English prince who was blamed for 637 years for a massacre is finally exonerated by historian who says it was actually committed by the FRENCH

[*]The Black Prince has been villified for centures for massacre in Limoges, France

[*]More than 3,000 people were apparently killed by Edward and his men

[*]But archival evidence worked on by a historian shows he did not carry out the attack

[*]In fact, angry French killed their own countrymen after the gate was raised 


An historian has exonerated the Black Prince for a massacre that took place more than 600 years ago, after discovering it was actually committed by vengeful French soldiers. Edward of Woodstock's reputation was tarnished by the account of a French chronicler who said he ordered the massacre of 3,000 innocent people in the French town of Limoges during the Hundred Years War between England and France. The prince, who was the eldest son and heir of Edward III, has been known as The Black Prince since the 16th century because of the massacre and is still vilified in some quarters in France to this day.

However, remarkable new evidence has emerged which suggests the prince, who was the ruler of Aquitaine in south-western France, did not order the massacre during the sack of Limoges on September 19, 1370. In fact, it was the French forces who butchered 3,000 of their countrymen because they opened the gates of Limoges to let the English in. The fascinating findings are in a new biography of the prince by military historian Michael Jones who says he wants to 'remove an unwarranted stain on the prince's reputation'.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4776944/English-prince-exonerated-massacre-637-years-ago.html#ixzz4pKrPqubs 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook





Interesting and will have to read the book.

Wow, that's really interesting. Funny how history gets rewritten over the years.

I always thought he was called the Black Prince because he wore black armour.

magica wrote:Wow, that's really interesting. Funny how history gets rewritten over the years.

I always thought he was called the Black Prince because he wore black armour.

It is what is great about history. History has often been written with a confirmation bias, especially by those who were the victors. Its about weighing up all the evidence and this seems a very interesting book, that has reexamined the written works.

I love History Thor, I read so much of it, or visit and watch historical programmes. They're thought provoking too.

I remember a Vincent MOTOR CYCLE called Black Prince, or was it Black Shadow, anyone?

I don't know Nicko but I'm sure someone must know

nicko wrote:I remember a Vincent MOTOR CYCLE called Black Prince,   or was it Black Shadow,      anyone?

Vincent Black Shadow...



The Black Prince was the Prince of Wales, but he predeceased his father, Edward III by a year, so he missed the hot spot.  The line passed to his son, Richard II, who was subsequently deposed by the Earl of Bolingbroke, Henry IV, starting what was later called the Wars of the Roses, between the the houses of Lancaster and York.

I'd love that between my legs !

magica wrote:I love History Thor, I read so much of it, or visit and watch historical programmes. They're thought provoking too.

Me too Magica, I love reading history..

So much to learn. Do you have any specific areas you like?

nicko wrote:I'd love that between my legs !

It's a beauty, isn't it?  The Vincent was one of those British bikes that were beautifully engineered.  Whereas normally the Brits came out with high-compression engines--temperamental, high maintenance, low dependability--the Vincent Series-C around 1948, was a 7.3:1, steady, dependable engine.

Some of the best British motorcycles were 4-cylinder engines.  They were beautiful, smooth rides.  There are clubs today around the fours.  They include the Ariel Square-4 and Norton, among others.

But we digress...

I had two Norton Dominators, one Dom 88, a 500cc and one Dom 99 a 600cc job. Both sounded like a bag of nails until you got above 30mph, then engine note changed to a satisfying roar. Both stuck to the road like glue due to the famous Norton Featherbed Frame!

Thorin wrote:

magica wrote:I love History Thor, I read so much of it, or visit and watch historical programmes. They're thought provoking too.

Me too Magica, I love reading history..

So much to learn. Do you have any specific areas you like?

I love all things Tudor, just love that era and Roman era too.

nicko wrote:I'd love that between my legs !

Tart

Yes please, Apple with Custard !

magica wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Me too Magica, I love reading history..

So much to learn. Do you have any specific areas you like?

I love all things Tudor, just love that era and Roman era too.

Actually, the Black Prince (Edward) and his brothers were Plantagenets.  The Lancasters were descendants of John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III, and the Yorks came out of Edmund, fourth son of Edward III.

The Welsh Tudurs were out of a bastard line of John of Gaunt and his mistress, Catherine Swinford (Beauforts), and they lasted for only 118-years.  Bad luck getting pregnant, those Tudurs.

nicko wrote:Yes please, Apple with Custard !

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:

I love all things Tudor, just love that era and Roman era too.

Actually, the Black Prince (Edward) and his brothers were Plantagenets.  The Lancasters were descendants of John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III, and the Yorks came out of Edmund, fourth son of Edward III.

The Welsh Tudurs were out of a bastard line of John of Gaunt and his mistress, Catherine Swinford (Beauforts), and they lasted for only 118-years.  Bad luck getting pregnant, those Tudurs.

I know they wasn't Tudor. I was just replying to Thor about who I like in History.

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:

I love all things Tudor, just love that era and Roman era too.

Actually, the Black Prince (Edward) and his brothers were Plantagenets.  The Lancasters were descendants of John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III, and the Yorks came out of Edmund, fourth son of Edward III.

The Welsh Tudurs were out of a bastard line of John of Gaunt and his mistress, Catherine Swinford (Beauforts), and they lasted for only 118-years.  Bad luck getting pregnant, those Tudurs.

Wrong, the Lancasters had little to do with the Tudors until much later with the line of Owen Tudor. Until Owen's Grandson Henry came to the fore, all were Plantagenants. It was because of Henry V's widow who married Owen. He was the Grand Father of Henry VII. The Lancasters were from Henry IV who usurped the throne from Richard II. Who was the son of the Black Prince. So the Lancasters did not derive from the Tudors. The Tudors took up the cause of the Lancasters Quill.

The Beauforts were neither Plantagenet nor Tudur. John Beaufort was the bastard son of John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford. He was given the title of 'Earl' and his son was elevated to 'Duke' of Somerset. His daughter, Margaret Beaufort, married Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond, and they beget Henry VII...who defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, ending the Plantagenet dynasty.

However, Henry VII did marry Elizabeth York, daughter of (York) King Edward IV.

Original Quill wrote:The Beauforts were neither Plantagenet nor Tudur.  John Beaufort was the bastard son of John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford.  He was given the title of 'Earl' and his son was elevated to 'Duke' of Somerset.  His daughter, Margaret Beaufort, married Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond, and they beget Henry VII...who defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, ending the Plantagenet dynasty.

However, Henry VII did marry Elizabeth York, daughter of (York) King Edward IV.

Wrong again. As John Guant was Plantagenet. The Tudors only started with Owen Tudor, who took on the cause of the Lancastrians. So what you had was Plantagenets marry into the Tudor Family. That Lancastrians stem from John Guant through to Henry IV, through to Henry V and his son Henry VI. So the vast majority were Plantagenets Quill, until the cause was taken up by the Tudors.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The Beauforts were neither Plantagenet nor Tudur.  John Beaufort was the bastard son of John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford.  He was given the title of 'Earl' and his son was elevated to 'Duke' of Somerset.  His daughter, Margaret Beaufort, married Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond, and they beget Henry VII...who defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, ending the Plantagenet dynasty.

However, Henry VII did marry Elizabeth York, daughter of (York) King Edward IV.

Wrong again. As John Guant was Plantagenet. The Tudors only started with Owen Tudor, who took on the cause of the Lancastrians. So what you had was Plantagenets marry into the Tudor Family.

Margaret Beoufort was not a Plantagenet, but a Beaufort.  She married Edmund Tudur, son of Owen Tudur and Kathrine of France.  I think you wouldn't lose sight of things if you were more specific, and named precise names.  Families married families, and such vague references, doesn't cut it.

Thorin wrote:That Lancastrians stem from John Guant through to Henry IV, through to Henry V and his son Henry VI.

Actually, the Lancasters stem from John of Gaunt's first wife, Blanche of Lancaster.  John of Gaunt was the father of Henry IV, not "through" him.

Thorin wrote:So the vast majority were Plantagenets Quill, until the cause was taken up by the Tudors.

WTF are you talking about?  "Vast majorities?"  "Cause taken up?"  You are talking in vagaries.

Name the names, and say what the connection is, as in: "Margaret Beaufort married Edmund Tudur, and they had a son, Henry VII, who beat Richard III at Bosworth Field, thus ending the Plantagenet dynasty.

or,

The Plantagenets died out with Richard III.  

No "majorities" and "causes".  Just marriages and issue.  I recommend the Oxford History of the British Monarchy.  It's the one I use in my university teaching.

Original Quill wrote:[

Actually, the Lancasters stem from John of Gaunt's first wife, Blanche of Lancaster.  John of Gaunt was the father of Henry IV, not "through" him.

WTF are you talking about?  "Vast majorities?"  "Cause taken up?"  You are talking in vagaries.

Name the names, and say what the connection is, as in: "Margaret Beaufort married Edmund Tudur, and they had a son, Henry VII, who beat Richard III at Bosworth Field, thus ending the Plantagenet dynasty.

or,

The Plantagenets died out with Richard III.  

No "majorities" and "causes".  Just marriages and issue.  I recommend the Oxford History of the British Monarchy.  It's the one I use in my university teaching.

1) Piss poor knowledge of English history as Blanche of Lancaster, was a Plantagenet. Her father was Henry of Grosmont, who's father was Henry, 3rd Earl of Leicester and Lancaster. The Grandson of Henry III.

2) So as can seen John Guant was a Plantagenet and married a Plantagenet. So both lines are from English Royal Plantagenet Kings. I never even said through him with Lancastrians, but I said through to. Talk about a desperate lie invented off nothing I stated

3) The Tudors again as stated took up the cause of the Plantagenets Lancastrians which started with Owen Tudor and his line. Though they had no case to the throne through Owen. So Owen is the founder of the Tudor Dynasty. But Henry VII had a very weak claim to the throne through his mother Margaret the great granddaughter of John Gaunt.

Many saw Henry IV as an Usurper. Even when Henry V took the throne, many thought he was not the rightful Heir to the throne. Only Agincourt changed that view for good.

So lets not side track off your original error on the House of Lancaster. Who you poorly argued were not Plantagenet's.

magica wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Me too Magica, I love reading history..

So much to learn. Do you have any specific areas you like?

I love all things Tudor, just love that era and Roman era too.

That is cool. I have many I love, the ancient Carthaginians, the Ancient Greeks, Ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, the Celts, The Anglo Saxons, the Vikings and more so military history in the last couple of centuries. I have a love of reading the "War of the Roses".

I have a fascination with Celtic and Spartan women. Who were held in high esteem for the time.



Anyway, have a good evening Magica.

Night

alt.history wrote:

Original Quill wrote:[

Actually, the Lancasters stem from John of Gaunt's first wife, Blanche of Lancaster.  John of Gaunt was the father of Henry IV, not "through" him.

WTF are you talking about?  "Vast majorities?"  "Cause taken up?"  You are talking in vagaries.

Name the names, and say what the connection is, as in: "Margaret Beaufort married Edmund Tudur, and they had a son, Henry VII, who beat Richard III at Bosworth Field, thus ending the Plantagenet dynasty.

or,

The Plantagenets died out with Richard III.  

No "majorities" and "causes".  Just marriages and issue.  I recommend the Oxford History of the British Monarchy.  It's the one I use in my university teaching.

1) Piss poor knowledge of English history as Blanche of Lancaster, was a Plantagenet. Her father was Henry of Grosmont, who's father was Henry, 3rd Earl of Leicester and Lancaster. The Grandson of Henry III.

2) So as can seen John Guant was a Plantagenet and married a Plantagenet. So both lines are from English Royal Plantagenet Kings. I never even said through him with Lancastrians, but I said through to. Talk about a desperate lie invented off nothing I stated

3) The Tudors again as stated took up the cause of the Plantagenets Lancastrians which started with Owen Tudor and his line. Though they had no case to the throne through Owen. So Owen is the founder of the Tudor Dynasty. But Henry VII had a very weak claim to the throne through his mother Margaret the great granddaughter of John Gaunt.

Many saw Henry IV as an Usurper. Even when Henry V took the throne, many thought he was not the rightful Heir to the throne. Only Agincourt changed that view for good.

So lets not side track off your original error on the House of Lancaster. Who you poorly argued were not Plantagenet's.

When did I ever say that Lancesters were not Plantagenets? Edward the Black Prince and John of Gaunt were brothers, so how could they not be of the same family? I argue against your contention that the Tudurs were Plantagenets.

By your theory, Queen Elizabeth II is a Stuart and James I was an Angevin? That's as idiotic as your claim that Margaret Tudur was Henry VIII's daughter. I'll be calling you "alt.history" from now on.

alt.history wrote:

Original Quill wrote:[

Actually, the Lancasters stem from John of Gaunt's first wife, Blanche of Lancaster.  John of Gaunt was the father of Henry IV, not "through" him.

WTF are you talking about?  "Vast majorities?"  "Cause taken up?"  You are talking in vagaries.

Name the names, and say what the connection is, as in: "Margaret Beaufort married Edmund Tudur, and they had a son, Henry VII, who beat Richard III at Bosworth Field, thus ending the Plantagenet dynasty.

or,

The Plantagenets died out with Richard III.  

No "majorities" and "causes".  Just marriages and issue.  I recommend the Oxford History of the British Monarchy.  It's the one I use in my university teaching.

1) Piss poor knowledge of English history as Blanche of Lancaster, was a Plantagenet. Her father was Henry of Grosmont, who's father was Henry, 3rd Earl of Leicester and Lancaster. The Grandson of Henry III.

2) So as can seen John Guant was a Plantagenet and married a Plantagenet. So both lines are from English Royal Plantagenet Kings. I never even said through him with Lancastrians, but I said through to. Talk about a desperate lie invented off nothing I stated

3) The Tudors again as stated took up the cause of the Plantagenets Lancastrians which started with Owen Tudor and his line. Though they had no case to the throne through Owen. So Owen is the founder of the Tudor Dynasty. But Henry VII had a very weak claim to the throne through his mother Margaret the great granddaughter of John Gaunt.

Many saw Henry IV as an Usurper. Even when Henry V took the throne, many thought he was not the rightful Heir to the throne. Only Agincourt changed that view for good.

So lets not side track off your original error on the House of Lancaster. Who you poorly argued were not Plantagenet's.

When did I ever say that Lancesters were not Plantagenets? Edward the Black Prince and John of Gaunt were brothers, so how could they not be of the same family? I argue against your contention that the Tudurs were Plantagenets.

By your theory, Queen Elizabeth II is a Stuart and James I was an Angevin? That's as idiotic as your claim that Margaret Tudur was Henry VIII's daughter. I'll be calling you "alt.history" from now on.

Revisionist History Quill wrote:

When did I ever say that Lancesters were not Plantagenets?  Edward the Black Prince and John of Gaunt were brothers, so how could they not be of the same family?  I argue against your contention that the Tudurs were Plantagenets.  

By your theory, Queen Elizabeth II is a Stuart and James I was an Angevin?  That's as idiotic as your claim that Margaret Tudur was Henry VIII's daughter.  I'll be calling you "alt.history" from now on.  

Read back as you said:

Revisionist History Quill wrote:The Beauforts were neither Plantagenet nor Tudur.

The Beaufords were Plantangenents.

Never claimed the Tudors were Plantagenents, maybe you can show where I did.??

As stated the Tudors started with Owen Tudor

The reality is you again know little of English history and its embarrassing how you are quite ignorant of this era of history. I suggest next time you jump in looking cocky towards Magica. You actually learn some real history as you got it wrong and made yourself look a tit.

Blanche of Lancaster (25 March 1345/1347 – 12 September 1368) was a member of the English royal House of Plantagenet and the daughter of the kingdom's wealthiest and most powerful peer, Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster. She was the first wife of John of Gaunt, the mother of King Henry IV, and the grandmother of King Henry V of England

So to further educate you

1) Piss poor knowledge of English history as Blanche of Lancaster, was a Plantagenet. Her father was Henry of Grosmont, who's father was Henry, 3rd Earl of Leicester and Lancaster. The Grandson of Henry III.

2) So as can seen John Guant was a Plantagenet and married a Plantagenet. So both lines are from English Royal Plantagenet Kings. I never even said through him with Lancastrians, but I said through to. Talk about a desperate lie invented off nothing I stated

3) The Tudors again as stated took up the cause of the Plantagenets Lancastrians which started with Owen Tudor and his line. Though they had no case to the throne through Owen. So Owen is the founder of the Tudor Dynasty. But Henry VII had a very weak claim to the throne through his mother Margaret the great granddaughter of John Gaunt.

Many saw Henry IV as an Usurper. Even when Henry V took the throne, many thought he was not the rightful Heir to the throne. Only Agincourt changed that view for good.

So lets not side track off your original error on the House of Lancaster. Who you poorly argued were not Plantagenet's.

1)  Red herring.  Everybody knows that the original Earl of Lancaster, Edmund, was brother to Edward I.  Of course brothers are going to be of the same family.

2)  You've lost the plot.  You were trying to argue that the Tudurs were the same as the Plantagenets, which is of course, absurd.

3)  You've changed your weasel-whistle.  Whereas before you were saying that the Tudurs were Plantagenets, now you are saying it was a "weak claim".  Nonsense.  The mother of Henry VII was Margaret Beaufort, out of a bastard line of John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynfort.  Not only are illegitimate children not permitted to inherit a claim under Salic law, but when Henry IV became King he specifically disallowed by edict the Beaufort's dynastic claim.  There simply was no claim for the Tudurs or Henry VII.

Henry IV was the usurper.  He deposed Richard II illegally.  Even if Richard were somehow negated, the crown would and should have gone through the second son of Edward III, Lionel, Duke of Clarence.  In no way did the Lancasters have any entitlement to the throne.  Edward IV York, however, was the descendant of Lionel through daughter Phillipa.  The Yorks did have a claim.

Revisionist History Quill wrote:1)  Red herring.  Everybody knows that the original Earl of Lancaster, Edmund, was brother to Edward I.  Of course brothers are going to be of the same family.

Thorin wrote: And thus a Plantagenent, which you tried to claim they were not and thus the problem here and is always the case with you Quill. Is not whether you are right or wrong on history. Its your inability to believe you are ever wrong on history

2)  You've lost the plot.  You were trying to argue that the Tudurs were the same as the Plantagenets, which is of course, absurd.

Thorin wrote:Never made any such argument at all. As stated the line of a house is through the male line and in this case the male line is with Owen of Tudor. Hence why Henry VII is a Tudor. His line on his mother's side is from the Plantagenet, but his Fathers line is Tudor

3)  You've changed your weasel-whistle.  Whereas before you were saying that the Tudurs were Plantagenets, now you are saying it was a "weak claim".  Nonsense.  The mother of Henry VII was Margaret Beaufort, out of a bastard line of John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynfort.  Not only are illegitimate children not permitted to inherit a claim under Salic law, but when Henry IV became King he specifically disallowed by edict the Beaufort's dynastic claim.  There simply was no claim for the Tudurs or Henry VII.

Thorin wrote: Again as stated never made any such claim and the fact you cannot even show that I have shows you are trying to weasel out of your poor understanding of history and the linage of Historical characters. Margaret Beauford was a Plantagenent, but the line is not based of the female line but of that of the male line through the Tudors. There was little claim for Henry IV either, who had to fight to keep the throne after he had upsurbed this from Richard II. So it matters little that he disallowed by edict the Beuforts Dynastic claim

Henry IV was the usurper.  He deposed Richard II illegally.  Even if Richard were somehow negated, the crown would and should have gone to the second son of Edward III, Lionel, Duke of Clarence.  In no way did the Lancasters have any entitlement to the throne.  Edward IV York, however, was the descendant of Lionel through daughter Phillipa.

Yes i was the one that pointed out to you that Henry IV and the House of Lancaster (who were still Plantagenet's by the way), were Usurpers. Not sure how you failed to read also this educational part of history I showed you. Which means even more as i stated that the claim to the throne by Henry VII was even weaker.

So we see once again you cannot admit to your glaring errors here and even worse try to lie and claim things i have not even said, in some form off desperation to cover up for your woeful gaffs here.

Thorin wrote:Yes i was the one that pointed out to you that Henry IV and the House of Lancaster (who were still Plantagenet's by the way), were Usurpers. Not sure how you failed to read also this educational part of history I showed you. Which means even more as i stated that the claim to the throne by Henry VII was even weaker.

When I said that Henry IV had deposed Richard II, did you think I meant he politely asked? You are going through a lot of trouble for one merely repeating what I said.

Or, is it that there is just an echo in here? Alt.history, indeed. You are just waiting until I say it, so that you can learn.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Yes i was the one that pointed out to you that Henry IV and the House of Lancaster (who were still Plantagenet's by the way), were Usurpers. Not sure how you failed to read also this educational part of history I showed you. Which means even more as i stated that the claim to the throne by Henry VII was even weaker.

When I said that Henry IV had deposed Richard II, did you think I meant he politely asked?  You are going through a lot of trouble for one merely repeating what I said.  

Or, is it that there is just an echo in here?  Alt.history, indeed.  You are just waiting until I say it, so that you can learn.  

See again you prove my point.

Is not whether you are right or wrong on history. Its your inability to believe you are ever wrong on history.

You made some whopping errors here which you poorly are now trying to misdirect away from.

All can see that you did. Its time Quill you learnt to show some humility when you make mistakes.

Next time don't jump in all cocky to Magica. Who was merely explaining what they liked on history to me. When you then get it majorly wrong yourself. As you will always get your fingers burnt as you did here with someone of my historical knowledge.

Thorin wrote:Is not whether you are right or wrong on history. Its your inability to believe you are ever wrong on history.

Is that your definition of Alt.history? You lost, but more significantly it's the way you lost. At each succeeding post you took what I had just said and repeated it.

They say that emulation is the finest form of flattery. I guess so, but it's not as fun as discussing with someone who can contribute.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Is not whether you are right or wrong on history. Its your inability to believe you are ever wrong on history.

Is that your definition of Alt.history?  You lost, but more significantly it's the way you lost.  At each succeeding post you took what I had just said and repeated it.

They say that emulation is the finest form of flattery.  I guess so, but it's not as fun as discussing with someone who can contribute.  

This needs repeating

See again you prove my point.

Is not whether you are right or wrong on history. Its your inability to believe you are ever wrong on history.

You made some whopping errors here which you poorly are now trying to misdirect away from.

All can see that you did. Its time Quill you learnt to show some humility when you make mistakes.

Next time don't jump in all cocky to Magica. Who was merely explaining what they liked on history to me. When you then get it majorly wrong yourself. As you will always get your fingers burnt as you did here with someone of my historical knowledge.

Thorin wrote:

magica wrote:

I love all things Tudor, just love that era and Roman era too.

That is cool. I have many I love, the ancient Carthaginians, the Ancient Greeks, Ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, the Celts, The Anglo Saxons, the Vikings and more so military history in the last couple of centuries. I have a love of reading the "War of the Roses".

I have a fascination with Celtic and Spartan women. Who were held in high esteem for the time.



Anyway, have a good evening Magica.

Night

History makes fascinating reading. I also think history repeats itself. Different country, different era, but the same.

I too love ancient Egypt, fascinated by their knowledge of the stars. Building pyramids, their whole culture. Vikings too. WW1 is a big love of mine as is biblical times.

In fact I just love History.

magica wrote:

Thorin wrote:

That is cool. I have many I love, the ancient Carthaginians, the Ancient Greeks, Ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, the Celts, The Anglo Saxons, the Vikings and more so military history in the last couple of centuries. I have a love of reading the "War of the Roses".

I have a fascination with Celtic and Spartan women. Who were held in high esteem for the time.



Anyway, have a good evening Magica.

Night

History makes fascinating reading. I also think history repeats itself. Different country, different era, but the same.

I too love ancient Egypt, fascinated by their knowledge of the stars. Building pyramids, their whole culture. Vikings too. WW1 is a big love of mine as is biblical times.

In fact I just love History.

Am reading the following book at the moment. Have to go, so have a good day.



Many of us were put off history by the dry and dreary way it was taught at school. Back then 'The Origins of the Industrial Revolution' somehow seemed less compelling than the chance to test the bold claim on Timothy Johnson's 'Shatterproof' ruler.But here at last is a chance to have a good laugh and learn all that stuff you feel you really ought to know by now...

In this 'Horrible History for Grown Ups' you can read how Anglo-Saxon liberals struggled to be positive about immigration; 'Look I think we have to try and respect the religious customs of our new Viking friends - oi, he's nicked my bloody ox!'Discover how England's peculiar class system was established by some snobby French nobles whose posh descendents still have wine cellars and second homes in the Dordogne today. And explore the complex socio-economic reasons why Britain's kings were the first in Europe to be brought to heel; (because the Stuarts were such a useless bunch of untalented, incompetent, arrogant, upper-class thickoes that Parliament didn't have much choice.)

A book about then that is also incisive and illuminating about now, '2000 Years of Upper Class Idiots in Charge', is an hilarious, informative and cantankerous journey through Britain' fascinating and bizarre history.As entertaining as a witch burning, and a lot more laughs.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is that your definition of Alt.history?  You lost, but more significantly it's the way you lost.  At each succeeding post you took what I had just said and repeated it.

They say that emulation is the finest form of flattery.  I guess so, but it's not as fun as discussing with someone who can contribute.  

This needs repeating

See again you prove my point.

Is not whether you are right or wrong on history. Its your inability to believe you are ever wrong on history.

You made some whopping errors here which you poorly are now trying to misdirect away from.

All can see that you did. Its time Quill you learnt to show some humility when you make mistakes.

Next time don't jump in all cocky to Magica. Who was merely explaining what they liked on history to me. When you then get it majorly wrong yourself. As you will always get your fingers burnt as you did here with someone of my historical knowledge.

Stop trying to groom members to build up your gang, didge.  For you, this ego game is what it is all about:

Thorin wrote:
All can see...
Its time Quill you learnt to show some humility when you make mistakes.,,,
Next time don't jump in all cocky to Magica...

Magica has nothing to do with this exchange.  It's about your pathetic insecurities.  You are a phony when it comes to history.  You're just trying to win your sorry little personal game by faux feigning popularity and insulting others.  Unfortunately, truth has a vote.

Didge, from the beginning you have tried to nurse your insecurities by tearing others down.  At first, you tried to impress us by pumping-up your half-baked education.  Then you went on your C&P program, trying to intimate that those words--doh, such smart sounding words--were your own.  Now, you strive to build a little gang, very much like Trump and his so-called "base".

In this latter, we see you've grown from personal sleights, to grooming a brown-shirt gang.  I think Hitler used that path, beginning in beer halls in Munich.  Whether Trump or Hitler is the model, you are using the same human dynamic to fill that great big hole in your middle.  When it's just you, you look stupid.  But when it affects others, you sow discord all around you.

In the end, you are just a hollow phony.  Is that the legacy you wish to leave your children? Do you want them to grow up rolling their eyes at everything you say? Because they'll see for what you really are...guaranteed.  How much better if, intellectually, you started doing an honest day's work for your paycheck.  Then your children can be proud of you.

Original Quill wrote:
Stop trying to groom members to build up your gang, didge.  For you, this ego game is what it is all about:

Thorin wrote: I do not do gangs Quill. Again this brialliant shows your inability to admit you can be wrong by you inventing Gibberish. As at any point has Magica attacked you here or have I called her too?

No

So cut the crap, nobody is buying.

The fact you think I groom women posters shows how pathetically low you can go when in the wrong, as if I thus abuse them. You really have made yourself look a right idiot on that Quill. As what you are suggesting is that the women posters here are thus weak and easily manipulated. Your sexism is shining through mate

Magica has nothing to do with this exchange.  It's about your pathetic insecurities.  You are a phony when it comes to history.  You're just trying to win your sorry little personal game by faux feigning popularity and insulting others.  Unfortunately, truth has a vote.

Thorin wrote: I do not do gangs Quill. Again this brilliantly shows your inability to admit you can be wrong by you inventing Gibberish. As at any point has Magica attacked you here or have I called her too?
No
So cut the crap, nobody is buying

Didge, from the beginning you have tried to nurse your insecurities by tearing others down.  At first, you tried to impress us by pumping-up your half-baked education.  Then you went on your C&P program, trying to intimate that those words--doh, such smart sounding words--were your own.  Now, you strive to build a little gang, very much like Trump and his so-called "base".

Thorin wrote: Wow even more misdirection and I have no insecurities Quill. The faact you are now debating me personally and not the points at hand shows emphatically how wrong you were and still cannot admit you were in error. All I did was use one bit of C&P on Beuafort and this some how makes you upset that it made you look woefully ignorant of this error of history. Even funnier I know you are wrong as you then invoke the most stupid comparisons to now myself and Trump. Seriously how desperate are you Quill?

In this latter, we see you've grown from personal sleights, to grooming a brown-shirt gang.  I think Hitler used that path, beginning in beer halls in Munich.  Whether Trump or Hitler is the model, you are using the same human dynamic to fill that great big hole in your middle.  When it's just you, you look stupid.  But when it affects others, you sow discord all around you.

Thorin wrote:So now invoking Hitler,  which really is clutching at straws and shows how annoyed you are that I made you look rather simple here on English history and even more when I just simple invoke Godwins law.
So lets cut the crap shall we Quill, you made some whopping errors here and now all you can do is bitch and moan like a 2 year old

In the end, you are just a hollow phony.  Is that the legacy you wish to leave your children?  Do you want them to grow up rolling their eyes at everything you say?  Because they'll see for what you really are...guaranteed.  How much better if, intellectually, you started doing an honest day's work for your paycheck.  Then your children can be proud of you.

So you think I am a phony. Whoppdedoo.  If I was part of gangs I would not have stood up for you on the other thread where Tommy has hounded you. You see I never pick sides and only defend against where people are either picked on as you were there or where people make false accusations. I defend those wrongfully accused as you have done many times and ignorantly so by calling Horatio a he and both her and Syl racist. You have to resort to poor infantile insults and abuse when shown to be wrong which proves my point on your inability to admit when wrong

All this shows is that you are nothing more than a sore loser Quill

I suggest you stick to law because at history you suck

There is an awful lot of personal analysing of other posters going on here lately...and I suspect most of it is way off the mark.

Quill....why do you mention 'grooming' again....you have accused me of this in the past, now Thor.

I know I don't and I don't think he does either....he can back someone up as quickly as he can pull someone down, that's hardly grooming, it has the opposite effect in fact.

Also, what makes you think other posters here are able to be 'groomed' even if that was the intention?
You must think some are quite weak minded if you presume they could be 'groomed' so easily by a stranger on a debate forum.

Syl wrote:There is an awful lot of personal analysing of other posters going on here lately...and I suspect most of it is way off the mark.

Quill....why do you mention 'grooming' again....you have accused me of this in the past, now Thor.

I know I don't and I don't think he does either....he can back someone up as quickly as he can pull someone down, that's hardly grooming, it has the opposite effect in fact.

Also, what makes you think other posters here are able to be 'groomed' even if that was the intention?
You must think some are quite weak minded if you presume they could be 'groomed' so easily by a stranger on a debate forum.

Well i would not take much note, its his anger coming out here and that he does not mean it.

I do not take sides, as you well know and only defend people when wrongly ganged up on or accused and take anyone to task if I see them in the wrong. I like to think all posters here are strong minded. Some have confirmation bias in regards to friendships on debates, but that is normal. You, Horatio, Rags hold your own with me when in heated debate, but I and you move on as well as others. I do not hold grudges. As life is too short.

The reality is he has tried to get at me, and there is only one reason. He did not like me belittling his incorrect views on this history.

So I take what Quill said with a pinch of salt, it was only done to misdirect from his failings and errors here. It was nothing more than  him lashing out.

Its all getting a bit personal though....what happened to debate the thread not the poster?

We need Ben back in the saddle I think...its like Lord of the flies round here lately.

Thorin wrote:So you think I am a phony. Whoppdedoo.  If I was part of gangs I would not have stood up for you on the other thread where Tommy has hounded you. You see I never pick sides and only defend against where people are either picked on as you were there or where people make false accusations. I defend those wrongfully accused as you have done many times and ignorantly so by calling Horatio a he and both her and Syl racist. You have to resort to poor infantile insults and abuse when shown to be wrong which proves my point on your inability to admit when wrong

You didn't stand up for me.  You did that to create appearances of equity.  You were setting up the next fight, and I'se born and raised in the brer patch and could see that coming.

Thorin wrote:All this shows is that you are nothing more than a sore loser Quill

What it shows is that you've got a mind toward gang building.  You are now thinking in terms of grooming others to bend them to your own ends.

Thorin wrote:I suggest you stick to law because at history you suck

Then how do you account for the fact that I was right.  To put it bluntly, I won!  The Tudurs were not Plantagenets.  The House of Lancaster and the House of York were dukedoms, not dynasties.  On the other hand, the Tudurs started a new dynasty.

Go back to what I was saying.  In the end, intellectual laziness inevitably reveals itself.  That's why I reference your children...children will always make out a phony.  

Good lord man, you have spent so much more energy trying to cover up your own self-created potholes (in your history studies), than if you'd simply done the honest research work in the first place.  And your professors would have permitted completion of your degree, instead if giving you a wash-out certificate.

Anyway, sad as it might be, it's not my problem.  However you are...as an infection around here.  I'm calling you up on your grooming campaign around here because this place isn't some sort of gangland.  It's supposed to be a reasonable debating site, where ideas, not people, are the things you shape.

Syl wrote:Its all getting a bit personal though....what happened to debate the thread not the poster?

We need Ben back in the saddle I think...its like Lord of the flies round here lately.

How about something to clam the mood?



How about this.

Original Quill wrote:

You didn't stand up for me.  You did that to create appearances of equity.  You were setting up the next fight, and I'se born and raised in the brer patch and could see that coming.

Thorin wrote:Yes i did stand up for you Quill and this has nothing to do with equality. I just do not like seeing posters picked on. You were by Tommy other him getting at you because you made some genuine errors on the geography of London

What it shows is that you've got a mind toward gang building.  You are now thinking in terms of grooming others to bend them to your own ends.

Thorin wrote:Where is my gang and who is attacking you?
You see all you are doing is yet again proving your inability to admit when wrong, by you lashing out acting like a toddler

Then how do you account for the fact that I was right.  To put it bluntly, I won!  The Tudurs were not Plantagenets.  The House of Lancaster and the House of York were dukedoms, not dynasties.  On the other hand, the Tudurs started a new dynasty.

Thorin wrote:The House of Lancaster and York were Plantagenet's. Nobody said the Tudors were Plantagenet's, as this house came from Owen Tudor. Henry VII claim though came from his mothers side who were Plantagenet's. He could not have made a claim to the throne based off the house of Tudor. It had to be through the Plantagenet family. Hence why you keep really screwing up here.

Go back to what I was saying.  In the end, intellectual laziness inevitable reveals itself.  That's why I reference your children...children will always make out a phony.  

Thorin wrote:It was sheer ignorance on your part here and anger how you have lashed out, because I corrected your errors that you have turned to the most pathetic childish rersponses

Anyway, sad as it might be, it's not my problem.  However you are...as an infection around here.  I'm calling you up on your grooming campaign around here because this place isn't some sort of gangland.  It's supposed to be a reasonable debating site, where ideas, not people, at the things you shape.

So let me correct you once again and lets see if you are humble enough to admit you were actually wrong

So to further educate you

1) Piss poor knowledge of English history as Blanche of Lancaster, was a Plantagenet. Her father was Henry of Grosmont, who's father was Henry, 3rd Earl of Leicester and Lancaster. The Grandson of Henry III.

2) So as can seen John Guant was a Plantagenet and married a Plantagenet. So both lines are from English Royal Plantagenet Kings. I never even said through him with Lancastrians, but I said through to. Talk about a desperate lie invented off nothing I stated

3) The Tudors again as stated took up the cause of the Plantagenets Lancastrians which started with Owen Tudor and his line. Though they had no case to the throne through Owen. So Owen is the founder of the Tudor Dynasty. But Henry VII had a very weak claim to the throne through his mother Margaret the great granddaughter of John Gaunt.

Many saw Henry IV as an Usurper. Even when Henry V took the throne, many thought he was not the rightful Heir to the throne. Only Agincourt changed that view for good.

So lets not side track off your original error on the House of Lancaster. Who you poorly argued were not Plantagenet's.