History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedReclaiming the Edwards?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Huscarl View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02-Mar-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Huscarl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Reclaiming the Edwards?
    Posted: 29-Mar-2009 at 21:51
Should we in England rename the numbers of the Kings of England called Edward, in order to ensure historical accuracy?

For instance, Edward 'the Elder' (899-924), Edward the Martyr (975-8) and Edward the Confessor (1042-1066) should all be renamed as Edward I,II & III respectively?

Then the currently-known Edward I (1272-1307) would become, correctly in English chronology, Edward IV, as the Normans did not start history off, but inherited a powerful, wealthy and complex economy far more successful than any other western state?

After all, there was talk about reclaiming the Bayeux Tapestry to England (where it was made by English noblewomen), and there is also a current fad of renaming years BC as BCE?
Back to Top
Dacian View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 13-Mar-2009
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dacian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2009 at 23:20
Originally posted by Huscarl Huscarl wrote:

Should we in England rename the numbers of the Kings of England called Edward, in order to ensure historical accuracy?

For instance, Edward 'the Elder' (899-924), Edward the Martyr (975-8) and Edward the Confessor (1042-1066) should all be renamed as Edward I,II & III respectively?

Then the currently-known Edward I (1272-1307) would become, correctly in English chronology, Edward IV, as the Normans did not start history off, but inherited a powerful, wealthy and complex economy far more successful than any other western state?

After all, there was talk about reclaiming the Bayeux Tapestry to England (where it was made by English noblewomen), and there is also a current fad of renaming years BC as BCE?


while the numbering issue would be correct why would anyone bother
very unimportant issue I might say but if anyone is willing to spend the money on republishing all the stuff to include the changes than why not...for spartanic historical accuracy :D


as for the Bayeux Tapestry what do you mean? renaming it as english (sort of the English Channel way? or getting it back to England if it is not there (no ideea where it is atm)


and last BC and BCE again matters not....same unuseful kind of changes that make the proponets feel important (kind of GMT>UTC time name change)

Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 00:48
The tapestry is in Bayeux, France....and I would love to see the justifications that British would make for its transportation to England when they refuse to return the Parthenon marbles and other stolen arifacts to their respective countries.
Back to Top
Dacian View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 13-Mar-2009
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dacian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 01:31
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

The tapestry is in Bayeux, France....and I would love to see the justifications that British would make for its transportation to England when they refuse to return the Parthenon marbles and other stolen arifacts to their respective countries.


bah I waited for an answer before I was about to ask the same question :D


Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1367
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 08:23
I'm of the impression that the pre Norman kings refer to a different realm entirely. The land of the anglo saxons, of Edward the Confessor and Harold etc. was an entirely different kingdom which didn't use the numbering system. Better to leave it the way it is - the three Edwards form a very distinct chain in High medieval British history, wouldn't want to confuse us!
 
On a lighter note, if the three Edwards didn't have numbers, what would they be called? Edward the Longshanks, Edward the Gay and Edward the Warlord maybe?
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 966
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 12:09
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

The tapestry is in Bayeux, France....and I would love to see the justifications that British would make for its transportation to England when they refuse to return the Parthenon marbles and other stolen arifacts to their respective countries.
 
 
The English don't make a case for its return, it was woven in France and French property.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 13:49
I can't help but wonder why Henry III gave his children Anglo-Saxon names when all his post-Norman predecessors, to the best of my knowledge, stuck with Frankish names. If it was to establish a sense of continuity with the Wessex house it wouldn't make sense for Edward to disregard the previous Edwards and become Edward the first.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2009 at 16:37
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

I'm of the impression that the pre Norman kings refer to a different realm entirely. The land of the anglo saxons, of Edward the Confessor and Harold etc. was an entirely different kingdom which didn't use the numbering system. Better to leave it the way it is - the three Edwards form a very distinct chain in High medieval British history, wouldn't want to confuse us!
 
On a lighter note, if the three Edwards didn't have numbers, what would they be called? Edward the Longshanks, Edward the Gay and Edward the Warlord maybe?
After that of course they gradually tailed off - Edward the Quite Reasonable, Edward the Whatever Happened To Him, Edward the Teen, Edward the Cheery Old Roué and Edward the Better Forgotten.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2009 at 20:09

It was Edward the Martyr who really should be regarded as the first English king to bear the name. Edward the Elder was king of the Anglo-Saxons, although in a few charters he styled himself as "rex Anglorum". This would be for purposes of prestige only.

He did, however, receive the submission of the northern kings, but he did not rule the northern regions directly. It was his son, Athelstan, who was the first Anglo-Saxon king to rule the kingdom of York directly together with Mercia and Wessex. Consequently, it is he who is regarded  by historians as the first king of the English.
 
Henry III named his eldest son Edward because at that time there was a strong cult of Edward the Confessor who was regarded as being very pious. In fact when he became king, Edward seriously considered styling  himself Edward II in deference to Edward the Confessor.
Back to Top
Windemere View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Windemere Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2009 at 23:22
It's been said that strong, self-confident monarchs tend to choose new, innovative names for their successors. Cautious, careful monarchs choose recent, familiar names, hoping to maintain continuity. Anxious, worried monarchs choose old, traditional names recalling past glories. Henry III had a long but uncertain reign, maybe in naming his son he was trying to restore some old glory to his  shaky dynasty.
Windemere
Back to Top
Huscarl View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02-Mar-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Huscarl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2009 at 19:40
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

 
The English don't make a case for its return, it was woven in France and French property.


Sorry Paul, but it was almost definately made by noble English needlewomen in either Winchester- known for such handcraft by expert needle workers then- or Canterbury.
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
AE Editor & Pet Platypus

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Status: Offline
Points: 4720
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 21:18
The numbering represents the Norman England and it's successors in any case.
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.
Back to Top
bod View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Apr-2009
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bod Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2009 at 22:28
It would be difficult to give numbers to many Anglo Saxon Kings because there were different kings for diffrent areas.

Would you start with Athelstan?
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2009 at 19:20
Originally posted by bod bod wrote:

It would be difficult to give numbers to many Anglo Saxon Kings because there were different kings for diffrent areas.

Would you start with Athelstan?
 
Athelstan is regarded as the first king of the English, but he did regard himself as more then that. In his early charters he was styled rex Anglorum, but later, particularly after the battle of Brunaburgh where he defeated the Norse and Scots, he often signed charters as rex totius Britannie meaning overlord of Britain.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2009 at 07:16
Oh La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde was made be English needlewomen? I think you might have a very hard time convincing the French of that. Even bypassing the outdated theory that it was Queen Mathilda and her ladies-in-waiting who made it (which they might not be willing to do), it was just as likely to have been made in the Loire Valley.

Whichever is true, if the English were to actually give up some of what they've *ahem* taken such as the Wallace Letters, they might find more sympathy for getting back something like the Bayeux Tapestry.  I have always suspected that the English still have the Black Rood of Scotland hidden away somewhere, too. They could give that back too while they're at it. Ha. Fat chance.

Or maybe the English made the Parthenon marbles, the Wallace Letters and the Rood as well?



Originally posted by Huscarl Huscarl wrote:

Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

 
The English don't make a case for its return, it was woven in France and French property.


Sorry Paul, but it was almost definately made by noble English needlewomen in either Winchester- known for such handcraft by expert needle workers then- or Canterbury.


Edited by JRScotia - 15-May-2009 at 07:34
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Orderic Vitalis View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Orderic Vitalis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 16:03
The argument for bringing the Bayeux tapestry back to England was made last year by historian Dave Musgrove. He said:  "There is a pretty good academic consensus that it could well have been made in Canterbury. The Latin script that accompanies the pictorial images shows signs of being written by someone who came from an Anglo-Saxon background. Secondly the imagery in the tapestry is very similar to imagery that we know was in illuminated manuscripts that we know were in Canterbury's library at the time. It is an iconic document of English history and wouldn't it be amazing to have it shown in England where there is a very good chance it was made, and wouldn't that inspire people to get involved in medieval history? The crowds would come flocking."

Visit our site www.medievalists.net for articles, videos and more about the Middle Ages
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 21:25
Somehow this last qote from Mr Musgrove makes my blood boil since it's one of the arguments that WE make only that we are certain that our Marbles were made here and not assumpt so.
Back to Top
Chookie View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 14-Apr-2008
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chookie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 22:24
The numbering from Longshanks is because he considered himself to first of the Plantagenet dynasty (which he was), not because of any Norman influence. He was after all fighting to "regain" his French territories.

As to the tapestry "in England where there is a very good chance it was made" to me, this quotation says there's a very slight possibility it might be English (so hand it over.........)
They make a desert and they call it peace
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2009 at 23:37
Oh, displaying it in France doesn't inspire people? WHY?

The arguments for it being made elsewhere are just as good and as far as I'm concerned the English already have more than enough that doesn't belong to them. A "pretty good consensus" is a LONG way from a consensus. And why should the English be given something else that doesn't belong to them?

Even if it had been CREATED in England (which I do not admit) why should that mean it BELONGS to England? If I have an Englishman paint a picture for me, that means I can't keep it in Scotland? Well, knowing the English record on the subject--very possibly.

Again, once the English have given back everything they took from the rest of their world (including their countries) you'll get a LOT friendlier reception.


Originally posted by Orderic Vitalis Orderic Vitalis wrote:

The argument for bringing the Bayeux tapestry back to England was made last year by historian Dave Musgrove. He said:  "There is a pretty good academic consensus that it could well have been made in Canterbury. The Latin script that accompanies the pictorial images shows signs of being written by someone who came from an Anglo-Saxon background. Secondly the imagery in the tapestry is very similar to imagery that we know was in illuminated manuscripts that we know were in Canterbury's library at the time. It is an iconic document of English history and wouldn't it be amazing to have it shown in England where there is a very good chance it was made, and wouldn't that inspire people to get involved in medieval history? The crowds would come flocking."



Edited by JRScotia - 17-May-2009 at 23:52
Saor Alba
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2008
Location: Mercia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2009 at 06:53
Originally posted by Chookie Chookie wrote:

The numbering from Longshanks is because he considered himself to first of the Plantagenet dynasty (which he was), not because of any Norman influence. He was after all fighting to "regain" his French territories.

As to the tapestry "in England where there is a very good chance it was made" to me, this quotation says there's a very slight possibility it might be English (so hand it over.........)
 
I suppose by "Longshanks" you mean that famous and remarkable English king Edward I. If so, Chookie, he was not the first of the Plantagenet kings. That would be, in fact, Henry II. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.