Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was killed by four knights inside Canterbury Cathedral on December 29, 1170. The weapons used in his murder were swords, as the knights struck him multiple times with their blades, resulting in his death. This brutal act was a culmination of longstanding tensions between Becket and King Henry II of England.
Thomas Becket was never called "Thomas a Becket" during his life, nor for many hundreds of years after his death. It is a later mistake and should be treated as such.He was born in England in 1118 of noble Norman parents; his father was Gilbert Becket, who was possibly sheriff of London. Thomas was most often called "Thomas of London" during the early part of his life.In Anglo-Norman French, the language he would have used among his own family, the word a can mean at, in, located in, on, against, around, to, as far as, towards. . . and many more prepositional meanings. If he had been Thomas a Becket, then the element Becket would have to be a place-name, in order for the a to make any sense.The problem is that there is not (and has never been) a place in England called Becket, so Thomas a Becket is not a sensible or feasible name for anyone to have.He was plain Thomas Becket and that is how he should be known everywhere today.
because he killed Thomas Becket so the pope said that he had to pay for his sins.
yes he was guilty because Thomas used to be his friend and if you had just murdered your old friend you would feel bad too.
The people thought that Thomas Becket was a traitor because he didnt agree with the kings view of the church. so people thought he was a traitor because he used to be good friends with King Henry II and now they think he is being disloyal to him which they thought meant he was a traitor. Thomas Becket was not a traitor though.
The key to the Sioux weapons, is the term "Weapon." Weapons are made to injure, incapacitate, and or kill - the weapons used by most of all Native American tribes did just what they were designed to do.
Thomas Becket was never called "Thomas a Becket" during his life, nor for many hundreds of years after his death. It is a later mistake and should be treated as such.He was born in England in 1118 of noble Norman parents; his father was Gilbert Becket, who was possibly sheriff of London. Thomas was most often called "Thomas of London" during the early part of his life.In Anglo-Norman French, the language he would have used among his own family, the word a can mean at, in, located in, on, against, around, to, as far as, towards. . . and many more prepositional meanings. If he had been Thomas a Becket, then the element Becket would have to be a place-name, in order for the a to make any sense.The problem is that there is not (and has never been) a place in England called Becket, so Thomas a Becket is not a sensible or feasible name for anyone to have.He was plain Thomas Becket and that is how he should be known everywhere today.
Of course they could tun deadly. They were weapons. They were used in hunting to kill game and in warfare to kill people.Of course they could tun deadly. They were weapons. They were used in hunting to kill game and in warfare to kill people.Of course they could tun deadly. They were weapons. They were used in hunting to kill game and in warfare to kill people.Of course they could tun deadly. They were weapons. They were used in hunting to kill game and in warfare to kill people.Of course they could tun deadly. They were weapons. They were used in hunting to kill game and in warfare to kill people.Of course they could tun deadly. They were weapons. They were used in hunting to kill game and in warfare to kill people.Of course they could tun deadly. They were weapons. They were used in hunting to kill game and in warfare to kill people.Of course they could tun deadly. They were weapons. They were used in hunting to kill game and in warfare to kill people.Of course they could tun deadly. They were weapons. They were used in hunting to kill game and in warfare to kill people.
because he killed Thomas Becket so the pope said that he had to pay for his sins.
To kill the Chinease
it is ellegal to kill wolves in the US
Weapons are used to kill other people. Since murdering others is bad, weapons are bad.
boomerangs were used to kill fast animals
yes he was guilty because Thomas used to be his friend and if you had just murdered your old friend you would feel bad too.
The people thought that Thomas Becket was a traitor because he didnt agree with the kings view of the church. so people thought he was a traitor because he used to be good friends with King Henry II and now they think he is being disloyal to him which they thought meant he was a traitor. Thomas Becket was not a traitor though.
guns are used to kill polar bears and so are crobars.by Emily mason
The key to the Sioux weapons, is the term "Weapon." Weapons are made to injure, incapacitate, and or kill - the weapons used by most of all Native American tribes did just what they were designed to do.
According to Edward Grim, friend and confident of Thomas Becket, and present at his death; the Archbishop was killed by chopping blow to the head, with a sword, exposing brain matter as Becket was in repose on his knees in prayer before his attackers. History tells us Grim was injured in the arm by the very blow that slayed Becket.