# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  The fall of ORTHODOX England

## Imperium Romanorum

History of England and ORTHODOX Christians!

--------------------
INTRODUCTION: ENGLAND AND THE CONTINENT

On October 14, 1066, at Hastings in southern England, the last Orthodox king of England, Harold II, died in battle against Duke William of Normandy. William had been blessed to invade England by the Roman Pope Alexander in order to bring the English Church into full communion with the “reformed Papacy”; for since 1052 the English archbishop had been banned and denounced as schismatic by Rome. The result of the Norman Conquest was that the English Church and people were integrated into the heretical “Church” of Western, Papist Christendom, which had just, in 1054, fallen away from communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, represented by the Eastern Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Thus ended the nearly five-hundred-year history of the Anglo-Saxon Orthodox Church, which was followed by the demise of the still older Celtic Orthodox Churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. 
This small book is an account of how this came to pass.

http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20FA...LAND%205X8.htm

----------


## Chris

> History of England and ORTHODOX Christians!
> 
> --------------------
> INTRODUCTION: ENGLAND AND THE CONTINENT
> 
> On October 14, 1066, at Hastings in southern England, the last Orthodox king of England, Harold II, died in battle against Duke William of Normandy. William had been blessed to invade England by the Roman Pope Alexander in order to bring the English Church into full communion with the “reformed Papacy”; for since 1052 the English archbishop had been banned and denounced as schismatic by Rome. The result of the Norman Conquest was that the English Church and people were integrated into the heretical “Church” of Western, Papist Christendom, which had just, in 1054, fallen away from communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, represented by the Eastern Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Thus ended the nearly five-hundred-year history of the Anglo-Saxon Orthodox Church, which was followed by the demise of the still older Celtic Orthodox Churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. 
> This small book is an account of how this came to pass.
> 
> http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20FA...LAND%205X8.htm


It's one way of looking at it. I'll certainly read more on that, so thanks.

Most would agree however, that the primary purpose of the Conquest was power, not religion. The Normans were devout Christians, but pragmatically, the Normans wanted the English throne and land. Having Papal endorsement would have been a massive morale boost for the invading force, but little more religious significance than that.

The mainstream controversy centres around whose claim was strongest - Harold or William? A neutral observer would have a strong argument for either. Irrefutably, claims of the era were resolved by force, and the Normans prevailed.

The Anglo-Saxon way of life was ostensibly wiped out, but I maintain that as 90% of the population lived off the land and continued to speak Old English, the resultant emergence of Middle English was inevitable proof of such a continuing culture. The top echelons of society changed beyond all recognition though. However, it was a matter of a few hundred years before English became the language of the court and noble society.

As for the Christian aspects of the situation, thanks again for something to look into in more detail.

Regards, Chris

----------


## Hus

Imperium, this would be the Papal East/West schism? I hardly think that the supposedly corrupt and outdated Anglo-Saxon church (but whom the payments of 'Peter's Pence were up to date and paid regularly)- whom William kept almost intact for *four years* after the 'conquest', was doomed?

The English Archbishop whom you refer to in 1052 would be Stigand? A papal legate who visited England in 1061/2 -returning with Tostig and Bishop Ealdred's almost-doomed party in Rome, (the latter who as Archbishop of Canterbury crowned both Harold and William in 1066), found no source of corruption against either that wily old cleric, or the English church _per se_?

----------


## bud

Also William the conquerer was only a Duke, taking the English throne would make him a King. Sounds much better than Duke... lol

----------


## Hus

But, as the Normans _'looked down upon'_ the Anglo-Saxons, as Michael Wood suggested, then Duke William would have seen the king status as equal, or less, to that of Norman? Certainly he saw it as en extansion to his power and own status, let alone welath?

This 'conquest' was where began the children's rhyme *'I'm the king of the castle, you're the dirty rascal'* comes from?

----------


## Chris

> But, as the Normans _'looked down upon'_ the Anglo-Saxons, as Michael Wood suggested, then Duke William would have seen the king status as equal, or less, to that of Norman? Certainly he saw it as en extansion to his power and own status, let alone welath?


I agree. My view is that William would have seen England as a natural and rightful extension to Normandy.

Today, the Channel Islands effectively see England as their territory in an historical sense. Legally, they are not part of the United Kingdom, but to the British Crown not in its role not of British Monarch, but as the Duke of Normandy. They are not part of the United Kingdom and by extension, not part of the EU. Modern proof of William's mindset.

----------


## iapodos

One question for English people.
Is there any traces nowadays in England which can show Norman or AngloSaxon origin of certain families, for example? Is it correct to say that high class in England, I mean Lords, are of Norman descent, and low classes are AngloSaxons by origin? Or is it all English melting pot which was done centuries ago, and we now have one English nation without Norman or AngloSaxon specific backgrounds?

----------


## Chris

> One question for English people.
> Is there any traces nowadays in England which can show Norman or AngloSaxon origin of certain families, for example? Is it correct to say that high class in England, I mean Lords, are of Norman descent, and low classes are AngloSaxons by origin? Or is it all English melting pot which was done centuries ago, and we now have one English nation without Norman or AngloSaxon specific backgrounds?


In the vast majority of cases, we are a melting pot of our autosomal DNA heritage. There was Anglo-Saxon nobility as well as Norman. The male/Y DNA continues unbroken to their descendants to this day, although as I say, the vast majority of us cannot prove an unbroken lineage - even British nobility.

----------


## iapodos

> In the vast majority of cases, we are a melting pot of our autosomal DNA heritage. There was Anglo-Saxon nobility as well as Norman. The male/Y DNA continues unbroken to their descendants to this day, although as I say, the vast majority of us cannot prove an unbroken lineage - even British nobility.


But is there any living AngloSaxon noble family which survived till nowadays and that can trace their origin as nobles from AngloSaxon times?

----------


## Aristander

> But is there any living AngloSaxon noble family which survived till nowadays and that can trace their origin as nobles from AngloSaxon times?


Probably about 90% of the people living in Britain today and 75%+ in the rest of the Western World can claim to be descended from the Anglo-Saxon nobility. 
An interesting fact was that as far back as the 7th Century the nobility of Europe were intermarrying. Duke William was the cousin of Edward the Confessor and probably cousin to Harold Godwinson. 
The lineage of the Saxon nobility merged back a number of times into the British royal houses. I think the first time might have been Henry the I, with his marriage to Matilda of Scotland who was daughter of one of the Ethelreds.
The noble families of Europe have always been an incestous lot!  :Laughing:

----------


## Hus

> One question for English people.
> Is there any traces nowadays in England which can show Norman or AngloSaxon origin of certain families, for example? Is it correct to say that high class in England, I mean Lords, are of Norman descent, and low classes are AngloSaxons by origin? Or is it all English melting pot which was done centuries ago, and we now have one English nation without Norman or AngloSaxon specific backgrounds?


No, for us working/middle class people to trace ourselves back to Anglo-Saxon times would be very difficult to prove. Only the Queen and a few others have been able.

I would think that there are a great many English people who are descended from the old AS nobility though? Tostig? Ansgar? Waltheof? Edwin and Morcar didn't have issue, as far as I'm aware.

And not just in England- many nobles left England after 1066, to the Byzantine Emperor's service as Varangian warriors, and also issue of other parts of Europe?

----------


## iapodos

Interesting part from the book above about migration of Anglo Saxons to Constantinople:


"Possibly the greatest emigration, however, was elsewhere; the Old English were attracted above all by the almost mystical name of Constantinople, fixed they believed, as Constantine had believed before them, at the middle of the Earth, joining East and West (which Kipling wrongly said would never meet). It is certain that from the Conquest on, and especially during the 1070's but right on into the middle of the twelfth century, huge numbers of English emigrated to the New Rome. Moreover, this emigration was an emigration of the elite of the country. The great scholar Sir Frank Stenton has discovered that several noble families simply disappeared after the Conquest and they were not all killed at Hastings - they emigrated. It was particularly the young who left to seek a better future elsewhere. In historical terms this emigration is comparable only to the emigration of the Russian elite and nobility in 1917 when confronted by the Bolshevik terror. So great was this emigration, especially it seems from the West Country, the Fens and East Anglia, and so long did it continue, that we must assume that it occurred with the approval of William I and his successors. It seems almost certain that it was their method of ridding themselves of the rebellious Old English ruling class and their supporters among the people. Exile, organised by the State, was after all a bloodless elimination of those who opposed William and the new order. It is no coincidence that the exodus continued right into the twelfth century. Why did they choose Constantinople? First, because probably already in the Confessor's reign (let us not forget that he was also half-Norman) discontented elements seem already to have left for Constantinople where the Emperor needed men to fight in his armies, especially against the Turks, who posed a threat in the East. Secondly, many Danes and other Scandinavians (such as Harold Hardrada) had formed the elite 'Varangian Guard' there and found fame and fortune; news of this had certainly reached England. Thirdly, what was the future for a young English noble in Norman England? We know that in 1070 a certain Ioannis Rafailis, an Imperial agent or 'prospatharios' came to England recruiting for the Imperial Army. Young Englishmen and Anglo-Danes, especially those of noble birth, would certainly have been attracted. All the more so, since though the Emperor faced the Turks in the East, in the West, especially in Southern Italy, Sicily and Dalmatia, he faced the hated Normans; what better way for an Englishman of avenging himself? Fourthly, there were those who did not like the new order in the Church or in the State under the Normans. Spiritually they could find refuge in Constantinople and the freedom to continue to live in the ritual and the spirit of the Old English Church in the imperial Capital. Perhaps unconsciously their instincts and feelings drew them to that City which symbolised the unity of Christendom through the Old English period and which had had so many connections with the Apostles of the English, Gregory and Augustine..."

This is for a first time for me to hear for such kind og migration...

----------


## Gusar

Wow this is interesting stuff I had no idea about. I definitely think that the West has a different influence & interpretation on Christianity. Afterall east & west was once the east & west Roman Empire. In the east Christianity is still seen in a much more favourable light & we certainly haven't sufferred the consequences of the well documented ills of the Catholic church past & certainly present.

----------


## Aristander

Looking at the history of Christianity it certainly seems that there was certainly more attempts of obtaining political power by the Roman Church. Anytime that politics get mixed into something there is corruption. I believe that the Roman Church has been so deeply into political manuevering for so long that corruption has almost become part of the dogma.
The Eastern Church does not have the reputation of this sort of political manuevering, however when you consider that the seat of the Eastern Church has been basically in an almost seige situation since the fall of Christian Constantinople.

----------


## Imperium Romanorum

> It's one way of looking at it. I'll certainly read more on that, so thanks.
> Most would agree however, that the primary purpose of the Conquest was power, not religion. The Normans were devout Christians, but pragmatically, the Normans wanted the English throne and land. Having Papal endorsement would have been a massive morale boost for the invading force, but little more religious significance than that.
> The mainstream controversy centres around whose claim was strongest - Harold or William? A neutral observer would have a strong argument for either. Irrefutably, claims of the era were resolved by force, and the Normans prevailed.
> The Anglo-Saxon way of life was ostensibly wiped out, but I maintain that as 90% of the population lived off the land and continued to speak Old English, the resultant emergence of Middle English was inevitable proof of such a continuing culture. The top echelons of society changed beyond all recognition though. However, it was a matter of a few hundred years before English became the language of the court and noble society.
> As for the Christian aspects of the situation, thanks again for something to look into in more detail.
> Regards, Chris


There is a good site for you ..

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/hp.htm

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zresources.htm
There is one very interesting... Orthodox Christianity and the Old English Church [335KB]

----------


## Regulus

And just this morning I took the time to offer sincere albeit belated Christmas wishes to the Orthodox here.

I would not know where to start with this horribly convoluted, grossly distorted version of events. The histories of English, Irish Churches, etc, are well known and documented. Any "keeping their distance" from Rome that they were doing had less than nothing to do with doctrinal closeness with the Churches of the East. What are you going to cite, the Easter dating? Please, give me a break. Calendar issues do not amount to doctrinal issues of any importance, let alone a schism.

Also, get real, please. The Orthodox Church itself does not hold the Western Church to be heretical, so unless you have more authority than that of your own Patriarch or of the unified body of your Bishops, then act like a member of your own Church.

For crying out loud man, I'm sorry for 1204. It was wrong and should never have happened. I've attended Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Christmas Masses several times and have nothing but respect, admiration, and tender feelings for the Churches of the East. I consider them authentic in apostolic succseion, as does the the Catholic Church. So give my side a measure of mercy and respect.


Lastly, this forum prohibits religious posts such as these that clearly promulgate one Church/religion or that demean another.


Get the history clear. Then we can talk.

----------


## Regulus

The Christmas greeting is on the "Old Slavs Racial Question" thread by Iapodos, by the way.

----------


## LeBrok

You're right Regulus, he's posts come across as exaggerated, propagandist, chauvinistic and even racist. Not mentioning the scary avatar, lol.

----------

