British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Richard The Lionheart was French. And "Tommy Robinson" is of Irish heritage and adopted his pseudonym, in part, to obscure that quite awkward detail.
And everyone knows that St George was from the area of modern day Turkey, and Queen Victoria was and spoke German.
Richard The Lionheart was French. And "Tommy Robinson" is of Irish heritage and adopted his pseudonym, in part, to obscure that quite awkward detail.
And everyone knows that St George was from the area of modern day Turkey, and Queen Victoria was and spoke German.
The Lionheart can be considered both English and French. In my view, he was perhaps the greatest King of England. His courage and bravery is noted throughout the ages and he was respected by his Muslim adversaries.
Good for you. Persecution of Jews at home and mindless foreign wars and crusades put him near the bottom of my list.
And yes, being linguistically, culturally, and politically French makes him mostly French.
Good for you. Persecution of Jews at home and mindless foreign wars and crusades put him near the bottom of my list.
And yes, being linguistically, culturally, and politically French makes him mostly French.
Lol love how you don’t quote the posters you are responding to sometimes.
No that is not how history records Richard the Lionheart. You need to check out “ Epic of the Crusades” by Rene Grousett. Where Grousett utilizes firsthand accounts from Muslim explorers who noted the chivalry of Catholic leaders like Richard I. Thats the Real history unlike the sort of bigoted anti-England approach from whoever you get your sources from.
Of course, Richard I was English. He was a king of England, sort of like how you have presidents or politicians of the United States that have an Irish background like John F. Kennedy for example.
Richard I represents all that is good with the values of being English. Unlike simps like Tommy Robinson.
Lol love how you don’t quote the posters you are responding to sometimes.No that is not how history records Richard the Lionheart. You need to check out “ Epic of the Crusades” by Rene Grousett. Where Grousett utilizes firsthand accounts from Muslim explorers who noted the chivalry of Catholic leaders like Richard I. Thats the Real history unlike the sort of
Being King of England doesn't make him English. Plenty of monarchs ruled more than one country. Plus, speaking French (actually Occitan, a Southern French dialect) and not English pretty much settles the matter no matter how much your biases want the contrary to be true.
I've paid respects at Richard's tomb at Fontevraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontevraud...), though they don't really know where the royal tombs are, what with the abbey's use as a prison for so long and one thing and another, so there's just a set of effigies to suggest that Richard, Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine are down there somewhere, and the modern restoration of the building was done by the French, so with the shiny crushed-marble floor it feels weirdly like an airport departure hall despite the medieval stone shell.
But Richard, though born in England and supposedly understanding some English, was basically French, spent very little of his reign here and probably didn't give a damn about the place except for rental and tax income. As to his legendary chivalrous personality, that may be a thing.
Knights,
Richard’s claim to fame was an (unsuccessful) attempt to reclaim the holy Land from Muslim usurpers.
So why do you regard him favorably, and Israel negatively for basically attempting the same thing, with much more success.
I suspect you only like Richard because he failed in taking Jerusalem from the Muslims, and if he had been successful you would have similar contempt for him as you do today’s Israeli Jews.
Knights,Richard’s claim to fame was an (unsuccessful) attempt to reclaim the holy Land from Muslim usurpers. So why do you regard him favorably, and Israel negatively for basically attempting the same thing, with much more success. I suspect you only like Richard because he failed in taking Jerusalem from the Muslims, and if he had been successful you would have simil
Lol I love the entertainment of how you tell people their views. Above you tell me what I think about Israel and Richard I
Richard I secured various territory in the holy land… he fought valiantly for Jerusalem, but was ultimately unsuccessful. But he was successful in securing land from Tyre to Jaffa.
And I deeply respect the first catholic kingdom of Jerusalem. According to historians whom I have cited like Rene Grousett it was a multicultural state…Jews and Muslims thrived in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. I have a detailed thread also about The Knights Hospitallar…. An organization of Knights who provided medical relief to even their enemies in combat. And anytime a Jew or a Muslim sought medical relief from them they gave it to them. And they served them with respect. This group of Knights was not only skilled in the medical field, but also in warfare. They were ahead of their time in terms of medical care….
Richard the Lionheart represents all that is right with the dignified chivalrous Englishman. He is really the polar opposite of a Simp like Tommy Robinson….you see that video of Robinson getting bossed around by Israeli thug politicians. He sat there like a child, just taking it.
On the grand scale of ****ed up, people going online and being racist is fairly trivial compared with
Not sure what the connection is between this horrific attack and the post you refer to. Can you explain?
Stop making it so front and centre that you revel in bad things when they allow you to make a political point, i'ts doing you no favours. You're coming across like a psycho when you do that.
I know you aren't really, so take this as a bit of a steer.
I don't need a steer from you. If you know I'm not the way you describe then you should be able to understand what it is I'm saying. I know I'm right about him - there are some I have doubts about but not him.
The irony of a old man who posts racist messages on an obscure internet forum, sharing a story of an old man who posts racist messages on an obscure internet forum isn't lost on anyone.
As an American, I find it amusing that every time a British mass murderer is black, but not Muslim, the British left count it as a win for their side.
I dont know how exactly it works in Britain, but in America the left are held pretty much equally responsible if a mass murderer is black or Muslim.
As an American, I find it amusing that every time a British mass murderer is black, but not Muslim, the British left count it as a win for their side.
I dont know how exactly it works in Britain, but in America the left are held pretty much equally responsible if a mass murderer is black or Muslim.
This not being America, I don't think the actions of crazypersons are always seen through quite such a confined political lens. This attacker is reportedly black, but I doubt there's a huge head of steam behind the idea that 'it's not his fault because white bigotry drove him crazy', or contrarily behind the idea that 'all black men are angry and drug-addled super-predators.' At this point, nobody knows what it was all about.
