|
Return to Contents
"Lé Rouai, Nou’ Duc"[1]
Paul Matthews
Introduction
Every Channel Islander knows that the Queen (or King) land is also the Duke of Normandy [2] . But
is that really right? Does the medieval title of "Duke of Normandy" still exist?
And, if it does, is it really the Queen who holds it? There is a wealth of historical
and legal material, spanning at least three different jurisdictions, bearing on
the point. As there is enough here for several doctoral theses, constraints of time
and space mean that this article can only include the barest summary. Historians
will shudder. But lawyers have a living to earn.
History
By three grants, in 911, 924 and 933, French "Kings" ceded the ar now known as Normandy to Scandinavian invaders.
Their leader became known as dux, or duke, of Normandy. The boundaries
of the areas ceded are imprecise [3], and there is no clear
evidence that they included the Channel Isl,
which the Normans may simply have taken by force from whoever was occupying them
[4] . Williaormandy
succeeded his father Robert as Duke in 1035. In 1066 he became King of England,
by conquest if not also by nomination of Edward the Confessor [5]
. It would be simple if we could say that every king (and queen regnant) of England
since then has also been Duke of Normandy. But it would not be true. It was not
even true when King William died. At the timf
the Conquest, Normandy was part of France, and the Dukes of Normandy were (at least
nominally) vassals of the Kings of France [6] . England was
another matter, and its King was no man’s vassal. On William’s death in 1087, his
eldest son Robert (Curthose) becake
of Normandy, whilst his second son William (Rufus) became King of England
[7] . William died a bachelor in 1100 in mysterious circumstances in the
New Forest. A third son, Henry (Beauclerc) usurped the English throne from his elder
brother [8] . Six years lateposed Robert as Duke of Normandy as well, depriving Robert’s son (William
Clito) of his inheritance in the process.
When King (and Duke) Henry died 35,
he intended hir Matilda (or Maud)
to succeed him in both titles [9] . But his nephew Stephen
of Blois, preferred by the barons [10], fought a civil war
with his cousin, and made himself king and duke. On the other hand, Matilda’s second
husband, Geont of Anjou, managed
to depose Stephen as Duke of Normandy, and himself became duke in right of his wife
[11] . Indeed, in 1149-1150, during his own he transmitted the title to their son Henry
[12] . A deal was struck with Stephen, whose eldn Eustace had died [13] .
Stephen would remain king for his life, but Henry would succeed him on his death.
Stephen died in 1154, and Henry at the age of 21 becam Henry II of England. He was now Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou since
his father’s death in 1151, and also Duke of Acquitaine in right of his own wife
Eleanor. [14]
This valuable collection of French fiefs in the hands of a mined individual [15] would have seemed
alarming to the French king. At this timench
kings were weak, and their vassals strong [16] . How much
territory the French king was really king of depended on many factors. But in pract very much smaller than modern
day France [17] . To have a powerful foreign king as a nominal
vassal in many different parts of what you claimed as your kingdom was both difficult
and dangerous. King Philippe Auguste (who had succeede the French throne in 1180) therefore encouraged Henry’s four sons, Henry
the younger [18], Richard, Geoffrey and John, to revolt against
their father. In truth theded little
encouragement in this [19] . Geoffrey (whom he courtrst) [20] died in 1186, in
his father’s lifetime. He left a posthumous son, Arthur. Philippe Auguste turned
his attention to Richard (Teart)
[21] . Henry died in 1189, to be succeeded by Richard. But
Richard was rarely in England, being more interested in the Crusades to the Holy
Land. He caused Philippe Auguste little bother. After Richard’s death in 1199, John
usurped the place of his young nephew Arthur and became king. Geoffrey’s widow was
the heiress of the Duke of Brittany, to which title Arthur in due course succeeded.
Philippe Auguste now turned his attention to John. he required John to come to France and appear before the Court of
the French barons at Paris, to answer claims of breach of feudal obligations
[22] . John refused. Philippe Auguste was thus able to claim before the
peers of France that all John’s French possessions were forfe French crown [23] . With Duke Arthur’s assistance,
Philippe swept into Normandy and Anjou hn from the mainland of northern France by 1204 [24]
. He even managed to occupy the Channel Islands, on at least two occ But only temporarily [25]
. The French did so well against John that, with the support of the Pope (wd ordered John’s "deposition"), they even contemplated
invading England [26] . However, in 1216 John died, to be
succeeded by his own son King Henry III. The threat of invasion receded.
But Henry III did not give up the claim to continental Normandy. For much of his
reign he was certainly described in legal documents as Duke of Normandy, even though
the only parts of the Duchy still remaining even nominally under his control were
the Channel Islands. In his confirmatory charter 223 [27], for example, Henry is described as King
of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Guyan (Guyenne, i.e. Acquitaine)
and Earl of Anjou. He waarly described
in a Royal Writ issued to the Warden of the Channel Islands in 1248, requiring him
to inquire into the laws instituted there by King John [28]
. In 1254 Henry conferred an apanage on his elder son Edward, granting him all his
remaining French territories - including the Channel Islands - on terms "that they
should never be separated from the Crown.t
should remain to the Kings of England in their entirety for ever."
[29]
The Anglo-French conflict over Normandy dragged on until 1259, when the Treaty of
Paris wad. By this treaty Henry,
concerned to protect his more valuable interests in Acquitaine, expressly gave up
all claim to Normandy [30], and never thereafter called himsuke [31] .
If matters rested there, there would be no question of any English sovereign thereafter
having legal right to the title Duke of Normandy. Irue that Henry’s son Edward protested at his father’s action, both then
and once he had become king in 1272 [32] . But Edward subsequently
became Couthieu in right of his
wife [33], and Normandy became less important to him. So he
too renounced an he might have had
to Normandy, in the Treaty of Amiens in 1279 [34] . Consistently
with this, in known as Britton
[35], in his own ation
of Magna Carta, in 1297 [36], and in other legal documents,
such as a nomination of commi
hear a case in Jersey in 1305 [37], Edward I was described
as King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guyan, but (unlike his father in
1223 and 1248) neither as Duke of Normandy, nor as Earl of Anjou. This does not
mean that the status of tnel
Islands changed [38] . But from now on their overlord was
King of England, not Duke of Normandy, and, w French of the time may have thought [39], any
nominal suzerainty of the King of France h
gone. [40]
As Shakespeare might say, the scene now moves to France. In 1314 the King of France,
Philippe IV (Le Bel) died, leaving three sons and a daughter. These three sons were
to becomn as Les Rois Maudits
[41] . Philippe’s wife, their mother (who had predeceased
her husband) had been Queen of Navarre and Countess of Champagne in her own right.
Philippe’s eldest son became King Louis X. He died in 1316, leaving a daughter Jeanne,
aged 5, and a posthumous son (Jean) who lived only a few days. Jeanne’s claim to
succeed her baby brother was ignored iour
of her uncle, Philippe Le Bel’s second son, also called Philippe (Le Long)
[42] . Philippe was hurriedly crowned King Philippe V. An assembly of nobles,
called for the purpose, approved the coronation:
"Etiam declaratum fuit quod ad coronam Franciae er non succedit". [43]
In dynastic terms, this king fared no better. He died in 1322, also leaving a daughter,
but no son. The circumstances of the father’s succession hence excluded the daughter.
So the third brother, Charles, became king. He reigned until 1328, when he died.
He too left a posthumous daughter, but again no son. Jeanne, the daughter of Louis
X, was now seventeen, but (given the declaration of 1317) it was too late for her.
Philippe Le Bel’s fourth child was a daughter, Isabelle. She had married King Edward
II of England, the weak son of Edward I. Edward II had died the year before, and
their son, the young Edward III, was now the King of England. Edward was thus the
nephew of the last three French kings. That made him their nearest male heir. He
was not - like Jeanne - a woman. But he was descended through a woman.
And - much worse - he was the king of a deadly rival kingdom. Small surprise, therefore,
that the nobles of France instead supported the late king’s first cousin, Philippe
De Valois, to become King Philippe VI. Edward was excluded expressly because he
claimed through a woman:
"Quod si dictus filius izabellae habereod
jus in regno, hoc sibi naturalitur accederit ratione matris; ubi ergo mater nullum
jus haberet, per consequens nec filius..." [44]
So Edward III of England was passed over as King of France. His mother, Queen Isabelle,
on his behalf sent envoys to protest. But to no l [45] . The claim appears to have been dropped.
In 1328 Edward was only sixteen. Indeed, he did homage to Philippe De Valois for
his French fiefs, including Aine
[46] . But later on resentment grew (as it does). Within a
few years his claim to the French throne itself led directly to the Hundred Years’
War. Historians hebated the causes
of this war [47] . Was it feudal, in that Edward III disliked
doing homage to another king, his equal? Or was it dynastic, in that Edward resented
being passed over for the French throne? Did Edward mean his claim to be taken seriously?
Or was it just a diplomatic or negotiating tactic to obtain concessions elsewhere?
From the point of view of this article, it does not matter very much.
What we should note is that frards
Philippe De Valois, now King Philippe VI, gave his son Jean (later King Jean II
Le Bon) the title Duke of Normandy [48] . Even Froissart,
a fairly objective, even anglophile, observer of events, so refers to him in his
Chronicles [49] . So it is at he was so known. And, once Jean succeeded his father as king
in 1350, he conferred on his own eldest son Charles (later Charles V Le
Sage) the title Duke of Normandy in his turn. Froissin followed suit. [50]
In 1332 no one on the English side appears to have t to be called Duke of Normandy [51] . Indeed
Edward III did not claim the title of King of France 1341 [52] . It was only about a quarter of a
century later, about 1357, during his campaigns in Normandy, that Edward III of
England appears for a short time t
used the title [53] . But unlike the kings of France, who
gave it to their eldest sons, Edward kept the title for himself, and did not give
it to his own son, the Black Prince. Understandably enough, Edward in his military
campaign was seeking to trade on the family association with the surrounding area,
despite the fact that it was over a hundred years since any of his ancestors had
used the title. In any event the use of the title was ambiguous. Was Edward claiming
to be Duke through his father, as successor to King John? Or was he claiming to
be Duke through his mother, ie as successor to King Philippe Auguste, who had taken
back Normandy lf? Whatever the
position, it appears the use of the title was tactical rather than heartfelt
[54] . For only a few years later, in the Treaty of Bretigny, in 1360, King
Edward III, like his grandfather and great grandfather before him, settled for guarantees
about Acquitaine in return for agreeing to give up all claim to France itself and
to mainland Nandy [55]
. For the third time in a century, an English king in a solemn treaty put Acquitaine
first and renounced, for himself and his successors, the title of Duke Normandy [56] . But the Channel
Islands themselves continued to be held by the English King and, whatever the pus position [57],
for the future it in full ownership
[58] .
Bretigny marked a pause in the Hundred Years’ War. It did not mark its end. Recriminations
on each side, about the other keeping its terms, led in due course to Edward III’s
cement in 1369 that he was retaking
the name and title of King of France [59], and then to a resumption
of hostilities [60] . ed a pitch during the reign of King Henry V, 1413 - 1422. The Black
Prince had died before becoming king, and his own son, Richard II, had been deposed
in 1399 by his cousin Bolingbroke (Henry IV), the father of King Henry V. Henry
V was thus the grandson of John of Gaunt, and the great grandson of King Edward
III.
Henry however pressed his claim, not be to Duke mandy [61], but to be King of France.
Shakespeare makes Henry V say
"Cheerly to sea, the signs of war advance:
No King of England, if not Kinance".
[62]
This is not just a great exit line. It accurately encapsulates the dynastic argument
according to which the English king was also the person entitled to the French throne,
and that the Valois kings were usurpers. In making his claim to the throne of France,
Henry was met - seemingly for the first time - with reliance by King Charles VI
"Le Fou" (grandson of Jean II Le Bon) on the Salic Law. We will return briefly to
this issue later. Henry invaded Fr
and (inter alia) won the battle of Agincourt in 1415. English statutes at the time
refer to him as "King of England and France, and Lord of Ireland"
[63] . Not Duke of Normandy. It is true that, in the period 1417 to 1419,
during his campaigns in France, he did relf locally as the Duke of Normandy [64] .
But, as with his great grandfather, this may well have been a practical approach.
In 1420 the victorious King Henry V entered the Treaty of Troyes with King Charles
VI. This achieved everything that Henry wanted. He married Charles’ daughter Catharine,
and was recognised as heir to the French throne after the death of Charles. Charles
VI’s son, the Dauphin (also Charles) was disinherited. Twy important features of the Treaty of Troyes should be noted. First,
Henry no longer claimed to be King of France [65] . Instead
he claimed to be heir to the King of France. So he no longer attacked the
title of the French king. Instelaimed
through it. Secondly, mainland Normandy was in future to be treated
in legal terms as a part of France [66] . Once Henry
becg of France [67],
it was to go where France went, and not separately. Until then, it was to be retained
by Henrs own hands
[68] . But the Treaty left the Channel Islands in the hands of the English
King as King; they were not rejoined to con
Normandy [69] . The Treaty was bitterly attacked by Charles
the Dauphin, and with reason, since it disinherited him. Unfortunately, Henry V
died in 1422, shortly after the birth of his son (who became King Henry VI), and
shortly before the French King les
VI himself. On the death of Charles VI, mainland Normandy was indeed reunited with
France [70] . No attempt appears ever to have been made to
reintegrate the Channel Islands into Normandy, let alone into France itself. We
will never know what would have happened had Henry V survived.
What did happen was a continuation of the Hundred Years’ War. Inevitably,
those supporting Henry VI claimed him, following the treaty of Troyes, to be King
of France as well as of England. No separat
to be Duke of Normandy can be found [71] . Given the favourable
terms of the Treaty of Troyes, it would be surprising if any were made. Ns, distinctions between France generally and
Normandy in particular were occasionally found [72] . It is
unclear whether these had any greater significance than the purely geographical.
At that point in the war, the English retained physical control of Normandy, but
not all of France. There was accordingly reason why some English statutes should
expressly purport to have effect in Normandy, but not in the rest of France. The
French, meanwhile, aided by Jeanne D’Arc, made gains. They retook Paris in 1436,
and, after the battle of Formigny in 1450, managed to seize back the territory of
mainland Normandy. Thereafter, the only Dukes of Normandy so called are found on
the French side. They include Charlrry
(brother of Louis XI) for a few months in 1465 to 1466, and (centuries later) Louis
Charles, the second son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, who from his birth in
1785, until the death in 1789 of his elder brother, the Dauphin, had borne the title
of Duke of Normandy. [73]
We have seen how the titles claimed by English (and French) monarchs varied over
the late medieval period. It would be sensible to complete the picture by bringing
the claiming of titles more or less u
All English monarchs from Henry VI on [74], without exception,
claimed the title of "King (or Queen) of France", until the Treaty of Amiens in
1802, by which the claim to that title was formally ed [75] . However I can trace no claim by any
of them to be Duke of Normandy. This is hardly surprising, as such a claim would
be inconsistent with the treaties of Paris, Bretigny, Amiens and of course Troyes,
under which the clearest title to be King of France arose. Thus, in an Ord Council of Henry VII [76],
the Jersey record shows that Thomas Lemprière was "Bailli de notre Souverain Sire
le Roi d’Angleterre en l’Ile de Jersey." In the body of the Order a reference
was made to "the subjects of the King of the said Island." Similarly, Orders in
Council of King Henry VIII in 1541, addressed (in Latin) to "Hillary Delaroque,
lieutenant of the bailiff of our Island of Jersey", referred to the King simply
as "King of England and of France, Defender of the Faith, Lord of Ireland and Head
of an Church on Earth.
[77] " And, in another Jersey court document referring to a Jersey family,
King Philip and Queen Mary were described as King and Queen of England, France,
Naples, Jerusalem and Ireland, and many other princely and noble titles too, but
n all in relation to
Normandy [78] . The charters to Jersey of lnarchs [79] show only that
they claimed to be Kings (or Queens) of England and France, and Lords of Ireland.
None of them claimed to be Duke of Normandy. The Cheen Elizabeth I [80] makes some references to
Dukes of Normandy, in confirming earlier charters and grants "of our said progenitors
formerly Kings of England and Dukes of Normandy", and in reserving rights due "by
the prerogative of our Crown of England or the Dukedom of Normandy or otherwise".
But there is no suggestion whatever that she claimed herself to be Duke. Subsequent
Royal Charters are to similar effect.
As against that, there are letters patent of King s in 1615 [81], recording the decision of the
Privy Council in a dispute about the right of nomination of Bailiff. Although the
opening words in giving his titles refer only to James being king (of England, Scotland,
France and Ireland), there is in the body of the document a phrase referring to
"Us our heyres & succes[sors] Kinges of this Realme of England and Duckes of
Normandie…."
The act of the Royal Court enrolling these let
patent [82] also referred to King James I as "Le Roy d’Angleterre
et Duc de Normandie &c". In addition t an extract [83] (probably made in 1617) from
the rolls of the Royal Court referring to the king as "Roy de la Grande Bretagne
France et Irlande et Duc de Normandie defenseur de la Foy etc". The first
of these appears to be an isolated incident, and the others are local actions by
Jersey officials, and not consistent with royal claims. However, Advocate Raoul
Lemprière has descrn incident at
the coronation of King George III where a person apparently "representing the Duke
of Normandy" took part in the ceremony [84] . Unfortunately,
I have been unable to trace the source of this statement, or any contemporary evidence
srting it [85]
. This is meagre support indeed for a claim to the subsistence of the title "Duke
of Normandy" in the English sovereign.
The titles of English kings and queens since 1802 make reference to diverse other
territories, from Ireland to India, but never to Normandy as such. Many British
and U.K. statutes refer to the Channel Islands, in turn making plain that they are
within "Her Majesty’s Dominions". But they do not suggest that the sovereign in
relation to these territories is anything other than queen (or king). The present
Queen’s title makes no claim to be andy,
or, indeed, Duke of anywhere [86] . She is "of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northerd
and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Defender of the Faith and Head of
the Commonwealth" [87] . The Channel Islands n the United Kingdom [88],
but they are within Her Majesty’s "other Realms and Tes"
[89], and of these she claims to be - and is - Queen, not
Duke. When a Crown appointment is made in the Channel Island by Letters Patent,
the Queen icribed as Queen. Not as
Duke of Normandy. In other commonwealth countries her titles are sometimes varied
by local legislation [90] . So for example in Canada she is
Queen of Canada and in New Zealand she is Queen of New Zealand. But there is no
Jersey legislation that I am aware of that makes any similar provision, let alone
any that calls her Duke of Normandy.
Law
So much - so shortly - for the history, and the royal titles. What of the law? There
is some difficulty in talking about "law" in this area, and particularly in relation
to the late medieval period. This is not private law, like contract or
tort law. It relates to what we would now call "public" law, law relating to public
institutions and authorities. And particularly to international relations : public
international law, in fact. Not a well-established subjec late medieval period. Moreover, the actual rules relating to royal
succession and titles at this time were simply not settled [91]
. But this is a law review, and we must do our best.
First, the Salic Law. This is really like Sherlock Holmes’ mysterious incident of
the dog in the night time. We have seen how in 1317 the French nobility (after the
event) approved the coronation of Philippe V as King, and for good measure declared
that no woman could hold the throne. And in 1328 this was ext
to a man claiming through a woman. But no one referred to the Salic Law to justify
this view [92] . Indeed, the doctors of the University of
Paris in 1317 had used a completely different reason for preferring Philippe to
his niece Jeanne, and that was that he was one generation less removed from St Louis
(Philippe’s great grandfather) [93] . Strange is view seems to us today, there were a number of
late thirteenth century cases of European royal succession apparently o basis. [94]
An alternative view might have been ely
the nobility. But elective monarchy had disappeared from France centuries before
[95], and the notion of legislative power in the bat of the prevailing culture [96]
. So even if this was what actually happened, it could not be expressed in that
way.
It might have been the requirements of the coronation cere
Even if, by this time, the ceremony no longer made a king, it had far greater
significance in ensuring his recognition than the equivalent English ceremony
[97] . It was expl
religious. The French King was the "Très Chrétien"
[98] . He was anointed and crowned King Son & Holy Spirit" [99] . It was said
"women ... could not touch sacred things, which nch Kings must" [100] . But although that might
explain why a woman could not be queen, it could not explain why she could
not transmit the right of kingship to her own son. In any event, the earliest
that this view is found in French sources is in 1418-1419, a century after the events
of 1317 and 1328.
A further, misogynistic justification for the exclusion of wo advanced by the Chevalier of the Songe du Vergier
[101] . Women are prone to tell lies, and hence
cannot give evidence in law. "They are uncertain, rash, and malicious; in all things
they follow the dictates of their arbitrary desires. They arially, weak.. [A] woman is manifestly less fitted to defend their commonwealth
than is a man". [102]
But it was in reality a question o
man for the job. France needed a strong, French, King. In the circumstances,
Philippe de Valois was the best candidate [103] . The Salic
Law had nothing to do with it. The essentially practical approach can be illustrated
in this way. The Kingdom of Navarre and the County of Champagne had belonged to
Louis X, as the eldest son of his mother, Joan, Queen of Navarre and Countess of
Champagne in her own right. No one claiming through the Queen of Navarre could suggest
that, as a matter of law (eg the Salic Law) those titles could not be held by a
woman. Yet Louis X’s own five year old daughter, Jeanne, was in practice passed
over in favour of her uncle, Philippe Le Long, King Philippe V. And after him her
other uncle, Charles IV. And on his death, the nobles could support Philippe De
Valois as king: he was after all royal, the son of Philippe IV Le Bel’s younger
brother. But, and importantly, he had no claim whatever to be King of Navarre and
Count of Champagne. These were titles which descended through Philippe IV Le Bel’s
wife. So these titles were now, somewhat belatedly, recognised in little Jeanne,
aged seventeen.
So not only was the Salic Law not expressly invoked in awarding the French throne
to Philippe De Valois; it was expressly not applied in relation to the
Kingdom of Navarre and County of Champagne. And it does not appear ever to have
been invoked in relation to the title Duke of Normandy. Indeed, as we have seen,
Stephen of Blois, Geoffrey of Anjou and King Henry II all became Duke of Normandy,
the first through his mother Adela, daughter of Henry I; the other two through King
Henry’s other daughter Matilda. Geoffrey claimed as husband, II as son [104] . If the
point mattered, neither Victoria nor Elizabeth II would be disqualified by sex from
holding the title by virtue of the Salic Law.
The invocation of the Salic Law as a reason for choope de Valois came much later. The earliest reference seems to have
been in 1358 [105], without perhaps anyone rea importance to France. That importance was
only brought out by Jean de Montreuil [106] about 60 years
later, when Henry V was King of England. And there were other pole to similar effect [107] .
But the classic work on the subject was not publ
until 1464 [108], a century and a half after the events supposed
to be based on it! Nevertheless, the sentiment was lonhe exclusion of women from the throne of France survived into the Constitution
of 3 September 1791 [109], under which Louis XVI d as King, the Sénatus-consulte organique
of 1804, making Napoleon the Emperor of the French [110],
and even the Sénatus-consulte of king Napoleon III Emperor [111] . It also survived
into the systems of satellite states, though in Spain it was expressly abolished
(in favour of the daughter of Ferdinand VII, who succeeded her father as Isabel
II in 1833).
The argument based on the Salic law was not strong, in any event. Shakespeare, basing
himself on Archbishop Chichele’s statement in Holinshed’s Chronicles, gives
the Archbishop of Canterbury in Henry V a powerfully destructive speech:
the Salic law applied to a part of Germany, not France; that part was later conquered
by the French; French Kings have succeeded to the Crown through women;
and lastly the Bible is also invokor
good measure. [112]
French Law
Secondly, French law in general. There are a number of problems for the English
lawyer looking at French law from the medieval to the pre-revolutionary period.
First of all there is language. The older texts are in late medieval Latin or old
French. Second, there is a political and cultural dimension which the modern Englishman
finds far more difficult to approach than (say) the equivalent period in English
legal history (which is hard enough). Third, there is very little academic material
actually available to an English lawyer. French lawyers do not seem very interested
in legal history before the Revolution, and the little there is cannot easily be
accessed in England. Nonetheless, I have tried to make sense of the few resources
I have.
We must begin with the fact that William the Conqueror and his successors down to
John were peers of France, holding the dukedoms of Normandy and (latterly) of Acquitaine.
As the Dukes were Kings of a powerful neighbouring state, there were obvious
tensions in the feudal relation between them and the f France. As already described [113], in 1202
John’s refusal to appear before the nobles of France to answer allegations of breaking
his feudal obligations may have led directly to (i) a declaration by the Court of
France of forfef the title and
honours of Duke of Normandy [114], and (ii) the forced taking
(or retaking) of possession by the French King, by way of execution of the judgment
of the French Court. (In rn times
the very existence of the judgment has been controverted by the British
side [115], but that need not detain us here: this is the
perspective of French law, after all.) But what is clear is that the judgment
- if it existed - was not enforced in relation to the Channel Islands. It is difficult
to know how medieval lawyers would have viewed this failure. Perhaps they would
have seen it as enabling John to continue to be regarded as de facto Duke
of (at least part of) Normandy. Or perhaps they would have seen it as simply leaving
it open to John to establish a new title, based on war-like occupation and resistance
to invasion by the French but attaching to him as King of England. The
latter appears to have be preferred
view of the judges of the International Court of Justice in the Minquiers and Ecrehous
case in 1953 . [116]
As to mainland Normandy, on thnd,
French lawyers appear to have had no doubt. The Ancienne Coûtume
[117], which De Grid
[118] was written probably at the end of the thirteenth century, but
for which he took the text from that of Le Rouillé’s Grand Coutum 1539 [119], simply said that
the King of France now held the lordship and dignity of the duchy. Whilst not all
the great writers on the Coutume dma expresew, Bérault [120], Godefroy [121],
Routier [122], Base
[123], and ard
[124] all took the view that the Duchy of Normandy belonged
to the Crown of France. The French King indeed granted a Charter to t in 1315 [125] . But
in none of these sources is there any reference to the Channel Islands.
What is not so clear is whether the French lawyers took the view that their King
was the Duke, or whether there was no longer a Duke, and Normandy was held
directly by the King. Bérault expressly red
to John as "le dernier des Ducs de Normandie" [126]
. As already stated [127], there were amples of subsequent French Kings granting the
title of Duke of Normandy to their own sons. This supports the view. (In addition, it would be consistent with
the English law relating to merger of titles in the Crown. [128]
)
The complicating factor is the abolition of the French monar
As is well known, this did not happen as a single event, but as a series of events,
lasting from the Revolution to the end of the Franco-Prussian War
[129] . The original despotic monarchy was replaced in 1791 by a constitutional
one, which was then in the following year abolished. The First Republic was succeeded
in 1804 by the Empire, and then (in 1815) by the restoration of the Monarchy. But
that lasted only until 1848, and the institution of the Second Republic. In 1852,
the Seconmpire replaced that, to be
itself replaced by the Third Republic in 1871. The constitutional documents governing
these changes [130] do not (perhaps unsurprisingly) deal
with questions of titles and honours. And I have been unable to locate any discussion
of the possible transmission of any residual rights of the King (whether as King
or Duke) through to some officer or institution (e.g. the President) of the Republic.
But three practical points can be made. First, the pretender to the French throne,
the Count of Paris, does not claim to be Duke of Normandy. Indeed, his ancestors
have claimed (and held) a wide variety of titles, including Duke of Chartres, Duke
of Orleans, and Duke of Guise, but never of Normandy. And his eldest son bears the
title Count of Chambord. Second, the French Republic asserted its claim
to the Minquiers and the Ecrehous before the International Court of Justice as successor
to the French monarchy, based on the forfeiture of King John’s title. That of course
would not demonstrate a particular person as holding (in whatever representative
or official capacity) the rights due anciently to the Duke of Normandy.
The third point may do so. Until 1993, the Prindorra was governed by a medieval system which involved the sharing
of the role of head of state by two co-princes [131] . A
thirteenth century quarrel over sovereignty was settled in 1278 by awarding it to
the Counts of Foix and the Bishops of Urgel jointly. The title of Count
of Foix was united with that of the King of Navarre in 1479, and in 1589 Henry,
King of Navarre, became King Henry IV of France. So, from 1589 on, the King of France
was a co-prince of Andorra. At the Revoations between France and Andorra were suspended, and only resumed under
the Empire in 1806 [132] . The French co-prince thereafter
was the French Head of State. So it remained, even under the Third, Fourth and Fifth
Republics, that the President was the co-prince, as successor to the medieval seigneurial
rights of the Counts of Foix. In the absence of other authority, this may prove
an appropriate parallel for modern French law to follow, if called upon to do so.
Channel Islanders who have hitherto toasted "the Duke of Normandy" may not find
the logic very appealing, but, if it is right that the title Duke of Normandy -
or the rights attaching to it - survives, then French law, at least, might
well treat as the person entitled to exercise those rights the President of the
French Republic. Of course, in reality there is no practical possibility of the
French president seeking to do so in relation to the Channel Islands. But
in relation to mainland Normandy the argument has both practical and juristic merit.
English Law
Let us now briefly consider English law. The status of the Channel Islands is hardly
in doubt. When Philippe Auguste retook possession of continental Normandy in 1204,
King ained the Channel Islands.
As the International Court of Justice held in 1953, in the Minquiers and Ecrehous
case [133], he did not do so as the vassal of the King of
France. His right as Duke of Normandy lapsed, and a separate title grew up by force
of occupation, which attached to him as King of England. This was confirmed
by Bretigny (and Calais) in 136ddition,
we have seen [134] that the use of the title Duke of Normandy
by English monarchs after 1259 was sporadic and for some temporary purpose during
battle campaigns. And it ceased entirely after 1420. Yet the English Kings continued
to hold the Channel Islands. It must have been as King of England. There
is no suggestion of any grant after 1204 by anyone of any other title relating to
the Channel Islands. In the plea De Quo Warranto of 1309, for example,
the King’s justices in Eyre asked the commonalty of Jersey what law they used and
by what law they claimed to be governed, and other related questions. The questions
and answers recorded refer to the current lord as "the Lord the King", never as
the "Duke". Indeed, the only reference to the Duke at all is in er given by "Willelmus des Mareys" [dumaresq?]
[135], which includes the following words (in translation):
"He says that it is manifest that all the Islanders are of one and the same tongue,
and at the time which the Duchy of Normandy had a Duke, the Islands were
of that Duke, and as often as the Islanders make a perquisition of the Court of
the Lord the King, it is always written at their suggestion according to the law
and custom of tlands ..."
[136] (emphasis supplied).
On the other hand, a further plea De Quo Warranto, of 1331, recites petitions
from the commonalty of the Islands to the King, including these words (in translation):
"Whereas the Islands anciently parcel
of the Duchy of Normandy and in such manner hold of our Lord the King as of the
Duke ..." [137]
This is ambiguous. It may well mean that they hold of the King as they used to hold
of his ancestor, the Duke. On the other hand, it might be taken to suggest that
the King was regarded in the Islands as the Duke. But that is as far as
it goes. There is no suggestion that the King endorsed this approach, even if that
is what was meant. The King’s style and titles in the plea make no reference to
Normandy.
Coke, in his Institutes, said that
"the possessions of [the Channel Islands] being Puchy of Normandy, are a good seisin for the King of England for
the whole duchy." [138]
But as we have seen [139], this di mean that the King was other that a King. Instead, Coke used this statement
to justify the use of the "customes of Normandy" there.
Hale, writing in the seventeenth century, held that given up the title of Duke of Normandy [140],
the Islands were "annexed to the Crown of England", and "infra dominiu Angliae" [141],
though "not Parcel of the Realm of England" [142] . Blackstone
[143] in the eighteenth c
took r view, as dern writers [144] . None
of them suggested that the King was also the Duke. In the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries English case law has confirmed that Jersey and Guernsey, whilst part of
the domains of the Crown, and though in a poe part of the United Kingdom [145], are not legally
within the United gdom
[146] . One modern judicial dictum additionally says that they are "part
of the domains of Her Majesty as Duke of Normy"
[147] . But this is a lone voice, and it seems that no argument
was addressed on whether the Queen really was the Duke. Indeed, it was
irrelevant to the decision in the matter, which concerned the construction of the
phrase "beyond the seas" in English rules of court. Lastly, wherever Entes [148] refer to
the Channel Islands (which is not often) or to the Royal Style and Titles
[149], there mention of
the Duke of Normandy. Any references are to the King (or Queen) of the United Kingdom.
No UK statute changing the succession to the English or British throne, whether
in 1689, 1702 or 1936, has ever referred to or dealt with the title Duke of Normandy.
This strongly suggests that the title had gone. (Alternatively, it would permit
an argument that the current holder of the title was not the Queen, but the Stuart
pretender to the British throne, the Prince of Bavaria!)
The conclusion, so far as English law is concerned, must be that British
monarchs are not Dukes of Normandy, even in respect of the Channel Islands. But
even if they could otherwise be, under English law, Dukes of Normandy, there is
a further difficulty in the way. As a matter of Enerage law, it seems that when a peer becomes King, the peerage is merged
into the higher title, and disappears [150] . Thus, for example,
when King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, and the Duke of York succeeded him as King
George VI, the title of Duke of York ceased to exist, and could only be revived
or recreated by a new grant, such as occurred in 1986.
This can be seen also in relation to the Duchy of Lancaster. John of Gaunt was Edward
III’s fourth son, created Duke of Lancaster in 1362. His son Henry Bolingbroke succeeded
him in that title on his death in February 1399. His cousin King Richard II abdicated
in Henry’s favour in September 1399, and Henry was crowned King Henry IV in October
1399. But, although the new King ceased as a matter of law to buke of Lancaster, he was mindful of the turbulent
times in which he lived, and of how he had deposed the previous king
[151] . So he went to s
to have the lands and revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster administered separately
from those of the Crown [152], and to obtain ry approval for this [153]
. In that way he would always have something to fall back on if he ceased to be
king. This separatin maintained
ever since [154] .
It is true exist documents
referring to the King as Duke of Lancaster. These include instruments under the
seal of the Duchy of Lancaster [155], and letters patent
under the great seal. In addition Acts of Parliament dealing with Duchy affairs
sometimes did so too. One [156] in Victori referred to Queen Victoria as Duchess
of Lancaster. Closer still to the title of this essay is the time-honoured form
of the loyal toast in Lancashire: "The King, Duke of Lancaster", or, in the reign
of Queen Victoria and of the present Queen, "The Queen, Duke of Lancaster". But
our concern here is with what the law is, not with what laymen think it
is. And the fact is that the Royal style does not include any claim to
be Duke of Lancaster. Nor could it, short of Parliamentary sanction. As Lord Cairns
said, in a peerage case in 1876,
"The Duchy of Cornwall is held by the Prince of Wales for the time being - the Prince
of Wales becomes the sovereign of the country - becoming the sovereign of the country,
it is impossible that he can hold any other dignity. The fountain and source of
all dignities cannot hold a dignity himself. The dignity, therefore, as a dignity
to be held by the sovereign terminates, not by virtue of any provision in its creation
but from the absolute incapacity reign
to hold a dignity." [157]
Of course, this does not apply to foreign dignities. Norman and early Plantagenet
kings could claim to be King of England (by conquest) and Duke of Normandy or of
Acquitaine (as vassals of the King of France). But we have already dealt with the
title Duke of Normandy as a French title, under French law
[158] . He considering
it as an English title.
It may be said that there is a third possibility, that English law might
recognise the subsistence of the French title "Duke of Normandy" in someone,
though French law would not (or might not) so recognise it. There is not much learning
on the conflict of laws as applied to dignities a of honour. The general rule appears to be that English law
does not recognise foreign dignities and titles [159] . Whether
the So is exempt from that rule
is unclear, but there are examples of licences being granted by the Sovereign to
accept and enjoy such dignities [160] . At the end of the
day, as a practical matter, either the legal system giving rise to the title recognises
it or it does not. If it does not, then - whatever English law might think - for
all practical purposes it does not exist. Although France is a republic, titles
- even those dat to medieval
times - are officially recognised [161] . At best it would
seem that the pretender to the title would have to apply to the appropriate authority
or tribunal in France to adjudicate on the question whether, under French law, the
title can still be said to subsist today. There is no prospect of that happening
in this case.
Jersey Law
I turn finally to Jersey law. The status of Jependency of the British (via the English) Crown has already been
dealt with [162] . I have also mentioned the Royal Charters,
with their almost complete lack e
to Dukes of Normandy [163], and the local court documents,
with their occasional re
to them [164] . Of the Jersey legal writers, I have found
nothing in Le Geyt relevant to the argument. Poingdestre wrote a section of his
"Les tumes de L’Ile de Jersey"
[165] called "Des Droicts de la Couronne d’Angleterre en
Jersey". In that section he calls the islands
"le plus ancient Patrimoine & le pable des Roys d’Angleterre ..." [166]
And the islanders
"les plus ancients Subjects desdits royleterre ..." [167]
The only Duke he refers to is the first one, Rou (or Rollo). King eferred to as le Roy Jean
[168], and the King at the time he was writing as "Sa sté" [169] .
There is no support here for the view that Kings of England after 1259 were also
Dukes of Normandy.
Le Gros in his Droit mier
[170] has a section entitled "De l’organisation judiciaire
à l’époque du Vieux Coutumier et des Droits " [171], but this does not appear to
be suggesting that English monarchs after 1259 are Dukes of Normandy. De Gruchy’s
work on Medieval Laures in Jersey
[172]contains a number of references to the Kings of England,
but only one to the "Kuke"
[173] . Lemasurier’s book Le Droit le de Jersey [174] contains little bearing
on the point, though it refers constantly to the King of England rather than to
the Duke of Normandy as sovereign. For example, he says that, after 1204,
"Les insulaires ne plus hommage
à un roi qui était Duc de Normandie, mais au seul roi d’Angleterre".
[175]
As for legislation, there is no Royal Titles legislation that I have found. Nor
have I found any independent legislation there dealing with changes to the order
of succession, eg after the deposition of James II, or on the accession of George
I, or at the abdication of Edward VIII. The Code of 1771 contains, in the Oaths
to be taken by various officials, references to "notre Souvrerain... par la Grace
de Dieu, Roi de la Grande Bretagne, France et Irlande, et les Dominions qui en dépendent..."
In particular, the oath for advocates refers to "cette son Isle de Jersey".
The inference is obvious. This is the King’s island, the King’s
Court, and so on. Not the Duke’s. A règlement of 1937, concerning the variation
of permitted hours for the sale of alcohol at the time of the coronation refers
to "la célébration du Couronnement de Leurs Majestés le Roi George V et
la Reine Elizabeth." No mention of the Duke (or Duchess). A rare Jersey
law that refers to the feudal rights of the Crown is the Seigneurial Rights
(Abolition) (Jersey) Law 1966. This makes a number of references to "Her Majesty"
and "Her Majesty in Council". There is no reference to the Duchy or the Duke of
Normandy. Lastly, letters patent appointing Crown Officers in Jersey, up to and
including the office of Bailiff, refer to the British monarch in the style and titles
already discussed. Normandy is nowhere mentioned. Accordingly I conclude that there
is no basis in Jersey law, as distinct from English law, for treating the
Queen as Duke of Normandy. She is the Queen, and that is that.
Conclusion
Let us summarise the position. Kings of England were Dukes of Normandy, in a real
and meaningful sense, up to 1204. They claimed to be so until 1259, when
they gave up the title by international treaty. For the next 160 years there were
very rare - and short lived - attempts to call themselves Dukes of Normandy, but
none after 1420. French law would probably judge the English Kings to have forfeited
the title in 1202, and, although it appears to have been granted or used a few times
thereafter by French Kings, for most of the following centuries there was, according
to French law, no Duke. If there are residual feudal or seigneurial rights relating
to the Dukedom in continental Normandy, they have probably passed to the French
President. But, in relation to the Channel Islands, the English Kings established
a new and original title, effectively by force. English law, however, does not recognise
the creation of any separate Dukedom - or other title - in relation to the Islands,
and holds that the British monarch is their sovereign, in the capacity of King or
Queen. In any event, the King or Queen could not also be Duke under English peerage
law. Jersey law accepts - indeed asserts - the status of Crown dependency accorded
under English law, but does not provide for, or recognise, any separate title for
the British sovereign in Jersey.
This is as it should be. In modern times it would plainly be offensive to a friendly
neighbour state (France) for the British Crown to assert a right to the title of
Duke of a large part of that state. It would also be misleading, as it would suggest
a connection - even a power - which no longer exists. Of course Jersey law could
provide expressly for the sovereign to be known and referred to there as (say) the
Duke of the Channel Islands, or something of the sort. A kind of titular UDI. But
that would involve the loss of the immediate and obvious (not to say popular) connection
with Britain. In addition, there would be a need for separate legislation whenever
the succession was altered, and also for co-ordination with Guernsey.
The wisest course is to leave things as they are. The Queen in Jersey is, legally
speaking, the Queen. The vestiges of history relating to Ducal titles that remind
Jersey of its Norman past are, unlike some other areas of customary Norman law,
of no practical importance today. They are best left, as they are, to a f harmless after-dinner whimsy: "To the Queen,
our Duke" [176] .
Paul Matthews is a solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales and a consultant
with the firm of Withers, 12, Gough Square, London EC4A 3DE.
|
|
Footnotes - (Top)
[1] - "The King, our e"
[2] - Le Feuvre, Histot Gens d’Jerrì, 1976, 49-50; Lemprière, Customs,Ceremonies and Traditions
of the Channel Islands, 1976, 25-26; Kelleher, Triumph of the Country,
1994, 13; Mautalent-Reboul, unpublished doctoral thesis, Le Droit Privé Jersiais
(1995, University of Caen), p4 n8
[3] - Le Patourel, The N
Empire, 1976, 3-13
[4] - See the judgmenevi Carneiro in the International Court of Justice in the Minquiers and Ecrehous
case, 1953, 85-86; cf Balleine’s History of Jersey, revised ed 1981,
19, and Bois, A Constitutional History of Jersey, 1972, 14, Mautalent-Reboul, op
cit, 11, n34, and Harris, cyber.loi, Ch 1 (www.crills.com/cyber.loi)
[5] - Bates, William the or, 1989, Ch 5; Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England, 1986,
54-55
[6] - Le Patourel, The Nopire, 1976, 218-221.
[7] - This was apparen a settlement of the dispute between father and eldest son: see Bates,
William the Conqueror, 1989, 160-163, 180-181; cf Warren, Henry II,
1973, 46, and Chibnall, op cit, 56
[8] - Chibnall, -67
[9] - Ibi3
[10] - Warren, Henry , 12; Chibnall, op cit. 85
[11] - Warren, op cit, 30-all op cit, 97
[12] - Warren, op cit, 38; Chibnall, ; this was recognised by King Louis VII
of France in 1151; Warren, op cit
[13] - Warren, op cit, bnall, op cit, 99
[14] - The former wife of is VII of France
[15] - See Reynolds, Fiefs ssals, 1994, 272
[16] - See the judgment
Levi Carneiro in the International Court of Justice in the Minquiers and Ecrehous
case, 1953, 86; see also Selden, Titles of Honor, 1614, 195
[17] - See Guérard, Fra 82; Sumption, The Hundred Years’ War, 1990, 15-18
[18] - He died in 11
issue
[19] - Warren, Henry II, 1973, Chenjamin, in Saul (ed) England in Europe
1066-1453, 1994, 73-74
[20] - See Hutto96, 39
[21] - Ib0
[22] - Warren, Ki
1961, 71-74
[23] - Ibid, 74-75; Currydred Years’ War, 1993, 33-34; Hutton, Philip Augustus,
1896, 65-67
[24] - Warren, King 1, 93-99; Gillingham in Saul (ed), op cit, Ch VIII; the name John "Lackland"
however comes not from this loss, but from being originally excluded from his father’s
intended division of lands: Warren, Henry II, 1973, 594; Warren, King John, 1961,
28
[25] - Balleine’s Histy, revised ed 1981, 27
[26] - Hutton, op cit, 8gham, loc cit, 89
[27] - See Halsbury’s Stand, vol 10, 15
[28] - PRO, Chancery
Post Mortem, 32 Hen III, No 6
[29] - Studd, in Saul (ed; Prestwich, Edward I, 2nd ed 1997, 10-11
[30] - Curry, The d
Years’ War, 1993, 36
[31] - 1 Co Inst 7b; Powicke, The T 2nd ed 1961, 318; Studd, loc cit, 102
[32] - Ormrod in (ed) Bates & Curry, Englrmandy in the Middle Ages, 1994, 199
[33] - Johnstone (1914) 29 EHR 4, 316-317
[34] - Cu,
39
[35] - Britton, Ed ols
1865, Bk I, Prologue
[36] - See Halsbury’s St
of England, vol 10, 14
[37] - See Jersey Prison ase, Appendix Part 2, No 58 (October 24th 1305)
[38] - Powicke, The Thirtury, 2nd ed 1961, 318
[39] - Mautalent-Rebit, 32
[40] - See the judgment of No7th 1953 of the International Court of Justice in the Minquiers and Ecrehos
case, at 56, 76, 87
[41] - On the French succession at this ti37) 52 EHR 235, Curry, op.cit, 44-46.
[42] - Sumption, The Hundred Yea0, 106
[43] - "Also it was declared that a wucceed to the Crown of France" : Continuator of Guillaume de Nangis,
ed Societé de l’histoire de France,vol 1, 434
[44] - "That if the said son of Isabelle ght to the throne, this would naturally
have come to him by virtue of his mother; therefore as the mother had no right,
consequently neither did the son...." : ibid, vol 2, 83-84
[45] - Curry, op cit, 46-48; r, Temps de crises, temps d’espoirs, 1990 Sumption, The
Hundred Years’ War, 1990, 109
[46] - Curr
49
[47] - See eg Curry, op cit; Sut; Demurger, op cit; Ormrod,
The Reign of Edward III, 1990; Ormrod in Bates and Curry (eds), op cit;
Studd, in Saul (ed), op cit
[48] - Contamine in
Curry (eds), op cit, 227
[49] - Froissart, Chro
Penguin ed, 60; see also Selden, Titles of Honor, 1614, 173
[50] - Ibid, 8, 147
[51] - Le Patourel suggests, on very dence, that (in 1331 at least) the English King remained Duke
of Normandy to the inhabitants of the Channel Islands: The Medieval Administration
of the Channel Islands, 1937, 29; but the plea of Quo Warranto
on which Le Patourel relies clearly shows that (whatever the Channel Islanders thought)
the King claimed only to be King of England, Lord of Ireland and Duke of Acquitaine:
Placita Coram Rege, 5 Edw III, Mich, discussed below in text to n 137.
[52] - Rot Parl n 9
[53] - Ormrod, loc cit, 205, 20 cit, 62
[54] - For the alternative view, see cit, 210
[55] - Curry, op cit, 66; the renunciation in fact subsequently omitted in the
Treaty of Calais, ratifying Bretigny, later in the year: Ormrod, loc cit,
210; Chaplais, Camden Miscellany, vol xix (1952), 6
[56] - Although he was allowed to kes and lordship of St Sauveur: Ormrod, loc cit, 212), and the
French abandoned any claim to the Channel Islands (Falle, An account of the Island
of Jersey, 1837, 47; Role de Tractat.Pacis Franc, 34 Edw III m.10;
Judgment of Judge Levi Carneiro in the International Court of Justice dated November
17th 1953 in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, p 94)
[57] - See text t
40 above
[58] - Judgment of the Inte of Justice dated November 17th 1953 in the Minquiers and Ecrehos
case, p 76
[59] - Rot Parl 43 Edron, Henry’s Wars and Shakespeare’s Laws, 1993, 20;
Jones, Ducal Brittany 1364-1399, 1970, 60
[60] - Curry, op cp cit, Chs III, IV; Perroy, Camden Miscellany,
vol xix (1952), viii - xix
[61] - His Charter to the Channe14 does not include in his titles any reference to Normandy:
PRO, French Roll (Chancery) 1 Hen V, m 1 No 3
[62] - Henry V, Act .
[63] - Eg the st419)
[64] - Curry, op cit, 99-100; tes and Curry (eds), op cit, 248
[65] - See the statute 8 He0)
[66] - Curry in Baty
(eds), 236
[67] - Curry, op cit, 105-106, and in Bat (eds), op cit, 237; Demurger, op cit,103
[68] - Waugh, in Little and Poways in Medieval History, 349-359; Demurger, op cit,
103
[69] - See the judgment o Carneiro in the International Court of Justice dated 17 November 1953
in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, at 94-95
[70] - Allmand and Armstrong, s Before the Parlement of Paris, 1420-1436, 1982, 4-6;
cf Mautalent-Reboul, op cit, 62, n 180
[71] - Again, Henry VI’s Chartef 1441- 42 makes no claim to be Duke of Normandy: PRO, French
Roll (Chancery) 20 Hen VI, m 14 No 9
[72] - Eg the statute 4 Hen VI, c 2; and see Curry nd Curry (eds), op cit, 238
[73] - Contamine in Bates
[74] - See the statute 2 Hen VI (14 Inst 7b
[75] - The last statutes to style the English so King of France were those of 41 Geo III (1800)
[76] - Dated June 17th 1495, dealinnt Orgueil
[77] - Ordres du Conseilol 1, pp 2-3
[78] - Balleine’s History of Jeised ed, 1981, 95; this style appears to have been typical: 1 Co Inst 7b
[79] - See generally Heyting, Jershe United Kingdom, 1977, 6-18
[80] - PRO, Patent Roll, 4 E62), Part 3, m 37
[81] - Jersey: Ordres du Conseil, 1897 ed, e 96
[82] - Septemt
1615
[83] - PRO, State Papers, ic,
Addenda, James I, Vol 41, No 20
[84] - History of the Ch
Islands, 1974, 29
[85] - Although Hale, Prerogathe King, ed Yale 1975 (Selden Society, vol 92), writing
in the mid-seventeenth century says (at 46): "But indeed since the times of Henry
6 our titles to the duchies of Acquitaine and Normandy are become but titular; only
in the coronation of the Kings he that personates those dukes do help to perform
the ceremony." This, of course, is a century earlier than George III.
[86] - As to the Duchy of Lanca Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th ed, Vol 8, para 1523, and below,
text to nn 147-153
[87] - Royal Titles Act 195ation of May 28th 1953; De Smith (1953) 2 ICLQ 263
[88] - See Navigators ansurance Co Ltd v Ringrose [1962] 1 WLR 173; cf Stoneham v Ocean,
Railway and General Accident Insurance Co (1887) 19 QBD 237
[89] - Though The Queenebsite does not mention the Channel Islands at all, whether as a Commonwealth
realm or a dependent territory www.royal.gov.uk/acs/style.aspx, and links from there to "Realms"
and "Territories" (update April 2014 - website link now not available but relevent information appears to be found at
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/ChannelIslands.aspx
[90] - De Smith, 2-3
[91] - Potter
239
[92] - Demurger, o1, 41
[93] - Potter (19
235, 239
[94] -
1
[95] - Cf Guérard, Franc 81
[96] - Potter, lo241
[97] - Demurger, op cit, 39-4 loc cit, 251
[98] - Demu1
[99] - Ib
[100] - Anon, La loy salicque, premiere loy dis, fol 88v; see also Terre Rouge, Contra rebelles
suorum regum, published by Hotman, 1585, 88
[101] - Circa 1376, authorship uncertair, loc cit, 241, n 3
[102] - Potter, loc it, 242; this reasonin us of the 1980's English advertisement
for a brand of beer that announced: "I don’t like it, so I’ve never tried it"
[103] - Potter, loc cit, 237; Guérard Fra 100-101; Sumption, The Hundred Years’ War,
1990, 105-107
[104] - The French lawyer Hoüard ictionnaire Analytique de la Coûtume de Normandie, 1780, vol
1, pp xi-xii, accepted them as 10th, 11th and 12th dukes respectively
[105] - Potter, loc cit, 247; Contamine (1pectives Mediévales 67
[106] - Traité contre les Anglois; se loc cit; Contamine, loc cit
[107] - Potter, loc cit; Mp cit, 30-31
[108] - La loy salique, loy des Francois; Potter, loc cit
[109] - Title III,
Section I, Art 1
[110] - May 18th 180
[111] - Novembe
1852, Art 2
[112] - Henry V, Act I, 11-100; see also Selden, Titles of Honor, 1614, 175-176
and Hale, Prerogatives of the King, ed Yale (Selden Society, vol
92, 1976) 64
[113] - Above, te2-24
[114] - There is a puzzle here: Johummoned, not as Duke of Normandy, but as Duke of Acquitaine;
see Warren, King John, 74
[115] - See the judgment of the Internrt of Justice in the Minquiers and Ecrehous
case, 1953, 56-57
[116] - Ibid, 56, 76; cf Coke, text to note
elow
[117] - De Gruchy
Ch 12
[118] - IIII
[119] - Nicolle, The Origin velopment of Jersey Law, 1998, paras 75, 17.5.1
[120] - La Coustume Réformée, 660, 3
[121] - Commentaires sur la Coustum, 1626, 7
[122] - Principes Généraux du Droit tumier, 2nd ed 1748, 17
[123] - Oeuvres, 48, 6
[124] - Dictionnaire de la Coutume ddie, 1780, vol 1, xvi
[125] - See Nicolle, op cn 3
[126] - Loc cit; also Hoüard, n as 14th (and last) duke
[127] - Above, text to 73
[128] - Below, text t-157
[129] - See generally Furet, Rry
France 1770-1880, 1988 (trans 1992)
[130] - See Constitutions et documques, ed Duverger
[131] - See generally Bruume d’Andorre, 2nd ed 1965, Ch II
[132] - Decree of 1806
[133] - [19,
56-57, 76
[134] - Above, tex-54, 63-64
[135] - See Nicolle, T and Development of Jersey Law, 1998, para 11.3
[136] - See Jersey Prison Bopendix, Part 2, No 59 (PRO Assize Roll No 1160)
[137] - Ibid, No 67 (Placita Cich, 5 Edw III); Bois (op cit, para 4/16 ) translates
the last few words ("come de duc") as "as the Duke", which seems to be wrong
[138] - 4 Co Inst 286; Eaglestoslands under Tudor Government, 53, n 11
[139] - 1 Co Inst 7b, note 74 abov 7a
[140] - Prerogatives of the Kingden Society, vol 92), Ch s 3, 5; History of the Common Law,
ed Gray 1971 ch V1 74-75
[141] - Ibid, C
[142] - History of the Comd Gray 1971, Ch IX, 118-121
[143] - 1 Bl C
[144] - Holdsworth, Historish Law, vol 1, 520-521; Smith and Sheridan, The British Commonwealth,
vol 1, 1141, 1145; Harris, cyber.loi, Ch 1
[145] - Stoneham v Ocean, d General Accident Insurance Co (1887) 19 QBD 237; and the
official website for the Jersey government is within the UK "domain", at www.jersey.gov.uk (update April 2014 - website is now www.gov.je
[146] - Renouf v AG for J6] AC 445, 460; Navigators and General Insurance Co Ltd v Ringrose [1962]
1 WLR 173; Interpretation Act 1978, Sch 1, definition of "British Islands"
[147] - Rover International Lt Films Sales Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1597, 1603
[148] - Eg the Demise o Act 1727, Preamble
[149] - See text to noteve
[150] - Vincent, Discove, 1622, 299; Plowden, Commentaries, 214, 217; Lord
Oranmore’s case (1848) 2 HLC 910; Buckhurst Peerage case (1876)
2 App Cas 1, 28; Complete Peerage, 1929, vol vii, 418
[151] - See AG for the Duchy of Lancuke of Devonshire (1884) 14 QBD 195, 197
[152] - Somerville, History of th Lancaster, 1953, 139
[153] - Ibid, 140-
[154] - Halsbury’s Laws of Engla ed, vol 8 (original), para 1523
[155] - Somerville9-151
[156] - Chancery of L
Act 1850
[157] - Buckhurst P76) 2 App Cas 1, 28
[158] - Above, text to 28
[159] - See Halsbury’s La, 4th ed, vol 35, para 977
[160] - Eg the De Scales Peer1857) Minutes of Evidence 71
[161] - Pinches, European Noeraldry, 1994, 34
[162] - Abov
133-149
[163] - Above,
79-80
[164] - Above, text
81-83
[165] - Publ28
[166] - Ib 1
[167] - I
[168] - E3
[169] - E
[170] - Publi43
[171] - A04
[172] - Publi57
[173] - At p7
[174] - Publ6
[175] - At 7
[176] - I am grateful for the assistance furnished by a number of persons in producing this
essay, including Sir Philip Bailhache, Terry Sowden QC, and Stéphanie Nicolle QC,
who must not be taken necessarily to agree with it. They have however saved me from
a number of errors. Those which remain are my responsibility alone.
|