rationalskepticism.org

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