GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-09 > 1159021163


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: RE: use of word, "pretender"
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:19:23 -0400
In-Reply-To: <VN-dnbVBzd4Gs4nYRVny2Q@bt.com>




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Dickinson [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 1:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: use of word, "pretender"
>
<snip>

> One of the simple facts of politics is that people and countries make
> titular claim to things that they have no practical control over, with
> varying degrees of theoretical justification and of political
> manipulation. I don't think that one can make moral judgements
> about this - at what point did the English monarch's claim to be
> King of France become contemptible?

But of course we can and do make moral judgments. One person's champion is
another's terrorist. One person's religion is another's nonsense. It all
depends on your point of view. Thank you for reminding me that is the case.

>
<snip>
>
> But, going back to your original comment, I would think that
> the use of the term 'Pretender' is always derogatory. It is
> used from the perspective of the person, group, political
> body, culture that HAS - the party that HASN'T would use
> another term like 'rightful king'.

That the intent is always derogatory by the one who applies the term makes
sense, so thank you for clarifying that point.

What about someone who has no blood-right to being king vanquishing the rightful
king and taking his place claiming to be the rightful king? He's not the one
out of power, he's the one in power, but shouldn't be. Is he a pretender? It's
not an outright conquest because he claims to be in power rightfully.

I know I'm picking this to death, but I don't want to mis-use the word.

>
>
>
>


This thread: