Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Europe’s last feudal state poised for democracy vote

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Europe’s last feudal state poised for democracy vote
    Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 00:39

They don't pretend to be Normans, they are Normans. And they let the French have 99.99% (or whatever) of their territory because that's the way the 100 Years War turned out (though actually the rest of the Duchy became French in 1204 on account of King John was such a lousy general.

 

Sorry to deceive you but Normandy was always French never English as some historians boasted about. It was a Duchy but it was part of French sphere. Although it became part of Angevin Empire (centred around Anjou as the name staked not around England) . Anjou and Normandy were again annexed after the Franciliens (ile-De-France faction) won the Capetian wars. He could them choose a loyal Duke to rule the region. The Normans and Angevins  factions in England were cut off from their homeland. The 100 year war, didn't make Normandy less french, the Angevin-Normans kings on the throne of England fought to become king of France. Only as king of France do they claim ownership over the land not as king of England, do not confuse that.

 

And those pathetic Islands, Jesus, why would the french state wasted resources on them when there was  continent to conquer. I don't think those islanders are real normans anyway, but more like anglo-saxons. They do need to have French names to be normans, Angevins or whatever and they don't even speak French or some old variants of it. To be normans you have to have norman ancestry, French names, speak French or old variants of it and above be French. You cannot be a norman without being French that impossible.  The only normans are in normandy, Quebec and St-Pierre and Miquelon. Those "normans" in England are actually more Anglo-saxons than Normans same apply to those island people.

 

And there is no Duchy of Normandy, those Islands aren' part of Normandy. An Anglo-saxon being my Duke, never. They look like they could as well be part of Britanny and England as Normandy in proximity.



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 06:49

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

To be normans you have to have norman ancestry, French names, speak French or old variants of it and above be French. You cannot be a norman without being French that impossible.  The only normans are in normandy, Quebec and St-Pierre and Miquelon.

Comfort lies.

The only Normans are people born in Normandy.

Whether they black, white, green or purple, speak Aboriginy, called Fuji and have a Uzebekistan passport.

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 07:54
I see that the Old War is still alive and kicking. 

I support the French in Normandy and the natives in Guyenne. This is like being at war with all I guess.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 10:17
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

They don't pretend to be Normans, they are Normans. And they let the French have 99.99% (or whatever) of their territory because that's the way the 100 Years War turned out (though actually the rest of the Duchy became French in 1204 on account of King John was such a lousy general.

 

Sorry to deceive you but Normandy was always French never English as some historians boasted about.

Most of France wasn't French all the time. However, for 'became French' in what I wrote you can substitute 'became a fief of the King of France again' if you want. It's what I meant.

It was a Duchy but it was part of French sphere. Although it became part of Angevin Empire (centred around Anjou as the name staked not around England) . Anjou and Normandy were again annexed after the Franciliens (ile-De-France faction) won the Capetian wars. He could them choose a loyal Duke to rule the region. The Normans and Angevins  factions in England were cut off from their homeland. The 100 year war, didn't make Normandy less french, the Angevin-Normans kings on the throne of England fought to become king of France. Only as king of France do they claim ownership over the land not as king of England, do not confuse that.

We're talking feudal society here, not nation-states. Normandy 'belonged' to whatever overlord the Duke swore allegiance to at the time.

And those pathetic Islands, Jesus, why would the french state wasted resources on them when there was  continent to conquer. I don't think those islanders are real normans anyway, but more like anglo-saxons. They do need to have French names to be normans, Angevins or whatever and they don't even speak French or some old variants of it.

To be normans you have to have norman ancestry, French names, speak French or old variants of it and above be French.

But they do have French names and they do speak French and have Norman ancestry. The policeman hero of the long-running TV series set in Jersey was Bergerac. A school friend of mine from Jersey was named Lamy. The current bailiff's name is Bailhache - I'm not sure what the etymology of that is, but it isn't English. The best known Jerseyais historically is probably Admiral Saumarez, winner of the battle of Algeciras.

English has been allowed to be used in sessions of the States General only since 1901, and the first legislation drawn up in English dates from 1928.

Of course, especially since WWII there has been a fair amount of immigration to Jersey (though it's not easy even for the English to get a residence permit), and English has grown more commonly used.

But with the established families Jersey is not dissimilar to Quebec in that regard. Guernsey is more Anglophone.  

 You cannot be a norman without being French that impossible.  The only normans are in normandy, Quebec and St-Pierre and Miquelon. Those "normans" in England are actually more Anglo-saxons than Normans same apply to those island people.

Well, that's rewriting history with a vengeance. What should we rename William the Conqueror? William I'm-just-really-coming-home-again?

And all that stuff about the English legal system originally being conducted in French is just propaganda or something? Why when we pick a jury is the process called 'voir-dire'? Why, when the Queen approves a Parliamentary Bill, does she note "La reine le veult"?

And there is no Duchy of Normandy, those Islands aren' part of Normandy.

They became part of Normandy in 933, the same year in which Duke William Longsword annexed the Cotentin peninsula, and only 22 years after Rollo took Caen. They've therefore been Norman virtually as long as there has been a Normandy.

When John lost most of the Duchy to Philp Augustus in 1204, the islands continued to swear loyalty to John, in effect splitting the old Duchy into two.

An Anglo-saxon being my Duke, never. They look like they could as well be part of Britanny and England as Normandy in proximity.

Actually before the Duchy of Normandy was established they were indeed part of Britanny, along with the Cotentin. So they're as Norman as, say, Cherbourg.

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 12:15

The Treaty of Paris (1259) settled the mainland territory on France; but the Channel Islands were retained by the English Crown (with the exception of Chausey).

In 1789 the French Revolution brought an end to the historic rights and privileges of the Duchy, and in 1790 the territory of Normandy was divided into five dpartements.

...

The Baliwicks of Jersey and Guernsey form the modern Duchy of Normandy, but are rarely recognized as such.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Normandy

The French version of the same article is even less benevolent with the islands' status:



En 1204, le duch fut confisqu (commis) - par le roi de France Philippe Auguste. Les souverains anglais continurent de prtendre jusqu'au trait de Paris de 1259. Cependant les rois anglais continurent diriger les les anglo-normandes comme une part du duch.



Which reads if I'm not mistaken: In 1204, the duchy was confiscated (decomissioned) by the king of France Philippe Auguste. The English sovereigns continued pretending it until the treaty of Paris of 1259. After this, the English kings would continue to rule the Anglo-Norman islands [the Channel islands] as a part of the duchy.

But not as the Duchy itself. In any case it doesn't seem that "the Duchy of Normandy" exists anymore except in the wild imagination of some romantics.

...

Regarding the political status of the islands we find:


The Channel Islands fall into two separate self-governing bailiwicks. Both the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey are British crown dependencies, but neither is part of the United Kingdom. They have been part of the Duchy of Normandy since the 10th century and Queen Elizabeth II is often referred to by her traditional and conventional title of Duke of Normandy. However, pursuant to the Treaty of Paris (1259) she is not the Duke in a constitutional capacity and instead governs in her right as Queen. This notwithstanding, it is a matter of local pride by monarchists to treat the situation otherwise...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands


So it's self-evident that British monarchs are not Dukes of Normandy, which was transfered to the French crown in 1204/1259, being, btw, the first major French feud to be annexed to the crown.

It's also pretty clear that the islands are dependencies of the UK in the guise of "crown dependencies", whatever that means, but not independent states as some have claimed.

On the other hand, culturally and historicall the islands do belong to Normandy and they still preserve dialects of Norman romance.

Btw, Paul and GCLE, if you are so British why are you always pretending to be from somewhere else?



Edited by Maju

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 13:40

Originally posted by Maju

Btw, Paul and GCLE, if you are so British why are you always pretending to be from somewhere else?

I believe my last comment was criticising someone else for deluding himself he's a Norman.

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 16:08
Originally posted by Maju

Well according to wikipedia and whatever other source you can find (except maybe the telephone listing of Sark) these are the independent states of Europe:

Independent states

The following independent states may be considered to be in Europe:

       

If you see a shark or something... you tell me.

Also from Wikipedia:

"Member countries

Alderney, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Botswana, British Virgin Islands, Cameroon, Canada, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Dominica, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guernsey, Guyana, India, Isle of Man, Jamaica, Jersey, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Montserrat, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Niue, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, St Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Parliamentary_Asso ciation

(You won't find Sark in there, but I never claimed Sark was independent. It's part of the bailiwick of Guernsey.)


I mean that if they are not independent, then they are dependent... and if they are dependent, then the central state has some duty, specially if it's a respectable member of EU, Council of Europe, etc. of making sure that democracy and human rights are applied.

So PM Blair and Liz Coburg-Gotha are responsible for the situation of human rights in the Channel islands, independently of wether Liz dresses as a man or not to perform the role of "Duke" of a non-existent state.

The two bailiwicks are dependent on the Crown, so yes, Queen Elizabeth is responsible for the situation of human rights in them. In fact that's the whole point: it's what being Queen or Duke means. Frankly though I've never heard anyone complaining about them. Apart from a few local matters in Sark, they are governed by the States as a parliamentary body.



Edited by gcle2003
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 16:27
Originally posted by Maju


The Treaty of Paris (1259) settled the mainland territory on France; but the Channel Islands were retained by the English Crown (with the exception of Chausey).

In 1789 the French Revolution brought an end to the historic rights and privileges of the Duchy, and in 1790 the territory of Normandy was divided into five dpartements.

...

The Baliwicks of Jersey and Guernsey form the modern Duchy of Normandy, but are rarely recognized as such.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Normandy

How can you be clearer than that? "The Baliwicks of Jersey and Guernsey form the modern Duchy of Normandy". It's only part of the old Duchy, but it's the only bit left.

The French version of the same article is even less benevolent with the islands' status:



En 1204, le duch fut confisqu (commis) - par le roi de France Philippe Auguste. Les souverains anglais continurent de prtendre jusqu'au trait de Paris de 1259. Cependant les rois anglais continurent diriger les les anglo-normandes comme une part du duch.

That's dead accurate. English kings contiue to govern the islands (note 'normands' in the title) as part of the Duchy. That's what i've been saying all along.



Which reads if I'm not mistaken: In 1204, the duchy was confiscated (decomissioned) by the king of France Philippe Auguste. The English sovereigns continued pretending it until the treaty of Paris of 1259. After this, the English kings would continue to rule the Anglo-Norman islands [the Channel islands] as a part of the duchy.

But not as the Duchy itself.

Well, no, it's not the whole Duchy. It's just the bit that is left.

Like modern Luxmbourg is only part of the original county of Luxembourg, bits of which have been taken over by Belgium, Germany, and France.

In any case it doesn't seem that "the Duchy of Normandy" exists anymore except in the wild imagination of some romantics.

And in all the links you just quoted from. I fail to see how you can quote articles that all confirm what I have been saying as if they supported your view.



...

Regarding the political status of the islands we find:


The Channel Islands fall into two separate self-governing bailiwicks. Both the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey are British crown dependencies, but neither is part of the United Kingdom. They have been part of the Duchy of Normandy since the 10th century and Queen Elizabeth II is often referred to by her traditional and conventional title of Duke of Normandy. However, pursuant to the Treaty of Paris (1259) she is not the Duke in a constitutional capacity and instead governs in her right as Queen. This notwithstanding, it is a matter of local pride by monarchists to treat the situation otherwise...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands


So it's self-evident that British monarchs are not Dukes of Normandy, which was transfered to the French crown in 1204/1259, being, btw, the first major French feud to be annexed to the crown.

Because it was previously annexed to the English crown (or the English crown was annexed to the Duchy by William).

There is no distinction in person between the sovereign of England and the duke of Normandy (the bit that is left), because, as in France, one was annexed to the other. It is true that the Queen in assenting to acts of the States, does so as Queen-in-Council, rather than as Duke.



It's also pretty clear that the islands are dependencies of the UK in the guise of "crown dependencies", whatever that means, but not independent states as some have claimed.

"Crown dependencies" means exactly that. they are dependencies of the Queen, not of the United Kingdom because they are not part of the United Kingdom.

In that sense the situation isn't unlike that of all the commonwealth countries that recognise the Queen as hereditary head of state.

Are you going to claim that Canada or Australia or New Zealand are not independent states because they are, constitutionally, dependencies of the Crown?



On the other hand, culturally and historicall the islands do belong to Normandy and they still preserve dialects of Norman romance.

Btw, Paul and GCLE, if you are so British why are you always pretending to be from somewhere else?

I do live somewhere else. It says 'Location Luxembourg' not 'Birthplace Luxembourg'.



Edited by gcle2003
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 17:46
Let's see: there can only be one Duke of Normandy and that one used to be the King of France (since the 13th century). There are no more kings of France and therefore there are no more Dukes of Normandy.

Agreed so far?

The situation is not comparable to Lux.: Luxemburg shrank but kept its identity, instead Normandy was transfered to France and the islands remained in British hands not "as the Duchy" but as a British posession in French territory.

Now, that the Commonwealth, an association created by the UK and headed by the queen of that country recognizes such petty entities in their assemblies, doesn't mean that those countries recognize the entities as sovereign states and I am pretty sure that the very UK doesn't recognize Guernsey, Jersey nor Man as sovereign states. In fact the UK represents these territories internationally and therefore it is responsible of what happen in them. I don't know what sort of entity do you give to the figure of the monarch but I doubt that you are trying to eqate the situation of the islands to the Congo under Leopold II, are you?

In any case neither the UK nor any other country recognize those bailiwicks or however they are called as anything else than dependencies fo the UK.

Else, do you mean that the government of Jersey can declare war to France on their own? Can they apply for entrance in EU or the UN? I'm pretty sure it's not the case and that is because they are under UK jurisdiction.


Edited by Maju

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 07:59

Originally posted by Maju

Let's see: there can only be one Duke of Normandy and that one used to be the King of France (since the 13th century). There are no more kings of France and therefore there are no more Dukes of Normandy.

Agreed so far?

No, you could easily have two Dukes of Normandy on two different bases:

a) they were rivals for the same title

b) there were two separate fiefs called 'Normandy', each with a different Duke.

(b) was the factual situation from the 13th century until the French Revolution, complicated by the fact that one Duke of Normandy was King of France, and the other King/Queen of England.

There are lots of examples of the same territory being divided between two overlords, or being disputed by two rivals.



The situation is not comparable to Lux.: Luxemburg shrank but kept its identity, instead Normandy was transfered to France and the islands remained in British hands not "as the Duchy" but as a British posession in French territory.

You overlook the fact that there are at this moment (and since 1839 at least) two Luxembourgs. One is now an independent Grand Duchy, the other is a province of Belgium, subject to the King of Belgium. However until 1871, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg was also King of the Netherlands, so from 1839 to 1871 the Luxembourg situation was pretty well identical to that of the Channel islands.

For part of that time the situation was identical:

Luxembourg province of Belgium subject to King of Belgium. Normandy province of France subject to King of France.

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg subject to Grand Duke who was also King of the Netherlands. Duchy of Normandy subject to Duke who was also King/Queen of England.

Also the Grand Duchy was a member of the German Confederation, though the Netherlands was not, while the Duchy is not a member of the EU, though Britain is.

In 1890 when William III (King of the Netherlands and Grand Duke of Luxembourg) died, he only had a daughter, Wilhelmina. The Netherlands set asde the Salic Law so that she could succeed. The Luxembourg parliament refused to set the law aside (at that point, they did later) and as a result another member of the House of Orange, Adolph, who had been the Duke of Nassau, Usingen, and Nassau-Weilburg and had lost his state to Prussia in 1866, after taking the side of Austria in the Six Weeks War, became Grand Duke.

I only mention this because it is theoretically possible that if the States of Jersey and Guernsey disagreed with the Acts of Succession laid down by the UK Parliament at some point, the same thing could technically happen there.  

Now, that the Commonwealth, an association created by the UK and headed by the queen of that country recognizes such petty entities in their assemblies, doesn't mean that those countries recognize the entities as sovereign states and I am pretty sure that the very UK doesn't recognize Guernsey, Jersey nor Man as sovereign states. In fact the UK represents these territories internationally and therefore it is responsible of what happen in them.

It represents them. It does not take decisions for them. It cannot  take any decision, even in foreign policy, with regard to them without their approval. If the UK signs a treaty with someone, then whether or not Jersey and Guernsey are included in it depends entirely on Jersey and Guernsey. And, in fact, Jersey and Guernsey can sign treaties with third parties independently (and have done) as long as they have the Queen's assent (which would also I believe technically be true of, say, Canada).

Notably of course Jersey and Guernsey decided against joining the EU when Britain did.

They're obviously too small to afford to have diplomatic representation everywhere but that's just a practical matter, not a constitutional one.

I don't know what sort of entity do you give to the figure of the monarch but I doubt that you are trying to eqate the situation of the islands to the Congo under Leopold II, are you?

Morally obviously not. Apart from that the Channel Islanders have their own parliaments, called the 'States' after the French pattern. While acts of the states require the Queen's assent, just as acts of the UK parliament do, she is no more likely to refuse it to them than she is likely to refuse it to parliament.

There is a similarity however, in that both are/were personal holdings of the monarch. So, if the Congo had had an independent parliament with universal suffrage and Leopold had been bound to act with the advice and consent of that parliament, then yes there would have been a consitutional similarity I guess.

Put another way, the Congo was independent of Belgium just as Jersey and Guernsey are independent of the UK.



In any case neither the UK nor any other country recognize those bailiwicks or however they are called as anything else than dependencies fo the UK.

They are crown dependencies. Not UK dependencies. You've dug up enough references yourself that call them that.

You like Wikipedia. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_dependency

"Crown dependencies are possessions of the British Crown, as opposed to overseas territories or colonies of the United Kingdom. They include the Channel Island bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea. None forms a part of the United Kingdom, being separate jurisdictions, nor do they form part of the European Union."



Else, do you mean that the government of Jersey can declare war to France on their own?

Can Andorra? Check out Title III of the Andorran Constitution. At least as I read it, they could only do so if the President of France agreed.

The Channel Islands could do so with the assent of the Queen. What is somewhat more sensible is that the Channel Islands could refuse to declare war on a third country even if the UK did. Rather like Ireland in WWII.

Can they apply for entrance in EU or the UN? I'm pretty sure it's not the case and that is because they are under UK jurisdiction.

They can apply for entrance to the EU. They could have become members in 1973 but chose not to. I assume they could change their minds, but so far they seem to be doing very well as they are.

Don't know about the UN.

Incidentally, neither Guernsey nor Jersey are currently members of FIFA/UEFA, but there is a movement afoot to have them join. Be nice if Luxembourg had someone else they had a chance against

Jersey and Guernsey are (separately) member countries of the World Chess federation. Jersey (possibly Guernsey too) are independent protagonists of Agenda 21, the environmental sustainable development programme that stemmed from the Rio conference in 1992.

 

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 21:35

No, you could easily have two Dukes of Normandy on two different bases:

a) they were rivals for the same title

b) there were two separate fiefs called 'Normandy', each with a different Duke.

(b) was the factual situation from the 13th century until the French Revolution, complicated by the fact that one Duke of Normandy was King of France, and the other King/Queen of England.

There are lots of examples of the same territory being divided between two overlords, or being disputed by two rivals

For Christ sake there is only one Normandy, which is now the department of haute and basse Normandy. These tiny islands are Duchy of Normandy in the warped mind of your Queen.

There is no duke of Normandy. It's like they've taken two islands and renamed them the Duchy of Normandy for the simple reasons that they were once attached to the Duchy of Normandy.  Anyway territories under one duke were constantly changing, the dukes were predatorial, in reality Normandy lost the largest junk of her territory (Maine) to the Angevin counts. Did that give the Angevins the right to name Maine, as a new Duchy of Normandy?

Remember Normandy were not annexed to the throne of England, William was king of England and duke of Normandy. As Duke of Normandy he had the king of France as Overlord. Normandy belonged to the French king, and the Duke only ruled the area. Of course this is in theory, if the Duke was extremely powerful he could bully the King. If the king was powerful like Augustus, then, he would crush the unruly dukes. Some Dukes could also impose their heirs on the French thrones.



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 05:03

Originally posted by Paul

In what way are any of the member states of the EU independent?

I think they are interdependent.

Nice thread. A Greece vs Turkey played by UK vs France (with a basque)!

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 06:48
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

No, you could easily have two Dukes of Normandy on two different bases:

a) they were rivals for the same title

b) there were two separate fiefs called 'Normandy', each with a different Duke.

(b) was the factual situation from the 13th century until the French Revolution, complicated by the fact that one Duke of Normandy was King of France, and the other King/Queen of England.

There are lots of examples of the same territory being divided between two overlords, or being disputed by two rivals

For Christ sake there is only one Normandy, which is now the department of haute and basse Normandy. These tiny islands are Duchy of Normandy in the warped mind of your Queen.

There is no duke of Normandy. It's like they've taken two islands and renamed them the Duchy of Normandy for the simple reasons that they were once attached to the Duchy of Normandy. 

They didn't 'take two islands'. They kept the islands when the French King reconquered the rest of Normandy, de facto dividing the duchy into two parts.

Anyway territories under one duke were constantly changing, the dukes were predatorial, in reality Normandy lost the largest junk of her territory (Maine) to the Angevin counts. Did that give the Angevins the right to name Maine, as a new Duchy of Normandy?

Any sovereign has the right to name any part of his territory anything he likes, so yes. But the Channel Islands were not 'renamed' Norman by John, they were made part of the Duchy of Normandy in 933 AD. Up till then they had been part of Britanny.

Remember Normandy were not annexed to the throne of England, William was king of England and duke of Normandy. As Duke of Normandy he had the king of France as Overlord.

Well, that was the French view. The view from the other side was somewhat different. After the Conquest, William no longer had an overlord in either capacity.

For a French version of the history:

"

Liens avec la France

En 1204, le Roi de France Philippe Auguste dpossda le Roi d'Angleterre Jean Sans Terre de son duch de Normandie et commena la conqute de la rgion. Toutefois une partie des les Anglo-Normandes resta fidle Jean Sans Terre (les Jersey, Guernesey, Sark, Alderney/ Aurigny). En retour de leur fidlit, le Roi Jean reconnut l'indpendance des les dans une charte qui fut soustraite plus tard.

Mais, pendant la guerre de Cent Ans, les les furent, plusieurs reprises exposes des incursions franaises. En 1461, une tentative des Franais fut couronne de succs.

L 'occupation dura trois annes. C'est cette poque que Maulevrier, gouverneur de Jersey pour le roi de France Louis XI, tablit dans l'le une assemble sur le modle de celles qui existaient dj dans les baillages Normands. Les Etats de Jersey furent composs de douze Paroisses (quivaut nos Dpartements), dont le Clerg, la Noblesse et le Tiers Etat furent reprsents.

S uite cette occupation franaise, la Reine Elisabeth reconnut les Etats de Jersey tels que Maulevrier les avait constitus. L'le devient alors de plus en plus indpendante.

C 'est Jersey qu'est ne la posie franaise. C'est un Jersiais, matre Robert Wace (1131-1184), qui est l'auteur du Romand de Rou, le premier pome crit en langue d'ol, langue qui, passant par Villehardoin, Froissard, Rabelais, Montaigne, et Regnard, a atteint son apoge avec Pierre Corneille, un autre Normand comme Wace. "

Normandy belonged to the French king, and the Duke only ruled the area.

Note in the extract above: "En 1204, le Roi de France Philippe Auguste dpossda le Roi d'Angleterre Jean Sans Terre de son duch de Normandie."

"In 1204 King Philippe Auguste of France dispossessed King John Lackland  of England of his duchy of Normandy." You can't dispossess someone of something that isn't his. However he only succeeded in dispossessing him of the mainland - the rest of the Duchy remained John's."

 Of course this is in theory, if the Duke was extremely powerful he could bully the King. If the king was powerful like Augustus, then, he would crush the unruly dukes. Some Dukes could also impose their heirs on the French thrones.

But in dealing with John he was not dealing with an unruly subject, but with an equally sovereign rival.

On this basis I imagine that you would claim that Charles V, as duke of Burgundy, was a subject of the King of France even though he was also King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor?

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 06:51
Originally posted by Cezar

Originally posted by Paul

In what way are any of the member states of the EU independent?

I think they are interdependent.

Nice thread. A Greece vs Turkey played by UK vs France (with a basque)!

With a touch of Macedonia and FYROM thrown in....

Maybe the French could call the Channel Islands FFDON - Former French Duchy of Normandy?

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 12:19
Originally posted by Cezar

Originally posted by Paul

In what way are any of the member states of the EU independent?

I think they are interdependent.

Nice thread. A Greece vs Turkey played by UK vs France (with a basque)!

Government of any member state can be overuled in Brussels and Stasbourg.

Are you independent when you clearly don't have ultimate soverenty over your own land?

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 12:25
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Maju

Let's see: there can only be one Duke of Normandy and that one used to be the King of France (since the 13th century). There are no more kings of France and therefore there are no more Dukes of Normandy.

Agreed so far?

No, you could easily have two Dukes of Normandy on two different bases:

a) they were rivals for the same title

b) there were two separate fiefs called 'Normandy', each with a different Duke.

The fact is that the monarchas of England acknowledged that the only Duke of Normandy was the King of France and that there was only one duchy of that name. In exchange the Duke of Normandy (the King of France) acknowledged the ownership of the islands by the monarchs of England.

That happened in the 13th century, in the treaties we have discussed above.

Wake up!


(b) was the factual situation from the 13th century until the French Revolution, complicated by the fact that one Duke of Normandy was King of France, and the other King/Queen of England.

False.

The English monarchs had fully recognized the French claims. For more than five centuries there was only one Duke and that one was the King of France. The islanders could acti as if it was otherwise but the king or queen couldn't unless they wanted to break those old treaties. They have never done that. The islanders may pretend that Liz is their duke when they make toasts at their taverns... but Liz must avoid using that title as her ancestors have done since 1259.


Jersey and Guernsey are (separately) member countries of the World Chess federation. Jersey (possibly Guernsey too) are independent protagonists of Agenda 21, the environmental sustainable development programme that stemmed from the Rio conference in 1992.


While I may find interestng the British flexibility regarding national unity and statehood, and I wish other states like France or Spain imitated it, allowing Breton or Basque national selections to compete in international leagues, that doesn't make Guernsey and Jersey (much less the non-esistent Duchy of Normandy) sovereign states. Wales and Scotland have gost such national selections in many sports and they are not independent states either (having autonomous governments only since recently).


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 01:21

Note in the extract above: "En 1204, le Roi de France Philippe Auguste dpossda le Roi d'Angleterre Jean Sans Terre de son duch de Normandie."

"In 1204 King Philippe Auguste of France dispossessed King John Lackland  of England of his duchy of Normandy." You can't dispossess someone of something that isn't his. However he only succeeded in dispossessing him of the mainland - the rest of the Duchy remained John's."

 

Your translation is right but you misunderstood the meaning of it. He dispossed John as the Duke of Normandy, John who turned out to be the king of England (If I'm not mistaken he was the rightful Duke of Aquittaine too since Richard Platagenet, his brother, the former Duke of Aquittaine had died previously.

If the King of France had the power, he could rightfully dispossess any Duke in Francia occidentalis. It was up to the Duke to resist, king of another land  or not, if he did, expect all the other Duchies to help the king of France, since he was in his right to do so. But this was an exceptional case, John was king of England but also Count of Anjou, therefore the heir of the Angevin empire. He was as strong as the king of France.  

 

Also, as from the french version you posted, France re-conquered the Islands in 1461 and occupied it for three years. After than time, the Queen recognised the new status of these Islands as redefined by the French. So no, these are not the Duchy of Normandy, and they formed an insignificant and expendable part of Normandy.

 

 

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 01:41

While I may find interestng the British flexibility regarding national unity and statehood, and I wish other states like France or Spain imitated it, allowing Breton or Basque national selections to compete in international leagues, that doesn't make Guernsey and Jersey (much less the non-esistent Duchy of Normandy) sovereign states. Wales and Scotland have gost such national selections in many sports and they are not independent states either (having autonomous governments only since recently).


I don't think the Basque and Bretons want there own national teams, for they will be quite weak as teams. And they are well integrated in the french system. I would agree to support their local languages and local culture but it would be un-french that each department suddenly decided to compete on their own. Above all the only regions that are powerful enough to compete on their own in France are Ile-de-France and rhone-alpes (11+ million people and 6+ million people respectively). Of course they are too french to exist as a separate entity.

In the end division serves no purpose, imagine Lizarazu playing for a weak Basque team that couldn't make it to world cup rather than the french team. It would be very frustrating for him, and the Basque (french side) and Breton don't feel that much different from the rest of the french

The english model works because the peoples living on the british are too different and a scot cannot quite relate to an englishman. In France a breton would say he is Breton first then french second (Alhough a large number of breton would say the they are French above all). On the other hand a scot is just a scot.

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 09:00

Originally posted by Maju

The English monarchs had fully recognized the French claims. For more than five centuries there was only one Duke and that one was the King of France.

But for nearly five centuries there were two Kings of France, since the King of England didn't drop the claim inherited from Edward III until 1801. In fact for the last decade of that period there was arguably only one King of France - George III.

If you're claiming to be King of France you may not bother with the lesser title.

However, I'll accept that the current Queen is only Duke of Normandy in the sense that the current Bourbon claimant is King of France - i.e. she reigns in the Channel Islands as heir to the Duchy rather than as Duke.

The islanders could acti as if it was otherwise but the king or queen couldn't unless they wanted to break those old treaties. They have never done that.

Yes they did. What do you think the 100 Years War was all about? Irrespective of which side you care to blame for the war, it's undoubtedly true that the Treaty of Paris of 1259 went up in smoke when Edward went to war.

The islanders may pretend that Liz is their duke when they make toasts at their taverns... but Liz must avoid using that title as her ancestors have done since 1259.

Why must? Viscount Montgomery is Viscount of Alamein, and Mountbatten was Earl of Burma, and his daughter is Patricia, Countess of Burma.


Jersey and Guernsey are (separately) member countries of the World Chess federation. Jersey (possibly Guernsey too) are independent protagonists of Agenda 21, the environmental sustainable development programme that stemmed from the Rio conference in 1992.


While I may find interestng the British flexibility regarding national unity and statehood, and I wish other states like France or Spain imitated it, allowing Breton or Basque national selections to compete in international leagues, that doesn't make Guernsey and Jersey (much less the non-esistent Duchy of Normandy) sovereign states. Wales and Scotland have gost such national selections in many sports and they are not independent states either (having autonomous governments only since recently).

[/QUOTE]

I notice you didn't comment on the matter of Jersey and Guernsey refusing to join the EU, or the two parliaments having the absolute right to reject or accept any foreign deals done by the UK government.

How sovereign do you have to be to be sovereign? Sure the islands are a monarchy, but it's a constitutional one, and there are lots of examples of independent sovereign states sharing a common ruler.

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 10:40
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Maju

The English monarchs had fully recognized the French claims. For more than five centuries there was only one Duke and that one was the King of France.

But for nearly five centuries there were two Kings of France, since the King of England didn't drop the claim inherited from Edward III until 1801. In fact for the last decade of that period there was arguably only one King of France - George III.

If you're claiming to be King of France you may not bother with the lesser title.

However, I'll accept that the current Queen is only Duke of Normandy in the sense that the current Bourbon claimant is King of France - i.e. she reigns in the Channel Islands as heir to the Duchy rather than as Duke.



Let's see: if the titel of Normand is attached to that of King of France, then since the English monarchs dropped their claims over France they also dropped any claim on Normandy.

That's clear to me. I don't know why you insist?

The islanders could act as if it was otherwise but the king or queen couldn't unless they wanted to break those old treaties. They have never done that.

Yes they did. What do you think the 100 Years War was all about? Irrespective of which side you care to blame for the war, it's undoubtedly true that the Treaty of Paris of 1259 went up in smoke when Edward went to war.



So are you still at war with France? No you are not. Don't be so folkoloric, please.

The islanders may pretend that Liz is their duke when they make toasts at their taverns... but Liz must avoid using that title as her ancestors have done since 1259.

Why must? Viscount Montgomery is Viscount of Alamein, and Mountbatten was Earl of Burma, and his daughter is Patricia, Countess of Burma.

I'm sorry but you can't be count of a Republic. It's like that fascist they named count of Motrico (Mutriku) just because he was born there. Yet there's never been a county of that name, therefore there can't be a count of an inexistent county.

The rest is just roleplaying. Acting "as if..." falsehoods would be reality.


Jersey and Guernsey are (separately) member countries of the World Chess federation. Jersey (possibly Guernsey too) are independent protagonists of Agenda 21, the environmental sustainable development programme that stemmed from the Rio conference in 1992.


While I may find interestng the British flexibility regarding national unity and statehood, and I wish other states like France or Spain imitated it, allowing Breton or Basque national selections to compete in international leagues, that doesn't make Guernsey and Jersey (much less the non-esistent Duchy of Normandy) sovereign states. Wales and Scotland have gost such national selections in many sports and they are not independent states either (having autonomous governments only since recently).

I notice you didn't comment on the matter of Jersey and Guernsey refusing to join the EU, or the two parliaments having the absolute right to reject or accept any foreign deals done by the UK government.

How sovereign do you have to be to be sovereign? Sure the islands are a monarchy, but it's a constitutional one, and there are lots of examples of independent sovereign states sharing a common ruler.

[/QUOTE] [/quote]

Not just they aren't in EU but they are not also in any international organization of some entity (except the Bristish Commonwealth) nor they are recognized as sovereign states by anyone - not even the UK.

They may be autonoumous British territories (with all the autonomy you want) but they are not sovereign. They will be sovereign the day they apply to the UN and the Council of Europe, the day that they proclaim themselves as a sovereign state. So far they haven't.

It's like with Greenland or Saba. They are not sovereign states though their autonomy is huge. They are still depedencies of Denamrk and Netherlands respectively.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.281 seconds.