William the Conqueror and Catholicism

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

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#61  Postby Hermit » Mar 11, 2020 10:26 am

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

Orly? Seeing you are so fond of quoting the Wikipedia to satisfy your confirmation bias, please link to the bit in it that claims "William the Conqueror, was "the first" King of England". While i'm waiting for you to procure it, I'll chip in with this snippet from the Wikipedia's article titled List of English monarchs:
Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927, and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England.[3][4] The title "King of the English" or Rex Anglorum in Latin, was first used to describe Æthelstan in one of his charters in 928.

Note: Æthelstan died on 27 October 939. William the Conqueror was born a century later.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4388
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#62  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 2:02 pm

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

Orly? Seeing you are so fond of quoting the Wikipedia to satisfy your confirmation bias, please link to the bit in it that claims "William the Conqueror, was "the first" King of England". While i'm waiting for you to procure it, I'll chip in with this snippet from the Wikipedia's article titled List of English monarchs:
Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927, and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England.[3][4] The title "King of the English" or Rex Anglorum in Latin, was first used to describe Æthelstan in one of his charters in 928.

Note: Æthelstan died on 27 October 939. William the Conqueror was born a century later.


Slightly wrong. Whilst your wkipedia "Headline", does say that, it also explains under the Wiki headline, that Alfred the Great was King of the anglo saxons, and that he "claimed", to be King of England.

Now Aethelstan was the same. Also an anglo-saxon king

But Alfred the Great was also allied to the Normans.
You have him to thank for the good old bible bash.
He introduced the laws of the Papal.

About a fifth of the law code is taken up by Alfred's introduction which includes translations into English of the Ten Commandments, a few chapters from the Book of Exodus, and the Apostolic Letter from the Acts of the Apostles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great


Now Alfred the Greats legacy may be recognised as the beginning of an unbroken kingship of England up until this day, but it certainly was not solidified until William the conqueror removed the anglo-saxons from the throne.

Their kingship was not recongnised by the Normans

But what was recongnised by the Normans, was the great work they done. King Cnut was testimony to this.

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#63  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 2:37 pm

Spearthrower wrote: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.


Your error of 100 years, or 400 years, is unimportant.
What is important, is, what is the big deal about Aethelstane is? He was not even the first anglo-saxon to lay "claim" to being King of England.
Alfred the Great was, so why are you using Aethelstane and not Alfred the Great?

was King of Wessex from 871 to c.  886 and King of the Anglo-Saxons from c.  886 to 899. He was the youngest son of King Æthelwulf of Wessex. His father died when he was young and three of Alfred's brothers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great


Now as Hermit has shown you, in a post above where i replied to him, Alfred the Great "claimed" to be King of England.

But Alfred the Great also introduced the laws of the Papal.
He was also allied to the Normans.

But anglo-saxon kingship was not recognised by the Normans.
That was above the station of the anglo-saxons.

You may recognise Alfred the Great.
Many modern day historians do.

I also do, to an extent, but i recognise it for what it was.
The implimentation of Papal law, and the Holy Roman Empire.

Yet, you, cannot get your head around how there is a connection between England and the pope come the crusades, and want to argue that England has nothing to do with the pope, and pope was nothing to do with British troops in the crusades? Are you serious?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#64  Postby Sgt Kelly » Mar 11, 2020 2:56 pm

Nevets wrote:



Yet, you, cannot get your head around how there is a connection between England and the pope come the crusades, and want to argue that England has nothing to do with the pope, and pope was nothing to do with British troops in the crusades? Are you serious?


That is not what they are saying. There is a connection between the pope, England and the crusades. But your representation of it is such a crude oversimplification that it has practically no basis in reality.

Nevets wrote:
I also do, to an extent, but i recognise it for what it was.
The implimentation of Papal law, and the Holy Roman Empire.


Which is utter bollocks. The pope did not appoint the kings of England and the Holy Roman Empire has nothing to do with the pope other than that the Holy Roman Emperor, as a catholic, recognized the pope as the representative of god on earth. What that representation exactly meant was a source of great conflict between the emperor (who also claimed to rule by divine right) and the pope, by the way.
User avatar
Sgt Kelly
 
Posts: 438
Age: 48
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#65  Postby Sendraks » Mar 11, 2020 3:19 pm

Nevets wrote: that Alfred the Great was King of the anglo saxons, and that he "claimed", to be King of England.


So if someone "claims" to be King of England by what means is that claim invalidated?
Is it by someone trolling on the internet over a millennia later?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#66  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 3:30 pm

Sgt Kelly wrote:

That is not what they are saying. There is a connection between the pope, England and the crusades. But your representation of it is such a crude oversimplification that it has practically no basis in reality


Then they should have just said this, instead of having you attribute beliefs to them that they did not initially state.
They were firmly of the opinion that there was no connection.

But from reading between the lines, you are now of the opinion that they knew all this already.

Then why were they so highly deceptive about that fact?

Sgt Kelly wrote: Which is utter bollocks. The pope did not appoint the kings of England and the Holy Roman Empire has nothing to do with the pope other than that the Holy Roman Emperor, as a catholic, recognized the pope as the representative of god on earth. What that representation exactly meant was a source of great conflict between the emperor (who also claimed to rule by divine right) and the pope, by the way.


And this is highly misleading.

The pope did not need to appoint the kings of England.
They were appointed already.

William the conqueror was the Duchy of Normandy.

usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087. He was a descendant of Rollo and was Duke of Normandy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror


The duchy arose out of a grant of land to the Viking leader Rollo by the French king Charles III in 911. And i do believe the intelligent Thomas, who was the first to reply to my thread, was aware of this fact, given his statement about tennants and land-owners

The duchy arose out of a grant of land to the Viking leader Rollo by the French king Charles III in 911. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Normandy


Charles III was a member of the Carolingian dynasty,

was a member of the Carolingian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_the_Simple


and we have "already" covered on a different thread, how the Carolingians were among the first barbarians to pledge loyalty to the Papal, through Clovis I

Clovis I, king of the Franks, was the first important barbarian ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than Arianism, allying himself with the papacy. Other tribes, such as the Visigoths, later abandoned Arianism in favour of Catholicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Nica ... %80%931054)


So i repeat, they were "already" appointed,
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 11, 2020 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#67  Postby Sendraks » Mar 11, 2020 3:41 pm

Nevets wrote:The pope did not need to appoint the kings of England.
They were appointed already.


Yes, appointed by themselves. The people who laid "claim" to being the King of England. No involvement by the Pope at all.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#68  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 3:46 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Nevets wrote:The pope did not need to appoint the kings of England.
They were appointed already.


Yes, appointed by themselves. The people who laid "claim" to being the King of England. No involvement by the Pope at all.


Now this is why William the coqueror would be considered First King of England. Because, whilst Alfred the Great, was just a foot soldier, that rose above his station. William the conqueror was well connected to the Carolingians.

He was Duchy of Normandy, which was granted to the Normans by Charles III, who was a Carolingian, and the Carolingians, going back to Clovis I, pledged loyalty to the Papal.

And it does not really matter, "if they appointed themselves". They are people that spread the belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and they respect and promote Papal law. What more do you want? does not mean they have to perform oral on the pope, or that there are not other Jesus lie spreaders and Papal law respecters, that the pope would equally accept. So long as they follow Papal law.

This hardly supports your statement "no connection at-all".

Though i do acknowledge, you have at least crowned the beginning taking this debate to Level 2.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#69  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 3:50 pm

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

Orly? Seeing you are so fond of quoting the Wikipedia to satisfy your confirmation bias, please link to the bit in it that claims "William the Conqueror, was "the first" King of England". While i'm waiting for you to procure it, I'll chip in with this snippet from the Wikipedia's article titled List of English monarchs:
Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927, and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England.[3][4] The title "King of the English" or Rex Anglorum in Latin, was first used to describe Æthelstan in one of his charters in 928.

Note: Æthelstan died on 27 October 939. William the Conqueror was born a century later.


Slightly wrong. Whilst your wkipedia "Headline", does say that, it also explains under the Wiki headline, that Alfred the Great was King of the anglo saxons, and that he "claimed", to be King of England.

1. It's not a headline, it's a paragraph.
2. There is nothing wrong here, except your increasingly desperate, transparent and disingenuous attempts to avoid admitting to be wrong.
3. It was his goal to become king of England, it was his grandchild Aethelstan who actually managed to do so.

Nevets wrote:Now Aethelstan was the same. Also an anglo-saxon king

And king of the English and king of England.

Nevets wrote:But Alfred the Great was also allied to the Normans.

No he wasn't. Why do you insist on presenting your excrement as historical facts?
Alfred died before Rollo was even born. There were no Normans in his time.
Only Northmen, aka Vikings.

Nevets wrote:
You have him to thank for the good old bible bash.
He introduced the laws of the Papal.

No he didn't. Stop making shit up. Yes he was a Christian, but he wasn't the first nor the only one. Like I said, Guthrum, the king of the greatest Danish kingdom in England was a Christian.

Nevets wrote:
About a fifth of the law code is taken up by Alfred's introduction which includes translations into English of the Ten Commandments, a few chapters from the Book of Exodus, and the Apostolic Letter from the Acts of the Apostles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great

Just because Alfred wrote it down, doesn't mean he was the first or only one to spread Christianity.
The fucking Romans already did so.


Nevets wrote:Now Alfred the Greats legacy may be recognised as the beginning of an unbroken kingship of England up until this day, but it certainly was not solidified until William the conqueror removed the anglo-saxons from the throne.

:picard:

Nevets wrote:Their kingship was not recongnised by the Normans

It also wasn't recognised by the Chinese. So what? :roll:

Nevets wrote:But what was recongnised by the Normans, was the great work they done. King Cnut was testimony to this.

Cnut was a Christian Dane and had fuck all to do with the Normans. :naughty:
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Mar 11, 2020 3:59 pm, 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

#70  Postby Svartalf » Mar 11, 2020 3:52 pm

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.
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

#71  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 3:53 pm

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


Normans are a peoples.
Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish people

Also, Normandy was mostly implimented by Denmark

The settlements in France followed a series of raids on the French coast from mainly Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans


What type of history are you promoting, may i ask? The rest of your argument i did not even read. I tore it up and threw it in the bin. We need to establish fundamental facts first
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#72  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 3:58 pm

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: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.


Your error of 100 years, or 400 years, is unimportant.

Image

Nevets wrote:
What is important, is, what is the big deal about Aethelstane is?

He was the first to rule all of England by conquering the last part of non-Wessex England; Northumbria.

Nevets wrote:
He was not even the first anglo-saxon to lay "claim" to being King of England.

Another silly straw-man.

Nevets wrote:Alfred the Great was, so why are you using Aethelstane and not Alfred the Great?

Because Alfred did not actually rule all of England. Aethelstan did.

Nevets wrote:Now as Hermit has shown you, in a post above where i replied to him, Alfred the Great "claimed" to be King of England.

He claimed it has his goal.
He did not manage to achieve it however.

Nevets wrote:But Alfred the Great also introduced the laws of the Papal.

Except that he didn't.

Nevets wrote:He was also allied to the Normans.

Except he couldn't be because the Normans did not exist at that time.

Nevets wrote:But anglo-saxon kingship was not recognised by the Normans.

It also wasn't recognised by Belgium and a host of other not-yet-existing nations and civilisations.

Nevets wrote:That was above the station of the anglo-saxons..

More word-salad.

Nevets wrote:
You may recognise Alfred the Great.
Many modern day historians do.

His existence is not in dispute. :roll:

Nevets wrote:
I also do, to an extent, but i recognise it for what it was.
The implimentation of Papal law, and the Holy Roman Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire did not exist during Alfred's reign either. The German empire did, but it had no influence on Alfred or England during Alfred's reign.
And again, Roman Catholicism had already been introduced and spread by the Romans, centuries before Alfred was even born.

Nevets wrote:Yet, you, cannot get your head around how there is a connection between England and the pope come the crusades, and want to argue that England has nothing to do with the pope, and pope was nothing to do with British troops in the crusades? Are you serious?

Says the person who offers nothing but rectally extracted assertions phrased more incoherently with each successive post. :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

#73  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 4:04 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
His existence is not in dispute. :roll:


If you think i am disputing the existence of Alfred the Great, then you are unable to continue this debate, as you are obviously needing to sober up.

I cannot debate with someone that believes this is what i am arguing for.
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 11, 2020 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#74  Postby Sgt Kelly » Mar 11, 2020 4:04 pm

Nevets wrote:
Then they should have just said this, instead of having you attribute beliefs to them that they did not initially state.
They were firmly of the opinion that there was no connection.

But from reading between the lines, you are now of the opinion that they knew all this already.

Then why were they so highly deceptive about that fact?


Because some of them are scarred by a running battle they have had on this forum with someone who has a posting style similar to yours. I.e. they are attributing your rather spectacular incoherence to ill will, whereas I'm a firm believer in not attributing to malice what can be explained by incompetence.


And this is highly misleading.

The pope did not need to appoint the kings of England.
They were appointed already.


What is highly misleading ? Instead of constantly referring to 'this', name the thing you are referring to. We might have a fighting chance of discerning what it is you are even trying to talk about.

As far as I can tell it is your claim that the pope ordered the king of England (whoever he might be) to send troops on crusade.

That's not how it worked. The pope called for a crusade and then people from all ranks were moved or not moved to join this crusade for whatever reasons that moved them (from pure religious fervour to greed for plunder or new land). In fact joining a crusade (or 'taking the cross' as it was called) was one of the few (if not the only) ways that a noble could escape the duties he had to his feudal lord. So people certainly didn't go on a crusade because they were ordered to by their king who in turn was ordered by the pope, as you seem to be claiming.

Why are we talking about this anyway. What the hell is your point ?
User avatar
Sgt Kelly
 
Posts: 438
Age: 48
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#75  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 4:11 pm

Removed.
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 11, 2020 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#76  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 4:15 pm

Nevets wrote:
Sgt Kelly wrote:

That is not what they are saying. There is a connection between the pope, England and the crusades. But your representation of it is such a crude oversimplification that it has practically no basis in reality


Then they should have just said this, instead of having you attribute beliefs to them that they did not initially state.

Your dismal reading comprehension problems, are just that, your problem, not anyone else's.

Nevets wrote:They were firmly of the opinion that there was no connection.

QED.

Nevets wrote:But from reading between the lines, you are now of the opinion that they knew all this already.

Then why were they so highly deceptive about that fact?

Why did you stop beating your wife Nevets?

Nevets wrote:
Sgt Kelly wrote: Which is utter bollocks. The pope did not appoint the kings of England and the Holy Roman Empire has nothing to do with the pope other than that the Holy Roman Emperor, as a catholic, recognized the pope as the representative of god on earth. What that representation exactly meant was a source of great conflict between the emperor (who also claimed to rule by divine right) and the pope, by the way.


And this is highly misleading.

Nope, it's mostly factually correct, except for the moniker Holy Roman Empire.

Nevets wrote:
The pope did not need to appoint the kings of England.
They were appointed already.

By their predecessors or councils, not the pope or any representative of the church.

Nevets wrote:William the conqueror was the Duchy of Normandy.

No, he was the duke of Normandy. Not that that makes your sentence any less of a non-sequitur to the one preceding it.

Nevets wrote:
The duchy arose out of a grant of land to the Viking leader Rollo by the French king Charles III in 911. And i do believe the intelligent Thomas, who was the first to reply to my thread, was aware of this fact, given his statement about tennants and land-owners

Yes, I indeed had to correct you on that, as you kept insinuating that he swore loyalty to the pope, which he didn't.

Nevets wrote:
Charles III was a member of the Carolingian dynasty,

Another irrelevant tangent.

Nevets wrote:
and we have "already" covered on a different thread, how the Carolingians were among the first barbarians to pledge loyalty to the Papal, through Clovis I

No barbarian pledged loyalty to the pope, or 'the papal' whatever the fuck that means.
They swore loyalty to local kings and lower lords and converted to Christianity.

Nevets wrote:
Clovis I, king of the Franks, was the first important barbarian ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than Arianism, allying himself with the papacy. Other tribes, such as the Visigoths, later abandoned Arianism in favour of Catholicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Nica ... %80%931054)


So i repeat, they were "already" appointed,

So I repeat, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
More-over, it's once again wrong.
Clovis wasn't a Carolingian. The name comes from Charles Martel who lived several centuries later, when, all Western kingdoms were already Catholics.
Clovis was a Merovingian. And neither Clovis nor Charles Martel, were appointed.
Finally, Charles Martel was a French nobleman, not emperor of the/a Holy Roman Empire.
"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

#77  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 4:25 pm

Nevets wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Nevets wrote:The pope did not need to appoint the kings of England.
They were appointed already.


Yes, appointed by themselves. The people who laid "claim" to being the King of England. No involvement by the Pope at all.


Now this is why William the coqueror would be considered First King of England.

Except he wouldn't, as has been explained and demonstrated to you before.

Nevets wrote: Because, whilst Alfred the Great, was just a foot soldier, that rose above his station.

Stop making shit up.
Alfred was the son of the previous king of Wessex; Aethelwulf of Wessex.

Nevets wrote:William the conqueror was well connected to the Carolingians.

No he wasn't. There was no Carolingian line left in 1066. In fact, it ceased being in power when Rollo was a teenager.

Nevets wrote:He was Duchy of Normandy,

Again, duke of Normandy.

Nevets wrote:which was granted to the Normans by Charles III, who was a Carolingian, and the Carolingians, going back to Clovis I, pledged loyalty to the Papal.

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

Nevets wrote:
And it does not really matter, "if they appointed themselves". They are people that spread the belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and they respect and promote Papal law.

Again, the Romans already did this.

Nevets wrote: What more do you want?

What we want is very basic, for you to stop making shit up and deal with actual history and not the ad-hoc fantasies you keep making up.

Nevets wrote:
This hardly supports your statement "no connection at-all".

Not what Sendraks said.

Nevets wrote: Though i do acknowledge, you have at least crowned the beginning taking this debate to Level 2.

Since this isn't even a debate, this is yet another sampling of word-salad from 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

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#78  Postby Hermit » Mar 11, 2020 4:30 pm

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

Orly? Seeing you are so fond of quoting the Wikipedia to satisfy your confirmation bias, please link to the bit in it that claims "William the Conqueror, was "the first" King of England". While i'm waiting for you to procure it, I'll chip in with this snippet from the Wikipedia's article titled List of English monarchs:
Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927, and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England.[3][4] The title "King of the English" or Rex Anglorum in Latin, was first used to describe Æthelstan in one of his charters in 928.

Note: Æthelstan died on 27 October 939. William the Conqueror was born a century later.

Slightly wrong. Whilst your wkipedia "Headline", does say that, it also explains under the Wiki headline, that Alfred the Great was King of the anglo saxons, and that he "claimed", to be King of England.

Now Aethelstan was the same. Also an anglo-saxon king

Firstly, the claim is not that Alfred the Great was "King of the English" or Rex Anglorum in Latin. You just made that up. The article makes it perfectly clear that he ruled Wessex, one of the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms which later made up modern England. It also made it crystal clear that he never ruled eastern and northern England. He cannot be regarded as the King of England because he only ever ruled a part of it.

Secondly, Aethelstan was not the same. You just made that up. Aethelstan was not "also an anglo-saxon king". You just made that up as well. He is regarded as the first king of England because he was the first to rule all of what has become all of modern England. He could rightfully write Rex Anglorum underneath his signature, as he did when he authored charters because he was in fact the ruler of all of England. "King of England" is a direct translation of the Latin "Rex Anglorum". Now, note that there is no mention of Saxons, OK? This is important, because "Anglorum" is not a reference to a Germanic tribe, the Angles, that invaded Britain along with another Germanic tribe, the Saxons, after the Romans left several centuries earlier. "Anglorum" now literally means "the English", inhabitants of England.

By the time Aethelstan ruled over the English they had become a people in their own right in the same way we now regard the Americans as a people in their own right rather than various groups of European invaders, and Aethelstan - not William the Conqueror, nor Alfred the Great - was their first king. Stop trying to paste the meaning of one thing across to another. It doesn't work except in so far as you succeed in making a laughing stock of yourself.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4388
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#79  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 11, 2020 4:32 pm

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


Normans are a peoples.
Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish people

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.

Nevets wrote:Also, Normandy was mostly implimented by Denmark

More rectal waste product. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
The settlements in France followed a series of raids on the French coast from mainly Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans

:picard:
That sentence describes how, before the settlement was created, there were a series of raid of Denmark.
It does not claim that those raiders created the settlement.
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?
Those settlements were a direct result of the king of France granting Rollo the duchy, as his liege lord.

Nevets wrote:
What type of history are you promoting, may i ask?

The one that's actually based on facts and research, rather than your fantasies and rectally extracted assertions.

Nevets wrote: The rest of your argument i did not even read.

Which won't hide your failure to address, much less refute them, or how they refute your claims.

Nevets wrote: I tore it up and threw it in the bin.

Thank you for stating you have no interest in an honest discussion.

Nevets wrote: We need to establish fundamental facts first

So far you've established quite the record of not being able to distinguish facts from whatever you fancy.... :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

#80  Postby Nevets » Mar 11, 2020 4:35 pm

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

and becoming the de facto rulers of the Franks as the real powers behind the Merovingian throne. In 751 the Merovingian dynasty which had ruled the Germanic Franks was overthrown with the consent of the Papacy and the aristocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_dynasty
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest