[Jeff Winston]

Incidentally, your POINT was a denial of my statement:

First of all, it wasn't such a simple point of law, as England had never before had a situation in which the King of England was also the King of another, separate, distinct country.

You brought up the Battle of Agincourt. I pointed out that Henry never ruled over two separate and distinct countries, and his conquests of SOME PORTIONS of France didn't even stick.

Now you make it a matter of the fact that he temporarily ruled some land in France. Big deal. Whatever he ruled there, IT WAS NOT SOME SEPARATE COUNTRY FROM ENGLAND WITH A SEPARATE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT THAT HE WAS NOW THE KING OF.

It was just some land he conquered over in France.

[DiogenesLamp]

Now you make it a matter of the fact that he temporarily ruled some land in France. Big deal. Whatever he ruled there, IT WAS NOT SOME SEPARATE COUNTRY FROM ENGLAND WITH A SEPARATE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT THAT HE WAS NOW THE KING OF.

I guess you never heard of this Chap.

Seems like he has dealt with this sort of thing before. More than once, in fact.

.

.

You'll be wanting this back now, I think. :)