ARE OUR LISTS OF ENGLISH SOVEREIGNS COMPLETE?
It must have often occurred to students of English history that the current and usual lists of English sovereigns somewhat arbitrarily reject all mention of some who, though for short periods, have enjoyed the regal position and power in this country. There will at once occur to every reader the names (first) of the Empress Maud, who, in a charter, dated Oxford in 1141, styled herself "Matilda Imperatrix, Henrici regis filia, et Anglorum Domina;" (secondly) the young King Henry, the crowned son of Henry II.; and (thirdly) Lady Jane Grey, who, in a few public and private documents, is cited as "Jane, Queen of England, Domina Jana, Dei Gratia Angliæ, Franciæ et Hiberniæ Regina," &c.
I am desirous now of calling the attention of your historical readers to the second case, my attention to the subject having been specially directed thereto by recently consulting the Chronicon Petroburgense (edited for the Camden Society by Mr. Stapleton), in which occur various notices of Henry, the crowned son of Henry II., as Henry III. I beg to quote these passages. Under the year MCLXIX. the chronicler records that—
"Hic fecit Henricus Rex coronare filium suum ab archiepiscopo Eborum."
Sir Harris Nicholas, in his Chronology of History, states that he was crowned on Sunday the 14th June, 1170. Benedictus Albus Roger, of Wendover (Flowers of History), says that "A.D. 1170, on the 13th of July," the king's eldest son was crowned by Roger, Archbishop of York.
His wife Marguerite, of France, was also afterwards crowned in England, in consequence of her father's complaint that she had not been included in the former coronation of her husband, Henry the younger (Rex Henricus junior), as he was commonly styled in this country; li reys Josves in the Norman language, and lo reis Joves in the dialect of the southern provinces of France. He himself afterwards assumed the title of Henry III. regarding his father as virtually dead, owing to the fond, but thoughtless, assertion of his indulgent sire, at the period of the son's coronation, that "from that day forward the royalty ceased to belong to him,"—"se regem non esse protestari." (Vit. B. Thomæ, lib. ii. cap. 31.)
The Chronicon Petroburgense, again, under the year 1183, records the death of the younger king in these words, "Obiit Henricus tertius rex, filius Henrici regis;" and afterwards notices the monarch usually styled Henry III. as "Henricus rex iiii.tus," Henry IV. Sir Harris Nicholas says, that Henry the younger is also "called by chroniclers Henry III."
It is a curious point, because such a distinction must often surely have been made in the days of the jointly reigning Henrys, and immediately after that time. The father and son certainly seemed to have been regarded as for years jointly reigning. For example, Roger of Wendover records that, in 1175, William of Scotland declared himself the liegeman of Henry, for the kingdom of Scotland and all his dominions, and did homage and allegiance to him as his especial lord, "and to Henry the king's son, saving his faith to his father." In the following year both went through England, "promising justice to every one, both clergy and laity, which promise they afterwards fully performed." (Roger of Wendover.) Surely, then, for distinction sake, if not as a matter of right and custom, the younger Henry should have been always styled Henry III.; and if so, while he (not to mention the Empress Maud and Queen Jane) shall remain excluded, therefore, may I not again with some show of reason ask, are our lists of English sovereigns complete?
J. J. S.
The Cloisters, Temple.