The Anglo Saxons had slavery

King James II portrait in Downing Street ‘under review’ for slavery links

Head of the Royal African Company, wasn’t he?

But then the Anglo Saxons had slavery too. So, that’s Alfred and Eddie the C right out then. We must celebrate Willie the Bastard who abolished it.

Or is that all white folks and doesn’t count?

11 thoughts on “The Anglo Saxons had slavery”

  1. Hmmm.. Willie the Bastard abolished hereditary slavery. He didn’t touch criminal and indentured slavery, and rather expanded on it.
    He basically took the Norse concept of thralldom and adapted it to his needs.

    As for James II… I wonder what made them hang a portrait of him in the formal reception room of the residence of the Chancellor.

  2. This.

    It is just the sort of twattery that lost North Shropshire and will lose Bozza his job. Don’t these idiots ever think stuff through.

    I think of all his crimes, Janes II sponsoring slavery would be pretty far down the charge sheet.

  3. Having a white skin (you guessed!!!!) I naturally feel that all those black folks are to blame for foisting their fiendish foreign customs on those sensible Brits who preferred Willie’s indentured and criminal slavery approach.

    Of course since Oz was founded on that basis, I inevitably feel that we were right.

  4. My three degrees of slavery:

    White people being enslaved is good because reasons.

    Non-White people being enslaved by other non-White people is fine, so let’s not talk about it – ok?

    Non-White people being enslaved by White people is literally the (second) worst thing ever in history and all White people are culpable and therefore owe non-White people free stuff for ever.

  5. In other breaking news, King James II opposed gay marriage, thought women shouldn’t vote, and used to light cigarettes in crowded lifts.

  6. There are a lot of parallels with the modern world where JamesII was concerned. The wars with the United Provincez aside, everyone had a jolly good laugh under C2, but now it was time to be serious.
    James was seen as the “adult” Stuart he was jolly intelligent and although a Papist, had solidly Protestant daughters. He lost the dressing room pretty quickly and from having near universal support in Parliament, by end 1687 ( after Monmouth’s rebellion and its brutal aftermath ) only the hardline Tories and Bishops were on his side

  7. Strange cove James II. Earlier in his life he proved a brave soldier. Facing Willam of Orange he lost his nerve and ran for it.

    Maybe there’s something to the theory that you come with only so much courage and once you’ve exhausted your supply you’re finished.

    Of course in Number 10, and other UK property, he should be referred to as James VII & II. I’ll bet the ill-educated bastards don’t get that right.

  8. James II was THE based King and I won’t hear a word said against him. All the Whig carpetbaggers can shout and scream all they want, but he was a live and let me live man.

  9. “he was a live and let me live man”: well, except for the Monmouth rebels of course. There’s also this from WKPD: ‘In March 1686, James sent a letter to the Scottish Privy Council advocating toleration for Roman Catholics but not for rebellious Presbyterian Covenanters. Presbyterians would later call this period “The Killing Time”.’

    But, yeah, apart from all those deaths in Scotland and England, he was a ‘live and let me live man’.

    Much of his problem was what his subjects had just witnessed in France: a Roman Catholic monarch visiting slaughter on the Protestants of the Languedoc, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and the persecution of the Huguenots. This was not much of an advert for the value of a promise of toleration from a Roman Catholic monarch.

  10. If we going to bandy blame about, how about extinguishing the Labour Party because of Sidney Webb, a eugenicist and Minister for the Colonies?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *