Posted: 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-saxonsoften 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.
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.
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?