|
|
Post by borchester on Jan 31, 2024 10:33:08 GMT
Interesting fact, by DNA testing you can tell if you are part Irish or part English, but otherwise you can tell if you are Northern or Southern European. im one third Irish , and two thirds Scottish apparently sheepwash. How ?
The only way you can be a third Irish, Scottish or Martian is if you have three parents, which might appeal to Humza Yousaf and his friends in the SNP, but not to the rest of us who still believe in traditional rumpy pumpy
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 31, 2024 16:30:31 GMT
im one third Irish , and two thirds Scottish apparently sheepwash. How ?
The only way you can be a third Irish, Scottish or Martian is if you have three parents, which might appeal to Humza Yousaf and his friends in the SNP, but not to the rest of us who still believe in traditional rumpy pumpy
I know borkie , but im no sure you understand this DNA malarkey. The daughter did one of the DNA tests to determine her historical ethnicity , and the test gives obviously her parents historic ethnicity. It showed im one third Irish , two thirds Scottish , which fits in with the family history as my maws side were a mixture of northerners who came down from wester ross to glesga , and intermarried with the left footers who had migrated over to old glesga around the turn of last century. My da`s side were staunch ulster presbyterians who came back to scotland with holes in the arse of their trousers ,then committed the cardinal sin of interreligous marriage , and here we are today. It's quite interesting , but harmless fun. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 31, 2024 19:38:11 GMT
Hating the English is a major part of snat culture so anything that challenges their oddball take on history will be met with fascism, abuse and extreme intolerance. It's why even a calm, respectful and thoroughly decent person such as yourself, a Scotsman who doesn't hate the English, is treated as an outcast by the snats. Thankfully, the vast majority of people on this island would consider you a real Scotsman. Perhaps the snats on here aren't really scots?
You keep repeating statements. But, you have no answer when asked for supporting evidence to back up your accusations: nothing has been forthcoming. So I will give you another try: 1. Where do you get the idea the SNP is anti-English, that it views English people with hatred? As far as I am aware, not one anti English statement has been made by Nationalist politicians, 2. What, exactly, is this "oddball take on history"? Provide examples. 3. You make use of derogatory words like "fascism", "abuse" and "extreme intolerance" in relation to the SNP. Again, give examples. Two days ago you were given the opportunity to explain the accusations you make, and to provide answers to the questions put to you. Later the same day, I asked you again for some clarification, and, again, response came there none! Put up, or shut up!!! |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 1, 2024 6:40:26 GMT
Because England was invaded by Normans who took control of the English Crown by force and planted their aristocracy into positions of power. The English had no say in the matter. The same Norman people then went on to invade Ireland and the Irish accepted that leadership in the same way the English did and a Norman Crown ruled Ireland and England. I agree getting on for Tudor times the English had become in general absorbed into the Crown and the seat of power had become England though even today the English aristocracy is noted for its lineages stretching back to Norman times although new money from Yeoman and industrial wealth has diluted that. My contention is that blaming 'the English' is a rather popular pastime and calling Ireland a colony of England from over 700 years ago is part of that popular denigration of the English. History is far more complicated and nuanced than the simplistic 'hate' versions. A Colony as you described requires colonialization by the power base country but Ireland was not colonised by the English it was colonised, certainly at the time you refer to, by Normans. we have been over this now a number of times. In the original treaty of Windsor , the king of England and the English are mentioned twelve times .No one is blaming your wife today , nor is anyone blaming ranulph the 12th century saxon in his mud hut. The point is , ireland is an English colony because the king of England , not the king of anywhere else , invaded ireland and made the Irish swear fealty to the English crown. not the crown of normandy , Anjou or anywhere else. Many of the soldiers were lowly English men at arms, and the English king began the colonisation of ireland from that point not just with an anglo Norman elite , but with lowly English men as well. Even if you dont accept this , we have many other examples to pick from as I said.Henry the 8th declaring himself king of ireland. The subsequent abolishing of the old Gaelic titles and English titles being bestowed on those who swore fealty. The colonisation and plantation of ireland over centuries . English colonists from Nottinghamshire praising then Munster colony in 1590. So on and so forth. Ireland was an English colony , and so far , despite your desperate attempts to divert , you still haven't proved otherwise. I am trying to follow your logic. England is invaded against her will, has a King installed against her will and is ruled by said invaders for hundreds of years. It is not a colony of the Normans as far as you are concerned at any time. The minute William is crowned in 1066 he is King of England. This royal line then in one hundred years invades Ireland and the King of England, his line having taken England by force, also becomes Lord of Ireland and that becomes a colony of the English. Have you any evidence that the 'lowly English men at arms' were mostly involved. So far what I have read is that Normans and Welsh archers were involved and the Normans in Wales drew their force from local Welsh levies I have not disputed Henry declaring anything but if he declared himself King of Ireland then Ireland was not a colony, it was a Kingdom by your definition whether the locals wanted that King or not. Abolishing old titles is exactly what all invaders have done everywhere. I am not saying Ireland was not invaded just as England was invaded and many countries have been and have invaded what I find strange is this insistence that England, and by default the English, are always the villains in the piece. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 1, 2024 7:46:58 GMT
we have been over this now a number of times. In the original treaty of Windsor , the king of England and the English are mentioned twelve times .No one is blaming your wife today , nor is anyone blaming ranulph the 12th century saxon in his mud hut. The point is , ireland is an English colony because the king of England , not the king of anywhere else , invaded ireland and made the Irish swear fealty to the English crown. not the crown of normandy , Anjou or anywhere else. Many of the soldiers were lowly English men at arms, and the English king began the colonisation of ireland from that point not just with an anglo Norman elite , but with lowly English men as well. Even if you dont accept this , we have many other examples to pick from as I said.Henry the 8th declaring himself king of ireland. The subsequent abolishing of the old Gaelic titles and English titles being bestowed on those who swore fealty. The colonisation and plantation of ireland over centuries . English colonists from Nottinghamshire praising then Munster colony in 1590. So on and so forth. Ireland was an English colony , and so far , despite your desperate attempts to divert , you still haven't proved otherwise. I am trying to follow your logic. England is invaded against her will, has a King installed against her will and is ruled by said invaders for hundreds of years. It is not a colony of the Normans as far as you are concerned at any time. The minute William is crowned in 1066 he is King of England. This royal line then in one hundred years invades Ireland and the King of England, his line having taken England by force, also becomes Lord of Ireland and that becomes a colony of the English. Have you any evidence that the 'lowly English men at arms' were mostly involved. So far what I have read is that Normans and Welsh archers were involved and the Normans in Wales drew their force from local Welsh levies I have not disputed Henry declaring anything but if he declared himself King of Ireland then Ireland was not a colony, it was a Kingdom by your definition whether the locals wanted that King or not. Abolishing old titles is exactly what all invaders have done everywhere. I am not saying Ireland was not invaded just as England was invaded and many countries have been and have invaded what I find strange is this insistence that England, and by default the English, are always the villains in the piece. No. What you are trying and failing to do is disassociate England , the country , from the actions of the English elite in the past , and imply its some historical oddity by foreigners that held the English crown. This doesn't work because England , the modern country , and its current elite , in the de facto English Westminster parliament ( lets not argument semantics , call it uk if ou wish) make modern international claims to rule non English lands based on the historical actions of the crown , wether it was held by non English foreigners or not. You cannot make a modern claim , but disassociate yourself from the blame , and how the English crown achieved the ability to rule these lands. The English crown is the glue that holds the entire modern uk , and its overseas territories together. Parliament cannot operate without the power of the crown .It also relies on the claims of the crown . If , following your logic , England is not to blame for the actions of the crown , then it cannot make a claim on the treaties that were forged under these monarchs. You would open a can of worms that would destroy the very fabric of your beloved UK. For example , the crown would have no claim on Northern Ireland , as that claim rests on treaties going all the way back to the treaty of Windsor. Westminster could not rule Northern Ireland. The very basis of Westminster rule over Northern Ireland comes from the descendants of colonists put there by the English crowns rights , in four of the six counties , who wanted to remain loyal to the English crown in 1920. You would also have other major headaches. You would have no claim over Gibraltar , as by your logic , it was nothing to do with the English crown as the crown was held by a German in 1713 , when the Spanish ceded Gibraltar to the crown. It wouldn't stop there. We could argue scotland has a claim over north cumbria and northumberland in England , and demand the border be moved back to the pre 1066 status , as the 1237 treaty had no legitimacy under your logic as it was created by Norman frenchmen. the Channel Islands would have to be handed back to France , because they are held under the historic claims of a Norman Frenchman. Wales similarly would be called into question in the union , as the claim of the crown rest on the statute of rhuddlan , a 13th century document created by a Norman frenchman to govern Wales as part of the English crown. The very union of scotland and England in 1707 could be called into question , again as it had no legitimacy under your flawed logic , as the crown was held by a dutchman. It's a puerile argument , that clearly you haven't thought through. Where you have a claim on lands , and demand us respect the powers of the crown in the uk parliament , then you must also accept how those ancient rights came to be , and where the responsisibility lays. That's why ireland past , and northern irleland today , is an English colony. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 1, 2024 7:52:07 GMT
we have been over this now a number of times. In the original treaty of Windsor , the king of England and the English are mentioned twelve times .No one is blaming your wife today , nor is anyone blaming ranulph the 12th century saxon in his mud hut. The point is , ireland is an English colony because the king of England , not the king of anywhere else , invaded ireland and made the Irish swear fealty to the English crown. not the crown of normandy , Anjou or anywhere else. Many of the soldiers were lowly English men at arms, and the English king began the colonisation of ireland from that point not just with an anglo Norman elite , but with lowly English men as well. Even if you dont accept this , we have many other examples to pick from as I said.Henry the 8th declaring himself king of ireland. The subsequent abolishing of the old Gaelic titles and English titles being bestowed on those who swore fealty. The colonisation and plantation of ireland over centuries . English colonists from Nottinghamshire praising then Munster colony in 1590. So on and so forth. Ireland was an English colony , and so far , despite your desperate attempts to divert , you still haven't proved otherwise. I have not disputed Henry declaring anything but if he declared himself King of Ireland then Ireland was not a colony, it was a Kingdom by your definition whether the locals wanted that King or not. There you go again , sandy back trying to redefine what a colony means , in this case by claiming ireland was a kingdom (it was) but trying not to mention it was under an English king and settled by his colonists. The very definition of a colony...
a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 1, 2024 13:48:03 GMT
I love my country and Scotland is part of it.
Abolish devolution, introduce PR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2024 15:27:38 GMT
we have been over this now a number of times. In the original treaty of Windsor , the king of England and the English are mentioned twelve times .No one is blaming your wife today , nor is anyone blaming ranulph the 12th century saxon in his mud hut. The point is , ireland is an English colony because the king of England , not the king of anywhere else , invaded ireland and made the Irish swear fealty to the English crown. not the crown of normandy , Anjou or anywhere else. Many of the soldiers were lowly English men at arms, and the English king began the colonisation of ireland from that point not just with an anglo Norman elite , but with lowly English men as well. Even if you dont accept this , we have many other examples to pick from as I said.Henry the 8th declaring himself king of ireland. The subsequent abolishing of the old Gaelic titles and English titles being bestowed on those who swore fealty. The colonisation and plantation of ireland over centuries . English colonists from Nottinghamshire praising then Munster colony in 1590. So on and so forth. Ireland was an English colony , and so far , despite your desperate attempts to divert , you still haven't proved otherwise. I am trying to follow your logic. England is invaded against her will, has a King installed against her will and is ruled by said invaders for hundreds of years. It is not a colony of the Normans as far as you are concerned at any time. The minute William is crowned in 1066 he is King of England. This royal line then in one hundred years invades Ireland and the King of England, his line having taken England by force, also becomes Lord of Ireland and that becomes a colony of the English. Have you any evidence that the 'lowly English men at arms' were mostly involved. So far what I have read is that Normans and Welsh archers were involved and the Normans in Wales drew their force from local Welsh levies I have not disputed Henry declaring anything but if he declared himself King of Ireland then Ireland was not a colony, it was a Kingdom by your definition whether the locals wanted that King or not. Abolishing old titles is exactly what all invaders have done everywhere. I am not saying Ireland was not invaded just as England was invaded and many countries have been and have invaded what I find strange is this insistence that England, and by default the English, are always the villains in the piece.The default position of hating the English is central to their campaign. Take that away and what's left? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 1, 2024 20:51:48 GMT
I have not disputed Henry declaring anything but if he declared himself King of Ireland then Ireland was not a colony, it was a Kingdom by your definition whether the locals wanted that King or not. There you go again , sandy back trying to redefine what a colony means , in this case by claiming ireland was a kingdom (it was) but trying not to mention it was under an English king and settled by his colonists. The very definition of a colony...
a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country.And it was at that point I asked how do you define a country which for some reason you declined to do but were insistent on defining colony several times. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 1, 2024 21:41:05 GMT
I am trying to follow your logic. England is invaded against her will, has a King installed against her will and is ruled by said invaders for hundreds of years. It is not a colony of the Normans as far as you are concerned at any time. The minute William is crowned in 1066 he is King of England. This royal line then in one hundred years invades Ireland and the King of England, his line having taken England by force, also becomes Lord of Ireland and that becomes a colony of the English. Have you any evidence that the 'lowly English men at arms' were mostly involved. So far what I have read is that Normans and Welsh archers were involved and the Normans in Wales drew their force from local Welsh levies I have not disputed Henry declaring anything but if he declared himself King of Ireland then Ireland was not a colony, it was a Kingdom by your definition whether the locals wanted that King or not. Abolishing old titles is exactly what all invaders have done everywhere. I am not saying Ireland was not invaded just as England was invaded and many countries have been and have invaded what I find strange is this insistence that England, and by default the English, are always the villains in the piece. No. What you are trying and failing to do is disassociate England , the country , from the actions of the English elite in the past , and imply its some historical oddity by foreigners that held the English crown. This doesn't work because England , the modern country , and its current elite , in the de facto English Westminster parliament ( lets not argument semantics , call it uk if ou wish) make modern international claims to rule non English lands based on the historical actions of the crown , wether it was held by non English foreigners or not. You cannot make a modern claim , but disassociate yourself from the blame , and how the English crown achieved the ability to rule these lands. The English crown is the glue that holds the entire modern uk , and its overseas territories together. Parliament cannot operate without the power of the crown .It also relies on the claims of the crown . If , following your logic , England is not to blame for the actions of the crown , then it cannot make a claim on the treaties that were forged under these monarchs. You would open a can of worms that would destroy the very fabric of your beloved UK. For example , the crown would have no claim on Northern Ireland , as that claim rests on treaties going all the way back to the treaty of Windsor. Westminster could not rule Northern Ireland. The very basis of Westminster rule over Northern Ireland comes from the descendants of colonists put there by the English crowns rights , in four of the six counties , who wanted to remain loyal to the English crown in 1920. You would also have other major headaches. You would have no claim over Gibraltar , as by your logic , it was nothing to do with the English crown as the crown was held by a German in 1713 , when the Spanish ceded Gibraltar to the crown. It wouldn't stop there. We could argue scotland has a claim over north cumbria and northumberland in England , and demand the border be moved back to the pre 1066 status , as the 1237 treaty had no legitimacy under your logic as it was created by Norman frenchmen. the Channel Islands would have to be handed back to France , because they are held under the historic claims of a Norman Frenchman. Wales similarly would be called into question in the union , as the claim of the crown rest on the statute of rhuddlan , a 13th century document created by a Norman frenchman to govern Wales as part of the English crown. The very union of scotland and England in 1707 could be called into question , again as it had no legitimacy under your flawed logic , as the crown was held by a dutchman. It's a puerile argument , that clearly you haven't thought through. Where you have a claim on lands , and demand us respect the powers of the crown in the uk parliament , then you must also accept how those ancient rights came to be , and where the responsisibility lays. That's why ireland past , and northern irleland today , is an English colony. No I am disassociating the English from the colonisation of Ireland. It was always a Norman undertaking. You have not shown anything that moves 'the English' into being part of that invasion force where some historians are clear in the lack of Anglo-Saxon names in the invasion force and that force was composed primarily of Norman and Welsh men at arms. The continuity of the English Crown and the English aristocracy is all part of the class system that has been part of England since Norman times. Gradual acceptance of that system and assimilation into it was part of the process of colonisation of England by the Normans which was at best no where near complete by the time of the invasion of Ireland. If any English men were at that invasion then they were there in an enforced way at the behest of their colonisers but many think they were not. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 2, 2024 8:21:01 GMT
There you go again , sandy back trying to redefine what a colony means , in this case by claiming ireland was a kingdom (it was) but trying not to mention it was under an English king and settled by his colonists. The very definition of a colony...
a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country.And it was at that point I asked how do you define a country which for some reason you declined to do but were insistent on defining colony several times. ah is this you back laying the ground to argue yet more semantics rather than addressing the points raised about ireland being Englands first colony.? I think perhaps your wife should buy you a dictionary sandy , as there appears to be a hell of a lot of words in the English language you dont know the meaning of. Are you denying ireland was a country now prior to the English conquests , and colonisations? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 2, 2024 8:35:47 GMT
No. What you are trying and failing to do is disassociate England , the country , from the actions of the English elite in the past , and imply its some historical oddity by foreigners that held the English crown. This doesn't work because England , the modern country , and its current elite , in the de facto English Westminster parliament ( lets not argument semantics , call it uk if ou wish) make modern international claims to rule non English lands based on the historical actions of the crown , wether it was held by non English foreigners or not. You cannot make a modern claim , but disassociate yourself from the blame , and how the English crown achieved the ability to rule these lands. The English crown is the glue that holds the entire modern uk , and its overseas territories together. Parliament cannot operate without the power of the crown .It also relies on the claims of the crown . If , following your logic , England is not to blame for the actions of the crown , then it cannot make a claim on the treaties that were forged under these monarchs. You would open a can of worms that would destroy the very fabric of your beloved UK. For example , the crown would have no claim on Northern Ireland , as that claim rests on treaties going all the way back to the treaty of Windsor. Westminster could not rule Northern Ireland. The very basis of Westminster rule over Northern Ireland comes from the descendants of colonists put there by the English crowns rights , in four of the six counties , who wanted to remain loyal to the English crown in 1920. You would also have other major headaches. You would have no claim over Gibraltar , as by your logic , it was nothing to do with the English crown as the crown was held by a German in 1713 , when the Spanish ceded Gibraltar to the crown. It wouldn't stop there. We could argue scotland has a claim over north cumbria and northumberland in England , and demand the border be moved back to the pre 1066 status , as the 1237 treaty had no legitimacy under your logic as it was created by Norman frenchmen. the Channel Islands would have to be handed back to France , because they are held under the historic claims of a Norman Frenchman. Wales similarly would be called into question in the union , as the claim of the crown rest on the statute of rhuddlan , a 13th century document created by a Norman frenchman to govern Wales as part of the English crown. The very union of scotland and England in 1707 could be called into question , again as it had no legitimacy under your flawed logic , as the crown was held by a dutchman. It's a puerile argument , that clearly you haven't thought through. Where you have a claim on lands , and demand us respect the powers of the crown in the uk parliament , then you must also accept how those ancient rights came to be , and where the responsisibility lays. That's why ireland past , and northern irleland today , is an English colony. No I am disassociating the English from the colonisation of Ireland.. Your original contention to me was ireland was not an English colony. We have records going back to the days of the Norman French , for example , Edward the third writing to the sheriff of the cross ( seneschal of the liberty of Kilkenny) from 1360 , voicing his concern about the absorption of English colonists in ireland. This is found in the red book archives of the diocese of ossory. We have records from 16th century of colonists from Englands Nottinghamshire praising the land they had taken from the Irish in munster . This is found in Robert Paynes brief description of ireland (London 1590) We have English lord chief justice of ireland , sir William parsons writing letters to the English government in 1641 (a true coppie of drivers letters) regarding further plans to speed up the colonisation of ireland , in terms of their governance , apparel , language and manner of holding land to set up ireland and the Irish in obedience to the laws of the English empire. (his words) We have in black and white , written across 8 centuries in English latin and Norman French , as well as native Gaelic language records , of ireland being an English colony . The national archives , British museum , international treaties however ancient , government records , ancient manuscripts both in England and ireland , record this fact that you are in denial about. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 2, 2024 8:44:56 GMT
No. What you are trying and failing to do is disassociate England , the country , from the actions of the English elite in the past , and imply its some historical oddity by foreigners that held the English crown. This doesn't work because England , the modern country , and its current elite , in the de facto English Westminster parliament ( lets not argument semantics , call it uk if ou wish) make modern international claims to rule non English lands based on the historical actions of the crown , wether it was held by non English foreigners or not. You cannot make a modern claim , but disassociate yourself from the blame , and how the English crown achieved the ability to rule these lands. The English crown is the glue that holds the entire modern uk , and its overseas territories together. Parliament cannot operate without the power of the crown .It also relies on the claims of the crown . If , following your logic , England is not to blame for the actions of the crown , then it cannot make a claim on the treaties that were forged under these monarchs. You would open a can of worms that would destroy the very fabric of your beloved UK. For example , the crown would have no claim on Northern Ireland , as that claim rests on treaties going all the way back to the treaty of Windsor. Westminster could not rule Northern Ireland. The very basis of Westminster rule over Northern Ireland comes from the descendants of colonists put there by the English crowns rights , in four of the six counties , who wanted to remain loyal to the English crown in 1920. You would also have other major headaches. You would have no claim over Gibraltar , as by your logic , it was nothing to do with the English crown as the crown was held by a German in 1713 , when the Spanish ceded Gibraltar to the crown. It wouldn't stop there. We could argue scotland has a claim over north cumbria and northumberland in England , and demand the border be moved back to the pre 1066 status , as the 1237 treaty had no legitimacy under your logic as it was created by Norman frenchmen. the Channel Islands would have to be handed back to France , because they are held under the historic claims of a Norman Frenchman. Wales similarly would be called into question in the union , as the claim of the crown rest on the statute of rhuddlan , a 13th century document created by a Norman frenchman to govern Wales as part of the English crown. The very union of scotland and England in 1707 could be called into question , again as it had no legitimacy under your flawed logic , as the crown was held by a dutchman. It's a puerile argument , that clearly you haven't thought through. Where you have a claim on lands , and demand us respect the powers of the crown in the uk parliament , then you must also accept how those ancient rights came to be , and where the responsisibility lays. That's why ireland past , and northern irleland today , is an English colony. You have not shown anything that moves 'the English' into being part of that invasion force Where do you begin? We have lieutenant general Charles Montague , of the English horse accounts of the English armies invasion force marching from armagh in 1598 . Giraldus cambrensis , Expugnatio Hibernica 1185 Gives records of the English as part of the Norman invasion force , and the Irish annals of tighernach give records of the English as part of the Norman invasion force , all under the directions of the English crown. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 2, 2024 8:49:49 GMT
No. What you are trying and failing to do is disassociate England , the country , from the actions of the English elite in the past , and imply its some historical oddity by foreigners that held the English crown. This doesn't work because England , the modern country , and its current elite , in the de facto English Westminster parliament ( lets not argument semantics , call it uk if ou wish) make modern international claims to rule non English lands based on the historical actions of the crown , wether it was held by non English foreigners or not. You cannot make a modern claim , but disassociate yourself from the blame , and how the English crown achieved the ability to rule these lands. The English crown is the glue that holds the entire modern uk , and its overseas territories together. Parliament cannot operate without the power of the crown .It also relies on the claims of the crown . If , following your logic , England is not to blame for the actions of the crown , then it cannot make a claim on the treaties that were forged under these monarchs. You would open a can of worms that would destroy the very fabric of your beloved UK. For example , the crown would have no claim on Northern Ireland , as that claim rests on treaties going all the way back to the treaty of Windsor. Westminster could not rule Northern Ireland. The very basis of Westminster rule over Northern Ireland comes from the descendants of colonists put there by the English crowns rights , in four of the six counties , who wanted to remain loyal to the English crown in 1920. You would also have other major headaches. You would have no claim over Gibraltar , as by your logic , it was nothing to do with the English crown as the crown was held by a German in 1713 , when the Spanish ceded Gibraltar to the crown. It wouldn't stop there. We could argue scotland has a claim over north cumbria and northumberland in England , and demand the border be moved back to the pre 1066 status , as the 1237 treaty had no legitimacy under your logic as it was created by Norman frenchmen. the Channel Islands would have to be handed back to France , because they are held under the historic claims of a Norman Frenchman. Wales similarly would be called into question in the union , as the claim of the crown rest on the statute of rhuddlan , a 13th century document created by a Norman frenchman to govern Wales as part of the English crown. The very union of scotland and England in 1707 could be called into question , again as it had no legitimacy under your flawed logic , as the crown was held by a dutchman. It's a puerile argument , that clearly you haven't thought through. Where you have a claim on lands , and demand us respect the powers of the crown in the uk parliament , then you must also accept how those ancient rights came to be , and where the responsisibility lays. That's why ireland past , and northern irleland today , is an English colony. . The continuity of the English Crown and the English aristocracy is all part of the class system that has been part of England since Norman times. Gradual acceptance of that system and assimilation into it was part of the process of colonisation of England by the Normans this appears to be a tacit admission that ireland was an English colony. It not just myself , as a mere lowly scotsman , who is calling ireland englands first colony. Around the world , people recognise that fact. what the eminent Indian writer Pankaj Mishra had to say regarding ireland and Brexit a few years back... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankaj_Mishra |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 2, 2024 8:52:24 GMT
I am trying to follow your logic. England is invaded against her will, has a King installed against her will and is ruled by said invaders for hundreds of years. It is not a colony of the Normans as far as you are concerned at any time. The minute William is crowned in 1066 he is King of England. This royal line then in one hundred years invades Ireland and the King of England, his line having taken England by force, also becomes Lord of Ireland and that becomes a colony of the English. Have you any evidence that the 'lowly English men at arms' were mostly involved. So far what I have read is that Normans and Welsh archers were involved and the Normans in Wales drew their force from local Welsh levies I have not disputed Henry declaring anything but if he declared himself King of Ireland then Ireland was not a colony, it was a Kingdom by your definition whether the locals wanted that King or not. Abolishing old titles is exactly what all invaders have done everywhere. I am not saying Ireland was not invaded just as England was invaded and many countries have been and have invaded what I find strange is this insistence that England, and by default the English, are always the villains in the piece.The default position of hating the English is central to their campaign. Take that away and what's left? can you please stop trolling threads. We were both warned the other day , and yet here again you carry on as before without a single comment on the discussion at hand worth talking about , just yet more of your pathetic drivelling nonsense . Do you have an informed opinion to make regarding ireland being Englands first colony , or do you just wish to whine about being butthurt? |
|
