rationalskepticism.org

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.