Timeline for Why “king & queen” but not “roi & reine”?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2018 at 8:39 | comment | added | Jelila | I find it fascinating that England had a kind of kind of peer-based rule until William showed up. And ironic that it was the French who later beheaded their king and became more... peer-based. And even more ironic that the French refer to the English as... 'Les Anglo-Saxons, even today... | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 8:32 | comment | added | Jelila | I think we'd still not know what a Guillame was, to be quite honest...! | |
| Jul 4, 2017 at 13:45 | comment | added | J. Taylor | @ gktscrk.. I will certainly give you that Ethelbert, King of Kent, had his laws codified in his own language. He was, however, the first English king to adopt Christianity, and so, had no tradition of recording laws in Latin.. That may well have encouraged use of local languages in writing, but, still, Latin remained the primary language of writing, including most of Bede;s work. | |
| Jul 4, 2017 at 12:34 | comment | added | gktscrk | @J.Taylor: No, I don't think you're in error. I just think that we cannot really know. Also, from what I understand at least pre-Wessex supremacy, legislation and such was in OE (local dialect perhaps but even so)? | |
| Jul 4, 2017 at 10:21 | comment | added | J. Taylor | @ Readin... certainly no plot to replace the English names for institutions. If there are specific issues with my answer, I will address them. I have no fear of what I know, but of what I do not know.. I know I can be in error, so I do not fear that. I suspect some have read into my answer things I do not think are there. This I do not know. | |
| Jul 4, 2017 at 10:13 | comment | added | J. Taylor | @ Readin.... So, we still have "king": and "queen" because William chose not to "normanize" English institutions. Clearly, had he wanted to do so, he would have. He did strengthen the position of "King", claiming some authority that had previously been held locally. "King" John came to understand that the .English institutions were not so much replaced by Continental notions when his hand was forced on to the Magna Carta. That various French dialects came to be spoken in England and radically changed the English Language does not mean there was a plot afoot to make England Normandy. (more) | |
| Jul 4, 2017 at 9:49 | comment | added | J. Taylor | @ Readin I am curious what I might have written that could be in error, or the beginnings of "folk etymology", I cited 3 terms in English that might reasonably been the targets for disuse in any general "Normanization": of England, I understood the question was of why "king" and "queen" were still in use. One cannot get into the head of William the Bastard; we can know of some of his actions. He became "King". "Sheriffs" still held office, loyal Earls were not required to become "Counts". People are still "knighted", not made "chevalier". no attempt on the language of governance is obvious | |
| Jul 4, 2017 at 3:24 | comment | added | Readin | @J.Taylor I didn't downvote your answer. I would like to upvote it because it is well written, detailed, and clear. But I don't want to upvote something that might be wrong and thus perpetuate one of those facts that is known by many people but is untrue. | |
| Jul 4, 2017 at 3:22 | comment | added | Readin | @J.Taylor When it comes to word origins it's common for people to see connections and assume they are true without actually knowing for sure. For example I was told long ago that "woman" meant "man with a womb". I've seen a lengthy diatribe explaining that the word "woman" is actually unrelated to the word man. Or, for another example, when I learned some Chinese and some Japanese I noticed that "ke ai" and "kawaii", both meaning cute in their respective language, are so similar that they had to be related. They're not. How do I know you are correct and not just fitting things without proof? | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 22:03 | comment | added | J. Taylor | @gktscrk I do not think you are much in conflict with my answer. ":Administrative work" work was hardly done in English before the Conquest as it had hardly ever been done, Latin was the administrative language of Western Europe as it was the one language scribes would be fluent in,. There were no common languages within regions, including England. Remember that William the Bastard did not share a common first language with Richard the First. I do not think the use of Latin after the Conquest means much about "Normanization" or Anglicization. Do you believe I am in error here? | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 21:25 | comment | added | gktscrk | This explanation's weakness is that the administrative work would no longer have taken place in OE with Latin replacing it rapidly after the Conquest. ME would also come into use soon; but at least after mid-12th century, I don't think there's much evidence for public use of OE. Instead, I would attribute the kingship remaining English as evidence of the strength of the Anglicisation of the Normans through interactions with the remaining AS nobility. The rebellions in the early reign of William may have thwarted this, but the premise remains relevant for the next two and three hundred years. | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 23:40 | comment | added | J. Taylor | @ Readin... I did not mean to leave it at that. One basis for the answer was the condition, politically of the Channel Islands. By the reckoning of the governments of those Islands, they are part of Normandy, and, have never been part of England, Great Britain or the UK.. The different institutions and language of government supports the notion that England was never the object of a radical :"Normanization" of its government.. That is getting away from language, though, so I did not include any of that in the answer.. I am not offended by your comment . I hope I can satisfy ytour concerns.. | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 23:24 | comment | added | J. Taylor | @ Readin.... I provided citations for what I thought were important issues. As to other issuesm I can take them one at a time and cite the same.. | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 23:08 | comment | added | Readin | @J.Taylor My specific concern is that the answer sounds like a guess from a well)-educated person. Since I don't know you (and I hope you don't take offense - since I don't know you I certainly don't mean to offend you), how can I have confidence in the correctness of the answer? | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 16:22 | comment | added | J. Taylor | @Carvo Loco.......As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons found no government in Britain familiar to their ways. I mentioned "duke" in the answer, which was from Latin, but not from Imperial administration. The Anglo-Saxons had little permanent organized government and only outside pressure caused England to unite under one King/, and that not an all-powerful one.Most of the Latin acquired into English before The Conquest was connected to the Church. The Anglo-Saxons had a notion of general equality in their communities with leaders seen as "first among equals"; this was disturbed by the Normans. | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 12:18 | comment | added | Carvo Loco | Well I am not sure they wouldn't have understood what a Guillaume was, seeing how the name most likely derives from the same Old Germanic name as William does, but I think I see your point. Even if Angles and Saxons had retained administrative terms from the variant of Latin they found upon their arrival, the Roman Empire was not a kingdom so they wouldn't have retained Latin terms for royalty. Would you then say it is something the new rulers chose? And, as a curiosity, do you know if Anglo-Saxons retained any administrative terms from Latin? | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 9:19 | comment | added | J. Taylor | @ Readin... what is the specific concern? | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 5:11 | comment | added | Readin | This sounds entirely plausible, but do you have any sources? | |
| S Jun 30, 2017 at 22:09 | history | suggested | wjandrea | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Split paragraphs. Put French words in italics. Some minor grammar fixes.
|
| Jun 30, 2017 at 21:55 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 30, 2017 at 22:09 | |||||
| S Jun 30, 2017 at 20:36 | history | suggested | marcellothearcane | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
put the linked words in quotes
|
| Jun 30, 2017 at 20:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 30, 2017 at 20:36 | |||||
| Jun 30, 2017 at 18:17 | history | answered | J. Taylor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |