In studying and researching the development of the title and position of Roman Emperor it brings me to an issue I’ve struggled with here on my blog. A while ago I did a whole series on how I choose to name these historical figures. I tried to the best of my ability to render their names in their original language. However, I admit I am inconsistent.
I recently read a book on the Habsburg Dynasty where the author admitted that he was inconsistent and used both the original German language for the names of some of the subjects in his book, while he rendered other names in the more familiar English. I was pleased to read that because I am not the only one who is inconsistent.
This brings me to the issue of how to use titles for the European monarchs?
The issue lies in the discipline of historiography.
Historiography is the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic by using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches.
It is not just names that I have a difficult time knowing which to use, either the common English name or the name in the original language, but I also struggle to know what titles in this case.
One of the difficulties I have is that I aspire to be historically accurate and render titles as they were known contemporarily. However, my desire to be historically accurate often clashes with how these titles are used by modern historians. For example, I will call King Louis V, the last of the Carolingian Dynasty, King of West Francia rather than King of France as most modern historians call him.
My blog entries on the Roman Empire demonstrated the problem and the issue. Often times I am trying to render a title from a foreign language, that has changed greatly from the way it was in the past, to how it may be used in modern English.
For example, Octavian would not have considered himself an Emperor in the way we today view an Emperor, but later historians do pinpoint Octavian, when he adopted the honorific Augustus, as the beginning of the Roman Empire, even though technically speaking, to those living in Rome at the time they, considered it a Republic.
There is debate when the Holy Roman Empire began. I’ve seen fellow historians say that the Empire began with the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day 800. Although he was given the Imperial title, “Imperator Romanorum”, if you would have gone up to him and called him the Holy Roman Emperor he would have looked at you kind of funny!
The expanded Frankish state that Charlemagne founded was the Carolingian Empire, which is considered the first phase in the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. That aspect can’t be ignored.
Personally, I consider the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire as having started with the coronation of Otto the Great, King of West Francia, as Emperor by Pope John XII in 962. Even though historians like myself pinpoint to Otto the Great as the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire, much like Octavian started the Roman Empire, it still took years until what we call the Holy Roman Empire to develop. It wasn’t until around 1250 that the term “Holy Roman Empire” was attached to this Empire.
Even though it took a while for the Holy Roman Empire to be established and named, the Emperors of this Empire never had the title of “Holy Roman Emperor.” Instead they were always referred to as Imperator Romanorum or German Roman Emperor, or August Roman Emperor.
One of the reasons I don’t consider Charlemagne as the founder of the Holy Roman Empire, although as mentioned it was the first phase of the Empire, was because only the Eastern Kingdom, the Kingdom of East Francia, became the core and base of the Empire, while the Kingdom of West Francia, which became the Kingdom of France, was never part of the Holy Roman Empire and thus was only part of the Carolingian Empire.
And that brings up another issue of labeling these kingdoms and titles. Who was the first King of France? Well that seems pretty arbitrary from my vantage point.
The original core Frankish territories inside the former Western Roman Empire were close to the Rhine and Meuse rivers in the north, but Franks such as Chlodio and Childeric I expanded Frankish rule into what is now northern France.
A single kingdom uniting all Franks was founded by Clovis I, the son of Childeric, who was crowned King of the Franks in 496. He founded the Merovingian dynasty, which was eventually replaced by the Carolingian dynasty.
After the Treaty of Verdun of 843 which divided the Carolingian Empire into the Kingdoms of West Francia, Middle Francia (Lotharingia), and East Francia, over time each Kingdom evolved into different entities.
The Middle Kingdom was to last only until the end of the reign of King Lothair and after that it became the Kingdom of Lotharingia which was eventually divided by West Francia and East Francia.
East Francia eventually evolved into the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
The Kingdom of West Francia eventually evolved to be known as the Kingdom of France, but it wasn’t until the reign of Philippe II, king of West Francia, was the title changed to that of King of France in 1190.
But he certainly was not the first French King. I have seen some historians call Charles the Bald, the first King of West Francia after the Treaty of Verdun, as the first king of France, even though his title technically was King of West Francia.
Other historians cite the election of Hugh Capét as the first king of modern France. However, as I mentioned above, Hugh was still called King of West Francia during his reign.
So it does make me question when shall I begin calling the monarchs of West Francia the Kings of France? To be accurate I’ve held off using the title “King of France” until the reign of Philippe II Augusté who was King from 1180 to 1223.
His predecessors, as previously mentioned, had been known as Kings of the Franks, or Kings of West Francia, but from 1190 onward, Philippe II Augusté became the first French monarch to style himself “King of France” (Latin: rex Francie).
Even though I am historically accurate to begin using the title King of France starting with Philippe II Augusté, most books I’ve read start calling the later Carolingian kings of West Francia the Kings of France. Not using the title King of France until the reign of King Philippe II Augusté does make it seem to late in the game.
So I am not sure if I should continue being historically accurate or start calling the monarchs of West Francia Kings of France at an earlier time?
Lastly ,this brings me to the Kingdom of England. Ninth-century Kings of Wessex up to the reign of Alfred the Great used the title King of the West Saxons. In the 880s Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, accepted West Saxon lordship, and Alfred then adopted a new title, King of the Anglo-Saxons, representing his conception of a new polity of all the English people who were not under Viking rule.
This title endured until 927, when Æthelstan conquered the last Viking stronghold, York, and adopted the title King of the English. Modern historians regard Æthelstan
as the first King of England and one of the “greatest Anglo-Saxon kings”. Again, some historians regard Alfred the Great as the first King of England even though that was not his correct title.
Although modern historians will call Æthelstan King of England, he was technically King of the English. The title King of England did not get established until the reign of King John.
Again, trying to be historically accurate, I have been labeling the Kings of England from Æthelstan to King John as “Kings of the English.” While I am being historically accurate, I must admit the closer I get to the Norman Conquest using the title King of the English, for William I the Conqueror, for example, does sound a bit strange.
So I am a bit divided on where to use some of these titles. I am tempted to use King of the English up until the reign of Edward the confessor, and from the reign of William the Conqueror onward used the title King of England even though that’s not historically accurate.
The same with France. I’m tempted to use the title King of France starting with the reign of Hugh Capét specifically because it was his dynasty, through various branches, which ruled the Kingdom of France up until the monarchy was abolished in 1848 when King Louis Philippe was deposed. Technically he was known as the King of the French a title King Louis XVI briefly had after the start of the French Revolution.
So the issue for me is should I be historically accurate, or should I use titles that are more familiar to my English speaking readers?
I would love the input of my readers on this topic!
I apologize if this seems a bit being too fussy or not an important issue for most.