[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: King of France
>Myrna and I have been discussing this King of France entry in her Bible. I
>discovered that all of mine did also. I had not noticed this before. So
>how did the high and mighty Prince James claim France as his kingdom
Because the kings of England traditionally did so.
> and why
>not mention Scotland unless he had already grouped it mentally with England.
Because he already was separately, and had been for more than 30 years,
King of Scots.
>If so, wouldn't Ireland be viewed the same way?
The Lord of Ireland business apparently started with King John,
who called himself
King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and
Count of Anjou (Rex Anglie, Dominus Hibernie, Dux Normannie et Aqitannie
It was because the Norman and Angevin Kings of England had conquered Ireland.
And maybe a bit because he was tired of being called John Lackland.
Edward I called himself
King of England, Duke of Gascony and Lord of Ireland
> Did England still claim a bit of territory in Normandy as late as 1611?
No. Normandy itself was lost (again) in 1450. Calais was the last enclave,
and it was reclaimed by the French in 1588.
What the English Kings claimed was to also be Kings of France.
Nevermind the small matter that they controlled no inch of territory
in France; they still claimed the title of King of France.
> This claim to 3 monarchies perhaps has many political implications: I
>just found this in "The Lives of the Kings & Queens of England" by Antonia
>"Though James assumed the title of King of Great Britain, the Commons were
>not prepared to concede equal rights to the Scots; nor would they accept a
>plan put forward by the King's government--..." (this might be the reason
>Scotland isn't mentioned)
>"he had an irritating way of making exaggerated claims for the rights of the
>monarchy...divine right of monarchs....."
James claimed he and other kings were monarchs by divine right,
which is to say not by the appointment of barons or parliaments.
(Or in case even by the appointment of his predecessor, since
Elizabeth had not been especially clear on that matter.)
But that's a different matter than what he claimed to be king of.
> Do we see between the lines that
>he was still making claims to the old Normandy lands as "King of France"?
No, he was claiming to be King of France.
When English kings claimed to be Dukes of Normandy, they
simply claimed Duke of Normandy among their titles.
It was Edward III who started the tradition of English kings styling
themselves Kings of France, during the Hundred Years War, which was
mostly about who would own France.
Edward III, (but not Richard II,) Henry IV, V, and VI each called himself
King of France and England and Lord of Ireland
(Rex Francie et Anglie et Dominus Hibernie)
putting France before England.
Of these kings, only Henry VI was actually crowned in Paris,
after his father Henry V had decisively defeated the French
at the battle of Agincourt.
But Henry VI had Joan of Arc to contend with....
After deposing Henry VI, Edward IV went back to
King of England and France, Lord of Ireland
That's how it stayed until James I & VI (see below).
And it was George III who dropped "King of France", in 1801.
>>From Encyclopedia Britannica "Jamestown, the first permanent English
>settlement in America, was named in his honor. But James showed an interest
>in colonies only in Northern Ireland, where he seized land from Irish
>Catholics and gave it to English and Scottish Protestants" This might
>indicate then why he billed himself as King of Ireland.
No, it was because the kings of England traditionally styled themselves
kings of Ireland.
>Funny he didn't claim North America as well :-)
Because it wasn't a kingdom.
Elizabeth had already started granting rights of conquest in North America
to for example Sir Walter Raleigh,
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School
Charter to Sir Walter Raleigh : 1584
ELIZABETH by the Grace of God of England, Fraunce and Ireland
Queene, defender of the faith, &c. To all people to whome these
presents shall come,
Knowe yee that of our especial grace, certaine science, and meere
motion, we haue given and graunted, and by these presents for
us, our heires and successors, we giue and graunt to our trustie
and welbeloued seruant Walter Ralegh, Esquire, and to his heires
assignee for euer, free libertie and licence from time to time,
and at all times for ever hereafter, to discover, search, finde
out, and view such remote, heathen and barbarous lands, countries,
and territories, not actually possessed of any Christian Prince, nor
inhabited by Christian People, as to him, his heires and assignee, and
to every or any of them shall seeme good, and the same to haue, horde,
occupie and enjoy to him, his heires and assignee for euer, with all
prerogatives, commodities, jurisdictions, royalties, privileges,
franchises, and preheminences, thereto or thereabouts both by sea
and land, whatsoever we by our letters patents may graunt, and as
we or any of our noble progenitors haue heretofore graunted to any
person or persons, bodies politique.or corporate: and the said Walter
Ralegh, his heires and assignee, and all such as from time to time,
by licence of us, our heires and successors, shall goe or trauaile
thither to inhabite or remaine, there to build and fortifie, at the
discretion of the said Walter Ralegh, his heires and assignee, the
statutes or acte of Parliament made against fugitives, or against
such as shall depart, romaine or continue out of our Realme of
England without licence, or any other statute, acte, lawe, or any
ordinance whatsoever to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.
She gets around to saying later in the charter:
according to the order of the lawes of England
In other words, she was chartering Raleigh to increase the size of
the Kingdom of England. Which is what he and others did.
Now if Raleigh had run up against any lands possessed of a Christian Prince,
encroaching on those would have been beyond his charter and Elizabeth
would have had to decide what to do. She might have decided to try
to conquer such a kingdom, as Phillip II of Spain tried to do to England
only four years later. No doubt if he had succeeded he would have called
himself King of England. That's how such titles were acquired by kings.
> Dear Laurel,
> Thanks again for responding.
> the bible says
>TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE
> JAMES ( in much larger letters)
> by the grace of god,
> KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,
> defender of the faith,( this phrase in letters smaller than the
> I guess it means God as king, but is worded strangely.
No, it's a traditional style of the kings of England of that time.
James VI & I was the first to call himself
King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc
Note that this combines England and Scotland as Great Britain,
while retaining France and Ireland as separate claims.
This is because France and Ireland were separate Kingdoms,
while he proposed to merge Scotland and England in a larger
> Joy to you,
John S. Quarterman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, email@example.com
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html