A History of Styles & Titles: Part I

Tags

Charles VI of France, Duke of Aquitaine, Joan of Arc, King of England, King of France, King of the English, Kingdom of Wessex, Kings and Queens of England, styles, titles, Wessex, William Rufus, William the Conqueror

The Anglo-Saxon kings of England used numerous different titles, including “King of the Anglo-Saxons” and “King of the English. Around the mid 880s Is period in which almost all chroniclers agree that the Saxon people of pre-unification England submitted to Alfred. This was not, however, the point at which Alfred came to be known as King of England; in fact, he would never adopt the title for himself.

Initially Alfred was titled King of Wessex until 886 when in London Alfred received the formal submission of “all the English people that were not under subjection to the Danes”, and thereafter he adopted the title Anglorum Saxonum rex (King of the Anglo-Saxons). While Alfred was not the first king to claim to rule all of the English, his rule represents the start of the first unbroken line of kings to rule the whole of England, the House of Wessex.

Alfred’s son and successor His son Edward the Elder conquered the eastern Danelaw, but it was his son and successor Æthelstan who became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927, and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England. The title “King of the English” or Rex Anglorum in Latin, was first used to describe Æthelstan in one of his charters in 928.

Alfred the Great, King of the Anglo-Saxons.

Variations of the monarchs title were adopted by some kings of Wessex and England; for example, Edred used “King of the Anglo-Saxons, Northumbrians, pagans and Britons”. These titles were sometimes accompanied by extravagant epithets; for instance, Æthelstan was “King of the English, raised by the right hand of the Almighty to the Throne of the whole Kingdom of Britain”.

William I the Conqueror used the simple “King of the English” and “Duke of the Normans” as his titles. His successor, William II, was the first to consistently use the style “by the Grace of God”. Henry I added “Duke of the Normans” in 1121, though he had seized Normandy from his brother Robert in 1106. In 1152 Henry II acquired many further French possessions through his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine; soon thereafter, he added “Duke of the Aquitanians” and “Count of the Angevins” to his titles.

“King of the English”, “Duke of the Normans”, “Duke of the Aquitanians” and “Count of the Angevins” remained in use until King John ascended the throne in 1199, when they changed the title “King of the English” to “King of England”, along with “Duke of Normandy”, “Duke of Aquitaine” and “Count of Anjou”, respectively. John, furthermore, was already the titular ruler of Ireland; therefore, he added “Lord of Ireland” to his style.

In 1204 England lost both Normandy and Anjou. Nevertheless, they did not renounce the associated titles until 1259. French territory once again became the subject of dispute after the death of the French King Charles IV in 1328. Edward III claimed the French Throne, arguing that it was to pass to him through his mother Isabella, Charles IV’s sister. In France, however, it was asserted that the Throne could not pass to or through a woman according to the Salic Law.

Nevertheless, Edward III began to use the title “King of France” (dropping “Duke of Aquitaine”) after 1337. In 1340 he entered France, where he was publicly proclaimed King. In 1360, however, he agreed to relinquish his title to the French claimant. Though he stopped using the title in legal documents, he did not formally exchange letters confirming the renunciation with the French King. In 1369 Edward III resumed the title, claiming that the French had breached their treaty.

Henry VI, King of England, Lord of Ireland and King of France.

In 1420, the Treaty of Troyes was an agreement signed by Henry V of England and Charles VI of France, recognizing Henry as Charles’ successor, and stipulating that Henry’s heirs would succeed him on the throne of France. It disinherited the Dauphin Charles (with further claim, in 1421, that the young Charles was illegitimate). It also betrothed Charles VI’s daughter, Catherine of Valois, to Henry V. Henry V then adopted the title Heir of France instead.

Henry V and Charles VI died within two months of each other in 1422, and Henry V’s infant son (Charles VI’s grandson) Henry VI became King of France. He was the only English king who was de facto King of France, rather than using the style as a mere title of pretense. He is also the only English monarch to actually have been crowned King of France (as Henri II, in 1431). However, by 1429 Charles VII was crowned at Reims with the support of Joan of Arc and begun to push the English out of northern France. In 1435, an end to the French civil war between Burgundians and Armagnacs allowed Charles to return to Paris the following year, and by 1453 the English had been driven out of their last strongholds in Normandy and Guyenne. The only French territory left to the English was Calais which they held until 1558.

Coat of Arms of Henry VI with the Lion of England and the French fleur-de-lys.

Nonetheless the kings and queens of England (and, later, of Great Britain) continued to claim the French throne for centuries, through the early modern period. The words “of France” was prominently included among their realms as listed in their titles and styles, and the French fleur-de-lys was included in the royal arms. This continued until 1801, by which time France had no monarch, having become a republic.

Who was the first King of England ?

Tags

Bretwalda, Cerdic of Wessex, East Anglia, Egbert of Wessex, Essex, Heptarchy, Kent, King Alfred the Great, King Athelstan, King John of England, King of Bavaria, King of the Anglo-Saxons, King of the English, Kingdom of Prussia, Kings and Queens of England, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, Wessex, William the Conqueror

Figuring out who was the first King of Prussia or the first King of Bavaria was, is pretty easy given the fact that these kingdoms developed late in European history, early 18th and 19th to be precise. However, there are other kingdoms that stretch way back into history and figuring out who the first king of that nation or kingdom was, is rather difficult and subject to opinion. I am beginning a short series where I will identify the first king of England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I’m going to do something special with France and also ask who was the last King of the Franks? I may have touched on this before but I will also examine who was the first Holy Roman Emperor?

Alfred the Great: King of the West Saxons & King of the Angles and Saxons.

The reason why it can be hard for historians to determine who was the first king of these nations were because the idea of a unified nation-state came long after these monarchies began to develop. At first the king was more like a tribal chief over a people rather than a nation. All of these nations had many kings ruling over these territories and as time went on these smaller kingdoms either died off or were absorbed or defeated until one singular king remained. There are also other complexities special for each kingdom that I will address separately.

Today I will start with England.

Most books or lists of the Kings and Queens of England begin with William the Conqueror in 1066. Some may briefly mention the Saxon period but all-in-all a wide majority of books on this subject begin with William. However, there was far more royal history before him. After the fall of the Roman Empire there began a rise of small petty kingdoms in the British Isle. These small Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were known as the Heptarchy and they consisted of East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. It was from the gradual unification of these early medieval kingdoms that the kingdom of England emerged. During the 9th century Vikings upset the balance of power between the English kingdoms, and native Anglo-Saxon life in general. One of the effects of the Viking invasions was that it slowed down English unification.

During the period of the Heptarchy, the most powerful king among the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms might be acknowledged as Bretwalda, which translates to High King, over the other kings. However, the tendency for one of the kings of the Heptarchy to become the Bretwalda was short lived as the decline of the other Saxon kingdoms allowed Wessex to become more powerful. Wessex soon came to be the most powerful kingdom on English soil as it absorbed the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex in 825. In 827, Northumbria submitted to King Egbert of Wessex (802-839) Thus Egbert briefly became the first king to reign over a united England. Most sources that list Egbert as the first King of England use either 827 or 828 as the starting point of his reign as Bretwalda even though his reign as king of Wessex began in 802. 

Was Egbert of Wessex the first King of England? He often is considered as such by some historians for his reign signaled that Wessex had indeed become the most powerful kingdom within England and would eventually subsume the position as the dominant kingdom over all others. Egbert was given the title Bretwalda and instead of viewing him as the first king of England I tend to view him as the last Anglo-Saxon king to hold the title Bretwalda. Incidentally, as mentioned at the start, most books or encyclopedias list William I as the starting point of the Kings and Queens of England, but those that do list or mention the Kingdom of Wessex often start with Egbert of Wessex as its first king, even though Cerdic of Wessex was actually the First King of Wessex in 519.

In 886, King Alfred the Great (871-899) retook London from the Danes and some historians mark this as the point when all of England came under one monarch. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that “all of the English people (all Angelcyn) not subject to the Danes, submitted themselves to King Alfred.” After retaking London he began massive reconstruction of the city and making it habitable once again. Historians cite that it may have been at this point that Alfred assumed the new royal style ‘King of the Anglo-Saxons.’ Alfred’s son, Ædward the Elder (899-924), was also titled King of the Anglo-Saxons, however during his reign the Danes still held York.

It would be a few more years until England was completely united. On July 12, 927 the remaining monarchs of Britain gathered at Eamont in Cumbria to recognize Æthelstan (924-927) as “King of the English.” This has be considered by some historians as England’s ‘foundation date’, although the process of unification had taken almost 100 years. Even after 927 England was not completely united as Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and the Danish and Norwegian invaders. Northumbria was definitively brought under English control by King Ædred (945-955) in 954, completing the unification of England. At about this time, Lothian, the northern part of Northumbria (Roman Bernicia), was ceded to the Kingdom of Scotland. England has remained in political unity ever since.

It is interesting to note that from the time of King Æthelstan until the reign of King John (1199-1216) the title which the monarch used was “King of the English,” in Latin, Rex Anglorum . In 1199 King John changed the title to Rex Anglia, “King of England” and this remained in effect until the unification of England and Scotland as the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.

It is difficult to pin down the first king of England. Egbert is often chosen because he was the king that brought Wessex to prominence over the other English Kingdoms. Alfred the Great is often chosen because he brought most of England under his rule but his grandson, Æthelstan as “King of the English,” finalized English unification. Any of these could be considered the first King of England. Personally, I tend to view Alfred the Great as the first King of England because his unifying of the nation was the one that stuck and lasted. What is your choice?

The Common Touch

Tags

14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, East Anglia, Essex, Heptarchy, Kent, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, Mercia, Norman Conquest of England, Northumbria, Prince Charles, Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark, Sussex, Wessex

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is a very popular member of the British Royal Family. She is young and beautiful with a friendly and warm personality and married to a dashing handsome prince who is destined one day to be king. These are what make up fairy tales and Hollywood movies. Another aspect of this fairy tale is that she does not come from either royalty or the titled nobility herself. Long gone are the days when royals married royals. This has not done any damage as some have feared. I have met some individuals who have supported the class system to the point where they thought that when a royal married a commoner that it lessened their royal status and that of their children. I do not agree with this view at all.

Through the centuries it has been ironic that commoners and every ordinary person has had the freedom to select the mate of their choice. Royalty, on the other hand, has not always had that luxury. Marrying into your station in life is still practiced throughout the world. There are always whispers and gossip if someone is seen to be marrying someone who is not part of their social group and status. This human proclivity is readily apparent in royal circles and has been for ages. Even in the days of the Heptarchy, members of the royal families of  Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Wessex married into one another’s houses. Even after the Norman Conquest of England this trend continued.

Looking at a genealogy chart of the royal family through history it mirrors much of the political climate at the time. From the Norman Conquest until the reign of Edward III (1327-1377) we can see many French princesses and those of the French nobility marry into the English royal family. This mirrors the many conflicts between England and France that royal alliances were hoped to resolve. From the reign of Edward III to the times of the Tudors we see a lot of marriages of the royal family into the English nobility. The Tudor dynasty was a hodgepodge of marriages with foreign countries and the English nobility..and even with commoners. The Stuarts married into Danish, French, Dutch and Portuguese royal houses.

With the arrival of the German House of Hanover onto the British throne in 1714 we begin to see the tradition of marrying into other German royal and noble families. This tradition lasted up until World War I (1914-1918) when the German and Russian royal houses were swept off their thrones. It was at that time when George V permitted his children to marry members of the British aristocracy. We all know the trouble Edward VIII had in selecting a wife that was not from either royal or noble stock, he gave up the throne for his marriage to Wallis Simpson. His sister Mary, The Princess Royal, married the future Earl of Harewood. George VI, married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the daughter of Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. Prince Henry, The Duke of Gloucester, married Lady Alice  Montagu Douglas Scott, the daughter of John Montagu Douglas Scott, 7th Duke of Buccleuch. The youngest surviving son, Prince George, Duke of Kent, married into royalty. In 1934 the Duke of Kent married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark.

Princess Marina’s cousin, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark married the future Queen Elizabeth II in 1947. In recent years we have seen members of the royal family marrying people from untitled families. The Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret, married Antony Armstrong-Jones, whom Her Majesty ennobled granting him the title 1st Earl of Snowdon. Of the queen’s children only the first marriage of the Prince of Wales, to Lady Diana Spencer, was a marriage to a member of the nobility. All the other children of the queen married untitled commoners.  In the future it may still be possible for a member of the British royal family to marry another royal or even a member of the nobility and if this happens it will happen just like anyone else meets their spouse, through friends or activities. I am all in favor of royals marrying the person they love and the person of their choice. The only drawback for me personally is I enjoy reading old genealogy charts and seeing how many ways the royals are connected. In the future these royal and noble families will be less connected by marriage.

With such hard-working and warm friendly people such as The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duchess of Cornwall and the Countess of Wessex as members of the royal family they demonstrate that being royal is not about birth, it is about conduct and service and being an honourable representative of your country. Being married into the royal family is not just a part-time job, it is a full-time lifestyle. These ladies have demonstrated that dignity and class are attributes that we can all emulate and one does not have to be high-born to display those qualities. In the future as Prince Harry and other members of the royal family select the spouse of their choice, let’s hope that they all demonstrate that common touch.

Legal Succession: William I “the Conqueror.”

Tags

Harold Godwinson, Harold II of England, House of Wessex, Norman Conquest, Wessex, William I of England, William the Conqueror, Witan, Witenagemot

As I have researched this topic it is rather complex so I will give the reader’s digest version.

At the time of the Norman Conquest (1066) it has been difficult for me to find any concrete rules regarding the succession to the throne. During the reign ogf the House of Wessex, who were just kings of only Wessex until they began to slowly unify England, the succession dopesn’t seem to have many hard and fast rules. Succession to the throne of Wessex/England was vested in the descendents of King Egbert. However, it was not by primogeniture. There were times when young children of the monarch were passed over in the succession for brothers or uncles of the previous monarch.

Another aspect of the monarchy at this point is the governing council, called the Witan or Witenagemot, which also served in electing the monarchy. Prior to hereditary kingship, which was a later development as families sought to consolidated power, the majority of monarchies were elective…even if that election was limited to one family. To this day historians debate the role of the Witain (even the name itself) but there is evidence that controlling the succession was one of their powers.

In 1066 King Edward the Confessor died without any issue (children) causing one of Enland’s first succession crisis. The legend goes that Edward promised the succession to William the Batsard, Duke of Normandy, a relative by marriage. There was also a co-claim that Harold Godwinson had received a similar promise. When Edward died early that January both men claimed that Edward had promised them the succession. Historians debate the legitimacy of both of those claims. Even in its time there were many conflicting accounts of these alleged promises. They possible were both manufactured by each party.

The truth it seems is that Edward had no power to name his successor and that the power to name the successor was vested in the Witan. They did choose Harold Godwinson, a member of a powerful noble family with connections to the rulers of Denmark. Therfore in the month of January Harold was crowned as Harold II, King of England. William, feeling that his inheritence was stolen from him, mounted an invasion of England. I won’t go into detail with the story as everyone is familiar with it. William invaded England from Normandy and defeated the forces of Harold II at Senlac outside of Hastings in October of that year.

After the defeat of Harold the Witan (including Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury & Archbishop Ealdred of York) tried to elect Edgar Atheling, the heir to the House of Wessex) as King of England but since military might was on the side of William this was an empty election. William was crowned King of England on Christmas Day of 1066. However, it took a few years to consolidate his rule and bring all of England under his thumb. Although at his coronation William desired to stress his legal right to the throne, Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury  refused to place the crown on William’s head saying “to crown one who was covered with the blood of men and the invader of others’ rights.” Archbishop Ealdred of York was the one who actually placed the crown on his head.

The Witan was the legal body that regulated the succession in 1066. They chose Harld as the legal successor to Edward the Confessor and despite his claims of being the legal heir to the throne William I “the Conqueror” was clearly a usurper in the legal sense. When William came to the throne he abolished the Witan and replaced it with the “king’s court” or Curia Regis. He also took the power to name his successor and this power gradually made England a more hereditary monarchy.

William was not the first King of England although some book make him out to be just that. He did profoundly change England though. The amalgamation of old English and Norman culture forged the modern English culture. Every monarch since the Conquest is a descendent of his. When chronicler’s began numbering the kings of England the reign of William the Conqueror was the starting point.