Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,499
- Location
- London, UK
gotta love the irony
EDL and Muslim group apply to protest Royal Wedding.
- Thread starter Castiel
- Start date
gotta love the irony
1066 was an invasion. You wouldn't have to completely replace the whole standing monarch and court with a bunch of French and their Establishment accompanied by building the biggest fearsome castles and stone buildings ever seen in England so far to help with the supression of the population if it weren't the case.
Essentially that establishment ruled 'till 1688. Of which that technical 'invasion' is largely played down as well.
Or maybe I'm just looking at it differently?
Like, without the tinted spectacles?
William had an arguably legitimate claim to the English Throne however. Also the Normans assimilated into the indigenous populations of the Nations they "conquered", so well in fact that they assimilated themselves out of existence.
His building programme was designed to limit the danger of revolts, not only from the Anglo-Saxon populations, but also his own followers.
The Norman Conquest was really a war of succession rather than an actual conquest by a foreign power.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 by English Parliamentarians was not an Invasion either, it was as it says, a revolution or more accurately a war of succession.
Anyway this has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP. Lets keep it on Topic........
Last edited:
Castiel.
England was subjugated, off kilter claim to the throne or not the population did not want their new 'what ever the English want to claim them to be' neither did the ruling class that the population supported in arms before defeat.
Most historian's, majority of which are English, that I have listened to are clearly of the opinion the building program as one of 'shock and awe' to impress and supress. As was the harrying of the North, et al. Or was that a continuation of 'valid succession'?
Unfortunately I find a lot of the time English historical ego gets in the way of impartiallity, and utlimately England was conquered and ruled.
Also, if you read what I said 1688 was a 'technical' invasion by Dutch forces, which it was and is also widely agreed upon by scholars.
The military action fits in with the criteria for 'invasion', even if the political fall out does not dependent on your point of view.
England was subjugated, off kilter claim to the throne or not the population did not want their new 'what ever the English want to claim them to be' neither did the ruling class that the population supported in arms before defeat.
Most historian's, majority of which are English, that I have listened to are clearly of the opinion the building program as one of 'shock and awe' to impress and supress. As was the harrying of the North, et al. Or was that a continuation of 'valid succession'?
Unfortunately I find a lot of the time English historical ego gets in the way of impartiallity, and utlimately England was conquered and ruled.
Also, if you read what I said 1688 was a 'technical' invasion by Dutch forces, which it was and is also widely agreed upon by scholars.
The military action fits in with the criteria for 'invasion', even if the political fall out does not dependent on your point of view.
Last edited:
Like I said, he arguably had a valid claim to the throne both through being the Great-Nephew of the mother of Edward the Confessor, as well as allegedly being promised the throne by Edward the Confessor himself, appointing your successor was a common and valid way of passing title to another at the time.
Also, as I said the "shock and Awe" as you call it was not only to suppress rebellion among the mainly autonomous "Shire" councils (who incidental did not want to lose their autonomy to the crown) but also to impress upon the Norman nobility that William was the King and he would brook no "building of nations" within his territory.
Of course, there was also the troublesome Scots to contend with.....
I find that Scottish ego gets in the way of impartiality also.
Which it wasn't, simply because William of Orange was invited to take the throne by English Parliamentarians. The actual use of foreign troops in overthrowing James may be seen as an invasion of sorts, but it was in fact simply a Revolution, because William III had valid claim to the British throne and was invited by and had the commitment of the English Parliament. It is pretty difficult to call it an invasion when the much of England either refused to declare for either or declared for William, including the English Navy who declared for William early on.
1066 was the last true invasion by a foreign state in Britain, this is accepted by the consensus of scholars.
You're just sore because it began the ultimate removal of the Scottish house of Stuart from the British Throne in favour of the House of Hanover....
Last edited:
Like I said, he arguably had a valid claim to the throne both through being the Great-Nephew of the mother of Edward the Confessor, as well as allegedly being promised the throne by Edward the Confessor himself, appointing your successor was a common and valid way of passing title to another at the time.
Also, as I said the "shock and Awe" as you call it was not only to suppress rebellion among the mainly autonomous "Shire" councils (who incidental did not want to lose their autonomy to the crown) but also to impress upon the Norman nobility that William was the King and he would brook no "building of nations" within his territory.
Of course, there was also the troublesome Scots to contend with.....
"Arguably" being the operative word, and quite irrelevent to the actions that followed.
It was still an invasion, England was still conquered.
He wasn't called William the Successor, was he now?
In comparison to this issue, there isn't anything of similar scope to be fair.
You no doubt are correct for on other issues, but not for me
It was a 'technical invasion', I'm not going to say this again you aren't an ignorant man so stop being pedantic;
Wiki said:
Castiel said:You're just sore because it began the ultimate removal of the Scottish house of Stuart from the British Throne in favour of the House of Hanover....
Emotive rubbish, I'm not a royalist.
Again, I'm just trying to point out what normally comes across as illogical responses from the English with regards to their own history.
"Never conquered, but conquered the world"
It's a lot of ****, frankly.
Last edited:
Good on you mate...but if you get a reply i can bet you they will consider you the enemy even though your as muslim as i am.
Disgusting bunch of knobs this lot are...problem is now the media have given them the platform and therefore their voices are louder than the rest....but its also a good reason for people like Cheets64 to hate on muslims in general...have to say i did chuckle at his stupid **** muslims rant.
I was simply pointing out that he also had a claim to the throne, as did Harald Hardrada.
If Edward the Confessor had not been so lax in making his contention for the succession known then the "Invasion" probably would not have happened.
The reasons for the removal and suppression of the Anglo-Saxon ruling classes was not a simplistic as you imply, mainly due to the "Shire" system of autonomous Governance which William wished to dismantle.
To be fair, this deserves a thread of it's own as it is quite interesting (for some of us anyway)
However, it was still an invasion and the Anglo-Saxons were subjugated to some extent, although the Normans eventually assimilated into English life rather than the English assimilating into Norman life.
The Normans pretty much assimilated themselves out of existence they were so good at it.
I have highlighted the relevant part....so right back atcha...
For the case of the Statehood of England, it can be validly argued that it has never been successfully invaded by a foreign power, as the it is widely accepted that the State of England was first instituted by William the Conqueror after the Norman Invasion....
Most muslims do and theres nothing wrong with that...but its ok for most to have serious issues with muslims right??
Tbh im looking forward to the royal wedding, i have a day off so will sit down at home and watch it...i still remember Charles and Diana's wedding yrs ago as a youngster in Canada...it was like something stupid o clock in the morning..but the pomp of it all was tremendous from what i can remember.
Not a huge royal fan but i have no problem with them and the last thing id want to do or see is disruption to 2 peoples special day when they have FA all to do with these idiots message of hate.
Last edited:
Couldnt have said it any better...his comments dont really enrage me, i look upon him as one sad sad individual tbh...his footballing knowledge is just as shocking as well.
Way hay, apart from the last bit.
In my opinion the cultural angle was almost level pegging, the Norman's had a significant effect on English language and culture etc and vice versa, although they did assimilate together 'nicely' after a while shall we say.
Not quite but I know your angle. It's not like the conquest reversed itself, it didn't. It merely became part of the furniture.
I have highlighted the relevant part....so right back atcha...
I haven't contested that at any point; what I am saying for the LAST time is 1688 was a 'technical' invasion regardless of the political aims and ties.
As in, it was a side note to prove to the poster above that we haven't been a last bastion of the 'infallables'.
For the case of the Statehood of England, it can be validly argued that it has never been successfully invaded by a foreign power, as the it is widely accepted that the State of England was first instituted by William the Conqueror after the Norman Invasion....
The state is comprised by its people, who were subjugated.
Nice attempt though.
I look at it more as just being totally pathetic myself.
Nothing like faux rage at something that clearly has no impact on your own day to day life...
I do live in a "white" area, Wigan is racist place but I dont take part in it and dont call people in the street just because they are a different colour, compare it to Bolton 10 miles away that has very large Asian community and from working in the areas the attitude from Asians has had an imprint on my feelings and thoughts, most of the time you cant have two different cultures living together so closely, (Jewish seem to get on ok with people in the UK, yet Islam seems to think they need to voice at every opportunity) it never works, hence why countries generally have the same culture and the conflicts its all down to culture/religion, take Ireland for example and how deadly that is over land and religion.
I do live in a "white" area, Wigan is racist place but I dont take part in it and dont call people in the street just because they are a different colour, compare it to Bolton 10 miles away that has very large Asian community and from working in the areas the attitude from Asians has had an imprint on my feelings and thoughts, most of the time you cant have two different cultures living together so closely, (Jewish seem to get on ok with people in the UK, yet Islam seems to think they need to voice at every opportunity) it never works, hence why countries generally have the same culture and the conflicts its all down to culture/religion, take Ireland for example and how deadly that is over land and religion.
Are you worried about the Iraqi/muslamic law now fully enforced in London, reaching Wigan?
I don't think that was what he was saying, I thought he was saying that we are defined by these events, rather than being a last bastion of infallibility.
I read it as we are a nation shaped by those events, rather than trying to revise history per se.
The British are pretty good at influencing and integrating themselves into other cultures, that includes the Norman Invasion to some extent.
The state is comprised by its people, who were subjugated.
Nice attempt though.
Haha, it was worth as shot....
