William the Red https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/t12 Runboard| William the Red en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:01:52 +0000 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:01:52 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2869,from=rss#post2869https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2869,from=rss#post2869I have not seen William Rufus/11 or as he is known in France Guillaume Le Roux discussed in this kind of debate before and certainly there is much knowledge here that I find useful for example the coinciding dates concerning William the Conqueror's Oath of Salisbury and William 11's assassination with the connection to Lammas or the "mass of the loaf".His sexuality is controversial and I see him more bisexual (like the greatest soldier in earth's history Alexander the Great)than gay.His rule was like the swing of a pendulum and had a desperation to achieve that his successors lacked (par excellence in the case of Henri Beauclerc)which made his relatively brief time in power conflict driven to excess.There is I believe a saying "nothing succeeds like excess".This monarch's life was probably flesh and blood proof of it.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Xavier9)Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:38:18 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2759,from=rss#post2759https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2759,from=rss#post27591)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) nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:49:20 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2756,from=rss#post2756https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2756,from=rss#post2756Drogo 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 Gnondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:42:15 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2755,from=rss#post2755https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2755,from=rss#post2755Today 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 2.8.1100. 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) nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:56:07 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2717,from=rss#post2717https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2717,from=rss#post2717I 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'. Pereobu (personal capacity)nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:35:58 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2710,from=rss#post2710https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2710,from=rss#post2710What 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)nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:19:44 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2690,from=rss#post2690https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2690,from=rss#post2690It 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) nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:34:18 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2685,from=rss#post2685https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2685,from=rss#post2685WRTF1: 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 Gnondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:40:11 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2679,from=rss#post2679https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2679,from=rss#post2679So 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)nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:51:38 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2675,from=rss#post2675https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2675,from=rss#post2675Bill 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 Gnondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:02:10 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2673,from=rss#post2673https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2673,from=rss#post2673Anne 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 NR.The idea that the Conqueror or the Red saw the Jewish Community as just a money machine(the classic anti-Semitic charge) is absolutely wrong.Study 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) nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:19:39 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2669,from=rss#post2669https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2669,from=rss#post2669Hugo, 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 Gnondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:21:33 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2667,from=rss#post2667https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2667,from=rss#post2667Brilliant 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)nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:41:40 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2663,from=rss#post2663https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2663,from=rss#post2663Housecarl: They just like long posts. And they have paragraphs, even in French. Anne Gnondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Sun, 31 Aug 2008 06:20:42 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2661,from=rss#post2661https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2661,from=rss#post2661quote: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... nondisclosed_email@example.com (Housecarl 1066)Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:58:25 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2660,from=rss#post2660https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2660,from=rss#post2660Bill 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 Gnondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:38:08 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2659,from=rss#post2659https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2659,from=rss#post2659Paul 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)nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:28:54 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2658,from=rss#post2658https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2658,from=rss#post2658Paul, 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 Gnondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:45:38 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2657,from=rss#post2657https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2657,from=rss#post2657Fantastic Posting Bill 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)nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:30:28 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2654,from=rss#post2654https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2654,from=rss#post2654Housecarl: 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! The debate about the heroes that eradicated that useless vermin should be widened... nondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:56:15 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2652,from=rss#post2652https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2652,from=rss#post2652Billy the Pink was England's most irksome QUEEN! The debate about the heroes that eradicated that useless vermin should be widened... nondisclosed_email@example.com (Housecarl 1066)Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:12:45 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2650,from=rss#post2650https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2650,from=rss#post2650Bill H, We are highly impressed by your core insight.Whoever fired the arrow did it in full knowledge of all the strategic consequences which were bound up entirely with who was to rule TKOTF.It is irritating that so much attention is given to eg the angle of the arrow fired and did it bounce off a tree or deer that it is refreshing to have its context put so clearly in the foreground.A thousand thanks! Marita Keel,First Secretary,Steve Walsh,Pereobu,John G,Becky (all in personal capacity)nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:35:40 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2640,from=rss#post2640https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2640,from=rss#post2640Bill H. and WRTF: It's news to me that William II was "Angleland's" greatest king. . . . Most historians don't think so. But that's another story. Anne Gnondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:01:22 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2638,from=rss#post2638https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2638,from=rss#post2638Today marks the 908th Anniversary of the assassination of William the Red and the end of The Norman Revolution, 1058-1100. What began with a magnificent victory suffused with tactical insight by the Conqueror at Varaville over the counter-revolutionary forces of Henri 1 and Geoffroi Martel was ended by the cowardly plan of The Frankish King, Philippe 1 and his Norman counter-revolutionist supporters led by Henri Beauclerc. The Red’s aims and objectives were defined on the day of this assassination. By a skilful negotiation in 1099 which brilliantly turned The First Crusade (which he never supported) to his advantage he had acquired the Aquitaine from Duke William IX, Count of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine (Poitou was the lesser acquisition) . Regaining Normandy ,which the Red had accomplished in 1096, was one thing in the eyes of Philippe 1, who was always eager to avenge the humiliation inflicted on his father Henri 1 by the Conqueror at Varaville , acquiring the Aquitaine was a new level of threat to him altogether. Philippe 1 thus rallied a sufficient assembly of pro-Crusade magnates internal and external to Normandy-Angleland to make the firing of the deadly arrow possible. I will not banter about whether or not it was Tirel or some other lickspittle, toady hireling. Frankly, it is irrelevant to those who love The Norman Revolution, 1058-1100 and everything it stood for. Indeed, it is only those who, for whatever reasons best known to themselves , have detached themselves from that revolution and its manifold successes in Medieval Europe who make the identity of the assassin a ‘pet interest’. It is a ‘pet’ that must be put down firmly. On the day of his assassination, the Red declared his intention of spending Xmas in Poitiers ( most recommended incidently to modern travellers)which is in the Poitou and a bridgehead to Aquitaine. The revolutionization of the Aquitaine was to begin and the objective of dividing The Frankish Kingdom between the Red and Philippe 1 (Burgundy regardless as the Burgundians irrespective of their formidable historical record held no fears for the Red) would commence. This would not have stopped Philippe’s nefarious schemes against The Norman Revolution which the Red, like the Conqueror, aimed to spread deep into the Frankish Kingdom and ultimately make himself ruler of it. Another, essential point is that the incentive for someone like Beauclerc to join Philippe’s cowardly coterie was strong. The Red was a vigorous king likely to live long enough to ensure Beauclerc would be too old to rule realistically as a successor. The flipside to that was the fact that he was an inveterate enemy of The Norman Revolution as defined by the Conqueror and the Red. He had no desire to rule in Aquitaine or turn The First Crusade to his advantage. He supported that Crusade and hoped that it would cement Philippe’s rule over The Frankish Kingdom. Some historians have noted that Courtheuse clashed with Beauclerc after 2.8.1100 up to and including the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106 and this is evidence that there was a significant difference of opinion on how Normandy-Angleland was to be ruled. This approach does not understand that how they viewed it was to be ruled had nothing to do with reviving The Norman Revolution within The Frankish Kingdom but how best to establish a modus vivendi with Philippe1 at the expense of everything the Conqueror and the Red had battled for to make Normandy-Angleland what it was. 2.8.1100 opened the road to the end of Normandy-Angleland and the absorption of Normandy into France in 1204. Much is made of the fact that Henri 11 (The Angevin) achieved kingly rule in Aquitaine after 1154. Henri 11 battled a Norman king to rule in Angleland/England and ended up defeated in 1189 by Philippe 11. This man, Henri 11, whom historians have lavished with all kinds of attributes, died in his bed not as a victim of assassination. This speaks volumes since it shows that, unlike the Red and his enemy Philippe 1, he did not matter that much in terms of Philippe’s schemes . He knew that the Angevin had no serious intention of overthrowing him. Henri’s success in obtaining the Aquitaine has obscured the fact that the Red achieved it much earlier without receiving any historical acclaim from historians down the centuries(and when you look at the Becket incident you realise that the Red’s just clashes with Anselm show by far a more civilized ruler). Orderic Vitalis’ account of the Aquitaine episode is pro-the Red but that did not stop later historians from feting Henri for the achievement and eclipsing the Red in the process. Indeed, it is entirely valid to state that, down the centuries, the Red has been presented in a negative light for a matter entirely alien to the real reason: his supposed immorality which was condemned at the Council of Rouen in 1096 (tellingly the very year the Red won back Normandy) by ecclesiastical forces in the form of a resolution condemning long hair as a form of moral degeneration.  In reality , the only thing that matters about 2.8.1100 when it is reduced to its core is: who will rule The Kingdom Of The Franks , the Red or Philippe 1? In comparison with that, who fired the arrow and did the assassination happen at Brockenhurst or Beaulieu etc is frankly trivial. In conclusion, I have deliberately chosen in this commemoration of Normandy’s greatest Duke and Angleland/England’s greatest King, to sideline the normal emphases( not least the one pertaining to Hugues de Cluny, Cluny Abbey and Marcigny-sur-Loire Convent and how it related to the Red’s ‘Great Debate’ initiative of blessed memory) that colour what my egregious predecessors as Chairperson and our Forum’s eminent members in general make, not out of some misplaced sense of ‘aspirant originality’ or because those emphases are not salient and wholly apposite but because I believe from an intellectual-spiritual vantage point that shifting the focus for scrutiny of one of the special days in the calendar of The Norman Revolution, 1058-1100 will ensure that the context of those emphases which our Forum cherish will be enriched by the specific weight of historical gravity. In so doing, I continue firmly our Forum’s unyielding assertion of the historical profundity of 2.8.1100 and its pivotal relationship with the historical phase that concluded so shamefully in 1204. In truth, it could all have been so different. Bill H, Chairperson (on behalf of WTRF) nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:17:26 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2392,from=rss#post2392https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2392,from=rss#post2392T.F. Dacres and WRTF: [Perhaps you would like to tell us when our Forum ever said we could match William of Poitiers? T.F.Dacres (personal capacity) And perhaps you would like to actually read what I said for a change. I didn't say you folkes "matched" WOP. Because you don't. I said you "matched" his adulatory spin-doctoring. Which isn't quite the same thing as claiming you wrote as well as him. Anne Gnondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:53:12 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2388,from=rss#post2388https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2388,from=rss#post2388""You just try to" Evidence? or just as I conclude another one of your unsubstantiated opinions mousesteriana. Gerry Watters (personal capacity)nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:55:05 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2371,from=rss#post2371https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2371,from=rss#post2371WRTF: I never claimed you could match WOP. Because you can't. You just try to. Anne G quote:WilliamtheRed Forum1 wrote: Oh, they're "aping" WOP, all right. At least they are aping his adulatory spin-doctoring. They just can't do it as well as he could. Perhaps you would like to tell us when our Forum ever said we could match William of Poitiers? T.F.Dacres (personal capacity) nondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:35:45 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2366,from=rss#post2366https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2366,from=rss#post2366quote:WilliamtheRed Forum1 wrote: Oh, they're "aping" WOP, all right. At least they are aping his adulatory spin-doctoring. They just can't do it as well as he could. Perhaps you would like to tell us when our Forum ever said we could match William of Poitiers? T.F.Dacres (personal capacity) The net-fasists have now admitted their laughable third-rate hagiography at last!   nondisclosed_email@example.com (Housecarl 1066)Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:54:46 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2365,from=rss#post2365https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2365,from=rss#post2365Oh, they're "aping" WOP, all right. At least they are aping his adulatory spin-doctoring. They just can't do it as well as he could. Perhaps you would like to tell us when our Forum ever said we could match William of Poitiers? T.F.Dacres (personal capacity)nondisclosed_email@example.com (WilliamtheRed Forum1)Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:52:12 +0000 Re: William the Redhttps://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2359,from=rss#post2359https://bnormaninvasionchatboard.runboard.com/p2359,from=rss#post2359Housecarl: Oh, they're "aping" WOP, all right. At least they are aping his adulatory spin-doctoring. They just can't do it as well as he could! Anne Gnondisclosed_email@example.com (mousteriana)Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:03:00 +0000