France: Kings, Queens and Royal History

[Lady Deborah]

The area we now call France was
Originally inhabited by people who
Spoke a
Celtic Tongue, as you say. However it was more the invasion and colonisation of France --known then as Gaul--by the Romans which led to the development oF Old French and eventually modern French.
The Gauls took their invaders' Latin and considerably simplified it, reducing door example the cases from five to two and vastly simplifying verb structure.
Also, the Latin spoken by the conquering Romans was an oral and malleable tongue quite different from written classical Latin.
The invasions of Gaul by the Franks and the Vikings later on in the fifth century didn't change this Early proto French language too much except for some word
Borrowing. But what did happen was a widening of the Divide between the dialect spoken I the north--langue d'oc-- and in the south--langue d'oil.
Charlemagne's language then would most likely have been this northern dialect of
What I call proto French, a blend of
Celtic and spoken Latin with some Germanic/Frankish and Norse/Viking words scattered throughout, particularly in
Areas of specialisation.
By the time Hugh Capet became king of
The Franks in 987 having one ruler over all the various dukedoms and regions signalled not only a political unification of Gaul which would soon become
Known as the kingdom of the Franks
And eventually
France but also a linguistic one as the languages throughout the
Kingdom became
More
And
More
Similar.
Maybe we should start a French language thread ?

[PrincessKaimi]

I would love a history of French language thread, especially if this isn't the right thread for such questions.

Thank you so much for that succinct and wonderful history of French, Lady Deborah. I have a lot to learn. I am interested in the smallest details.

If Charles (the name) was originally Karlaz (in Frankish), I'm wondering when the sound of the K- changed to the Ch- (or, as we Americans might say, the Sh-) sound. I have read that it shifted.

I think I need to learn more Celtic roots!

Again, thank you for all that information, I will have to read and re-read it.

[Lucrezia]

Charlemagne was also known as Carolus/Karolus Magnus.

[Lady Deborah]

Yes. Karolus Magnus or Charlemagne they are both Charles the Great. The first appears to be a latinised Germanic and the second is early French/ French.

The consonant shift from the K sound to the CH sound is a common one in language development. Another example is the Celtic word
Kirk which became over time Church!

[ladybelline]

And concerning French royal names, another weird example is how Clovis (originally Chlodweg) became Louis:

(C)LOVIS = C was lost and V became U= LOUIS

So it's no wonder that Louis was the most given name for the French sovereigns through history, as a reference to the "founder" of France...

[PrincessKaimi]

Oh, this is all so fascinating. I'm taking notes.

I had had the feeling that Celtic/Gaulish had adapted/adopted Latin (particular the everyday form) long before the Franks arose as a kingdom, so that when Frankish did come in, much of Old French was already established (and much of it seems ancestral to French today). That's why France is usually classified as a "Romance" language (although personally, I think its Celtic roots deserve mention and have seen modern presentations by linguistics who start modern French as breaking off from Celtic/ProtoCeltic - which in turn, broke off from Proto-Boreal).

I read French pretty well, but when I try to read German I am lost, so it's hard for me to see the Frankish influence. The Carolus/Karolus spelling and pronunciation shows clear Latinate influence (to me), rather than Germanic.

Lady Deborah, I think proto-French is a good name for that language spoken by Charlemagne, which makes him a French king (regardless of the geographical extent of his kingdom or his father's dominions). I'd love a list of the Frankish and Nordic bits that had come into proto-French (as they did into Old English) as a result of specialization and trade (I'm sure I can find that somewhere).

I've also read that Charlemagne, as he traveled through what is now France, found it relatively easy to speak to others, and so would have helped in the standardization project. I've also read that he didn't have much trouble understanding people in Lombardy at that time, either, so there must have been a strong Latinate core in his language.

I wish I could remember where I read all this (I probably still have the books, will do some more research).

[Lady Deborah]

Your issues with German vs. French likely
Stem from a very different syntax to French, and also the Germanic roots which mod German has.
As for the specialised word lists that is often how and why words are borrowed and come into another language. But not always! There are probably several PhD or master's theses about this.
Again I wonder if we want to begin a new history of language thread? Though it might not really fit in this forum. Opinions?

[PrincessKaimi]

I'm still studying. I need to learn more about German syntax (since I know zero, anything at all would be good), but I'm too caught up in my French studies.

Thank you for the note about the other forum. I am very interested in the history of France, especially as told by non-historians (from archaeological, art history, genetic and linguistic research). The regular history is pretty familiar to me (I'm one of those people who actually reads writers like Commynes - although I am still not sure which spelling of his name he preferred!) But there is such a great story told through the language, especially the French language.

Over on one of the British royal history threads, there's a discussion about monarch-numbering, and how all the counting starts with William the Conqueror. The main hypothesis is that William I was the first to "fully unite" England, but I think it was much more than that. William I brought in an entirely different attitude towards naming and record-keeping. The previous tradition (pointed out on this forum in the naming thread) was for the British to give their kings nicknames to distinguish them (there were 3 Edwards before William I, none of whom, apparently, have a number - Edward I Longshanks becomes Edward I, as a descendant of William I, even though he's actually Edward IV).

The French had already evolved this numbering system (because they had to, and it worked, was specific and precise), but did not abandon nicknames.

At the time of William I, the number of French words that came into English is so great that there are many doctoral dissertations written on the subject; one could say that French virtually swamped English at the time. For example, the word "subject" comes into English at that time. French continued to pour into English over time, through multiple forces, even though the syntax was so different.

I don't know anything about German, but since I am frequently told in books that the ancient French were Frankish, one would think that some French would flow toward Germany (although linguists do point out how read English is to accept new words - which is one reason why English has so many more words than French, in total - at least, according to the linguists I read).

Also, on topic for this thread, I'm very interested in Charlemagne's theories of royal succession and inheritance, and his view of titles. He tried to give each of his sons (including the illegitimate ones) some kind of title, and it appears that he wanted to divide his conquests up, so that each legitimate son was the King of his own place (hence, King Pepin of Italy, originally born Carloman, I think).

But, almost as soon as Charlemagne was dead, this system started to deteriorate, with Louis the Pious attempting to assert control or even dominion over the entire kingdom once ruled by his father.

Charlemagne oversaw the crowning of Pepin in Italy, so it is clear he gave that Kingdom to that son. I can't help but see Louis the Pious as being in total defiance to the will of his father, which doesn't seem like such a good plan. Charlemagne seemed to know what he was doing; Louis the Pious just looks acquisitive, to me.

[Lady Deborah]

This is some more info to add to the mix: The Alanii or Alans. The Alans or Alani were a group of nomads who spoke an Eastern Iranian language which derived from Scytho-Sarmatian and which in turn evolved into modern Ossetian. They originated in an area near modern day Turkey and northward.

Around 370, the Alans were overwhelmed by the Huns. They scattered and fled and some went west and ended up in Roman Gaul or France.
The Alans of Orléans played a critical role in repelling the invasion of Attila the Hun at the Battle of Châlons. After the 5th century, however, the Alans of Gaul were subsumed in the territorial struggles between the Franks and the Visigoths, and ceased to have an independent existence.
Several towns with names possibly related to 'Alan', such as Allainville, Yvelines, Alainville-en Beauce, Loiret, Allaines and Allainville, Eure-et-Loir, and Les Allains, Eure, are taken as evidence that a contingent settled in Armorica, Brittany, which retained a reputation for outstanding horsemanship with Gregory of Tours and into the Middle Ages, preferring to remain mounted to fight in contrast with all their neighbors, who dismounted in battle.

Wikipedia has an extensive listing.

What's interesting as far as proto French goes is that it likely had some of the Alani language in it, some words at least, since it was influential enough to have places named for its people.

One of the people on The history site clued me in to This aspect.

Hey now, watch how you talk about my grandfathers!!!LOL! no really. And I think Charlemagne had to have been a shining example to Have achieved what he did so thanks for the kind words!

[Warren]

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi

..., and it appears that he wanted to divide his conquests up, so that each legitimate son was the King of his own place ... I can't help but see Louis the Pious as being in total defiance to the will of his father, which doesn't seem like such a good plan. Charlemagne seemed to know what he was doing; Louis the Pious just looks acquisitive, to me.

Charlemagne may have thought he knew what he was doing in regards to trying to keep the peace between his sons, but the logical extension of the "give each son a kingdom" policy is disastrous fragmentation and weakening of the State accompanied by incessant territorial squabbles, disputes, local wars and foreign incursions.

For evidence, see what happened in Poland when this short-sighted and ultimately ruinous system of succession was introduced: Boleslaw III (d 1138) divided the Principality of Poland among his sons which led to almost 200 years of feudal fragmentation. It wasn't until Ladislaus I became King of Poland in 1320 that reunification was achieved.

In short, it took almost two centuries to repair the damage caused by that one decision. Incredible, insane perhaps, but very real.

[PrincessKaimi]

Yes, in retrospect, Charlemagne (who is also my great grandfather - something like 30 generations ago) made a huge mistake. But he did it out of kindness and ordinary human feeling for one's children, I think, rather than from a notion of state building. I think he knew there would be problems, but he couldn't bring himself to practice the male primogeniture thing.

I don't know that I regard having smaller kingdoms as "damage," if the kingdoms retain their sense of kinship. Unfortunately Charlemagne's children and grandchildren were not all very nice to each other (my ancestor, Bernard, was illegitimate though apparently recognized by his grandfather as the rightful heir to Italy, but lost the throne of Italy, and died when his uncle poked his eyes out with a red hot stiletto).

It is said that remorse over this event is what made Louis I so pious. And it didn't benefit Louis the Pious so much, in terms of territory - the French didn't manage to hold on very tightly to Italy for that much longer, anyway, despite the attempt to keep lands consolidated more in the hands of one heir at a time.

(So hello, cousin(s) - )

[Kasumi]

The fate of the head of King Henry IV is at the hands of... Nicolas Sarcozy
Article in French
Google translation into English

[Cory]

Renewal of a monument dedicated to Henri V:

Noblesse & Royautés » Appel pour la restauration du monument du comte de Chambord à Sainte Anne d’Auray

[An Ard Ri]

Domine salvum fac regem (God save the King / Dieu sauve le Roi)

Kingdom of France / Royaume de France (496-1791) - YouTube

[An Ard Ri]

Claude de France,Queen Consort of France and Duchess of Brittany died on July 20th,1524.

Claude was a daughter of Louis XII and Anne of Brittany,she married the future Francois I in May,1514.



Claude of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Artemisia]

I've always been fascinated by the fates of Anne of Brittany and her daughters, Claude and Renee.
Of the three, Renee was certainly the luckiest.

Poor Claude; her life - like her mother's - mainly consisted of pregnancies.
I wonder whether she would have been happier, if she had married Charles V, as Anne had intended.

[An Ard Ri]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

I've always been fascinated by the fates of Anne of Brittany and her daughters, Claude and Renee.
Of the three, Renee was certainly the luckiest.

Poor Claude; her life - like her mother's - mainly consisted of pregnancies.
I wonder whether she would have been happier, if she had married Charles V, as Anne had intended.

All 3 of them are highly interesting ladies.Poor Claude had the mother in law from hell,the formidable Louise de Savoie dominated her son's court and Claude was relegated to 3rd place after the King's mother and sister.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri

All 3 of them are highly interesting ladies.Poor Claude had the mother in law from hell,the formidable Louise de Savoie dominated her son's court and Claude was relegated to 3rd place after the King's mother and sister.

The entire family of Francis I is quite fascinating, although my favourite is undoubtedly Marguerite of Navarre.
She was one of the most influential, educated, enlightened and beautiful women of her time.
Her daughter, Jeanne d'Albret, inherited her character from Marguerite.

[An Ard Ri]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

The entire family of Francis I is quite fascinating, although my favourite is undoubtedly Marguerite of Navarre.
She was one of the most influential, educated, enlightened and beautiful women of her time.
Her daughter, Jeanne d'Albret, inherited her character from Marguerite.

Couldn't agree more,Jeanne did inherit some of her mothers characters but more of her formidable grandmothers.Jeanne was said to be rather haughty especially regarding her rank,Philip II of Spain who regarded himself as the King of Navarre used to refer to Jeanne as 'Madame de Vendôme' and not 'La Royne de Navarre' .Jeanne d'Albret was said to be furious at this slight and complained incessantly to the Queen Regent Catherine de Médicis who would burst into fits of laughter!

[HM King Edward VII]

Originally Posted by mknyazev

I'd appreciate images of any French Queens Consorts esp. medieval and of the 16-19 cent. Clementia of Hungary, Anna de Baujeau etc. The more, the better.

All that you have to do is look it up on wikipedia and there will be a pic of every reigning king or reigning pretender to the french throned!!!

"VIVE LA ROI!"