thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
"Monarchy"
Episode 2 of "Monarchy", a Channel 4 tv series in the UK on the history of the institution in England from early medieval times to the present is currently dealing with the time leading up to The Norman Revolution in Angleland.And this episode was, to us, as pro-Norman Revolutionists, a classic exercise in omission. After stating that Edgar’s rule opened up a new era and that its first victim was Edward the Martyr and the ensuing succession of Aethelred , there is nothing about the major incident prior to the Danish victory. That incident was the St Brice’s Day Massacre on 13th November 1002.Aethelread and his decadent elite ordered the massacre of and we quote directly “all the Danish men who were among the English race”. Perhaps this series consider this holocaust a footnote in History or perhaps it’s just airbrushing genocide from today’s pro-Anglo-Saxon presentaton of Medeavil History. One of the victims of this holocaust,which was particularly prevalent in Oxford and spread deep into the Danelaw, was Sweyn Forkbeard’s brother. Sweyn’s victory in 1013/Gainsborough Accord was achieved from his socio-political base in the Mercian Danelaw where Cnut himself was stationed for a while. Cnut “more English than the English”? This is risible stuff. From the series and conflicts totally with the laudatory assertions about Edgar in the first episode. In any case, the first time that “english” appears in History as a word is as a language “englisc” not as the name of a people.This is a curiousity often overlooked rather like the fact that “welsh” was not derived from the Celts but from the Anglo-Saxon name for the Celts in Britain ”walsch” meaning “strange”. Did the Anglo-Danes living in the Danelaw, where Alfred had shoved them, consider themselves “english” or the king of the Anglo-Saxons “their king”? Absolutely not.They were steeped in Scandinavian history and its imperatives.
When Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut arrived they were seen as liberators from the clutches of a genocidal killer. Concerning Cnut himself, unlike the Conqueror, who only struck back at a lesser opponent when stricken first as evidenced, for example, in the counter-revolutionary assault on one of his contingents near the Romney Marsh shortly after Senlac Hill, Cnut’s method of dealing with opponents was the preemptive strike. This is how he crushed the pro-Anglo-Saxon revolts of 1017 and 1020 in support of the true heir to the kingdom of Angleland at the time, Eadwig. The old, decadent, Anglo-Saxon leadership was “split”,as the series states, but there was no mention of Cnut wiping out the minority faction, including Eadwig, Aethelweard and Earl Uhtred and their many thousands of followers who represented the true continuity from Edgar or indeed Egbert for that matter..There was no scientific explanation given as to how someone “more English than the English” was a Dane who led his North Sea Empire to victory over and the destruction of Edgar’s heirs. Cnut deserves his cognomen “the Great”. Why was he referred to as Canute? Modern historians have long abandoned that name for the correct version and why was he also deprived of his cognomen? Could it be that the series did not want to confuse his audience with the Anglo-Saxon Alfred. It would have been enlightning if he had and consistent with his strange assertion that Cnut was ”more English than the English”.
We have no objection to the Danish Revolution 1016-1042. On the contrary, it overcame politically the tragic error of The Ice Age which separated certain land masses from their true location and striking a decisive blow against the idiocy of islands in the process unless they are Island-Continents. It was also another stage in the objective process of Europeanization. The Norman Revolution did this too, but on a qualitatively, higher level. However, those who died for the principles of what was the Anglo-Saxon continuity of Edgar, are more worthy, by far, than the snivelling toadies with Godwin as their leader, who knuckled under to save their own miserable skins. Concerning Count Eustace of Boulogne, the Dover incident needs to be understood against a fact which is omitted in the episode. This concerns the whole story of Godwin’s complicity in the murder of Alfred. Alfred was accompanied to Angleland by dozens of knights from Boulogne.
All of them,as the Abingdon manuscript relates, got the ‘Alfred treatment’ at the hands of Harthacnut’s soldiers to varying degrees of brutality.Dover being in Godwin’s Wessex, Eustace had full reason to be on edge and could quite easily have been provoked by pro-Godwin forces in the town anyway. Concerning Queen Emma and the ‘Norman link’. This link was by no means consistent. It needs to be remembered that in 1042, she supported Magnus of Norway in the succesion crisis, not her son, Edward. We consider that this may have been due to the fact that she was steeped in Norman history and her peoples’ origins in Norway. To close on the subject of Norway, why were the events leading to Senlac Hill telescoped to the exclusion of the role of Hardraada ? There were three crucial battles in 1066 not one. Perhaps it did not fit a schema. For example, after Gate Fulford, Hardraada and Tostig were greeted as liberators in York. That is hardly consistent with any thread of supposed “englishness” which is at the centre of this series analysis and which we would contend is a total and utter diversion.
John G Vice Chairperson, Franc B, Sammy, Dinsdale, Rob (all in personal capacity)
|
Nov/2/2004, 10:16 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: "Monarchy"
Episode 3’s handling of The Norman Revolution and its two central leaders, the Conqueror and the Red, reflected emphatically what is clearly the little-englander, anglo-centric agenda of the series. Omissions were rife. Principle examples: nothing about Cluniacism and the Conqueror’s strong commitment to it, no mention of how Slavery only started to come to an end,in Angleland, after the Revolution finally dying out in the opening decades of the 12th Century. Slavery was virtually unknown in Normandy. And most of those slaves in Angleland were Celts. No mention of Jewish immigration and the fact that the first permanent settlements in Angleland, of that unjustly persecuted people, were established on the Conqueror’s orders and maintained by the Red( we would note that Jewish settlements received a similar benevolent treatment during The Cromwellian Revolution 1642-60 when an exclusion order from Britain dating from the 1290 expulsion by Edward 1 was lifted) Jewish settlements had been established in Normandy from the mid-10th Century. We shall deal with numerous other, glaring omissions in due course.
The historical data is surveyed through the prism of “englishness”(?). This is History as propaganda. This is not to say that it does not provide some truths or even insights but that no one should see it as objective. Our Forum is of the firm and unshakeable belief that the Conqueror’s purpose in claiming and enforcing his right to rule in Angleland was to change the relation of forces, inside the Frankish Kingdom, against his, and Normandy’s, primary enemy, the Frankish King.
The failure of the series to analyse Normandy’s history in any serious detail and in particular 1047-51 and crucially 1054-58, leads it to the ridiculous conclusion that all the Conqueror and later, the Red, cared about was ruling Angleland. The revolutionization of Maine,1062-64, was omitted despite its striking importance in terms of the plans the Conqueror had for Angleland. Count Herbert 11 of Maine(ruled 1051-62 in the county) had promised the Conqueror that if he died with no heirs to replace him, the Conqueror would rule there. Geoffrey Martel, Count of Anjou, had oppressed Herbert and Maine from 1051 and the latter had sought the Conqueror’s assistance. Martel was an inveterate enemy of The Norman Revolution and waged war 1054-58 to annihilate the province. On Herbert’s death, pro-Martel forces tried to install Walter of Vexin against the Conqueror, who asserted his revolutionary rights in a brilliant campaign which finallly led to the surrender of an encircled Le Mans.. The encirclement and subsequent capitulation of London depicted in the episode, along with other less obvious parallels, make it clear that the Conqueror had a revolutionary blueprint for his victory in Angleland allied, separately, to the role of Harald Hardraada and Tostig Godwineson.
The fact is that compared to the Frankish Kingdom, Angleland was a bauble.Exporting The Norman Revolution of 1058 in the Frankish Kingdom and the overthrow of the Frankish King was always at the centre of Norman intent because Philippe 1 and his supporters aimed to destroy The Norman Revolution.
Normans,Angles,Saxons,Celts etc etc. were all products of European History. This series content is heavily biased towards a mere portion of that experience, Angleland. This has inevitable consequences for the facts and how they are twisted to present “populist” images which “strike a chord” with “today”. The Conqueror, to take one example, is shown wearing a brit, policeman-style helmet with straps to hold it on. The reality was that the “straps” were tassels, not to hold the helmet in place but worn at the back of it to symbolise ‘ the horns of the Old and New Testaments’ to put the fear of God in the enemy. Other symbols he wore on Senlac Hill were holy relics around his neck which were not shown. The Papal Banner, carried on the day by his half-brother Robert of Mortain, showed the justice of the cause in the eyes of the Europe-wide Catholic Church. The next image was from the Bayeux Tapestry showing a Norman warrior carrying a club implying to the viewer that he was the Conqueror ie: police helmet + strap+ truncheon = Policeman = the Conqueror. Since when, in History, have policemen annihilated a corrupt, ruling elite, expropriated their wealth and led the revolutionary fusion of countries? Never. In fact the warrior in question was Odo of Bayeux, the Conqueror’s other half-brother and later renegade of the Revolution, carrying a Viking war-club.
Further omissions and distortions peppered Episode 3. (continued in next posting)
Drogo, Chairperson, John G, Vice Chairperson, Lydia Giles, First Secretary, S. Walsh, Franc B ( all on behalf of the William the Red Forum)
|
Nov/9/2004, 10:32 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: "Monarchy"
(continued from previous posting)
Waltheof got a “heroic” mention in relation to 1075. In fact, he committed no military resources whatsoever to the counter-revolutionary action, which is why Lanfranc pleaded his case to the Conqueor. Waltheof was a cynical opportunist. Instead, no mention was made of Edgar Aethling , the true heir to Angleland’s crown through the House Of Cerdig when Harold Godwineson usurped. Edgar took part in many counter-revolutionary actions after Senlac Hill including the 1069 northern rising. The Conqueror and the Red spared his life despite his persistent, counter-revolutionary actions precisely because of his Aethling status. Hereward the Wake was proffered as another “hero”. In fact, the chief counter-revolutionaries at the Siege of Ely were Edwin and Morcar. Edwin escaped after the defeat and Morcar spent the rest of his life in prison in Normandy apart from a brief release after the Conqueror’s death. Hereward’s life is clouded in myth. Edwin and Morcar are, with Godwineson, central to why the Anglo-Saxon-Dane Counter-Revolution failed. The Oath of Salisbury,1086 was not targeted, as the series claims, at the Scandinavian invasion of that year. That invasion, led by Cnut the Holy supported by Olaf the Quiet of Norway and Robert of Flanders imploded earlier in the year before their fleet sailed. The Oath was aimed at the Frankish King Philippe 1, who the Conqueror knew was preparing to invade Normandy to overthrow the Revolution. He knew this because Robert of Flanders was Philippe’s proxy in the Scandinavian invasion plans. There was to be a combined assault from Scandinavia and the Frankish Kingdom to force the Conqueror to fight a two-front war simultaneously. Philippe’s invasion of 1087 ended with the Conqueror’s brilliant victory at Mantes, which left his revolutionary army 48 kilometres from Paris with Philippe’s army in full retreat. The Harrying of the North? Yes it was horrendously brutal but the counter-revolutionaries were backed by Sweyn of Denmark whose aim was to cut Angleland in half and it should be remembered that the two previous risings were dealt with leniently by the Conqueror as a warning against another attempt. Dr Starkey marvels at Westminster Hall, which the Red ordered to be built. On seeing the finished work, the Red remarked that it “ was not big enough”.
The “bigness” of cathedrals and castles was not an expression of ‘Norman megalomania’ but a considered, revolutionary act making it clear that Angleland was a part of The Frankish Kingdom, part of ‘the bigger picture’ that the Conqueror and the Red never lost sight of..The series fails to get this point across because he sees this strategic, historical rupture with Angleland’s past through steamed-up, little-englander, Anglo-centric spectacles. The Normans learned more from the Franks than they did from the Vikings. In doing so, they combined Scandinavian history with Frankish history in its most concentrated form and that is what built their revolutionary leadership and ultimate victory in Normandy-Angleland..
It is said that ‘balance’ is a principle of media presentation. In Episode 2, Anglo-Saxon language was spoken by the presenter. Where was Norman-Frank language in Episode 3? Could it be that if it was spoken, the viewer would learn that it did not sound like modern French at all ? When spoken, Norman-Frank contains an unmistakable Scandinavian ‘lilt’ in the pronunciation. It was an expression of the Normans’ historical identity as Frank-Vikings. That unique, fused identity made them the revolutionaries of action who had to export their revolution to survive and why the Frankish King and his old-order, elite feared it and them. A virulent racism was spread about the Normans by the Frankish elite. They referred to the dukes of Normandy as “dukes of the pirates” and Normandy’s people as “beggars from the Scandinavian wastelands”
The Conqueror and the Red learned from and always remembered the counter-revolutionary war waged by Henri, the Frankish King in alliance with Geoffrey Martel of Anjou to annihilate Normandy as a dukedom within the Frankish Kingdom along with inflicting the consequences on the Norman people. Both leaders died exporting The Norman Revolution 1058-1100 to the Frankish Kingdom, the kingdom of Clodwig, Charles Martel and Charlemagne. The Anglo-Saxon-Dane kings understood the Frankish Kingdom and its progress. What they refused to understand was the necessity to become part of that kingdom and progress.
The Celts who were forced by the Anglo-Saxon Revolution to flee to Brittany produced descendants who fought, as Bretons, in the Conqueror’s revolutionary army on Senlac Hill. It was the Breton cavalry, on the orders of the Conqueror, who implemented the feigned retreat tactic of Carolingian Cavalry warfare which sucked Godwineson’s battle-line troops to their doom at the foot of the Hill. Godwineson was a Saxon-Dane, whose formative years were during the Danish Revolution of 1016-42 and who was linked by relatives to the Danish kingdom. The leading force in Scandinavia was Hardraada’s Norway, fresh from victory at Nissa in 1062. Hardraada-Tostig’s victory at Gate Fulford forced Godwineson into a two-front war which strongly, if not decisively, created the conditions for his defeat on Senlac Hill. The Conqueror’s victory was, therefore, an historical synthesis, a coalescence of revolutionary forces past and present, a serum which revivified the dying invalid that was Angleland and fused it with the effervescent vigour of Normandy.
The data on the Red was, for us, predictably, lacking on the key events of his leadership of the Revolution: his defeat of the Odo-Courtheuse-Frankish King Counter-Revolution of 1088, his revolutionary acquisition of Normandy in 1096 and Aquitaine in 1100 and the failure to recognise his death as an assassination. And why was there no mention of the tax cut promise he made to Anglo-Saxon-Danes which had to be shelved due to the Counter-Revolutionary war of 1088? The Counter –Revolutionary Henry 1’s mint was explained, an event of decisively less significance to the Frankish Kingdom and Normandy-Angleland’s place in it.
Drogo, Chairperson, John G, Vice Chairperson, Lydia Giles, First Secretary, S. Walsh, Franc B ( all on behalf of the William the Red Forum)
|
Nov/9/2004, 10:36 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
thewilliam theredforum2002
Registered user
Registered: 03-2004
Posts: 484
Karma: -5 (+2/-7)
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: "Monarchy"
All
Its outside the 1066-1100 framework of The Norman Revolution now but episode 4 shows again that the series agenda of 'englishness'is leading it in the wrong direction.The Angevin Henry 11 is lionised as a "star among monarchs" despite the fact that the Red achieved the incorporation of the Aquitaine in 1100 54 years before he did.It was also not mentioned that he never led a army into battle for the whole of his rule unlike the Conqueror and the Red who did so many times and even the counter-revolutionary Henry 1.Perhaps this is to do with the comparisons which are drawn between absolute and constitutional monarchs when the separation of the two is the only way of judging them accurately??
As usual the Angevins treatment of Thomas of London (not Becket since he never used the name in his own lifetime as it belonged to his father Gilbert Becket)got key attention.
Here a useful comparison-contrast with Lanfranc?? Not likely since it may have conjured up the question as to how it came about that the Angevin's legitimacy to rule over Normans was achieved and would have placed the whole way the conditions that could have blocked it fell apart during the 1135-54 Civil War under scrutiny.
All told a chronic disappointment.
Dinsdale (personal capacity)
|
Nov/13/2004, 6:43 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thewilliam theredforum2002
Send PM to thewilliam theredforum2002
|
Add a reply
You are not logged in ( login)
|