GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-09 > 1159044232
From: "Chris Dickinson" <>
Subject: Re: use of word, "pretender"
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:43:52 +0100
References: <VN-dnbVBzd4Gs4nYRVny2Q@bt.com><006201c6df1b$44b40f80$6401a8c0@HP> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Actually, I differ from Chris's point of view. The word Pretender can
>in some circumstances be used simply to describe someone who would be
>king if circumstances were different and who maintains (or has not
>renounced) his claim. When I talk about the French Pretender [not that
>I often get the occasion to, but you know what I mean], I mean the head
>of the Orleanist house, whose claims to me seem the best of the bunch.
>I don't do this in a derogatory sense, but because it's the easiest way
>to refer to him. I wouldn't call him The King of France or the de-jure
>king or somesuch, because he isn't a king - he's merely a claimant to a
>(no longer existant) throne.
I take your point.
My response was really to the query about the self-assumption of titles.
However, in referring to the 'French Pretender', you would still be taking
on the board the offical view of the winners, and this could still be
classed as a derogratory comment by the losers :-)
That said, I do accept that a later use of the word Pretender by
historians to encapsulate a political reality in a single word doesn't have
any necessary value judgements attached.
|Re: use of word, "pretender" by "Chris Dickinson" <>|