|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 1, 2024 20:29:39 GMT
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 . I do not need to argue about blood etc becasue it is a matter of historical record that Normans were were largely the Lords of England in early 13th century and the Saxons were the oppressed peasantry. If this was not so then the legend of Robin Hood would have no traction' To clarify you said Henry II was the legitimate King of England I asked what makes a King legitimate. I have not said anyone was not legitimate all I am doing is trying to apply your definitions to the historical facts. If you say Harold was not legitimate fine I have no issue all I am saying is that you brought legitimacy into it and I only asked for a definition. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 2, 2024 12:52:23 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. We go around in circles because you can't accept your argument is puerile nonsense. The point about `a king` or any sort of ruling elite , was that most of the established monarchies and ruling houses started simply as hard men who came from somewhere to steal land , and set themselves up as rulers. There was no legitimacy involved. Ethnicity , nationality , none of that mattered to a greater degree. It's self evident at which point he is a colonial figure. In England , by 1175 , the `normans` were the ruling English elite. In Ireland , this ruling English elite were the colonists. It's not a difficult proposition sandy. self evidently , the English crown became the legitimate ruler of ireland in their opinion. The Irish disagreed . We have been over this time and again. Isnt Charles saxe Coburg gotha the legitimate king of that part of ireland that remains in the uk today? Im not sure what point you aren't getting. Ireland is regarded as Englands first colony because an English king annexed and colonised Ireland in 1175. The Irish fought back , over hundreds of years , and then suffered re invasions time and again over centuries from the same country , England. England itself however , only suffered the one invasion and conquest , in 1066 , and the people who invaded England and conquered her, became over a few generations the English elite , and their descendants rule England to this day. you appear to be making yet more stuff up once again sandy. Can you show me where im incensed? I simply stated fact. There was no emotion involved. He wasn't an Irish chieftain , he was the Irish high king. can you show me where im saying forcing someone to sign something endows legitimacy on the enforcer? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 2, 2024 13:11:30 GMT
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 If you are born in a stable , it doesn't make you a horse . Glad you agree he was multi ethnic , which now negates any further discussion of ethnicity on your part . This raised no questions in terms of him being king of England. What definition is that then sandy? Your puerile definition ? Think of England , and the English , as a cake analogy. The cake is made up of multiple ingredients , but according to you only one ingredient is used , flour (anglo saxons) This is nonsense of course. We have discussed the multi ethnic make up of the English nation previously in the 12th century. Henry 2 was English by definition. Englishness is a mindset , like all nationalities. Henry clearly saw himself as the legitimate English king . We know this. It doesn't matter where he was born. Place of birth does not de legitimise your right to be monarch. His mother was English , born in England and she was the daughter and heir of the previous king Henry 1. No , the throne of England was his by right. His mother Matilda was officially named heir to the throne og England by her father , king henry1 , upon the death of his only son . The throne was taken by force by her cousin , Stephen , who usurped the crown , and Henry 2 merely took back his blood right to the crown. No it doesn't. We have been over this before , so either you weren't listening or didnt understand feudalism. The French king was allegedly his feudal overlord for his dominions in France , not England. Hence why as I explained to you earlier duke William didnt annex England to normandy , so England didnt come under the king of Frances feudal overlordship. It doesn't matter. You have conceded the point that Henry 2 was multi ethnic . Its finally starting to sink in the `cake` has multiple ingredients . |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 2, 2024 13:19:47 GMT
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. At one point you were very clear about ethnicity when it related to Ireland but since that point you have become a bit obtuse. how do you mean ? I have been consistent throughout this thread about ethnicity. It's you who moves the goalposts when it suits. I was clear for example that a recurring feature of Irish history was that English colonists were absorbed into the Irish nation time and again . This normally took a few generations at most , while you on the other hand appeared unable or unwilling to accept Norman colonists in England were absorbed into the English nation within a few generations. The idea it took four hundred years is fucking laughable , when you consider king Henry 2 multi ethnic make up 109 years on from Hastings. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 2, 2024 13:35:52 GMT
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 . I do not need to argue about blood etc becasue it is a matter of historical record that Normans were were largely the Lords of England in early 13th century and the Saxons were the oppressed peasantry. This is a classic sandy prevarication . Where am I arguing the normans were not the lords of England in the 12th century? Ive consistently pointed out the normans , by this time were being called anglo normans in light of their multi ethnic make up , and intermarrying with the English to create the ruling English caste . You are the one who is arguing they aren't English . nope. England was made up of many differing people , not just saxons. The cake and its multiple ingredient remember? I can't think of a period in England history were the ordinary English people weren't oppressed by their ruling elite one way or the other. what do you mean? The fact that Robin Hood was fiercely loyal to his king , the absent King Richard , the son of our friend henry2 ?  In one theory of who Robin Hood was , he was supposed to be a guy called William le fevere in 1261 in English Berkshire. Good old anglo saxon name there. great. so you have been dragged kicking and screaming to accept Henry 2 was the legitimate English king , and that he was also multi ethnic , so what are you arguing about? So you are tacitly admitting im right , and therefore ireland was Englands first colony? yawn. More prevarication. My definition states ireland was Englands first colony , and by 1175 , the normans were no longer foreign colonists , but Muti ethnic English lords called by modern historians `anglo normans` in recognition of that fact. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 17:40:25 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. We go around in circles because you can't accept your argument is puerile nonsense. The point about `a king` or any sort of ruling elite , was that most of the established monarchies and ruling houses started simply as hard men who came from somewhere to steal land , and set themselves up as rulers. There was no legitimacy involved. Ethnicity , nationality , none of that mattered to a greater degree. It's self evident at which point he is a colonial figure. In England , by 1175 , the `normans` were the ruling English elite. In Ireland , this ruling English elite were the colonists. It's not a difficult proposition sandy. self evidently , the English crown became the legitimate ruler of ireland in their opinion. The Irish disagreed . We have been over this time and again. Isnt Charles saxe Coburg gotha the legitimate king of that part of ireland that remains in the uk today? Im not sure what point you aren't getting. Ireland is regarded as Englands first colony because an English king annexed and colonised Ireland in 1175. The Irish fought back , over hundreds of years , and then suffered re invasions time and again over centuries from the same country , England. England itself however , only suffered the one invasion and conquest , in 1066 , and the people who invaded England and conquered her, became over a few generations the English elite , and their descendants rule England to this day. you appear to be making yet more stuff up once again sandy. Can you show me where im incensed? I simply stated fact. There was no emotion involved. He wasn't an Irish chieftain , he was the Irish high king. can you show me where im saying forcing someone to sign something endows legitimacy on the enforcer? You said "Waffling on about saxons , angevins and all the rest is just more guff you are littering the thread with . The basis of English rule and claim to rule over ireland the past 8 centuries was the treaty of Windsor , where the Irish high king had to swear allegiance to the king of England in a shotgun marriage. doesn't matter if the guy spoke French or came from mars..." That sounds like it was said with a little emotion and is far from just stating the facts unless 'Shotguns' were around then Henry II forced Stephen to make Henry his successor and you said Henry was the legitimate King of England. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 3, 2024 12:18:16 GMT
We go around in circles because you can't accept your argument is puerile nonsense. The point about `a king` or any sort of ruling elite , was that most of the established monarchies and ruling houses started simply as hard men who came from somewhere to steal land , and set themselves up as rulers. There was no legitimacy involved. Ethnicity , nationality , none of that mattered to a greater degree. It's self evident at which point he is a colonial figure. In England , by 1175 , the `normans` were the ruling English elite. In Ireland , this ruling English elite were the colonists. It's not a difficult proposition sandy. self evidently , the English crown became the legitimate ruler of ireland in their opinion. The Irish disagreed . We have been over this time and again. Isnt Charles saxe Coburg gotha the legitimate king of that part of ireland that remains in the uk today? Im not sure what point you aren't getting. Ireland is regarded as Englands first colony because an English king annexed and colonised Ireland in 1175. The Irish fought back , over hundreds of years , and then suffered re invasions time and again over centuries from the same country , England. England itself however , only suffered the one invasion and conquest , in 1066 , and the people who invaded England and conquered her, became over a few generations the English elite , and their descendants rule England to this day. you appear to be making yet more stuff up once again sandy. Can you show me where im incensed? I simply stated fact. There was no emotion involved. He wasn't an Irish chieftain , he was the Irish high king. can you show me where im saying forcing someone to sign something endows legitimacy on the enforcer? You said "Waffling on about saxons , angevins and all the rest is just more guff you are littering the thread with . The basis of English rule and claim to rule over ireland the past 8 centuries was the treaty of Windsor , where the Irish high king had to swear allegiance to the king of England in a shotgun marriage. doesn't matter if the guy spoke French or came from mars..." That sounds like it was said with a little emotion and is far from just stating the facts unless 'Shotguns' were around then Henry II forced Stephen to make Henry his successor and you said Henry was the legitimate King of England. There was no emotion involved sandy I can assure you. Having read reams of your tedious waffle across page after page , I find it hard enough staying awake long enough to read them , never mind getting excited. He did. And I did. Whats your point? Stephen was the usurper . Henrys mother was the legitimate heir. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 5, 2024 8:14:55 GMT
You said "Waffling on about saxons , angevins and all the rest is just more guff you are littering the thread with . The basis of English rule and claim to rule over ireland the past 8 centuries was the treaty of Windsor , where the Irish high king had to swear allegiance to the king of England in a shotgun marriage. doesn't matter if the guy spoke French or came from mars..." That sounds like it was said with a little emotion and is far from just stating the facts unless 'Shotguns' were around then Henry II forced Stephen to make Henry his successor and you said Henry was the legitimate King of England. There was no emotion involved sandy I can assure you. Having read reams of your tedious waffle across page after page , I find it hard enough staying awake long enough to read them , never mind getting excited. He did. And I did. Whats your point? Stephen was the usurper . Henrys mother was the legitimate heir. There you have used the word 'legitimate' again by saying Matilda was the legitimate heir as the daughter of an invader who had taken the Crown by force, So I ask again what makes a king 'legitimate' a word you throw around as though it proves all your points yet each person you consider 'legitimate' is either a usurper one's self or directly in line from a usurper of some sort. Your whole promise rests on the fact Henry II was King of England. However he was also Lord and Dukes etc of many other areas in his realm. |
|
In one theory of who Robin Hood was , he was supposed to be a guy called William le fevere in 1261 in English Berkshire. Good old anglo saxon name there.