Styles and Titles of James I

In addition to the examples of the use of the title "Duke of Normandy"
already given from official documents originating in England and
Jersey, some may wish to ponder this further.

James I, when proclaiming the use of the title "of Great Britain"
decreed that his "right, name and style" (G.C. Sainty note) would
be "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the
Faith, &c."

I believe, the last "&c" is more than enough to take care of
Normandy and anything else some people here may find lacking.

pierre_aronax...

Including Emperor of Abyssinia and whatever.

CJ Buyers...

Well if you can highlight where "whatever" is on a map, I will consider
it. Is it anywhere near Calais?

=?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=...

Yes, of course. But Christopher has a valid point inasmuch as that

CJ Buyers...

nce

CJ Buyers...

whenever there is an "&c" in an official document, absence of evidence
doesn't necessarily equate evidence of absence.

pierre_aronax...

But predecessors of James I had not the "&c", had they? In their case,
is that evidence of absence of the title "Duke of Normandy"? And if it
is not, how can the presence of the "&c." be the evidence of anything?

CJ Buyers...

Indeed you have a point, but it, together with his use of the title in
legal documents in England and Jersey, presented previously demolishes
you claim that no sovereign used the title.

pierre_aronax...

More exactly, my original claim made some days ago was that no
sovereign did except one, who did not do that in relation with the
Channel Islands.

CJ Buyers...

Would you like to explain what the Royal Courts of Jersey are or where
they may be located? The last time I looked upon a map, Jersey is one
of the Channel Islands.

So have you now changed your tune to mean that some sovereigns did?

pierre_aronax...

Edward III during a short period of his reign (as I have pointed for
some time) and Henry V (as I have learned in between) obviously did,
although unsystematically, but it is also obvious they did not in
relation with the CI, precisely NOT using the ducal title when dealing
with the islands in the same time they used it in relation with
continental Normandy, which confirms that the title as no relation with
the CI.

CJ Buyers...

I suggest that you read over this paragraph again.

The other examples are only three nonstandard cases where the title was
used speaking of the King (as opposed to used by him) and which clearly
breach the general and normal practice at the time. That is well
explained in the article were you picked those examples, but whose
general demonstration you prudently ignored. They hardly substantiate
the claim that each monarch assumes the title at his accession or that
it is officially used in the CI.

CJ Buyers...

Obviously, there is some gap in your understanding. All the documented
examples presented eminate from or on behalf of the King. I suppose you
ought to brush up on what Letters Patent, and similar documents, and
the status of the Royal Courts of Jersey actually mean.

So yes, I have changed something in my tune, as you say, because,
considering the question more closely and reading the arguments of some
others posters, I have learned more things. But it remains nevertheless
the essential: that Henry III renounced the title of Duke of Normandy
(the facts and the words of the documents relating to the treaty of
Paris can not be understood otherwise) and that, although it resurfaced
two times in the later Middle Ages, it did not in relation with the CI.

CJ Buyers...

Nonsence, it can only be understood as you say if one does what you
tried to do. Stick in commas in a translation that do not belong in the
original text. Then take bits of the sentence that you like and leave
out what you do not. It is one sentence and has to be read and taken
together.

Nevertheless, whatever Henru renounced does not get you very far
because subsequent sovereigns have obviously maintained the claim and
used the title, as the current sovereign maintains.

Which is logical since those islands had become a dependence of the
English/GB/UK crown where the only title of the sovereign was and still
is King/Queen of England/GB/UK.

CJ Buyers...

I think you better brush up on the titles of British sovereigns. You
obviously have a poor grasp of the entire issue. You would have to go
back to before the Conquest to find the only title of the sovereign is
what you say here.

The presence of a representative of the Duke of Normandy at the
coronation of the English and British Kings until George IV has of
course nothing to do with that question, since he represented the
French peers paying homage to the purported "King of France". If it can

CJ Buyers...

But you have not been able to substantiate that have you? Why should it
be these particular duchies? Were they the sole representatives who did
homage at French coronations? Is that your claim? If they were and you
can prove it, then a French coronation must have been a very brief
affair indeed.

substantiate something, that is rather the fact that the sovereign was
NOT duke of Normandy (except if you suppose that he was paying homage
to himself !).

CJ Buyers...

On the contrary it was the representative of the duchy paying homage.

At least in the case of Henry VIII, we know the style and titles he
used in all his realms and dominions, including the CI,and there is no
room for Normandy even in a guise of an &c. That is enough to dispose
of the myth that any English sovereign had hold it from W I to E II.

CJ Buyers...

Not if he did the same at his Coronation as all the other sovereigns
until George III.

CJ Buyers...

rt the

pierre_aronax...

the

CJ Buyers...

François R. Velde...

The burden of proof remains the same, and it is not on those who assert the
negative.

CJ Buyers...

ed. An

CJ Buyers...

nd in

CJ Buyers...

As asserted by those who assert the negative, of course!

CJ Buyers...

Sorry, are you speaking of yourself by any chance?

If you care to read, evidence for the actual use of the title Duke of
Normandy has already been provided. In case that proves a diffculty,
here they are again:

"Us our heyres & succes[sors] Kinges of this Realme of England and
Duckes of Normandie...."
Letters Patent of King James (1615), Jersey: Ordres du Conseil, 1897
ed, vol I, page 96.

"Le Roy d'Angleterre et Duc de Normandie &c". Act of the Royal Court
(of Jersey), 21 September 1615.

"Roy de la Grande Bretagne France et Irlande et Duc de Normandie
defenseur de la Foy etc". State Papers, Domestic, Addenda, James I, Vol
41, No 20.

pierre_aronax...

As explained in the article were you found them, although interesting,
those are exceptions of what was the standard usage of the time, not
even all emanating from the Sovereign.

CJ Buyers...

If not from the sovereign from whom? Who do you suppose issues Letters
Patent? Who do you suppose the courts represent? Perhaps the sovereign
should sit down and write out all his letters himself, in order to
"satisfy" you?

The example of Henry VIII is of an other stuff since it is not just an
example but a norm of what were the titles of that King in the CI.

CJ Buyers...

What is usual practice and what is not is of no help whatsoever to your
claim that the titles were never used. They were and it is patently
obvious.

You don't like what these examples represent, so you we must be subject
to the logic of the banana doctor.

Incidentally, this "etc", which was removed in 1801, has not been unnoticed. An
explanation for its appearance at the accession of Elisabeth I can be found in
`Elizabethan Gleanings' by the legal historian F. W. Maitland, English

CJ Buyers...

pers,

Historical Review Jan 1900, 15(57):120-124 (reprinted in his Collected Papers,
Cambridge, 1911, 3:157-163, and also in his Selected Historical Essays,
Cambridge 1957, 211-216).

It involves neither Normandy nor Abyssinia.

CJ Buyers...

Of course, his conclusions will only be valid if there is evidence that
he had examined the documents showing usage of the title of Duke of
Normandy by James I. Otherwise, his conclusions may have been somewhat
premature.

Jan B=F6hme