Discussion World Forum  


Go Back   Discussion World Forum > Discussion Forums > Sports

Sports Basketball, baseball, football, hockey, soccer, Olympics, World Cup, fantasy leagues and/or anything else sports related.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old Jul 8th 2011, 05:32 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,838
Default Re: Women's World Cup in football (soccer)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickKIELCEPoland View Post
The quarter-finals start tomorrow,

England v France
Germany v Japan
Brazil v USA
Sweden v Australia

I can't wait for England v France. This is an ancient rivalry, dating back to 1066, when William the Conqueror seized England

Come on, England!!!
Technically speaking, William of Normandy (aka William the Bastard) didn't "seize" England. William was the rightful heir of Edward the Confessor and as such, he invaded England in order to depose a usurper (Herold Godwine of Wessex - who had no formal claim).

As for the finals, it would be typical for Brazil and Germany to meet in the finals.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old Jul 8th 2011, 10:10 PM
Donkey's Avatar
Donkey Donkey is offline
Official Forum Mascot
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 7,771
Default Re: Women's World Cup in football (soccer)

Certainly. A continental clash of Titans.
__________________
"It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize."
Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old Jul 8th 2011, 10:21 PM
NickKIELCEPoland's Avatar
NickKIELCEPoland NickKIELCEPoland is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,082
Default Re: Women's World Cup in football (soccer)

Michael, you're wrong: William the Conqueror had no lineage with the English royal family. His wife did*. Edward the Confessor had no right to appoint his own successor. Birthright had that job.

2ndly, William's parents were not married, which prohibited him from being king. I hate such a disgustingly discriminatory law, but in this case it could have prevented a thuggish tyrant like William the Conqueror from being King.

Edward the Confessor's nephew Ralph, earl of Hereford, was Edward's rightful successor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_the_Timid


And if all the above isn't enough, William didn't even speak English. Maybe not a legal reason, but certainly a good reason nonetheless, for his foregoing the pleasures of being King of England.

*This is good, because through her, the current Queen is directly descended from Alfred the Great. As a sidenote, so is Prime Minister Cameron.
__________________
Europe

Last edited by NickKIELCEPoland; Jul 8th 2011 at 10:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old Jul 8th 2011, 10:44 PM
NickKIELCEPoland's Avatar
NickKIELCEPoland NickKIELCEPoland is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,082
Default Re: Women's World Cup in football (soccer)

PS: Ralph was dead in 1066, but his son, Harold would then step into the breech.

So I made a small mistake, Harold, son of Ralph, was the rightful heir to the throne, and William usurped him.
__________________
Europe
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old Jul 9th 2011, 03:16 AM
NickKIELCEPoland's Avatar
NickKIELCEPoland NickKIELCEPoland is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,082
Default Re: Women's World Cup in football (soccer)

PPS: And you can read about Harold here. (he was alive in 1066, since he performed some task in 1075)
http://www.evere.co.uk/eavespage/origins/thumbnail.htm
__________________
Europe
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old Jul 9th 2011, 09:06 AM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,838
Default Re: Women's World Cup in football (soccer)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickKIELCEPoland View Post
Michael, you're wrong: William the Conqueror had no lineage with the English royal family. His wife did*. Edward the Confessor had no right to appoint his own successor. Birthright had that job.

2ndly, William's parents were not married, which prohibited him from being king. I hate such a disgustingly discriminatory law, but in this case it could have prevented a thuggish tyrant like William the Conqueror from being King.

Edward the Confessor's nephew Ralph, earl of Hereford, was Edward's rightful successor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_the_Timid


And if all the above isn't enough, William didn't even speak English. Maybe not a legal reason, but certainly a good reason nonetheless, for his foregoing the pleasures of being King of England.

*This is good, because through her, the current Queen is directly descended from Alfred the Great. As a sidenote, so is Prime Minister Cameron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickKIELCEPoland View Post
PS: Ralph was dead in 1066, but his son, Harold would then step into the breech.

So I made a small mistake, Harold, son of Ralph, was the rightful heir to the throne, and William usurped him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickKIELCEPoland View Post
PPS: And you can read about Harold here. (he was alive in 1066, since he performed some task in 1075)
http://www.evere.co.uk/eavespage/origins/thumbnail.htm
1. When the king has no direct blood successor, it is the king's perogative to choose their successor. See Elizabeth I for a clear example.

2. Herold Godwine of Wessex based his royal claim entirely on being elected by the Wittan. That is a respectable claim, but it was unprecedented and inferior to William's rightful claim.

3. Herold Godwine of Wessex died on October 14th, 1066, on the battlefield at Hastings. To the victor goes the spoils. Thus Herold was a dead usurper.

4. I can name at least a dozen English kings that never spoke a word of English.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old Jul 9th 2011, 09:11 AM
NickKIELCEPoland's Avatar
NickKIELCEPoland NickKIELCEPoland is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,082
Default Re: Women's World Cup in football (soccer)

King Canute was elected by the Wittan too.
He was married to Godwin's sister.
So no, it wasn't unprecedented.

But is it really true that Elizabeth the First chose James of Scotland?
Remember, even if she did, at least he had a family claim to the throne.

And so what if William the Conqueror beat a usurper??? Does that entitle him to the throne that should have gone to Harold, son of Ralph???

Here you can see that Canute had been chosen by the Wittan, in 1017.
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon17.html
__________________
Europe

Last edited by NickKIELCEPoland; Jul 9th 2011 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old Jul 9th 2011, 09:22 AM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,838
Default Re: Women's World Cup in football (soccer)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickKIELCEPoland View Post
King Canute was elected by the Wittan too.
He was married to Godwin's sister.
So no, it wasn't unprecedented.
Election by the Wittan didn't make Canute king. Canute was a foreigner who was king by right of conquest.

Indeed, Canute's election by the Wittan comes AFTER Canute's conquest.

Btw, it is important here to remember that the victors write the history books. That's the ultimate rule of rightful kingship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickKIELCEPoland View Post
But is it really true that Elizabeth the First chose James of Scotland?
Remember, even if she did, at least he had a family claim to the throne.
Yes it is true.

There were other candidates available with similarly tenuous familial lineage. There is also extensive evidence that contemporary English political society did not know who would be Elizabeth's heir until her final days when she named James VI of Scotland.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old Jul 9th 2011, 09:25 AM
NickKIELCEPoland's Avatar
NickKIELCEPoland NickKIELCEPoland is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,082
Default Re: Women's World Cup in football (soccer)

Canute didn't conquer England. His father, Sven Forkbeard, did, but died shortly afterwards. It was only then that the Wittan elected Canute. So do you still maintain that Godwinsson's Witan election was unprecendented?

By the way, Sven Forkbeard is also regarded as a king of England, even though he was purely a conqueror.
__________________
Europe

Last edited by NickKIELCEPoland; Jul 9th 2011 at 09:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old Jul 9th 2011, 10:12 AM
Donkey's Avatar
Donkey Donkey is offline
Official Forum Mascot
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 7,771
Default Re: Women's World Cup in football (soccer)

If possession is nine tenths of law, AND to the victor goes the spoils, then the legitimate king in any given situation is the one who can successfully install himself.

Of course, I'm pretty skeptical of the validity of monarchs in general, but I would almost be inclined to think that a King (or Queen) who can raise a bigger army to throw out the enemy may be more popular, and thus be installed in a quasi-democratic manner.
__________________
"It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize."
Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com