I found the explanation......What, no mention of aliens? Last time this happened that was one of the prevailing explanations.
Bob
Hermaphrodite is not a third sex. It is a state where both male and female orgams are present so the animal can self fertilize, like many flowers. There are also sequential hermaphrodites that can switch feom male to female. This article is too PC to the new agenda of pushing for some mysterious new genders. I wonder how they teach biology now?
What a horrible, heinous crime... I hope they catch those SOBs...
The cows are the aliens.What, no mention of aliens? Last time this happened that was one of the prevailing explanations.
Bob
BUFFALO BILLS WORRIED FLYING DILDO COULD INJURE TOM BRADY OR JOSH ALLEN
2nd and inches, time for the 'Gadget' play.ATTACK of the flying dildo:
https://www.totalprosports.com/2019...could-injure-tom-brady-or-josh-allen/?sfns=mo
Don't know much ancient(?) history, huh? Land didn't belong to the population back then but to the monarchy.I say tell that to my Ancestors in England or Switzerland,
How do you think they got it?Don't know much ancient(?) history, huh? Land didn't belong to the population back then but to the monarchy.
After fighting for the crown or as other rewards. Mostly to do with Britain but it was similar in other counties; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_land_lawHow do you think they got it?
kv
William gave back the lands to the lords of England, a knight is servitude to the king " William". The lords held all knights fealty, keeping the power held to the previous king. But, as you note: William did not give anything to anyone not sovereign birth, to be a knight is nothing but a Bond till death to the king or the Sovereign Lord. William didn't have enough forces to continue his reign once he held ground, he then reinforced it with the local Lords and their Armies, thus extinguishing any other verbal contracts. This is one of the Greatest accomplishments that England still heralds "William" as the "Conqueror" when he gave back to England their Lords.After fighting for the crown or as other rewards. Mostly to do with Britain but it was similar in other counties; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_land_law
On my mothers side I can trace my ancestry back to when they came to Britain with William the Conqueror from Franc/Normandy and he was a knight. He was given a land claim that was later taken away/revoked because of his religious beliefs. So to me that means he and his brothers didn't own the land, it may mean something different too you or others.
kvThe siege of Ely was one of many local acts of resistance against the Normans. The most bitter and sustained warfare was in the north. When the Northumbrians rose against William in 1069 he punished them by deliberately devastating the entire province.
What does that have to do with the idea of where commoners got their land rights?William gave back the lands to the lords of England, a knight is servitude to the king " William". The lords held all knights fealty, keeping the power held to the previous king. But, as you note: William did not give anything to anyone not sovereign birth, to be a knight is nothing but a Bond till death to the king or the Sovereign Lord. William didn't have enough forces to continue his reign once he held ground, he then reinforced it with the local Lords and their Armies, thus extinguishing any other verbal contracts. This is one of the Greatest accomplishments that England still heralds "William" as the "Conqueror" when he gave back to England their Lords.
They wanted a greater England and he Accomplished it, through some of the most brutal and carnage the world has ever seen since "Vlad the Impaler" the word "Devastation" is attributed to William as he left "Villages" all dead including animals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/conquest/norman/william_the_conqueror_04.shtml
kv
Just goes to prove my point.William gave back the lands to the lords of England,
Don't know how you arrived at that, but no need to exhaust myself. I guess you missed the ruthlessness of "William" to maintain control of lands gained thru a scorched earth campaign. I guess your loosing your points in conversation, just to control the narrative.Just goes to prove my point.
That donkey has his own beast of burden.Emotional support donkey?
Typical that you change the narrative of your post from how land was taken from your ancestors to "william" being a bad guy. Land that wasn't "theirs" but the kings in the first place.Don't know how you arrived at that, but no need to exhaust myself. I guess you missed the ruthlessness of "William" to maintain control of lands gained thru a scorched earth campaign. I guess your loosing your points in conversation, just to control the narrative.
Typical.
kv