William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#41  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 11, 2020 8:20 am

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


My goodness: Dunning Kruger to the maximum.

Even your own banal citation of Wikipedia tells you you're wrong, but you just dig your heels in and pretend you're right anyway! :lol:


Nevets wrote: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


No, you're talking absolute shit. You are literally making it all up as you go along.

The title was literally created by Aethelstan - the term 'England' is wholly Anglo-Saxon in derivation.

You seem to think you can blag bullshit at me, but it's not going to work because I'm not just some dude who gets all his information from a quick scan through Wikipedia... :roll:


Nevets wrote:Anglo-saxon kings "were not" kings of England.


Yes, they were; they actually created the word and the title.


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


And?

William the Conqueror's title was also 'King of the English', what has this got to do with anything?

It's just a pathetic semantic game you've launched into solely to cover up the fact that you made a false assertion.



Nevets wrote:
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


Yes, the penny has dropped that you are engaging in vacuous counterfactual bullshit - it's just the motivation that's at question, whether it's because you're arrogant, conceited, stupid, or have some kind of mental health issue.

For example, you've literally just cited yet another link which directly disproves your contention and either a) you don't realize it or b) you think you can pull the wool over my eyes.

Cnut predates William the Conqueror, and he was King of all England as it says in your own citation.


Nevets wrote:William the Conqueror, was "the first" King of England.


No, he wasn't - stop this pathetic charade.


Nevets wrote:He was "not" anglo-saxon king.


Of course he wasn't an Anglo-Saxon King, he was a Norman King.

There were Anglo-Saxon kings of England, there were Norman kings of England, there were Danish kings of England, there were French kings of England, there were Scottish kings of England, there were Spanish kings of England, there were Dutch kings of England, and there were German kings of England.

This should tell you something that is already quite obvious to everyone with a functioning adult brain: that ethnicity isn't relevant with respect to holding the title 'King of England', nor of the vast majority of thrones around the world, because that's just not how it works. You have, once again, simply made up some nonsense and expect other people to abandon factual knowledge to go along with your make-believe.



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

He was the "first"

KING OF ALL ENGLAND


Either lying or thick. I am not sure which, but I am leaning towards the former.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#42  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 11, 2020 8:26 am

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



This is something you haven't yet grasped yet, Nevets.

Have you noticed how most people have stopped replying to you?

I can tell you why: they're bored of your foolishness. They can see you don't know what you're talking about, and that conversing with you is functionally equivalent to innocently stroking a dog on heat - it's only encouraging bad behavior.

Because of that absurd behavior; pretending you're right, citing lines from Wikipedia which are both banal and which contradict your claims, rambling endlessly on in distraction whenever someone points out your errors, and misrepresenting what they've said... people have already decided that they're not in the slightest bit interested in engaging you in any form of discussion.

I did warn you about this. I told you that if you continue you will face the repercussions.

One of those repercussions is the tragic fact that you'll find only me answering your posts because, while other people get easily bored with such stupid behavior, I find it amusing watching people like you dig themselves ever deeper into holes, and I like to give them a hand to do so. I'm a cunt like that. That's what you've earned for yourself in your 4 days and 142 posts; near perfect contempt from the community, and me as your sole correspondent.

Enjoy! :cheers:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#43  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 8:30 am

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".

Except you did:
Nevets wrote:
William the conqueror was a "direct" descendant of Rollo, who was the pagan viking that first became king of Normandy

Admitting a mistake will earn you respect, lying and shifting the goal posts won't.

Nevets wrote:Also look up what a Duke of Normandy is. It means ruler. Your argument is a nit pick play on words, diverting from what is important, and obfuscating the subject, by trying to mislead someone by implying a Duke is of less importance, and thus downplaying the importance.

Because it is less important. Because Rollo did not become an independent ruler of Normandy, he became a duke, subservient to the king of France. You know, the actual person who gave him land, not the pope.

Nevets wrote:
If you want me to reply to the rest of your post, you will aslo have to put some space between my replies and your own, because going through your entire post, seperating my writing from yours, is not practical.

And yet every other forum member has managed to do so easily. If you're to lazy to learn, that's your problem not mine.
Your failure to use such an easy function as a the quote system on this site isn't a valid reason to avoid answering challenges to your claims. :naughty:
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Mar 11, 2020 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#44  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 8:32 am

Ooh boy, the Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.
Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:

That was quite typical for pagan leaders being granted lands and fiefdoms in Christian lands


Exactly. Becoming "owned".

By the king or lower ranking lord, who granted them lands, not the pope, as you initially asserted.

Nevets wrote:But you would be of the conspiracy theory, and allegation, that they were not loyal tennants to their landlord(s)

But yours is the allegation.

You are alleging they were double crossing

I have no interest in engaging with baseless accusations intended to dodge the challenges to your own claims. :coffee:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#45  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 8:34 am

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Also look up what a Duke of Normandy is. It means ruler. Your argument is a nit pick play on words,


It's a Duke, not a King, so you're wrong again.

Your rate of error is about 1 per 3 words. You'd give Trump a run for his money.


Ok, have changed it to first "ruler" of Normandy.

See, was that so hard? If you'd just admitted your mistake from the get-go it'd have saved you some hassle.

Nevets wrote:But you are obfuscating.
Try also having a knowledge on the wider, actual, subject.

Says the person who has demonstrated nothing of the sort. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#46  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 8:36 am

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: Converting to Christianity is not the same as allying yourself with the Papacy.


That is inconsistent with your previous statement, which was that they ally themselves with those that grant them lands

And who gave the lands? The pope? No, the kings and lower ranking lords of Europe did that.
It was to them newly converted lords pledged their allegiance, not the pope.
There is no inconsistency.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#47  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 11, 2020 8:39 am

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


Your attempt at caricaturing me is amusing, but no one's going to buy it. I did like the 'whining' part though - very creative! I have to assume this is basically just psychological projection.


Nevets wrote: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",


Yes, and then you pretended you never said it - you expressly said "I never said that" and then I cited your post saying exactly that.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/topic ... l#p2736116

Nevets wrote:I never ever said he was. I said William was "the first Norman king of England".


Nevets wrote:...William was also the first king of England,...


And this is where it gets funny because you've not only made an obvious and elementary mistake, you've also tried to lie about it.

Now you've been caught lying about it, you're trying to spin it that you were right all along. So you've tried to claim that the Anglo-Saxon kings of England weren't actually kings of England, but of Anglo-Saxon (which isn't a place, btw), and you've also tried a semantic word-game where you've started trying to work in the idea that because language changes over time, the original title would have been spelt differently, so you were right all along! :lol:

Of course, it's all utter bollocks and it's all recorded here forever in black and white. So carry on with your silly self-defeating games as long as you like - you're only making yourself look like an utter plonker.


Nevets wrote: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.


There's no 'probably' about it: he factually, unarguably, incontrovertibly was not the first king of England. You should be able to grasp this, if by nothing else, by the fact that he was contesting two other people for that title, and one of them - King Harold - was already King of England.

Why did he set about invading England? Because he has a claim on the throne of England... yes, a claim on an existing title.

So your foray into making shit up to cover over the fact that you made shit up is really not going well - it's just exposing how little you know.


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


I am not running around anywhere - I am posting in the threads in which you made these false claims and in which you're acting so foolishly. Around here, we actively appreciate people who acknowledge their errors; we think people who continue to pretend they're right even after they've been shown wrong are dopey numpties to either pity or laugh at, depending on one's proclivity.

It's not that you 'think' William the Conqueror was the first king of England, it's that you claimed he was, then you pretended you never said it, then you launched into a hilariously inane game of pretending you were right all along by citing links from single sentences in Wikipedia which actually contradict you... all while trying to muster a tone of patronizing condescension. It's very funny and I can't wait to see where this is going to go.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#48  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 8:41 am

Nevets wrote:Thomas is intelligent.
He can spaeak for himself.

But it was his assertion "That was quite typical for pagan leaders being granted lands and fiefdoms in Christian lands."

No, what I actually said was:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nevets wrote:Rollo was also converted from norse paganism, to Catholicism, during his time in Normandy, which is not far from the realms of the Holy Roman Empire

That was quite typical for pagan leaders being granted lands and fiefdoms in Christian lands.



Nevets wrote:If they are merely, "pretending" to be loyal to those that grant them lands, then this is an "allegation".

Except you won't find the word pretending or any synonym thereof in my statement, so that's entirely a fabrication on your part. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
Are "you" alleging that those that granted them the lands, did not also want loyalty in return? Did they grant the lands, and titles, out of charity?

And again, they swore fealty to their land lords, not the pope.

Nevets wrote:
But i should be having this debate with Thomas.

It's a discussion, not a debate. And have it with me then, rather than the increasing number of fantastical misrepresentations you keep dreaming up. :nono:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#49  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 8:48 am

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.

Even if true, which it isn't, so what? An argument being extreme does not invalidate it.

Nevets wrote:The Normans became catholicised.
The whole point is how they connect to the pope.

And again, converting to a local religion is not the same as swearing fealty to the pope.

Nevets wrote:
My link clearly says, First Norman King of England.

But you asserted he was the first king of England, period. And that he was the king of Normandy.
Both assertions are false.

Nevets wrote:If i said "first king of England", it is because i made a typo error, and forgot to include Norman,

That's an error of omission, not a typo.
This is a typo:
Nevets wrote:
He can spaeak for himself.


Nevets wrote:
which goes against my whole point, which is pointing out the Norman conquer of England in 1066 and its Catholic elements.

Again, as ST pointed out, England already was Christian before William was even born. The invasion of 1066 wasn't against pagans, it was against fellow Christians.

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

Which is counterfactual nonsense.

Nevets wrote:You are strengthening my argument by pointing out my typos. Not weakening.

Again, not a typo.
Also your statement is a non-sequitur.

Nevets wrote:
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.

Rather than pretending to read minds and make even more shit up, why not try and engage with what people actually say? :naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#50  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 8:57 am

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


That may be so, but just a little so.

Stop treating your rectum as a source of historical information.

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

I think you mean inhabitants and no, England wasn't populated by Vikings alone.
It was a melting pot of Celts, Angles, Saxons and several other tribes who migrated there over the centuries.
And as ST pointed out, by the time William invaded, Christianity was the dominant religion, so no, they did not have to content with a pagan island.

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


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

Aethelstan had been a corpse for over a 100 years by the time William invaded England. So he's practically irrelevant to the discussion in this thread.

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

Aethelstan had fuck all to do with the Norman conquest of England.
Norman, as in the people from the French duchy of Normandy, is not synonymous with Viking.
The Norman conquest of England is not a continuation of the Viking raids and invasions in Aethelstans time.
None of what you just posted supports your fantasy about the Norman invasion being a pope controlled Christian attack on a pagan kingdom. :naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#51  Postby Svartalf » Mar 11, 2020 9:04 am

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

Are you thick or do you do it on purpose? Edward Confessor and Harold Godwinson were kings of England, from the southern coast to Hadrian's wall. 'king of the anglo saxons' would imply there were several ethnically separated kingdoms in the island, which was no longer the case. and they had been christianized long ago... in saints lives, it is apparent that the evangelizers of Scotland, Ireland and Brittany came from Britain.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#52  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 9:05 am

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

No-one said they were, so that's an irrelevant objection.
More-over, while they're not synonyms, they're not mutually exclusive either.
The first kings of England were also the kings of the Anglo-Saxons.

Nevets wrote: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".

The kingdoms of post-Roman, pre-Norman England were all Catholic Nevets, with the exception of a few short Viking pagan fiefdoms.
Even the king of the largest Danish kingdom in England, Guthrum, converted to Christianity as part of the peace deal which created his kingdom.
And when Cnut conquered England, it was a Christian invading, not a pagan Viking,

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

Maybe in your fantasies, but in actual fact, he was not.

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

False, he was both.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#53  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 9:14 am

Nevets wrote:
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

No, those were Northmen.
Normans in the time of William of Normandy, where the inhabitants of the French duchy of Normandy and the kingdom of Sicily.

Nevets wrote:
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.

No they weren't.


Nevets wrote:
Normandy was named after the Normans, when the Vikings established Normandy.

False, it was named after the Northmen, who were granted the lands by the king of France.

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

Irrelevant. When Rollo became duke of Normandy he became subservient to the French king and abdicated any royal claims in Scandinavia.
By the time of William the conquerer they weren't pagan Vikings, they were Christian and Norman.

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

They only relate to Vikings in the sense that their ancestors were Viking.
What you're doing is the equivalent to arguing Brazil is a Portuguese nation.

Nevets wrote:
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

It was also over a century before the invasion of England, completely irrelevant.

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

No really, Rollo all but eliminated anyone opposed to his conversion and abandoning of his Viking roots.
The only clashes between the Normans and Vikings were when Vikings tried to invade France and therefore Normandy.

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

Which is also, completely irrelevant.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#54  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 9:22 am

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

He was the head of the house of Normandy ffs. Which had become Christian well over a century before.

Nevets wrote:Now Harold Godwinson was House of Godwin

And a Christian Anglo-Saxon, not a pagan Viking.

Nevets wrote:Now House of Godwin was raised by King Cnut

A Christian Dane, not a pagan Viking.

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

In 1020, when England was Christian, not Viking.

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

In the 6th century, 5 centuries removed from Cnut and Godwinson and William.
How the fuck is that relevant?

Nevets wrote:

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".

It also used to be Danish, not Norman and as such has fuck all to do with the discussion in this thread.
It also used to be Christian, not pagan and as such refutes your claim that the Normans had to deal with large populations of pagan Vikings.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#55  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 9:24 am

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

Except they were also king of England.
King of Anglo-Saxons decribes the cultures of the people one is king of.
King of England describes the geographical situation that you rule as king. They are not mutually exclusive.

Nevets wrote:
So who is doing the misinforming, and misrepresenting?

You, undeniably, you. :coffee:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#56  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 9:32 am

Nevets wrote:
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.

Dunning and Kruger aren't your friends Nevets.

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

Nope.
Again, one refers to the cultures of those you rule, the other the geographical territory.

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

Except for the several that predated Williams invasion. But do continue to pretend they did not exist. It'll only serve to demonstrate intellectual dishonesty or reading comprehension issues on your part.

Nevets wrote:Anglo-saxon kings "were not" kings of England.

Some of them definitely were.

Nevets wrote:
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".

Which he became by beating his predecessor. :coffee:

Nevets wrote:
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

And yet you keep insisting that there were no Anglo-Saxon kings of England, when every Wiki snippet you post shows otherwise.


Nevets wrote:William the Conqueror, was "the first" King of England.

Nope, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Nevets wrote:He was "not" anglo-saxon king.

No-one said he was, so you can burn that straw-man all by your lonesome.

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

No-one said he was, so you can burn that straw-man on your own as well.
He was the first Norman king of England, but not the first king of England period. He was preceded by several Anglo-Saxon and Danish kings.

Nevets wrote:
He was the "first"

KING OF ALL ENGLAND

To quote your own source:
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


Now, are you going to deal with the facts, or just continue to pull stuff directly from your posterior in order to avoid admitting you haven't a clue what you're talking about? :coffee:
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Mar 11, 2020 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#57  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 9:44 am

Nevets wrote:
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.

It's not conjecture, it's a reference to a series of factual occurrences.
It's also not whining, it's demonstrating a history of misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.

Nevets wrote:
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.

Except he wasn't and you've offered no evidence to support the notion that he was. Quite the opposite, your sources demonstrate the existence of several English kings before William of Normandy.

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

He's posting on a forum, explaining one of the contributors does not act with intellectual honesty. Which is completely fair.

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

You whine at others for semantic arguments and then proceed to use them yourself.
Harold was king of England, as was his predecessor.

Nevets wrote: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

Translation; eventhough a source contradicts my claim, I am going to cherry-pick other sources that I mistakenly think support it. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
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.

:picard:
Cnut, who again, preceded William and Harold, conquered England, thus becoming effectively the king of England.
Meaning there were several kings of England before William.

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

So fucking what? Victoria I wasn't crowned English-German Queen of England either. Doesn't change the fact that she was.

Nevets wrote:
I mean, you do realise, right, that the anglo-saxons were considered drunken barbarians?

We don't uncritically accept whatever counterfactual nonsense you excrete from your backside, no.

Nevets wrote:They were nothing more than foot soldiers in the invading Britain.

Care to rephrase that into legible English? :roll:

Nevets wrote: But the power for being their leaders, was a struggle between Catholicism, and the Normans.

Except that it wasn't as they were all Catholics.

Nevets wrote:
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

:picard:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#58  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 11, 2020 10:01 am

It's cuckoo, isn't it?

I've never seen so much misinformation so confidently asserted, and we've just had 3 years of Trump.

Nevets seems to think that bluster is going to make his counterfactual assertions become true. Where repetition fails, diversion into irrelevant details (which also tend to be wrong) appears to be his preferred 'strategy'.

It's fascinating to watch.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#59  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Mar 11, 2020 10:06 am

Well, that’s one descriptor (fascinating).

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#60  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 11, 2020 10:07 am

Incidentally and to show Nevets how it's done, when I first wrote this...

Spearthrower wrote:Æthelstan lived 200 fucking years prior to William the Conqueror.


I actually wrote 400 fucking years.

I'm not sure quite why I wrote that when I know it wasn't 400 years before, but it was wrong. I noticed it was wrong after I'd submitted the post and after reading back through it. But mea culpa - I most definitely wrote the wrong date, and I can't even claim it was a fat-fingered typo else it would have been 100 or 300... apparently, my brain at that moment simply popped up the wrong number - numbers have always been a problem for me.

Anyway, I corrected it because that's what you do when you're wrong. You don't dig deeper, double-down, and start calling out other people for noting your error.

Maybe Nevets can learn from this.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest