Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The real Edward I of England Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 13:30 |
Perhaps someone would be willing to conclude this topic and his own thoughts and ideas into an article on Edward I?
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 08:22 |
English identity was certainly around before 1066. King Alfred the Great launced something that could be seen as a 'propganda' offensive to promote the sense of 'us English' against 'them invading Scandinavians'. There is a whole school devoted to the study of this 'Making of an English nation'.
Chapman, Anna, King Alfred and the Cult of St. Edmund, History Today (July, 2003), pp. 37-43.
Richards, Mary P., Anglo-Saxonism in the Old English Laws, in: Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of Social Identity, Allen J. Frantzen and John D. Niles eds. (Gainesville etc., 1997), pp. 40-59.
Smyth, Alfred P., The Emergence of English Identity, 700-1000, in: Medieval Europeans: studies in ethnic identity and national perspectives in medieval Europe, Alfred P. Smyth ed. (Basingstoke etc. 1998), pp. 24-52.
Thorman, Janet, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Poems and the Making of the English Nation, in: Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of Social Identity, Allen J. Frantzen and John D. Niles eds. (Gainesville etc., 1997), pp. 60-85.
(I did my Bachelor thesis on identity and integration in Viking Age England, you see. )
Edited by Aelfgifu - 01-Jun-2007 at 08:25
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-May-2007 at 05:42 |
Yes, but 'English' means more than Anglo-Saxon. It certainly includes the Norman element.
One talks about Norman vs Saxon, not Norman vs English. And the English language is recognised as a French/Germanic hybrid, with words and grammatical constructions from both languages.
|
|
Melisende
Pretorian
Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-May-2007 at 05:41 |
I came acrosss a reference that distinguished between Britons and English pre-Norman Invasion.
I read it in: "The Age of Arthur" by John Morris (and its not a book on the "legendary" King Arthur but rather a history of England from 400-800AD).
I will try I find it again.
|
"For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-May-2007 at 04:57 |
There was in fact a large 'propaganda movement' in the late 9th century under king Alfred promoting a sense of unified Englishness which seems to have been reasonable sucessful. It seems to have stuck with the elite including the historians of the time, but it was at first only really cathching on in the south. You could say that this is the beginning of Englishness. But even before there is no doubt the Angles and Saxons saw themselves as closely connected, mostly due to a sense of a shared past. This is already very evident in Beda. It is also clear in the way the Angles and Saxons saw themselves as different from the peoples around them, they felt more connection with the Franks and Old Saxons than with the Scots and Welsh.
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2007 at 13:13 |
Originally posted by Aelfgifu
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by Aelfgifu
Yes, that would make sense... You would not call yourself king of England before the concept of England was established... Good point about the law, very true.
|
Agreed. But I also don't think you would call yourself King of the English before the English were established as a nation. Kings of the Saxons and Kings of the Angles abound.
|
Yes, but the sense of an English nation was around long before an united English country was an option, I think. |
I'm not sure there was any real concept of an English nation until after the Normans became assimilated. I think I've mentioned before that the Robin Hood tales are an allegory for the assimilation of the Saxons and the Normans, symbolised by Robin's swearing allegiance to Richard.
Myth and propaganda of course, not factual, but myths are powerful when it comes to national feeling.
It was quite late in the day or instance before the Angles and Saxons north and south of the border saw themselves as Scots and English.
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2007 at 11:47 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by Aelfgifu
Yes, that would make sense... You would not call yourself king of England before the concept of England was established... Good point about the law, very true.
|
Agreed. But I also don't think you would call yourself King of the English before the English were established as a nation. Kings of the Saxons and Kings of the Angles abound.
|
Yes, but the sense of an English nation was around long before an united English country was an option, I think.
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2007 at 11:15 |
Originally posted by Aelfgifu
Yes, that would make sense... You would not call yourself king of England before the concept of England was established... Good point about the law, very true.
|
Agreed. But I also don't think you would call yourself King of the English before the English were established as a nation. Kings of the Saxons and Kings of the Angles abound.
I think (d) could theoretically be applied to subjects of the English king living in territory not under the kings rule. Technically, as long as you have the English nationality, you are a subject of the ruler of England.
|
I don't think that is true. You can reject your allegiance to the Queen (though I think she may have to agree) but that doesn't stop you being English, any more than accepting allegiance to the Queen makes you English.
But in practice you would have to obey to the laws of the country you are in, and the ruler of the English would not be able to exercise much of his authority over you. But you could still commit crimes abroad punishable in England, such as treason. |
So much would depend on case law, and there are very few cases. That of William Joyce ('Lord Haw-Haw') is interesting.
Indisputably he gave support to the Nazis in WW2 by broadcasting propaganda for them. In 1945 the British put him on trial for High Treason ('aiding and assisting the enemies of the King'). However
a) he turned out to be American, and pled that on that ground he could not commit treason against some other country.
b) it then turned out that before the war he had pretended to be British in order to get a British passport, and was held to have accepted allegiance to the British crown in so doing.
On appeal however, the House of Lords were split on the issue, even though they found him guilty.
In none of that of course did he ever become English.
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2007 at 07:39 |
Yes, that would make sense... You would not call yourself king of England before the concept of England was established... Good point about the law, very true.
I think (d) could theoretically be applied to subjects of the English king living in territory not under the kings rule. Technically, as long as you have the English nationality, you are a subject of the ruler of England. But in practice you would have to obey to the laws of the country you are in, and the ruler of the English would not be able to exercise much of his authority over you. But you could still commit crimes abroad punishable in England, such as treason.
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
heikstheo
Janissary
Joined: 01-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2007 at 07:27 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by Aelfgifu
Originally posted by gcle2003
That would make the Breatwealdas closer to 'emperors' wouldn't it? |
Yes, very much so.. Exept that not in a single case did the empire survive the emperor. I do even think it was not expected to: it was such a very personal thing, the title of Breatwealda had to be earned by hard work (war) and personal achievement (conquest) and could, I think, never be passed on to another.
|
So like the Holy Roman Emperor (in theory).
I hesitate to say this but there is actually a four-fold distinction between
a) King of England (rules over the territory of England).
b) English king (might be king of anybody anywhere, but must be English - for instance James Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak).
c) King in England (rules over part of England)
d) King of the English (rules over the English people, wherever).
(I don't think there has ever, formally, been a (d) has there? You can and could be English but not subject to the King of England, couldn't you? I'm not sure.)
|
I would not go so far as to say that there has never been a (d). The distinction between "King of the English" and "King of England" is rooted in a distinction between the Germanic conception of law and the Roman conception of law. As the Germanic peoples in the period of the "barbarian" invasions were a nomadic people was that the law governs the people, wherever they are, while the Roman conception of law was that the law governs the territory, whatever people happen to be therein. Hence, this led to a situation, as the Roman Empire expanded, where it was possible to be judged by two sets of laws and methods had to be developed to decide which laws you would be judged by. From the example of St. Paul in the Bible, it seems to have been the Roman citizen's choice whether to be judged by Roman law or his own people's law.
Anyways, back to the original point, "King of the English" was an earlier title used by the Anglo-Saxon kings but once they became more settled they began using "King of England," similar to the way that "King of the Franks" eventually gave way to "King of France."
|
Ted Heiks
BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2007 at 06:34 |
Originally posted by Aelfgifu
Originally posted by gcle2003
That would make the Breatwealdas closer to 'emperors' wouldn't it? |
Yes, very much so.. Exept that not in a single case did the empire survive the emperor. I do even think it was not expected to: it was such a very personal thing, the title of Breatwealda had to be earned by hard work (war) and personal achievement (conquest) and could, I think, never be passed on to another.
|
So like the Holy Roman Emperor (in theory).
I hesitate to say this but there is actually a four-fold distinction between
a) King of England (rules over the territory of England).
b) English king (might be king of anybody anywhere, but must be English - for instance James Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak).
c) King in England (rules over part of England)
d) King of the English (rules over the English people, wherever).
(I don't think there has ever, formally, been a (d) has there? You can and could be English but not subject to the King of England, couldn't you? I'm not sure.)
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2007 at 06:17 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
That would make the Breatwealdas closer to 'emperors' wouldn't it? |
Yes, very much so.. Exept that not in a single case did the empire survive the emperor. I do even think it was not expected to: it was such a very personal thing, the title of Breatwealda had to be earned by hard work (war) and personal achievement (conquest) and could, I think, never be passed on to another.
Originally posted by Melisende
The title appears very ambiguous in both its definition and appointment. |
Yes, that is the fate of historians: not even defenitions are clear, because they tend to be adapted to the need of the historian. It is what keeps us on our toes...
The thruth is: there is no such thing as thruth, or even objectiveness. Everything is open to multiple interpretations, and 'history as we know it' is just the consensus reached by historians based on the most convincing argumentation.
Edited by Aelfgifu - 27-May-2007 at 06:19
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
Melisende
Pretorian
Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-May-2007 at 01:15 |
The title appears very ambiguous in both its definition and appointment.
|
"For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2007 at 23:00 |
By English King, I meant a recognised King who ruled over English people (though not necessarily all of them). The English King, however, is recognised as the King of England as as whole.
|
|
Melisende
Pretorian
Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2007 at 21:43 |
Originally posted by Aelfgifu
..... King of England rules the whole of the English territory all at once. The posession of/ control over Wales, Strathclyde and Scotland is not relevant in that respect, as they are outisde of the English territiory, and should be considered as foreign conquests.
|
Could the above have been true for Edward I???
|
"For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2007 at 15:17 |
That would make the Breatwealdas closer to 'emperors' wouldn't it?
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2007 at 11:10 |
@ Heikstheo:
The Breatwealdas are a different thing. They were overlords over a number of territories which were all still ruled by their own royal houses under him. It was not an unification of the English in one people, but rather a temporary political unity under one leader, an unity which never lasted beyond the demise of the Breatwealda. (As is common in the Germanic warlord-society) The difference with this later period after Alfred is that there was not just a superficial political unity bound by one man, but a change in identity towards a shared one.
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2007 at 10:17 |
The distinction is that an English King is a king who rules a kingdom on the British island, whereas an King of England rules the whole of the English territory all at once. The posession of/ control over Wales, Strathclyde and Scotland is not relevant in that respect, as they are outisde of the English territiory, and should be considered as foreign conquests.
The first king to claim the title King of All English was Alfred the Great (871-899), but he did limit his title to All English not under Danish rule (meaning the Danelaw), his son and grandson Edward the Elder (899-924) and Athelstan (924-939) began a campaign to win back the north. Edward conquered all the land south of the Humber (including Mercia which had seperated itself from the West-Saxon royal line after Alfred died) and gained overlordship over Wales, but as he never controlled Northumbria he can not be considered a King of England. Athelstan did conquer Northumbria after the death of the Norse king Sihric and gained overlordship of Schotland at the Battle of Brunanburh, but after his death the Northumbrians rejected his sucessor Edmund (939-946) and chose Olaf Guthfiridsson from Dublin as their king. Olaf was succeeded by Olaf Sithricson and it wan not until 944 that Edmund could throw him out of York. When Edmund died, the Northumbrians chose Erik Bloodaxe as king. Eadred (946-955) kicked him out the next year, but in 950 the Northumbrians got Olaf Sithricson back, and after Erik Bloodaxe again. In 954, the Northumbrians decided to submit to the West-saxon king out of free will.
After Eadred died the next year, his sons Eadwig and Edgar divided the realm between them. Only when Eadwig died in 959 did Edgar rule the whole of England.
So who was King of England and who was not is open to interpretation. Personally I would include Athelstan, but not Edward. The kings between Athelstan and Edgar only were in posession of all of England for short stretches of time, but I suppose they could make some claim to the title. But I think historically Edgar is the first one who can realy be considered as King of England, as he was the first who did not rule an occupied hostile territory, but people who did accept him as king.
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
Melisende
Pretorian
Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2007 at 07:40 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Perhaps we need to make the distinction between the "King of England" and an "English King". |
Where do we make the distinction?? I think the distinction should not include an "English King" rather either "King of England" or "King of the English". I think the latter two terms are what needs to be clarified.
Is the King of England to be regarded as QEII is today (England, Ireland Scotland and Wales) or just England itself - separate from the others.
William the Conqueror (if we start the numbering from him) - he did not, as I recall, receive the overlordship of either Wales or Scotland or to put it bluntly, the north of England - Edward the Elder did.
And Edward I spent his lifetime trying to do just that. So it would appear that Edward the Elder achieved slightly more ...... something which could come closer to being "King of ALL the English" (which included northern England, Wales and Scotland) whereas Edward I was really only King of just England.
Edited by Melisende - 26-May-2007 at 07:41
|
"For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."
|
|
heikstheo
Janissary
Joined: 01-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2007 at 06:05 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Perhaps we need to make the distinction between the "King of England" and an "English King". |
Perhaps someone can help flesh out a thumbnail of early Anglo-Saxon history. The British king Vortigern first imported Anglo-Saxon mercenaries to the British Isles in 449, thus sparking off the Arthurian wars. There seems to be some reason why the year 529 keeps sticking out in my mind. Was this the point by which the Anglo-Saxons had all of the area we now know as England? At any rate, there was a period of Anglo-Saxon history known as the Age of the Heptarchy (the seven kingdoms). The seven kingdoms of the old Anglo-Saxon heptarchy were East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, and Wessex. Periodically, one of the kings of the old Anglo-Saxon heptarchy would reduce the other six to submission and take the title of Bretwalda. In 802, Egbert King of Wessex came to the throne and by 829, he had taken over the entirety of the old Anglo-Saxon heptarchy. The king-lists of England usually cite Egbert (r. 802-839), a distant ancestor of the sitting Queen, as the first Anglo-Saxon king of a united England.
|
Ted Heiks
BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
|
|