Loading Hatene...
Preparing your fact-checking experience
Preparing your fact-checking experience
Fetching verification details
Category: Politics
Misleading / Needs Context
Partly true, but missing important context.
England is the king of Europe.
The claim that 'England is the king of Europe' is misleading. Historically, England has been a significant power in Europe, especially during the medieval period when the Angevin Empire was at its height. However, the term 'king of Europe' is not accurate or applicable in a modern context. England, as part of the United Kingdom, is one of several influential nations in Europe, but it does not hold a monarchical rule over the continent. The historical context provided in the sources shows England's past influence and territorial claims, but these do not equate to being the 'king of Europe' in any current or literal sense.
Jude Bellingham that's why we call him FIFA princess I'm sorry Egyptian you deserve to win but You guys were playing against 12 plus FIFA president. Next time please but inshallah I will meet Argentina to show him. why England is King in Europe? See less
en.wikipedia.org
The Kingdom of England was a sovereign state on the island of Great Britain from 927, when all of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were united under the rule ofÆthelstan, until 1 May 1707, when it relinquished its sovereignty along with Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, which would later become the United Kingdom. The Kingdom of England was among the most powerful states in Europe during the medieval and early modern periods. ... in the Union of the ... , with the ... the kingdoms of England, Scotland and ... Under the Stuarts, England plunged into civil war, which culminated in the execution of Charles I ... 649. The monarchy returned in 1660, but the Civil War had established the precedent that an English monarch cannot govern without the consent of Parliament. This concept became legally established as part of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. From this time the kingdom of England, as well as its ... state the United Kingdom, functioned in effect as a constitutional monarchy. On 1 May ... 707, under the terms of the Acts of Union 1707, the parliaments, and therefore Kingdoms, of both England and Scotland were mutually abolished. Their assets and estates united 'for ever, ... Great Britain and the Parliament of Great Britain. ... The standard title for monarchs fromÆthelstan until John was Rex Anglorum ("King of the English"). Cnut, a Dane, was the first to call himself "King of England". During the Norman period Rex Anglorum remained standard, with occasional use of Rex Anglie ("King of England"). From John's reign onwards all other titles were eschewed in favour of Rex or Regina Anglie. In 1604 James I, who had inherited the English throne the previous year, adopted the title (now usually rendered in English rather than Latin) King of Great Britain. ... On 12 July 927 the monarchs of Britain gathered at Eamont Bridge, now in Cumbria, to recognise Æthelstan as king of the English. The title "King of the English" or Rex Anglorum in Latin, was first used to describe Æthelstan in one of his charters in 928. The standard title for monarchs from Æthelstan until John was "King of the English". During the following years Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and the Norwegian invaders, but was definitively brought under English control by Eadred in 954, completing the unification of England. In 1018, Lothian, a portion of the northern half of Northumbria Bernicia was ceded to the Kingdom of Scotland. ... A Treaty of Union was agreed on 22 July 1706, and following the Acts of Union of 1707, which created the Kingdom of Great Britain, the independence of the kingdoms of England and Scotland came to an end on 1 May 1707. The Acts of Union created a customs union and monetary union and provided that any "laws and statutes" that were "contrary to or inconsistent with the terms" of the Acts would "cease and become void". ... Scottish Parli ... as a separate political entity, ... no national government. The laws ... unaffected, with the ... have its own laws and law courts. ... 01 union ... of Great Britain ... Irish Free State se ... of Great Britain ... Northern Ireland.
View sourceen.wikipedia.org
The Angevin Empire (/ˈændʒɪvɪn/; French: Empire Plantagenêt) was the collection of territories held by the House of Plantagenet during the 12th and 13th centuries, when they ruled over an area covering roughly all of present-day England, half of France, and parts of Ireland and Wales, and claiming overlordship and some influence over the remaining parts of Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It may be described as an early example of a composite monarchy. The empire was established by Henry II of England, who succeeded his father Geoffrey as duke of Normandy and count of Anjou(from the latter of which the term Angevin is derived). Henry married Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152, acquiring the Duchy of Aquitaine, and inherited his mother Empress Matilda's claim to the English throne, succeeding his rival Stephen in 1154. Although their title of highest rank came from the Kingdom of England, the Plantagenets held court primarily on the continent at Angers in Anjou and at Chinon in Touraine. ... Religion | Roman Catholicism ... official) | ... | King, Duke, Count and Lord | - | ... | • 1154–1189 | Henry II | | • 1189–1199 | Richard I | | • 1154–1204 (Aquitaine, County of Poitou, southern France only) | Eleanor of Aquitaine | | • 1199–1214 | John | | Historical era | Middle Ages | | • Henry II inherits the Kingdom of England | 25 October 1154 | | • Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland | 1169–1177 | | • ... of Normandy by Philip II of France | 1202–1204 | | • Truce of Chinon | 28 September 1214 | | Currency | French ... penny, gold ... Some historians argue that the term should be reserved solely for the Holy Roman Empire, the only Western European political structure actually named an empire at that time, although Alfonso VII of León and Castile had taken the title"Emperor of all Spain" in 1135. Other historians argue that Henry II's empire was not powerful, centralised or large enough to be seriously called an empire. Furthermore, the Plantagenets never claimed any sort of imperial title as implied by the term Angevin Empire. However, even if the Plantagenets themselves did not claim an imperial title, some chroniclers, often working for Henry II, used the term empire to describe the assemblage of lands. The highest title was "king of England"; the other titles of dukes and counts of different areas held in France were independent from the royal title and were not subject to English royal law. Because of this, some historians, such as W. L. Warren, prefer the term commonwealth to empire, emphasising that the Angevin Empire was more of an assemblage of seven independent, sovereign states loosely bound to each other, only united in the person of the king of England. ... At its largest extent, the Angevin Empire consisted of the Kingdom of England, the Lordship of Ireland(which was considered illegitimate since Henry II broke the Treaty of Windsor), the Duchies of Normandy(which included the Channel Islands), Gascony and Aquitaine, as well as of the counties of Anjou, Poitou, Maine, Touraine, Saintonge, La Marche, Périgord, Limousin, Nantes and Quercy. While the duchies and counties were held with various levels of vassalage to the king of France, the Plantagenets held various levels of control over the duchies of Brittany and Cornwall, the Welsh princedoms, the County of Toulouse, and the Kingdom of Scotland, although those regions were not formal parts of the empire. Auvergne was also in ... empire for parts of the reigns of Henry and Richard, in their capacity as dukes of Aquitaine. Henry and Richard pushed further claims over the County of Berry, but these were not completely fulfilled, and the county was lost completely by the time of the accession of John in 1199 ... England was under the firmest control of all the lands in the Angevin Empire due to the age of many of the offices that governed the country and the established traditions and customs. England was divided in shires, with sheriffs in each enforcing the common law. A justiciar was appointed by the king to stand in his absence when he was on the continent. As the kings of England were more often in France than England, they used writs more frequently than did the Anglo-Saxon kings, which actually proved beneficial to England. Under William I's rule, Anglo-Saxon nobles had been largely replaced by Anglo-Norman settlers whose lands were split between England and France. This made it much harder for them to revolt against the king and defend all their lands simultaneously. The power of the English earls had grown during the Anarchy between Empress Matilda and King Stephen, as she and he vied for support by granting earldoms to various barons, but this reversed beginning with Henry II, whose reign saw the number of earls halve from 24 to 12. England instead saw a reliance on the exchequer to provide both financial and administrative control on behalf of the ruling monarch. ... In order to secure Matilda's succession to the royal throne, she and Geoffrey needed castles and supporters in both England and Normandy, but if they succeeded there would be two authorities in England: the king and Matilda. Henry prevented the conflict by refusing to hand over any castles to Matilda as well as confiscating the lands of the nobles he suspected of supporting her. By 1135, major disputes between Henry and Matilda drove the nobles previously loyal to Henry against Matilda. In November, Henry was dying; Matilda was with her husband in Maine and Anjou while Stephen—brother of Theobald, Count of Blois and Champagne, who was Matilda's cousin and another contender for the English and Norman thrones—was in Boulogne. Stephen rushed to England upon the news of Henry's death and was crowned king of England in December 1135. ... Henry became King Henry II of England upon Stephen's death on 25 October 1154. Subsequently, the question was again raised of Henry's oath to cede Anjou to his brother Geoffrey. Henry received a dispensation from Pope Adrian IV under the pretext the oath had been forced upon him, and he proposed compensations to Geoffrey at Rouen in 1156. Geoffrey refused and returned to Anjou to rebel against Henry. Geoffrey may have had a strong claim, but his position was weak. Louis would not interfere since Henry paid homage to him for his continental possessions. Henry crushed Geoffrey's revolt, and Geoffrey had to be satisfied with an annual pension. The Angevin Empire had now been formed. ... Henry did not treat his territories as a coherent empire, as the term "Angevin Empire" would suggest, but as private, individual possessions that he planned to distribute to his children. Henry The Young King was crowned king of England in 1170 (though he never ruled); Richard became Duke of Aquitaine in 1172; Geoffrey became Duke of Brittany in 1181; John became Lord of Ireland in 1185; Eleanor was promised to Alfonso VII with Gascony as dowry during the campaign against Toulouse in 1170. This partition of the lands between his children made it much harder for him to control them, as now they could fund their own ventures with their estates and attempt to overrule their father in their respective dominions. ... Philip II had taken Évre ... Vexin ... seized Angers ... Le Mans with an ... England. England had ... of Canterbury Hubert Walter ... Richard I's ... flags of both Normandy and Aquitaine ... Politically, continental issues were given more attention by the Angevin kings ... given by the Normans. Under Angevin rule, the balance ... dramatically shifted to ... with Angevin kings often spending more ... Normandy and An
View sourcewikipedia.org
From 1340, English monarchs, beginning with the Plantagenet king Edward III, asserted that they were the rightful kings of France. They fought the Hundred Years' War(1337–1453), in part, to enforce this claim, but ultimately without success. From the early 16th century, the claim had lost any realistic prospect of fulfilment, although every English and, later, British monarch, from Edward to George III, styled themselves king or queen of France until 1801. ... crown, although his main concern ... monarchy resulted in the English being expelled from France by 1 ... 53, ending the Hundred Years' ... , but leaving Calais as the last remaining English possession. ... In 1327, Edward II was deposed and his and Isabella's son, Edward III, became king of England at the age of 14. Edward III's uncle, Charles IV, died the following year.[7] ... The first English claim to the French throne was made by the Plantagenet king Edward III.[18] In 1328 Charles IV of France died, leaving only a daughter, Marie; a second daughter, Blanche, was born posthumously.[19] The successions to the French throne in 1316 and 1322 had, by this time, set the clear precedent that a woman could not succeed to the crown.[20] Charles's closest male relative was Edward whose claim to the throne was through his mother, Isabella, Charles's sister. The English representatives in France attempted to press Edward's claim but attracted little support. The French magnates preferred Charles's next closest male relative, his cousin, Philip of Valois, a male line descendant of Charles's grandfather Philip III. Among other objections, the magnates did not want a foreign king, as they saw it, as their monarch. Edward was also still a minor and his accession might put in power his mother Isabella who was unpopular with the French nobles.[note 2] Nevertheless, they justified their choice on the basis that "the mother had no claim, so neither did the son", according to the chronicler of Saint-Denis.[ ... 24][ ... While campaigning in the Low Countries in ... 1340, Edward made his first public declaration that he was claiming the ... 26] He had consistently omitted France from his titles prior to 1340, with the exception of a small number of documents sent to his allies in France in October 1337.[27] Indeed, prior to 1337, no one, even in England, seriously doubted that Philip VI was the rightful king of France.[28] However, on 26 January 1340 in a ceremony in the Friday Market in the Flemish city of Ghent, Edward formally proclaimed that he was the true king of France.[29][30] At the same time Edward quartered his arms—the arms of England—with the royal arms of France.[31] His aim, at this point, was probably a tactical one, to encourage Flemish support for his struggle against Philip by supposedly giving his supporters some legal protection:[31] that they were not technically rebelling against the French crown.[32] ... Richard was deposed in 1399 by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, duke of Lancaster, who, as Henry IV, became the first king of the Lancastrian branch of the House of Plantagenet. Richard died shortly afterwards, most likely murdered.[58] As well as claiming the crown of England, Henry asserted that he was also the de jure king of France,[59] but, as the historian Christopher Allmand has commented, he "appears to have had no burning ambition to secure the French crown".[60] Like Richard, he followed a policy of peace with France, while, at the same time, insisting on using the style king of France.[61] The two kingdoms were more focussed on domestic issues and the fragile truce was mostly maintained,[54] despite intermittent breaches.[62] ... It was not until the accession of Henry V, the second Lancastrian king, in 1413 that Edward III's claim to the French crown was actively pursued again,[74] ending the truce of 1389.[75] Like his immediate predecessors he took the title of king of France when he came to the throne.[76] Then, in 1414, he formally demanded from the French the crown of France. He subsequently reduced his demands, first to restoration of what had been the Angevin territories in France and later to the lands ceded to Edward III by the Treaty of Brétigny. When none of these demands were met, he invaded France in 1415.[77] ... was not accepted by the ... phin or in large parts of the country,[85] ... did enable Henry, with his Burgundian allies, to take control of Paris, and most of northern France.[86] It was also accepted and formally approved by the highest judicial authority in France, the Parlement of Paris.[79] When Henry and Charles VI both died in 1422, Henry's infant son Henry VI succeeded to both crowns[note 6] in accordance with the treaty,[88] initiating the so-called "dual monarchy".[89] However, the dauphin continued to dispute his exclusion from the succession and, as Charles VII, was recognised as king in the areas outside of English control south of the Loire.[90] In practice, France was partitioned between the north under the dual monarchy and Charles VII's " kingdom of Bourges" in central and southern France.[81] ... 29 marked a turning point.[91] It was, however, the defection of the Burgundians to Charles in 1435, by the Treaty of Arras, that decisively impacted the war and meant that the dual monarchy could not survive.[82][92] Charles slowly drove the English northward, recovering Paris in 1436 and Normandy in 1450. By 1453, Gascony had been re-taken as well, leaving Calais and the Channel Islands as the last remaining English possessions,[91] but bringing the Hundred Years' War to an end.[25] Henry VI, and all his successors as monarchs of England, continued to be styled king or queen of France but it was now a title without substance.[93] ... Shortly after Edward's death in 1483 his brother, Richard III, seized the throne.[102] Richard included in his style king of France[103] but also conceded the French kings' right to use the title.[104] However, he adopted a generally more aggressive stance towards France than Edward had latterly, for example encouraging privateering in the English Channel. The consequence was that the French feared that he had plans to revive the Hundred Years' War and the claim to the French throne. In fact, Richard was responding to the French harbouring of the Lancastrian claimant, Henry Tudor, the future Henry VII.[105] Richard's longer term intentions in relation to the claim to France are not known[106] and, after a two-year reign, he was overthrown by Henry.[102] Richard was the last Plantagenet king of England.[107] ... All subsequent monarchs of England, and then Great Britain, continued to use the hollow title of king or queen of France (including in treaties with the French[123]) until the reign of George III.[93] ... Henry VII's son, Henry VIII, was the last English monarch to take the claim literally and to actively pursue it, albeit by this time it was, in fact, an unrealistic objective.[124] According to the historian Richard Marius, making good the claim to the French crown was Henry's great passion and was, for him, a "dream to grant meaning to a life that would have seemed tiresome without it".[127] In the early part of his reign he repeatedly invaded France to claim the crown. In 1513, he even made plans to hold a coronation in Paris modelled on that of Henry VI.[128] He believed his claim to the throne would be enthusiastically supported by the French people.[127] In all, he invaded France three times in the decade from 1513. The only tangible outcome, however, was the occupation of Tournai for six years.[129] Henry treated Tournai not as an English conquest but as part of his kingdom of France,[128] and ruled it as a king of France.[129] His last invasion aimed at taking the crown was a march on Paris in 1523,[note 8] which the historian Stephen Gunn calls "in effect, the last campaign of the Hundred Years' War".[133] ... ens of ... 02.[1 ... III, had, ... when he took the decision in 1801 to
View sourcedoi.org
The seventeenth 'Thirteenth Century England' conference, held at Selwyn College, Cambridge in September 2017, explored 'England in Europe', and the essays in the present volume, the fruit of the conference, respond to its theme in a variety of ways, ranging over politics, religion and culture. England's role in the politics of Europe was, of course, profoundly reshaped at the start of the thirteenth century by the disintegration of so much of the Angevin Empire. In hindsight, it is easy to view the reign of John as a watershed, marking the start of a turn towards a more 'insular' focus in politics and society, especially when one thinks of the internal political crises of Henry III's reign and Edward I's attempts to subject Wales and Scotland to English rule. These essays complicate, in different ways, such an impression. For while some demonstrate the importance of ongoing political entanglements and memories of past connections, others examine how England was absorbed in trends that operated on a European, or at least a western European, scale. The ambitions and policies of both Henry III and Edward I did not stop at the English Channel, while in the other direction flowed ideas, clerics, ambassadors, refugees, mercenaries and occasionally threats. Henry III himself looms in a number of the contributions as a king playing on the 'European' stage, even though he was now forced back on England's resources. Antonia Shacklock's essay shows one way in which the king sought to respond (imaginatively, but with limited eventual success) to his predicament by mobilizing England's holy men, not only the well-known figure of Edward the Confessor but also a larger communion, including other saintly figures from the Anglo-Saxon past. As Henry looked to insular saints to bolster his standing, he was also importing foreign-born relatives and establishing them in England, and Shacklock shows how he sought to enlist his new men in patriotic devotions. In so doing, the king tried to respond to the problem posed by a baronage whose interests were becoming more Anglocentric and whose instincts put them at odds with the king's policies, including his penchant for introducing 'aliens' to England's court. Andrew Spencer's essay explores the problem of Henry's 'alien' relatives from a different angle, focusing on the role of the Queen's continental kinsmen, the Savoyards, and adumbrating a subplot of factionalized court politics. Henry probably conceived of the integration of the Savoyards as a means to re-engineer the upper echelons of political society, and, given the family's transnational network, he also surely saw them as a valuable tool of diplomacy too. But this proved a high-risk strategy in which the risk did not pay off, for although the Savoyards were less disruptive of domestic politics than the ... next wave of 'alien' entrants, the Lusignans, Spencer suggests ways in which the Queen's relations were nonetheless storing up trouble for the king even at an earlier stage of his personal rule. Far from being Henry's instruments, they ended up manipulating the king, further undermining his political credibility in England and further afield. ... If several essays are concerned explicitly or implicitly with English and western European politics, that of Lars Kjaer reminds us that the study of 'England in Europe' must not narrow so as to mean simply 'England and France'. He suggests that historians of the post-Conquest period have too readily sidelined the Anglo-Scandinavian dimensions of politics. The Scandinavians, or at least the Danes, did not, in the generations after the Norman Conquest, forget England. Still in thirteenth-century Denmark past victories, and a living claim to the English throne, were celebrated in history and saga as means to add lustre to the royal house. Nor had memories of Danish victories faded in the English court either, for, if Matthew Paris is to be believed, they flickered into life afresh during the 1240s when rumours took hold that a Danish king was again plotting invasion. The invasion scare may well have been only that -a scare, perhaps lent force by Henry III's military incapacity. But even then, something is revealed in these stories retailed by the English chronicler of the ongoing imaginative hold of conquering Vikings in England as well as their Scandinavian homeland. ... In both of these essays England is a unit of analysis, but no assumption of its special status informs the argument. Indeed, as developments in England are interrogated -whether in connection with pastoral care or papal provision -the 'nation' fragments and the regional, local, temporal, and particular become more significant. It is appropriate, then, that the two final contributions to be considered in this introduction, those by Amicie Pélissié du Rausas and Rod Billaud, also focus our attention on the regional and the local, albeit in different ways. They return us to politics, and both authors zero in on Gascony, that great survivor of the bonfire of Angevin possessions that marked beginning of the thirteenth century. Billaud, particularly, in concentrating on Lord Edward's role in the duchy, reminds us of the potency of identities lodged in regions and localities. Edward, although often an absentee, emerges as an active lord, asserting his authority, especially his judicial authority, and introducing administrative reforms. His first lessons of lordship, later applied to England and the English, were learnt in the peculiar local circumstances of Gascony and Cheshire. He emerges as a ruler who took careful note of the strong identities among the Gascons, handling with some care communities that were attached to customs and jealous of their autonomy. Even as we problematize 'England' as a unit of study, thinking beyond a cliché of exceptionality that tends to rest on an assumption of England's essential unity, this evidence of the resilience of the local and regional also cautions us against attaching too much weight to 'the European' as a substitute frame of reference.
View sourcedoi.org
Fanned by Anglo-French rivalries, the relationship between England and France in the Middle Ages has been a perennial topic of historical study, and the author of the present work has been one of its principal exponents, especially for the period of the Hundred Years War (1337–1453). In The Ancient Enemy, Vale places his previous work in a much longer perspective, beginning with the dynastic union of England and the duchy of Aquitaine under Henri II (1154–89), and ending with the last serious attempts to make good English claims to the French throne by Henri VIII in the 1540s. The chief aim of this short but thought-provoking book is to challenge the simplistic national myths that still bedevil the medieval historiography of France and the British Isles. The opening chapter considers the more general context of medieval England and its neighbours, drawing upon the insights of Rees Davies, Robin Frame and others that emphasize the multivalent nature of the territories ruled by the kings of England on both sides of the English Channel. Other chapters, organized in loosely chronological order, consider the ‘Angevin Empire’; the régime of the kings of England in Aquitaine; the third parties drawn into Anglo-French disputes, notably princes of the Low Countries and the papacy; the place of the French language in medieval English identity and culture; the ‘legend’ of Joan of Arc; the loss of Normandy and Aquitaine under Henri VI and the abortive revival of English royal aspirations in France under Henri VIII.
View sourceHATENE's verdicts are AI-assisted assessments, not official rulings. Always verify important information with official sources.