The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
2208267 said:
I shall have to ask a grown up what that means
Ask them about King Louis of England and the treaty of Lambeth. It is an interesting example.

if you are married to a history teacher
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
2208283 said:
King Louis of England? The only King Louis that springs to mind was a jungle VIP.
The much beloved 'King of the Swingers' of my youth? I fear that's a title far to likely to be misinterpreted these days, creating quite a different image in one's mind.

But, truth to tell, we English once a King called Louis.... but you'll not find him in many of the history books.
 

tigger

Über Member
Tis true. Never officially crowned although as such he reigned for about a year after King John. We never hear about him of course... history is the propagnda of the victor and all that

The most interesting part of this thread for some time I think!
 

Flying_Monkey

Recyclist
Location
Odawa
Tis true. Never officially crowned although as such he reigned for about a year after King John. We never hear about him of course... history is the propagnda of the victor and all that

Since he was never crowned he was never King, merely a claimant to the throne, so he never 'reigned'. He tried to conquer the country but failed and was eventually beaten back, and we ended up with Henry III, who was crowned and therefore was king. The comparison can be made to William I, who was also only a claimant until he was crowned after defeating Harold.
 

tigger

Über Member
Its funny. I thought I should replace "reigned" with "governed" or such like shortly after I posted. But then I thought, "no its fine, we won't get any pedants here... not on THIS forum." :tongue:

If memory serves, Edward V was never crowned either yet is regarded as a monarch?

I think we need a new doping scandal or the racing season to start pretty quick! :laugh:
 

smutchin

Cat 6 Racer
Location
The Red Enclave
Since he was never crowned he was never King, merely a claimant to the throne, so he never 'reigned'. He tried to conquer the country but failed and was eventually beaten back, and we ended up with Henry III, who was crowned and therefore was king. The comparison can be made to William I, who was also only a claimant until he was crowned after defeating Harold.

I'd never heard of him until he came up in this thread but I was interested so went off and did some reading. From what I can gather, the barons backed his claim and John effectively resigned the throne to him, so Louis was de facto monarch, and would have been crowned had there been an available bishop to do the necessary, but Henry III came along and kicked him out.

Interesting that you should mention William because it strikes me that Louis's claim to the throne was similar to Harold Godwinson's - the difference being the technicality that Harold had a willing bishop handy to officially pop the crown on his head.

d.
 

Noodley

Guest
Was Le Mond officially re-crowned as the greatest American Tour de France rider?
 

Flying_Monkey

Recyclist
Location
Odawa
Interesting that you should mention William because it strikes me that Louis's claim to the throne was similar to Harold Godwinson's - the difference being the technicality that Harold had a willing bishop handy to officially pop the crown on his head.

Although Harold loyalists tried to claim otherwise, William I was most likely the legitimate heir designated by the previous monarch - that was the reason he invaded in the first place. Now, I think the whole idea of a monarchy is wrong but in terms of the both strict law and custom of the time, Louis was not the legitimate heir, he was just offered the throne by a rebellious group of Barons.

PS: I'm not a pedant as such, just a guy with a history degree who had a tutor who specialized in that period... :tongue:
 

dellzeqq

pre-talced and mighty
Location
SW2
800px-Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_et_Etienne_VII_1870.jpg
 

Mr Haematocrit

msg me on kik for android
and for you non-Guardian readers, an article on possible use of lie detector tests in doping cases (not much apparently)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/dec/18/lie-detectors-doping-sport

Lance Armstrong's lawyer said he 'wouldn't challenge a lie detector test, with good equipment, properly administered which makes you wonder why he has not proposed that his client takes one. I would have thought the outcome would give more weight to one side of Lances denial or the other.
 

rich p

ridiculous old lush
Location
Brighton
Lance Armstrong's lawyer said he 'wouldn't challenge a lie detector test, with good equipment, properly administered which makes you wonder why he has not proposed that his client takes one. I would have thought the outcome would give more weight to one side of Lances denial or the other.
He's guilty, most of us have known that he's guilty for aeons, even Livestrong and Trek have accepted that he's guilty - WTF?
 
Top Bottom