Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo


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


Page:  1  2  3 ... 18  19  20  21 

 
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 Conqueror


WRTF 1

I think it is highly significant that nobody besides me, bothers to answer this blather. Because that is exactly what it is. Willaim needed the support of the Church. He got it --- eventually. Once he did, he acted very pious, but you have to remember, too, that the chroniclers of the time probably exaggerated this to get continued patronage. In any case, I don't have any doubt that William really, honestly believed he was acting as a pious Christian. And I also have no doubt that many people believed him(or at least said nothing to the contrary). I don't think he went around "faking it". His acts just weren't, IMO, consistent with his beliefs, whatever they were.

Another thing you should bear in mind is that the Church, and individual churchmen, were "powers" in that day, in a way that churches and churchmen no longer generally are. Many of these churchmen would be recognized as skiled politicians if they were living today. Odo comes to mind, as does Lanfranc, who was later archbishop of Canterbury. Rulers of the time knew this, and acted accordingly, as it was "power" interacting with "power" with each side getting something out of it if they could. This was no less true for William, than it was for earlier or later rulers of this period. Any careful reading of this period, by competent historians, will suggest this. And that's why your replies tend toward blather rather than enlightenment.
Anne G
Dec/13/2008, 9:31 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 Conqueror


Today is the 942nd anniversary of the Conqueror’s anointment in Westminster Abbey, as king of Angleland and so formalising the unification of Normandy-Angleland under his rule as Count-King and even more significantly as a segment of The Kingdom Of The Franks, the most advanced civilization in Medieval Europe. Our Forum salutes and celebrates this great, glorious, magnificent and wonderful day!
In ending the rule of an Angle-Saxon-Dane elite which had long outlived its usefulness to God and History, the Conqueror had led a revolution which had begun at the Norman victory at the Battle of Varaville (1058) and ended with their victory at the Battle of Senlac(1066). The Norman Revolution in Angleland would establish castles, churches and monasteries on a vast scale guided by the Norman leadership’s history in Normandy and Cluniacism based on the Conqueror and Mathilde’s support for Cluny Abbey and Marcigny-sur-Loire Convent, introduce Frankish cavalry warfare previously unseen in Angleland, initiate the beginning of the end of Slavery and the Slave Trade in Angleland, set up the first permanent settlements of the Jewish Community for centuries racially excluded due to the big lie that they not The Roman Empire had killed Christ, introduce the unique historical phenomenon that was Domesday Book, the first codified example of professional, state planning in Medieval Europe, establish a subtle, new language which was a variant of the language that would become French but at that time was more reliant on its Scandinavian-inspired version of it.
Important though all these changes related to this day were, the merging of Angleland with the The Kingdom Of The Franks remains the dominant feature second only to The Nativity of Christ (known as Yehoshua ben Joseph in his own times). Why did the Conqueror decide to enforce his right to rule in Angleland after the Usurper had seized power from the true heir Edgar Aethling? Was it only to right that wrong the Norman way or was it about another step towards the Norman revolutionization of The Kingdom Of The Franks with the ultimate aim of making the Conqueror ruler of that prestigious, historical force? Did the Usurper, half-Saxon that he was, see himself as a11th Century version of those Saxons who had battled the Frankish ruler, Charlemagne for 30years (772-804) and lost?
The Normans ( Frank-Vikings) did not enjoy ‘The Song Of Roland’, that Frankish poem, just because it was good literature, it was fully in keeping with their perception that they had learned more from the Franks than the people of their historical origin, the Vikings. The great genius of the Conqueror was that he unified this vast reservoir of Frankish knowledge and history and used it for Norman plans. Charlemagne, like the Conqueror, was a profoundly pious ruler and like him became an anointed ruler on this day in 800, at St Peter’s in Rome ( Holy Roman Emperor).
The Conqueror ordered his crown to be modified from the Angle-Saxon-Dane model to symbolise his far greater purposes for Normandy-Angleland within The Kingdom Of The Franks. The modification took the form of an arc from the front to the back of the crown and was based on that worn by Charlemagne at Xmas 800. The historical focus which the Conqueror had for Charlemagne can be gleaned from the latter’s clashes with the Saxons. There was almost continual war between them and him between 773 and 804 during which time he battled them 18 times. It should have stopped in 778 when he defeated them and a treaty was established at Padeborn. The Saxons within a few years broke the treaty and war resumed and only became decisively winnable for the Franks after Charlemagne’s crowning as Holy Roman Emperor in 800.
This untrustworthiness that the Saxons acquired remained in Charlemagne’s mindset to such an extent that he only established friendly relations with the predominantly Angle kings of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria(the Angles were always the majority tribe in Angleland). The historical rather than etymological meaning of the word frank to be ‘honest’ stems from their impact on their times. Add to that preference for Mercia and Northumbria, the deadly betrayal meted out to the Celtic leader Vortigern by his erstwhile allies against the Picts, the invading Angle,Saxon,Jute and Frisian tribes and the Conqueror must have been wary of oaths sworn by them despite his best attempts to establish the strongest possible accountability in the eyes of God to those who swore them(for more on this see the topic posting on this Chatboard ‘The Conqueror and Saint Catharine’).
Our Forum has expressed on numerous occasions on this Chatboard and elsewhere the impossibility of understanding the Usurper without understanding Cnut. Likewise, we would express equally the impossibility of understanding the Conqueror without understanding Charlemagne and Clodwig. When the Normans embraced ‘The Song of Roland’ as their own they were expressing at the level of culture something that ran far deeper in their psyche. And they probably knew also that it was not about Charlemagne and Saracens but Basques. That other, central ruler of the Franks considered by some to be greater than Charlemagne was Clodwig (aka Clovis) who was converted to Christianity in 496 on this day. He lead the overthrow of The Roman Empire in Gaul at the Battle of Soissons in 486 where his Frankish army defeated the Roman legions under Syagrius. Indeed, the vast majority of the fighting to overthrow that Empire was done by the Franks and to a lesser extent by the Alemanni from the opening decades of the 3rd Century. There is no evidence that Angles, Jutes or Frisians did any significant fighting at all. In the case of the Saxons, it was restricted to sporadic acts of piracy with no land-based operations whatsoever.
Clodwig’s piety was legendary and like the Conqueror he had interests outside the conventional structures of Christianity while remaining loyal to the traditional teachings. Our Forum has noted Map’s relating of the Conquerors’ interest in Pagan teaching and, in a Christian context, the true, theological profundity of his pilgrimage to Saint Davids (aka Saint Dewi) in south-west Wales in 1081 with all the ramifications it had for the Temporal and the Eternal, with Clodwig it was Arianism which centrally posits that The Holy Spirit is not the most important component of the The Holy Trinity. In the more immediate context of the Conqueror’s piety in 1066, his insistence on being anointed in front of the Confessor’s tomb has too often been represented in some historical sources as being purely a temporal phenomenon in that he was showing his continuity with the Angle-Saxon-Dane predecessors especially the half-Norman Confessor who had promised him the throne in 1051 and whose promise was confirmed by the Usurper who swore allegiance to him in 1064 in the event of the Confessor’s death. In fact, he was stating in practice that his piety and godly purposes were akin to his eminently pious predecessor (the Confessor). His unique piety and Frankish-inspired plans for The Kingdom Of The Franks make it clear that the old canard that he was just a ‘robber baron’ has no merit. The land and wealth he and his leadership expropriated from the Angle-Saxon-Dane elite was used to defend and advance The Norman Revolution and Normandy-Angleland within TKOTF until his death in 1087 and those aims were continued by the Red from then until his assassination in 1100.
There is without doubt an insidious bias against the Conqueror by historians seeking to depict the The Norman Revolution 1058-1100 as a blip on the historical radar screen. This has been successful to a considerable extent and is something our Forum will continue to correct. Omitting information about the Conqueror and to a similar extent the Red has led to the promotion of certain facts to the exclusion of others in the public arena of knowledge. Here is an example which is probably more well appreciated than most. Many people in Britain know about Alfred the Great’s burning of the cakes or Cnut (aka Canute) commanding the sea waves to retreat but only a tiny handful of people know the story of the Conqueror, the Knight and the Fairy. All the stories have an element of charm and are conducive to learning about more profound matters and yet only two of them survive in the arena of public knowledge. If that is not perverse bias what is?
Season’s Greetings to this Chatboard.

Bill H, Chairperson, Drogo, Chairperson-Elect (on behalf of WTRF)
Dec/25/2008, 10:02 am 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 Conqueror


Brilliant posting Bill and Drogo!

Lydia Giles,Pereobu,Paul,Becky,John G,Martin Tilston,Bev Morton (all in personal capacity)
Jan/13/2009, 10:20 pm Link to this post Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1   Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
 
wulfstan Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 07-2003
Posts: 32
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: William the Conqueror


Anne,

You're not the only one. I have watched and waited. These people have a love affair with the monster, just as there are still people today that worship Hitler. William the bastard was a classic example of might making right. No matter how his admirers spin it, the FACTS are glaringly plain. William was a megalomaniacal, avaricious, cruel, sadistic, manipulative, hypocritical mass murderer. Those are the facts. Period. All we have to do is repeat the facts.

Greg
Mar/9/2009, 5:07 am Link to this post Send Email to wulfstan   Send PM to wulfstan
 
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 Conqueror


Greg:

Actually, I think William was probably incredibly insecure,personally, and given the early circumstances of his life, he had every reason to be. I suspect he probably acted the way he did, because he felt vulnerable, and some people "hide" their vulnerability by acting "tough". In a medieval context, that meant being as brutal as possible. I think chroniclers must have sensed this, too, because in an age when people didn't expect much, in a sense, his methods were noted as exceptional, so to speak.
Anne G
Mar/9/2009, 11:05 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 Conqueror


1) 9th September marks the 922nd anniversary of the death of the Conqueror at Saint Gervais Priory, in a suburb of Rouen. Our Forum salutes his noble memory and virtuous life. And by noble, we do not refer merely to social rank but the man and his deeds.
It is stated in the historical record that the Conqueror chose St Gervais Priory because Rouen was too noisy for a severely wounded man to bear. Our Forum believes this view to be facile and unrepresentative of the Conqueror’s piety and political maturity. Saint Gervais was no ordinary priory. It’s name was that of Gervasius who was tortured and murdered on Nero’s order for his pious Christian stand. But there is a more profound reason related to its theological thrust. Whenever this Patron saint of Milan and haymakers is called upon it means that thieves are to be discovered. Also, the customary date attributed to his death is 14th Octobre which is also Senlac Day. The meaning is clear: the Conqueror’s right to rule in Angleland had been stolen by the Usurper and needed to be regained. In addition, 21years later, the subsequent political battle that erupted after he made his deathbed speech would strongly suggest that the Conqueror was clearly anticipating the betrayal of his closest leadership supporters well in advance of entering St Gervais and the consequent theft of his historical legacy. The question now which our Forum perceives as of utmost thought is at what point between the victory at Mantes, including his mysterious wounding, and his arrival at St Gervais did the Conqueror realise that his revolutionary leadership team was turning against him in its majority? The jury to coin a phrase is still “out” on that matter.

 (2) On this day, it is worth remembering the achievements of the Conqueror’s rule following the extension of The Norman Revolution to Angleland in 1066 : the overthrow of an Angle-Saxon-Dane ruling class which had long outlived its usefulness to God and History and the expropriation of their land and wealth to finance the export of The Norman Revolution 1058-1100 to the remaining portions of The Kingdom Of The Franks; themselves the leading annihilators of The Roman Empire in Europe after 410; Jewish immigration, mass castle and church/monastery/cathedral building program, Cluniacism, the beginning of the end of Slavery in Angleland (an institution virtually unknown in Normandy) and its equally ugly twin the Slave trade, Frankish Cavalry Warfare. It is necessary to understand the struggle of a man compared to whom, excepting of course the Red who succeeded him magnificently, other monarchs in Angleland/England are decisively lesser in terms of historical impact. The Conqueror, by establishing the political entity of Normandy-Angleland, effectively founded Angleland/England at Senlac, in 1066, as a province of The Kingdom Of The Franks, the Kingdom of Clodwig, Martel and Charlemagne and the most advanced social formation in Medieval Europe, as its consequence.

(3) However, if one is to extract the essential meaning of 9/9/1087 then it is necessary to recognise that 8th September is its prologue. Many of our postings on this chatboard and elsewhere have concentrated on the epic debate that raged around his deathbed in the wake of his sensational victory over Philippe 1 at the Battle of Mantes, 1087 ( known today as Mantes-la-Jolie:Mantes the pretty) which opened the road to a full-scale assault on Paris with the Frankish army in devastated retreat which was only prevented by the tragic, mysterious death of the Conqueror as he lead his troops through the town. Then came that unforgettable deathbed clash with his opponents.

(4) The Conqueror’s principled standpoints in the debate centred on two decisive positions:

1. That his eldest son Robert Courtheuse should be removed as Duke of Normandy.
2. That Odo de Bayeux , the Conqueror’s half-brother, whom he had personally arrested in 1082 at Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle Of Wight for treasonous activity, should remain in prison in perpetuity.

In defending these positions, the Conqueror was handing his successor the essential pre-requisites for The Norman Revolution to be exported to the remaining portions of The Frankish Kingdom with the ultimate aim being that a Frank-Viking( Norman) and his leadership team should rule The Kingdom of The Franks and revolutionize it along the lines achieved between 1058-1087 in Normandy-Angleland.

(5) In defending these positions, the Conqueror found himself in a minority of one. The Red, whom he eventually selected to replace him in Angleland, was not, at the time, able to promote the Conqueror’s positions against political heavyweights like Robert de Mortain, who was Courtheuse and Philippe 1’s proxy at the gathering, and against the export of The Norman Revolution, the only key to its survival as events were to prove after 1100.
When the Conqueror handed his crown, sword and sceptre to the Red, it was, we believe, it was in the ardent desire that The Norman Revolution and Cluniacism should return to the advance with the attempt to reverse his numerical defeat at the hands of his leadership which had crossed over to the Counter-Revolution of Philippe 1 and Courtheuse.

(6) There is also an even more profound subtext to 8/9/1087. It is the Nativity Of The Blessed Mary who was the daughter of Hannah and Joachim. Saint Hannah (or Ann)is the Patron Saint of women in labour (and also Brittany and Canada). At the time of his agonising death, Philippe 1 remarked, while Courtheuse was at his Court, that the Conqueror “lies in Rouen like a woman in labour.” The Conqueror replied ,” When I go to mass after the birth, I will offer him a hundred thousand candles.” That stated unambiguously his intention to export The Norman Revolution to the remainder of The Kingdom Of The Franks and overthrow his inveterate enemy, Philippe 1. The Conqueror declared he would leave Angleland to God. The only monarch of Angleland/England on his or her deathbed to make such a declaration regarding the kingdom before or since.

(7) In summation, some aspects of the Conqueror’s gloriously heroic death ,inspired by The Norman Revolution with its devout Cluniacism death, which rarely acquire the attention they merit.
For example, there is the matter of the shameful looting of the Conqueror’s bedroom and the desecration of his corpse by his servants. This is seen as an act of madness by those benighted individuals. In fact, it was perfectly rational. The real looting and desecration was carried out on 8/9/1087 when the Norman leadership, led by Robert de Mortain became Counter-Revolutionary, and in so doing abandoned all that made them worthy to History, in opposing the Conqueror’s will. It was their act of betrayal and flight that in the eyes of the servants legitimised their own disgusting behaviour.

(8) I will conclude, on this famous but sombre day for all those who stand with the Conqueror and the Red, by reaffirming our Forum’s unyielding defence of the Conqueror and The Norman Revolution he consummated and initiated in Normandy on the battlefield of Varaville in 1058 and which he extended to his death 922 years ago. We defend with equal vigour his promotion of Cluniacism and its foundations at Cluny Abbey and Marcigny-sur-Loire Convent. The Conqueror is more than a man or a force. He is an idea.

(9) << The king passed the night of 8 September in tranquillity, and awoke at dawn to the sound of the great bell of Rouen Cathedral.

On his asking what it signified, his attendants replied: ‘ My lord, the bell is ringing for Prime in the church of Saint Mary.’ Then the king raised his eyes and lifted his hands and said: ‘ I commend myself to Mary the holy Mother of God, my heavenly Lady, that by her intercession I may be reconciled to her Son our Lord Jesus Christ.’ And having said this he died. >>
(extract from ‘William the Conqueror’ by David C. Douglas p361)

Drogo, Chairperson (on behalf of WTRF)

Sep/9/2009, 9:52 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 Conqueror


Drogo:

Since William appears to have suffered some internal or intestinal rupture in his battle in Mantes, I doubt if his last night on earth was very tranquil, unless he was in a coma. I would be awfully careful about taking ths extant chronicles as lteral gospel truth here. They tend, especially the ones from Orderic Vitalis, to be, well, somewhat embropidered.
Anne G
Sep/10/2009, 5:14 am 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 Conqueror


Mousteriana,if it was a coma it would have been short-lived a mere matter of [sign in to see URL]'s possible but it's just as likely, as it's a known medical fact, that before death the mind and body experience a curious serenity when some patients think they are recovering when it is in fact the beginning of the end of their temporal [sign in to see URL] may well have been the case with the Conqueror except that he lasted longer in that state than the average bod.

Drogo,Chairperson (personal capacity)
Oct/4/2009, 2:16 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 Conqueror


(1) Today marks the 943rd anniversary of the victory of The Noman Revolution
on Senlac Hill. Our Forum salutes that victory! We salute with the same
commitment the victory in 1058 at Varaville which completed the The Norman Revolution in Normandy without which Senlac would have been inconceivable. Our Forum gives thanks to God and History for this great, glorious and magnificent day! Historians have tended to depict today’s anniversary as a kind of historical sea-change. It was certainly about The Kingdom Of The Franks eg ending the racist exclusion of Jewish people from permanently settling in Angleland and ending the slave trade in Angleland (by special decree of the Conqueror) linked to freeing the 200,000 slaves held by the Usurper and his co-rulers in Angleland( that freedom was completed under the Norman Kings 1066-1154).But at its core was the simple fact that Senlac was about a Liege –Lord (the Conqueror) putting down the revolt of a dissident knight (the Usurper) . In 1064, the Conqueror had knighted the Usurper for service to him in the Brittany campaign underscoring the sacred oath already sworn on the bones of Saints, on of whom was Saint Catherine of Alexandria who after The Protomartyr and Saint Cecilia is the third most important saint in Catholicism and in the top ten of Christianity [sign in to see URL], the terrible bloodshed of that day could have been avoided if the Usurper had taken up the Conqueror’s challenge before the battle to trial by single combat to decide who had the just claim to rule in Angleland. The Usurper refused to fight preferring the battlefield protection of his Danish Housecarls. His refusal was disastrous for those he purported to represent but perfectly in sync with his character: hiding from the truth had always been his forte.


(2)The Norman Revolution in Angleland was more than the annihilation of a corrupt, Anglo-Saxon-Dane ruling elite and its Godwinsonite leadership which had long outlived its usefulness to God and History and the expropriation of their land and wealth to the greater glory of the Kingdom of the Franks in general and the dukedom of Normandy in particular. It was more than a <<revolution from above>> which changed the course of European History. The Norman Revolution necessitated its own export. Export or die was its kernel, its raison d’etre.
 
          
(3) The result of this day was a victory for William the Conqueror but it also made the rule of William the Red possible. Our Forum considers William the Red as the more successful ruler
for two, combined reasons. In 1096, he achieved the reunification of the Normandy-England Dukedom-Kingdom snatched from the Conqueror by the pro-Philippe 1 alliance of Mortain, Bayeux and Courtheuse in Septembre 1087. 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. His famous statement to << spend Xmas in Poitiers>> conjured up the imminent revolutionization of the Aquitaine along the lines of the 1058-1066 template. It was at Gerberoi in 1079 at the epic battle with Philippe 1’s proxy, Courtheuse, that this alliance between the Conqueror and the Red was forged or, as some have held, [sign in to see URL], our Forum recommends spending Xmas in contemporary Poitiers,its a wonderful place and second to none.

(4)Some people believe the Aquitaine 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".

(5)The assassination conspirators can be deduced. Philippe 1, the Frankish King,(1052-1108,King 1059/60-1108) was the inveterate enemy of The Norman Revolution (1058-1100). Eager to avenge his father, Henri 1’s defeat by the Conqueror (1054-58) 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 notorious Clare family to install Henri Beauclerc (aka Henry 1)as King of England to derail the Revolution or mortally wound it.

(6)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. Our Forum believes the disinformation about William the Red's acquisition of Aquitaine can, primarily, be traced to the rule of the Angevin, Henry 11 who only equaled
 The Red’s achievement in 1154 and then proceeded to propagandize the myth that he was the first to achieve it.

(7) 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].

(8) To conclude this wonderful day, our Forum pays tribute to the Conqueror’s legitimate predecessor, Edward the Confessor. When in 1051 he promised the Conqueror the succession, our Forum believes he was thinking of The Kingdom Of The Franks, the most advanced civilization in Medieval Europe and the ousters of the Roman Empire centuries earlier. To survive and prosper, the Confessor knew that the future of Normandy and Angleland must be entwined. Led by Normandy, the Normandy-Angleland entity could guarantee its continued existence and transform The Kingdom Of The Franks in the interests of progress. He saw in the Conqueror the kind of leader and leadership team builder who could accomplish it. The alternative for Angleland was to be reabsorbed into a new Cnutian amalgam from which his rule had rescued it and which the Usurper tried to restore at Senlac. That our Forum believes is the real reason that the Conqueror insisted on being crowned ruler of Angleland directly infront of the tomb of the Confessor at Westminster Abbey.

Drogo, Chairperson(on hehalf of WTRF)



Oct/14/2009, 9:33 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 Conqueror


Today is the the 943rd anniversary of the Conqueror’s magnificent accession to rule in Angleland and its unification with Normandy. He insisted on being crowned directly in front of the tomb of Edward the Confessor to highlight the promise made to him regarding the succession in 1051. Our Forum pays tribute to the heroic role played by the Confessor in providing a bridgehead in the unificatory process which the Conqueror was also recognising. This completed a revolutionary process begun in 1058 with the victory of the Revolution in Normandy under his leadership at the Battle of Varaville. Although the Red was to surpass the Conqueror’s achievements, there can be no doubt that without the inspirational example of his leadership such achievements would have been rendered impossible. The Conqueror in choosing this day was paying homage to Charlemagne who was crowned in 800 and Clodwig (aka Clovis)who converted to Christianity in 496 having overthrown the Roman Empire in Europe in 485 at Soissons. Both events happened on Xmas Day.

1. The Conqueror was born in 1027,the son of Duke Robert the Devil (aka “the Magnificent”) and Herleve de Falaise who was a tanner’s daughter. He was Duke of Normandy 1035-87 and King of Angleland 1066-87.

2. Following Robert the Devil’s death on pilgrimage to The Holy Land (1035) the young Conqueror became Duke in deadly circumstances as Counts clashed over his ‘right to rule’.
His main defender was Osbern the Seneschal who was murdered in the room where the young Conqueror hid.

3. In the civil conflict that broke out in Normandy in the 1040’s, Henri 1, the Frankish King, assisted the Conqueror against forces led by Guy de Brionne and Geoffrey Martel .These forces were defeated by the Conqueror and Henri at the Battle of Val-es-Dune (1047). Earlier in 1042 he imposed The Truce of God to limit the battles between rival counts in Normandy and protect the peasantry from unnecessary depredations.

4 Between 1047-54, Henri 1 switched his support to Geoffrey Martel because he feared the growing dynamics of the evolving revolutionary process in Normandy and the threat to his rule of the Frankish Kingdom of which Normandy was a part.

5. Henri and Geoffrey Martel of Anjou led a counter-revolutionary invasion of Normandy between 1054-58 . The Conqueror and the Frank-Viking (ie Norman) revolutionist, leadership he had forged defeated them at Mortemer, Arques, and decisively at Varaville (1058).

6. Following Varaville,advancing the success of The Norman Revolution to Ponthieu, Vexin , Brittany and crucially: Maine(1064) increasing its power and influence to great effect. He also cemented alliances involving landed, church and military interests in Normandy to firm up the ideological power of the Revolution.

7. The Conqueror married Matilda of Flanders in 1051. This also involved an alliance with her father Baldwin V.

8. Also,in 1051 Edward the Confessor acknowledged the Conqueror as his successor either directly or through an intermediary who was probably Robert de Jumieges.

9. In 1064, Harold Godwineson swore allegiance to the Conqueror as the Confessor’s successor in Angleland.

10. When Godwineson usurped Angleland’s throne in the coup d'etat of January 1066, the Conqueror assembled an alliance of politico-military forces inside The Frankish Kingdom and gained the support of Pope Alexander 11 to assert his just right to rule in Angleland.

11. The Conqueror annihilated the Usurper and his oppressive, ruling class at the Battle of Senlac Hill (aka Hastings) on 14th October 1066. The revolutionist, Frank-Viking ruling class who replaced them, expropriated that ex-ruling class’ land and wealth to finance the export of The Norman Revolution to the remainder of the The Frankish Kingdom with the ultimate aim of putting a Frank-Viking on the Frankish throne and generating the fusion of the most advanced, historical forces of Scandinavia and The Kingdom of The Franks, at the highest leadership level. There is also evidence that the Conqueror exploited the divisions inside and between Angleland and Scandinavia as a catalyst to facilitate this historic victory(this was seen again in 1085-86 in a renewed Scandinavian/Philippe1 initiative) The highest expression of his consummate, revolutionary skill in this regard was the evidence albeit by no means conclusive for all traditions, of what de facto was a temporary alliance with Hardraada with, probably, Tostig Godwineson as the intermediary, to implement a two-front war on the Usurper.

12. A series of counter-revolutionary uprisings from 1067-1075 were defeated, chief among which was The Northern Rising 1069-1070 which combined with a Danish counter-revolutionary thrust ordered by Sweyn Esrithsen.

13. The Conqueror ordered the first, permanent settlements of Jewish people in Angleland’s history. This order ended a 1000-year-old-plus, racist, exclusion order on this unjustly persecuted people which was based on the big lie that they killed Jesus Christ and not the Roman Empire. Permanent settlements of Jewish people had existed in Normandy since the 10th Century. Allied to this policy was the Conqueror’s strong belief in Cluniacism and a firm identification with St Stephen the Protomartyr( 25 and 26th Decembre were intertwined in his theological stance) who historically occupies the politico-military-ideological-religious terrain which separates the original teachings of Jesus Christ and his brother, James the Just from Paulian revisionism. We do not believe it was anything other than personal identification that the Conqueror chose to be crowned ruler of Angleland one day before the Protomartyr’s feast day (26th).

14. The Conqueror presided over the beginning of the end of the institution of Slavery in Angleland (it ended totally in the early decades of the 12th Century) Pre-Senlac Hill, 1 in 11 people, mostly Celts, were slaves in Angleland, by the time of the Domesday Book (1086), this had been reduced to almost zero. The Vita Wulfstani records the Conqueror’s vigorous policy to suppress the Bristol slave-trade. He also signed a Charter banning the sale of one man by another outside Angleland. The Conqueror certainly allowed forced labour, a common practice in medieval times, but to compare that, as some Conqueror critics do, to the institution of Slavery ie ownership, sale and distribution of one human being by another, is like in a modern sense, comparing Slavery today with compulsory, unpaid overtime. Not only is it pure ignorance but an insult to the unique, brutalised suffering of the slave past and present. The institution of Slavery was virtually unknown in Normandy since the mid -10th Century.

15. The Conqueror ordered a massive, church,monastery and castle-building program in Angleland to provide a dynamic infrastructure from which to implement The Norman Revolution and combined with the leading force of Normandy, to export that Revolution to the remainder of The Frankish Kingdom and ultimately to put a Frank-Viking in power to rule that Kingdom.

16. Setbacks inside The Frankish Kingdom prevented the export. Chief among these were defeats at the Battles of Dol (1076) and ,crucially, Gerberoi (1079). Divisions inside the Norman leadership led by pro-Frankish King Philippe 1, counter-revolutionaries such as Odo of Bayeux and Robert Curthose also aided the setbacks.

17. In 1083, Matilda died and in 1086-1087 a counter-revolutionary thrust on two fronts aimed at overthrowing The Norman Revolution. A huge invasion force assembled in Scandinavia led by Cnut the Holy, Olaf the Quiet and Robert of Flanders who was the Frankish King’s proxy. Internal divisions led to its abandonment allied to the Conqueror’s assembly of the biggest, international army ever seen on Angleland soil. In 1087 the Frankish King Philippe 1 led attacks from the Vexin deep into Normandy.

18. In 1086, the Conqueror organised a huge mass meeting at which the Oath of Salisbury demonstrated the dynamic support for him and the Revolution. Osmund,Bishop of Salisbury, proved a special facilitator in this action.

19. Also in 1086, following the failure of the Scandinavian counter-revolutionary invasion, the production of the Domesday Book was accomplished following the Conqueror’s order in December 1085 prior to that impending invasion. It was the first systematic example of scientific state planning in Europe.

20. During his spectacular victory over Philippe 1 at Mantes in 1087 and so defeating the second counter-revolutionary thrust of 1086-1087, the Conqueror was fatally wounded in mysterious circumstances, dying later at St Gervais on the outskirts of Rouen on 9TH September 1087. In his deathbed speech, he left Angleland not to another monarch but to God. No monarch of Angleland/England/ UK in his/her death process has ever done that before or since.

***season’s greetings to the chatboard ***

Drogo,Chairperson,Martin Tilston,Chairperson-Elect (on behalf of WTRF)
Dec/25/2009, 10:16 am Link to this post Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1   Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 18  19  20  21 





You are not logged in (login)