Talk:English claims to the French throne

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: King of England and France?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cromwell, King of France?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anachronistic nonsense corrected 

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Normandy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Parsembleu, you're right Whaleyland? thanks a lot, -- Spiessens 20:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  French vs Norman 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Arms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reversals