Deviation
Posts: 26923
Joined: 2/6/2006 From: Enemies of Film HQ
|
Wait a fucking second, how can anyone not know that the Normans were descendents from the Norse Vikings pretty that much invaded northern France and the inhabitants within it before mixing with them and "becoming" French (which could be considered far later after William)? Maybe I'm being too cruel, but the Normans being Norse is pretty much known even by me, but maybe I'm being again cruel since the Normans play a pivotal role in Malta's history since they conquered Malta from the Arabs and expelled the Muslims later on. Actually no, do you know how many nations in Eurasia (or other countries in other continents) throughout history had or have had a monarchy whose origin or ancestry came from that own nation or ethnicity or group without any sort of mix throughout history? More then quite a few. What I'm saying is this is nonsense. The House of Plantagenuet wasn't exactly totally "English" either. Oh and the Danes ruled more then one year and had some 4 rulers. Other then Forkbeard, there was Cnut (son of Forkbeard who defeated Ironside), Harefoot and Harthacnut. Saint Edward wasn't totally Ango-Saxon blooded either. Also, why true English king? Doesn't what we call and consider the United Kingdom today also feature prominently Scots, some Irish and the Welsh for a huge part of its history? What wrong with the Tudors (other then having the appalling existential condition known as born Welsh and a spotty career as monarchs) being kings or queens? Is there something wrong with this? EDIT: My mistake, the Muslims were all expelled by the Swabians, but everyone here forgets we were under their rule because FUCK SWABIANS
< Message edited by Deviation -- 5/2/2013 5:01:45 AM >
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dpp1978 There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement. quote:
ORIGINAL: elab49 I really wish I could go down to see Privates
|