By what names would the factions have been known?

[Didz]

First of all, as you have probably gathered I am not an expert on early English history, though the period does interest me as I am quite keen to discover exactly why I’m English, as part of my understanding of my family history.

So, your comments are useful, though I think you have slightly misinterpreted some of the points I was making in my first post. Bearing in mind that most of these points were simply plagiarised from Wiki anyway.

By the time of the Norman invasion of England, The Kingdom of England, the name, kingdom et cetera... was well established.
In fact for over 100 years. At Alfreds' Declaration, That he was the King of the Anglo-Saxons, or more correctly the West Saxons. He was recognised as the Titular head of the Lands of England by the pope, pope Leo IV in 836AD if memory serves me.

Apart from the fact that the reference I was using mentions 886 AD rather than 836 AD a fifty year difference for some reason. The point made in the article I read was that whilst Alfred had declared himself the King of the English, he never actually became King of England. England remained a collection of Earldoms and at least some of what we currently know of as England was under the Danish rule of Gunthrum. As late as 897 this included large parts of Northumbria and East Anglia. So, I think the difference we are debating is between nominality and actuality. The understanding I gained from the text I read was that England the nation state and Kingdom did not exist ‘except as a nominal declaration of intent’ until after Alfred’s death.

Shires.
The shires of England existed before the Norman invasion.

Yes…sorry once again I didn’t explain myself very well.

Of course the shire system existed prior to the Norman Invasion. In fact I believe it was tied into the Anglo-Saxon system of justice, hence the term ‘Shire-Reeve’ or Sheriff as a person responsible for the administration of justice within a Shire.

The point I was making was that prior to the Norman invasion the shire was an subsiduary division of an Earldom and what William did was strip away this overarching layer of control effectively reducing England to a collection of Shires. Which is effectively the current basis of political and government administration that exists in England today.

There are still nominal references to the earlier Earldom’s as in East Anglia, Mercia, etc. and they frequently get resurrected as names for Primary Care Trusts and the like which combine resources from more than one shire, but effectively that level of national division was removed by William, leaving us with a country divided into Shires most of which were over lorded by Williams loyal knights and retainers. The former Anglo-Saxon nobility being dispossessed including possibly my ancestor. (one can only dream)

Another fact, Bedfordshire, where you come from, was mentioned as a shire about 1019AD. It originally comes from "Bedas ford", which means a river crossing, and was an important transit route.

Yes, in fact I think it remained so until the construction of the A1 and the Great North Eastern Railway.

I was reading the history of Bedford Castle (which used to guard this crossing) in Bedford museum a few months back and it appears Faulkes de Beouf the self-appointed lord of that castle caused so much trouble for the King that in the end he had the castle torn down to prevent it being used as a base of future dissent and mischief. Which is why Beford is one of the few Shire Town that don't have any vestage of a Castle.

I’d like to find out more about my mate Faulkes as he comes across as a thoroughly nasty piece of work. A sort of archetypal ‘Sherrif of Nottingham’ with added bells and whistles. One report I read claimed that he used to organise peasant hunts between Bedford and Milton, in which his guests were invited to kill, maim or rape anyone they fancied.

He then proceeded to hang the Kings messenger when he came to investigate the complaint made against him, and ran off leaving his brother to face the Kings Army that finally turned up to besiege the castle. So, his brother ended up getting executed for his crimes.

Nice bloke.

I would go on, but I would bore most of you.

Your not boring me, but we may be boring the rest of the community.

The family however does still exist.

Yeah! I watched that documentary where they tracked down the true King of England to a sheep ranch in Australia (or something).

He didn’t seem particularly interested in claiming the English throne but his daughters were definitely keen on the idea of being Princesses.

Completely off-topic…but I also discovered the memorial of a guy who must be the real life inspiration for Richard Sharpe of the 95th Rifles just up the road in the church at Eynesbury. He seems to have fought and been wounded in just about every battle of the Peninsular War. I want to find out more about him too.

[fenir]

Hello Didz,

To start please don't miss understand me, I am not having a go at you or anything, it's just my tounge in cheek, having a drink, to lazy to get the documents.
So just going from memory most of it.

Dates are all rough, please don't quote me on them.


1st, don't worry about a small date difference, it's not a history exam as above.

But, both Alfred declared himself, and the pope declared also, him to be The King of England.
You have to remember, England was not the geographical part we know of today and alfred was more titular head than real.
Back then it included parts not actually in Alfred's control.
And, it was added to with parts they took back over the time of Alfred, his son, and alfreds Grandson, who was technically the first true king of All England. And to which his daughter married William I of Normandy.
Side note: Both Scotland and Wales, were considered England back in this time. And Scotlands name was Caledonia. (shock horror to the Political groups). But thats another story.

‘Shire-Reeve’ or Sheriff as a person responsible for the administration of justice within a Shire.
This person was oringally appointed to adminisiter or help, admin Alfred's code, the Deemings, within the shires, yes, quite correct.

The point I was making was that prior to the Norman invasion the shire was an subsiduary division of an Earldom and what William did was strip away this overarching layer of control effectively reducing England to a collection of Shires. Which is effectively the current basis of political and government administration that exists in England today.

Kinda of, it's not as clear cut as some think. Yes the Shire made up units of division within the provincal borders.
William I, did have to cut away much of the old to begin a new. But, needed an excuse.
But the titles for the provincal Earls, Wussex, Mercia, Anglia, Northumbria et cetera still remained, but with the King.
Hence, Edward today is the Count of Wessux. (there is a story behind how it became Count and not Earl too). look to Wiliam moyne I think for that.
Whereas, the Northumbria titles did countine. With the Percy Family.
Later Dukes of Northumbria.( technically, Northumbria covers all the York and Lancaster areas). roughly.
However, as you know the 6 Provinces of England, Wessux, Sussex, Anglia, Mercia, Wales (shock horror to political types), and Northumbria.
Only three where ever used after William I came to the throne.
However, the shire earl's already existed in Alfred's time. Called their Full Name, Earlderman. <sp>. Two of these, Wiltshire and Somerset where powerful supporters of Alfreds' regin.

The main reason for Williams confiscation of land and titles, was the revolt in 1067-8 (?), which allowed him to take whatever in the name of bad people naughty, naughty, it was in this period the Godwin family of Wessux was dispossed of their land and titles.

Part of the shire system william liked I suspect only, was that not any one person would end up with a massive territory like had happened in france.
Whereby, they had the means and ability to upsurp the King and his authorita.
This was something William wanted to avoid, and largely he did, by parcel peicing the land to lords.
On a side note, over the next 80 years most of the noble houses that had lost titles, and land, actually had some land, and titles restored.
But even then, in the 1600's there where still only 65 noble families in England, so either way, we are not discussing massive numbers here.

Faulkes, interesting person. These types didn't actually live long or exist in many numbers, but when you do find one, they are usually a nasty individual.


Please Didz,
Yeah! I watched that documentary where they tracked down the true King of England to a sheep ranch in Australia (or something).
If you ever mention this, or quote television again, me and you, are not going to be friends.
Never believe what TV tells you, it's entertainment.
They had their theory, and they pursued it, with wanton disregard, and, absolutely no evidence.
And left an entire history in the gutter. hmmm typical gutter jurno's?

It's like the people that claimed the royal family was desended from William Wallace because the movie made out he had naughty with the princess, that was 5 or 6 years old at the time of this in real life.
And made out, one of the best early kings was a hated man, Longshanks was a good King.
TV tells me, so must be true!

Television is the greatest evil this world has ever thought up. Because it continues and creates, Lies, and tries to justify them.

Oh well their I go again, boring more poeple.

Nice chatting Didz,


fenir

[fenir]

PS: Richard Sharpe, started in the Sussex Regiment.

35th Royal Sussex Regiment of Foot

Was posted to the Rifles after becomng a NCO. A series written by Bernard shaw I think?

fenir

[Didz]

But, both Alfred declared himself, and the pope declared also, him to be The King of England.
You have to remember, England was not the geographical part we know of today and alfred was more titular head than real.

Back then it included parts not actually in Alfred's control.

I think that’s my point, he and the Pope might have declared he was King of the English but in fact England as it is now did not even exist as a single nation until some time after Alfred’s death.

As I say it’s the difference between ‘nominal’ and ‘actual’. England as it is today came later, but before the Norman conquest.

Never believe what TV tells you, it's entertainment.
They had their theory, and they pursued it, with wanton disregard, and, absolutely no evidence. And left an entire history in the gutter. hmmm typical gutter jurno's?

Well in my opinion all history is propaganda and therefore should be treated with suspicion. It’s usually written by the victors and intended to sell books or make the historian famous.

But in this case they did provide evidence and made a pretty good case.

Television is the greatest evil this world has ever thought up. Because it continues and creates, Lies, and tries to justify them.

I agree with you as a general observation but I think one has to differentiate between serious historical research being portrayed on television and historical drama which claims to be historically accurate and then claims that King Arthur was a Roman Knight, Guinevere wore blue body paint and invented the bikini, that William Wallace was Scottish or that the US Marine Corps rescued the British Guards at Hougoumont.

One of the area's I'm really interested in is battlefield archaeology which is only now started to reveal what really happened on some of our more famous battlefields (or more importantly what didn't happen, despite what the history books say)

BTW: I’m just watching the DVD history of the Battle of Iwo Jima which I believe to be reasonably accurate inevitably rather one sided.

[Richard The Tiger Heart]

About King Arthur...he wasnt after all a Roman knight?

What was he then? Brito-Roman?

[Bulawayo]

I don't think anyone covered this, but what I can add to the thread is that the Aztecs would have been known as the Mexicas.

[Moah]

I agree with you as a general observation but I think one has to differentiate between serious historical research being portrayed on television and historical drama which claims to be historically accurate and then claims that King Arthur was a Roman Knight, Guinevere wore blue body paint and invented the bikini, that William Wallace was Scottish or that the US Marine Corps rescued the British Guards at Hougoumont.

You saying William Wallace wasn't Scottish? News to me. He may not have worn Woad, slept with a very foxy princess for a 6 year old and a couple of other little details but I'm pretty sure he was Scottish...

( take it you mean Australian)

[Didz]

You saying William Wallace wasn't Scottish?

It depends on the basis upon which one determines nationality. Nobody, is absolutely certain where Wallace was born, though most agree that it was somewhere within Scotland. possibly Elderslie. So, if one bases nationality upon birth place he is Scottish, unfortunately that rule would make the Duke of Wellington, Irish, as he was born in Ireland.

To overcome that most historians base nationality upon the ancestory of the family, Wellington's family were English but owned estates in Ireland and so that makes Wellington, English even though he was born in Ireland (Phew!). The problem is that Wallaces family were Welsh by descent (although there seems to be doubt as to who his father actually was), but the surname 'Wallace' means 'Welsh' (or Welsh foriegner). The tale that his father was murdered by the Lambies is entirely fiction.

The story of Wallace seems to plaqued by uncertainties and deliberate falshoods, like the story that he served in the Scots Guards of France despite the fact that they were not formed until after his death. But the statement that he was Scottish is one of choice, as nobody really knows.

About King Arthur...he wasnt after all a Roman knight?

My best bet is that he never existed at all.

I'm reasonably certain that the Roman Army of occupation never fielded a unit of Knights, auxilary or otherwise. In fact, I don't think the concept of knighthood and chivilary even existed in the Roman Army, let alone the idea of fielding cavalry in full mail and barding.

They did however, invite subject nations to relocate to Britian in order to dilute the hostility of the Celtic tribes and help keep them in check. (That seems to be how my ancestors arrived here). There is evidence of various Germanic cheiftains being relocated to Britain, either as officers in the Roman army or as leaders of their own tribes. But in terms of the indigenous celtic tribes of Britain these aliens would have been the enemy not the defenders of Britain as portrayed in the film.

My personal belief is that the legends of King Arthur are based upon the struggles which arose between these economic migrants (mostly Angles and Saxons) and the original Celtic tribes after the Romans left Britain. But whether there was a single man who inspired those legends is not clear.

What annoyed me most about the 'crappy' film was that it pompously announced that it was going to tell the true story of King Arthur and then blatantly produced a load of historically inaccurate 'bollocks'.

[Moah]

What annoyed me most about the 'crappy' film was that it pompously announced that it was going to tell the true story of King Arthur and them produced a load of historically inaccurate 'bollocks'.

Hear hear.

I believe it suggested he was one of the Sarmatian mercenaries abandoned by rome in briton. That's true, they were.

At least tehy weren't running around in gothic full plate a la excalibur (although a fantastic film...)

But I couldn't agree more. Say it's fantasy and I'll gladly pay my 5 quid.

Tell me it's accurate, the true story then take one possibly true premise and completely make up the rest is just lying to me. Not happy.

It's liek claiming 300 is the true story of Sparta vs persia. Including the fact that Sparta was, apparently, a democracy with a senate capable of overruling the king! Who needed the Athenians and Aristotle when we had Sparta eh? And ruled by Sean Connery's son no less....

[Didz]

At least tehy weren't running around in gothic full plate a la excalibur (although a fantastic film...)

Too a certain extent I would have preferred it if they were. I mean there's nothing wrong with a good old fantasy romp through the legend of King Arthur with 'damsels in distress' and magic and dragons and the like.

What got me was the way the film tried to con you into accepting that the Roman army employed armoured knights. At the start of the film Arthur and his mates are equipped pretty much like standard Roman cavalry but as the film progresses they seem to magically acquire more and more armour so that by the time of the big climax they look more or less like medieval Knights complete with couched lances and the works.

My 15 year old son noticed the DVD on my shelf and asked to watch it as he was interested in the true story. But by the end of the film he was in stitches at the shear stupidity of the content. He immeditately labelled it as the dumbest film he has ever watched.

A knights tale is more historically accurate, including the dance sequences, and Monty Python's Holy Grial is closer to the truth even with the coconut shell horses.