Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo


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


Page:  1  2  3 ... 16  17  18  19 

 
WilliamtheRed Forum1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

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


Anne G, Hugo et alia's point has not been addressed. You state:

"And as far as the Church was concerned, Jews were essentially "lesser beings"".

There is nothing in your response that indicates you are aware that Jewish people have a specific religion,culture and the history that goes with them. That is the point they are making: you reduce their role in the The Norman Revolution to mere money providers.

Let me inform you that the three crop rotation system and Normandy's fertile soil constituted the economic power-house of the [sign in to see URL] idea that the Conqueror or the Red saw the Jewish Community as just a money machine(the classic anti-Semitic charge) is absolutely [sign in to see URL] Judaism, study Christianity,and the histories that accompany them, in all its forms then perhaps you may realise you are dealing with a massive subject and not the trivial tinkle of coins you reduce it to.

The Conqueror and the Red were intellectuals of their time in the business of state craft and how it pertained to The Kingdom Of The Franks which after 1066 included Angleland. Religious history in its intellectual and spiritual unity were at the centre of their understanding not least because they saw themselves (and those who in a subordinate way to them shared their aims and objectives important among whom were Jewish people)however indadequately, as God's supreme instruments on Earth. You also need to understand that the Roman Catholic Church and the Conqueror and the Red did not always have intellectual and spiritual harmony between them and this could be seen to be as such,in an objective sense, in the eyes of God,hence for example Hugue de Cluny role as a reformer.

Bill H,Chairperson (personal capacity)
Sep/9/2008, 9:19 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
Global user

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


Bill H:

I fail to see how stating some salient historical facts can be considered "antisemitic". Perhaps you can enlighten me. I'm also quite well aware of, and have studied, Judaism and Christianity in some detail. Furtheromre, if that source of information fails, I have a number of Jewish friends and acquaintances who are happy to add to my doubtless pathetic store of knowledge. And you keep ignoring the inconvenient, but historically salient fact that the Church prohibited usury, that is, charging interest on money loans, which is why rulers used Jewish moneylenders. It is also salient that Jews were not allowed to practice a lot of professions; moneylending was one of the few they could practice. How is stating this "antisemitic"? Any Jew of my acquaintance would probably say the same thing.

And as far as the Church was concerned, William, father and son, tended to use it when it suited their purposes(e.g., when they needed support for some project or another). This kind of "piety" was also fairly common at the tme, and didn't prevent rulers like William, father and son, from acting in ways that the Church often condemned.
Anne G
Sep/9/2008, 10:02 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
WilliamtheRed Forum1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

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


So Anne G the fact that the Conqueror and the Red protected and promoted the Jewish Community is of no significance? Bill's point as we see it is that the Jews openly supported The Norman Revolution in Normandy-Angleland 1058-1100 because they saw it as progress, the overthrow of the racialist prejudice against them due to the lie of the Roman Empire that they not the Roman Empire were the killers of Christ and most important of all that in the midst of those two factors their relationship with God(Judaism) could be practiced with impunity without the fear of persecution and pogrom. That is why they supported the Conqueror and the Red and why the Conqueror and the Red supported them.
Pereobu,Paul,Dennis Keel,"Briggs",Bev Morton (all in personal capacity)
Sep/20/2008, 11:51 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
Global user

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


WRTF1:

I didn't say that having Jews in England was of "no" significance. But your reply seems to me to be a lot of speculation, and my guess(also admitteldy speculation), is that William had perfectly practical reasons for allowing Jews to settle in England. BTW, it's unclear whether he invited them, or whether some Jews in Rouen and elsewhere saw an opportunity and moved themswelves to England. You are of course correct that William didn't persecute them, for whatever reason.
Anne G
Sep/21/2008, 11:40 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
WilliamtheRed Forum1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

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


It was 921 years ago today that the Red was crowned ruler of Angleland. Our Forum salutes and celebrates this great and wonderful day.
In my eulogy on this special day in the calendar of our Forum, I want to start with a firm rebuke to the claim made in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that 26th September was the day of the Red’s coronation. It was Orderic Vitalis who maintained that it was the 29th. There is a very good reason for agreeing with him related to the actual aims and objectives that the Red set himself following the revolt at Saint Gervais Priory by the Conqueror’s former supporters who frankly forgot who they were.
29th is the Feast Day of Saint Michael, Michaelmas, the warrior archangel and leader of God’s Army. It was also the date that in 1066 the Conqueror ordered his army to occupy Hastings in preparation for Senlac. What clearer message could the Red send out of how he intended to rebuild the Conqueror’s Normandy-Angleland and its strategic trajectory within The Kingdom Of The Franks, the Kingdom of Clodwig (aka Clovis) Charles Martel and Charlemagne, than to begin his rule on a day directly descended from the Conqueror’s historic achievement’s of 1066 on the journey that began at Varaville in 1058. Why does the ASC proffer 26th? Could it be that it is suggesting a lesser historical vision for the Red than that of the Conqueror? Quite probably in my view since its account of the Red’s rule is significantly less than approving.
In 1097, there was a cogent insight into just how clearly the Red saw The Norman Revolution 1058-1100 and its place in history had he lived long enough to fulfil his and the Conqueror’s vision. In that year, he ordered the building of Westminster Hall to commence. On completion, it was to be the largest temporal building in the west of Medieval Europe. It was begun one year after the Red’s reunification of Normandy-Angleland. When he saw the finished product in 1099, he remarked that, “it was not big enough”. Those diligent builders were very much like the ASC writers in that they underestimated the aims, objectives and the energy of the Red within The Kingdom Of The Franks. It is no accident that Lanfranc ,who was totally in sync with the Conqueror, should be no less committed to the Red and was enthusiastic about the choice of the coronation day.
Warenne ,who did not support the counter-revolutionary action at Saint Gervais Priory led by Mortain in support of Courtheuse and Bayeux and their master Philippe 1, was ready and willing to extend his support to the Red as assiduously as he did to the Conqueror. Despite having the prospect of much to lose in wealth, he laid down his life for the Red at the Siege of Pevensey in 1088 in a direct confrontation with Mortain. True to his belief in the revolutionist-cluniacist vision of the Conqueror and the Red he chose to be taken to die at Lewes Priory specifically built in homage to Cluny Abbey and Marcigny-sur-Loire Convent the latter itself built on the initiative of Hugues de Cluny who was later to show such courage and commitment to the Red in his letter to Philippe 1 attacking the Red’s assassination in 1100. Therefore, what is visible here, in my view, is an unambiguous support by individuals who were determined that the strategic reversal suffered by The Norman Revolution at Saint Gervais Priory should not obstruct the Red’s implementation of the Conqueror’s policies in an innovative way.
From the day of his coronation, the Red knew that he faced the same opponents that had confronted the Conqueror at Saint Gervais Priory. These opponents of The Norman Revolution wanted the dissolution of Normandy-Angleland into separate entities which could only serve the interests of Philippe 1 and the maintenance of his rule of The Kingdom Of The Franks. Although, I would qualify this conclusion by saying that such a separation would not in and of itself place Angleland outside TKOTF, it would nevertheless place it in the most profound jeopardy, given the nature of the Norman leadership who would preside over such a separation, of being rendered such a pariah status with all that it entailed negatively in its future evolution .The Red understood this only too well. The reason for this was simple. At Saint Gervais Priory where the amazing revolt erupted he was taken totally by surprise. It seemed inconceivable to him that Mortain, who had carried the banner of Saint Michael in one hand and a sword in the other at Senlac could now bully and berate the Conqueror who was in the most excruciating pain from the mortal wound suffered at Mantes, into recognising Courtheuse as Duke of Normandy and releasing the arch –counter-revolutionary Bayeux from prison. It was only when the Conqueror passed the Red his crown, sceptre and sword that he understood what he must do and what Mortain and his allies had forgotten in what can only be described by the objective observer as a traumatic abnegation of duty by them to The Norman Revolution that had made them what they were before treachery became their stock-in-trade. When the Red was anointed as king he saw a huge struggle ahead beyond Pevensey and Rochester in 1088. How far ahead is impossible to gauge.
I tell you that you do not choose Michaelmas if your intentions are commonplace. The Red chose it because he, like the Conqueror, had a vision. That vision was entirely about The Kingdom Of The Franks and Normandy-Angleland’s place within it and his place within that sphere inseparably linked to Hugues de Cluny’s Cluny Abbey and Marcigny-sur-Loire Convent. Together, united in that belief system exclusive to the Normans and the Conqueror and Mathilde in particular from the 1050’s and the unprecedented turbulence of 1054-58: revolutionism-cluniacism. As our Forum has elucidated and emphasised on numerous occasions here and elsewhere: study The Chronicon Cluniacense in all its complexities of the visual and ramifications of the verbal.
Only death could stop the Red accomplishing the aims and objectives which he founded today 921 years ago. Today is not just another important date in an historical calendar. It is nothing less than a hallmark of an epoch.

Bill H, Chairperson (on behalf of WTRF)
Sep/29/2008, 9:34 pm Link to this post Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1   Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
 
WilliamtheRed Forum1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

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


What more can we say Bill H than once again you have thrown a stone of insight into a lake that makes waves here and elsewhere.

Steve Walsh,John G,Bev Morton,Paul,Martin Tilston,Lydia Giles,Sammy (all in personal capacity)
Oct/18/2008, 12:19 pm Link to this post Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1   Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
 
WilliamtheRed Forum1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

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


I am not entirely convinced about Michaelmas, Bill but it is the case most certainly that The Chronicon Cluniacense has yet to deliver up all of its 'secrets'. emoticon
Pereobu (personal capacity)
Oct/25/2008, 12:35 pm Link to this post Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1   Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
 
WilliamtheRed Forum1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

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


Today is the 909th anniversary of the assassination of William the Red at Beaulieu. For his entire life he drew the lessons of the rule of the Conqueror and The Norman Revolution from 1058-1087 in Normandy-Angleland and aimed with great success to make certain they informed his rule 1087-1100 and the end of The Norman Revolution. For that reason our Forum regard William the Red as the more successful ruler and we justify that in point (1) below for two, combined reasons.

1) In 1096,he achieved the reunification of the Normandy-England Dukedom-Kingdom and in 1100, he achieved the transfer of Aquitaine from Duke William 1X despite the opposition of Count Raymond 1V of St Gilles and Duke William's son Bertrand. Some people believe the transfer was questionable or never completed. They are the same people who believe the Red was not assassinated on August 2nd 1100 but merely the victim of an "unfortunate accident".

2) The conspirators can be deduced. Philip 1, the Frankish King,(1052-1108,King 1059/60-1108) was the inveterate enemy of The Norman Revolution (1066-1100). He feared it would spread over his Frankish Kingdom. The Red's acquisition of Aquitaine led him to believe his nightmare would become reality. He concocted a plot with The Clares to install Henri Beauclerc (aka Henry 1)as King of England to derail the Revolution or mortally wound it. Whether Beauclerc was involved or not is of secondary importance. He was, however, the prime beneficiary in Normandy-England and allowed the assassin, the Lord of Poix, to live out his life unpunished.

3) We believe the disinformation about William the Red's acquisiton of the Aquitaine can, primarily, be layed at the door of the Angevin Henry 11 who only equalled William's achievement in 1154 and then proceeded to propagandise the myth that he was the first to achieve it . 909 years after William the Red's death, there has still not been an authoritative, impartial and scientific investigation into the events of [sign in to see URL].

4) Much is made by opponents of the Red that he was irreligious. He was certainly unconventional in his observance of religious doctrine as it pertained in his lifetime. That does not , nevertheless, merit the criticism “irreligious” since God and History have always provoked a vigorous multiplicity of interpretations up to and including modern times. The Red was in fact the enemy of superstition as distinct from the supernatural. It’s a vital theological point to grasp and it is evident on the day of his assassination. When Abbott Serlo arrived at his hunting lodge at Brockenhurst, he warned the Red that he had experienced a vision that God would punish him with death for his irreligious views. The Red laughed and retorted to his followers, “Does he take me for an Englishman? Let them put off their journey and business because some old woman has sneezed or had a dream! Not me!”. That priests had visionary access to God was a convention in Medieval times. The Reformation centuries later was to establish that such visions had a wider constituency of the faithful. The Red was ahead of his times in separating superstition from the supernatural.

5)Finally, there is also no evidence to suggest that he ever broke with the Conqueror’s lifelong identification with Cluny Abbey, Cluniacism or Hugues de Cluny. Concerning the latter, Hugues achieved remarkable things at Cluny as our Forum has established on numerous occasions and chatboards and he famously attacked the assassination of the Red in a letter to Philippe 1, The Frankish King and arch conspirator.
Our Forum is certain that Hugues must have read a remarkable book written by one of his predecessors as Abbott of Cluny, Odo de Cluny. In his “ Life Of Geraud d’Aurillac”, Odo recounts the extraordinary story of a Saint who was a count but who never took religious orders. Saint Geraud died in 909 just two years before the founding of Normandy by Hrolf Gangar. Saint Geraud , in war, fought only in defense. He was known not to accept offerings from poor people unless he helped them with their troubles first. He forbad ambushes by his troops against enemies. When poor people visited him instead of being forced to stand he told them they could sit down. He was never drunk when presiding in a law court and spoke out against drunkenness. He always paid peasants for the fruit he took from them. He refused to wear clothes made from gold or silk. He forbad his troops from plundering in wars. He was sexually considerate to the daughters of peasants and never took one by force. Our Forum believes that it is this standpoint which, in part, informed the theological stance of the Conqueror and the Red and their lifelong support for Cluny and its sister location Marcigny-sur-Loire with their eminent history.

Drogo, Chairperson (on behalf of WTRF)






Last edited by WilliamtheRed Forum1, Aug/2/2009, 3:59 pm
Aug/2/2009, 3:56 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
Global user

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


Drogo and WRTF:

Nice you guys finally came up for air, though it's the same old drivel that you came up with last August 2, I think. There's no evidence that I know of, that William II was especially devoted to "Cluniacism". But what do I know? I don't pretend to be an expert.
Anne G
Aug/2/2009, 8:42 pm Link to this post Send Email to mousteriana   Send PM to mousteriana
 
WilliamtheRed Forum1 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

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


1)Today marks the 922nd anniversary of the anointing of the Red as ruler of Angleland Our Forum gives thanks to God and History and salutes and celebrates this magnificent, glorious and truly wonderful day. On this day begins the ascendancy of the greatest monarch in the history of Angleland/England and Britain, ahead of the Conqueror (due to the Aquitaine factor in 1099) and significantly ahead of third-placed Edward VI. Equally, the Red was also Normandy’s greatest duke(after 1096 and again due to the Aquitaine factor in 1099). Our Forum, in projecting the importance of this day would point out with all due gravity, the great role performed by the Conqueror in holding on to his temporal life long enough for the Red to escape potential danger and reach Wissant on the Normandy coast where he received the devastating news of the Conqueror’s death.

(2)This latter point is important in the light of the eruption of conflict at Saint Gervais Priory between the Conqueror and his former Norman leadership supporters, led by Robert de Mortain, concerning how the revolution in Normandy-Angleland should advance and extend itself within The Kingdom Of The Franks and to put a Norman (Frank-Viking) on the Frank throne. This conflict took the Red himself by surprise to a significant extent although it is reasonable to deduce he expected a big divergence of views after the Conqueror’s magnificent victory over Philippe 1 at Mantes. It was when the Conqueror passed him his sword , crown and sceptre that the Red truly realised what he had to do to make certain that the Conqueror’s true aims were fulfilled and not the shabby compromise forced on him by his opponents at Saint Gervais.

(3) To state that this was a matter of life and death is not to exaggerate the seriousness of the situation facing the Red as he rode furiously to reach Wissant before any attempt to thwart his progress to Angleland could be organised by the opponents at Saint Gervais. Thanks to the Conqueror’s strength of commitment he passed his last night on earth in a state of calm staving off death just long enough to prevent any hostile intent manifesting itself significantly among his opponents to target the Red adversely.

(4) September 29th is the Feast Day of Saint Michael, Michaelmas, the warrior archangel and leader of God’s Army. It was also the date that in 1066 the Conqueror ordered his army to occupy Hastings in preparation for Senlac. What clearer message could the Red send out of how he intended to rebuild the Conqueror’s Normandy-Angleland and its strategic trajectory within The Kingdom Of The Franks, the Kingdom of Clodwig (aka Clovis) Charles Martel and Charlemagne, than to begin his rule on a day directly descended from the Conqueror’s historic achievement’s of 1066 on the journey that began at Varaville in 1058.
 
(5) In 1097, there was a cogent insight into just how clearly the Red saw The Norman Revolution 1058-1100 and its place in history had he lived long enough to fulfil his and the Conqueror’s strategy. In that year, he ordered the building of Westminster Hall to commence. On completion, it was to be the largest temporal building in the west of Medieval Europe. It was begun one year after the Red’s reunification of Normandy-Angleland. When he saw the finished product in 1099, he remarked that, “it was not big enough”.

(6) Our Forum also remembers the noble deeds of William de Warenne, number 3 in the Norman leadership after the Conqueror and the Red, today. William de Warenne ,who did not support the counter-revolutionary action at Saint Gervais Priory led by Robert de Mortain in support of Courtheuse and Bayeux and their de facto leader Philippe 1, was ready and willing to extend his support to the Red as assiduously as he did to the Conqueror. Despite having the prospect of much to lose in wealth, he laid down his life for the Red at the Siege of Pevensey in 1088 in a direct confrontation with Mortain.
 
(7)True to his belief in the revolutionist-cluniacist vision of the Conqueror and the Red he chose to be taken to die at Lewes Priory specifically built in homage to Cluny Abbey and Marcigny-sur-Loire Convent the latter itself built on the initiative of Hugues de Cluny who was later to show such courage and commitment to the Red in his letter to Philippe 1 attacking the Red’s assassination in 1100. Therefore, what is visible here, in our Forum’s view, is an unambiguous support by individuals who were determined that the strategic reversal suffered by The Norman Revolution at Saint Gervais Priory should not obstruct the Red’s implementation of the Conqueror’s policies in an innovative way.

(8) From the day of his coronation, the Red knew that he faced the same opponents that had confronted the Conqueror at Saint Gervais Priory. These opponents of The Norman Revolution wanted the dissolution of Normandy-Angleland into separate entities which could only serve the interests of Philippe 1 and the maintenance of his rule of The Kingdom Of The Franks. Although, I would qualify this conclusion by saying that such a separation would not in and of itself place Angleland outside TKOTF, it would nevertheless place it in the most profound jeopardy, given the nature of the Norman leadership who would preside over such a separation, of being rendered such a pariah status with all that it entailed negatively in its future evolution .The Red understood this only too well.

(9)The reason for this was simple. At Saint Gervais Priory where the amazing revolt erupted he was taken totally by surprise. It seemed inconceivable to him that Mortain, who had carried the banner of Saint Michael in one hand and a sword in the other at Senlac could now bully and berate the Conqueror who was in the most excruciating pain from the mortal wound suffered at Mantes, into recognising Courtheuse as Duke of Normandy and releasing the arch –counter-revolutionary Bayeux from prison.

(10) It was only when the Conqueror passed the Red his crown, sceptre and sword that he understood what he must do and what Mortain and his allies had forgotten in what can only be described by the objective observer as a traumatic abnegation of duty by them to The Norman Revolution that had made them what they were before treachery became their stock-in-trade. When the Red was anointed as king he saw a huge struggle ahead beyond Pevensey and Rochester in 1088. It is not something that is easily deducible to assert that even at this point in his history, the Red had his eyes firmly set on extending The Norman Revolution according to the Conqueror’s plan at Mantes and beyond or an entirely new approach which found fruition in his support for the Anti-Pope and the post-1096 overseas hiatus that led to Aquitaine in 1099 and his eternally famous intent to spend Xmas in Poitiers.

Drogo, Chairperson (on behalf of WTRF)

Sep/29/2009, 9:49 pm Link to this post Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1   Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 16  17  18  19 





You are not logged in (login)