Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo






runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 ... 15  16  17  18  19 

 
Housecarl 1066 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
posticon Re: William the Red


Billy the Pink was England's most irksome QUEEN! emoticon

The debate about the heroes that eradicated that useless vermin should be widened... emoticon

---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Aug/3/2008, 4:12 pm Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Housecarl:

I take it you're referring to the possibility of a debate about Henry I and his accomplishments or lack of same? If this is the case, let the debate begin, I say!
Anne G


quote:

Housecarl 1066 wrote:

Billy the Pink was England's most irksome QUEEN! emoticon

The debate about the heroes that eradicated that useless vermin should be widened... emoticon



Aug/3/2008, 7:56 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
WilliamtheRed Forum1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 124
Karma: -3 (+0/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Fantastic Posting Bill emoticon
Could you comment on that 'Great Debate' and how it is probably linked to Hugues De Cluny's letter to Philippe 1 condemning the assassination. We think its important in the light of the fact that so many <<commentators>> on this momentous historical event are always pinning the <<irreligious>> label on the Red while being unable to explain why the profoundly devout Abbot of Cluny Abbey and founder of Marcigny-sur-Loire Convent Hugues was so moved by the dastardly deed to make his views so public to someone who was the arch-conspirator.If you compare his reaction to Anselm's crocodile tears you realise why Hugues was such pillar of support for both the Conqueror and the Red.
Paul,Bev Morton (both in personal capacity)
Aug/12/2008, 9:30 pm Link to this post Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1   Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Paul, Bev, and WRTF:

Maybe the abbot of Cluny just didn't like Henry I? Of course, I don't know the answer, but to this day, nobody really knows what actually happened on that day in that forest, to William "Rufus".
Anne G
Aug/12/2008, 9:45 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
WilliamtheRed Forum1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 124
Karma: -3 (+0/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Paul Bev, it is something of high significance.
The Great Debate in question was of course to be between Jewish and Catholic theological scholars. The Red made it clear that whoever lost the debate should convert to the other religion. The Conqueror and the Red's support for the Jewish Community in Normandy and Angleland is well known. To say,as some do but you do not, that the Red and the Catholic Church were on good terms during his 13 year rule would be wholly wrong.Anselm, who in his capacity as Archbishop of Canterbury, was Catholicism's principal mouthpiece in Angleland, obstructed the Red in the decisive years 1094-96 when he was planning the relaunch The Norman Revolution in Normandy and The Kingdom Of The Franks. Anselm's sympathies were always with Philippe 1. Therefore the context of The Great Debate was that of the Red clashing with Catholicism but not with Cluniacism.Indeed, to a significant and vital extent The Great Debate is a kind of bridgehead between Judaism and Catholicism with Hugue's brilliant work at Cluny and Marcigny-sur-Loire being the connective tissue whilst all the while being intellectually and spiritually distinct.The Red understood the meaning of the Conqueror's commitment to Cluny and later Marcigny-sur-Loire.This was because parallel to this commitment was the unyielding belief that support for the Jewish Community was an essential factor in what was to become a unique Norman phenomenon and mutatis mutandis The Norman Revolution itself. You see, you have to ask the question in my view: why was the Red so insistant that the loser should convert? He needed a theological counter-stroke to Anselm's pro-Philippe 1 strategy. What better way of doing it than invoking Cluniacism without mentioning it? If Cluny and Marcigny-sur-Loire are seen in the context of a return to the monasticism of St Anthony of Alexandria and St Benedict of Nursia then the conversion factor for the kind of Catholicism that was hostile to the Red's policies regarding Normandy-Angleland and The Kingdom Of The Franks becomes more comprehensible. When St Anthony went into the Arabian desert and St Benedict to set up The Holy Grotto outside Rome, de facto they were returning a Judaeo-Christian history which stands at the very origins of that belief system.The Jewish Community in Normandy-Angleland stood four-square with the Red (and earlier the Conqueror) on all of his policies, the Catholic Church of Anselm and his collaborators did not. In the Red's scenario,the loser had to be the Catholic Church and Anselm because that scenario could only be defined by its context.Hugues' magnificent letter to Philippe 1 in which he points clearly to the source of the assassination of the Red finds its linkage with The Great Debate. Cluny and Marcigny-sur-Loire were concerned with correcting serious basic errors in Catholicism. The Great Debate was about correcting the temporal errors of Catholicism and its relationship with the eternal tenets of Faith. In this process you can glean a prominent, conversion element with ramifications for the Temporal and the Eternal to use the relevant parlance. The Red certainly wanted Catholicism with him in his pursuit of his grand strategy for Normandy-Angleland and The Kingdom Of The Franks but it had to be via the road of Cluniacism and its leader Hugues de Cluny( I can recommend a reading once again of The Chronicon Cluniacense as being insightful on this crucial point).
Mousteriana, your observation that Beauclerc was disliked by Hugues is correct.Context is the reason. Beauclerc was involved with assassination of the Red for reasons that I elucidated in my original topic post.

Bill H, Chairperson (personal capacity)
Aug/30/2008, 11:28 am Link to this post Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1   Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Bill H.

As far as Henry I is concerned, you didn't "elicidate" anything. And the fact is, still, nobody really knows who was responsible for the death of William "Rufus"! Admittedly, however, Henry I had a motive of the kind that any police force nowadays would at least investigate.

That said, however, the rest of your post is pure hogwash, unfortunately. Medieval kings, including William I and William II, used Jews, mostly so they could get money through "extralegal" means(the Church prohibited usury; presumably your beloved Cluniacs did, too).
Anne G
Aug/30/2008, 7:38 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
Housecarl 1066 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


quote:

mousteriana wrote:

Bill H.

That said, however, the rest of your post is pure hogwash, unfortunately. Medieval kings, including William I and William II, used Jews, mostly so they could get money through "extralegal" means(the Church prohibited usury; presumably your beloved Cluniacs did, too).
Anne G



WTF has still not learned to master the use of new paragraphs, commas and any other such English grammar, I see?

Much less the puerile content...



---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
Aug/31/2008, 12:58 am Link to this post Send Email to Housecarl 1066   Send PM to Housecarl 1066
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Housecarl:

They just like long posts. And they have paragraphs, even in French.
Anne G
Aug/31/2008, 6:20 am Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
WilliamtheRed Forum1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 124
Karma: -3 (+0/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Brilliant stuff Bill and stimulating thought for more discussion and debate.
Anne G we think your views on the Jewish Community border on the anti-Semitic.Only useful for money? Total and utter trash. You obviously have not studied Judaism or its close relative,Christianity. Medieval theology is closely linked to the ongoing debate of how Catholicism maintained itself in the Temporal and Eternal. The Jewish Community and Judaism are central to that policy.
When the Conqueror broke the racialist taboo imposed by successive Anglo-Saxon-Dane rulers since the 5th Century on the permanent settlements of Jews in Angleland, it was entirely in sync with his Cluniacist commitments and how that vital current of theology saw itself from its foundation in 910 by Duke William the Pious at Cluny. Unlike his predecessors, the Conqueror's respect for the Jewish Community was legendary. He provided for their protection and the permission of their religious and cultural practice.They already enjoyed those rights in Normandy since the mid-10th Century. Ending this racialist exclusion which was based on the big lie that the Jews not the Roman Empire, "killed Christ", was a radical,massive step forward for Angleland. The Conqueror made that step happen.Indeed this commitment,fully continued by the Red, to them was maintained in Angleland/England down to 1290 and the bestial rule of Edward 1 who expelled them entirely killing many in the process.Their permanent settlement status was restored by Oliver Cromwell in 1656. You obviously do not appreciate the crucial significance of Cluny and Marcigny-sur-Loire and covering that up by crude, insulting references to the Jewish Community and their support of the Conqueror and the Red has no merit.
As Bill observes, Hugues initiatives at Cluny and Marcigny-sur-Loire were entirely in sync with those taken by Benedict and Anthony to revitalise the Christian message and how that linked up with the Conqueror and the Red's leadership of The Norman Revolution 1058-1100.

Hugo,John G,Becky (all in personal capacity)
Sep/7/2008, 12:41 pm Link to this post Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1   Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
 
mousteriana Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Red


Hugo, John G, Becky, and WRTF:



quote:

WilliamtheRed Forum1 wrote:

Brilliant stuff Bill and stimulating thought for more discussion and debate.
Anne G we think your views on the Jewish Community border on the anti-Semitic.Only useful for money? Total and utter trash. You obviously have not studied Judaism or its close relative,Christianity. Medieval theology is closely linked to the ongoing debate of how Catholicism maintained itself in the Temporal and Eternal. The Jewish Community and Judaism are central to that policy.
When the Conqueror broke the racialist taboo imposed by successive Anglo-Saxon-Dane rulers since the 5th Century on the permanent settlements of Jews in Angleland, it was entirely in sync with his Cluniacist commitments and how that vital current of theology saw itself from its foundation in 910 by Duke William the Pious at Cluny. Unlike his predecessors, the Conqueror's respect for the Jewish Community was legendary. He provided for their protection and the permission of their religious and cultural practice.They already enjoyed those rights in Normandy since the mid-10th Century. Ending this racialist exclusion which was based on the big lie that the Jews not the Roman Empire, "killed Christ", was a radical,massive step forward for Angleland. The Conqueror made that step happen.Indeed this commitment,fully continued by the Red, to them was maintained in Angleland/England down to 1290 and the bestial rule of Edward 1 who expelled them entirely killing many in the process.Their permanent settlement status was restored by Oliver Cromwell in 1656. You obviously do not appreciate the crucial significance of Cluny and Marcigny-sur-Loire and covering that up by crude, insulting references to the Jewish Community and their support of the Conqueror and the Red has no merit.
As Bill observes, Hugues initiatives at Cluny and Marcigny-sur-Loire were entirely in sync with those taken by Benedict and Anthony to revitalise the Christian message and how that linked up with the Conqueror and the Red's leadership of The Norman Revolution 1058-1100.



My views on this "border on the anti-Semitic"???!!!! That's news to me! I've always had Jewish friends, and furthermore, a lot of their parents or relatives were Holocaust survivors! Jeez. Even in the 11th century, the Church's position(in general) was to try to convert the Jews! When I said they were considered "useful" as a community, I meant --- and that was
all I meant --- was that since the Church did not allow interest to be charged on loans(usury), the only people kings and other rulers could borrow money from, were Jews! Furthermore, Jews in many places were not allowed at the time to own land or farm, and there were a good many occupations they were barred from practicing. Money lending wasn't one of them. No wonder William wanted Jews around! This isn't antisemitism, I would think that my explanation would suggest just the opposite. I agree with you completely that Edward I's expulsion of Jews was indeed "bestial", but it is not really relevant to this particular period, and a good many things had changed by that time, as you should know. And as far as the Church was concerned, Jews were essentially "lesser beings" at best, an attitude that has persisted in some quarters up to the present day, and contributed mightily to the fact that a goodly number of my Jewish friends had parents or other relatives who were Holocaust survivors. You folks need to read some real history and quit making things up as you go along, to fit your preconceived notions about this supposed "Norman revolution".
Anne G
Sep/7/2008, 7:21 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 15  16  17  18  19 





You are not logged in (login)