Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza
Icecube wrote:Cromwell's invasion and subjugation of Scotland is not something that sits well in the mainstream edited version of Scottish history. Indeed not something the present regime would like to hear very much about either but your correct Scotland was incorporated in to the English Commonwealth at the time.
freebornjohn wrote:That's why Charles II tried to bury history in order to bury law.
freebornjohn wrote:[...]if anyone actually reads the Declaration will see that it opens up another can of worms.
Icecube wrote:FBJ you must know that the precise spelling of the name doesn't matter much, there was no uniformity until recently. In fact it doesn't matter that much now does it? Despite the Spelling Gestapo screaming it does.
::):
Lucky Poet wrote:freebornjohn wrote:That's why Charles II tried to bury history in order to bury law.
Ok, you've got me curious. What does this mean?
It means that the term 'Interregnum' was invented to join up the gap between the reign of Charles I and Charles II, and Charles II then rolled back time from 1660 to 1649 and made the laws in between times null and void, and he essentially made the actual history of the republic disappear from public view. Now people refer to Oliver Cromwell without knowing anything about the man or the time period he represented. Therefore most people do not know that at one time Scotland became a republic and ceased to exist as a country under that name.freebornjohn wrote:[...]if anyone actually reads the Declaration will see that it opens up another can of worms.
Not really. Context is all, in its case. It's misused by a lot of people, and is (from our far vantage point in time) quite enigmatic.
freebornjohn wrote:Lucky Poet wrote:freebornjohn wrote:That's why Charles II tried to bury history in order to bury law.
Ok, you've got me curious. What does this mean?freebornjohn wrote:It means that the term 'Interregnum' was invented to join up the gap between the reign of Charles I and Charles II, and Charles II then rolled back time from 1660 to 1649 and made the laws in between times null and void, and he essentially made the actual history of the republic disappear from public view. Now people refer to Oliver Cromwell without knowing anything about the man or the time period he represented. Therefore most people do not know that at one time Scotland became a republic and ceased to exist as a country under that name.
freebornjohn wrote:Lucky Poet wrote:freebornjohn wrote:[...]if anyone actually reads the Declaration will see that it opens up another can of worms.
Not really. Context is all, in its case. It's misused by a lot of people, and is (from our far vantage point in time) quite enigmatic.freebornjohn wrote:Well this is a side-bar issue. But the context is that the preamble describes the origin of the Scots and the body describes a situation where an appeal is being made to an overlord of two countries. That, without getting into anything deeper is the nature of the document.
But back to the reason why I posted all this:
Lucky Poet wrote:Sounding childish, you raised it in the first place, and at some length. If you don't want to get any deeper, then we'll leave it in saying that our modern understanding of nation and church doesn't easily apply to the early fourteenth century. That letter to the Pope was in response to Edward's citation of the legend of Brutus*. It's no less ridiculous, but that's how the world worked back then.
*Look up Geoffrey of Monmouth on Wikipedia.
freebornjohn wrote:As for the annexation of Scotland into the English Commonwealth - that is a well documented fact of history.
Return to Glasgow Chat (Coffee Lounge)
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 44 guests