"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[The Observer]

Almost off topic, but am I right in my belief that King John was the first post-conquest English king who actually spoke English? I know that Henry II didn't speak a word of it, and I'm almost certain that Richard I didn't, either.

My English history is very rusty, but I don't think the official usage of English among royalty happened until the time of either Henry IV or Henry V.

[Wakeman52]

As regards peers, the folk of PLD land again demonstrate a woeful lack of historical knowledge. For example, the structure of society in the early part of the 13C.

Feudalism as practiced in the Kingdom of England was a state of human society which was formally structured and stratified on the basis of land tenure and the varieties thereof. Society was thus ordered around relationships derived from the holding of land, which landholdings are termed "fiefdoms, fiefs, or fees".

These political and military customs existed in medieval Europe, having developed around 700 A.D., flourished up to about the first quarter of the 14th century and declined until their legal abolition in England with the Tenures Abolition Act 1660.

Classic English feudalism
Under the English feudal system, the person of the king (asserting his allodial right) was the only absolute "owner" of land. All nobles, knights and other tenants, termed vassals, merely "held" land from the king, who was thus at the top of the "feudal pyramid". When feudal land grants were of indefinite or indeterminate duration, such grants were deemed freehold, while fixed term and non-hereditable grants were deemed non-freehold. However, even freehold fiefs were not unconditionally heritable--before inheriting, the heir had to pay a suitable feudal relief.

Below the king in the feudal pyramid was a tenant-in-chief (generally in the form of a baron or knight) who was a vassal of the king, and holding from him in turn was a mesne tenant (generally a knight, sometimes a baron, including tenants-in-chief in their capacity as holders of other fiefs) who held when sub-enfeoffed by the tenant-in-chief. Below the mesne tenant further mesne tenants could hold from each other in series. The obligations and corresponding rights between lord and vassal concerning the fief form the basis of the feudal relationship.

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism_in_England

So, MC as originally drafted (as has been said before), doesn't recognise or take account of much below the 1st or 2nd tiers of this pyramid; certainly not peasants.

The English language gradually overtook Norman-French, but not until over a century after the death of King John in 1216 did it become official:

It is estimated that up to 85% of Anglo-Saxon words were lost as a result of the Viking and particularly the Norman invasions, and at one point the very existence of the English language looked to be in dire peril. But, despite the shake-up the Normans had given English, it showed its resilience once again, and, two hundred years after the Norman Conquest, it was English not French that emerged as the language of England.

There were a number of contributing factors. The English, of necessity, had become “Normanized”, but, over time, the Normans also became “Anglicized”, particularly after 1204 when King John’s ineptness lost the French part of Normandy to the King of France and the Norman nobles were forced to look more to their English properties. Increasingly out of touch with their properties in France and with the French court and culture in general, they soon began to look on themselves as English. Norman French began gradually to degenerate and atrophy. While some in England spoke French and some spoke Latin (and a few spoke both), everyone, from the highest to the lowest, spoke English, and it gradually became the lingua franca of the nation once again.

The Hundred Years War against France (1337 - 1453) had the effect of branding French as the language of the enemy and the status of English rose as a consequence. The Black Death of 1349 - 1350 killed about a third of the English population (which was around 4 million at that time), including a disproportionate number of the Latin-speaking clergy. After the plague, the English-speaking labouring and merchant classes grew in economic and social importance and, within the short period of a decade, the linguistic division between the nobility and the commoners was largely over. The Statute of Pleading, which made English the official language of the courts and Parliament (although, paradoxically, it was written in French), was adopted in 1362, and in that same year Edward III became the first king to address Parliament in English, a crucial psychological turning point. By 1385, English had become the language of instruction in schools.

From:

http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/history_middle.html

It was just becoming recognisable to modern readers:

In þat lond ben trees þat beren wolle, as þogh it were of scheep; whereof men maken clothes, and all þing þat may ben made of wolle. In þat contree ben many ipotaynes, þat dwellen som tyme in the water, and somtyme on the lond: and þei ben half man and half hors, as I haue seyd before; and þei eten men, whan þei may take hem.

From a late 14th Century work called “Mandeville's Travels” about travel in foreign lands.

Returning to the original MC, that was written in Latin, a language only used by the clergy, so it is a translation by monks from the Norman French spoken by the King and his recalcitrant nobles. Most of those affected by its terms would have likely struggled to read them in their Latin form.

Basically, and with apologies for the length of this post, Mr PAYG SIM Robinson, your assertions about the applicability of an 800 year-old treaty made between a medieval king and his feudal nobles to, for example, not paying your council tax, are nonsensical, to put it politely.

[Burnaby49]

Apologizing for a long post? Please, you're just an amateur indirectly boasting about, 'ahem' length.

When you get to this level come back and brag about size.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11412#p244257

or this one on a related issue but a different topic;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11032#p223963

And I've done longer that I'm not bothering to dredge up. In other words a post is long if it is excessive for the issue under discussion (as mine often clearly are). This is a very flexible subjective guideline, particularly when dealing with the topics I often cover.

[AndyPandy]

Why is it that FMOTLers ALWAYS end up splitting into factions and arguing about which of their useless processes is the one 'true' one, talk about twisted egos, truly pathetic !

David Robinson

Good morning rebels....

Just a quick one. Since Graham Moore has blocked me for pointing out the double think and illegal activity of his campaign, we have to seperate our group entirely from his.

Anyone using the white dragon symbol for their profile pic will be warned and removed from this group if they continue to support the opposition.

[Burnaby49]

Why is it that FMOTLers ALWAYS end up splitting into factions and arguing about which of their useless processes is the one 'true' one, talk about twisted egos, truly pathetic !

David Robinson

Good morning rebels....

Just a quick one. Since Graham Moore has blocked me for pointing out the double think and illegal activity of his campaign, we have to seperate our group entirely from his.

Anyone using the white dragon symbol for their profile pic will be warned and removed from this group if they continue to support the opposition.

I thought the tyrannical government was the opposition. Guess I was wrong. Unless it's just semantics and the government is the enemy while dissenters are the opposition. It's like cells dividing. The two groups will soon splinter into four.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Almost off topic, but am I right in my belief that King John was the first post-conquest English king who actually spoke English? I know that Henry II didn't speak a word of it, and I'm almost certain that Richard I didn't, either.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Norman French was the court language for over 100 years after the conquest of 1066. I also suspect that one of the reasons the Magna Carta was written in Latin was that it was a language that all sides either understood or could get a trusted translation of. The barons went to a cleric to write it up IIRC.

[Siegfried Shrink]

One thing that long survived the change to English was the 'clerkly hand', a style of writing or more accurately, letter forming, that lasted almost up to the invention of the typewriter, and renders both early and late handwritten texts comprehensible to anyone accustomed to it.
I recently sold a document from about 1200 and had more problem with the Norman French than actually reading the words.
The basic style of writing could be recognised all over Europe for at least 600 years, obviously with various diacritical marks but fundamentally recognisable.

Of course, this all went out of the window in the 20th C. and now younger people seem to have difficulty with normal handwriiten text. So it goes.

[JimUk1]

Breaking News:
Graham Moore is ripping Dave-

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1 ... &source=48

[longdog]

Yet more expert legal discussion from Pay-As-You-Go Dave...

David Robinson.

This is the imposter head of the judiciary in Britain. He should be the focus for those of us demanding that matters be heard within properly convened courts of law instead of the illegal corporate de facto ones which scratch the corporate backs.

It says it right there that he is the head of "business" of the Ministry of Justice yet the courts should be run as a public service of course.

The fact that the Ministry of Justice is a corporation is proof enough that treason must have been committed......The entitled 'Her Majesties Court SERVICE' provides a clue....the 'tribunal' bit was added by the corporations as tribunals in criminal matters are also illegal.

It would be treason to deny anyone due process of law within a properly convened court de jure...since these traitors sit in their ivory towers we have to attack the criminal courts from the bottom up, but he should be our main focus along with Amber Rudd (imposter home secretary) and the disgusting Theresa may...

Tribunals in criminal matters are also illegal... Hmmmm... It's a good job tribunals don't hear criminal matters then isn't it Dave?

What a complete plum.

[TheNewSaint]

It's like cells dividing. The two groups will soon splinter into four.

Life of Brian really did nail it. That movie is almost 40 years old and had no concept of the Internet, yet the People's Front of Judea perfectly satirizes situations like this. The Monty Python team had an astounding level of insight into human nature.

[JimUk1]

It's like cells dividing. The two groups will soon splinter into four.

Life of Brian really did nail it. That movie is almost 40 years old and had no concept of the Internet, yet the People's Front of Judea perfectly satirizes situations like this. The Monty Python team had an astounding level of insight into human nature.

We could even start a new thread off the back of this-

"When Sovereign Citzens fight", or "The UKs dumbest people".....

[Siegfried Shrink]

The Monty Python team, (and I) witnessed innumerable far left wing groups doing exactly as described, minus 'Judea'. Some would wind round so far they would attempt to take over other groups they split from, see 'entryism' and the labour party.

[longdog]

It's like cells dividing. The two groups will soon splinter into four.

Life of Brian really did nail it. That movie is almost 40 years old and had no concept of the Internet, yet the People's Front of Judea perfectly satirizes situations like this. The Monty Python team had an astounding level of insight into human nature.

I think that scene was a parody of the radical left more than anything else. And I say that as a radical leftist

[HardyW]

We could even start a new thread off the back of this-

"When Sovereign Citzens fight", or "The UKs dumbest people".....

There already is this
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11017

and as for "The UK's dumbest people" just press "Back to United Kingdom" at the bottom of this page.

[TheNewSaint]

I took it much more generally. It's a satire of how human organizations fail to serve their own purpose. The bickering groups (in both the movie and in Article 61-ism) never realize they want the same thing, and would be more powerful working together. They also fail to do anything useful; at the end of the movie, they read a statement and commit symbolic mass suicide (in front of no one) when they could have simply rescued Brian.

How much you want to bet this David vs Graham shit drones on for weeks? Not that this group was doing anything useful anyway, but it's losing whatever was left of the plot. It'll be interesting to see how Crab Bait reacts. He wants to do something, and appeared frustrated with the lack of support even before the split. That guy is scary.

[Wakeman52]

Burnaby49 wrote:

Please, you're just an amateur

Agreed. My grammar was wrong - I'd meant to address that comment to just Mr PAYG.

[notorial dissent]

I took it much more generally. It's a satire of how human organizations fail to serve their own purpose. The bickering groups (in both the movie and in Article 61-ism) never realize they want the same thing, and would be more powerful working together. They also fail to do anything useful; at the end of the movie, they read a statement and commit symbolic mass suicide (in front of no one) when they could have simply rescued Brian.

How much you want to bet this David vs Graham shit drones on for weeks? Not that this group was doing anything useful anyway, but it's losing whatever was left of the plot. It'll be interesting to see how Crab Bait reacts. He wants to do something, and appeared frustrated with the lack of support even before the split. That guy is scary.

The thing is though, that in that kind of situation, you can have only ONE leader, and the one consistency with all these groups is that they DON'T SHARE power, or anything else for that matter regardless of how close their positions might be.

[longdog]

The thing is though, that in that kind of situation, you can have only ONE leader, and the one consistency with all these groups is that they DON'T SHARE power, or anything else for that matter regardless of how close their positions might be.

Eine reich. Eine volk. Ein Fuhrer!

[notorial dissent]

The thing is though, that in that kind of situation, you can have only ONE leader, and the one consistency with all these groups is that they DON'T SHARE power, or anything else for that matter regardless of how close their positions might be.

Eine reich. Eine volk. Ein Fuhrer!

Jarhr voll mine furer!!!!!

[grixit]

the phrase "peer of the realm" originally meant equal in social rank to the monarch. There were peers and then there was the rest of the nobility. I'm guessing that would have included only actual royal families and those who could claim royal ancestry.

Of course nowadays it would be hard to find any european who didn't have that.

I once saw the official order of succession for the british crown. It's pretty exhaustive.