Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Sky News Australia"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ever heard the phrase 'Roi fainéant, or"do-nothing king"?' It is a French term primarily used to refer to the later kings of the Merovingian dynasty after they seemed to have lost their initial powers of dominion. It is usually applied to those Frankish rulers approximately from the death of Dagobert I in AD 639 (or, alternatively, from the accession of Theuderic III in 673) until the deposition of Childeric III in favour of Pepin the Short in 751.
It appears to have been first used by the historian Einhard. 'There was nothing left for the King to do but to be content with his name of King, his flowing hair, and long beard, to sit on his throne and play the ruler, to give ear to the ambassadors that came from all quarters, and to dismiss them, as if on his own responsibility, in words that were, in fact, suggested to him, or even imposed upon him.
He had nothing that he could call his own beyond this vain title of King and the precarious support allowed by the Mayor of the Palace in his discretion, except a single country seat, that brought him but a very small income.'
The Mayors of the Palace, who really governed the Frankish state, were the ancestors of Charlemagne, by the way. Although, of course, Biden's income is anything but 'small'.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Blue Your ignorance is astounding. Where were cultures destroyed, other perhaps than human sacrifice in places like Benin, and Suttee in India?
What makes you think that a country with a population of 10.1 million (1801 Census) already at war with the largest military power in Europe, was able, militarily, to invade and conquer a place like India, with a population of around 150 million? By the time of the Raj, around 25,000 British administrators administerered an Indian population which had grown to almost 200 million. How did the evil British manage that without the support of a vast, Indian, civil service and the consent of the existing Indian States?
As to the Americas, New Zealand, Australia, and most of Africa, as western settlers in the 17-19th centuries found them in the same sort of condition that Europe had been in in around 4000 B.C., the peoples there hadn't made much progress on their own. What makes you believe that they would have made sudden startling advances? The fact is, the progress they made is due almost entirely to western science, philosophy, engineering, education, and law.
Are you actually a troll? You really cannot be as stupid as you pretend?
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3