PDA

View Full Version : Tomb of Edward the Confessor.....


Resource Consumer
02-12-2005, 12:12:25
....maybe. Amazing to think that it was down under people's feet all this time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4489842.stm

Venom
02-12-2005, 13:05:42
So there's a king buried in the floor of Westminster Abby? NO WAY!

Resource Consumer
02-12-2005, 13:47:13
Surprised hey! Amazing that he didn't say anything as they laid the floor over him. Shows those royals are complete retards

Venom
02-12-2005, 14:39:43
Somebody must not have liked him.

"Let's get another couple of rows of pews over that Confessor twat."

Oerdin
02-12-2005, 15:06:35
Since he was defeated and killed in 1066 and it was left to William to decid where to bury him maybe this was something of a joke by william. Letting everyong walk on Edward and all.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
02-12-2005, 15:20:11
Harold.

King_Ghidra
02-12-2005, 15:36:55
harold the confessor?!

Dyl Ulenspiegel
02-12-2005, 15:44:25
Harold Godwinson.

mr.G
02-12-2005, 15:48:04
Harold Godwinson had a great deal of power by 1066

Dyl Ulenspiegel
02-12-2005, 15:50:59
indeed

Gary
02-12-2005, 15:57:14
Not for long. Was there enough time for a cathedral burial ?

Venom
02-12-2005, 15:57:29
Edward was on his death bed in 1066 already I think. Alive, but more dead.

Japher
02-12-2005, 15:58:29
Maybe he was in to "up skirts"

Funko
02-12-2005, 15:58:51
His death (in 1066) is what caused the whole fight for the crown. Harold and William were rivals for it.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
02-12-2005, 16:00:35
I think Edward died early that year, and Harold lost battle and life in summer or autumn.

Funko
02-12-2005, 16:00:51
Which is why Dyl said Harold because it was Harold that William defeated. Edward the Confessor was already dead before William invaded.

Funko
02-12-2005, 16:01:12
X-post but yes. Dyl is right.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
02-12-2005, 16:01:45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_II_of_England

Edward dead January 5th (hmmm... :D)

Battle of Hastings October 14th

Funko
02-12-2005, 16:02:06
Great date! :beer:

Venom
02-12-2005, 16:02:27
Oerdin gets being wrong completely right once again.

Gary
02-12-2005, 16:02:50
Edward died in January. Harold was King for 9 months. Hardly time to march from one battle to the next.

How the heck did all those extra posts get in there !

Fistandantilus
02-12-2005, 16:04:40
So Miriam Godwinson has famous ancestors, uhm

Funko
02-12-2005, 16:07:45
I always assumed that was where that name came from.

Gary
02-12-2005, 16:09:12
God - Win - Son ? Just seemed fitting I expect. You don't get many folk called Godwindaughter

Funko
02-12-2005, 16:15:05
Edward the Confessor's wife was Edith Godwinsdaughter (Harold's sister)

Funko
02-12-2005, 16:16:04
You still get the different endings to names depending on sex in many languages. Icelandic, Danish?, Russian etc.

Resource Consumer
02-12-2005, 17:01:47
Godwinsdottir?

Funko
02-12-2005, 17:02:31
Yeah. Translated to modern English. :)

TauCeti@Japan
02-12-2005, 17:09:19
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_II_of_England

Edward dead January 5th (hmmm... :D)

Battle of Hastings October 14th Bah. Why did Harald Hardråde have to hurry so much? :mad:

Aredhran
02-12-2005, 17:13:00
Originally posted by Fistandantilus
So Miriam Godwinson has famous ancestors, uhm

Damn Fist beat me to it

Funko
02-12-2005, 17:21:46
Originally posted by TauCeti@Japan
Bah. Why did Harald Hardråde have to hurry so much? :mad:

Well that was the whole point. William persuaded Harald to attack at the same time so that Harold would be distracted. The fact Harold marched all the way up north and then right back down to face William and still nearly won is quite an impressive military feat.

Lazarus and the Gimp
02-12-2005, 17:55:26
Even more impressive when you consider that in the first northern encounter, the Saxon army of the north was annihilated by Hardrada.

Hardrada was challenging for the throne in his own right.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
02-12-2005, 18:02:35
Harald Hardman, king of Norway.

Lazarus and the Gimp
02-12-2005, 19:27:52
He shagged the Empress of Byzantium, you know. And used to pop people's eyeballs out with his thumbs when she asked him nicely.

Japher
02-12-2005, 19:28:47
it's nice to have Laz around

to fill us in on the important details of history

Lazarus and the Gimp
02-12-2005, 19:30:44
The Battle of Stamford Bridge was a classic. The Saxons nearly lost, because one lone Viking berzerker held the bridge single-handed, and chopped chunks of the dozens of Saxon warriors who tried to storm it.

So the Saxons played dirty. They floated a coracle downriver with a spearman hidden in it. As it passed under the bridge, the spearman jumped up and impaled the Viking up the anus.

KrazyHorse@home
02-12-2005, 19:30:44
Nasty lot, the bunch of you.

Oerdin
02-12-2005, 20:11:10
Originally posted by Funko
X-post but yes. Dyl is right.

I think hell just froze over. :(

Gary
02-12-2005, 20:29:56
Dirty ? Maybe for the times, but seems a decent tactic to me. :brwncard:

Lurker the Second
03-12-2005, 00:14:34
Quit reading this thread when I realized Venom was showing some knowledge of history. Is nothing sacred?

Venom
03-12-2005, 20:13:20
Everybody should know something about 1066.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-12-2005, 21:30:12
And even more about 1666,

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-12-2005, 22:12:44
Originally posted by Oerdin
I think hell just froze over. :(

I'm very often right.

Seriously.

Venom
04-12-2005, 02:46:44
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
Quit reading this thread when I realized Venom was showing some knowledge of history. Is nothing sacred?

Ready for some more?

Wasn't there another big battle at Stamford Bridge? Didn't the Scots whip your asses there?

shagnasty
04-12-2005, 08:45:59
That was Stirling Bridge.

Mel Gibson, that famous Scot, woz ere. (http://www.waichung.demon.co.uk/william/stirling.htm)

shagnasty
04-12-2005, 08:58:28
Just read that link. Found a cool name:
Sir Marmaduke de Thweng :coolgrin:

KrazyHorse@home
04-12-2005, 11:47:08
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The Battle of Stamford Bridge was a classic. The Saxons nearly lost, because one lone Viking berzerker held the bridge single-handed, and chopped chunks of the dozens of Saxon warriors who tried to storm it.

So the Saxons played dirty. They floated a coracle downriver with a spearman hidden in it. As it passed under the bridge, the spearman jumped up and impaled the Viking up the anus.

Did the saxons not have bows and arrows? Or even just a bunch of guys who could throw a rock?

Fergus & The Brazen Car
04-12-2005, 16:09:43
Originally posted by KrazyHorse@home
Did the saxons not have bows and arrows? Or even just a bunch of guys who could throw a rock?


They liked throwing axes.

Bows and arrows were for sissy boys and girls. Axes were for real men.

KrazyHorse@home
04-12-2005, 16:25:10
Well then why didn't they chuck a few axes at the berzerker on the bridge?

shagnasty
04-12-2005, 16:26:31
Cos they wanted to poke him up the bum.

Fergus & The Brazen Car
04-12-2005, 16:34:24
Originally posted by KrazyHorse@home
Well then why didn't they chuck a few axes at the berzerker on the bridge?

I dunno. Axe me anudder one.

Gary
04-12-2005, 18:08:10
Originally posted by shagnasty
Cos they wanted to poke him up the bum. :lol:

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-12-2005, 19:05:10
Originally posted by KrazyHorse@home
Did the saxons not have bows and arrows? Or even just a bunch of guys who could throw a rock?

These were the days before longbows and crossbows. The small hunting bows were of limited use against an alert warrior wearing mail and using a shield- as were throwing rocks.

In order to get him in effective range with a rock, they'd have to actually be on the bridge- so it's only going to come from the one direction. He'd just use his shield to deflect them.

Aredhran
04-12-2005, 20:31:27
Throw a bigger rock then !

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-12-2005, 20:59:16
I'm beginning to work out why the world was never conquered by the Canadians and Swis.

KrazyHorse@home
04-12-2005, 21:52:30
Vimy ridge, baby.

Funko
05-12-2005, 09:26:32
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I'm beginning to work out why the world was never conquered by the Canadians and Swis.

In the swiss case isn't it because they were always mercenaries fighting for someone else?

Resource Consumer
05-12-2005, 09:34:19
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The Battle of Stamford Bridge was a classic. The Saxons nearly lost, because one lone Viking berzerker held the bridge single-handed, and chopped chunks of the dozens of Saxon warriors who tried to storm it.

So the Saxons played dirty. They floated a coracle downriver with a spearman hidden in it. As it passed under the bridge, the spearman jumped up and impaled the Viking up the anus.

And after that they got John Terry into the defence and tightened things up a lot

Funko
05-12-2005, 09:35:11
:D

MOBIUS
05-12-2005, 09:45:48
Terry has a tight anus?

Resource Consumer
05-12-2005, 09:49:44
He's fucking a man

LoD
05-12-2005, 10:44:37
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
These were the days before longbows and crossbows. The small hunting bows were of limited use against an alert warrior wearing mail and using a shield- as were throwing rocks.

So the English didn't invent attrition by that time?

Resource Consumer
05-12-2005, 10:51:29
I think we were researching currency

BigGameHunter
05-12-2005, 11:17:46
classic

Gary
05-12-2005, 12:51:29
:D

Funko
05-12-2005, 13:16:23
I don't get it.

Fergus & The Brazen Car
05-12-2005, 13:20:58
Don't worry, there'll be a spear chucker along soon.

Japher
05-12-2005, 13:55:16
That's spear hurler to you!

LoD
05-12-2005, 18:52:50
:D @ Keith


Originally posted by Fergus & The Brazen Car
Don't worry, there'll be a spear chucker along soon.

How much could spears could a spear chucker chuck, if the spear chucker could chuck spears?

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-12-2005, 19:21:54
Originally posted by LoD
So the English didn't invent attrition by that time?

There was very little in the way of a standing army. You had the thegns and huscarls, who would be the elite heavy infantry. The rest were the fyrd- peasants serving part-time.

Given the fact that they had to carry all their gear from one end of the country to another, extra weapons were a burden that could have lost the war. It was considered more effective to give untrained fighters a spear and shield, and get them to hold a line, than to faff around with archery. There were some archers, but few and largely ineffective under those conditions.

Fistandantilus
05-12-2005, 20:27:31
Originally posted by Resource Consumer
I think we were researching currency

:lol: