and Denmark, and "dare i say", Sweden

You dare say a lot of things that turn out to be utter shite.

You forgot Gallo-Roman and Franks when you went about borrowing knowledge from somewhere else to present as your own.

Nevets wrote:
The Vikings were also Norman.

Normandy was named after the Normans, when the Vikings established Normandy.

They come from Norman royal households, such as the The Ynglings for example

The Ynglings were the oldest known Scandinavian dynasty, originating from Sweden. It can refer to the clans of the Scylfings (Old Norse Skilfingar), the semi-legendary royal Swedish clan during the Age of Migrations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Kn%C3%BDtlinga

which lead to more modern houses, such as

The House of Munsö,[1] also called House of Björn Ironside, was a protohistoric Swedish royal dynasty, reportedly founded by King Björn Ironside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Muns%C3%B6

which led to House of Knýtlinga

House of Knýtlinga The Danish House of Knýtlinga (English: "House of Cnut's Descendants") was a ruling royal house in Middle Age Scandinavia and England. Its most famous king was Cnut the Great, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Kn%C3%BDtlinga

Yet more pretense that you know what you're talking about when all you're doing is quoting from Wikipedia which any moron can do.

Nevets wrote:
I am astounded you think Norman people only relate to the time of Normandy.

I am tired of your fucking lies - either cite me saying anything like this or will report you for misrepresenting me.

I will repost this, once more, and add something at the end

The Ynglings were the oldest known Scandinavian dynasty, originating from Sweden. It can refer to the clans of the Scylfings (Old Norse Skilfingar), the semi-legendary royal Swedish clan during the Age of Migrations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Kn%C3%BDtlinga


which lead to more modern houses, such as

The House of Munsö,[1] also called House of Björn Ironside, was a protohistoric Swedish royal dynasty, reportedly founded by King Björn Ironside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Muns%C3%B6


which led to House of Knýtlinga

House of Knýtlinga The Danish House of Knýtlinga (English: "House of Cnut's Descendants") was a ruling royal house in Middle Age Scandinavia and England. Its most famous king was Cnut the Great, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Kn%C3%BDtlinga

By the time House of Knytlinga was formed, their royal dynasty now also included "England"

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/old-a ... t-t76.html

Membership Agreement for rationalskepticism.org

Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to:

1.2. not

m. quote mine, plagiarise, or otherwise misrepresent information

You have misrepresented me over 2 dozen times, you've misrepresented Theropod, Thommo, Sendraks, Svartalf, and Thomas Eshuis.

Stop doing it - next time I will just report you and be done with it. Given your posting behavior, I don't think moderator attention is going to work out well for you.

Spearthrower wrote:

Sorry, I didn't think.

It's called 'actual historical fact' - I realize this must all be new to you.

Historical fact?

The Norman invasion really only pertains to the time around the battle of Hastings, When William the Conqueror became First Norman King of England

William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror

In the battle of Hastings, Harold Godwinson was defeated by William the Conqueror

The Battle of Hastings[a] was fought on 14 October 1066 between the Norman-French army of William, the Duke of Normandy, and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings

William the conqueror was alligned to House of Normandy, which as we have already established, has became Roman Catholic.

Now Harold Godwinson was House of Godwin

House Godwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

Now House of Godwin was raised by King Cnut

The founder of the family's greatness, Earl Godwin, was raised from comparative obscurity by king Cnut and given the earldom of Wessex around the year 1020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Godwin

And King Cnut is King Of Denmark, England, Norway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

And his official house is, House of Knytlinga, from the Jelling dynasty

House of Knýtlinga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

And it was also King Cnut that gave godwinson the earldom of Wessex

The founder of the family's greatness, Earl Godwin, was raised from comparative obscurity by king Cnut and given the earldom of Wessex around the year 1020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Godwin

With Wessex being the house that the first royal anglo-saxon invader Cedric I became ruler of, in England

House Wessex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex

Now, King Cnut, is "reverred" by the Catholic church for his victories pre-dating the Norman conquest

Cnut's possession of England's dioceses and the continental Diocese of Denmark—with a claim laid upon it by the Holy Roman Empire's Archdiocese of Hamburg-Bremen—was a source of great prestige and leverage within the Catholic Church and among the magnates of Christendom (gaining notable concessions such as one on the price of the pallium of his bishops, though they still had to travel to obtain the pallium, as well as on the tolls his people had to pay on the way to Rome). After his 1026 victory against Norway and Sweden, and on his way back from Rome where he attended the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor, Cnut, in a letter written for the benefit of his subjects, deemed himself "King of all England and Denmark and the Norwegians and of some of the Swedes".[10] The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Cnut was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England". Medieval historian Norman Cantor called him "the most effective king in Anglo-Saxon history" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

And everything Cnut the Great done, pre Norman conquest, was held in the highest regard by the Catholic church.

And the Norman conquest was complete, when England now swore loyalty to Normandy, instead of Denmark.

The Danish Empire used to be "huge".

I would also like to point out.
Whilst i am being accused by Spearthrower, of misrepresenting Spearthrower.

I am also being misrepresented.

He is going around the entire forum, "highlighting" in black ink, my error that William the conqueror was first king of England, whilst at the sametime not realising, that William the conqueror probably was the first King of England, because those before him, including Harold Godwinson, who William the conquror defeated, was only king of the anglo-saxons

often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

So who is doing the misinforming, and misrepresenting?

Nevets wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Sorry, I didn't think.

It's called 'actual historical fact' - I realize this must all be new to you.

Historical fact?

Yes, that's right. The antithesis to your free association riffing on whatever scraps you've read from Wikipedia.

Nevets wrote:The Norman invasion really only pertains to the time around the battle of Hastings, When William the Conqueror became First Norman King of England

Oh really? Goodness me! I never knew that! What groundbreaking insight! Next you'll be telling me water is wet!

I know, why don't you go to Wikipedia and cite one sentence from the page on the Norman Invasion to establish this beyond banal point?

Nevets wrote:

William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror

There you go! Good job!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

Water is wet.

Nevets wrote:In the battle of Hastings, Harold Godwinson was defeated by William the Conqueror

No, really? Goodness me, how fascinating, I never knew that! It comes as a complete surprise to me. Lucky for me that you were here and could tell me this in a conversation that has nothing whatsoever to do with Harold Godwinson or the Battle of Hastings, else I'd have carried on believing they engaged in anal sex after a night of vigorous disco dancing.

But are you absolutely certain? I mean, unless you cite a sentence from Wikipedia, this completely irrelevant fact might not be true...

Nevets wrote:

The Battle of Hastings[a] was fought on 14 October 1066 between the Norman-French army of William, the Duke of Normandy, and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings

Ahh there you go! Well done!

While we're on the discussion, Hastings - as I am sure you are well aware - has an annual half-marathon which first took place in 1984.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings

Every year the Hastings Half Marathon is held in the town. The 13.1 mi (21.1 km) race first took place in 1984...

Nevets wrote:William the conqueror was alligned to House of Normandy,...

Wut?

No. He was not 'aligned to the House of Normandy' - he was the Duke of Normandy

Nevets wrote:... which as we have already established, has became Roman Catholic.

Has became? Which tense is that? The past perfect future make it all up as you go along tense?

As we've actually established, William of Normandy was raised Catholic, so it's irrelevant.

Nevets wrote:Now Harold Godwinson was House of Godwin

House Godwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

Now House of Godwin was raised by King Cnut

The founder of the family's greatness, Earl Godwin, was raised from comparative obscurity by king Cnut and given the earldom of Wessex around the year 1020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Godwin

And King Cnut is King Of Denmark, England, Norway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

And his official house is, House of Knytlinga, from the Jelling dynasty

House of Knýtlinga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

And it was also King Cnut that gave godwinson the earldom of Wessex

The founder of the family's greatness, Earl Godwin, was raised from comparative obscurity by king Cnut and given the earldom of Wessex around the year 1020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Godwin

With Wessex being the house that the first royal anglo-saxon invader Cedric I became ruler of, in England

House Wessex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex

Now, King Cnut, is "reverred" by the Catholic church for his victories pre-dating the Norman conquest

Cnut's possession of England's dioceses and the continental Diocese of Denmark—with a claim laid upon it by the Holy Roman Empire's Archdiocese of Hamburg-Bremen—was a source of great prestige and leverage within the Catholic Church and among the magnates of Christendom (gaining notable concessions such as one on the price of the pallium of his bishops, though they still had to travel to obtain the pallium, as well as on the tolls his people had to pay on the way to Rome). After his 1026 victory against Norway and Sweden, and on his way back from Rome where he attended the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor, Cnut, in a letter written for the benefit of his subjects, deemed himself "King of all England and Denmark and the Norwegians and of some of the Swedes".[10] The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Cnut was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England". Medieval historian Norman Cantor called him "the most effective king in Anglo-Saxon history" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

And everything Cnut the Great done, pre Norman conquest, was held in the highest regard by the Catholic church.

And the Norman conquest was complete, when England now swore loyalty to Normandy, instead of Denmark.

The Danish Empire used to be "huge".

You do seem to genuinely believe that just citing snippets of Wikipedia makes you appear to know what you're talking about, but we've already seen that you don't, and that even when citing snippets of Wikipedia, you routinely misread the content of those links.

If you have mental health issues, let me know and I will leave you to play, but otherwise this is bloody absurd Nevets.

Nevets wrote:I would also like to point out.
Whilst i am being accused by Spearthrower, of misrepresenting Spearthrower.

I am also being misrepresented.

He is going around the entire forum, "highlighting" in black ink, my error that William the conqueror was first king of England, whilst at the sametime not realising, that William the conqueror probably was the first King of England, because those before him, including Harold Godwinson, who William the conquror defeated, was only king of the anglo-saxons

often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

So who is doing the misinforming, and misrepresenting?

It can't be misrepresenting you when that is actually what you are saying, plus I've quoted you saying it.

Whereas, you factually have misrepresented me many times - so many in fact, it would be hard NOT to find an instance of you misrepresenting me in your posts.

So to answer your question: you are doing the misrepresenting.

You're lucky misinforming isn't against the FUA else you'd have been slung out on your backside by your 3rd of 4th post.

Nevets wrote:because those before him, including Harold Godwinson, who William the conquror defeated, was only king of the anglo-saxons

often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

God that's thick.

You don't get to make up bullshit to protect your previous bullshit.

Your own citation says "King of England" - so you are, once again, citing an entry level snippet from Wikipedia and failing to notice that it contradicts your claims.

Spearthrower wrote:

Nevets wrote:because those before him, including Harold Godwinson, who William the conquror defeated, was only king of the anglo-saxons

often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

God that's thick.

You don't get to make up bullshit to protect your previous bullshit.

Your own citation says "King of England" - so you are, once again, citing an entry level snippet from Wikipedia and failing to notice that it contradicts your claims.

You dont get it do you.
The penny has not dropped.

King of the anglo-saxons only becomes "King of England" in modern usage.

But back then, there was "no such thing", as king of England

Anglo-saxon kings "were not" kings of England.

The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

It is King Cnut, that faught for "King of the English", to become "King of all England".

Cnut was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England". Medieval historian Norman Cantor called him "the most effective king in Anglo-Saxon history" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

I mean really? The penny should have dropped by now

William the Conqueror, was "the first" King of England.

He was "not" anglo-saxon king.

He was not, anglo-saxon king of the English.

He was the "first"

KING OF ALL ENGLAND

Spearthrower wrote:



It can't be misrepresenting you when that is actually what you are saying, plus I've quoted you saying it.

Whereas, you factually have misrepresented me many times - so many in fact, it would be hard NOT to find an instance of you misrepresenting me in your posts.

This type of rhetoric, or conjecture, or borderline whining, is doing nothing but obfuscating the subject.

I decided to pull down my initial claim of William the conqueror being "first king of england", and changed it to what my link said "first norman king of England", because the argument had not went so far yet that it was time to argue that, infact, William the conqueror probably is, first king of england.

You are running around, with black ink, telling people look, he's not credible, he thinks William the conqueror is first king of england.

Yet you fail to recongnise, even Harold Godwinson, was only crowned, "anglo-saxon king of the English".

Even though the link below i show you, does say "anglo-saxon king of England", i have already shown you, that when you look deeper, you find that there was never an anglo-saxon known as anything else other than King of the English

Harold Godwinson (c. 1022 – 14 October 1066), often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

If there was, at that time, an actual King of England, it was Cnut the Great, who gave Harold Godwinson the House of Wessex, and Knut the great was King of England, Denmark, Norway. Though his claim to King of England, was probably not recognised by the British.

And, William the conqueror was "not" crowned "Norman King of England."

He was just crowned, "King of England".

I mean, you do realise, right, that the anglo-saxons were considered drunken barbarians? They were nothing more than foot soldiers in the invading Britain. But the power for being their leaders, was a struggle between Catholicism, and the Normans.

And just because William the conqueror invaded under a Norman banner, does not mean the power structure he was actually waving, was Norman, as the Normans got infected in Normandy

The Normans by this point in history, were now more politically Catholic, pointing to Roman, than Odin, pointing to norse

Nevets wrote:I would also like to point out.
Whilst i am being accused by Spearthrower, of misrepresenting Spearthrower.

I am also being misrepresented.

He is going around the entire forum, "highlighting" in black ink, my error that William the conqueror was first king of England, whilst at the sametime not realising, that William the conqueror probably was the first King of England, because those before him, including Harold Godwinson, who William the conquror defeated, was only king of the anglo-saxons

often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

So who is doing the misinforming, and misrepresenting?

Who are you talking to? Everyone can see who is being misrepresented here, and by whom.