The real Edward I of England
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5134
Printed Date: 21-May-2024 at 14:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The real Edward I of England
Posted By: Constantine XI
Subject: The real Edward I of England
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 22:37
| I have a question which I hope someone can answer. Why is it that Edward Longshanks is known to history as Edward I, King of England. Shouldn't that be reserved for an earlier King Edward of England, namely the man most popularly known as Edward the Confessor. Why does Longshanks get called the First, and not the Confessor? Just seems a bit incorrect to me. |
Replies:
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 04:47
|
Good point Constantine XI, Edward the confessor was the penultimate Anglo-Saxon king and the last of house of Wessex,The numbering of English monarchs starts from scratch after the Norman conquest, which explains why the regenal number assigned to English kings named Edward begin with the later Edward I(ruled 1272–1307) and do not include Edward the Confessor (Who was the third king Edward). ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid 
|
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 05:10
|
I hope I did. ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid
|
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 08:38
|
I wish Edward I's name hadnt been utterly raped in the most ridiculous movie *braveheart* which made him out to be somekind of genocidal lunatic, who was probably only one step away from bathing in scottish blood or whatever. I assume Longshanks is known as the 1st, because with the Anglo-saxons replaced by the Normans there was noneed to carry on from where they left in terms of numbering of monarchs, a totally different monarchy doesnt need to acknowledge the past monarchies. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 16:16
|
The movie Braveheart greatly dramatized what Edward Longshanks really
did to Scotland. The whole thing about the stealing of a Scot's wife on
the first wedding night was never instituted. He did conquer the
peaceful kingdom of Scotland, and killed some people, but not anywhere
near genocide.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 16:39
|
The problem with Braveheart most of all is the fact the English are painted as mindless barbarians killing people for the sake of it, the Scots on the other hand as peace loving victims of this big bad empire. The fact the Scots were kicking the crap out of each other almost endlessly was barely mentioned, the clans were at war with each other as much as they were the English if not more. Its briefly brought up a couple of times but nowhere near as much as it should of been. There should be a law against blatently lying about history in movies, its a mockery of the people targeted in this case the English and insulting. Edward I was a good king for England and a man of his time, big deal he conquered some territory, who the hell wasnt? Grrrr I hate Mel Gibson ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 18:34
What i meant by peaceful is that they were no threat to the English. The English had to be a little mindless to lose to an enemy with no heavy cavalry that had only 5,000 spearmen at Bannockburn, but they weren't crazy fools who would go around and pillage as much as Mel showed in Braveheart. What the English did was wrong, there is no debating that, they invaded a foreign nation that did nothing to them and was no threat to them. Edward I I beleive would have won at Stirling if he would have have not been in France at the time. He did win decisively at Falkirk. The clans were always at war with each other, not showed in the movie. They also show Robert the Bruce as some little wussy who wouldn't fight for anything, he was the one who bravely fought at Bannockburn and never betrayed his country, so that is total BS. The Patriot was bullcrap to, but the Brits did commit some atrocities. -------------
|
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 19:41
|
Remember though this is 13th/14th century England not 21st century Britain, we cant judge an invasion by our standards today, wars back then were fought often for the most trivial of reasons or on very very tiny justification. Englands invasion of Scotland be it for just the sake of conquest or whatever cant be condemned by us now, remember this was a time when cities were sacked mercilessly and populations massacred if they resisted, prisoners of war could expect torture and execution, religion controlled all and those who opposed it could expect to be burned alive. It was a totally different world back then. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 21:03
|
Yeah, for the time it was not that wrong at all. That still does not make it right for the massacres that happened.
-------------
|
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 22:12
|
On what planet are you living mate. A medieval king a good man? ROFLMAO. Infact braveheart may not be historically correct, but the cruelty shown was commonplace in the medieval era. ------------- |
Posted By: Gavriel
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 02:11
Did nothing to them??? the Scots were constantly raiding into the south,stealing cattle and horses from the Lords of Northumbria and durham.The scots allso commited atrocites at York and when they tried to sack Durham city ,they sacked countless cathedrials and Cumbria only escaped this because they bankrupted themselves and payed tribute. Bravehart is utter crap,typical Gibson (he hates us with a passion doesnt he?)for a start william wallace wasnt some peace loving wannabe farmer,he was a Knight for christs sake,he owned two castles! And the scots with Blue paint on,LOLOLOLOLOL,as if! I did like the bit when the Irish infantry met up with there Crazy buddy  that was funny. |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 09:20
Errr maybe you have problems reading what people actually say, I said he was a good KING not MAN, I said he was a man of his TIME, therefore typical of the kind of people of the age he lived in, were mass executions etc were common-place. Anyway if you judge 13th/14th century rulers by 21st century standards then your pretty dumb. Please learn to read before you answer, it makes you look very stupid otherwise.
------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 16:20
Yeah, I forgot about the sack of York. As for the blue paint, it was utter bull crap, maybe 3rd century Scots wore blue paint but not 13th century Scots. William Wallace being a peace loving farmer was a load of crap, he was a knight and a pretty good one to. I should have done a little research before i said that the Scots did nothing to the English. It was a two-way street, and the English did raid much of Ireland during the Middle Ages. Then again, for the times, it wasn't bad at all. -------------
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 20:08
|
The movie the Patriot was so predictable I couldn't bear to watch it through to the end. I watched up to the part where Heath Ledger (Gibson's son in the movie) was killed and then switched off the TV to do something more productive. And yes there is a bit much Anglo-bashing in the media. Ever noticed what proportion of "bad guys" in movies and on tv have English accents compared to good guys (who always have American accents). ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 20:36
|
Yeah, I even noticed this in Rush Hour(a little off topic). Both of the
good guys don't have English accents. Chris Tucker's high pitched voice
and Jackie Chan's Asian accent represent the good guys. Whereas the bad
guy is British. The same in Braveheart, the good guys have Scottish
Accents and the bad guys have English accents.
-------------
|
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 21:00
|
It is annoying that the English/British are portrayed as the bad guys so often, im sure there are some people that are dumb enough to believe we are really like that. The Patriot was so predictable, but the most sickening part was when Mel Gibson was fighting the very very evil Englishman and got slashed beaten and I think at one point shot and yet had the strength (undoubtedly powered by patriotism) to slay the bad Englishman for America. Itd be touching if it wasnt such total crap. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 21:07
|
The character was based on Banastre Tarleton. He did massacre
surrendering troops which was called the Waxhaw Massacre. I personally
think that the British are very cool people. Some Americans like to
make fun of British sophistication. There is even a racial slur I found
on Answers.com "English or just gay" that is used by Americans. The
British have been America's greatest ally since WWI and i think people
seem to forget that if it was just the US and Russia versus Germany, we
would not have won the war. If we did, it would have been at a much
greater cost.
-------------
|
Posted By: Gavriel
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2005 at 05:29
|
Well,the British were fighting the Germans for longer than the
Americans and the Russians.Six years we were fighting for and i think
some credits deserved for that. Ahh whatever..... The peace loving Scots made a full blown invasion of England in 1346,the battle of Nevilles cross was fought by a large Scottish army and a scratch force hastily assembled by the Archbishop of York.The Scots invaded England at the request of the French who they were allied too,King DavidII probably believed all the English troops were in France,But England has foreseen this happening and had left certain northern lords at home charged with defending from the Scots. The English Longbows and the Scots choice of ground made it a remarkable victory for the English with most of the Scottish aristocracy being captured including King David II.He was ransomed for the sum of £66,ooo in 1357 a hell of a lot of money,in took Scotland 20 years to pay it. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2005 at 07:51
|
Yeah, I did give the British much credit for fighting the war. I do not
beleive that the war could have been won without the British suppoert.
The Scots did have some more reasoning for the invasion of England in
1346, it was part of the Auld Alliance. Mel Gibson should be thrown in
jail for making such biased crap. Why doesn't he make a movie of the
Scottish invasion of England? Violence, blood, change a lot of things
to make it bullcrap and you have a Mel Gibson movie.
-------------
|
Posted By: Turkic10
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2005 at 16:01
|
In the interest of historical accuracy, it would be nice to hear the heroes of the American Revolution in movies and tv shows speaking with the English accents that they would have had. It would be a reminder as to where they came from. Of course, Americans would scream blue murder if that happened. ------------- Admonish your friends privately, praise them publicly. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2005 at 07:26
-------------
|
Posted By: rangerstew
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2005 at 09:39
| I think I may have mentioned this in another thread, but what do you guys expect from Hollywood, or any other movie maker. They are not in the movie business to accurately portray history. They are in the movie business to make money. If you want accuracy, watch the History Channel. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2005 at 17:28
|
The History Channel can be just as inaccurate at times. The fact is
Hollywood's products get distributed to a massive audience, who then
are poisoned by the incorrect garbage they passively consume.
------------- |
Posted By: rangerstew
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 09:38
|
And the mass public isn't poisoned by the crap it is indoctrinated in by the public school systems? If you want true history, you will really have to dig on your own. There is bias everywhere. Its all America's fault anyway.......... |
Posted By: rangerstew
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 09:43
|
I dont think that the majority of colonist, especially those from the more rural areas, would have had English accents. You have to realize that most of the colonist had been born and raised in the colonies, away from England. Besides, there were so many colonist from other European nations beside England. |
Posted By: Turkic10
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 13:49
It would take several generations for the accent to become typically (?) North American. Children learn to speak with accents similar to their parents which would have be English in most cases. There are still remnants of the English/Irish/ Scotish accents in the New England states and east coast Canada. The addition of peoples from many European countries over time resulted in the amalgam accent which is North American. The long term result of black household slaves resulted in the southern accent. You can't escape it, whether you like it or not, but Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the others had English accents. It had no affect on what they accomplished. ------------- Admonish your friends privately, praise them publicly. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 14:12
Actually it's pretty painful on the ears when American actors try to put on a British accent, I'd rather hear Queen Elizabeth I with an American accent than what hollywood passes for a British one.
Edison made a lot of phonograph recordings of Americans around the turn of the 19th century (and some British too) it's quite fascinating to listen to them. The British sound more like Americans and the Americans British. A lot of linguists put forward the theory it's not the Amercans who've changed their accent since the 19th century but the British. IE: The British spoke a Southern like American accent and influenced by Europe changed, America largely isolated from Europe changed a lot less. So if you went back to England during Cromwell's time it would be indestinguishable from the Louisianna today. (This is a horrible thought) ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: rangerstew
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 14:24
|
And since we dont have any recordings of those individuals(Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc) speaking, we really can't know what they sounded like. By the time Edison started recording, things may have changed drastically from the time of the WFI. I still stick to what I said, for the most part. I will concede that the founding fathers being more highly educated than most of the colonist would have had a more refined accent. This would be a great subject for an intense college research paper. |
Posted By: Turkic10
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 14:54
|
We would need un-biased robot time machines to do the research. I doubt there are any truly un-biased human beings. If you want to hear a phoney accent there is one affected by some early and some of todays North American movie and tv actors that we Canadians used to call the Mid-Atlantic accent. It's sort of but not quite an English accent. Chris Plummer is a prime example . ------------- Admonish your friends privately, praise them publicly. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 11:59
|
Does anyone remember that the vote by the Contintntal Congress to
establish English as the official USA language passed by just one vote
over the use of German? As to how the colonials would have sounded, many linguistic authorities have proposed that the original colonists would most likely have sounded much like the daily common speak heard in and about Brooklyn,NY circa 1930-60.(I read numerous treatises about this at university. I do not remember the sources.Sorry I cannot quote the necessary references to back this up.)Yo fugiddaboutit! As for accents in Braveheart, would not Longshanks and those around him most likely have spoken a Norman tougue. Normandy was in France. The Normans were decendants of the Vikings. This would sound very strange to us. The conquerors write the history of the period. I am sure that Longshanks had his own PR department and spindoctors. As for Mel Gibson,the Australian influenced spawn of a racist\facist\religious nut of a father(American), shame on him for attempting to do his job as an ententainer. England never raped, pillaged and attempted ethnic cleansing of Scotland. When they could not accomplish this they captured and moved whole clans to northern Ireland. The English have not occupied Irie for 800 years. The English did not enslave the Scots and Irish and send them to penal colonies around the globe. No, never, not the English.  ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 20:35
|
Yes, the Americans would not have British accents. They would still
have similar accents and not modern American accents. England did
pillage and rape some of Scotland, that is inevitable, but it was
greatly exagerrated in Braveheart. The English never attempted ethnic
clensing. They were portrayed as junior Nazis in Braveheart. As for an
unrelated topic, Cromwell did plunder Dundee in his invasion.
-------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2005 at 13:14
|
Why is this discussion suddenly about the Braveheart, and not about Edward the Longshanks? ------------- |
Posted By: Degredado
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2005 at 12:54
|
Pardon me for being off topic, but another linguist said that the English of Shakespeare's day probably sounded more like the Irish. As for the topic itself, it's nice to know that John Lackland had a grandson worthy of being his father's Great-Grandson (if anyone understands what I just wrote... What I'd like to know more about is Edward's conquest of Wales. Why is it that the Welsh have less of a reputation than the Scots? Did Edward's definitive conquest 'wimpify' them in the eyes of the general public, especially when compared with the more dashing, skirt wearing Scots? ------------- Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2005 at 21:14
|
First of all, the Scots didn't even have kilts at the time. Besides,
kilts rock. One reason why the Welsh have a less reputation is because
those little wussies couldn't fight back the English, unlike the Scots.
Now onder they are wimplified.
-------------
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2005 at 05:11
|
Well to be more precise the Scottish monarchy especially adopted
fuedalism, encastellation and heavy cavalry into their armies, the
Welsh did not. Wales was alot smaller and its nobility was more divided
than the Scots.
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2005 at 05:25
|
Might I suggest you go to a Caernarfon town centre on a saturday night, stand in the middle of a crowded pub and shout "Owen Glydwr was a wooly backed wuss and Wales is proof that evolution can go in reverse."
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2005 at 05:56
|
Exactly, the Welsh put up a very stubborn defence which lasted for 200
years. 200 years is a long time to be cowardly while managing to avoid
being conquered, in the end they simply couldn't hold out with a weaker
military, poorer technology, and less advanced political system than
England. The fact that England was several times the size of Wales had
something to do with it as well.
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2005 at 06:07
|
This is a bit of a climbdown Mind you the threat of a drunken pack of Caenarfonites, singing at you, is enough the frighten anyone. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2007 at 20:59
|
The Welsh held out against English conquest for about 800 years,
actually folks. The Anglo-Saxons started invading in the 400's, and
pushed the Welsh-Britons back to Wales and Cornwall. The Welsh drew up
their lines there and refused to capitulate until the death of
Llewellyn ap Gruffydd, in 1282. That's 800 years. They then proceded to get one of their own crowned King of England in 1485. Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, 7th English King of that name, was a Welshman. His uncle, Jasper Tudor, was 100% Welsh, was one of Edward IV's, and later Richard III's, greatest enemies, and constantly set the Midlands and the Marches aflame with his Welsh brigand army. Henry VIII was also part Welsh, and by default, his daughter Elizabeth was also part Welsh. Tudor in itself is a Welsh name. The entire Tudor dynasty was Welsh. The Anglican Church was founded by a Welshman. The irony here should speak for itself. I'm an American, and not at all Welsh, but my name is (Brian means 'rock' in Welsh. Other variant meanings are 'stone' or 'strength'). I've always had a soft spot for the Welsh. Fascinating lot, an ancient and noble warrior culture. As Paul said, go to Caernarvon or Cardiff and tell them how 'soft' they are. And then count your teeth in the morning. I'm sure it will be much less than you had before (which won't be much if you're a Brit. You chaps did start putting flouride in your water by now, right?). Haha, joking. But give the Welsh their credit. An 800 year insurgency is epic. Cheers. |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 01:55
|
The only reason they survived 800 years was because they paid tribute to Anglo-Saxon kings for the right to exist. So in essence they survived 800 years because the Anglo-Saxon and later the Anglo-Norman kings allowed them to exist for so long. You are right about the Welshness of the Tudor Dynasty.
Going back to the original question though, Edward I is so named because the numbering of kings started with Norman kings. Before the Norman Conquest kings were known by names like Aethelred 'the Unready' or Alfred 'the Great' or Harold Godwinson. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 11:42
 ------------- |
Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 12:07
I wouldn't say that the Scots were invaded unwarrantly, from an English point of view. They were siding with France in their quarrels with England and had been doing so for some time before this. The English had every right to secure their northern border if they had a track record of aligning themselves with their enemies when a war came about. ------------- "Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing" Victor Hugo |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2007 at 05:26
|
What's that phrase - your enemies' enemy is your ally, or something along those lines. ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: heikstheo
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 22:05
Edward the Martyr (r. 975-978)
Edward the Confessor (r. 1042-1066) ------------- Ted Heiks BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984 |
Posted By: duchess
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 18:48
LOL! oh my god! i always always always say that , i mean quite simply lets take walt Disney for instance , most ( i have yet to find an exception actually ) famous cartoon villains have a British accent. i mean Jaffar in aladin had one , what the hell is up with that? :P ------------- " foul as it is, Hell Itself is defiled by the presence of john"- Mathew paris |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 19-May-2007 at 03:02
|
Yes, but Basil Rathbone made such a good villain!!!!
------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: duchess
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 10:10
lol true but it sucks when kids hear your accent and think your evil , i mean it doesn't matter to me since i hate kids anyway but..its not entirely fair to other people :P btw love the flambouyant style in you recent posts in topics , go melisende!!! *cheers*  ------------- " foul as it is, Hell Itself is defiled by the presence of john"- Mathew paris |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 05:44
|
Thanks Duchess - sometimes historians take themselves way too serious. History should be fun! ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 06:16
No-one who hates children and dogs can be all bad. W.C.Fields ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 11:31
But Edward also has a nickname: Longshanks.
In fact, the numbers were only added in the nineteenth century, to make it easier for historians to remember them. I guess they thought starting at William was the easiest, as the pre-conquest royalty is kindof complcated, bloodline and powerbase wise...
 And in Anglo-Saxon times, the name would have been Eadweard, both Ead- and -weard being very common pre- and suf-fixes in Anglo-Saxon times.
Edward the Elder was king of Wessex. You cannot count him within the line of English kings. That would make it real complicated. Imagine two kingdoms having a king with the same name at once! ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 18:18
|
Edward the Elder and Edward the Confessor - both Kings of England - so then poor old Edward I should really be King Edward III.
As you say, Aelfgifu, much too complicated. ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 18:43
| If going by Aelfgifu's logic Edward I should be Edward II because Edward the Confessor was the only Edward (pre-Conquest) who was king of England - Danelaw, Wessex, et al. Edward the Elder was only king of Wessex so he doesn't count as king of all England. |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 20:55
|
I was under the impression that Edward the Elder was acknowledged as "King of all the English".
He was recognised as overlord by the Scots, Welsh, and the northern Kings. He was King not just of Wessex but "of the Angles and Saxons".
Therefore that would technically make him the first King Edward - and Edward the Confessor would thus be King Edward II.
------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 06:44
From the preamble to the Act of 1689, commonly known as the Bill of Rights:
(My italics)
NB that's 1689 new style (year begins Jan 1), 1688 old style (year begins March 21).
I don't know when they started numbering kings but it was certainly long before the nineteenth century.
He was an English king (though I don't terribly like using 'English' as a designation this early). The issue is whether he was king of England or not. ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 10:57
|
The issue is whether he was king on an United England. Yes, he claimed that title, but his hold on the north was shaky and he was kicked out again several times. It was not until Athlestan that you can really start believing claims of being 'king of England'. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: heikstheo
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 21:23
------------- Ted Heiks BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984 |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 21:52
|
Thanks Ted!
That's the one I was after. ------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 25-May-2007 at 22:02
|
I prefer the use of the word "ally" rather than "friend" in that
saying, I find it more accurate. There is a big difference between a
friend and an ally. Perhaps we need to make the distinction between the "King of England" and an "English King". ------------- |
Posted By: heikstheo
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 05:39
------------- Ted Heiks BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984 |
Posted By: heikstheo
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 06:05
------------- Ted Heiks BA, History & Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984 |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 07:40
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.
------------- "For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre." |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date 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. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date 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. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 15:17
That would make the Breatwealdas closer to 'emperors' wouldn't it?  ------------- |
Posted By: Melisende
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 21:43
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." |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: Melisende
Date 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." |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 06:17
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.
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. -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 06:34
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.)
------------- |
Posted By: heikstheo
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 07:27
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 |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date 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. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 11:15
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 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.
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 11:47
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. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 13:13
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date 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. |
Posted By: Melisende
Date 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." |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date 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- 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. )-------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: rider
Date 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?
------------- |