GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-08 > 1093714046


From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <>
Subject: Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:27:26 +0100
References: <5B5872B2.510A9EEB.007FA2F6@aol.com> <41304cdc$0$6043$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net> <cdZXc.10922$D7.8438@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <41306a7c$0$9774$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net> <596086e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk> <41307834$0$15001$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net> <d0398de54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk> <413095df$0$13517$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net> <b70e97e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk> <4130a22f$0$18250$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>


In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <> wrote:

>
> "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <> a écrit dans le message de
> news:...
> > In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <> a écrit dans le message de
> > > news:...
> > > > In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <>
> wrote:

> > > > > No, she is not duke of Normandy, and none of his predecessors was
> > > > > since Henry III, and no she is not Queen of England. Of course,
> > > > > one can call her has one wants, but that has nothing to do with
> > > > > her actual title.
> > > >
> > > > Well, well. I thought I had better have a look to see what the
> > > > official line was and found it on this site:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page543.asp
> > > >
> > > > In the first two paragraphs there are these words:
> > >
> > > Excuse me but, have you asked yourself if this article find online
> > > had any particular authority of any kind? I suppose you realise a
> > > site is not in anyway an official document.
> >
> > But this site calls itself "The official web site of the British
> > Monarchy". It is not a site by a punter but one whose credits say it
> > has "Crown copyright protection" and "Text provided by the Royal
> > Household". It is for these reasons that I thought, and still think, it
> > worth quoting.
> >
> > Might I suggest you have a look at this particular site? It is rather
> > different to the average.
>
> I know it already. What I mean is that a website is not an official
> document, even with crown copyright. This site is knew by all curious of
> British monarchy to be full of historical errors.
>
> > Can you then give reasons why this is not an "official document" or at
> > least as close to one as we are likely to get?
>
> Why "at least as close to one as we are likely to get"? We have plainty of
> real official documents produced by the British monarchy: in none of them
> does the Queen take the title of "Duke of Normandy". All this story is only
> a urban legend.

A tad exaggerated, do you not think? A statement on a site composed of
data from members of the royal household is just a little bit more than
an urban legend.

> Listen: we have a treaty by which the King of England has renounced the
> Duchy of Normandy, we have the fact that during the 750 next years until
> today as far as I know (except if you have an official document saying the
> contrary) his successors never took again this title.

What might have been renounced is the title of duke of Normandy within
the kingdon (now, state) of France. But what might not have been
renounced was an English title. Such jesuiticals are never far from a
diplomat's lips.

> I think it is rather conclusive. Your only objection is: "But I have
> find a website which says the contrary". That is not an argument:
> this website can be wrong and has demonstrated to be often wrong in
> the past.

I am not aware of such of the demonstrations of wrongness! But the
question is whether they are wrong or right in this case.

So I have tried to re-establish contact with the site to put a message
via the webmaster to the people of the household to put your point to
them. But the site is down and I go on holiday for a week very shortly.

Perhaps someone else can ask them the question about the duke of
Normandy when the site comes back up?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

This thread: