Posted: Mar 10, 2020 10:10 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
Nevets wrote:This thread is created due to another thread going off topic.
I pulled out of the discussion at the point of being asked "in what way was William the conqueror" connected to the pope.
The argument is an off-shoot from the claim that the pope was behind the sending of British troops to the crusades.
I am in favour of the argument, that the pope, was at the very least, influencial in the sending of British troops during the crusades.
But those against the theory, are questioning the links between William the conqueror and the pope.

To begin, William the conquror was first Norman king of England 1066

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.

William the conqueror was a "direct" descendant of Rollo, who was the pagan viking that first became king of Normandy

He was a descendant of Rollo and was Duke of Normandy from 1035 onward.

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

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:
Rollo followed in the footsteps of a number of barbarian kings, from other houses, to ally themselves with the Papacy, amongst the earliest being Clovis I

Converting to Christianity (Arianism was long since dead in the time of Rollo) is not the same as allying yourself with the Papacy.

Nevets wrote:Now i did not even know there was a valid argument against any of this.
I thought it was pretty all contemporary,

Because it is the consensus.

Nevets wrote:But apparently there is huge opposition to those assertions.

Then why do you fail to present any of it?

Nevets wrote:
I fail to see how a link between William the conqueror and Roman Catholicism requires such proving, but apparently it does.

Or, perhaps there is a valid debate against William the conqueror being connected with Roman Catholicism?

It even says in this link here, William the conqueror was a "devout" Christian.

Again being a devout Christian =/= being an ally of the pope or being directed by the pope.

Nevets wrote:
William the Conqueror was a devout Christian. After he conquered the country he did what he could to spread the Christian religion in England.

Is the validity of the source objectionable?
I don't care as it doesn't change whether William was an ally of, or controlled by, the pope.