King Stephen vs Matilda Succession Controversy (12th Century England)
Notes as of 9:35 PM 10/8/2010
Stephen was allegedly a norman only on the "spindle side" (mother's side). so also henry II (http://books.google.com/books?id=2L4VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA130&dq=hardrada&hl=en&ei=-WuvTKeTHMKqlAfChvTrDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=stephen&f=false ).
Stephen, the son of Stephen, Count of Blois and Adela, daughter of William I was born in about 1097.
Henry II was born in Le Mans, France, on 5 March 1133.[1] His father, Geoffrey V of Anjou (Geoffrey Plantagenet, son of Fulk of Jerusalem), was Count of Anjou and Count of Maine. His mother, Empress Matilda, was a claimant to the English throne as the daughter of Henry I (1100–1135), son of William The Conqueror, Duke of Normandy.
It was a Plantagenet who said, after one of their massacres, "from the devil we come and to the devil we go".
Henry II' Henry II, the great-grandson of William the Conqueror, was the first of the House of Plantagenet to rule England.
mother matilda, daughter of henry I, son of Conky.
+
on father's side, a Plantagenet. Henry was the first to use the title "King of England" (as opposed to "King of the English").
King Stephen
mother adela, daughter of conky
+
stephen, count of blois
there are lots of sycophantic descriptions of the great looks of henry II, a little derogatory stuff re the looks of king stephen...it all smacks of feminists blindly siding with matilda, idiotically...
stephen was well established when matilda rebelled, and popular, and, a ...male...
the biased history vs stephen is refuted in
http://books.google.com/books?id=d_Uw7fhx82cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22king+stephen%22++conqueror&source=bl&ots=Qi9mqaK3q6&sig=kLTmee_be0VNASxuVar0gQHp72A&hl=en&ei=u7mvTJCtHYX7lwewzPjkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22king%20stephen%22%20%20conqueror&f=false
the constant prejudiced history is nauseating. "the time when christ and the angels slept" sounds poetic and dramatic, so the idiots write as if of course indeed this was a horrible time. They have no sense of exactitude regarding the crime and poverty that prevailed. For example, if the crime and poverty were twice what it usually was, that is different than it being ten times what it usually was, and, who can deny that during the middle ages, during every reign there was a certain level of crime and poverty?...the idiot historians find themselves incapable of blaming matilda for the crime and poverty that beset stephen's reign, though obviously, the cause of the crime and the poverty was matilda's rebellion....it all smacks of winners writing history, sycophants, and feminism...to this day the english are feminine, enthralled by female royalty...wonder how much damage matilda's rebellion v stephen has caused in terms of setting loose a tidal wave of feminism that can still be felt today...the effeminate streak in the english charaacter, the femfag thing, has caused god knows how much damage.
Undoubtedly during every reign in english history, at some time, some men said that christ and his angels slept or something to that effect. So the historians are idiots. writing to please the line that became established as royal.
the idiot historians for some reason are willing to consider a couple of catchy snappy sounding anti-stephen quotations from persons who obviously had a motive to slander stephen because they lived under the reign of the rebellious matilda's son henry (matilda rebelled v stephen), as sufficient to condemn stephen. Unbelievable.
stephen was a grandson of conky via saint adela. matilda was a grandson of conky via a less distinguished sibling.
feminists are so often idiotically simple minded and shallow in their thinking. For example, they forget that stephen's mother was St Adela daughter of conky, in their mania for matilda daughter of henry who was son of conky. The argument v stephen was that he was the son of a daughter of conky, whereas his rival matilda was a daughter of a son of conky, this is an antifeminist argument. Yet, the feminists blindly rush to the support of matilda, because matilda was female and stephen was not.
The normans of the time were accustomed to male rulers, such had served them well. stephen being related to conky through his mother, whereas matilda was related to conky through her father, should not by nature and common sense and tradition have been the deciding factor. When stephen's mom and matilda's dad were on center stage, there was no confusion re who was king. But when confusion developed, the natural heir would be the male stephen not the female matilda.
Anarchy developed when the natural male succession was interrupted by the rebellious and untraditional matilda, who rebelled against the well established and well liked leader Stephen. Anarchy did not develop when female claimants refrained from rebelling against male heirs. This is not coincidence. It indicates that the cause of the anarchy was the aberration of a female rebelling against a male heir.
The idiot historians pile up lists of complaints re the alleged incompetence of king stephen, completely neglecting that perhaps stephen was forced into allegedly incompetent decisions, due to the pressure of matilda's rebellion. Sometimes in sports the pressure of the other team is such, that one is forced to choose alternatives that one would not choose in the absence of such pressure; and even when the alternative is chosen wisely, the outcome is not as favorable as it would be if this pressure from the opponents had never existed. Same principles apply to war. Yet the idiot historians write as if they had never played sports, and had none of the common sense boys derive from sports. Might this be because they are fem fag feminists with a mania for matilda? For example it never occurs to the idiot historians, when they complain about st stephen being too forgiving with rebels, that perhaps the reason he was so forgiving was the pressure matilda was bringing to bear on him. Beyond belief. They compare stephen to other kings and remark that he was too soft compared to these other kings who were better than him--all the while completely neglecting to conceptualize, that these other kings did not face internal rebellion and civil war.
If someone said that a leader of a nation that was attacked by a powerful competitor, and who had to expend vast resources to fight back the aggressor, was a worse leader than another leader of the same nation who did not have to expend resources to fight any aggressor, simply because the leader who did not face aggression was able to generate more internal prosperity than the leader who had to fight aggression, you would be right to say that the someone who said this stupid thing is an idiot.
When Henry I died in 1125 precipitating the succession crisis, Stephen was 29 years old, and Matilda was 23. In those days the world of ruling nations was a man's world. Matilda was 6 years younger than Stephen. Yet Matilda rebelled.
Stephen's mother adela daughter of conky was literally a canonized saint; but way of contrast, Matilda's father Henry, son of conky, was a philanderer ("Henry had no problem siring children. His problem was fathering legitimate offspring, who could inherit the throne." -- http://www.webhistoryofengland.com/?p=1319 ) who produced no male heir, but rather lots of bastards! Henry was next in line after his brother Rufus, and seized the throne after Rufus was murdered!
Henry died in 1125
Matilda was born in 1102
stephen was born in 1196
they keep saying that stephen forgave men he should have executed as traitors. Yet their hero is matilda, chief
of the traitors!!!
Stephen was allegedly a norman only on the "spindle side" (mother's side). so also henry II (http://books.google.com/books?id=2L4VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA130&dq=hardrada&hl=en&ei=-WuvTKeTHMKqlAfChvTrDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=stephen&f=false ).
Stephen, the son of Stephen, Count of Blois and Adela, daughter of William I was born in about 1097.
Henry II was born in Le Mans, France, on 5 March 1133.[1] His father, Geoffrey V of Anjou (Geoffrey Plantagenet, son of Fulk of Jerusalem), was Count of Anjou and Count of Maine. His mother, Empress Matilda, was a claimant to the English throne as the daughter of Henry I (1100–1135), son of William The Conqueror, Duke of Normandy.
It was a Plantagenet who said, after one of their massacres, "from the devil we come and to the devil we go".
Henry II' Henry II, the great-grandson of William the Conqueror, was the first of the House of Plantagenet to rule England.
mother matilda, daughter of henry I, son of Conky.
+
on father's side, a Plantagenet. Henry was the first to use the title "King of England" (as opposed to "King of the English").
King Stephen
mother adela, daughter of conky
+
stephen, count of blois
there are lots of sycophantic descriptions of the great looks of henry II, a little derogatory stuff re the looks of king stephen...it all smacks of feminists blindly siding with matilda, idiotically...
stephen was well established when matilda rebelled, and popular, and, a ...male...
the biased history vs stephen is refuted in
http://books.google.com/books?id=d_Uw7fhx82cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22king+stephen%22++conqueror&source=bl&ots=Qi9mqaK3q6&sig=kLTmee_be0VNASxuVar0gQHp72A&hl=en&ei=u7mvTJCtHYX7lwewzPjkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22king%20stephen%22%20%20conqueror&f=false
the constant prejudiced history is nauseating. "the time when christ and the angels slept" sounds poetic and dramatic, so the idiots write as if of course indeed this was a horrible time. They have no sense of exactitude regarding the crime and poverty that prevailed. For example, if the crime and poverty were twice what it usually was, that is different than it being ten times what it usually was, and, who can deny that during the middle ages, during every reign there was a certain level of crime and poverty?...the idiot historians find themselves incapable of blaming matilda for the crime and poverty that beset stephen's reign, though obviously, the cause of the crime and the poverty was matilda's rebellion....it all smacks of winners writing history, sycophants, and feminism...to this day the english are feminine, enthralled by female royalty...wonder how much damage matilda's rebellion v stephen has caused in terms of setting loose a tidal wave of feminism that can still be felt today...the effeminate streak in the english charaacter, the femfag thing, has caused god knows how much damage.
Undoubtedly during every reign in english history, at some time, some men said that christ and his angels slept or something to that effect. So the historians are idiots. writing to please the line that became established as royal.
the idiot historians for some reason are willing to consider a couple of catchy snappy sounding anti-stephen quotations from persons who obviously had a motive to slander stephen because they lived under the reign of the rebellious matilda's son henry (matilda rebelled v stephen), as sufficient to condemn stephen. Unbelievable.
stephen was a grandson of conky via saint adela. matilda was a grandson of conky via a less distinguished sibling.
feminists are so often idiotically simple minded and shallow in their thinking. For example, they forget that stephen's mother was St Adela daughter of conky, in their mania for matilda daughter of henry who was son of conky. The argument v stephen was that he was the son of a daughter of conky, whereas his rival matilda was a daughter of a son of conky, this is an antifeminist argument. Yet, the feminists blindly rush to the support of matilda, because matilda was female and stephen was not.
The normans of the time were accustomed to male rulers, such had served them well. stephen being related to conky through his mother, whereas matilda was related to conky through her father, should not by nature and common sense and tradition have been the deciding factor. When stephen's mom and matilda's dad were on center stage, there was no confusion re who was king. But when confusion developed, the natural heir would be the male stephen not the female matilda.
Anarchy developed when the natural male succession was interrupted by the rebellious and untraditional matilda, who rebelled against the well established and well liked leader Stephen. Anarchy did not develop when female claimants refrained from rebelling against male heirs. This is not coincidence. It indicates that the cause of the anarchy was the aberration of a female rebelling against a male heir.
The idiot historians pile up lists of complaints re the alleged incompetence of king stephen, completely neglecting that perhaps stephen was forced into allegedly incompetent decisions, due to the pressure of matilda's rebellion. Sometimes in sports the pressure of the other team is such, that one is forced to choose alternatives that one would not choose in the absence of such pressure; and even when the alternative is chosen wisely, the outcome is not as favorable as it would be if this pressure from the opponents had never existed. Same principles apply to war. Yet the idiot historians write as if they had never played sports, and had none of the common sense boys derive from sports. Might this be because they are fem fag feminists with a mania for matilda? For example it never occurs to the idiot historians, when they complain about st stephen being too forgiving with rebels, that perhaps the reason he was so forgiving was the pressure matilda was bringing to bear on him. Beyond belief. They compare stephen to other kings and remark that he was too soft compared to these other kings who were better than him--all the while completely neglecting to conceptualize, that these other kings did not face internal rebellion and civil war.
If someone said that a leader of a nation that was attacked by a powerful competitor, and who had to expend vast resources to fight back the aggressor, was a worse leader than another leader of the same nation who did not have to expend resources to fight any aggressor, simply because the leader who did not face aggression was able to generate more internal prosperity than the leader who had to fight aggression, you would be right to say that the someone who said this stupid thing is an idiot.
When Henry I died in 1125 precipitating the succession crisis, Stephen was 29 years old, and Matilda was 23. In those days the world of ruling nations was a man's world. Matilda was 6 years younger than Stephen. Yet Matilda rebelled.
Stephen's mother adela daughter of conky was literally a canonized saint; but way of contrast, Matilda's father Henry, son of conky, was a philanderer ("Henry had no problem siring children. His problem was fathering legitimate offspring, who could inherit the throne." -- http://www.webhistoryofengland.com/?p=1319 ) who produced no male heir, but rather lots of bastards! Henry was next in line after his brother Rufus, and seized the throne after Rufus was murdered!
Henry died in 1125
Matilda was born in 1102
stephen was born in 1196
they keep saying that stephen forgave men he should have executed as traitors. Yet their hero is matilda, chief
of the traitors!!!
Labels: English history, Henry I, Henry II, King Stephen, Matilda
posted by David Virgil at 9:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home