|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 17, 2024 19:21:08 GMT
Let us take a look at what British Heritage says britishheritage.com/robin-hood-the-folk-hero/N THE LATE 12TH CENTURY, England was divided into two castes. The native Saxons, or “English,” were bested a century earlier by William the Conqueror. Within a generation, lands and titles were stripped from the Saxon thanes and granted to Norman knights. The Saxons were getting pretty tired of being oppressed and paying taxes. Into this historical context rode a hero of the occupied English, who gave the common folk something to cheer about. Now Robin Hood may be a myth/legend that is not the point I draw your attention to ;'The native Saxons or 'English'; ;lands and titles were stripped from the Saxon Thanes and given to Norman Knights; and ; The Saxons were getting pretty tired of being oppressed and paying taxes; In relation to your argument England was still an occupied country with the Colonial power still in control in the late 12th century when your invasion of Ireland was undertaken by that same colonial power. But you know this but still you insist the Crown of England at that time was England and the English. Thanks for that. So what are you arguing then , that Henry 2 wasn't a native saxon so England couldnt possibly be to blame for Ireland being its first colony in 1175? Huge if true. No. Not only do I refute your argument above , 5 generations on from Hastings , but even if we accepted your argument ( and I dont) this isnt my point in this thread. Did the Norman crown rule England in 1175 ? Or was it the English crown? back to you? We have been here before it was the Crown of England as usurped by the Normans. The line on the throne was that of a foreign power there is little doubt of that. That foreign power was clearly in control of what that Crown did in its name as all the positions and levers of power were held by those from that foreign power and their descendants. We are once again back to trying to remove simplicity from the complex narrative of history which once again appears to be England bad everyone else victimised by England and, wait for it, the English who were nowhere near Ireland in the late 12th century. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 17, 2024 20:27:53 GMT
Thanks for that. So what are you arguing then , that Henry 2 wasn't a native saxon so England couldnt possibly be to blame for Ireland being its first colony in 1175? Huge if true. No. Not only do I refute your argument above , 5 generations on from Hastings , but even if we accepted your argument ( and I dont) this isnt my point in this thread. Did the Norman crown rule England in 1175 ? Or was it the English crown? back to you? We have been here before it was the Crown of England as usurped by the Normans. England was conquered by the normans in 1066 , and their duke became king of England. Your argument is that England wasn't responsible for anything in the period 1066 to 1485 (the start of the Tudor period) because you claim a native anglo saxon Englishman didnt hold the crown. This of course is an utter nonsensical argument , because I can barely think of many native anglo saxon Englishmen in the entire history of that country that has actually held the englishcrown. The current holder of the crown has more German , danish and greek blood flowing in his veins , than English so what are you talking about? It was the same family , or royal house ,that were kings of England from henrys colonisation and invasion of ireland to Richard 3rds death if im not mistaken. Are you saying the English can't celebrate Agincourt ? Are you arguing the English can't claim Magna Carta and so on? Huge if true? The current king is a saxe Coburg gotha .Are you saying he should be stripped of the crown as non legitimate and foreign? nope. I simply said ireland is regarded as englands first colony , and explained why , and you have been digging a deeper and deeper hole ever since. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 18, 2024 9:40:24 GMT
We have been here before it was the Crown of England as usurped by the Normans. England was conquered by the normans in 1066 , and their duke became king of England. Your argument is that England wasn't responsible for anything in the period 1066 to 1485 (the start of the Tudor period) because you claim a native anglo saxon Englishman didnt hold the crown. This of course is an utter nonsensical argument , because I can barely think of many native anglo saxon Englishmen in the entire history of that country that has actually held the englishcrown. The current holder of the crown has more German , danish and greek blood flowing in his veins , than English so what are you talking about? It was the same family , or royal house ,that were kings of England from henrys colonisation and invasion of ireland to Richard 3rds death if im not mistaken. Are you saying the English can't celebrate Agincourt ? Are you arguing the English can't claim Magna Carta and so on? Huge if true? The current king is a saxe Coburg gotha .Are you saying he should be stripped of the crown as non legitimate and foreign? nope. I simply said ireland is regarded as englands first colony , and explained why , and you have been digging a deeper and deeper hole ever since. Not quite simply, you said "First colony Ireland was, after all, England’s first colony. For more than 700 years, the Irish lived under and alongside the English, and later British, Empire. Being the first colony, Ireland was where the British imperial project and its racist policies were formulated and then exported to other parts of the accumulating empire – Canada, India, Ceylon, for example. Words such as “ethnic cleansing”, “racially inferior”, and “segregation” pepper texts on the British conquest of Ireland at the behest of royalty. www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/9/14/viewing-king-charles-from-british-empires-first-colony-ireland#:~:text=England%27s%20first%20colony.-,For%20more%20than%20700%20years%2C%20the%20Irish%20lived%20under%20and,India%2C%20Ceylon%2C%20for%20example. colony a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country." First of all you said the Irish lived under and alongside the English Empire. All I am doing is correcting that at that point it was not an English Empire it was part of the Norman/Angevin Empire as agreed that existed by many historians although not all. The gradual subsuming of what was left of that Empire I agree became England and had been largely complete by the Tudors. If England wish to celebrate Agincourt good luck to them which was of course some 240 years after the point you said it was an English Empire. It is a bit like saying the leaf was eaten by a butterfly when in actual fact it was the caterpillar that ate the leaf and then turned into a butterfly. There may be a direct line but they are not the same and stating they are the same simplifies a complex history for largely sectarian reasons You then went further and defined a colony and that definition clearly means England was a colony of the Normans and as it was the colonial power that invaded Ireland and sent settlers of that colonial power to settle the lands at that time Ireland was not a colony of England, the English or the English Empire. It was a colony of the colonial power in England which was Norman, settled by people of that colonial power who were Norman aided and abetted by Welsh (not Cambro-Norman) and native Irish. The English had little, if anything to do with it and bringing them into it is a calumny as they were doing exactly what the Irish were doing (fighting that Empire). Magna Carta has an input into the later English and British Constitutions but was of the Norman invaders and colonists. One can celebrate something that happened in England and became an important event for England and the English but at the time it was in the main Norman. The current King is in direct line and as all Kings of England not really of English extraction in fact the Crown of England has had more Scots sitting on its throne in the last 700 years, or fighting to take it, than those we could trace to being English which realistically is none. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 18, 2024 10:00:06 GMT
England was conquered by the normans in 1066 , and their duke became king of England. Your argument is that England wasn't responsible for anything in the period 1066 to 1485 (the start of the Tudor period) because you claim a native anglo saxon Englishman didnt hold the crown. This of course is an utter nonsensical argument , because I can barely think of many native anglo saxon Englishmen in the entire history of that country that has actually held the englishcrown. The current holder of the crown has more German , danish and greek blood flowing in his veins , than English so what are you talking about? It was the same family , or royal house ,that were kings of England from henrys colonisation and invasion of ireland to Richard 3rds death if im not mistaken. Are you saying the English can't celebrate Agincourt ? Are you arguing the English can't claim Magna Carta and so on? Huge if true? The current king is a saxe Coburg gotha .Are you saying he should be stripped of the crown as non legitimate and foreign? nope. I simply said ireland is regarded as englands first colony , and explained why , and you have been digging a deeper and deeper hole ever since. Not quite simply, you said "First colony Ireland was, after all, England’s first colony. that's correct. I stand by what I said. Ireland was Englands first colony. you are not . You are continually misrepresenting my argument as you have no defence against what I am saying . My argument is once again , ireland was regarded as Englands first colony , which goes back to the treaty of Windsor in 1175 , as the king of England claimed ireland , and all subsequent English and later British claims derived fro that treaty. Hence ireland was Englands first colony. Eh? Your argument is that England cannot be held repsonisble for anything between 1066 and 1485 as England was a colony. I point out the English celebrate things like Agincourt , their great victory over the French , or the signing of the Magna Carta during this period and you say good luck to them. ? Sandy wants it both ways methinks. It was , just as 1175 was 109 years after Hastings. Whats your point? Both dates are within the period you argue England can't be held responsible for anything , yet you argue against one , but say good luck to the English in the other? Sandy is all over the place as normal and his arguments are at this stage getting more desperate as the thread goes on. So you agree with me and are now overturning your previous argument? Shall I remind you that you previously implied England cannot be held responsible for anything as it was under the power of non native non anglo saxons . I then pointed out this would have huge ramifications for English and British history , as the vast majority of kings , and ruling elite over the last thousand years were of non anglo saxon blood. I pointed out how your rule would invalidate many treaties , giving back Gibraltar , the scot English border , the union itself and so one , including the English being unable to celebrate key dates I their history like Agincourt , and you then waffle on in the above paragraph tacitly agreeing with me ? Sandy I suspect you have been digging holes for yourself all your life and trying to crawl out of them by attempting to baffle with bullshit. We se it from you on most threads , where write post long winded posts contradicting the very premise of your main arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 18, 2024 11:09:15 GMT
Not quite simply, you said "First colony Ireland was, after all, England’s first colony. that's correct. I stand by what I said. Ireland was Englands first colony. you are not . You are continually misrepresenting my argument as you have no defence against what I am saying . My argument is once again , ireland was regarded as Englands first colony , which goes back to the treaty of Windsor in 1175 , as the king of England claimed ireland , and all subsequent English and later British claims derived fro that treaty. Hence ireland was Englands first colony. Eh? Your argument is that England cannot be held repsonisble for anything between 1066 and 1485 as England was a colony. I point out the English celebrate things like Agincourt , their great victory over the French , or the signing of the Magna Carta during this period and you say good luck to them. ? Sandy wants it both ways methinks. It was , just as 1175 was 109 years after Hastings. Whats your point? Both dates are within the period you argue England can't be held responsible for anything , yet you argue against one , but say good luck to the English in the other? Sandy is all over the place as normal and his arguments are at this stage getting more desperate as the thread goes on. So you agree with me and are now overturning your previous argument? Shall I remind you that you previously implied England cannot be held responsible for anything as it was under the power of non native non anglo saxons . I then pointed out this would have huge ramifications for English and British history , as the vast majority of kings , and ruling elite over the last thousand years were of non anglo saxon blood. I pointed out how your rule would invalidate many treaties , giving back Gibraltar , the scot English border , the union itself and so one , including the English being unable to celebrate key dates I their history like Agincourt , and you then waffle on in the above paragraph tacitly agreeing with me ? Sandy I suspect you have been digging holes for yourself all your life and trying to crawl out of them by attempting to baffle with bullshit. We se it from you on most threads , where write post long winded posts contradicting the very premise of your main arguments. Where have I said England cannot be held responsible for anything? Your inferences from what I have said are just plain wrong. I repeat, once again, England was in the grip of colonial rule in the late 12th century and trying to say Ireland was England's first colony which by implication means a colony of the English is reducing complex history to simplistic nonsense. That is done for no better reason than to place the woes of the world on the English. I will keep this post short to avoid confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 18, 2024 11:16:29 GMT
that's correct. I stand by what I said. Ireland was Englands first colony. you are not . You are continually misrepresenting my argument as you have no defence against what I am saying . My argument is once again , ireland was regarded as Englands first colony , which goes back to the treaty of Windsor in 1175 , as the king of England claimed ireland , and all subsequent English and later British claims derived fro that treaty. Hence ireland was Englands first colony. Eh? Your argument is that England cannot be held repsonisble for anything between 1066 and 1485 as England was a colony. I point out the English celebrate things like Agincourt , their great victory over the French , or the signing of the Magna Carta during this period and you say good luck to them. ? Sandy wants it both ways methinks. It was , just as 1175 was 109 years after Hastings. Whats your point? Both dates are within the period you argue England can't be held responsible for anything , yet you argue against one , but say good luck to the English in the other? Sandy is all over the place as normal and his arguments are at this stage getting more desperate as the thread goes on. So you agree with me and are now overturning your previous argument? Shall I remind you that you previously implied England cannot be held responsible for anything as it was under the power of non native non anglo saxons . I then pointed out this would have huge ramifications for English and British history , as the vast majority of kings , and ruling elite over the last thousand years were of non anglo saxon blood. I pointed out how your rule would invalidate many treaties , giving back Gibraltar , the scot English border , the union itself and so one , including the English being unable to celebrate key dates I their history like Agincourt , and you then waffle on in the above paragraph tacitly agreeing with me ? Sandy I suspect you have been digging holes for yourself all your life and trying to crawl out of them by attempting to baffle with bullshit. We se it from you on most threads , where write post long winded posts contradicting the very premise of your main arguments. Where have I said England cannot be held responsible for anything? Your inferences from what I have said are just plain wrong. I repeat, once again, England was in the grip of colonial rule in the late 12th century and trying to say Ireland was England's first colony which by implication means a colony of the English is reducing complex history to simplistic nonsense. That is done for no better reason than to place the woes of the world on the English. I will keep this post short to avoid confusion. you implied England could not be held responsible for the treaty of Windsor and the subsequent claims to rule and colonise ireland. Your implication was only from the year 1485 , the Tudor period , could England be properly able to take responsibility. I disagreed with you on that , and i also said this doesn't in any way detract from my point. you are misrepresenting my argument yet again. your whole argument throughout this thread is one big confused mess. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 18, 2024 11:44:54 GMT
Where have I said England cannot be held responsible for anything? Your inferences from what I have said are just plain wrong. I repeat, once again, England was in the grip of colonial rule in the late 12th century and trying to say Ireland was England's first colony which by implication means a colony of the English is reducing complex history to simplistic nonsense. That is done for no better reason than to place the woes of the world on the English. I will keep this post short to avoid confusion. you implied England could not be held responsible for the treaty of Windsor and the subsequent claims to rule and colonise ireland. Your implication was only from the year 1485 , the Tudor period , could England be properly able to take responsibility. I disagreed with you on that , and i also said this doesn't in any way detract from my point. you are misrepresenting my argument yet again. your whole argument throughout this thread is one big confused mess. I said the treaty of Windsor was made by the colonial power in England and made with the native high heid yin in Ireland. The complexities of the situation at the time do not lend themselves to the simplicity you wish to put across. I said by the Tudor period the process of absorption/assimilation was largely complete. I would say however that the Norman invasion and the subsequent purloining of the lands of the English was probably a major factor in the growth of the English class system. I would go back to my analogy, one cannot say the butterfly ate the leaf if it was the caterpillar that did it, the direct line may be obvious but calling it the butterfly is factually wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 18, 2024 11:51:51 GMT
you implied England could not be held responsible for the treaty of Windsor and the subsequent claims to rule and colonise ireland. Your implication was only from the year 1485 , the Tudor period , could England be properly able to take responsibility. I disagreed with you on that , and i also said this doesn't in any way detract from my point. you are misrepresenting my argument yet again. your whole argument throughout this thread is one big confused mess. I said the treaty of Windsor was made by the colonial power in England and made with the native high heid yin in Ireland. you did. I said it was the king of England. Are you denying Henry was king of England? yes or no? No one but you has said the history isnt complicated. However , this doesn't detract from my point , and why ireland was regarded as England s first colony. You originally said to me the tudors were a welsh house contradicting you claim about England not being responsible for the actions of the crown unless they were anglo saxon pure bloods. As I said, you are all over the place , and make it up as you go. The same family that I pointed out who colonised ireland in 1175 also won the battle of Agincourt. So im not aware why one is legitimate , but the other not .Or why a Welsh house in 1485 is acceptable , but a Norman French house not? and ? you are away with it now sandy. Was Henry the second king of England or not? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 18, 2024 20:19:53 GMT
I said the treaty of Windsor was made by the colonial power in England and made with the native high heid yin in Ireland. you did. I said it was the king of England. Are you denying Henry was king of England? yes or no? No one but you has said the history isnt complicated. However , this doesn't detract from my point , and why ireland was regarded as England s first colony. You originally said to me the tudors were a welsh house contradicting you claim about England not being responsible for the actions of the crown unless they were anglo saxon pure bloods. As I said, you are all over the place , and make it up as you go. The same family that I pointed out who colonised ireland in 1175 also won the battle of Agincourt. So im not aware why one is legitimate , but the other not .Or why a Welsh house in 1485 is acceptable , but a Norman French house not? and ? you are away with it now sandy. Was Henry the second king of England or not? We come to some interesting points. Henry the second was King of England and Henry the eighth was King of Ireland. I am not sure what you are trying to say other than when an invader, and his issue, invade, colonise and call themselves king of country x that lends it absolute legitimacy to be king of said place irrespective of how it was obtained and how it was kept. I seem to recall that 'the English' did not say to William come and take teh Crown of England, history seems to tell us it was taken by force. History is indeed complicated and does not boil down to Mr X called himself king and all his actions in the name of that crown belong to all under that crown. I repeat my butterfly analogy you cannot say the butterfly was at fault of eating the leaf when it did not exist at the time of eating. It may have inherited all the benefits, and problems, that the eating of the leaf entailed. For you England is the Crown irrespective of who holds it and how it was gained yet that is not a definition you apply to all others. The English Crown was taken by force of arms from the English line and that colonist operated as a colonial power from that day on. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 19, 2024 8:12:53 GMT
you did. I said it was the king of England. Are you denying Henry was king of England? yes or no? No one but you has said the history isnt complicated. However , this doesn't detract from my point , and why ireland was regarded as England s first colony. You originally said to me the tudors were a welsh house contradicting you claim about England not being responsible for the actions of the crown unless they were anglo saxon pure bloods. As I said, you are all over the place , and make it up as you go. The same family that I pointed out who colonised ireland in 1175 also won the battle of Agincourt. So im not aware why one is legitimate , but the other not .Or why a Welsh house in 1485 is acceptable , but a Norman French house not? and ? you are away with it now sandy. Was Henry the second king of England or not? We come to some interesting points. Henry the second was King of England and Henry the eighth was King of Ireland. I am not sure what you are trying to say other than when an invader, and his issue, invade, colonise and call themselves king of country x that lends it absolute legitimacy to be king of said place irrespective of how it was obtained and how it was kept. How do you mean ? Is this you now trying desperately to do a volte face ? You earlier in the thread agreed with me that ireland was an English colony post 1485. That has been your unambiguous position through most of this thread. Here you are now trying to imply the opposite. Henry the 8 was king of ireland , but it was the English crown that held ireland (as you earlier agreed).Henry the 2 was king of England , it wasn't the Norman or Anjou crowns that held England. I can't see why you can't accept the point apart from your fragile ego won't let you , and then we can move on. You can't get around it sandy. The normans were dukes of a region of France. They were never going to impose a regional dukedom over England , because that would then have meant their English lands were subservient to the king of France under feudalism. Holding the English crown was a step up over being count of Anjou , or Duke of normandy. They didnt. You aren't though comparing like for like as we have discussed through the thread. The normans conquered England , and became the English elite. By the fifth generation after the conquest , they had become the English caste group. You can't detach them from English History , and pretend they were something other , foreign invaders who weren't English. They made England what it is today , they set the current English boundaries , they installed the current English monarchy and ruling elite , the English legal system , and even the English language we know today. So what are you talking about? Do the normans of France claim England today the way the English claim part of ireland? There was one invasion by the normans , who then came to England as settlers , and became the English caste group. There wasn't repeated re invasions and colonisations from France over a 849 year period . You can't dismiss the treaty of Windsor as some historical oddity that holds no meaning today when its still the treaty the English monarch traces his rule of ireland , today Northern Ireland to. I think you are being rather hypocritical , telling me one minute history is complicated when you are wriggling on a hook over the English crown colonising ireland , then the next trying to simplify English history down to an anglo saxon versus Norman foreigners argument . England wasn't some homogenous anglo saxon nation prior to the Norman invasion. It was a collection of different peoples , Gaelic settlers in the far north of England from scotland , Anglian realm of bamburgh , the Scandinavian realm of york , the various angle saxon jute and Frisian areas conquered by Wessex , the welsh tribes to the western border areas , the Celtic Cornish in the far south west . You seem to have this. extremely weird view of some sort of racial purity where a mythical pre 1066 anglo saxon kingdom which never existed was then taken over by dastardly Norman French invader , and that's how you think it remained for hundred of years. Its a nonsense argument. we have been over this and you failed to reply to me. Your argument was if an anglo saxon didnt hold the English crown , it was somehow not legitimate. Both prior to , and post , the Norman French invasion of 1066 , the English crown was at times held by people who were either non anglo saxons , or at best `half anglo saxon`. Not once in the last 1000 years of history has the holder of the crown needed to be of anglo saxon , or pure English blood. Merely part of a family group . Blood ties , not nationality is all that mattered. you cannot de legitimise the holder of the English crown simply because he wasn't an anglo saxon otherwise you would wipeout most of English history and most of their monarchs. I used the analogy where I said to you using your poor rule , that I failed to see how Henry 2 was a foreigner in your eyes ,to prop up your weak argument about England colonising ireland from 1175 , but Henry 5 wasnt regarding the great English victory over the French at Agincourt when they were both from the same family. What a strange argument. It was in 1066 , but the normans then became the English caste group over the coming generations. 109 years later , there is no doubt they were then the legitimate wearers of the English crown. Interestingly , are you saying Edward the confessor , himself half Norman , wasn't a legitimate English ruler prior to 1066? Can I ask your opinion on your theory of legitimacy of rule of the English elite in a modern context. Do you regard Rishi Sunak as the legitimate prime minister of the uk as a non anglo saxon ? Although born in England , clearly he is not of anglo saxon descent , and his parents if im not mistaken were immigrants from east Africa of Indian descent. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 19, 2024 9:53:20 GMT
We come to some interesting points. Henry the second was King of England and Henry the eighth was King of Ireland. I am not sure what you are trying to say other than when an invader, and his issue, invade, colonise and call themselves king of country x that lends it absolute legitimacy to be king of said place irrespective of how it was obtained and how it was kept. How do you mean ? Is this you now trying desperately to do a volte face ? You earlier in the thread agreed with me that ireland was an English colony post 1485. That has been your unambiguous position through most of this thread. Here you are now trying to imply the opposite. Henry the 8 was king of ireland , but it was the English crown that held ireland (as you earlier agreed).Henry the 2 was king of England , it wasn't the Norman or Anjou crowns that held England. I can't see why you can't accept the point apart from your fragile ego won't let you , and then we can move on. You can't get around it sandy. The normans were dukes of a region of France. They were never going to impose a regional dukedom over England , because that would then have meant their English lands were subservient to the king of France under feudalism. Holding the English crown was a step up over being count of Anjou , or Duke of normandy. They didnt. You aren't though comparing like for like as we have discussed through the thread. The normans conquered England , and became the English elite. By the fifth generation after the conquest , they had become the English caste group. You can't detach them from English History , and pretend they were something other , foreign invaders who weren't English. They made England what it is today , they set the current English boundaries , they installed the current English monarchy and ruling elite , the English legal system , and even the English language we know today. So what are you talking about? Do the normans of France claim England today the way the English claim part of ireland? There was one invasion by the normans , who then came to England as settlers , and became the English caste group. There wasn't repeated re invasions and colonisations from France over a 849 year period . You can't dismiss the treaty of Windsor as some historical oddity that holds no meaning today when its still the treaty the English monarch traces his rule of ireland , today Northern Ireland to. I think you are being rather hypocritical , telling me one minute history is complicated when you are wriggling on a hook over the English crown colonising ireland , then the next trying to simplify English history down to an anglo saxon versus Norman foreigners argument . England wasn't some homogenous anglo saxon nation prior to the Norman invasion. It was a collection of different peoples , Gaelic settlers in the far north of England from scotland , Anglian realm of bamburgh , the Scandinavian realm of york , the various angle saxon jute and Frisian areas conquered by Wessex , the welsh tribes to the western border areas , the Celtic Cornish in the far south west . You seem to have this. extremely weird view of some sort of racial purity where a mythical pre 1066 anglo saxon kingdom which never existed was then taken over by dastardly Norman French invader , and that's how you think it remained for hundred of years. Its a nonsense argument. we have been over this and you failed to reply to me. Your argument was if an anglo saxon didnt hold the English crown , it was somehow not legitimate. Both prior to , and post , the Norman French invasion of 1066 , the English crown was at times held by people who were either non anglo saxons , or at best `half anglo saxon`. Not once in the last 1000 years of history has the holder of the crown needed to be of anglo saxon , or pure English blood. Merely part of a family group . Blood ties , not nationality is all that mattered. you cannot de legitimise the holder of the English crown simply because he wasn't an anglo saxon otherwise you would wipeout most of English history and most of their monarchs. I used the analogy where I said to you using your poor rule , that I failed to see how Henry 2 was a foreigner in your eyes ,to prop up your weak argument about England colonising ireland from 1175 , but Henry 5 wasnt regarding the great English victory over the French at Agincourt when they were both from the same family. What a strange argument. It was in 1066 , but the normans then became the English caste group over the coming generations. 109 years later , there is no doubt they were then the legitimate wearers of the English crown. Interestingly , are you saying Edward the confessor , himself half Norman , wasn't a legitimate English ruler prior to 1066? Can I ask your opinion on your theory of legitimacy of rule of the English elite in a modern context. Do you regard Rishi Sunak as the legitimate prime minister of the uk as a non anglo saxon ? Although born in England , clearly he is not of anglo saxon descent , and his parents if im not mistaken were immigrants from east Africa of Indian descent. I am trying to follow your logic and definitions and place them into context with what actually happened. First off you have defined a colony. "a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country:" Now I believe you accept that England was invaded by the Normans from another country and was occupied by Norman settlers who took control of all the lands. If you disagree with that just say so? We then move on to the second part of the colony definition which was "a group of people living in a colony, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors:" so we know the Normans invaded and took the Crown and their descendants and successors continued to rule over England. If you disagree with that just say so? My point as always and consistently is that if there was no 1066 invasion and the colonisation of England by Normans and the Crown passed to William through peaceful lineage then this conversation would not be happening. But 1066 invasion did happen and England was colonised in a not dissimilar way that Ireland was invaded and colonised. If you disagree with that just say so? The only difference was that the Normans who came and invaded Ireland did so from their new power base in England that they had taken over by the very same process of invasion and colonisation. The Anglo-Saxons were too busy being oppressed by the Normans. If you disagree with that just say so? Now from day 1 I have agreed that a process of assimilation would have occurred like the Chrysalis stage in the butterfly's life where the caterpillar transforms into the butterfly. Although there is a direct line they are three distinct periods. You cannot say the butterfly ate the leaf because it was the caterpillar at that time and to say it did is factually incorrect, to say the chrysalis at the leaf is also incorrect. You define England as the Crown yet the England of the Crown in 1175 was not the England of the Crown in 1485. However if you define a country as the Crown irrespective of how that Crown was obtained the Ireland has to be defined by the Crown irrespective of how that Crown was obtained. That you do not do you always peer into the recesses to see what else was going on and who was forced to do things and respect the historic Irish claims but ignore the historic Anglo-Saxon claims. Why you are bringing racial purity into it when you are determined to blame the now English for 700 years of colonisation in which they played little part in the process at first and were in fact suffering exactly the same process but 109 years further down the line. There is little doubt that England was a realm before 1066 irrespective of the disparate groups but that realm was invaded and as far as I am aware no Anglo-Saxon sided with William at the time, we know that many Irish sided with the Norman invasion of Ireland and various Irish groups played no small part in the fighting on various sides that occurred in Ireland after the Norman invasion and the Scottish invasion. In terms of the line of the Crown I was referring as always to your definition of a colony which seems to drift in the wind dependant on your likes and dislikes of to whom it is referred. If you give a definition it seems reasonable to expect it to apply when it it actually fits and post 1066 it fits England. I am not deletiising anything I am pointing out that the Crown of England may be a direct line but it is not the same thing at each point in its history just like a butterfly, it is a direct line from caterpillar to chrysalis to butterfly but when a leaf was eaten by the caterpillar it was most certainly not the butterfly that did it and that seems to be you basic argument; that once the Crown existed then all flows from that irrespective of all the complications around it and the definitions that fit when you wish them to fit. Now as regards the 'English Elite' I said I believe the English class system arose through the ethnic disparity between Norman and 'everyone else' where family and lineage are everything with a multitude of other complicating factors of course. Why you bring in Sunak to this I know not he is self proclaimed of Indian heritage and he is referred to as a British Asian with no embarrassment by anyone and he has risen to be PM through our democratic process with all its flaws and outside interference. Why would you apply our moral stances today with the moral stances accepted as the norm back in the 12th century and how far back do you go with the application of modern morality. It seems like a useless cause. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 19, 2024 15:37:41 GMT
How do you mean ? Is this you now trying desperately to do a volte face ? You earlier in the thread agreed with me that ireland was an English colony post 1485. That has been your unambiguous position through most of this thread. Here you are now trying to imply the opposite. Henry the 8 was king of ireland , but it was the English crown that held ireland (as you earlier agreed).Henry the 2 was king of England , it wasn't the Norman or Anjou crowns that held England. I can't see why you can't accept the point apart from your fragile ego won't let you , and then we can move on. You can't get around it sandy. I am trying to follow your logic and definitions and place them into context with what actually happened. I have defined my argument regarding ireland as Englands first colony so many times now it's beyond repeating. The problem is you keep misrepresenting my argument. Sandy we dont disagree that in 1066 , the Norman French invaded , conquered and colonised England. We dont disagree. Where we do appear to disagree is on how long it takes for the colonists/immigrants/settlers descendants to become part of that country. You appear to be arguing that from 1066 , to 1485 , England was a colony and thus could not be held responsible . Im saying that is incorrect. (and its not my argument but im humouring you) How long would it have taken in your opinion the Norman French descendants in England to become naturalised as English ? Three generations ? More? You appear to be arguing it took four centuries ? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 19, 2024 15:48:39 GMT
Why you are bringing racial purity into it when you are determined to blame the now English for 700 years of colonisation in which they played little part in the process at first and were in fact suffering exactly the same process but 109 years further down the line. The English aren't a race sandy. They are a nation , made up of a collection of different people . I haven't blamed the English. This is nothing but a pure misrepresentation of my argument which I have defined so many times above its beyond belief. You on the other hand have reduced your argument down to racial purity of anglo saxons , and descendants of foreigners who held the crown not being classed as legitimate English rulers , in your eyes of course. Can you explain to me why Henry 2 of England isnt the legitimate English king in 1175? Is famous figures from the same `Norman French period` such as Edward 1 a legitimate English king? is Robert de brus a legitimate Scottish king in your eyes? You arguments , and attempts to baffle with bullshit as the thread goes on get more desperate . |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 19, 2024 16:00:56 GMT
How do you mean ? Is this you now trying desperately to do a volte face ? Why you bring in Sunak to this I know not he is self proclaimed of Indian heritage and he is referred to as a British Asian with no embarrassment by anyone and he has risen to be PM through our democratic process with all its flaws and outside interference. Why would you apply our moral stances today with the moral stances accepted as the norm back in the 12th century and how far back do you go with the application of modern morality. It seems like a useless cause. I brought Sunak into the argument because you are arguing someone who isnt of anglo saxon descent can't be a legitimate ruler of England . Thats essentially what you are saying of Henry 2. What qualifies someone as a legitimate ruler im asking ? Birth ? Ancestry? explain please? The Sunak example shows how ridiculous your argument is. Sunak's family haven't been in England for four hundred years , so by your rule , can't be a legitimate ruler ? No? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 19, 2024 16:27:06 GMT
I am trying to follow your logic and definitions and place them into context with what actually happened. I have defined my argument regarding ireland as Englands first colony so many times now it's beyond repeating. The problem is you keep misrepresenting my argument. Sandy we dont disagree that in 1066 , the Norman French invaded , conquered and colonised England. We dont disagree. Where we do appear to disagree is on how long it takes for the colonists/immigrants/settlers descendants to become part of that country. You appear to be arguing that from 1066 , to 1485 , England was a colony and thus could not be held responsible . Im saying that is incorrect. (and its not my argument but im humouring you) How long would it have taken in your opinion the Norman French descendants in England to become naturalised as English ? Three generations ? More? You appear to be arguing it took four centuries ? Do I misrepresent your argument? You are saying that in 1170 England was England with no ifs ands or buts. I am saying in 1170 England was still a colony as clearly indicated by many historians point that the Anglo-Saxons were an oppressed people. Since William had invaded as Duke of Normandy and subsequent issue and the Kings of England held that title until the early 13th century then England was a colony of Normandy and was subject to Norman rule which no one disputes. That fits exactly with your definition of a colony. So under Henry II the English Crown was a colonial holding of the Norman Dukedom so it was the power vested in the Dukedom that carried out the Irish invasion and Ireland was part of the holding of the Duke of Normandy as was the English Crown. When Henry II invaded he invaded as the colonial power in England. Ireland accepted Henry II as Lord of Ireland and it was that title that passed on. Both England and Ireland were colonial holdings of the Dukedom of Normandy. After Normandy was lost the ruler of England also held the title to rule Ireland but it was not a colony of England it was a Crown holding in its own name. Just as Normandy had been, and Maine and Anjou. As I keep saying it is a complicated set of events but it is a very simple and mischievous statement to call Ireland England's first colony as it is far more complicated than that |
|
