Talk:English claims to the French throne

(Merge work)

I know this merger needs more work, but I'm off to the pub, I'll resume when I get back. PatGallacher 18:25, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

(Cryptic note)

Can't we include this in the succession box? IP Address 06:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• This colleague (the confusing sig is authentic: there's really a User:IP Address!) was in their second (and by far most active) month, in the six-month window of their WP activity. There was no succession box on the accompanying article at the time of that talk contrib; IPA never edited it while logged on, and no one edited it in the 4 weeks preceding the talk contrib. this is not true btw (By The Way)
  No IPs edited it between IPA's 1st logged-on WP edit and the talk contrib, tho 3 did in the 4 months preceding the talk contrib -- Feb. 10 & 18, and March 3. The first of these was the only one of the 3 that went beyond a single spelling or punc fix; it inserted a (somewhat cryptic) sentence made up nearly entirely of 2 fragments (perhaps of the same sentence) quoted from the important French historian Fernand Braudel (1902–1985); it has been at least largely removed -- perhaps w/o leaving a trace in the current revision. (It needed more context, and at a glance, i suspect its inclusion of constituting both a copyvio and SYNTH.)
  --Jerzy•t 08:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  

King of England and France?

Is this really true? The Acts of Union had nothing to do with France, it was merging England and Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagar (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Monarchs of England/GB claimed to be "King of France" until the very early 1800s, hence the fleur de lys on the Royal Coat of Arms.Paulturtle (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Cromwell, King of France?

Or Protector of France? The claim makes no sense on the face of it, as the British claim to France was dynastic, and Cromwell wasn't claiming to be the heir of the Stuarts. His rule over England, Scotland, and Ireland was real and accomplished by wars fought in all three kingdoms. The symbols of the Commonwealth show the arms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, but I've never seen anything for France. The evidence offered in the Interregnum section is far from convincing; the "etc." could refer to any other dependency of England -- notably the American colonies. RandomCritic 04:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell never claimed to be King of France, or Protector of France, or anything else of France. He even removed the fleur-de-lys from the national arms and did not use it on his own standard. His official titulature was ""Oliver, by the Grace of God, Protector of the Republic of England, Scotland, Ireland." The English didn't resume their rather silly claim on France until the restoration. Jsc1973 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Anachronistic nonsense corrected

The article contained roughly the following phrasing: ... Charles IV's brother Louis X... which looks like an anachronistic nonsense to me. Louis X the Quarreller did have a brother named Charles, but he was only a count of La Marche then, if my memory serves me well, and he only later became Charles IV the Fair, but he was not called by this (regnal) name at that time of the events described there, and not until more than 5 years later, so I replaced it with the more correct statement that Louis X the Quarreller was Philip IV the Fair's son. --84.47.59.184 (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian arms

I changed the "Dominion of Canada" secn to start

It is sometimes suggested{{Citation needed|date=February 2010}} that the presence of French (blue on yellow) fleurs-de-lis in the coat of arms of the Dominion of Canada expresses the claim, after their removal from the British sovereign's arms in 1801.

This is crucial bcz unless it is so suggested, the secn is off-topic in the accompanying article, and its contents must be moved to fleur-de-lis or coat of arms of England, or entirely discarded.
I added the fact tag bcz such suggestions are not only unverified, but there appears never to have been any ref offered for anything in the section in the 21 months since its addition by an IP: it is indistinguishable from OR, and the IP may be the only user who's ever wondered if the Canadian f-d-ls meant that or not.
My concern is further provoked by my finding the hard info that i added w/ a ref, a claim (by a historian who was 4 year old at the time) of others implicitly claiming a different intent, without either making any apparent reference to a possible French-throne scenario. That is to say, i found a scenario where an editor willing to add OR, and careless about logical inference or the possibility of unstated motives, might without grounds think the matter was settled. I've thus restated the remaining portion, limiting it to what the ref i found actually says.
--Jerzy•t 10:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any references for this? I've never heard that the fleur-de-lis have any reference whatsoever to English claims; rather, they are there to represent our status as a former French colony, not to mention our sizable French population. Unless some sort of references can be provided. I suggest the entire section be discarded. Mnmazur (talk)

Normandy

Every British monarch in the 20th and 21st century has borne the title 'Duke of Normandy.'

Does this mean George III, George IV and William IV did not use that style? When did Victoria or Edward VII resume it? (Between 1340 and 1801, it was merged in the royal claim.) —Tamfang (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I gather that the Crown smiles on the informal use of the title by islanders, but unless it is in official use — that is, unless government acts "in the name of HM the Duke of Normandy" or the like — this language is misleading. —Tamfang (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The title is apparently part of Elizabeth II's full title. See Titles and Honours of Queen Elizabeth II: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy [etc] Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that "Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy" was included among her official titles in 1953.Paulturtle (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. 'Course it's not relevant to this article anyway .... —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it's not relevant, unless someone can cite a source which makes a connection between the title Duke of Normandy and the British claim to the French throne. Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure when although it was during Victoria's reign. It's also been largely derided as pseudo-antiquarian nonsense. 216.252.76.143 (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the relevant article, the Royal Claim to the Duchy of Normandy was dropped at the Treaty of Paris in 1259, and the Channel Islands were retained as part of the Duchy of Aquitaine thereafter (we must have given up the claim to Aquitaine at some stage during or at the end of the Hundred Years War, but I haven't been able to track down when). So yes, "pseudo-antiquarian nonsense" seems about right.Paulturtle (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The claim to Aquitaine was dropped when Edward III started claiming the throne of France, the idea being that it would have merged with the crown had he actually been King of France.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe so, but my recollection is that at the Treaty of Bretigny Edward III was recognised as "Lord" of Aquitaine as a sovereign entity (ie. not as a vassal of the King of France). According to the relevant article, the Channel Islands were also held independently of the King of France as of that treaty. So the claim to Aquitaine must have gone on a little longer than that.Paulturtle (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

French vs Norman

The latest edit adds the word Norman to the phrase the Norman French Plantagenet dynasty, with the summary "the plantagenets weren't 'French' - they were Normans who had settled in Normandy descended from Vikings and related to the Viking rulers of England".

By 1340, how strong was the specific Norman heritage of the monarchy? —Tamfang (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You could ask "How French were the Plantagenet kings of England?" All the leaders of the various parts of the Angevin "Empire" were descended from the family of Rollo - who still spoke Danish at home. The line of the Plantagenets was Norman French, i.e. descended from that line and not from the line of the Francs. So, they were not French French, they were Norman French. Even by 1340, this identity was seen as separate. Francis Hannaway 21:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

They were also descended from lots of other people. Geoffrey of Anjou, for example. — I'm descended from people who spoke Norwegian at home, but it doesn't mean I do. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Medieval Anglo-French historian chiming in: "Norman French Plantagenet dynasty" is absolutely incorrect in every respect. While the Plantagenets of England certainly had Norman blood, they were French, or more specifically Angevin, first. Their male ancestry was that of Geoffrey Plantagenet and Fulk V of Anjou, so calling them Norman would be much more incorrect than calling them French. But I would agree with Francis that calling the dynasty Norman-French would be the most historically accurate term and is most consistent with what historians call at least the early Plantagenet dynasty (often just called the Angevins before Henry III's reign). For my vote, I'd call the the Plantagenet dynasty a Norman-French family and I feel most of the Anglo-French historical community would agree with that terminology. (Oh, and Rollo didn't speech Danish, he spoke a local Old Norse dialect that is now extinct. Historians aren't even certain if Rollo came from modern-day Denmark.)  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 06:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Parsembleu, you're right Whaleyland? thanks a lot, -- Spiessens 20:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiessens (talk • contribs)

Arms

"Although the fleurs-de-lys were completely removed from the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom" Huh? I count there are at least still 7 of them on there. At the base of the coat of arms and on the crowns. 71.173.19.117 (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

On the shield, which is the main part.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversals

Is it worth noting a couple of cases where pretender kings of England then became actual kings of France, being French rather than English? One was Louis VIII of France, who was proclaimed in London as King Louis I of England in 1216, becoming King of France in 1223. The other was Francis II of France, who married Mary Stuart in 1558 becoming King consort of Scotland and then presumably sharing his wife's claim to the throne of England on the death of Mary Tudor later in 1558, before becoming King of France in 1559. 2A00:23C7:7B0E:7400:E4F2:C8A8:E906:35D4 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)