From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Ownership of England
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:13:56 GMT
Followup-To: jtn@vtopus.cs.vt.edu
Organization: SCA

Unto the good gentles of the Rialto does Lord Hossein Ali Qomi send
greetings and prayers for the blessings of Allah.

Lord Simon recently posted a lengthy missive consisting of samples
of a discussion on the "ownership" of England from the heralds' net.
I really don't intend this as a flame, but my pseudo-history meter is
redlining.

From Solveig Throndardottir:
"As I recall, the king of England was a vassal of the King of France
and thus, France was really lending England (and frequently a whole
lot of France along with it) to the English king." 

No, this is simply not so.  In 911 Rollo received northern Normandy
as a duchy/county (the some of the documents refer to the holder as
_comes_, others as _dux_) from King Charles the Simple.  However,
it is clear that the French King was merely ratifying what Rollo and
his band of Norsemen had already taken by brute force.  In 924 these
lands were augmented by King Rudolf with the Bessin and the
Hiemois; in 933King Rudolf further granted the Contentin and the
Avranchin.  It is likely that all of these were Carolingian _pagi_
which the Norse had seized and which the French crown regarded as
a buffer against further Norse incursions.  Rollo and his successors
offered homage to the King of France for all these lands, collectively
known as Normandy.  However, the extent of effective "vassalage"
for Normandy _in re_ France is very limited.  As J.-F. Lemarignier
[_Hommage en marche: Recherches sur l'hommage en marche et les
frontieres feodales_ (Lille, 1945), pp. 81-85] points out, the homage
rendered by Norman dukes to the French crown was not the
traditional _hommage vassalique_, but the _hommage de paix_, an
homage of peace and concord which was always performed on the
frontier and never at the overlord's court -- it was a relationship of
equals.  The firm distinction between _hommage de paix_ and
_hommage vassalique_ does not become fully clear until the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, but Lemarignier makes a very strong case
that all records of Norman homage reflect practices which became
firmly associated with the _hommage de paix_ and do not reflect
practices associated with the _hommage vassalique_.  Indeed, it is
not until 1183 that a Norman Duke -- Henry II -- offered _hommage
vassalique_ to a French King -- Philip Augustus -- and even then
such homage was offered only for the continental lands he held
(Normandy, Maine, Poitou, Anjou, Aquitaine).  No such relationship of
homage whatsoever existed between the King of England and the King
of France.  The idea that "France was really lending England...to the
English king" is patently absurd and ahistorical.

And, again, from Solveig:
"Ahh.  But remember that there are pleanty of historical
complicatons. William originally aquired a license from the Pope to
conquer England (or so I recall) so in that instance, the King of
England was to owe fealty to France through Normandy."

This is nonsense.  William the Bastard received a banner from Pope
Alexander II, most likely through the mediation of Lanfranc, the
Prior of Bec (and post-Conquest Archbishop of Canterbury), who had
been Alexander's teacher.  William construed this gift as papal
approval of his claim to the English throne; Alexander clearly
thought he was enfeoffing William (the model in Alexander's mind
was fairly clearly Roger Guiscard).  William's interpretation
prevailed until John's formal acceptance of papal suzerainty.  There
is no indication whatsoever in the documentary record that the papal
gesture intended that "the King of England was to owe fealty to
France through Normandy."   

From Moreach: 
"Didn't the king of France (well, proto-France) send William off with
blessings and minor assistance because he expected William to
conquer it for France?"

Pray tell,
         a.  What is a "Proto-France" in the eleventh century?
         b.  Can you cite a single document, from any contemporary       
             source whatsoever (even up through the thirteenth              
             century), which supports this interpretation?
I'm prepared to wager big bucks that the answer to b. is "no."

From Fairfax:
"I believe, though, that William divided his lands between his sons,
leaving Normandy to one and England to another.  Thus, the
Plantagenet King of England no longer owed allegiance to France _for
England._  Note that the emphasis is on _for England_ since he still
owed allegiance as a Duke (of Aquataine?)."

As history, this is just right out.   Neither William the Bastard, nor
William Rufus, nor Henry I, nor Stephen were "Plantagenet" Kings of
England.  The term "plantagenet" arises from the badge of Geoffrey
of Anjou, the husband of the Empress Matilda, whose son became
Henry II of England and Normandy.  The division of William's realm
between William Rufus (England) and Robert Curthose (Normandy and
Maine) had not one iota of effect on the formal feudal relationships
between England/Normandy and France.  Consult either Barlow's or
Freeman's books on the reign of William Rufus for the excruciating
details of these relationships.  Finally, Henry II obtained the
Aquitaine through his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine.

And, again, from Moreach:
"I vote to move this to the Rialto, too. It's a shame to keep some of
these general discussions to ourselves. Besides, stuff like this
might help shut down the 25 threads on "killing from behind"... ;->"

I am happy to continue this sort of discussion on the Rialto, for I
have long thought that the Rialto was an excellent place for
historical discussions.  However, as a herald, a fighter, and an
historian, I am rather offended by the implication that heralds in
general are more knowledgeable than mere "stick jocks" who load
the Rialto with boring discussions about irrelevant martial issues.
In fairness to those good gentles denigrated for "25 threads on
'killing from behind'" -- at least they were talking about something
they knew something about.

In Service to the Society,

Hossein Ali Qomi