Rune's Ancestors

Aoxomoxoa said:
What the fuck is wrong with you? Threedee said that the English monarchy started with William the Conqueror which is not correct. You are so desperate to prove that you are right that you are now reduced to arguing whether those kings were Anglo Saxon or not. :palm:
Click to expand...

Wow, when you get severely pwned, you just don't know where to go with it, do you?

You may as well resign now, since you will never regain credibility after this display of stupid.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
What the fuck is wrong with you? Threedee said that the English monarchy started with William the Conqueror which is not correct. You are so desperate to prove that you are right that you are now reduced to arguing whether those kings were Anglo Saxon or not. :palm:
Click to expand...

The present English Monarchy you fucking idiot, as was previously and plainly explained. :palm:
 
Rune said:
The present English Monarchy you fucking idiot, as was previously and plainly explained. :palm:
Click to expand...

Where does Threedee say present??

Well, England really only traces it's monarchy back to the Norman conquest of 1066.
Click to expand...

Oh and to further prove that you are a fucking idiot, here is the official website of the British Monarchy. Are you going to argue with them as well!! See you later, I am going swimming with my son now.

The history of the English Crown up to the Union of the Crowns in 1603 is long and eventful.

The concept of a single ruler unifying different tribes based in England developed in the eighth and ninth centuries in figures such as Offa and Alfred the Great, who began to create centralised systems of government.
Click to expand...


http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/KingsandQueensofEngland.aspx

 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Where does Threedee say present??



Oh and to further prove that you are a fucking idiot, here is the official website of the British Monarchy. Are you going to argue with them as well!! See you later, I am going swimming with my son now.




http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/KingsandQueensofEngland.aspx
Click to expand...

Despite your pomp and ceremony, we are still more civilised than you, to whom we introduced civilization to true barbarians.

Next time you decide to attack a culture for petty personal gain, a little research may be in order. You have done little here but prove all the accusations which stand against you.
 
Threedee said:
The Viking movements remind me of the Greek movements. Geography, terrain, population, etc., caused the Greek peoples to continually migrate, which is what led to the establishment of Hellenic Greece and the city states. Add to that the fact that Norse and Greek mythology are strikingly similar, and I imagine it was a product of the way the two societies lived, moved, and evolved. The primary difference is that the Vikings were never handed an Alexander. What they did do, though, was conquer Britain, and play a part in establishing what would grow to be the greatest Western European imperial achievement circa 1500-1900.
Click to expand...

It was because Ancient Ailens helped both cultures, I just watched the episode on the Vikings, lol.
 
Rune said:
Despite your pomp and ceremony, we are still more civilised than you, to whom we introduced civilization to true barbarians.

Next time you decide to attack a culture for petty personal gain, a little research may be in order. You have done little here but prove all the accusations which stand against you.
Click to expand...

You are just fucking impossible. First off you try to pass off an answer from Yahoo Answers as your own and then you attempt to make the absurd claim that the English Monarchy started in 1066. You then tried to say that you meant the 'present monarchy'. So fuckwit, do you mean the Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts, Hanoverians, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or the Windsors?
 
Last edited:
I think historians make a distinction between "the English Monarchy" and monarchy in England. The former would be described as the reign of monarchs from William I in 1066 to the present Elizabeth II. Prior to the Viking conquests, though, the Heptarchy was not truly a monarchy. In an attempt to free itself from Viking kings, England ultimately established it's own monarchs to lead them. Similarly, William I is credited with foisting feudalism upon England.
 
Threedee said:
I think historians make a distinction between "the English Monarchy" and monarchy in England. The former would be described as the reign of monarchs from William I in 1066 to the present Elizabeth II. Prior to the Viking conquests, though, the Heptarchy was not truly a monarchy. In an attempt to free itself from Viking kings, England ultimately established it's own monarchs to lead them. Similarly, William I is credited with foisting feudalism upon England.
Click to expand...

The Heptachy is more commonly known as the Dark Ages and ended around the middle of the ninth century circa 850.
 
Yes, that's correct. To the modern eye, it seems rather sad that it was brought down by conquering monarchs. Also, Tom, the presence of multiple royal houses does not suggest an ending to the line of monarchs. The kings and queens have always traced their right of succession back to previous monarchs, but never dating back to before William I.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
You are just fucking impossible. First off you try to pass off an answer from Yahoo Answers as your own and then you attempt to make the absurd claim that the English Monarchy started in 1066. You then tried to say that you meant the 'present monarchy'. So fuckwit, do you mean the Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts, Hanoverians, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or the Windsors?
Click to expand...
Unlike you, I understands the laws of nature and work with them For example,
do I have to explain to you that the present topic of the thread is 1066, not other eras.
.
 
Threedee said:
Yes, that's correct. To the modern eye, it seems rather sad that it was brought down by conquering monarchs. Also, Tom, the presence of multiple royal houses does not suggest an ending to the line of monarchs. The kings and queens have always traced their right of succession back to previous monarchs, but never dating back to before William I.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what your point is? If you are saying that there was no blood line before William the Conqueror claimed the Throne of England, then you are wrong.

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/normans.htm
 
No one claims or recognizes it. Everyone who has claimed the throne since 1066 has either done so through William or one of his successors. In that sense, there may as well never have been a bloodline prior to the Normans. Either way, it was an institution brought in from the outside.
 
Threedee said:
No one claims or recognizes it. Everyone who has claimed the throne since 1066 has either done so through William or one of his successors. In that sense, there may as well never have been a bloodline prior to the Normans. Either way, it was an institution brought in from the outside.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but you are splitting heirs (sic) literally. Edward the Confessor is even included in the Bayeux Tapestry, I can confirm that as I went to see it some years ago.

220px-Bayeux_Tapestry_scene1_EDWARD_REX.jpg




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_the_Confessor
 
That's only because everyone still loves Edward the Confessor. The reason I am splitting hairs is actually mostly my own fault. Rune pointed out that the Vikings became kings of England and I posted that it didn't matter much because the current monarchy was established under the Norman conquest. Then I was like, well, fuck, technically they were Vikings as well, even though we tend to think of the Danes as Viking conquerors and the Normans as French conquerors.
 
3-D, why is this stuff so obvious to you and I and Billy, but Tom can't understand?
Is it some kind of misplaced nationalistic pride or what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top