Housecarl 1066
Registered user
Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red
quote:
It is a remarkable fact that neither Douglas' biography on the Conqueror or Barlow's biography of the Red mentions this extraordinary theologian despite the fact that he was a contemporary of both rulers
Perhaps that's because they're professional historians that only record fact (Billy2 being GAY etc etc) and intelligent historical conjecture...and the WTF is a plagiarising, selective and boring jackass? 
---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
|
|
Feb/24/2008, 9:26 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Housecarl 1066
Send PM to Housecarl 1066
|
mousteriana
Registered user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red
Housecarl:
I'm beginning to think that the WRTF has some kind of agenda. Hint: It's not about William the Offspring Of An Informal Relationship or his son and successor, Willaim "Rufus". Beyond that, I'm not sure exactly what the agenda is. And I think that's why they're so ahistorical and --- dare I say it --- stupidly so.
Anne G
|
|
Feb/24/2008, 10:36 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to mousteriana
Send PM to mousteriana
|
Housecarl 1066
Registered user
Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red
quote:
mousteriana wrote:
Housecarl:
I'm beginning to think that the WRTF has some kind of agenda. Hint: It's not about William the Offspring Of An Informal Relationship or his son and successor, Willaim "Rufus". Beyond that, I'm not sure exactly what the agenda is. And I think that's why they're so ahistorical and --- dare I say it --- stupidly so.
Anne G
Yes, the WTF are trying (and failing) to ASSume an air of intellectualism, omnipotence and importance...
But it only emits as unintelligible impotence! 
---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
|
|
Feb/25/2008, 7:25 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Housecarl 1066
Send PM to Housecarl 1066
|
mousteriana
Registered user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red
Housecarl:
Well, they certainly seem to have an "agenda". Let them now answer this charge! 
|
|
Feb/25/2008, 11:17 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to mousteriana
Send PM to mousteriana
|
WilliamtheRed Forum1
Registered user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 124
Karma: -3 (+0/-3)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
 Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red
Our Forum considers the best book on the Red to be Emma Mason's "William 11 Rufus,the Red King". In the following extract she follows an account of Eadmer's view of the Red which gained common currency in the centuries that followed his assassination, with the very different view of Suger:
" Suger was born c1081.By the time that Rufus died in 1100,he was a young adult still completing his education.Despite his natural bias towards French interests,he described William Rufus as 'the very great king of England,the son of the even greater King William who conquered England...' Suger noted the pride of William Rufus,his undaunted valour,his energy,his wisdom,his military skill and his eagerness for glory and fame.King William was clearly depicted as a worthy and formidable opponent of Suger's own monarch.This positive image was not absorbed into English historiography though.The predominant image of the king,transmitted from one generation to another,was essentially that projected by Eadmer and those who drew on his work." (p16)
Suger of course had other complimentary things to say about the Red but Emma Mason's point makes clear that Eadmer's view by gaining its power from one generation to the next down the centuries prevailed over someone who might have been expected to write negative things about a person who was against Philippe 1.
For me, it also illustrated the necessity of reading widely about a subject since facts are spread around in many quarters. What makes Emma Mason's the best book on the Red, deserving to be read widely, is not that it is 100% definitive but that it brings together with a variety of new facts a new view of the Red which merits profound study.
Bill H,Chairperson (personal capacity)
|
|
Mar/3/2008, 10:16 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1
Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
|
Housecarl 1066
Registered user
Registered: 02-2006
Location: Northern-most Saxon border.
Posts: 620
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red
No punctuation? No Grammatical breaks?
Looks like yet another poor copy/paste bit of plagiarism!
---
http://1066andallthat.forumfree.co.uk/
|
|
Mar/4/2008, 12:55 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Housecarl 1066
Send PM to Housecarl 1066
|
mousteriana
Registered user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red
Housecarl and WillaimtheRedForum I:
I can't comment on Emma Mason's book, not having read it. (This is for the Forum)The reason is, it is not easily available here. Be that as it may, I think the reason Eadmer's view of William "Rufus" is what it is, whether one agrees with it or not, is that Eadmer was English and his original audience was English. Subsequent English authors drew from Eadmer, again for better or worse. Suger's views about a lot of things(including his assessment of William "Rufus") were important, but they were aimed at a different sort of audience and, to later English-speakers, would probably not have been important. Again, for better or worse.
Anne G
quote:
Housecarl 1066 wrote:
No punctuation? No Grammatical breaks?
Looks like yet another poor copy/paste bit of plagiarism!
|
|
Mar/4/2008, 2:36 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to mousteriana
Send PM to mousteriana
|
WilliamtheRed Forum1
Registered user
Registered: 10-2007
Posts: 124
Karma: -3 (+0/-3)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red
I consider Bill's point instructive that Suger should have such insight,excepting his mistaken view that the Conqueror was greater than the Red.The events of 1099 render that view ahistorical.
Why Anselm ever acquired such an eminent reputation escapes me.His treatment of the Monks Of Canterbury was shameful.Yet such things were not worthy of analysis for someone like Eadmer who was in thrall of the man.
The Red's view of Anselm is well known on this Chatboard and elsewhere.Our Forum has made a special point of clarifying his antagonism to the attempts of the Red to reunify the Normandy-Angleland unit particularly between 1094-96.The archbishop was an irritant who never genuinely learned any lessons from Lanfranc's exemplary relationship with the Conqueror.
In distorting the view of the Red for "posterity", Eadmer clearly had Anselm in mind (the latter's crocodile tears post 2.8.1100 notwithstanding)when writing about the Red. Indeed, he did it at the expense of any credibility or observance of the truth. Two counterfeit Papal Bulls were used in his writings on his idol in the early 1120's linking them falsely to Gospel accounts.He was always Anselm's servant in all things resulting in historians still picking up the pieces today.
Drogo,Vice-Chairperson (personal capacity)
|
|
Mar/16/2008, 3:22 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to WilliamtheRed Forum1
Send PM to WilliamtheRed Forum1
|
mousteriana
Registered user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 936
Karma: 6 (+6/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Reading the Conqueror and the Red
WRTF:
The analysis below actually strikes me as being fairly insightful, in certain ways. Whether one agrees with it or not.
Anne G
quote:
WilliamtheRed Forum1 wrote:
I consider Bill's point instructive that Suger should have such insight,excepting his mistaken view that the Conqueror was greater than the Red.The events of 1099 render that view ahistorical.
Why Anselm ever acquired such an eminent reputation escapes me.His treatment of the Monks Of Canterbury was shameful.Yet such things were not worthy of analysis for someone like Eadmer who was in thrall of the man.
The Red's view of Anselm is well known on this Chatboard and elsewhere.Our Forum has made a special point of clarifying his antagonism to the attempts of the Red to reunify the Normandy-Angleland unit particularly between 1094-96.The archbishop was an irritant who never genuinely learned any lessons from Lanfranc's exemplary relationship with the Conqueror.
In distorting the view of the Red for "posterity", Eadmer clearly had Anselm in mind (the latter's crocodile tears post 2.8.1100 notwithstanding)when writing about the Red. Indeed, he did it at the expense of any credibility or observance of the truth. Two counterfeit Papal Bulls were used in his writings on his idol in the early 1120's linking them falsely to Gospel accounts.He was always Anselm's servant in all things resulting in historians still picking up the pieces today.
Drogo,Vice-Chairperson (personal capacity)
|
|
Mar/16/2008, 9:44 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to mousteriana
Send PM to mousteriana
|
