- Richard Coeur de Lion (in English "Lionheart") was king of England but he was French. He lived in France, he was a French speaker, he never learned English language, he went in England only 2 or 3 times when he needed to raise funds for the second crusade. The English called him the "Absent King". His heart is buried in France, and his body is buried in France too. And he's still resting in France despite the efforts of the current English Queen who tried to bring the body to England. I'd like to see one Hollywood film which doesn't try to make this king look more English than he was, he wasn't at all !
- In the end of the film, the French king send his fleet in order to invade England and he fails. In reality, this raid happened later in History, it was supported by a part of the English population, it happened because of a story of legitimacy of the heir to the English king. The raid was successful and the French took London and it's region without a great resistance (since the French king was legitimate).
- The Magna Carta was signed by the English king, forced by his barons who were unhappy of their territorial losses in Aquitaine (South West of France) after the battle of Bouvines. The battle of Bouvines happened in France between France and an alliance built by the English who allied with the Flemish and the Holy Roman Empire. The result was the complete victory of France, the HRE started to be dismantled, the count of Flanders was jailed in Paris, the English lost most of their territories in France.
Maybe Hollywood should read more History books.
Mr. Scott is one of my favorite filmmakers (because of Alien and Gladiator), but Robin Hood is a shame really. Even Kingdom of Heaven was more accurate...
And he's still resting in France despite the efforts of the current English Queen who tried to bring the body to England.
She did what???? Sorry, I'm simply unable to credit that: (a) because HM is familiar enough with her own family's history to know that he wasn't English, and (b) digging up and generally monkeying about with dead royalty is something she has never favoured. (Which is why, for example, there's no chance of the two alleged 'Princes in the Tower' being properly examined.) Where do you get this from, please?
reply share
More to the point, the bones at Fontevrault were exhumed at the French Revolution: it's unclear whose, if any, survive. It's not even clear whether his and his father's effigies are correctly identified. My personal suspicion is that the bearded one may be Henry, not Richard, because he was older when he died, and younger men tended to be clean-shaven.
"Le 26 mars 1199, Richard assiège le château de Châlus Chabrol16,17 possession du vicomte Adémar V de Limoges, dit Boson. Il est atteint par un carreau d'arbalète tiré par un chevalier de petite noblesse limousine, Pierre Basile. La flèche est retirée mais la gangrène gagne le corps du roi. Richard meurt le 6 avril 1199, onze jours après sa blessure. Son corps est enterré près de celui de son père en l’abbaye de Fontevraud (située non loin de Saumur), son cœur repose dans la cathédrale de Rouen, capitale de la Normandie et ses entrailles en l'église (actuellement ruinée) du château de Châlus Chabrol. Philippe de Cognac, fils illégitime supposé de Richard Cœur de Lion, le vengera en assassinant Adémar18.
Jean succède à Richard sur le trône d’Angleterre. Cependant les territoires continentaux le rejettent, au début, lui préférant leur neveu Arthur de Bretagne, fils de leur frère Geoffroy, dont les droits sont techniquement meilleurs que les siens."
"On March 26 1199, Richard besieged the castle of Chalus Chabrol, possession of Viscount Ademar V of Limoges, nicknamed Boson. He's reached by a crossbow bolt fired by a Limousin knight of minor nobility, Pierre Basile. The arrow is removed but gangrene spread in the king's body. Richard died on April 6, 1199, eleven days after his injury. His body is buried near his father's in Fontevraud Abbey (located near Saumur), his heart rests in the cathedral of Rouen, capital of Normandie, and his bowels in the church (now ruined) of Chalus Chabrol's castle. Philippe de Cognac, supposed illegitimate son of Richard the Lion Heart, would avenge him by murdering Adémar (Viscount Adhémar V of Limoges).
Jean succeeds to Richard on the throne of England. However, the continental territories reject him at the beginning, preferring their nephew Arthur of Bretagne, son of their brother Geoffroy, whose rights are technically better than his."
"This corpse is not of those to whom one tomb is enough" wrote Matthew Paris. Indeed, Richard Lion Heart, King Knight at the head of the "Plantagenet Empire" was not buried in a unique place.
Dictating his last will, he wished that his body rests in Fontevraud, near the one of his father. His "gisant" (a statue on a tomb) is still there, like the one of his father Henry II and the one of his mother Aliénor of Aquitaine.
He asked that his heart be deposited in the cathedral of Rouen in "Remembrance of his love for Normandie" near his ancestor Rollo. He also considered the Normans as his most faithful subjects.
As for his bowels, according to a later legend, he demised it to this limousine land (Limousin region near Normandie), which would have given him his best comrades (his " faithful Limousin barons") and the language in which he loved to write poems. In fact, he maintained complex and paradoxical relationship with Aquitaine region, where he had acquired by his exactions a reputation of cruelty. And, it is to punish his "faithful barons Limousin " and the Bishop of Limoges, that he found himself with Mercadier in front of Chalus castle. Thus it's wrote that he wished that his bowels rest in Poitou region scornfully for Poitevins who had betrayed him.
In reality, a practical fact is much more prosaic and explains that the earth keeps Richard's bowels in Chalus's land : To be preserved from putrefaction his body was very likely and as usual, embalmed. This requires a gutting. His bowels were therefore left in place and kept in the castle church, Notre-Dame du Haut-Chalus now a ruin. This partition of the body (dilaceratio corporis "division of the body" in heart, guts and bones) with multiple burials is a practice initiated in the middle of the eleventh century by the Knights and rulers of the Kingdom of England and the Holy Roman Empire, who died in crusade or far from their chosen burial place.
The lead box containing the remains of the embalmed heart which was rediscovered with his "gisant" in 1838 by historian Achille Deville, director of the Museum of Antiquities in Rouen during archaeological excavations in the cathedral of Rouen, is studied for the first time in 2012 by an interdisciplinary team led by Philippe Charlier. The embalming of the heart was performed by standard substances (mercury, creosote), but also herbs and spices reserved to the elite, the myrrh and particularly the incense, source of what is called the odor of holiness. Historians of the team hypothesized that the embalmers of Richard made a "Christic reference" by reproducing the ritual described in the Bible."
Yes, I know this, and I've read the 2012 article on the analysis of the heart: Scientific Reports 3:1296, "The embalmed heart of Richard the Lionheart (1199 A.D.): a biological and anthropological analysis"
Sorry it wasn't the current queen, it was Victoria. Elizabeth didn't try since Victoria's failure to get the remains of former kings of England are well known in France. An other attempt wouldn't have any chances to work.
I translate this for you :
"Au 19ème siècle la reine Victoria adressera une lettre au préfet de la région lui demandant que les dépouilles des souverains d’Angleterre , inhumés dans la crypte de l’abbaye royale de Fontevraud, soient exhumées et transférées à Londres. Après avoir longuement réfléchi, le préfet refusera d’accéder à la requête de la reine d’Angleterre ; motivant en ces termes sa décision : "Ces anciens souverains sont citoyens français d’origine et c’est en France qu’ils doivent reposer à jamais."
"In the 19th century the queen Victoria sent a letter to the prefect of the region (current region name is 'Pays de la Loire') requesting that the remains of the sovereigns of England, buried in the crypt of the Royal Abbey of Fontevraud, were exhumed and transferred to London. After much thought, the prefect refuse to accede to the request of the Queen of England, motivating his decision in these terms: "These former sovereigns are citizens (of France) of French origin and it is in France they must lie ever."
Sorry it wasn't the current queen, it was Victoria.
Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks, I didn't know that. Do you happen to know when in her long reign she sent that letter? Because I suspect she did it not because she felt that 'English kings shouldn't be buried in France', but because she thought that what was left of the remains would be safer in England than in France. They had already suffered serious damage and indignity at the time of the Revolution, and several times during her reign the political situation in France was unstable enough to make it seem possible that similar events might happen again.
Elizabeth didn't try since Victoria's failure to get the remains of former kings of England are well known in France.
Not so; she has never tried because she has never wanted to. If France has another revolution, destroying medieval monuments is unlikely to be a side-effect, so they are just as safe in Frontevraud than in England; and the present Queen, as I said, has a firm dislike of disturbing historic royal burials unless absolutely necessary.
reply share
Richard wouldn't really be "her" family. That line has been broken several times. The Windsors were German until WW1, when they had the brilliant marketing idea to become the Windsors.
No, it hasn't. It has passed through the female line several times, but that is emphatically not the same thing as being 'broken'. The Angevins at Fontevraud - assuming the bodies in the tombs haven't been totally ransacked - are certainly the Queen's lineal ancestors. What's that if not family?
reply share
Richard was (as far as is known) born in England and lived there to the age of eight. There is no contemporary record that says he was unable to speak English.
Louis (AKA 'Louis the First and Last') was invited to take the English throne and did take large parts of Southern England, mainly because the barons supporting him already owned most of it, not because the English viewed him as the legitimate king of England. He was never crowned and was eventually repulsed due in some part at least to William of Cassingham (AKA Willikin of the Weald) and his band of archers.
There's plenty that's historically wrong with this film and with the popular image of Richard, maybe blame Sir Walter Scott (and others) for at least some of that, rather than Ridley.
As for the current monarch seeking to 'repatriate' Richard's remains, I have no idea where you got that story from but it's bollocks! And in any case at least we know where Richard I is, we had to dig a car park up to find his namesake! By the way, do you think the French would like Napoleon III back at all?
"There is no contemporary record that says he was unable to speak English."
Yes there are which says exactly that "Richard Coeur de Lion never learned English". It means that even if he lived in England a few years, he spoke French everytime and didn't bother learning English.
"Louis (AKA 'Louis the First and Last') was invited to take the English throne and did take large parts of Southern England, mainly because the barons supporting him already owned most of it, not because the English viewed him as the legitimate king of England. He was never crowned and was eventually repulsed due in some part at least to William of Cassingham (AKA Willikin of the Weald) and his band of archers."
Oh really ? I quote Wikipedia :
"In 1216, the English barons rebelled in the First Barons' War against the unpopular King John of England (1199–1216). The barons offered the throne to Prince Louis of France, who landed unopposed on the Isle of Thanet in England at the head of an army on 21 May 1216. There was little resistance when the prince entered London and at St Paul's Cathedral, Louis was proclaimed King with great pomp and celebration in the presence of all of London. Even though he was not crowned, many nobles, as well as King Alexander II of Scotland (1214–49), gathered to give homage. On 14 June 1216, Louis captured Winchester and soon controlled over half of the English kingdom."
"There's plenty that's historically wrong with this film and with the popular image of Richard, maybe blame Sir Walter Scott (and others) for at least some of that, rather than Ridley."
I blame Anglo-Saxon propaganda. The same propaganda after the siege of Dunkirk for the "courage of the Tommies". That shameless propaganda is still popular nowadays, and the English believe Richard Coeur de Lion spoke English...
"As for the current monarch seeking to 'repatriate' Richard's remains, I have no idea where you got that story from but it's bollocks! And in any case at least we know where Richard I is, we had to dig a car park up to find his namesake! By the way, do you think the French would like Napoleon III back at all?"
It was Victoria, not Elizabeth, my mistake, it's the truth even if you never heard about it. I'm afraid the French don't care about Napoleon III.
he spoke French everytime and didn't bother learning English.
Sorry if this appears as just a very minor point, but I take issue with your wording. Maybe I shouldn't, maybe I read too much in a wording that is not in my native language. It seems to me that "didn't bother" implies he should have, but wilfully (and wrongfully) refused to. Which to me begs the question: why should he have learnt English? French was spoken by all the people he was likely to converse with, as it was still very much the language of the English aristocracy as well as the French one at the time. So it seems to me the question should not be "why didn't he bother to learn English" but "why should he have bothered to learn English"?
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
reply share
I believe Richard should have learnt English because a leader has to speak the language of his people, he was the king of England, so he should have learnt English.
But as you said, times back then were different from now, and I guess this aristocracy didn't care at their peasants, especially those on the other side of the Channel.
I'm not sure they didn't care about their peasants, but they certainly had no reason to converse with them. There were a whole lot of different local or less local authorities a peasant ought to go to had he a grievance. It was their job to listen to the peasants, no the king's.
We have had nation-states in Europe for the last two centuries, and to us it's axiomatic that we expect to be ruled by someone of our own nationality. But the Middle Ages had no such expectation; then it was absolutely normal to have a ruler, if not indeed a whole ruling class, of a totally different ethnicity. It wasn't even that much of an inconvenience if they didn't speak the same language, since everyone who wrote anything did so in Latin.
I guess this aristocracy didn't care at their peasants
As pol-edra correctly says, yes they did: but the king certainly didn't dream of speaking or listening directly to them.
Are you sure you actually read that about Richard I? Because it sounds very like the statement by Walter Map about his father that I quoted inthe last post on this thread. Map described Henry II as "having a knowledge of all the languages which are spoken from the Bay of Biscay to the Jordan, but making use only of Latin and French." (But, as I said in April, although a lot of people have taken that statement as meaning that English was one of the languages Henry spoke, if you interpret it literally, it doesn't.)
A number of authors have speculated that Richard did not know the English language, however the evidence available to historians does not provide a definitive case for this assumption. There are no contemporary accounts that state that Richard was ignorant of the language. Indeed, during Richard's captivity English prejudice against foreigners was used in a calculated way by his brother John to help destroy the authority of Richard's chancellor, William Longchamp, who was a Norman. One of the specific charges laid against Longchamp, by John's supporter Hugh, Bishop of Coventry, was that he could not speak English. This indicates that by the late 12th century a knowledge of English was expected of those in positions of authority in England.[17][18]
As I said, there are no contemporary sources that state Richard could not speak English. Whether he had cause to or not is a different question.
I'm not sure how you think what you quoted contradicts what I wrote about Louis the First and Last, he was invited in, met little resistance (with the notable exceptions of Willikin of the Weald and Dover Castle), was never crowned and when (after John's death) he had outlived his usefulness to his original supporters he was kicked out. That is not the way one behaves with a legitimate monarch.
I've no idea whether or not Victoria wanted to repatriate Richard's remains, it's not a story I've ever come across (what's your source?). It certainly seems unlikely but as I said Walter Scott and his ilk have a lot to answer for so who knows?
I really don't know what you're talking about when you mention Dunkirk in the same breath. Yes, it's all national myth making (or Anglo-Saxon propaganda if you prefer) but the chief focus of commemoration surrounding Dunkirk is focused on the civilian contribution and the 'little ships', nobody pretends it was a victory, rather a catastrophe that could have been much much worse. Incidentally, the Dunkirk evacuation was co-ordinated from Dover Castle, one of the exceptions to the 'Louis ... met little resistance' rule as it withstood a French siege for much of 1216.
he went in England only 2 or 3 times when he needed to raise funds for the second crusade.
Third Crusade. He wasn't born when the Second happened.
The English called him the "Absent King".
I was a child in England (now in Scotland), and never heard him referred to thus.
His heart is buried in France, and his body is buried in France too. And he's still resting in France despite the efforts of the current English Queen who tried to bring the body to England.
Not true, not least because the whereabouts of his bones is unknown. The tombs at Fontevrault were broken into in the French revolution and the bones dispersed. It's not even clear whether the effigies now labelled as Henry II and Richard have had their identities switched around (I suspect they may, as beards were more of an older man thing at the time, and Henry was in his 50s when he died, as opposed to Richard being in his early 40s). The heart has been subject to scientific analysis.
You are correct he did speak French as a first language (langue d'Oïl), and sometimes wrote in langue d'oc. But it is very unlikely that he did not speak English. Please forgive me for contradicting you a little.
Richard "Coeur de Lion" was born in Oxford (most likely Beaumont Palace). It was never asserted during his lifetime that Richard did not speak English. That is a relatively recent suggestion. The first 8 years of Richard's life were entirely spent in England, with an English wet-nurse named Hodierna Neckham, mother of Alexander Neckham (who was born on the same day as Richard, and both were nursed by Hodierna).
Whilst Richard was held for ransom at Durnstien Castle in Austria, Prince John attempted to discredit Richard's advisors. One of John's toadys, Hugh, Bishop of Coventry, formally charged that William Longchamps could not speak English. Longchamps (who was not even English but continental Norman born and raised) was Richard's Lord Chancellor, and the fact that he spoke no English was considered scandalous even in 1190. It was well known that his mother, Eleanor of Acquitaine, did not speak English but nothing of the sort was ever reported about Richard The Lionheart. Had it been so, it would have been used against him.
History does not relate anything about Hodierna Neckham's origins, not even whether she was English - but her name, which is a Northern French one (a Latinised form of 'Audierne'), implies that she certainly came from a French-speaking family. She might well have been born in Normandy, Maine or one of Henry II's other North French territories - his nobility married quite freely across the Channel - and have only picked up enough English after her marriage to talk to the servants. And even if she had been born in England and spoke English, French would still have been her family language, and the language she would have spoken to her royal charge.
When I think of the name Hodierna I think of Hodierna and Loveta, so yes in ancestry I think that name is probably French derived. Very obviously she spoke French. But it is unlikely she spoke no English, far from it, and she had in fact according to accounts, more contact with Richard than Eleanor. It is believed widely that he lived with her. Whatever her ancestry, Hodierna was most definitely English. Because she chose to live in England and die in England. The fact that she was buried in England and that she was given a high pension by Richard suggests as much. When she did retire, she moved to West Knoyle in Wiltshire, about 100 miles from London; as a proper Englishwoman would. There she would have found very few, if any, people who spoke French as a first language, suggesting further that she considered herself English enough and that she spoke English.
It must not be forgotten that the whole of Norman populace in England is generally received to have been no more than 10,000. The almost complete retention of Old Eglish place names in England (and the almost complete lack of celtic placenames and or French) is pretty heady evidence.
All that aside, however, there is the much more compelling evidence that Richard was never spoken of as ignorant in any way of the English language by his contemporaries or for centuries after his death. That is a rather recent surmise, from the remove of 900 years. It must be remembered that by the time of Richard's reign, 130 years had passed since the Norman invasion. Or about the same amount of time that had passed from the majority of the "Norse" invasions of France, until the ascension of William the Conqueror to the throne of England.
As I stated earlier, those who did not speak English were regularly "outed" by numerous written sources during, before and after Richard's time. Eleanor most definitely did not speak English, nor did Longchamp. It was also reported that Henry could but understand English. But at the highest level of government this was considered scandalous by the time of Richard's reign.
Richard was not a Norman King. His father, Henry II (who understood but did not speak English) was the first of the Plantagenet line.
Whatever her ancestry, Hodierna was most definitely English. Because she chose to live in England and die in England. The fact that she was buried in England and that she was given a high pension by Richard suggests as much. When she did retire, she moved to West Knoyle in Wiltshire, about 100 miles from London; as a proper Englishwoman would. There she would have found very few, if any, people who spoke French as a first language, suggesting further that she considered herself English enough and that she spoke English.
Sorry: that's pure romancing. 12th-century women rarely got the chance to decide for themselves where they would live. (She was, of course, a married woman, or she couldn't have been Richard's wet-nurse.) We can't know why Richard gave her a manor in England rather than anywhere else in his empire; it might well not have been her choice. And there's no hard evidence that she even lived at West Knoyle herself; for all we know she may simply have put in a steward and had her rents sent to wherever she was actually living.
The almost complete retention of Old Eglish place names in England (and the almost complete lack of celtic placenames and or French) is pretty heady evidence.
Not really; all it proves is that the English landscape was already fully and durably settled, so that the Normans simply took over its towns and villages as going concerns and therefore didn't need to do any naming - unlike, say, the Danes who had settled the Danelaw gradually, founding new settlements on marginal land which they named as they founded them. And once the Conqueror had got every village docketed in Domesday Book in 1080, there would have been considerable inconvenience in changing their names afterwards. (Might even have been viewed as tax evasion?)
All that aside, however, there is the much more compelling evidence that Richard was never spoken of as ignorant in any way of the English language by his contemporaries or for centuries after his death.
But that could simply be because nobody expected him to speak it, and that it just wasn't remarkable. After all, nobody remarks today about contemporary statesmen not being able to speak Classical Greek.
Richard was not a Norman King.
I don't think anyone here has said he was.
His father, Henry II (who understood but did not speak English)
If indeed he even understood it. The quote from Walter Map that this is based on, says that he understood 'all the languages from the Channel to the Jordan' but spoke only French [both oc and oil, presumably] and Latin. Literally interpreted, that doesn't imply that he spoke English; rather the opposite. reply share