Reclaiming the Edwards?

Should we in England rename the numbers of the Kings of England called Edward, in order to ensure historical accuracy?

For instance, Edward 'the Elder' (899-924), Edward the Martyr (975-8) and Edward the Confessor (1042-1066) should all be renamed as Edward I,II & III respectively?

Then the currently-known Edward I (1272-1307) would become, correctly in English chronology, Edward IV, as the Normans did not start history off, but inherited a powerful, wealthy and complex economy far more successful than any other western state?

After all, there was talk about reclaiming the Bayeux Tapestry to England (where it was made by English noblewomen), and there is also a current fad of renaming years BC as BCE?

The tapestry is in Bayeux, France....and I would love to see the justifications that British would make for its transportation to England when they refuse to return the Parthenon marbles and other stolen arifacts to their respective countries.

I'm of the impression that the pre Norman kings refer to a different realm entirely. The land of the anglo saxons, of Edward the Confessor and Harold etc. was an entirely different kingdom which didn't use the numbering system. Better to leave it the way it is - the three Edwards form a very distinct chain in High medieval British history, wouldn't want to confuse us!

I can't help but wonder why Henry III gave his children Anglo-Saxon names when all his post-Norman predecessors, to the best of my knowledge, stuck with Frankish names. If it was to establish a sense of continuity with the Wessex house it wouldn't make sense for Edward to disregard the previous Edwards and become Edward the first.

It was Edward the Martyr who really should be regarded as the first English king to bear the name. Edward the Elder was king of the Anglo-Saxons, although in a few charters he styled himself as "rex Anglorum". This would be for purposes of prestige only.

Originally posted by Paul   The English don't make a case for its return, it was woven in France and French property.

Sorry Paul, but it was almost definately made by noble English needlewomen in either Winchester- known for such handcraft by expert needle workers then- or Canterbury.

It would be difficult to give numbers to many Anglo Saxon Kings because there were different kings for diffrent areas.

Oh La Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde was made be English needlewomen? I think you might have a very hard time convincing the French of that. Even bypassing the outdated theory that it was Queen Mathilda and her ladies-in-waiting who made it (which they might not be willing to do), it was just as likely to have been made in the Loire Valley.

Whichever is true, if the English were to actually give up some of what they've *ahem* taken such as the Wallace Letters, they might find more sympathy for getting back something like the Bayeux Tapestry.  I have always suspected that the English still have the Black Rood of Scotland hidden away somewhere, too. They could give that back too while they're at it. Ha. Fat chance.

Or maybe the English made the Parthenon marbles, the Wallace Letters and the Rood as well?

Originally posted by Huscarl Originally posted by Paul   The English don't make a case for its return, it was woven in France and French property. Sorry Paul, but it was almost definately made by noble English needlewomen in either Winchester- known for such handcraft by expert needle workers then- or Canterbury.

Edited by JRScotia - 15-May-2009 at 07:34

Somehow this last qote from Mr Musgrove makes my blood boil since it's one of the arguments that WE make only that we are certain that our Marbles were made here and not assumpt so.

Oh, displaying it in France doesn't inspire people? WHY?

The arguments for it being made elsewhere are just as good and as far as I'm concerned the English already have more than enough that doesn't belong to them. A "pretty good consensus" is a LONG way from a consensus. And why should the English be given something else that doesn't belong to them?

Even if it had been CREATED in England (which I do not admit) why should that mean it BELONGS to England? If I have an Englishman paint a picture for me, that means I can't keep it in Scotland? Well, knowing the English record on the subject--very possibly.

Again, once the English have given back everything they took from the rest of their world (including their countries) you'll get a LOT friendlier reception.

Originally posted by Orderic Vitalis The argument for bringing the Bayeux tapestry back to England was made last year by historian Dave Musgrove. He said:  "There is a pretty good academic consensus that it could well have been made in Canterbury. The Latin script that accompanies the pictorial images shows signs of being written by someone who came from an Anglo-Saxon background. Secondly the imagery in the tapestry is very similar to imagery that we know was in illuminated manuscripts that we know were in Canterbury's library at the time. It is an iconic document of English history and wouldn't it be amazing to have it shown in England where there is a very good chance it was made, and wouldn't that inspire people to get involved in medieval history? The crowds would come flocking." You can read the article here: http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2008/07/should-bayeux-tapestry-be-brought-back.html

Edited by JRScotia - 17-May-2009 at 23:52