Members | Sign In
Consfearacynewz Forums > Illuminati & NWO

Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest

posted Dec 18, 2012 04:59:47 by Consfearacynewz
Was just reading this and it gave me the thought....

Notice how many of the "Elite" do not pay Taxes for their conquered property.
Notice that we as a people are being subjected to various forms of "Tallage".
Notice foreclosed people "begging" to keep their homes and lands.

BOOK VI.: FROM THE QUARREL BETWEEN KING WILLIAM AND HIS ELDEST SON ROBERT, TO THE LAST VISIT OF WILLIAM TO THE CONTINENT. 1077—1087. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]
Another claim on his part was, that every domain which had paid any rent or service to king Edward, should pay the same rent or service to him, although held by a Norman.

This claim, founded on a regular succession to the rights of the English king, which could not be admitted by those who had forcibly dispossessed the English race, was at first ill received by the conquerors.

Exemption from taxes or any money service beyond a voluntary contribution now and then, appeared to them the inviolable prerogative of their victory, and they regarded the condition of customary tax-payers as peculiar to the subjugated nation.2

Many resisted the demands of the king, scorning to have personal servitude imposed upon them for the land which they had conquered.

But others submitted; and their compliance, whether voluntary or purchased by William, weakened the opposition of the rest.

Raoul de Courbespine long refused to pay any rent for the houses he had taken in the city of Canterbury; and Hugh de Montfort for the lands he occupied in Essex.3 These two chiefs might act thus cavalierly with impunity; but the haughtiness of less powerful and less considerable men was sometimes severely punished. One Osbern le Pecheur (Fisher), having refused to pay the dues which his land formerly paid to king Edward, as depending on his domain, was appropriated by the royal agents, and his land offered to any one who would pay the dues demanded. Raoul Taille-Bois paid, says the great roll, and took possession of the domain forfeited by Osbern le Pecheur.4

The king thus endeavoured to levy from his own countrymen, in the cities and lands of his demesne, the tax established by the Saxon law.

As to the English in these cities and demesne lands, besides the tax rigorously exacted, as being the custom of the place, and which was often doubled or tripled, they were further subject to a casual, arbitrary, variable impost, capriciously and harshly levied, which the Normans called taille or taillage (tallagium).

The great roll enumerates the tallagable burgesses of the king, in cities, towns, and hamlets. “The following are the burgesses of the king at Colchester:1 Keolman, who holds a house and five acres of land; Leofwin, who holds two houses and twentyfive acres; Ulfrik, Edwin, Wulfstan, Manwn, &c.” The Norman soldiers and chiefs also levied tallage on the Saxons who had fallen to their lot in town or country.2

This is what, in the language of the conquerors, was called having a free burgess or Saxon; and in this way the free men were reckoned by the head, were sold, given, exchanged, lent, or even divided among the Normans.3

The great roll mentions that a certain viscount had in the town of Ipswich two Saxon burghers, the one on loan, the other in pledge;4 and that king William, by authentic deed, had lent the Saxon Edwig to Raoul Taille-Bois, to keep him so long as he should live

Some of the dispossessed Saxons ventured to present themselves before the commissioners of inquiry to set forth their claims; many of these are registered, couched in terms of humble supplication that no Norman employed.

These men declared themselves poor and miserable; they appealed to the clemency and compassion of the king.1

Those who, by the most abject servility, succeeded in preserving some slight portion of their paternal inheritance, were obliged to pay for this favour with degrading or fantastic services, or received it under the no less humiliating title of alms.

Sons are inscribed in the roll as holding the property of their fathers by alms. 2 Free women retain their field as alms.3

One woman preserves her husband’s land on condition of feeding the king’s dogs.4

A mother and her son receive their own property in gift, on condition of each day saying prayers for the soul of Richard, the king’s son.5
The English towns and villages were unceremoniously farmed out by the Norman earls and viscounts, to men who then worked them for their own profit, and as though they were their own property.3

“He let out to the highest bidder,” say the chronicles, “his towns and his manors; if there came a bidder who offered more, he let the farm to him; if a third arrived, who offered a still higher price, it was to the third that he adjudged it.4

He gave it to the highest bidder, quite regardless of the enormous crimes which the farmers committed in levying taxes upon the poor people.
He and his barons were avaricious to excess, and capable of doing anything by which they could gain money
The other law of the Conqueror to which we have referred was designed to increase in an exorbitant manner the authority of the bishops of England. These bishops were all Normans: it was deemed just and necessary that their power should be wholly exercised for the advantage of the conquest; and as the warriors who had effected this conquest maintained it with sword and lance, so the churchmen were called upon to maintain it by political address and religious influence
In concluding the narrative of the events just related, the chroniclers of English race give way to touching regrets as to the miseries of their nation.

“There is no doubt,” exclaim some of them, “that God will no longer permit us to be a nation, or to possess honour and security.”3

Others complain that the name of Englishman has become an opprobrium;4 and it is not only from the pens of contemporaries that such complaints proceed; the remembrance of a great misfortune and of a great national shame is reproduced, century after century, in the writings of the sons of the Saxons, although more faintly as time advances


BOOK IV.: FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS. 1066—1070. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

Commissioners went over the whole extent of country in which the army had left garrisons; they took an exact inventory of property of every kind, public and private, carefully registering every particular; for the Norman nation, even in those remote times, was already extremely fond of deeds, and documents, and law forms
King William, with his chosen troops, had not advanced beyond Hexham; it was his captains, who, penetrating further, conquered the rest of Northumbria, north and west. The mountainous district of Cumberland was reduced to a Norman county;

one Renouf Meschin took possession of it, and the land of marsh and moor, called Westmoreland, was also brought under the power of a foreigner,4 who divided among his soldiers the rich domains and beautiful women of the county.

He gave the three daughters of Simon Thorn, proprietor of the two manors of Elreton and Todewick, one to Onfroy, his squire, another to Raoul Tortesmains, and the third to one Guillaume de Saint Paul
page   1 2 next last
16 replies
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:00:06
I recently found this book online , and I must say it is the only one I've seen so far that puts a true picture on the fall of the saxons and the aftermath it created.

The Normans had the MSM at the time of the Conquest:

An immense force, regularly governed, and regularly distributed mocked the virtuous efforts ... of the friends of independence.

BOOK IV.: FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS. 1066—1070. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

Similar instances of daring vengeance, of which the historians cite but a few, must certainly have taken place in many districts; but however numerous they may have been, they could not save England.

An immense force, regularly governed, and regularly distributed, mocked the virtuous but impotent efforts of the friends of independence.

The patriots themselves, with their great chiefs, whose names alone called forth many men, lost all courage, and again capitulated. Waltheof, Gospatrik, Morkar, and Edwin, made their peace with the conqueror
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:00:27
TPTB O.K. the conquest .... Bilderberg acquires the resources

BOOK III.: FROM THE INSURRECTION OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE AGAINST THE NORMAN FAVOURITES OF KING EDWARD, TO THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS. 1048—1066. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

Whatever might before have been the secret negotiations of the duke of Normandy with the Roman church, henceforward there was afforded them a fixed basis, a distinct direction. An oath sworn upon relics, however absurd the oath might have been, called, if it were violated, for the vengeance of the church; and in such a case, in the opinion of the period, the church struck legitimately.

Whether from a secret presentiment of the perils with which England was threatened by the spirit of ecclesiastical revenge, combined with the ambition of the Normans, or from a vague impression of superstitious terror,

a fearful depression came over the English nation. Gloomy reports were spread from mouth to mouth; fears and alarms spread abroad, without any positive cause for alarm;

predictions were dug up from the graves of the saints of the old time. One of these prophesied calamities such as the Saxons had never experienced since their departure from the banks of the Elbe;1

another announced the invasion of a people from France, who would subject the English people, and abase their glory in the dust for ever.2

All these rumours, hitherto unheeded or unknown, perhaps indeed purposely forged at the time, were now thoroughly credited, and kept every mind in the expectation of some vast and inevitable evil.
Presently after this, the consecrated banner and the bull authorizing the invasion of England arrived from Rome, which greatly increased the popular ardour; every one brought what he could; mothers sent their sons to enrol their names for the salvation of their souls.3 William published his ban in the neighbouring countries;

he offered good pay and the pillage of England to every able man who would serve him with lance, sword, or cross-bow. A multitude accepted the invitation, coming by every road, far and near, from north and south.

They came from Maine and Anjou, from Poitou and Brittany, from France and Flanders, Aquitaine and Burgundy, from the Alps and the banks of the Rhine.1

All the professional adventurers, all the military vagabonds of Western Europe hastened to Normandy, by long marches; some were knights and chiefs of war, the others simple foot-soldiers and sergeants of arms, as they were then called;

some demanded money-pay, others only their passage and all the booty they might make. Some asked for land in England, a domain, a castle, a town; others simply required some rich Saxon in marriage.2

Every thought, every desire of human avarice presented itself. William rejected no one, says the Norman chronicle, and satisfied every one as well as he could.
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:00:42
Hastings - 1066 Before the Battle - Fight or Surrender

BOOK III.: FROM THE INSURRECTION OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE AGAINST THE NORMAN FAVOURITES OF KING EDWARD, TO THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS. 1048—1066. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

the English unanimously took an oath to make neither peace, truce, nor treaty, with the invader, and to drive out the Normans or die in the attempt

One of them spoke: “We ought,” said he, “to fight, whatever the danger may be; for it is not here the question of receiving a new lord, as if our king were dead; the matter in hand is very different.

The duke of Normandy has given our lands to his barons, his knights, and all his people, most of whom have already rendered him homage for them; they will all have their donations carried into effect if the duke becomes our king, and

he will be bound to give them our goods, our wives, and our daughters, for all is promised them beforehand.

They come, not only to ruin us, but to ruin our descendants also, to take from us the country of our ancestors; and what shall we do, or where shall we go, when we have no longer any country?”

And hereupon the English unanimously took an oath to make neither peace, truce, nor treaty, with the invader, and to drive out the Normans or die in the attempt.”

At the Battle of Hastings, Wace records that the housecarls of the Saxon army cried "Olicrosse!" and "Godamite!" ("Holy Cross" and "God Almighty", respectively), while the fyrd cried "Ut! Ut! Ut!" ("Out! Out! Out!").

Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:00:57
Making a list of names

BOOK IV.: FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS. 1066—1070. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

A close inquiry was made into the names of all the English partisans of Harold, who had either died in battle, or survived the defeat, or by involuntary delays had been prevented from joining the royal standard.

All the property of these three classes of men, lands, revenues, furniture, houses, were confiscated;

the children of the first class were declared for ever disinherited;

the second class were, in like manner, wholly dispossessed of their estates and property of every kind, and, says one of the Norman writers, were only too grateful for being allowed to retain their lives.

Lastly, those who had not taken up arms were also despoiled of all they possessed, for having had the intention of taking up arms; but, by special grace, they were allowed to entertain the hope that after many long years of obedience and devotion to the foreign power, not they, indeed, but their sons might perhaps obtain from their new masters some portion of their paternal heritage.

The immense product of this universal spoliation became the pay of those adventurers of every nation who had enrolled under the banner of the duke of Normandy.

Their chief, the new king of England, retained, in the first place, for his own share, all the treasure of the ancient kings, the church plate, and all that was most rare and precious in the shops of the merchants.

After the king and clergy had taken their share, that of the soldiers was awarded according to their rank and the conditions of their engagement.

the barons and knights had vast domains, castles, villages, and even whole cities; the simple vassals had smaller portions.

Some received their pay in money, others had stipulated that they should have a Saxon wife, and William, says the Norman chronicle, gave them in marriage noble dames, great heiresses, whose husbands had fallen in the battle.
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:01:55
The Landing - Exotic Weapons- Budget Unlimited

BOOK III.: FROM THE INSURRECTION OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE AGAINST THE NORMAN FAVOURITES OF KING EDWARD, TO THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS. 1048—1066. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

The vessel in which William sailed was in the van, bearing at its mast-head the banner sent by the pope, and a cross on its own flag. Its sails were of different colours, and on them in various places were painted the three lions, the arms of Normandy; at the prow was the carved figure of a child, bearing a bow bent, with the arrow ready to quit the string. ... This vessel, a better sailer than the rest, outstripped them during the day, and at night left them far behind.

Four hundred ships with large sails, and more than a thousand transport vessels, made for the open sea, amid the sound of trumpets and a shout of joy, sent forth from sixty thousand mouths as from one

D-Day June 6, 1944 - Number of ships used in the NORMANDY Invasion: MORE THAN 5,000 ships
The troops of William thus landed, without resistance, at Pevensey near Hastings, the 28th of September 1066, three days after the victory of Harold over the Norwegians.

The archers landed first; they wore short coats, and their hair was shaved off;

then came the cavalry, wearing coats of mail and helmets of polished steel, of a nearly conical form, armed with long and strong lances, and straight double-edged swords.

These were followed by the workmen of the army, pioneers, carpenters, and smiths, who brought on shore, piece by piece,
three wooden castles, ready prepared beforehand.

The duke was the last to land; at the moment his foot touched the sand, he slipped and fell on his face.

A murmur arose, and voices exclaimed: “God preserve us! this is a bad sign.” But William, rising, said immediately: “Lords, what is’t you say? What, are you amazed?

I have taken seizin of this land with my hands, and, by the splendour of God, all that it contains is ours.”

The repartee prevented the effect of the evil presage.

The army took the road towards Hastings, and near that place marked out a camp, and raised two of the wooden castles as receptacles for provisions.

Bodies of troops overran the neighbouring country, pillaging and burning houses.

The English fled from their dwellings, hiding their goods and cattle, and hastened in crowds to the churches and churchyards, which they deemed the surest asylum against enemies, who were Christians like themselves. But, in their thirst for booty, the Normans paid little heed to the sanctity of places, and respected no asylum.

The first of the pre-built Norman Wooden Castles was erected at Pevensey Bay in 1066.

Pevensey castle was built on high ground on the site of an old Roman Fort. Information from Norman chroniclers state that a total of three pre-built wooden castles were brought from Normandy on the invasion fleet of Duke William of Normandy, which consisted of nearly 3000 vessels.
The famous Bayeux Tapestry illustrates the process of building Norman Pre-Built Timber Castles.

The aims of building the Timber Norman Castles
The pre-built timber Norman castles were perfect for the strategy of William the conqueror.
But the Normans needed more timber castles and they needed them quickly.

The conquest of England by the Normans needed castles to:

Provide a safe base where men, provisions and horses could be housed

The Psychological effect - these timber Norman castles were constructed to overawe and frighten the indigenous population

The timber Norman Castles provided a site from which the Normans could govern the surrounding district

Timber Norman Castles and Feudalism
...the Normans were rewarded with English lands and they needed a strong power base to hold off the rebellious English. Well constructed Norman timber castles provided them with this. They used local timber and forced local labour to build their timber Motte and Bailey castles.
The Normans kept their new land.
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:02:31
Food is a Weapon

(office of war information) 1943

BOOK IV.: FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS. 1066—1070. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

When the conquest grew flourishing, not merely young soldiers and old captains, but whole families, men, women, and children, emigrated from almost every corner of Gaul to seek their fortune in England; this country had become for foreigners, as it were a land newly discovered, which had to be colonised, and which belonged to every comer.
A second time master of York, the Conqueror did not stop there; he continued the rapid march of his troops northwards. They precipitated themselves on the land of Northumbria in the very frenzy of vengeance;4 they burned the fields under cultivation, as well as the hamlets and towns, and massacred the flocks with the men.5

This devastation was prosecuted upon a studied and regular plan, in order that the brave men of the north, finding their country uninhabitable, might be compelled to abandon it, and to disperse in other districts
Famine, the faithful companion of conquest, followed their steps; in the year 1067 it had already desolated the counties which had been invaded; in 1070 it extended over all England, manifesting itself in its utmost horrors in the newly conquered districts.

The inhabitants of Yorkshire and of the territory further north, after feeding on the flesh of the dead horses left by the Norman army on their way, ate human flesh.5

More than an hundred thousand persons, of all ages, perished of famine in this district.6 “It was a frightful spectacle,” says an old annalist, “to behold, in the roads and streets, at the doors of houses, human bodies devoured by the worms, for none remained to scatter a little earth over them, all being destroyed by famine or the sword. This distress was felt only by the natives; the foreign soldier lived in plenty; for him, in the heart of his fortresses, there were vast stores of provisions, and more was sent him from abroad, in return for the gold wrung from the English.

Moreover, famine aided him entirely to quell the conquered; often, for the remains of the repast of a groom in the Norman army, the Saxon, once illustrious among his countrymen, in order to sustain his miserable life, came to sell himself and his whole family to perpetual slavery.1

The act of sale was registered upon the blank page of some missal, where may still be found, half effaced, and serving as a theme for the sagacity of the antiquaries, these monuments of the wretchedness of a bygone period.

The reader must fix his imagination upon these; he must repeople ancient England with her conquerors and her conquered of the eleventh century;

he must figure to himself their various situations, interests, and languages; the joy and insolence of the one, the misery and terror of the other; the whole movement which accompanies the deadly war between two great masses of men.

For seven hundred years these men have ceased to exist; but what matters this to the imagination?
With the imagination there is no past, and even the future is of the present.

BOOK V.: FROM THE FORMATION OF THE CAMP OF REFUGE IN THE ISLE OF ELY, TO THE EXECUTION OF THE LAST SAXON CHIEF. 1070—1076. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

To meet this new peril, William resorted to the means he had more than once found successful,
promises and lies

The whole country of the Anglo-Saxons was conquered, from the Tweed to Cape Cornwall, from the English Channel to the Severn, and the conquered population was overrun in every direction by the army of the conquerors.

There were no longer any free provinces, no longer masses of men in military organization; there were only a few scattered remains of the defeated armies and garrisons, soldiers who had no chiefs, chiefs without followers.

War was now continued against them in the form of individual persecution;

the most prominent were tried and condemned with some show of form;

the remainder were handed over to the discretion of the foreign soldiers, who made them serfs on their domains,1

or massacred them, with circumstances which an ancient historian declines to detail, as incredible and monstrous to relate.

2 Those who retained any means of emigration proceeded to the ports of Wales or Scotland, and embarked thence, as the old annals express it, to carry their grief and misery through foreign lands.3

Denmark, Norway, and the countries where the Teutonic language was spoken, were generally the goal of these emigrations; but English fugitives were also seen journeying to the south, and soliciting an asylum among nations of an entirely different language.

Of the Saxons who could not or would not emigrate, many sought refuge in the forests with their families, and, if they were rich and powerful, with their servants and vassals

It was more especially the north country, which had most energetically resisted the invaders, that became the land of these armed wanderers, of this last protest of the conquered. The vast forests of Yorkshire were the abode of a numerous band, who had for their chief a man named Sweyn, son of Sigg

When the hour of rest arrived, at the moment of closing up everything, the head of the family arose and repeated aloud the prayers which were said at sea on the approach of a storm; he concluded thus: “The Lord bless us and help us;” and all present answered Amen. This custom subsisted in England for more than two centuries after the conquest.

The sad destiny of the English seemed to be irretrievably fixed. In the absence of all opposition, the calm of entire hopelessness reigned throughout the land.

The foreign merchants fearlessly displayed in the towns and villages, stuffs and weapons fabricated on the continent, which they exchanged for the booty of the conquest.2 A man might then travel, says the contemporary history, having with him his weight in gold, and get none but good words addressed to him.3 The Norman soldier, more at ease in the possession of his share of land or money, less disturbed by midnight alarms, less frequently obliged to sleep in his hauberk, became less violent and less malevolent.

The conquered themselves had some moments of repose;4 the English women no longer feared for their chastity: many of them, who had sought refuge in the nunneries, and had taken the veil as a protection against the brutality of the conquerors,5 becoming weary of this enforced retirement, wished to return to their friends and families. But it was not so easy for the Saxon women to quit the cloister as it had been to enter it.

The Norman prelates held the keys of the monasteries, as the Norman barons held those of the towns; and it was deemed necessary for these sovereign masters of the souls and bodies of the English to deliberate, in solemn assembly, upon the question of setting free the Saxon women who had become nuns against their inclination, and solely from necessity.



The execution of Waltheof completed the prostration of the conquered nation. It would seem that the people had not lost all hope, so long as they saw one of their countrymen invested with great power, even though under foreign authority.

After the death of the son of Siward, { Waltheof }
there was not in England, of all those invested with honours and political functions, one single man born in the country who did not look upon the natives as enemies or brute-beasts.

All religious authority had also passed into the hands of men of foreign race, and of the old Saxon prelates there remained only Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester...
Beheading in Britain.
In Britain, beheading was used in Anglo Saxon times as a punishment for certain types of serious theft. It was reintroduced during the reign of William the Conqueror for the execution of Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland on the 31st of May 1076 on St. Giles Hill, near Winchester. Waltheof had been convicted of treason for taking part in the Revolt of the Earls against the King and was beheaded with a sword.

BOOK VI.: FROM THE QUARREL BETWEEN KING WILLIAM AND HIS ELDEST SON ROBERT, TO THE LAST VISIT OF WILLIAM TO THE CONTINENT. 1077—1087. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

Bishop Eudes pillaged the church of Durham, and carried away all that remained of the sacred ornaments that Eghelwin had saved by removing them to Lindisfarn.4 He renewed throughout Northumberland the ravages made there by his brother in 1070; and it was this second devastation which, added to the first, impressed upon the northern counties of England that aspect of desolation and gloom which they presented for more than a century afterwards.5

“Thus,” says an historian, who lived seventy years later, “thus were cut the nerves of this county, once so flourishing [Internet?] . Those towns, formerly so renowned, now so abased, those lofty towers, which threatened heaven, now in ruins, those pasture fields, once smiling and watered by sparkling rills, now wholly waste, the stranger who sees them, beholds with a sigh, the old inhabitant no longer recognises.”6

In this county, ruined as it was, the population, half Saxon, half Danish, long preserved its ancient spirit of independence, and of somewhat savage pride.

The Norman successors of the Bastard dwelt in full safety in the southern provinces; but it was scarcely without apprehension that they journeyed beyond the Humber; and an historian of the twelfth century tells us that they never visited that part of their kingdom without the escort of an army of veteran soldiers.1 It was in the north that the tendency to rebel against the social order established by the conquest longest endured; it was the north which, for more than two centuries, furnished those bands of outlaws who were the political successors of the refugees of the camp of Ely, and of the companions of Hereward.

History has not understood them; it has passed them over in silence, or else, adopting the legal acts of the time, it has branded them with names which divest them of all interest, with the names of rebels, robbers, and bandits.

But let us not be misled by these apparently odious titles; in all countries subjugated by foreigners, they have been given by the victors to the brave men who in small numbers took refuge in the mountains or in the forests, abandoning the towns and cities to those who chose to support slavery.2

If the Anglo-Saxon nation had not the courage to follow their example, it at least loved those who gave it, and accompanied them with its blessing. While ordinances, drawn up in the French language, required all the inhabitants of the cities and boroughs of England to hunt the outlaw, the man of the forest, as a wolf,3 to pursue him from hundred to hundred, with hue and cry,

the English sang ballads in honour of this enemy to foreign rule, who, as they expressed it, had the earl’s purse for his treasure, and the king’s deer for his herd. The popular poets celebrated his victories, his combats, his stratagems against the agents of authority. They sang how he had outstripped the men and horses of the viscount, how he had taken the bishop, had put him to a thousand marks ransom, and made him dance a measure in his pontifical robes
In the year 1083 died Matilda, wife of king William. An old narrative says that the counsels of this lady more than once softened the soul of the conqueror; that she often disposed him to clemency towards the English, but that after her death. William abandoned himself without reserve to his tyrannical humour.1

Facts are wanting to substantiate this aggravation of oppression and misery for the conquered people, and the imagination can scarcely supply the deficiency, for it is difficult to add a single shade to the dark picture of the unhappiness of the preceding years.

The only difference observable between the epoch of the conquest which followed the death of Matilda, and those which have been already narrated is, that William, having nothing further to gain in power over the natives, began to create for himself a personal domination over his companions in victory.

Necessity had probably as large a share in this enterprise as ambition; nothing remaining to take from the English, the king found himself obliged to levy contributions on the Normans themselves for the maintenance of the common property.

In the year 1083 he exacted sixpence in silver for every hide of land throughout the kingdom, without distinction of possessor.2 The Norman warrior, worn out by twenty years of combats, found himself obliged to pay, out of the revenues of the domain he had conquered in the days of his youth and strength, the hire of a new army.
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:02:45
Are you Free in the King's er.. "National" forests? Do curses come true?

BOOK VII.: FROM THE DEATH OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, TO THE LAST GENERAL CONSPIRACY OF THE ENGLISH AGAINST THE NORMANS. 1087—1137. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

Historians less laconic have transmitted to us some details of the sorrows and torments that the conquered nation suffered.

Wherever the king passed in his journeys through England, the country was ravaged by his people.3 When they could not themselves use all the provisions or goods that they found in the houses of the English, they made the owner himself carry them to the neighbouring market, and sell them for their profit; at other times they burned them for amusement, or if it were wine or other beverage, washed the feet of their horses with it.

“The ill treatment to which they subjected the heads of families, their outrages upon the women and girls,” adds the contemporary historian, “one would blush to relate; accordingly, at the first rumour of the king’s approach, all fled from their abodes, and retired, with whatever they could carry, to the depths of the forest or other desert places.”4

Fifty Saxons who, by some happy chance or perhaps by a little political cowardice, had managed to retain a remnant of their property, were accused, falsely or justly, of having hunted in the royal forests, and of having killed, taken, and eaten deer; such were the terms of the criminal charge brought against them.

They denied the charge, and the Norman judges inflicted on them the ordeal by fire, which the ancient English laws only sanctioned when demanded by the accused. “On the appointed day,” says an eye-witness, “all underwent the sentence, without any mercy; it was piteous to behold; but God, in preserving their hands from burning, showed clearly their innocence, and the wickedness of their persecutors.”

When it was reported to king William that after three days the hands of the accused were unscathed: “What of that,” said he; “God is no judge of these things; these matters concern me, and it is I who ought to judge them.”1 The historian does not relate what the new sentence was, or what the fate of the unhappy English, whom now no pious fraud could save.

The Saxons, persecuted by William Rufus for transgressing the laws of the chase, far more rigorously than they had been even by his father, had no other way of revenging themselves than by calling him, in derision, keeper of the forests, and wild beast-herd, and spreading sinister rumours as to these forests, into which no man of English race could enter armed without risking his life.

They said that the devil, under terrible forms, appeared there to the Normans, and told them of the terrible fate that he reserved for the king and his counsellors.2 This popular superstition obtained authority by the singular chance which rendered hunting in the forest of England, and especially in the New Forest, fatal to the race of the Conqueror.

In the year 1081, Richard, eldest son of William the Bastard, had mortally wounded himself there; in the month of May of the year 1100, Richard, son of duke Robert, and nephew of William Rufus, was killed there by an arrow carelessly shot;3 and, singular circumstance, this king himself also met with the same death there in the July of the same year.
Trial by ordeal was used to decide the guilt or innocence of a suspected criminal by invoking divine justice. There were several forms of ordeal in Anglo-Saxon and Norman England. In one the accused held a red hot iron or put his hand in a flame. If the wound healed, the accused was deemed innocent.
Royal Ordeal by Fire
Queen Emma & her Berkshire Manors (wife first of King Aethelred the Unready, and afterwards of Canute the Great...the mother, therefore, not only of Harthacnut, but also of Edward the Confessor)

Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, persuades the King that Emma, forty-eight years after her first marriage, fifteen years after the death of her second husband, Canute, had been guilty of too close an intimacy with Aelfwine, Bishop of Winchester
On the morrow, the King with his attendant courtiers assemble; the nine ploughshares are made red-hot, and placed upon the pavement in the Church. Emma now enters, and after making a long invocation, which commences, "Oh God, who didst save Susannah from the malice of the wicked elders, save me," treads with her bare feet upon the glowing metal: but she senses nothing. She has touched it, yet enquires of the Bishops who lead her by the hand, "When shall we come to the ploughshares?" They show her she has already passed over them. Upon examination, her feet are found to be uninjured - "See the Miracle". The King is now thoroughly convinced of her innocence, and repenting his cruelty, casts himself at his mother's feet, exclaiming, "Mother, I have sinned before heaven and before you," receives stripes both from the Bishop and his mother, restores all their confiscated property, and banishes the Archbishop.
Ordeal of fire
In one instance, the accused would walk nine paces with a red-hot iron bar held in both hands. Depending on the custom of the time, innocence would be shown by a complete lack of injury from the ordeal or the wounds would be bound and regularly examined for healing or festering. An English version had nine red-hot ploughshares placed on the floor; the accused was blindfolded and if they successfully crossed the floor without injury they were judged innocent.
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:15:37
After the Conquest - 1196 - In the time of Robin Hood - there was a Saxon man - William Longbeard

William Fitz Osbert or William with the long beard (died 1196) was a citizen of London who took up the role of the advocate of the poor in a popular uprising in the spring of 1196

the Execution of the Saxon, William Longbeard
There were Saxon families who, by an hereditary vow, had bound themselves, from father to son, to wear the beard long, as a memory of the old country and a token of disdain for the customs introduced by the conquest.3 But these families could do nothing, and the sons of the conquerors, not fearing them, allowed them to display in peace the mark of their descent, and the futile pride of a time which could never return.

In the year 1196, when king Richard was occupied in warring against the king of France, and his officers were levying money for the expenses of his campaigns and the payment of the balance of his ransom, the city of London was called upon to pay an extraordinary tax.4

The king’s chancellor addressed the demand to the chiefs of the city, who, by a singular association of the two languages spoken in England, were called mayor and aldermen.5 These convoked, in the Guild-hall, or husting, as it was designated in the Saxon tongue, the principal citizens to deliberate, not as to granting the subsidy, but simply as to the proportions in which it should be paid by the citizens.6 In this assembly, composed for the most part of native English, there was a certain number of men of Norman, Angevin, or French race, whose ancestors, settling in England at the time of the conquest, had devoted themselves to commerce or trade. Either by reason of their foreign descent or of their riches, the citizens of this class formed in London a sort of ruling party; they governed the deliberations of the council, and often silenced the English, whom the habit of being oppressed rendered timid and circumspect.

But there was, at this time, in the class of natives, a man of very different character, a genuine old Saxon patriot, who let his beard grow, that he might in no way resemble the sons of the foreigners.1

His name was William, and he enjoyed great consideration in the city, on account of his zeal in defending, by every legal means, those of his fellow citizens who underwent injustice.2

The child of parents, whose industry and economy had secured him an independence, he had retired from business, and passed all his time in the study of jurisprudence.3 No Norman clerk surpassed him in the art of pleading in the French tongue, before a court of justice, and when he spoke English, his eloquence was vigorous and popular. He devoted his knowledge of the law and his power of language to save the poorer citizens from the embarrassments in which legal chicanery had involved them, and to protect them from the vexations of the rich, the most frequent of which was the unequal partition of the taxes.4 Sometimes the mayor and aldermen altogether exempted from the payment of taxes those who were best able to pay them, sometimes they called upon every citizen to contribute the same amount, without any regard to the difference of means, so that the heaviest burden fell upon the poor.5 These had often remonstrated, and William had pleaded their cause with more ardour than success.6

His efforts had rendered him dear to the citizens of lower condition, who named him the poor man’s advocate;7 on the other hand,
the Normans and their party surnamed him, ironically, the man with thebeard, and accused him of leading the multitude astray, by giving them a measureless desire for liberty and happiness.1

This singular personage, the last representative of the hostility of the two races which the conquest had united on the same soil, appeared in his accustomed character at the common council of 1196.

As mostly their habit, the leading citizens were for a distribution of the common charges that should throw only the smallest portion on themselves;

William Longbeard alone, or almost alone,2 opposed them, and the dispute growing warm, they overwhelmed him with abuse, and accused him of rebellion and of treason to the king.

“The traitors to the king,” answered the Englishman, “are they who defraud his exchequer, by exempting themselves from paying what they owe him, and I myself will denounce them to him.”3 He passed the sea, went to Richard’s camp, and kneeling before him and raising his right hand, demanded from him peace and protection for the poor people of London. Richard listened to his plaint, said that he would do it right, and when the petitioner departed, thought no more of the matter, too much occupied with his great political affairs to descend to the details of a dispute between simple citizens.
Hubert Gaultier, archbishop of Canterbury and grand justiciary of England, enraged that a Saxon should dare to denounce to the king men of Norman race, and apprehending a recurrence of the circumstance, ordered by edict every citizen of London to remain in the city, under penalty of being imprisoned as traitor to the king and kingdom.5

Several merchants who, despite the orders of the grand justiciary, went to Stamford fair, were arrested and imprisoned.6

These acts of violence caused a great fermentation in the city; and the poorer citizens, by an instinct natural to man in all times, formed an association for their mutual defence. William with the Long Beard was the soul and chief of this secret society, in which, say the contemporary historians, fifty-two thousand persons were engaged.1

They collected such arms as citizens, half serfs, could procure in the middle ages, iron-headed staves, axes, and iron crow-bars, wherewith to attack the fortified houses of the Normans, if they came to blows.

Urged by a natural desire to intercommunicate their sentiments and encourage each other, the poor of London assembled from time to time and held meetings in the open air, in the squares, and the market-places. At these tumultuous meetings William was the spokesman, and received applause which, perhaps, he was too fond of receiving, and which thus made him neglect the moment to act and to strike a decisive blow for the interests of those whom he sought to render formidable to their oppressors.

A fragment of one of these harangues is given by a contemporary chronicler, who declares that he had it from the mouth of a person who was present. The speech, though its purpose was entirely political, turned, like the sermons of our days, upon a text from scripture, and this text was:

“With joy shall ye draw water of the wells of salvation.” William applied these words to himself: “It is I,” he said, “who am the saviour of the poor; you, poor, who have felt how heavy is the hand of the rich, draw now from my well of water a salutary doctrine; and draw thence joyfully, because the hour of your relief is at hand. I shall separate the waters from the waters, that is to say, the men from the men; I will separate the people, humble and of good faith, from the proud and faithless; I will separate the elect from the reprobate, as light from darkness.”

Under this vague and mystic phraseology, the imagination of the hearers doubtless discerned sentiments and desires of a more precise nature; but the popular enthusiasm was not promptly turned to account; and the advocate of the poor allowed himself to be forestalled by the high Norman functionaries, who, assembling in parliament at London the bishops, earls, and barons, of the surrounding counties, cited the orator of the people to appear before this assembly.3

William obeyed the summons, escorted by a great multitude who followed him, calling him the saviour and king of the poor.

Notwithstanding the influence given them by the anxiety which prevailed in London as to the fate of the hostages, the justiciaries dared not publicly arrest the man whose destruction was contemplated in all these proceedings. They resolved to watch a moment when William should be from home alone, or with but few companions; two rich citizens, probably of Norman race, and one of whom was named Geoffroy, undertook this duty.4

Followed by armed men, they watched for several days all the movements of the Man with the Long-Beard; and one day, as he was quietly walking with nine friends, the two citizens approached him with an air of indifference, and, suddenly, Geoffroy laid hands on him, and gave the signal for the men-at-arms to advance.5 William’s only weapon of defence was one of those long knives which, at that period, were worn in the belt; he drew it, and with one blow laid Geoffroy at his feet.

The soldiers came up at the same moment, armed, from head to foot, in dagger-proof mail; but William and his nine companions, by dint of courage and address, got clear of them, and took refuge in the nearest church, dedicated to the Virgin, and called by the Normans the church of Saint-Mary de l’Arche.1

They closed and barricadoed the doors. Their armed pursuers endeavoured unavailingly to force an entrance; the grand justiciary, on learning the news, sent couriers to the adjacent castles for more troops, not relying, at this critical juncture, on the garrison of the Tower of London alone.

The report of these events caused great fermentation in the town: the people were sensible to the danger of a man who had so generously taken up their defence;3 but in general they exhibited more of sorrow than of anger. The sight of the soldiers marching into the city, and occupying the streets and market-places, and above all the conviction that, on the first outbreak, the hostages would be put to death, kept the citizens in their shops.4 It was in vain that the refugees awaited assistance, and that a few determined men exhorted their fellow citizens to march in arms to Saint Mary’s church. The masses remained motionless as if struck with stupor.5

Meanwhile, William and his friends prepared, as best they might, to sustain a siege in the tower, whither they had retired; repeatedly summoned to come forth, they pertinaciously refused to do so; and the archbishop of Canterbury, in order to force them from their post, had a quantity of wood collected, and set fire to the church.6

The heat and the smoke which soon filled the tower, compelled the besieged to descend, half suffocated.7 They were all taken, and as they were being led away bound, the son of the Geoffroy whom William had killed, approached him, and with a knife ripped open his stomach.8

Wounded as he was, they tied him to a horse’s tail, and dragged him thus through the streets to the Tower, where he appeared before the archbishop, and, without any sort of trial, received sentence of death.

The same horse dragged him in the same manner to the place of execution.1 He was hanged with his nine companions; “and thus,” says an old historian, “perished William Longbeard, for having embraced the defence of the poor and of truth, if the cause makes the martyr, none may more justly than he be called a martyr.”2

This opinion was not that of one man only, but of all the people of London; who, though they had not had the energy to save their defender, at least wept for him after his death, and regarded as assassins the judges who had condemned him.

The gibbet on which he had been hanged was carried away in the night as a relic, and those who could not procure any part of the wood, collected pieces of the earth in which it had stood. So many came for this earth, that in a short time a large pit was formed on the place of execution.

People went there not only from the vicinity, but from all parts of the island, and no native Englishman failed to fulfil this patriotic pilgrimage when his affairs called him to London.3
Here should properly terminate the narrative of the national struggle which followed the conquest of England by the Normans; for the execution of William Longbeard is the last fact which the original authors positively connect with the conquest. That there were, at subsequent periods, other events impressed with the same character, and that William was not the last of the Saxons, are indubitable propositions, but the inexactitude of the chronicles, and the loss of ancient documents, leave us without any proofs on this subject, and reduce us, all at once, to inductions and conjectures.

The main task of the conscientious narrator, therefore, ends at this point; and there only remains for him to present, in a summary form, the ulterior destiny of the persons whom he has brought upon the stage, so that the reader may not remain in suspense.

And by the word personages, it is neither Richard, king of England, nor Philip, king of France, nor John, earl of Mortain, that is to be understood; but the great masses of men and the various populations who have simultaneously or successively figured in the preceding pages.

For the essential object of this history is to contemplate the destiny of peoples, and not that of certain celebrated men; to relate the adventures of social, and not those of individual life. Human sympathy may attach itself to entire populations, as to beings endowed with sentiment, whose existence, longer than our own, is filled with the same alternations of sorrow and of joy, of hope and of despair.

Considered in this light, the history of the past assumes somewhat of the interest which is felt in the present; for the collective beings of whom it treats have not ceased to live and to feel; they are the same who still suffer or hope under our own eyes. This is its most attractive feature; this it is that sweetens severe and arid study; that, in a word, would confer some value upon this work, if the author had succeeded in communicating to his readers those emotions which he himself experienced while seeking in old books names now obscure and misfortunes now forgotten.
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:15:53
by Elisabeth van Houts

Anglo-Norman Studies XIX Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1996

The monks of that time, it seems to me, were acutely aware that fifty or sixty years after the Conquest they were losing touch with the past. In that climate the loss of a relic dating from the Conquest seemed a much more serious matter than it had seemed to Abbot Henry in the late 1090s.

There is a pattern here, or so I maintain, which can be traced elsewhere.

First comes the epic event, a moment of triumph, or disaster, according to one's point of view.

About two generations later comes the realisation that aspects of the event which were once common knowledge are common knowledge no longer; hence the urge to collect information and pass it on, usually by oral communication to younger people, but sometimes in writing.

About two generations later still come the first attempts at detached historical analysis, such as the account which the Battle chronicler set down in the 1170s.


Likewise at Waltham Abbey, about a century elapsed before crucial information about the true burial place of its one time patron, King Harold, was written down, though that information had been collected orally about fifty years previously. In this case the writer was an elderly canon, who composed his history of the abbey in about 1177 in order to ensure that the memories of his community would not be forgotten if Henry II carried out his threat to close it down.
So far I have concentrated on stories of 1066 which were passed on two generations later by oral means and not written down until the fourth generation.

Some stories, however, were written down in the second generation. The first accounts of the Conquest to be written down in England, all of them brief and all of them written by monks, took the form of additions to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: the contributions made by Eadmer of Canterbury, John of Worcester, Simeon of Durham and William of Malmesbury are the most significant

In recent years Richard Southern, James Campbell and Antonia Gransden have argued that one effect of the Conquest was to turn English monks back to their Anglo-Saxon past in an attempt to salvage what they could of it. (21) They sought to link that past with the present by interpreting the defeat of the English by the Normans as God's punishment for English sins.
A few fragmentary remarks about 1066 are to be found in sources which predate the monastic versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which I have been discussing, and those which reflect the English point of view, are bleaker still.

The earliest such source is the Life of King Edward, written at the request of his wife Queen Edith in the years 1067.

The queen lost three of her brothers in the battle of Hastings and her mother Gytha and other relatives were obliged to flee to Flanders to escape the wrath of the Normans, (26) yet the battle is only hinted at in the Life.

The catastrophe was too appalling and too recent, I suggest, for an author to face it. The various entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, all condemning the invasion, are equally brief.

Version 'D' may have been written as contemporary comment on events immediately after the Conquest, but due to interpolations it is difficult to distinguish what was written when in the only copy available, written after 1100.

Version 'E' copied at Peterborough is based on Canterbury material up to 1120 and, here too, it is impossible to tell what the annalist wrote in 1066. In both versions, therefore, revisions date from a time when England was firmly under Norman control. (27)

Amongst this meagre harvest, the E-version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is unique in expressing the anguish and frustration of the English; it seems to have been focussed on the Aetheling, who pops up here, there and everywhere without being able to rally effective groups of resistance fighters around him. (28)

The most evocative expression of grief comes in a poem written by the skald Thorkill Skallason for his master Earl Waltheof, after he had been executed fdr treason in 1076. It is written in Old Norse but may have been based on an Old English version used much later by William of Malmesbury. (29)

The most intriguing aspect of this poem is its theme of Waltheof's betrayal by William the Conqueror, which neatly reverses the official Norman charge of treason against the earl: 'William crossed the cold channel / and reddened the bright swords, / and now he has betrayed /i noble Earl Waltheof. It is true that killing in England / will be a long time ending.' Thorkill may here be revenging Waltheof's death by hinting at the fact that it was Waltheof's wife Judith, William's niece, who betrayed her husband. (30)
My study of the formation of oral and written memories of 1066 clearly shows the circulation of stories about the Conquest through several generations into the reign of Henry II.

The stories were local, centred on specific aspects of the Conquest and were quite personal.

This oral tradition for a time ran parallel to a written tradition, which attempted to cope with the past by seeing the defeat of 1066 in terms of God's punishment for the sins of the English nation.

By the reign of Henry II the theme of 'national guilt' had evaporated and made place for more discussion of military matters. Tales of military defeat and resistance survived.

But what strikes the modern historian most is the almost total amnesia in the long term of individual loss and grief. The psychological reason of trauma is as likely an explanation for the complete lack of a memorial to the English dead of 1066 (66) as other explanations, which blame the fear of abbots of association with the memory of rebels 6r the lack of patronage for literary activity in general.

In Normandy the situation was different. The written memories concentrated first on the victorious leader, his legitimisation of the use of force and the justification of military action. The second and third generation continued and expanded the moral justification of their actions. Meanwhile oral tradition kept alive the memories of fighters lower down the social scale. These were rescued by Wace and incorporated in his vernacular Roman de Rou, which became a memorial for those who had fought at Hastings.

What my study also shows is that it is not enough to study the history of the Norman Conquest purely in terms of questions about the continuity of Anglo-Saxon customs. The modem emphasis on the long-term survival of Old English modes of justice and administration after 1066 could easily create the impression that the Conquest was just a mere hiccup in the course of English history. (67)

The very fact that the English were so traumatised that they could not bring themselves to write down their memories proves how deeply shocked they remained for a very long time
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:16:19
One of the issues I have not covered due to the sensitive nature of the subject, is the introduction of

Jewish money lenders (Lombards) into England with the Conquest.

There is a very good reason the Lombard Jews came to England along with the William the Conqueror, He owed them a great deal of money. You see William borrowed tremendous sums from the Lombards for the invasion, leaving nothing to chance, failure was not an option. He made great proimises to everyone and anyone who would come fight with him (and I assume paid many up front ) . We've gone over all the ships and all the arms and the special weapons developed , these were not free.

So here is some documentation ...

569 - Saxons accompanied the Lombards into Italy
772-804 - Saxon Wars - Saxons are conquered by Charlemagne in a long series of annual campaigns

927 - "Rolo" Robert I - First Duke of Normandy under Charlemagne. - Rollo is great-great-great-grandfather of William the Conqueror. - ancestor of the present-day British royal family, as well as an ancestor of all current European monarchs - 'As Rollo's death drew near, he went mad and had a hundred Christian prisoners beheaded in front of him in honour of the gods whom he had worshipped

Detail of the Gundestrup cauldron. Scene of human sacrifice while armed men make ready for war. The ritual sacrifice is presumably associated with the God Teutatis.

1053 - Battle of Civitate: Normans Defeat Papal-Lombard Army, Capture the Pope
1066 - Normans receive the blessings of the Lombard Pope Alexander II for the conquest of England.

Apology for the Jews

By Rabbi Manasseh Ben Israel— Manoel Dias Soeiro (1604–November 20, 1657), also known as Menasheh ben Yossef ben Yisrael and the Hebrew acronym, MB"Y. A Portuguese rabbi, kabbalist, scholar, writer, diplomat, printer and publisher, founder of the first Hebrew printing press (Emeth Meerets Titsma`h) in Amsterdam in 1626.

Introduction and Background

There is no evidence of Jews residing in England before the Norman Conquest.

William the Conqueror was financed by Jews expelled from Spain, and having secured the benevolent neutrality of Holy Roman emperor Henry IV and with solemn approval by Pope Alexander II, he invaded England in 1066 (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol # 23, p. 609).

He brought 2,600 Jews into England with him from Rouen (William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum Anglorum, The History of the English Kings, p. 500). They were at first treated with special favour and allowed to amass considerable wealth, "They brought to England their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it . . ." (Footnote 11: H.C. Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings (1960) p. 94).

They established the Exchequer and subsequently converted into a class of "royal usurers" so abhorrent to the English that in 1290 Edward I expelled them all, over 16,000 Jews, principally owing to the problem of usury. (See the trilogy of historian Sir Arthur Bryant, JCR-UK - Jewish Communities of the U.K., and
The Jews, and the Jews in England

by Cobbett (Anthony Ludovici) Boswell Publishing Company, 1938
III. History of the Jews in England


There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that William I was responsible for the influx of a large crowd of Jews into England. They came from Rouen, and the fact that he no doubt granted them extraordinary privileges, which were more or less extended to them by every monarch of the Norman and Plantagenet lines up to the time of Edward I, is most significant.

It indicates the explanation of a phenomenon otherwise inexplicable -- namely, that the crowned head of the land could have held under his protecting wing for over two centuries a community of foreigners who exploited the people often quite intolerably, and who never pretended to have another qualification for their sojourn in the country than precisely this function of exploiting the people.

Although we cannot discover many details about the Jews under William I, except that they were plentiful, that they helped to fill the royal treasury and diverted much of the odium that would otherwise have fallen on the king and his chief officers, we are justified in inferring from the conduct of the subsequent monarchs towards the Jews, and their functions in the state, that what the Jews did and how they were treated in the 12th and 13th centuries more or less followed the precedents first established by the Conqueror.

What, then, was the function of the Jews and what was their relationship to the sovereign?

There is not the slightest shadow of a doubt that the Jews of the late eleventh century in England were chiefly occupied with moneylending, and probably generally fulfilling the function of middlemen capitalists, some centuries before capitalism became a reality in the land. In addition to lending out money at interest, they therefore probably bought and sold as wholesalers, and it is also not unlikely that they may even have cornered markets in certain commodities.

They had the coin, they had the financial knowledge and experience, they were alone in the field (because the laws of the Church forbade usury to Christians), they had the protection of the most powerful in the realm, and, above all, they enjoyed extraordinary privileges.

None, however, but an invading and victorious dynasty, feeling itself still a stranger in the land and conscious of no traditional ties to its inhabitants, could ever have dropped such a cloud of harpies upon the country without considering that it was violating a duty and a trust.

And what were the privileges granted by the Norman and early Plantagenet monarchs to the Jews, and probably originally suggested by the Conqueror’s own treatment of them?

They were, by law, permitted to charge a very high rate of interest for their loans. Twopence per £1 per week -- i.e., 40 per cent to 50 per cent per annum -- was quite common. [5] And Abrahams tells us that "loans were freely contracted which accumulated at 50 per cent". [6]

They were allowed to claim redress if molested, hold lands in pledge until redeemed, probably excused all customs, tolls, etc., [7] and permitted to buy anything except Church property. They had the right to be tried by their peers and, what was most extraordinary, a Jew’s oath was held to be valid against that of twelve Christians.

In return for these exceptional privileges, the king levied a tax on all their transactions, sometimes resorted to direct demands on money from them, and, in addition, often accepted money from their debtors, in order to use his influence on the latter’s behalf. [8] Thus he derived a double profit from the activities of the Jews.

The Edict of Expulsion Enacted 1290
In the years following the Conquest of 1066 the Jews were an important part of Norman English society. The nobility of England were constantly in need of money, and as a result, they borrowed heavily from Jewish moneylenders. William the Conqueror recognized the importance of the Jewish moneylenders to Norman society, and offered them special protection under law.

Jews were declared to be direct subjects of the king, not subjects of their local feudal lord. Because of this special status, however, English kings saw the Jewish moneylenders as a convenient source of funds. The king could levy taxes against Jews without needing the prior approval of Parliament. So when a king needed money - as they often did - he could simply levy a special tax on the Jews. This system would work as long as the Jews were allowed to accumulate money, but that was about to change.


These quotes taken from The Secret Empire by Cushman Cunningham illustrate how the Sephardim have intermarried with the Canaanites, Philistines and Perizzites. This book provides a thorough, easy to read overview of the hidden hand behind the major events of the past two thousand years.

Several centuries later the Jewish banking system secretly financed (and helped to organize several major events which changed the direction of world history). They organized and financed the Moorish invasion of Spain in AD 711, which destroyed the Visigothic Empire, and this reshuffled the power alignments of all of western Europe. It also made the Mediterranean for a time an Islamic lake, and ignited forces which led to the Renaissance and the supremacy of Lombard bankers in northern Italy.

The Sephardic Jewish bankers also financed (and thus made possible) the invasion of England in 1066 by William the Conqueror.

It is said that the Lombard family trace back to the time of William the Conqueror and by history of undoubted creditability to the kingdom of the Lombards in Italy, who finally dispersed, settling in Germany, France and elsewhere.

Rudolph de Lambert (French spelling), of Normany, France, went to England with William the Conqueror as his knight of arms, and from his son Hugh all of the name of England and America are said to be descended.

Genealogical and personal memoirs relating to the families of ..., Volume 2
The Lambert family can LAMBERT trace its descent from high antiquity and can go back with all the certainty of written records to the time of William the Conqueror, in the eleventh century, and by history of undoubted credibility to the kingdom of the Lombards in Italy.

That such was the origin of the family cannot be doubted, for were there no proofs of it in the records of heraldry, the name itself would indicate such to be the fact (according to the ancient orthography), as it was formerly spelled Lombard. This spelling some branches of the family still retain.

The earliest accounts of the Lombards indicate that they were a roving clan from Scandinavia (Norway), that they settled and lived for a time in Vindili (in Germany), until attracted by the fine plains of Modena they quit their mountain fastnesses and took possession of and founded one of the most powerful states in Italy.

The significance of the name Lombard in their language was "long beard," as history informs us that the members of this clan parted their hair and suffered it to grow to whatever length it might attain; and from this circumstance the ancient state in which they established themselves took its name.

When William the Conqueror invaded England he took with him Rodolph de Lambert, as his armor bearer or knight at arms. His name appears to indicate that his family was from Lombardy, as the "de" signifies "from" or "of."

It appears by English heraldry that Rodolph de Lambert had a family in Normandy, previous to his going into England: "Of this ancient family of Norman French extraction, one branch settled in Bologna in Italy, and has always been considered one of the most illustrious in that place.
History of Collateral Pledging
In England the pawnshop came in with William the Conqueror, with an Italian name, Lombard.
Symbol of pawn brokers.

The pawnbroker's symbol is three spheres suspended from a bar.

The three sphere symbol is attributed to the Medici Family of Florence, Italy, owing to its symbolic meaning of Lombard. This refers to the Italian province of Lombardy, where pawn shop banking originated under the name of Lombard banking.

The three golden spheres were originally the symbol which medieval Lombard merchants hung in front of their houses, and not the arms of the Medici family. It has been conjectured that the golden spheres were originally three flat yellow effigies of bezants, or gold coins, laid heraldically upon a sable field, but that they were converted into spheres to better attract attention.

Most European towns called the pawn shop the "Lombard". The House of Lombard was a banking family in medieval London, England.

see: The Hidden History of Money and Feudal Order Usury Secrets

Lombard domination at its greatest extent under Aistulf and Desiderius, ca. 750–785.

Italy around the turn of the millennium, showing the Lombard states in the south on the eve of the arrival of the Normans
History of Italian Jews
During the first Dark Ages there were flourishing communities of Jews in Rome, Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Messina, Agrigento, and in Sardinia.

When Italy came into the possession of the Lombard’s, Jews lived in peace in the territories under their rule. Even after the Lombard’s embraced Catholicism Jews were not persecuted. Pope Gregory I treated them with much consideration.

Under succeeding popes the condition of the Jews did not grow worse; and the same was the case in the several smaller states into which Italy was divided.

Under Norman rule the Jews of southern Italy and of Sicily enjoyed a great freedom.

When Benjamin of Tudela visited the country between 1160 and 1165 he found large communities “old of centuries” on his route. First he visited Genoa, Pisa and Lucca. From other sources we know that at that time Jews lived also in other towns of the North (Aquileia, Ferrara, Mantua, and Padua).

| - - - -
Exchequer of the Jews – (Also know as Scaccarium Judaeorum), a branch of the Royal Exchequer in England from about 1194 to 1290, set up to supervise the affairs of the Jews, and presided over by Royal Wardens (or Justices) of the Jews specially appointed.

The establishment of the Exchequer was part of the reorganization of English Jewry ordered by King Richard I in 1194. Initially, its principal function was to act as the central authority supervising the system of archae that had been instituted throughout the kingdom, but it developed into something an institution far more important than originally planned, evolving certain judicial functions. Initially, the Wardens of the Jews (who were Christians) worked in collaboration with a Jewish representation. From about 1199, the was no Jewish representative, and the office of Arch-Presbyter (or Presbyter Judaeorum) emerged.

Archa (plural Archae)– An official chest, provided with three locks and seals, in which a counterpart of all deeds and contracts involving Jews was to be deposited in order to preserve the records.

The introduction of archae was part of the reorganization of English Jewry ordered by King Richard I in light of the massacres of Jews that took place in 1189-1190 at, and shortly following, his coronation, and which had resulted in a heavy lose of Crown revenue partly as a result of Jewish financial records being destroyed by the murderous mob (in order to conceal evidence of debts due to the Jews).

The archae were intended to safeguard the royal rights in case of future disorder. All Jewish possessions and credits were to be registered and certain cities were designated to serve as the centres for all future Jewish business operations and the registration of Jewish financial transactions, each such city having an archa.

In each centre, a bureau was set up consisting of two reputable Jews and two Christian clerks, under the supervision of a representative of the newly established central authority that became known as the Exchequer of the Jews.

Finally, on July 18, 1290 (which corresponded in the Jewish calendar to 9th of Av, the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the First and Second Temples as well as other tragedies that befell the Jewish nation), all Jews were ordered to leave the kingdom before All Saints Day (November 1) of that year. They could carry with them their movable property.

Their homes were generally escheated to the Crown and the debts owed to the Jews became collectable by Edward (principal only), which amounted to nine thousand pounds.

Most of the Jews made their way to France (only to be expelled in 1306), but about ten per cent went to Flanders.

( Notice this coincides with the end of the Templars in 1308 )
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:16:58

The Norman castles were built with forced labor by the defeated Saxons. Fusion centers anyone?
No-one is quite sure how many motte and bailey castles were built in England by the Normans. However, by counting the number of mottes that exist in England, archaeologists believe that
the Normans built around 500 - one every two weeks between 1066 and 1086.

They were used to keep the Saxons tamed. After William's response to the rebellion in the north of England, many areas were simply too scared to rebel. Motte and bailey castles were a sign that feared Norman soldiers were never too far away.

Once the people of England had been tamed, William moved onto grander castles.

With the population of England seemingly subdued, William started a programme of building stone castles. No original complete motte and bailey castles exist in England, but the huge stone fortifications William started certainly are.

Fusion Centers

Public Intelligence

Since 9/11, the U.S. Government has engaged in a multibillion-dollar effort to construct a domestic intelligence network for the ostensible purpose of combating terrorism, criminal activity and violent extremism. One of the central components of this system is the network of “fusion centers” that have sprung up around the country over the last several years. These entities integrate local law enforcement with a state’s police force, Department of Justice, or Office of Emergency Management and are designed to facilitate law enforcement intelligence activities throughout the jurisdiction, providing federal authorities access to local information and databases, while simultaneously allowing federal agencies to disseminate classified intelligence materials to local authorities. There are almost always federal representatives present in local fusion centers and Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano has recently testified that DHS is “committed to having an officer in each fusion center.” Most fusion centers also work with representatives of the private sector, particularly those industries related to so-called “critical infrastructure and key resources.”
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:17:17
I've made this same argument for years, and have long realized the centralized English state organized by Alfred the Great to reconquer England from the heathen horde (these guys: (can you imagine sweet and innocent little English kids having to grow up listening to this crap?)) made England easy pickings for Billy the Bastard, whose statist thinking was crafted after that of Big Chucky (this jerk:

Charlemagne by Albrecht Dürer

), whose invasion of the German land of Lower Saxony (which the English called "Old Saxony") in AD773 invited retaliation from the English in the form of an invasion of the Frankish heartland, to which Big Chucky responded by burning down the Scola Anglorum (School of the English) in Rome, which he was visiting at the time.

More later, as I intend to get into the ancient roots of the Second Amendment, and it's a lot of work.
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:19:44
1069-70 - Harrying of the North - subjugation of Northern England (Yorkshire) - death toll over 100,000 - scorched earth policy

Plus King William "Salted the Earth"
His cruelest campaign was the Harrying of the North. In order to pacify the region, William laid waste to the land, and salted the earth so that no crops would grow, and it is estimated that 100,000 people died of starvation as a consequence.

Salting the earth, or sowing with salt, is the ritual of spreading salt on conquered cities to symbolize a curse on its re-inhabitation.[1][2]

It originated as a practice in the ancient Near East and became a well-established folkloric motif in the Middle Ages

When Pope Boniface VIII destroyed Palestrina in 1299, he ordered it plowed "following the old example of Carthage in Africa", and also salted
In 1297 the Sciarrillo di Colonna family, who had owned Praeneste (by then called Palestrina) from the eleventh century as a fief, revolted from the pope. In the following year the town was taken by Papal forces, razed to the ground and salted by order of Pope Boniface VIII.


Of open depravity associated with cannibalism, sex and murder: (1294 – 1303 CE) That Pope Boniface VIII did open St Peters Church to regular acts of sexual orgies, ritualistic murder of children and cannibalism in the celebration of High Mass of Satanism of Christianity

In 1066 - King William creates the various "Rapes" in sussex: Think of the U.S. "Regions" today:

At the time of the Norman Conquest there were four rapes: Arundel, Lewes, Pevensey and Hastings.

The rape of Arundel consisted of the entire area of Sussex west of the River Adur, corresponding to the boundaries of both the western division of the church in Sussex (the forerunner to the archdeaconry of Chichester)[6][7]

and the boundaries of the traditional western area of the Sussex dialect.[6]

By the time of the Domesday Book, William the Conqueror had created the rape of Bramber as an afterthought out of parts of the Arundel and Lewes rapes, so that the Adur estuary could be better defended.

A rape was a traditional sub-division of the county of Sussex in England. Their origin is unknown, but they appear to predate the Norman Conquest.[1]

Each rape was split into several hundreds.

The rapes may derive from the system of fortifications devised by Alfred the Great in the late ninth century to defeat the Vikings.[2]

Alternatively, King Alfred's system may in turn have its roots in an earlier age. If so, the Sussex Rapes, like the Kentish Lathes, go back to the dawn of English history when their main function would have been to provide food-rents and military manpower to the king
Under the Normans each traditional rape was now centred on a castle

Sir Henry Ellis's observation that the rapes "were military districts for the supply of the castles which existed in each" applied to the Anglo-Norman period[17]

Each rape had a single sheriff and ran as a strip, north-south, from the Surrey/Kent border to the English Channel. The castles of Arundel, Bramber and Lewes were sited on positions overlooking the rivers Arun, Adur and Ouse respectively, while those at Chichester, Hastings and Pevensey overlooked the coast. This formation was a creation of William I of England, presumably designed to protect routes to Normandy.
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:20:00
BOOK II.: FROM THE FIRST LANDING OF THE DANES IN ENGLAND TO THE END OF THEIR DOMINATION. 787—1048. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

King Alfred "the Great" after the Danish Invasion:

Thus, when, seven years after his election, this learned king, unconsciously odious, having to repel a formidable invasion of the Danes, summoned his people to defend the land, he was fearfully astonished to find them indisposed to obey him, and even careless about the common peril. It was in vain that he sent to each town and hamlet his war messenger, bearing an arrow and a naked sword, and that he published this ancient national proclamation, to which hitherto no Saxon, capable of bearing arms, had refused obedience:

“Let each man that is not a nothing, whether in the town or country, leave his house and come.”

Very few men on this occasion accepted the invitation; and
Alfred accordingly found himself almost alone,
surrounded solely by the small circle of private friends who admired his learning, and whom he sometimes affected to tears by reciting his works to them.3

Favoured by this indifference of the nation towards the chief whom itself had chosen, the enemy made rapid progress. Alfred, abandoned by his people, in turn abandoned them, and quitting, says an ancient historian, his warriors, his captains, and all his people, fled to save his life.5

Concealing himself as he went, in the woods and on the moors, he reached, on the limits of the Cornish Britons, the confluence of the rivers Tone and Parret. Here, in a peninsula surrounded by marshes, the Saxon king sought refuge, under a feigned name, in the hut of a fisherman, compelled himself to bake the bread which his indigent host permitted him to share with his family. Very few of the people knew what had become of him, and the Danish army entered his kingdom without opposition.

Many of the inhabitants embarked from the western coasts to seek an asylum in Gaul, or in Erin, called by the Saxons, Ireland;

the remainder submitted to pay tribute, and to cultivate the land for the Danes.

It was not long ere they found the ills of conquest a thousand times worse than those of Alfred’s rule, which in the hour of suffering had appeared to them insupportable, and they regretted their former condition and the despotism of a king chosen from among themselves
Consfearacynewz said Dec 18, 2012 05:20:17
Prior to the Normans and the Bastard William , there was the Bastard Julius Caesar and his NWO Roman Empire...

This led to the subjugation of the Gauls for 500 years.
Think of Stalin/Mao - 50 years and a generation in the USSR and Eastern Europe is enslaved and subjected to a yoke of tyranny.
The only known fact is that each man in Caesar's legions received a Gaul as a slave, which means at least 40,000 prisoners,

Taking place in September 52 BC in what is now France, the Siege of Alesia (also referred to as the Battle of Alesia) pitted Rome’s famed leader, Julius Caesar, against the Gallic tribes under the unified command of Vercingétorix of Averni.

More important–besides being cited as one of the best uses of siege warfare and “circumvallation” (see more about this below)–the battle of Alesia is considered a turning point in the bitter wars conducted by the Roman Republic to tame the Gauls, who had finally united as a single force in opposition to the Roman invasion.

The hard-fought win–in a battle where the Roman army was outnumbered five-to-one, outside a hilltop fort in Alesia–is often credited with reinvigorating Rome’s power over Gaul. After the loss, Gaul became a province of the Roman empire and was pretty much subdued for the next 500 years.

Alesia is often cited as one of Caesar’s greatest military victories and the fallout from it later led to his ascension to ultimate power in Rome (which was soon followed by his infamous assassination).
Login below to reply: