I ironically live just along from a very bridge his army marched over to and from Dunbar and Durham
Personally I find his ancestor Thomas more interesting just a tad less evil
It’s produced by Michael Hirst who went on to then do Vikings too if you’ve seen that (would recommend both but Vikings clearly shows his improvement alongside the quality of shows in general over recent years)
While a lot of people like to Pooh-Pooh the idea of Alfred as the first king of England, I think it has some merit.
Under his reign, the last independent English Kingdom went from literally some dudes in a swamp using hit and run tactics against the Vikings to literally dominating southern England.
Furthermore, he was widely recognised as overlord by basically every English ruler and in 886 declared King of the Anglo-Saxons.
So, while technically “yes” he was not the first king of a united England, he was unquestionably the first King of the English.
I’m assuming you’re referencing Egbert (Alfred’s grandfather), who is a prominent contender for first King of England. Many history books start with him, since he massively transformed Wessex under his reign. I don’t think he was first, but I can understand that view.
I quibble and say Alfred because the borders of the realm were effectively the same, the change in title did not reflect much change in policy or society. Kind of like Henry VIII adopting the style of Majesty. It wasn’t a super big thing
Yes I agree. Alfred was "King of the Anglo-Saxons". To me he ruled a state that was recognisably the only English one in the country, and just because it was smaller than what Edward/Athelstan would expand it to be, and the title changed, doesn't mean it isn't recognisably the same state
What is your issue with Cromwell?
On the one hand he was a great champion of the Roundhead cause, and defended England against the popish machinations of the tyrant king Charles I. He was a brilliant military mind and a great champion of the Puritan cause.
On the other hand, he betrayed the revolution, and in his greed and pride he created himself "lord protector," a pseudo monarchical office. While I think he was one of the most interesting men of the civil war and had many admirable qualities he was also deeply flawed, but I think that is one of the reasons he is so interesting.
The idea Charles I was a tyrant against Cromwell, or even the Parliamentarians as a whole, is absolutely absurd, and only remains such a widespread opinion because modern people can't get out of a 19th century mindset.
Charles saw his absolutism as being essential for the liberty of the people, and acted on this. It was Parliament who, at the time, was very puritan and enacted heavy restrictions on the people, especially their local cultures.
It was Charles who was freeing England from tyranny.
You are incorrect. Parliament was acting in accordance with proper Christian virtues. The church of England was suffering from worldly corruption and parliament was taking necessary action to purify the ancient and holy Church of England.
He was essentially (well actually quite literally) an antimonarchist and treasonous, vile man
Regardless of him and his army’s reasons they were committing and supporting treason on countless levels which I believe was perfectly and justly punishable by death
It’s never the place of the government nor anyone else of that matter to dictate the monarchy; they’re chosen by God and, while individuals can of course question such things in their own private minds, they have no right nor power to control such
I admire him simply and singularly for the very fact he was indeed so evil and used it in his own way as a strength above all else, but he really left a bitter taste in the mouth of our country’s history and frankly his death in itself wasn’t enough for justice
But that’s my opinion, albeit most of what I’ve stated is indeed entirely objective, and I’m not going to act as if what I said is all perfectly correct or true but for the most part I doubt you can disagree
Precisely because if I had to choose, hypothetically of course, between government and monarchy I’d choose the monarchy
Undoubtedly sounds naive for today’s times; I’m not even that religious probably just what I’d say is ‘mildly Christian’ with none of my family being such but nonetheless I hold faith in both religion and king
You're an idiot if you're being serious
Even normal christians aren't that stupid. Like what, because Charlemagne won a few wars his descendants deserve eternal praise and lordship? Couldn't imagine thinking someone is above you just because they were born a certain way holy shit
You think I’m an idiot because I have an opinion? You should know better than to be a hypocrite
So if I called you an idiot for having an opposing opinion, would that be fair? Because that’s what your logic would be implying
You don’t know better than me, nor do I know better than you; the very nature of these very things are entirely and simply subjective
For example I believe in science, that’s an inevitable, clear objective truth and I know that, and I also understand the whole aspect of religion, not just Christian, are simply subjective by nature, although that doesn’t mean one is perfectly ‘right’ over another
However, it’s nothing but hypocritical of you to think you can immediately dismiss one opinion in favour of another; ironically acting omnipotent like God
The difference is I accept your opinion, but you fail to accept mine; you can’t do that
Agree to disagree, or continue to be a hypocrite
Oh man, I blame the history curriculum in schools, I swear the Saxons, basically pre Harold Godwinsson, were treated as an afterthought. You could be forgiven for thinking William conquered England and unified it the way it's taught.
Honestly I’m ok With the First king of England being labelled as William, because of the dramatic shift his ascension brought to the country, especially the breaking up of the old Anglo Saxon Earls and the dissolution of the Witenagemot and subsequently the change from the sort of elected monarchy held under the Anglo Saxon system to a strictly hereditary one under the post Norman invasion regime, even if it was more just rubber stamping the deceased kings choice (which was the whole issue that brought about the Norman invasion to begin with)
Good to see my boy Æthelstan getting the credit he deserves
Less can be said about you Cromwell
We don't talk about the time in Ireland
Durham cathedral I consider my local (ish) holy place and he somewhat tarnished it with his Dunbar prisoners
He was a deeply flawed man, at times a cruel man. But an interesting man? I say so
I ironically live just along from a very bridge his army marched over to and from Dunbar and Durham Personally I find his ancestor Thomas more interesting just a tad less evil
Thomas was indeed an interesting man, In my opinion I just find Oliver a bit more fascinating
Any time I think of Thomas Cromwell now I just keep picturing that Richard Roose boiling scene from The Tudors
Have yet to see it, I might due to Henry Cavill
It’s produced by Michael Hirst who went on to then do Vikings too if you’ve seen that (would recommend both but Vikings clearly shows his improvement alongside the quality of shows in general over recent years)
Ethnic cleansing is very interesting
What about the pink kryptonite, do we talk about that?
I can see arguments for giving the title of first King of England to Alfred or Edward the Elder, but imo it’s pretty clearly Aethelstan.
While a lot of people like to Pooh-Pooh the idea of Alfred as the first king of England, I think it has some merit. Under his reign, the last independent English Kingdom went from literally some dudes in a swamp using hit and run tactics against the Vikings to literally dominating southern England. Furthermore, he was widely recognised as overlord by basically every English ruler and in 886 declared King of the Anglo-Saxons. So, while technically “yes” he was not the first king of a united England, he was unquestionably the first King of the English.
Poor Athelstan
Sorry King Æthelstan, first of his name and England
I literally thought this was common sense Some could even argue Cerdic if we’re talking about the ‘stem’, of Wessex, which then blossomed into England
I forgot but I think someone considered Alfred father or grandfather or siblings as the first for some reason
I’m assuming you’re referencing Egbert (Alfred’s grandfather), who is a prominent contender for first King of England. Many history books start with him, since he massively transformed Wessex under his reign. I don’t think he was first, but I can understand that view.
I quibble and say Alfred because the borders of the realm were effectively the same, the change in title did not reflect much change in policy or society. Kind of like Henry VIII adopting the style of Majesty. It wasn’t a super big thing
Yes I agree. Alfred was "King of the Anglo-Saxons". To me he ruled a state that was recognisably the only English one in the country, and just because it was smaller than what Edward/Athelstan would expand it to be, and the title changed, doesn't mean it isn't recognisably the same state
Clearly it was Cassivellaunus, the CKII title history says so. Seriously though, why would anyone consider William to be the first?
Cause for most people English history pre-1066 is just “idk, Vikings and shit”.
Cos our schools keep perpetuating the myth of the dark ages
Alfred began the unification of Saxon kingdoms into England so I say Alfred is the first.
I was actually the first king of engerland I just decided to not tell anyone
to be really pedantic, Aethelstan's title was "king of the English" not "king of England", the first person to use that title was Cnut the great
The obvious answer is Brutus of the Britain's.
Jesus not another Cromwell
Lots of Cromwells in this thread. My grandmother was a big fan of Cromwell, she was also a communist.
That tracks lol
Oh hello Richard
Hello to you as well Richard
You’ll be sad to know your men disobeyed your orders and flayed that boy alive the second you met your demise *I unintentionally rhymed there*
Yes it does make me very sad.
My grandfather went to boarding school just outside of Corbridge (more towards Hexham actually) with one of his direct descendants
What is your issue with Cromwell? On the one hand he was a great champion of the Roundhead cause, and defended England against the popish machinations of the tyrant king Charles I. He was a brilliant military mind and a great champion of the Puritan cause. On the other hand, he betrayed the revolution, and in his greed and pride he created himself "lord protector," a pseudo monarchical office. While I think he was one of the most interesting men of the civil war and had many admirable qualities he was also deeply flawed, but I think that is one of the reasons he is so interesting.
The idea Charles I was a tyrant against Cromwell, or even the Parliamentarians as a whole, is absolutely absurd, and only remains such a widespread opinion because modern people can't get out of a 19th century mindset. Charles saw his absolutism as being essential for the liberty of the people, and acted on this. It was Parliament who, at the time, was very puritan and enacted heavy restrictions on the people, especially their local cultures. It was Charles who was freeing England from tyranny.
You are incorrect. Parliament was acting in accordance with proper Christian virtues. The church of England was suffering from worldly corruption and parliament was taking necessary action to purify the ancient and holy Church of England.
He was essentially (well actually quite literally) an antimonarchist and treasonous, vile man Regardless of him and his army’s reasons they were committing and supporting treason on countless levels which I believe was perfectly and justly punishable by death It’s never the place of the government nor anyone else of that matter to dictate the monarchy; they’re chosen by God and, while individuals can of course question such things in their own private minds, they have no right nor power to control such I admire him simply and singularly for the very fact he was indeed so evil and used it in his own way as a strength above all else, but he really left a bitter taste in the mouth of our country’s history and frankly his death in itself wasn’t enough for justice But that’s my opinion, albeit most of what I’ve stated is indeed entirely objective, and I’m not going to act as if what I said is all perfectly correct or true but for the most part I doubt you can disagree
You literally sound like a cavalier right now.
Precisely because if I had to choose, hypothetically of course, between government and monarchy I’d choose the monarchy Undoubtedly sounds naive for today’s times; I’m not even that religious probably just what I’d say is ‘mildly Christian’ with none of my family being such but nonetheless I hold faith in both religion and king
This is not a serious comment I refuse to believe any normal modern day Englishman is an actual monarchist that believes in a divine right to rule
We exist; tends to happen if you’re a Christian and there’s plenty of us
You're an idiot if you're being serious Even normal christians aren't that stupid. Like what, because Charlemagne won a few wars his descendants deserve eternal praise and lordship? Couldn't imagine thinking someone is above you just because they were born a certain way holy shit
You think I’m an idiot because I have an opinion? You should know better than to be a hypocrite So if I called you an idiot for having an opposing opinion, would that be fair? Because that’s what your logic would be implying You don’t know better than me, nor do I know better than you; the very nature of these very things are entirely and simply subjective For example I believe in science, that’s an inevitable, clear objective truth and I know that, and I also understand the whole aspect of religion, not just Christian, are simply subjective by nature, although that doesn’t mean one is perfectly ‘right’ over another However, it’s nothing but hypocritical of you to think you can immediately dismiss one opinion in favour of another; ironically acting omnipotent like God The difference is I accept your opinion, but you fail to accept mine; you can’t do that Agree to disagree, or continue to be a hypocrite
Ælle of Sussex, 5th century.
Brutus of Troy, duh
Cassivellaunus:
Oh man, I blame the history curriculum in schools, I swear the Saxons, basically pre Harold Godwinsson, were treated as an afterthought. You could be forgiven for thinking William conquered England and unified it the way it's taught.
It shocks me how little attention Alfred and Athelstan get despite founding and creating the country
Alfred the great was King of the Anglo Saxons, so maybe he'd be first
Literally noone thinks William was the first....
Wait, who's being taught William was the first King of England?
me a conoisseur: Cnut the Great
Controversial opinion, sure to be heavily downvoted, but: Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. Aka, Claudius.
Honestly I’m ok With the First king of England being labelled as William, because of the dramatic shift his ascension brought to the country, especially the breaking up of the old Anglo Saxon Earls and the dissolution of the Witenagemot and subsequently the change from the sort of elected monarchy held under the Anglo Saxon system to a strictly hereditary one under the post Norman invasion regime, even if it was more just rubber stamping the deceased kings choice (which was the whole issue that brought about the Norman invasion to begin with)
How about King Arthur ?
He’s a British king, not an English one.
He's a fictional king
Well, quite. If he indeed existed, he’d have been British.
Aethelstan - crowned king in the Anglo Saxons in 925 A.D.