Do what extent do the Norman descendants still dictate European affairs? - Historum

werner · January 9th, 2012, 12:47 PM

I admit that it's a bit ridiculous to demand that everyone with Norman ancestry, or even the elites, be kicked out of England as was suggested in the following thread http://www.historum.com/european-his...ans-stole.html

The Norman influence on European affaris was extensive, politically, militarily, and culturally. The Normans did practically steal everything from the English, I mean a few select Normans just went to England from France and just took everything. What's interesting about the Normans however is what they did afterwards, which is to set up super estates, and basically introduced the world to the idea of immense and unparalled greed.

Since the Norman takeovers there has been no official regime change. Things kind of accelerated after that, with respect to world affairs. If you watch the documentary by Eddie Izzard - Mongrel Nation - folks with Norman ancestry still inhabit England and they still have connections to the French. I truly wonder how much of the scheme to setup America, Canada, and Australia was really just an extension of this insatiable Norman greed?

Sure, some Normans have mixed in with their respective regions, however, the elites haven't. And from some documentaries that I've seen of Scotland, folks with Norman ancestry have distinctive features and live quite a distinguished and priviledged lifestyles which suggests to me that some of them chose to remain distinct from local populations.

Anyways, did and do the Norman ancestral elites have significant control and driving power in the affairs of the new world?

Norman timeline

1) Takeover of the Britain, political and cultural changes.

2) Extensive influence over European affairs

3) The immediate implementation of unprecedented greed with continued emphasis on ways to obtain even more wealth.

4) Acceleration of new world affairs and global capitalistic systems shortly after takeovers.

5) No regime changes in Britain since takeover, which implicates that these Norman elites have remained in power.

Kind of a weird topic I admit, but it's a different line of discussion then those that suggest that Jews or some secret society e.g. Free Masons , have utmost control over world affairs. Personally, I prefer a perspective with the topic of lineage in it.

Nyneve · January 9th, 2012, 03:12 PM

They still look different in England. We call them "frog-faces".

**DreamWeaver** · January 9th, 2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyneve

They still look different in England. We call them "frog-faces".

I can honestly say that I have never come across this.

**DreamWeaver** · January 9th, 2012, 03:16 PM

Quote:

5) No regime changes in Britain since takeover, which implicates that these Norman elites have remained in power.

There was that Cromwell thing in the mid 17th Century.

Nyneve · January 9th, 2012, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWeaver

I can honestly say that I have never come across this.

I have.

Frog33inUK · January 9th, 2012, 03:30 PM

Here we go again ...

1. Is there a documented, evidence based proof that Norman ancestors are still in "power" in the UK while defining themselves as Norman descendants and thus forming a closed sub-group of the population ?

2. In 1066, the Normans were only a minority in the invasion army, the rest came from various part of the French Kingdom (and not France, as it is a modern concept). Ex: Montfort is a traditional name for the nobility of Brittany.

3. What is your timescale to isolate the Normans as a separate entity within the "English community": from 1066 up to when ?

4. As much as I love Eddy Izzard, and even though I haven't seen this documentary, I would consider, as a rule, any "mainstream" historical documentary from which to get the information necessary to formulate any rigorous conclusion with extreme caution.

5. Your paradigm on the "Norman greed" being the impetus for what followed on a wordlwide scale does not seem viable and justifiable to me, hence my point 3.

6. The subject is tricky, but if you want to look into it, we need to be extremely rigorous to avoid simplistic paradigms and conclusions, hence all my previous points. Words like "French", "English", "Britain" have to be taken and used with caution, considering that their current meaning and the concept they convey are anachronical to the situation we are dealing with.

7. Your point 5 looks like a very simplistic and misleading shortcut.