Page 5 of 7
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:54 pm
by Empire101
ORIGINAL: Treale
Wasn't the last English King Harold? And how many years until a King stopped speaking French and started speaking English. Did Richard III speak English? Just curious [8|]
Englishness if there is such a term, came about in the early Middle Ages as a concept and cultural identity.
Harold was the the last Anglo-Saxon King.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:54 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: MikeBrough
ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel
lol you asshat. I didn't know if there were several King Richards.
I think there's a clue in the title of the thread! [8D]
warspite1
I missed that!! Now that is funny.
Why was the film "The Madness of King George" not called "The Madness of King George III"?
Because Americans would assume they missed the first two parts and so not bother seeing the sequel.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:03 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Empire101
Englishness if there is such a term, came about in the early Middle Ages as a concept and cultural identity.
You've got to admit-it beats the hell out of the immediately preceding canibalism-ness. Just.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:03 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: MikeBrough
ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel
lol you asshat. I didn't know if there were several King Richards.
I think there's a clue in the title of the thread! [8D]
warspite1
I missed that!! Now that is funny.
Why was the film "The Madness of King George" not called "The Madness of King George III"?
Because Americans would assume they missed the first two parts and so not bother seeing the sequel.
The fourth one was the best anyways. The ones with laser beams and bat wings out of his back. Yeah. That was cool.

RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:12 pm
by Zorch
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: MikeBrough
ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel
lol you asshat. I didn't know if there were several King Richards.
I think there's a clue in the title of the thread! [8D]
warspite1
I missed that!! Now that is funny.
Why was the film "The Madness of King George" not called "The Madness of King George III"?
Because Americans would assume they missed the first two parts and so not bother seeing the sequel.
Most Excellent! (and sadly true)
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:27 pm
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Treale
Wasn't the last English King Harold? And how many years until a King stopped speaking French and started speaking English. Did Richard III speak English? Just curious [8|]
I remember reading that Edward I was the first Plantagenet who could speak English. Still a second language for him, though. When, or even if, any Plantagenet ever thought of himself as English I don't know. I'd also be curious as to when (or if) any such transition took place. Shakespeare treats the later ones as if they were English, though, and he wasn't too far removed from their times. So, I'm guessing that probably by the time of Henry IV, at least, they thought of themselves as English.
Certainly the earlier ones, such as Henry II & Richard I (Lion Hearted) regarded themselves as either Norman or French, with England a conquered province they were lording it over. That seems to make the Magna Carta sort of a French/Norman document, regulating French/Norman lords & kings, by the way. [X(]
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:32 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Treale
Wasn't the last English King Harold? And how many years until a King stopped speaking French and started speaking English. Did Richard III speak English? Just curious [8|]
I remember reading that Edward I was the first Plantagenet who could speak English. Still a second language for him, though. When, or even if, any Plantagenet ever thought of himself as English I don't know. I'd also be curious as to when (or if) any such transition took place. Shakespeare treats the later ones as if they were English, though, and he wasn't too far removed from their times. So, I'm guessing that probably by the time of Henry IV, at least, they thought of themselves as English.
Certainly the earlier ones, such as Henry II & Richard I (Lion Hearted) regarded themselves as either Norman or French, with England a conquered province they were lording it over. That seems to make the Magna Carta sort of a French/Norman document, regulating French/Norman lords & kings, by the way. [X(]
warspite1
Well certainly not French - the Normans (largely descended from Vikings - Norsemen) did not really consider themselves French at all. Welcome to the hotch potch of European history.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:43 pm
by wodin
Richard liked the boys..
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:45 pm
by Toby42
So was England better or worse for the Norman Conquest?
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:53 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Treale
So was England better or worse for the Norman Conquest?
warspite1
Difficult to answer of course because although we know how things turned out under the Normans, there is no way of knowing how would they have gone under continued Anglo-Saxon rule? My gut feel is that the Norman Conquest was a positive in terms of this country's development.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:28 pm
by catwhoorg
Much like the Romans, it is almost impossible to imagine what the modern nation would be like without that conquest.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:16 pm
by Orm
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Treale
So was England better or worse for the Norman Conquest?
warspite1
Difficult to answer of course because although we know how things turned out under the Normans, there is no way of knowing how would they have gone under continued Anglo-Saxon rule? My gut feel is that the Norman Conquest was a positive in terms of this country's development.
Right now I feel the opposite. But I can be convinced to change my thoughts about this.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:33 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Orm
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Treale
So was England better or worse for the Norman Conquest?
warspite1
Difficult to answer of course because although we know how things turned out under the Normans, there is no way of knowing how would they have gone under continued Anglo-Saxon rule? My gut feel is that the Norman Conquest was a positive in terms of this country's development.
Right now I feel the opposite. But I can be convinced to change my thoughts about this.
warspite1
There was a brilliant BBC series a few years back called The Normans. I have it on order - should arrive next week - and I will post some of the points raised in the program.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:40 pm
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I remember reading that Edward I was the first Plantagenet who could speak English. Still a second language for him, though. When, or even if, any Plantagenet ever thought of himself as English I don't know. I'd also be curious as to when (or if) any such transition took place. Shakespeare treats the later ones as if they were English, though, and he wasn't too far removed from their times. So, I'm guessing that probably by the time of Henry IV, at least, they thought of themselves as English.
Certainly the earlier ones, such as Henry II & Richard I (Lion Hearted) regarded themselves as either Norman or French, with England a conquered province they were lording it over. That seems to make the Magna Carta sort of a French/Norman document, regulating French/Norman lords & kings, by the way. [X(]
warspite1
Well certainly not French - the Normans (largely descended from Vikings - Norsemen) did not really consider themselves French at all. Welcome to the hotch potch of European history.
Even the Conquerer's children were a blend. But for sure, Henry II was the son of Geoffrey of Anjou, and Henry's wife was from Aquitaine. So Richard I was, at best, 1/4 Norman - the rest mostly French. John's wife was from Angouleme & his son's wife was from Provence. Then Edward I & Edward II had French wives. You have to go to Edward III to find a non-French wife. Then Henry V & Henry VI were back to French again. The Plantagenets were pretty much French.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:48 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I remember reading that Edward I was the first Plantagenet who could speak English. Still a second language for him, though. When, or even if, any Plantagenet ever thought of himself as English I don't know. I'd also be curious as to when (or if) any such transition took place. Shakespeare treats the later ones as if they were English, though, and he wasn't too far removed from their times. So, I'm guessing that probably by the time of Henry IV, at least, they thought of themselves as English.
Certainly the earlier ones, such as Henry II & Richard I (Lion Hearted) regarded themselves as either Norman or French, with England a conquered province they were lording it over. That seems to make the Magna Carta sort of a French/Norman document, regulating French/Norman lords & kings, by the way. [X(]
warspite1
Well certainly not French - the Normans (largely descended from Vikings - Norsemen) did not really consider themselves French at all. Welcome to the hotch potch of European history.
Even the Conquerer's children were a blend. But for sure, Henry II was the son of Geoffrey of Anjou, and Henry's wife was from Aquitaine. So Richard I was, at best, 1/4 Norman - the rest mostly French. John's wife was from Angouleme & his son's wife was from Provence. Then Edward I & Edward II had French wives. You have to go to Edward III to find a non-French wife. Then Henry V & Henry VI were back to French again. The Plantagenets were pretty much French.
warspite1
But not French in the sense we know today. Could you argue that the 100-years war was in fact a French civil war?
RE: Richard III
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:52 am
by rodney727
I often kid my wife and say my ancestors only burnt and pillaged..(mine are mostly all German ). While hers raped burnt and pillaged ( she is mostly Swedish and Norway heritage )
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Treale
Wasn't the last English King Harold? And how many years until a King stopped speaking French and started speaking English. Did Richard III speak English? Just curious [8|]
I remember reading that Edward I was the first Plantagenet who could speak English. Still a second language for him, though. When, or even if, any Plantagenet ever thought of himself as English I don't know. I'd also be curious as to when (or if) any such transition took place. Shakespeare treats the later ones as if they were English, though, and he wasn't too far removed from their times. So, I'm guessing that probably by the time of Henry IV, at least, they thought of themselves as English.
Certainly the earlier ones, such as Henry II & Richard I (Lion Hearted) regarded themselves as either Norman or French, with England a conquered province they were lording it over. That seems to make the Magna Carta sort of a French/Norman document, regulating French/Norman lords & kings, by the way. [X(]
warspite1
Well certainly not French - the Normans (largely descended from Vikings - Norsemen) did not really consider themselves French at all. Welcome to the hotch potch of European history.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:16 am
by Orm
ORIGINAL: rogo727
I often kid my wife and say my ancestors only burnt and pillaged..(mine are mostly all German ). While hers raped burnt and pillaged ( she is mostly Swedish and Norway heritage )
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I remember reading that Edward I was the first Plantagenet who could speak English. Still a second language for him, though. When, or even if, any Plantagenet ever thought of himself as English I don't know. I'd also be curious as to when (or if) any such transition took place. Shakespeare treats the later ones as if they were English, though, and he wasn't too far removed from their times. So, I'm guessing that probably by the time of Henry IV, at least, they thought of themselves as English.
Certainly the earlier ones, such as Henry II & Richard I (Lion Hearted) regarded themselves as either Norman or French, with England a conquered province they were lording it over. That seems to make the Magna Carta sort of a French/Norman document, regulating French/Norman lords & kings, by the way. [X(]
warspite1
Well certainly not French - the Normans (largely descended from Vikings - Norsemen) did not really consider themselves French at all. Welcome to the hotch potch of European history.
Vikings have has an unfairly bad reputation. The main reason for this is that they plundered monasteries and churches. Killed priests and monks. And it was those who wrote the history about the Vikings.
And the Germans has during the history been mostly raped, killed and had their homes burnt. But this is mostly forgotten since the events during the twentieth century takes precedence.
RE: Richard III
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:24 am
by Empire101
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Orm
ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1
Difficult to answer of course because although we know how things turned out under the Normans, there is no way of knowing how would they have gone under continued Anglo-Saxon rule? My gut feel is that the Norman Conquest was a positive in terms of this country's development.
Right now I feel the opposite. But I can be convinced to change my thoughts about this.
warspite1
There was a brilliant BBC series a few years back called The Normans. I have it on order - should arrive next week - and I will post some of the points raised in the program.
It is an EXCELLENT series Mr.W. You will really enjoy it!!
I've got to get all the crap for CB, its taking several books/ages [:(]
RE: Richard III
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:24 am
by Empire101
ORIGINAL: catwhoorg
Much like the Romans, it is almost impossible to imagine what the modern nation would be like without that conquest.
+1
RE: Richard III
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:29 am
by Empire101
ORIGINAL: wodin
Richard liked the boys..
WARNING: LIVE WODIN HAND GRENADE DETECTED. APPROACH WITH CAUTION.