Why USA will rejoin the British Empire

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope. Normandy was a Fiefdom, not part of France. It had it's own empire spanding Sciliy, Southern Italy, Antioch, etc.

A myth perpetrated by Dudo. William the Bastard was a Vassal of the King of France. The Duchy was no more or less independant than Brittany or Flanders. In fact, only the Ilde de France was under the direct control of the King at this time. As to the other posessitions you cite, they never came under the control of the King-Duke and therefore the "Empire" was never more than cultural.

In any case, you said that all yourself. A Fiefdom has to be enfeoffed by someone. The Duke was enfeoffed by the King of France.

[Jolt]

Further, in the Political Schematics of the Medieval World, it was run under the principle of the "Respublica Christiana", where all Kings were vassals of the Pope, and no one was truly independent. According to this, under the Medieval Law, since William I was not a direct vassal of the Pope, but of the King of France, then any and all of his lands were in theory propriety of the King of France. The King could in theory revoke William from his fiefs, which included obviously England. Just like Massilia was a part of the Roman Republic before its annexation or much of the British African Empire was part of Africa. Those were protectorates, where the protected entity payed tribute and fealty to its Lord. Massilia -> Rome ; Bechualand -> Britain ; William -> King of France. Of course this is all theory. But de jure, England was part of France, and since I'm not sure if any French King ever withdrew his claims to England, in which case the French Republic, as the lawful successor of the French Kingdom, is still entitled to all claims which the kings of old did not relenquish.

[Meneldil]

Nope. Normandy was a Fiefdom, not part of France. It had it's own empire spanding Sciliy, Southern Italy, Antioch, etc.

The arguments such as "they speak french" would mean Canada/America/etc are "England".

Wut ? Sicily, Southern Italy and Antioch being part of the Dukedom of Normandy ?
That deserves another "Epic fail".
Normans (or at least, the Normans who invaded England), though they had norse origins, were by all standards, french. They spoke french, adopted french administration and military system, were vassals of the French king. Furthermore, the majority of the people who followed Guillaume weren't actually Normans. His host was composed of Normans, Bretons, Aquitanians, Flemish, and other people from Maine, Tolosa, Paris.

The dukedom of Normandy was just as part of France than was the dukedom of Tolosa, the dukedom of Aquitania, Provence or whatever. It had been given to Rolon by the french king, and was at that point, considered as a part of France, like a thousand of other fiefdoms (though Britanny and Flanders would be bad examples, as the first remained independent for quite a while and the second was also claimed by the Empire).

So yeah, England is a french country that unhappilly forgot its roots ;-/

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Further, in the Political Schematics of the Medieval World, it was run under the principle of the "Respublica Christiana", where all Kings were vassals of the Pope, and no one was truly independent. According to this, under the Medieval Law, since William I was not a direct vassal of the Pope, but of the King of France, then any and all of his lands were in theory propriety of the King of France. The King could in theory revoke William from his fiefs, which included obviously England. Just like Massilia was a part of the Roman Republic before its annexation or much of the British African Empire was part of Africa. Those were protectorates, where the protected entity payed tribute and fealty to its Lord. Massilia -> Rome ; Bechualand -> Britain ; William -> King of France. Of course this is all theory. But de jure, England was part of France, and since I'm not sure if any French King ever withdrew his claims to England, in which case the French Republic, as the lawful successor of the French Kingdom, is still entitled to all claims which the kings of old did not relenquish.

Actually, this is not exactly correct either.

The Duke of Normandy was a feudal vassal of the French King, the King of England was not. England was not a fiefdom of France, so the French King could not strip William of it. However, William did owe an obligation to the King of France which might make England a de facto fief of France unless William renounced his Dukedom. In all this it is important to understand that the office was held by the man, but not tied to him. Also, Kings could in limited way be vassals of their own vassals if they held lands as sub-tenants.

William was styled "Dux et Rex" because the two offices were completely seperate.

It is also an error to suppose the Pope claimed feudal overlordship at this time, that was a claim developed over a century later. At this point the Pope claimed only spiritual overlordship, while the Emperor claimed temporal lordship over the Roman Empire. In practice this meant very little, but theoretically both England and France were Legatine vicarages of the Western Roman Emperor.

However, just to make it more complicated, William conquered under a Papal banner with Papal approval. As such, the Pope did make a temporal claim to overlordship which he subsequently withdrew.

Interestingly, in these complexities lie the roots both of the Hundred Years War and the Break with Rome.

[Brenus]

“The Duke of Normandy was a feudal vassal of the French King, the King of England was not. England was not a fiefdom of France, so the French King could not strip William of it.” THAT was the big problem. The Duke of Normandy was the King of England. He had to give homage to the King of France and to answer to the Call to Arms due to his suzerain. But as King of England he wanted to be treated as equal to the King of France.
The King of England having lands in France wouldn’t be a problem…

“Interestingly, in these complexities lie the roots both of the Hundred Years War “
Are you sure? For what I remember it was because Philip le Bel’s (the one who killed the Templar) sons died without male heir the king of England (son of Isabelle, daughter of Phillip) had a valid claim on the throne. But thanks to a forgery I think made by Robert (the Red) d’Artois the lawyers of his uncle claimed the throne couldn’t go “en quenouille” through female (Salic law).
That wasn’t really a valid point because the son could have manage the throne “par le chef” on the behalf of his mother, as it was done for the “duché pairie”. The Duchés Pairies” were lands that gave the title of Pair du Royaume and a place in the King Council.
So, after a little digression, I am nor sure that William and his bizarre status in term of Feudalism was the departure of the 100 years war…

[Beskar]

Wut ? Sicily, Southern Italy and Antioch being part of the Dukedom of Normandy ?
That deserves another "Epic fail".

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...century-fr.png

Enjoy.

[Husar]

Aluminum etymology

Yes and? you just proved that your spelling is as outdated as your measuremnet system.

Also PowerWizard, I wasn't entirely serious, I just wanted to point that out, and no worries, ä appears fine, even for the colonials.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, those are the possessions of the Normans; not of the Duke of the Normans, or the King of England.

I'm sorry, your understanding of the history is wrong.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“The Duke of Normandy was a feudal vassal of the French King, the King of England was not. England was not a fiefdom of France, so the French King could not strip William of it.” THAT was the big problem. The Duke of Normandy was the King of England. He had to give homage to the King of France and to answer to the Call to Arms due to his suzerain. But as King of England he wanted to be treated as equal to the King of France.
The King of England having lands in France wouldn’t be a problem…

Yes, which is why the King of England had the genius idea of declaring Normandy one of his own fiefs.

“Interestingly, in these complexities lie the roots both of the Hundred Years War “
Are you sure? For what I remember it was because Philip le Bel’s (the one who killed the Templar) sons died without male heir the king of England (son of Isabelle, daughter of Phillip) had a valid claim on the throne. But thanks to a forgery I think made by Robert (the Red) d’Artois the lawyers of his uncle claimed the throne couldn’t go “en quenouille” through female (Salic law).
That wasn’t really a valid point because the son could have manage the throne “par le chef” on the behalf of his mother, as it was done for the “duché pairie”. The Duchés Pairies” were lands that gave the title of Pair du Royaume and a place in the King Council.
So, after a little digression, I am nor sure that William and his bizarre status in term of Feudalism was the departure of the 100 years war…

Not the jumping off point, but the dynastic tangle arguably starts there, and the ambiguous feudal relationship caused tension, then the Normans lost Normandy...

[Reverend Joe]

Yes and? you just proved that your spelling is as outdated as your measuremnet system.

It's not outdated, it's just right. And our measurement system is common sense. Even wee babes can understand that water freezes at 32 degrees and boils at 212. Freezing at 0 and boiling at 100? Everything in factors of 10? Where on earth did you come up with that nonsense?!

[Husar]

It's not outdated, it's just right. And our measurement system is common sense. Even wee babes can understand that water freezes at 32 degrees and boils at 212. Freezing at 0 and boiling at 100? Everything in factors of 10? Where on earth did you come up with that nonsense?!

Where on earth does a foot come from? Are all shoes the same size in the US?

[Reverend Joe]

Where on earth does a foot come from? Are all shoes the same size in the US?

Well, yeah, of course... what, you have different size feet over there? No wonder you people are so nutty.

[KukriKhan]

Where on earth does a foot come from? Are all shoes the same size in the US?

Hank I, King of Angleland. Or earlier, some Sumerian guy.

[AlexanderSextus]

enfeoffed

HOW THE HELL DO YOU PRONOUNCE THAT?

[Mooks]

As long as we get the right to say "Bugger" and "bloke" without getting a wierd look then this seems completely fair.

Edit: And the casual use of the word "mate"

[Husar]

Hank I, King of Angleland. Or earlier, some Sumerian guy.

which is defined to be exactly 0.3048 metre.

[Brenus]

"Enjoy." It doesn't free the Duke of Normandy of his vassal link, or makes him less French. It just increases the French Kingdom.
That would have surprise the French King indeed, and problably Guillaume himself.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

HOW THE HELL DO YOU PRONOUNCE THAT?

en-fee-OFF-'d, or en-fife-'d

[AlexanderSextus]

en-fife-'d

as a YANK this one feels the most correct to me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

as a YANK this one feels the most correct to me.

but.... it's not phonetic!

[rotorgun]

Great thread! My only question is, will we be able to have our own version of that outstanding reality comedy show the Prime Minister's Question and Answer Hour ? Oh goody!