17
   

During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

 
 
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 01:12 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
The English Civil War was actually three separate civil wars. Twice against Charles I and once against Charles II. The Glorious Revolution wasn't so much a war as a midnight flit.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 01:17 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Bill was un-willing to be screwn
out of his rightful inheritance. He DID something about it in 1O66.


It wasn't his. The people of England elected their kings.

Quote:
In addition to having a role in the 'election' of English Kings, it is often held that the witenagemots had the power to depose an unpopular king.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 01:31 pm
@izzythepush,
You can draw a line from thing to folkmote to witenagemot and then finally end at Parliament.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 04:17 pm
@izzythepush,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Bill was un-willing to be screwn
out of his rightful inheritance. He DID something about it in 1O66.
izzythepush wrote:
It wasn't his. The people of England elected their kings.
That is a novel notion, so far as I 've heard.
Pardon my respectful skepticism, Izzy.
I know what its like to line up and elect a President.
I 've done that a few times.

Quote:
In addition to having a role in the 'election' of English Kings,
it is often held that the witenagemots had the power to depose an unpopular king.
The title followed bloodlines of inheritance,
the same as it woud if it were a horse, or a gun, or a bag of gold
which was inherited.
Historically, that is what actually happened, king after king after king.
That was how the King of Scotland inherited England.

Bill got mad because he had a perfectly clear understanding that he was being screwn
out of what was rightfully his, along paradigmatic lines of inheritance. He was no fool.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 04:21 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Quote:
In addition to having a role in the 'election' of English Kings,
it is often held that the witenagemots had the power to depose an unpopular king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot
Did that ever HAPPEN ?

Was that more than someone 's abstract theory ?
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 07:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Thank u for that information.
Please cite us to the quoted language
in the Declaration that bears upon this point of title to real estate.
Thank u.


David


As a sidenote:
I've explained why using "u" is a disrespectful behavior and you defended your position with the logic of so-called "efficiency of spelling."
With respects to your logic, for being efficient in spelling, we (will you guys want to join me?) have decided to call you "D" instead of David or Dave from now on.
If it is unbearable for you. Show us respects and use "you" other than "u".
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 08:36 pm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
With respects to your logic, for being efficient in spelling, we (will you guys want to join me?) have decided to call you "D" instead of David or Dave from now on.
If it is unbearable for you. Show us respects and use "you" other than "u".

I suspect that he will not object to your use of "D".

I am very sure that he is not doing the misspelling thing out of disrespect for you.

English ESL Grammar: I believe that in both cases above, your word "respects" should actually be "respect".
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 10:12 pm
@oralloy,
oristarA wrote:
With respects to your logic, for being efficient in spelling, we (will you guys want to join me?)
have decided to call you "D" instead of David or Dave from now on.
If it is unbearable for you. Show us respects and use "you" other than "u".
oralloy wrote:
I suspect that he will not object to your use of "D".

I am very sure that he is not doing the misspelling thing out of disrespect for you.

English ESL Grammar: I believe that in both cases above, your word "respects" should actually be "respect".
Thank u, Oralloy. I adopt EVERYTHING that u said.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 10:44 pm
@oristarA,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Thank u for that information.
Please cite us to the quoted language
in the Declaration that bears upon this point of title to real estate.
Thank u.


David
oristarA wrote:

As a sidenote:
I've explained why using "u" is a disrespectful behavior
I reject that notion.
However, if I remember, when addressing YOU directly,
I 'll accommodate your wishes.

oristarA wrote:
and you defended your position with the logic of so-called "efficiency of spelling."
This is not a complaint,
but you shud know that when you use quotation marks (as you did in your nested quote)
some people will rigorously hold you to fully precise perfection of the quoted material
and condemn & denounce you for any deviation, however slight,
within those " " marks. Your expression of my sentiments is accurate,
but I never used that particular syntax. Its OK with me, but someone else
might get mad and accuse you of mis-representation and fraud. Don t be vulnerable to that.
(For example, remember Walter getting all upset merely over his text
having been bolded inconsistently with his original presentation.)


oristarA wrote:
With respects to your logic, for being efficient in spelling,
we (will you guys want to join me?) have decided to call you "D" instead of David or Dave from now on.
If it is unbearable for you. Show us respects and use "you" other than "u".
That means nothing to me; I dont care, either way.
There have been 2 young ladies, both of whom I have called D.
I join in Oralloy 's observation that respect, not "respects"
is correct grammar in your sentence.

Are we going to get a citation
to the language in the Declaration concerning which I inquired ?

I don t believe that Jefferson said anything on that point.





David
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 11:26 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Omsig wrote: "The title followed bloodlines of inheritance,
the same as it woud if it were a horse, or a gun, or a bag of gold
which was inherited. ....."



Not so. At that time it was evolving from election of warlords to hereditary monarchy.
Vikings/Norsemen were carving up major territories including parts of Northern France (Normandy) and England.

To put it into a reference frame that you may better understand, just imagine a scene from Startrek where a Klingon Warlord died and there was an ensuing battle regarding who was going to be the next Chieftan.

Now, take away the silly make up, the blood pie, and disruptor guns and you basically have England in 1065/66.

The English Crown was not Edward the Confessor's to give away as he liked.
He had long turned his back on the English throne, being a religious nut, and had handed over control to Earl Godwin (his Father-in-law) and son Harold Godwinson (later King Harold).

Edward then had a family tiff with his Father in law and banished him from the country.
It was then that he made the offer to William the Bastard, an offer which would have been totally unofficial, as both men knew that it would have to be ratified by the "Witan" when the time came.

The Godwins returned within a year or so after the family tiff died down, and Edward went back to being a religious nut again.

Harold's brother Tostig buggered off after Northumbria kicked him out, and seeing as Harold didn't back him up, they became sworn enemies. He went off to Vikingland and later, after Edward had died, returned with his mate Hardrada to invade the North of England.
It was this mob who Harold was thrashing when news came of imminent invasion by William on the south coast, hundreds of miles away.

Harold and his knackered forces raced down South to meet them near Hastings.
If he had met them with fresh forces, who knows?

It doesn't change the fact though, that the Witan had met after Edward's death and had agreed on the successor, namely Harold.

The British monarchy is anything but "bloodline hereditary" if you studied it closely enough. Up until pretty recent times (in the European sense) convenient sidesteps were made because of religion or politics of the day.

The hereditary/election situation back in the 10th/11th C : -

From britainexpress:

"On these occasions" (succession) ....."the Witan stands as a survival of the ancient assembly of the tribe in arms; though, as a matter of fact, it had degenerated into an assembly of the magnates and the free population in the neighbourhood where the assembly was held. In all this we can see an absolutely plain evolution from the ancient tribal system as depicted by Tacitus. When joint action was undertaken by the tribes, the war-lord was chosen by the tribal assembly; and the elected war-lord developed by degrees into the hereditary monarch.

The war-lord had his council of the heads of the clans or great family groups within the tribe, who, in the later stage, were displaced by the ealdormen, who were the heads not of clans but of districts, as clan organisation yielded to district organisation; and the organisation of the Church involved the admission of the ecclesiastical heads to this group..."


http://www.britainexpress.com/images/articles/History-of-Britain/23-Wittan-s.jpg
The king presiding over the Witan, from an 11th century MS. illumination

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Witan.htm
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 11:48 pm
@Lordyaswas,
... and just think what efforts were made to give it all a kind of legal background! (The Bayeux tapestry was a commercial never seen before ... and similar not seen for centuries afterwards.
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Oct, 2014 11:52 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Absolutely.

The big thing that William did was to consolidate. He then, as the victor, wrote the history.

I believe he is the 25th? Great Grandfather of good Queen Liz?

Now that's what I call an effective takeover!
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2014 12:01 am
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:
I believe he is the 25th? Great Grandfather of good Queen Liz?
... which reminds me that I (and some A2K-friends as well) have seen quite a few tombs of others of her -th Great Grandfathers, in Hannover and the oldest (from 9th/10th century) in Weingarten Abbey.
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2014 12:18 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Fascinating, Walt.

Did you ever see the BBC Docu series (2010?) about The Normans? Worth a watch, if you can dig it up on youtube.

Just another couple of points of interest re all this....

The Witan in question were finally forced to surrender (along with Harold's son Edgar) at Berkhamsted Castle, the ruins of which are about a fifteen minute drive from me.
A fifteen minute drive in the opposite direction is Waltham Abbey, the final resting place of King Harold.

The Witan had members who were "ealdormen" . Some local councils still have aldermen.


And you still have "Ältermann" in Germany, I believe.

Swedish Ålderman.
Danish Olderman.



Funny old weld, as Cap'n Jack would say.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2014 12:46 am
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:
Did you ever see the BBC Docu series (2010?) about The Normans? Worth a watch, if you can dig it up on youtube.
Did so. (Got the recommendation earlier from a friend, who's a historian and who contributed a bit for that docu. And since she knew that I wrote my exams in 'old history' [ages ago] about the Bayeux tapestry [and did a paper about the Vikings in Germany as well] ...)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2014 12:51 am
@Lordyaswas,
15 minutes between Waltham Abbey and Berkhamsted Castle certainly depends on the time of day (traffic) Wink

(And who is driving Very Happy )
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2014 12:53 am
@Walter Hinteler,
No Walt, fifteen minutes from ME.

Berko 15 one way, Abbey 15 the other.

If the M25 is acting like London's main car park, then the Abbey could be 2 hours. Neutral
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2014 12:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Follow the link.
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2014 12:59 am
@OmSigDAVID,
He wasn't being screwed, it wasn't his.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2014 01:08 am
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:
The Witan had members who were "ealdormen" . Some local councils still have aldermen.


And you still have "Ältermann" in Germany, I believe.
We do have the 'nominal title' in some parts, I think.

But actually, this system was abolished here (where I live and my family is from) between the 7th and 9th century, when the Franks came here and abolished the old Saxon system.
But not totally: courts still worked similar to Saxon times, with elderme, until the High Medieval period.

Which brings me back to "land ownership": the very first document where any of my ancestors is noted (and which survived) is from 1287: before a judge and the eldermen of that district someone, a widow named Kunigunde, got some land in my ancestor's hamlet (from a certain Everhard Offensone von Henthlere). And my ancestor, Dithmar von Hinthlere, signed that document as a witness.

(The old Saxon name is said to be Hentlare - that's "the glade where a hind comes out")
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 01:40:18