Nationalists.....

you are implying a someone of Norman French descent can't be monarch of England , and thus England as a nation not being responsible for that monarchs actions. If the English aren't a race , but a collection of different people , then Henry 2 is king no? 


I stand by my original and subsequent claims. Is this you crumbling? 

right , so does this mean Henry 2 was the legitimate king of England in 1175 yes or no? 


colonial power from outside? Was Henry in your opinion an English king or not? if not why? England hasn't lost normandy sandy. England as the colonial power still retains part of normandy today , and the king is still ( no laughing please) classed as duke.

Your inference is just plain wrong in the first instance.

Why are you always seeking some form of comeuppance. I thought it was a discussion.

Define for me what a legitimate king is and I will tell you? You are very keen on definitions. Legitimacy rests upon many things and there will always be arguments. If invasion brings legitimacy then Henry 2 is King of England but also Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou and Duke of Maine. Which one gets the blame for his actions, perhaps the oldest held in the line would that be fair? That makes it Normandy and it is clear the Normans held power in England for many many years. 
England is not the colonial power in the Channel Islands, they are holdings of the Crown as was the whole of Normandy and Duke of Normandy is the first title held in that regnal line.

every time. You are squealing about `the English` as though anyone but you is blaming ranulph the 12th century saxon  . 



you are telling lies and making things up yet again , called misrepresentation. 


Two things. In 1175 , the anglo saxons were not the only inhabitants of England. Secondly , the English monarchy has oppressed its own people over the centuries . This is again a diversion and irrelevant to my point.  


I dispute it.  
 

it doesn't. Please re read my arguments through the thread , and stop misrepresenting me. 


 .
wrong way round. Remember ? We discussed why up the thread. 


it wasn't. Re read  the treaty of Windsor , where it clearly says the power is that of the English crown , and mentions the English crown and England 12 times. 


nope. The English crown was feudally superior to the dukedom or normandy , hence why Henry 2 annexed ireland to England , rather than Anjou or normandy.


He was the English king. Can I ask you to define when does a colonist stop being a colonist and start being regarded as an English king? 

 
They didnt. It was a shotgun wedding , and then the Irish sub=sequently fought back. , till all that remained of English crown lands was the Dublin pale. Hence the need for the Tudor re conquests. 


Ireland never was once in history , and England wasn't in 1175. 



ask patman post. Charlies Is still Duke of normandy today , and the Channel Islands still remain part of the English crown.  



is that a fancy way of saying you agree with me? More sandy semantics. The king of England was king over ireland. Hence ireland was an English colony. 




you earlier said England was a `holding` of normandy and now you argue normandy was a holding of England ? Baffle with bullshit . All through the thread. you really are an old bullshitter aren't you sandy? You know I suspect you have done this all your life. Did you once sell used cars or something?



You have already accepted the premise ireland was Englands second colony when you agreed the English were responsible for their crowns actions from 1485 onwards. ( after Wales) We are simply tidying up the nonsense you are spouting through this thread , and dragging you kicking and screaming to accept reality that it was actually the first.

 



.

see what I mean. More diversionary waffle.  I asked is Sunak the legitimate ruler of England / Britain due to his status as a descendant of immigrants , and you waffle Sunak is not a king.  



so Sunak is not English then are you saying if his family haven't been in England long enough?


I was , but I never once said , claimed or inferred English colonists descendants didnt become Irish after a number of generations unlike you......... 





so you are saying it takes four hundred years for descendants of immigrants to become assimilated? huge if true!!! 



No it wasn't.  




the angevin empire was a a term coined in the 19th century sandy. Ireland was colonised by the king of england. We have that very treaty of colonisation written in black and white. Its called the treaty of windsor , and no where does it mention the angevin empire.

 



 

We dont care what you make as an inference. Im simply telling you what was written in the treaty of Windsor , and why from that point ireland was regarded as an English colony. 



in 1175 , England was a sovereign kingdom. 


sigh* You can say what you like , but it doesn't make it true. England was never annexed to Normandy the way ireland was annexed to England in 1175 .We have went over the reason time and again. 


There was no colonial power in 1175. The English crown ruled England. Not the Norman or Anjou crown. Can you prove otherwise? 



Doesn't matter. There were different ethnic groups within the historic English boundaries who weren't anglo saxon , such as the Danes and some Celts , who are regarded as much natives of England as anglo saxons, so im not sure why the normans took four centuries to be seen as native English in your warped view.  



what does this even mean? are you arguing the king of England was subservient to the normans ? if not , then what has this to do with the treaty of Windsor? We have been over the fact one man can hold many different titles , but in the treaty , it clearly says ireland is being annexed and claimed by the king of England . not anywhere else.


England was never annexed to normandy the way ireland was to England , as we have explained numerous times. so in that regard the question is meaningless and yet more diversionary waffle. In terms of the normans being colonists , I would argue two or three generations later , their descendants , like the English descendants in ireland , would have come to see themselves as part of the English nation. Certainly not your ridiculous 400 year nonsense. 


It was who has argued otherwise? This is exactly what I mean about filling threads with diversionary , and unnecessary words to make it seem as though you are making a coherent argument , but not actually furthering the debate with any substance. 



Nope. Ive never once said the Norman crown annexed England. Ive explained why. There were Norman colonists , but their descendants after a couple of generations would have come to see themselves as part of the English nation. England was never annexed to normandy the way ireland was to England . that is the comparison.



so what are you gibbering about?  


round and round we go. I know what your point is , and im saying I disagree with you. England wasn't annexed to the Norman dukedom the way ireland was to the English crown. Hence why from 1175 onwards , ireland was regarded as Englands first colony.





 more dishonest misrepresentation. Ireland wasn't just a colony through invasion. you made that up. I said ireland was England first colony because it was invaded , then annexed , to the English crown. Stop misrepresenting my argument , and cherry picking bits and chopping other parts off. It's why you are regarded as such a dishonest bullshitter of the highest order. 

 we have went over this point numerous times , previously through the thread.. 




There is no hypocrisy , as there is no comparison to my argument and yours. Did you show me where the Duke of normandy annexed England to the Norman dukedom ? No .

did  I show you where the king of England annexed ireland to the English crown ? Yes .The treaty of Windsor. 

 did I  agree Norman settlers colonised England in 1066 ? Yes? Did you agree their descendants with in a number of generations became part of the English nation ? No ? You ridiculously argued they weren't for four hundred years.



...and I disagreed. I even asked you ( which you ignored) if Edward the first was a legitimate  king of England in your eyes , or Robert de brus king of scotland ,or were they foreign colonial kings  and you ignored and ran away. Typical of the dishonest debater that you are.


what does this actually even mean? Whether in the danish , saxon , Norman or Tudor periods , or modern , England is England. The contemporary evidence , and people , and their mannerisms and dress and origination may not be to your liking , but too bad. No country remains static , or fixed in time , and is always taken new elements in  and changing. 


eh? Do you mean like Rishi Sunak , or brown people? Sounds a bit like your earlier racial purity nonsense sandy. 


you deserve it. Between your dishonest debating , misrepresentations , cherry picking and part quotes of my arguments , in between your racial purity nonsense and how it takes the descendants of immigrants 4 fucking centuries to become naturalised , I think its the least you deserve.








.

The normans are the English elite. What part of this do you not understand? 

 If you and your wife moved to Australia , and had children there  , your children would recognise their family ancestry while seeing themselves as Australians. Your descendants wouldn't be somehow illegitimate , or not representative of Australia  as some sort of colonists for the next 400 years. 

 You do talk some unmitigated tosh , as we have seen across many threads , not just this. 

Henry 2 was as representative of England , the nation , as Edward the first was of England , or as Robert the brus was of scotland. Their ancestry , or caste , didnt make them illegitimate. 

 Every monarchy in Europe started in the same way....hard men taking land and setting themselves up as rulers. The normans became the English elite  in a short space of time, same as 200 years earlier the Danes did the same  in terms of conquering land , and their descendants became the English , and so on.

 Henry 2 was every bit an English king as any who followed.  He imposed  the treaty of Windsor on the Irish delegation , and that treaty , which claimed ireland for the English crown , set the benchmark in Irish history for the next 849 years as an English colony.