|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 24, 2024 20:15:10 GMT
I think my mate Aziz might dispute that last sentence but then you need to remember the descendents of the house of Saud born from the wives, of which he is one, and through which from which he gets his lineage, his standing, his job, his money and his acknowledged right to exist, regard their cousins born from the other conquests, slaves and occasional shagfests, as somewhere beneath a camel shagger and a Yemeni Jew, sure John , but this isnt about what other countries and cultures view their descendants. Modern British nationality law is quite clear who is and who isnt a British national. If we apply Sandys failing ancestry argument to sunak , he can't be British , and can't represent Britain. Are you aware of any nationality law past or present in these islands that disqualifies you from nationality of a country by not having proof your family has had four hundred years of residency , or not having anglo saxon blood? im not. This is beyond belief, why would we apply an ethnic point that refers to the late 12th century situation to our contemporary world other than to detract from a pertinent point that most historians refer to to find who was who? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 24, 2024 20:27:16 GMT
Can you show me where I said the name `fitz`was an Irish name in 1175? You can't , because I never made that claim , and so we can add this to the long line of dishonest arguments you have made through this thread to deflect from your puerile argument. The point about the name Fitzgerald for example , is that it became an Irish name over a few generations as these lords became Irish , and are known to us from history as the old anglo Irish aristocracy. The same as the normans in England became the English elite in a few generations , and the normans in scotland became the Scottish elite. I am saying, I have said and I still say that in the late 12th century this assimilation process of Normans into English was far from complete and probably far from even any form of integration. You used the Anglo-Irish as an example of this type of assimilation but they were as far as I am aware the old protestant ascendancy in Ireland which dates from Tudor times of which I am not having an issue with but still took over 150 years years to become a recognised term. We are discussing ancestry and ethnic group in late 12th century England which is fairly clear cut in terms of who was Norman, who was Welsh, who was Irish and who was English, not ancestry and ethnic group in modern Britain. The names of those involved in the invasion of Ireland in the late 12th century bore surnames of Norman, Welsh and Irish origins. The Anglo Saxons were few and far betweeen unless of course you are saying that Dermot MacMurragh, Richard de Clare Robert FitzStephen, Maurice FitzGerald, Maurice de Prendergast were Anglo Saxon not Norman. Alice Stopford Green an Irish Historian and Nationalist wrote "Norman and French Barons, with Welsh followers and Flemings from Pembroke led the invasion that began in 1169. She then goes on to say that teh English that came over gravitated to the towns and set up trade with Bristol. She is quite clear in her description Norman, Welsh, Fleming, English. One surmises she knew from the names or perhaps she guessed? By your account the names means nothing in terms of who did what in the late 12th century yet names are the very basis of who did what at that time. One other factor the language of the Plantagenet courts was French. No. The assimilation process is always happening in any nation , past and present. The ethnic make up of a country does not stand still. Clearly the normans in the late 12th century were part of the wider English ethnic group , of which was divided into many smaller sub groups. This is a diversion , but what are you talking about? The old catholic anglo Irish are different to the later protestant ascendancy . In both cases , though , they became assimilated into the Irish nation .Neither took 400 years to do so. Was it? Which was the English king , or for example earl strongbow? May I repeat once more the normans were a sub ethnic group who were part of the English , welsh Irish and Scottish nations. ( and others) Eh? another sandy diversion. It doesn't matter who did what , what matters is you prop up your lame argument England was a colony in 1175 of a foreign power , and you can't do so? Thats what middle and modern English is. A language that is half French .Barely 28 % of English is Anglo Saxon. So by your argument , the English language can't be English no? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 24, 2024 20:28:28 GMT
sure John , but this isnt about what other countries and cultures view their descendants. Modern British nationality law is quite clear who is and who isnt a British national. If we apply Sandys failing ancestry argument to sunak , he can't be British , and can't represent Britain. Are you aware of any nationality law past or present in these islands that disqualifies you from nationality of a country by not having proof your family has had four hundred years of residency , or not having anglo saxon blood? im not. This is beyond belief, why would we apply an ethnic point that refers to the late 12th century situation to our contemporary world other than to detract from a pertinent point that most historians refer to to find who was who? is that code for you have no argument against my point? Comparing sunak to Henry 2 , im asking why can you accept one , as the leader of his country , but not the other? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 24, 2024 20:35:21 GMT
Can you show me where I said the name `fitz`was an Irish name in 1175? You can't , because I never made that claim , and so we can add this to the long line of dishonest arguments you have made through this thread to deflect from your puerile argument. The point about the name Fitzgerald for example , is that it became an Irish name over a few generations as these lords became Irish , and are known to us from history as the old anglo Irish aristocracy. The same as the normans in England became the English elite in a few generations , and the normans in scotland became the Scottish elite. The Anglo Saxons were few and far betweeen unless of course you are saying that Dermot MacMurragh, Richard de Clare Robert FitzStephen, Maurice FitzGerald, Maurice de Prendergast were Anglo Saxon not Norman. you are deliberately missing my point time and again. You can have a Norman name , but ethnically , and by ancestry , be a mix of many differing peoples. The bruce family are a prime example. Over a 248 year period , they were originally a Norman French family , from near cherbourg , they then fought on behalf of the English at the battle of the standard in 1138 , then in 1314 , Robert de brus was king of scotland , and won the famous battle against the English at Bannockburn. What nationality , ethnicity ,and ancestry were the bruce family ? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 24, 2024 20:52:11 GMT
This is beyond belief, why would we apply an ethnic point that refers to the late 12th century situation to our contemporary world other than to detract from a pertinent point that most historians refer to to find who was who? is that code for you have no argument against my point? Comparing sunak to Henry 2 , im asking why can you accept one , as the leader of his country , but not the other? Largely because Sunak's ancestors did not invade teh UK and place himself as PM as the descendant of an invader who had usurped the reins of power through passing the levers of power to his co-invaders. There is also the little fact that we are 800 years apart and we are interpreting history through what is available to us and names are a very important source. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 24, 2024 21:02:09 GMT
The Anglo Saxons were few and far betweeen unless of course you are saying that Dermot MacMurragh, Richard de Clare Robert FitzStephen, Maurice FitzGerald, Maurice de Prendergast were Anglo Saxon not Norman. you are deliberately missing my point time and again. You can have a Norman name , but ethnically , and by ancestry , be a mix of many differing peoples. The bruce family are a prime example. Over a 248 year period , they were originally a Norman French family , from near cherbourg , they then fought on behalf of the English at the battle of the standard in 1138 , then in 1314 , Robert de brus was king of scotland , and won the famous battle against the English at Bannockburn. What nationality , ethnicity ,and ancestry were the bruce family ? 1314 is a further 140 years on from the period under discussion and I have said, several times that assimilation was a process. In terms of ethnicity if he said he was Scots and was accepted as Scots by other contemporary Scots then he was ethnically Scots. To be clear as far as I am concerned blood and heritage is of little import in terms of ethnicity it is a process of accepting and acceptance. However we cannot escape his Norman heritage which was the very reason why he was a Scottish Knight and able to marry wisely. Just as the poor Irishmen being piked off the Wexford bridge could not escape their heritage which was plain from their religion. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 24, 2024 21:04:55 GMT
is that code for you have no argument against my point? Comparing sunak to Henry 2 , im asking why can you accept one , as the leader of his country , but not the other? Largely because Sunak's ancestors did not invade teh UK and place himself as PM as the descendant of an invader who had usurped the reins of power through passing the levers of power to his co-invaders. There is also the little fact that we are 800 years apart and we are interpreting history through what is available to us and names are a very important source. more prevarication. The ancestors of many of the English ( and Scottish Irish and Welsh ) ethnic groups invaded these islands at one point in history. Henry 2 was the legitimate king of England. He wasn't an invader . His mother was an English princess , and daughter of king Henry 1.His grandmother was a Scottish princess , and queen of England. His great grandmother was a saxon princess , and queen of scotland. His great great grandfather was a saxon prince , and his great great great grandfather was the Anglo Saxon king of the English , Edmund ironside. By ethnicity , by ancestry ,by legality , by every fucking measure available to us , Henry the second was king of England . So what are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 24, 2024 21:07:48 GMT
you are deliberately missing my point time and again. You can have a Norman name , but ethnically , and by ancestry , be a mix of many differing peoples. The bruce family are a prime example. Over a 248 year period , they were originally a Norman French family , from near cherbourg , they then fought on behalf of the English at the battle of the standard in 1138 , then in 1314 , Robert de brus was king of scotland , and won the famous battle against the English at Bannockburn. What nationality , ethnicity ,and ancestry were the bruce family ? 1314 is a further 140 years on from the period under discussion and I have said, several times that assimilation was a process. In terms of ethnicity if he said he was Scots and was accepted as Scots by other contemporary Scots then he was ethnically Scots. To be clear as far as I am concerned blood and heritage is of little import in terms of ethnicity it is a process of accepting and acceptance. However we cannot escape his Norman heritage which was the very reason why he was a Scottish Knight and able to marry wisely. Just as the poor Irishmen being piked off the Wexford bridge could not escape their heritage which was plain from their religion. yet more prevarication. I started from 1066 and worked over to 1314 , to show how meaningless your argument about `the normans ` and Norman names is .The bruce family underscores that argument perfectly. Your puerile argument was that it took 400 years to assimilate , and clearly in the space of just over half that , the Bruces have represented , or been considered nationals of at least three nations if not more . Thats before we even inspect the maternal lines and where they came from. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 25, 2024 19:43:41 GMT
Largely because Sunak's ancestors did not invade teh UK and place himself as PM as the descendant of an invader who had usurped the reins of power through passing the levers of power to his co-invaders. There is also the little fact that we are 800 years apart and we are interpreting history through what is available to us and names are a very important source. more prevarication. The ancestors of many of the English ( and Scottish Irish and Welsh ) ethnic groups invaded these islands at one point in history. Henry 2 was the legitimate king of England. He wasn't an invader . His mother was an English princess , and daughter of king Henry 1.His grandmother was a Scottish princess , and queen of England. His great grandmother was a saxon princess , and queen of scotland. His great great grandfather was a saxon prince , and his great great great grandfather was the Anglo Saxon king of the English , Edmund ironside. By ethnicity , by ancestry ,by legality , by every fucking measure available to us , Henry the second was king of England . So what are you talking about? I think I have asked before, what makes a king legitimate? Henry was Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and Anjou and did oodles amount of fighting in France, of which he eventually controlled most, before winning the Crown of England effectively by force of arms and through another invasion. He made Stephen (by force which you seem to say is wrong when Irishmen are forced) make him his successor and even Stephen seems to have taken the throne instead of flowing gently into it. Both Stephen and Henry were Norman/French/Anjevin take your pick and both were Dukes of Normandy before claiming the English throne effectively by force. I wish it was all so simple as you would have us believe but it is not. What does the World Encyclopedia say about Henry II www.worldhistory.org/timeline/Henry_II_of_England/1153 Henry of Anjou (future Henry II of England) invades England. Perhaps he was an invader after all. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 25, 2024 20:04:50 GMT
1314 is a further 140 years on from the period under discussion and I have said, several times that assimilation was a process. In terms of ethnicity if he said he was Scots and was accepted as Scots by other contemporary Scots then he was ethnically Scots. To be clear as far as I am concerned blood and heritage is of little import in terms of ethnicity it is a process of accepting and acceptance. However we cannot escape his Norman heritage which was the very reason why he was a Scottish Knight and able to marry wisely. Just as the poor Irishmen being piked off the Wexford bridge could not escape their heritage which was plain from their religion. yet more prevarication. I started from 1066 and worked over to 1314 , to show how meaningless your argument about `the normans ` and Norman names is .The bruce family underscores that argument perfectly. Your puerile argument was that it took 400 years to assimilate , and clearly in the space of just over half that , the Bruces have represented , or been considered nationals of at least three nations if not more . Thats before we even inspect the maternal lines and where they came from. I repeat, I think I am turning blue, ethnicity matters little on what you are in terms of ancestry. What matters is what one believes oneself to be and that is accepted by those of the ethnic group to which you believe you belong. The Law Lords considered long and hard on this definition in the modern context where one has to select an ethnic group if one considers one has been discriminated against on that basis. However we are dealing with late 12th century Europe where ancestry was more clear cut as regard who one was and what ones heritage was. Normans were Normans and Anglo Saxons were Anglo-Saxons just as the Irish were Irish. Some Normans did not like Henry because he was Angevin. However the rule in England was by feudal means which depended on ethnicity as a measure of nobility (the remnants of which we live with today). T |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 1, 2024 9:34:35 GMT
more prevarication. The ancestors of many of the English ( and Scottish Irish and Welsh ) ethnic groups invaded these islands at one point in history. Henry 2 was the legitimate king of England. He wasn't an invader . His mother was an English princess , and daughter of king Henry 1.His grandmother was a Scottish princess , and queen of England. His great grandmother was a saxon princess , and queen of scotland. His great great grandfather was a saxon prince , and his great great great grandfather was the Anglo Saxon king of the English , Edmund ironside. By ethnicity , by ancestry ,by legality , by every fucking measure available to us , Henry the second was king of England . So what are you talking about? I think I have asked before, what makes a king legitimate? Henry was Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and Anjou and did oodles amount of fighting in France, of which he eventually controlled most, before winning the Crown of England effectively by force of arms and through another invasion. He made Stephen (by force which you seem to say is wrong when Irishmen are forced) make him his successor and even Stephen seems to have taken the throne instead of flowing gently into it. Both Stephen and Henry were Norman/French/Anjevin take your pick and both were Dukes of Normandy before claiming the English throne effectively by force. I wish it was all so simple as you would have us believe but it is not. What does the World Encyclopedia say about Henry II www.worldhistory.org/timeline/Henry_II_of_England/1153 Henry of Anjou (future Henry II of England) invades England. Perhaps he was an invader after all. ah. So back to moving the goalpost once more , after arguing about ancestry and blood for the last good few pages. What makes a king legitimate? Normally a king starts off as some hard man who takes power for himself , and then makes laws to bolster that power , legitimise it , and then surrounds himself with sycophants. Since feudalism , and the advent of primogeniture , it's been about a family business , where dad passes the crown onto son and so on. Whats your point? He came back to England to press his claim . What made Harold godwineson , the last saxon king , legitimate? His family were traitors to the English nation. His father ,the earl Godwine , collaborated with the danish to crush the anglo saxons under the scandiavian boot. His brother , the earl tostig , collaborated with both us in scotland , and the Norwegians , against England. The family forced the half Norman Edward the confessor to recognise them as successors to the English crown. simply down to pure self interest. You are struggling sandy. Having had your argument cut off at the knees , regarding anglo saxon blood and ancestry , you are reduced to scrabbling about In the dirt . |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 1, 2024 9:43:58 GMT
yet more prevarication. I started from 1066 and worked over to 1314 , to show how meaningless your argument about `the normans ` and Norman names is .The bruce family underscores that argument perfectly. Your puerile argument was that it took 400 years to assimilate , and clearly in the space of just over half that , the Bruces have represented , or been considered nationals of at least three nations if not more . Thats before we even inspect the maternal lines and where they came from. I repeat, I think I am turning blue, ethnicity matters little on what you are in terms of ancestry. What matters is what one believes oneself to be and that is accepted by those of the ethnic group to which you believe you belong. The Law Lords considered long and hard on this definition in the modern context where one has to select an ethnic group if one considers one has been discriminated against on that basis. However we are dealing with late 12th century Europe where ancestry was more clear cut as regard who one was and what ones heritage was. Normans were Normans and Anglo Saxons were Anglo-Saxons just as the Irish were Irish. Some Normans did not like Henry because he was Angevin. However the rule in England was by feudal means which depended on ethnicity as a measure of nobility (the remnants of which we live with today). T wow. read that back to yourself . to define yourself as part of an ethnic group , the common ancestry , descent and cultural background of that ethnic group is what you are linking your identity to. so what are you talking about ethnicity in terms of ancestry matters little? Your whole argument through this thread has been about Anglo Saxon blood , ethnicity and ancestry. Now king Henry 2 here has that in abundance , you are arguing black is white and white is black in the same paragraph. The normans went from being an invading ethnic group , they then intermarried with the anglos saxons , and became an English ethnic sub group. Hence why people like Henry 2 had a multi ethnic background , which isnt unusual , it's the norm . Your puerile argument is that the normans were a race apart (they weren't) for four hundred years until it becomes convenient for you in this debate to agree they were English. This is the bit we totally disagree. The fact you can't accept it took merely a few generations for the normans to mingle in with the nations of these islands and elsewhere. Not four centuries. So by 1175 , we can properly say ireland was Englands first colony. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 1, 2024 10:48:28 GMT
yet more prevarication. I started from 1066 and worked over to 1314 , to show how meaningless your argument about `the normans ` and Norman names is .The bruce family underscores that argument perfectly. Your puerile argument was that it took 400 years to assimilate , and clearly in the space of just over half that , the Bruces have represented , or been considered nationals of at least three nations if not more . Thats before we even inspect the maternal lines and where they came from. However we are dealing with late 12th century Europe where ancestry was more clear cut as regard who one was and what ones heritage was.. Can you prove this please? Henry 2 says hold my beer here sandy. If you have a brief glance at the major political figures in scotland England ireland and Wales fro this 12th century era , you will see your sentence above is nonsense.
Nonsense. Sandy waffles on .Can you prove to me since the introduction of feudalism by the normans , (bearing in mind that the saxons , Scandinavians and Celts didnt practice feudalism or primogeniture until lit was introduced by the normans) that rule of England , scotland ireland or Wales between 1066 and 1485 depended on ethnicity? Define ethnicity first , then show me how rule of any of the aforementioned nations depended on it. over to you? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 1, 2024 19:50:51 GMT
Well I have several questions. If a King is a hardman and gathers his followers around him at what point is he a colonial figure? If he comes from another country is he a colonist? Is he a usurper? If people object to his rule but are beaten into submission does that make him legitimate? If he forces a previous hardman to make him his successor does that make any of them legitimate? If a Crown is the legitimate title holder, irrespective of how that Crown is gained, does that make Henry VII, and several successors, the legitimate rulers of Ireland
When we first discussed the Treaty of Windsor you were quite incensed that the Irish Chieftain was forced to sign yet now you say that forcing someone to sign endows legitimacy on the enforcer.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 1, 2024 20:21:44 GMT
I repeat, I think I am turning blue, ethnicity matters little on what you are in terms of ancestry. What matters is what one believes oneself to be and that is accepted by those of the ethnic group to which you believe you belong. The Law Lords considered long and hard on this definition in the modern context where one has to select an ethnic group if one considers one has been discriminated against on that basis. However we are dealing with late 12th century Europe where ancestry was more clear cut as regard who one was and what ones heritage was. Normans were Normans and Anglo Saxons were Anglo-Saxons just as the Irish were Irish. Some Normans did not like Henry because he was Angevin. However the rule in England was by feudal means which depended on ethnicity as a measure of nobility (the remnants of which we live with today). T wow. read that back to yourself . to define yourself as part of an ethnic group , the common ancestry , descent and cultural background of that ethnic group is what you are linking your identity to. so what are you talking about ethnicity in terms of ancestry matters little? Your whole argument through this thread has been about Anglo Saxon blood , ethnicity and ancestry. Now king Henry 2 here has that in abundance , you are arguing black is white and white is black in the same paragraph. The normans went from being an invading ethnic group , they then intermarried with the anglos saxons , and became an English ethnic sub group. Hence why people like Henry 2 had a multi ethnic background , which isnt unusual , it's the norm . Your puerile argument is that the normans were a race apart (they weren't) for four hundred years until it becomes convenient for you in this debate to agree they were English. This is the bit we totally disagree. The fact you can't accept it took merely a few generations for the normans to mingle in with the nations of these islands and elsewhere. Not four centuries. So by 1175 , we can properly say ireland was Englands first colony. Henry 2 was possibly 'multi-ethnic' which raises many questions but first and foremost he was not English by any definition. He was born in Le Mans to Geoffrey of Anjou and he succeeded to the English throne by force. I see also that Louis VII was his feudal overlord which makes his absolute sovereignty questionable. I did define ethnicity as defined by the Law Lords to help you out and clarify for you what it meant. At one point you were very clear about ethnicity when it related to Ireland but since that point you have become a bit obtuse. |
|
