 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
 Castle Quest
 School Projects
 Information Needed!
|
| next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Information Needed! |
|
castlesmiley Senior Member |
posted 12-29-2000 07:57 PM
 
Dear Anyone, Does anyone know where kings and queens (or whatever they were) were crowned? Thank you for taking the time to read this. Information Greatly Appreciated!!! ------------------ |
|
Levan Moderator |
posted 12-31-2000 04:14 AM
The answer to this depends upon the country to which you are referring, and also when. Monarchs of England and Scotland both mostly used Christian centres to add legitimacy to their sovereignty. In the list below, only Dunstaffnage and possibly Dunald are castles. Scotland - most recently, coronations were held at the Palace of Scone. Other places included Iona, Dunald and Dunstaffnage. The final king to be crowned in Scotland was John Balliol in 1292. The gates of Traquair House remain resolutely locked until another Stewart king is enthroned in Scotland. England - currently Westminster Abbey, using a throne containing the 'Stone of Destiny' or 'Stone of Scone' which rightly belongs at Scone, Scotland (this was reckoned to have been 'stolen' by the English in 1296). In 1996 the stone was finally returned to Scotland (to Edinburgh Castle!?). I hope I haven't stirred a hornet's nest with this one. Other countries? I'll leave that to others to answer! Levan [This message has been edited by Levan (edited 12-31-2000).] |
|
duncan Senior Member |
posted 12-31-2000 11:49 AM
That stone was the fake that replaced the real stone of Scone in King Edwards war on Scotland. A rough, fresh cut, non shaped hunk of sandstone was used to replace a hard black stone with engravings of extreme age. It's rumored to have been hidden safly away untill a king of Scots can be crowned again. |
|
Levan Moderator |
posted 12-31-2000 02:20 PM
Ah, Duncan. Fakes stones - there are a miriard variations of this story - personally, I have no way of attesting the evidence over which story is true - if only! Levan |
|
duncan Senior Member |
posted 12-31-2000 07:14 PM
Yes, many tales of what transpired in that harsh time and i can not attest to the truth either. But for sure Edward could not admit to being fooled with a false stone and his sending troops back repeatedly to Scone in search is written history. In that action may lie the truth of the legands. As to the last king being Balliol, what of Robert the Bruce? |
|
Levan Moderator |
posted 01-01-2001 04:15 AM
Sorry, you're right, I'd meant to qualify my statement to restrict it to kings crowned over the Stone of Destiny. In respect to the general issue of kings crowned in Scotland, Robert the Bruce is quite an interesting case as he was never formally crowned - in 1306 he crowned HIMSELF. To many he represents the struggle between Scotland and England, but his legitimacy as king was a matter of debate even amongst Scots of his day. In 1320 the Declaration of Arbroath, amongst other issues, entreated the Pope to recognise Robert as King and annul his excommunication - the Pope did not ascent to this request until 1328, paving way for the Treaty of Northampton. In this treaty, the young Edward III 'renounced all pretensions to sovereignty' over Scotland, declaring that the Scottish borders set by Alexander III "shall remain for ever to the eminent prince Lord Robert, by the grace of God the illustrious king of Scots, our ally and dearest friend, and to his heirs and successors, divided in all things from the realm of England, entire, free, and quit, without any subjection, servitude, claim, or demand.' Robert the Bruce died before any of the terms of the treaty were outworked. In any case, most considered the treaty to have been a sham, merely buying time (and financial manoeuvrability) for Edward III in his debacle with Philip VI of France. After Robert the Bruce, there were other sovereigns in Scotland (I'm not certain how or where they were crowned), all of whom offered varying degrees of (generally unwilling) subservience to England: Levan [This message has been edited by Levan (edited 01-01-2001).] |
|
Philip Davis unregistered |
posted 01-01-2001 06:12 AM
I hope Castlesmiley gathers for the above discussion that the past was no more simple than the present. Where kings where crowned and if there claim to the throne was legitimate was a complex buisness. Just as with the recent american presidential elections some claiments to the throne could become king despite not being the popular choice. Fashion also affects the form of the enthronement. The american presidental oath does not require the "so help me god" part at the end but all presidents have used this since George Washington first added it to the offical oath. Ditto although several monarchs have crowned themselves it is general consider that God representative on earth has to crown a monarch (normally, in England, the Archbishop of Canterbury) and generally a coronation takes place in a church (ie. William the First was crowned on Christmas day 1066 in The Church of Westminster Abbey). In the end there is no simple answer to castlesmiley's question because, as today, politics is a complex thing. ------------------ Secreta Secretorum |
|
duncan Senior Member |
posted 01-01-2001 07:22 AM
Thanks Levan for takeing the time to point out what i had missed in your post. I was thinking of history on a different angle and missed the legitimate side that always must be taken into context, no matter in what time or place things happen. |
|
Philip Davis unregistered |
posted 01-01-2001 04:33 PM
Watching the telly this afternoon I heard that Macbeth like other scottish kings of the period was not crowned, since the crown was a later inovation but given a symbolic sword, whilst sat on the stone of destiny, with which to protect the people. The oldest surviving English crown jewels are spoon that where used to apply holy oil and this annoiting was the actual moment of coronation. ------------------ Secreta Secretorum |
|
Merlin Senior Member |
posted 01-09-2001 08:47 AM
Like in England or Scotland, things also used to be very complicated in other medieval kingdoms: EARLY MEDIEVAL KINGS (5th - 7th century) The Kings of the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Francs and various other german tribes were more like warlords and therefore nominated by acclamation of their soldiers (like so many of the late roman Emperors). Example: Prince Sigismund of the Burgundians became King, as his soldiers acclaimed him in their castellum at Carouge, near Geneva (between 507 and 516 AD). THE CAROLINGIAN KINGDOMS (8th - 10th century) I'm not sure where the early kings of the Francs, the descendants of Clovis I., were crowned. Maybe in the abbey of St.Denis near Paris. The descendants of Charlemagne were crowned at the royal palace in Aachen as Kings of the Francs, in Milano as Kings of the Langobards (later to be called Kings of Italy) and in Rome at St.Peter's as Emperors of the 'holy roman Empire'. FRANCE The cathedral of Reims was the place of coronation for the kings of France in the high and late middle ages. BURGUNDY The second kingdom of the Burgundians, in german called "Königreich Hochburgund" and in contemporary sources "regnum burgundiae" existed from 888 - 1032 AD. After the death of Emperor Charles III. (the fat), Duke Rudolf I. let himself be crowned as King in the abbey of St.Maurice d'Agaune (Wallis, Switzerland) and fought succesfully for independence against the late Carolingians. His son, Rudolf II., even became King of Italy for a short while. Coronation of the their descendants (Conrad the peaceful, Rudolf III.) took place in the cathedral of Lausanne. After a long war from 1032 - 1034, Burgundy became part of the german kingdom. Emperor Conrad II. was crowned twice as King of Burgundy: 1032 in the abbey Payerne and, after his victory against other heirs of Rudolf III., in the cathedral of Geneva. His son and successor, Heinrich III., was crowned as King of Burgundy in Solothurn (all these places are in Switzerland). GERMANY The Kings of Germany from the 10th century onwards were crowned first in the cathedral of Cologne and later in the the cathedral of Mainz (there was a long dispute between the two archbishops about the right of coronation). But Inthronisation always took place some months later in Charlemagnes palace in Aachen, on his old seat. If you need more details about any of these kings or kingdoms, just let me know. Merlin |
|
castlesmiley Senior Member |
posted 01-18-2001 03:13 PM
Dear Everyone Who Replied To This Posting, Is any of this information safe to use without starting an argument or something? What I mean is: Is there any of this stuff that you all agree on? I hope so. |
|
Merlin Senior Member |
posted 01-19-2001 05:55 AM
What makes you so suspicious? After reading some books about medieval english history, I think that the information that was given by Levan, Duncan & Philip is correct. And about the info I gave you: Do you want references to the (latin) sources? I can give you those, but it would take some time... Merlin |
|
Philip Davis unregistered |
posted 01-19-2001 09:57 AM
Don't be afraid of arguments or of being wrong. I'm sure that some of what I have written is a simplification and, therefore, wrong to some extent but if I was exact I'd have been typing from now to neverneverland. Remember that you learn from your mistakes, so being OK about being wrong is the way to learn. As for arguments what most university professors do is argue with each other, it is these arguments that make them think and lead them to expand the knowledge available to all of us. Personally I hope we can all agree that trying to understand the past is difficult, complex and, most of all, fun. ------------------ Visit Castellarium Philippis |
|
wurdsmiff unregistered |
posted 01-19-2001 02:57 PM
I'm sorry I missed the early stages of this discussion, much interesting it was. To expand on Philip's point about history professors, and enthusiastic amateurs. The more you read, the more you become aware of the diffuse nature of opinion, and the better qualified you are to voice your own. Like psychiatrists and diagnoses, it is rare to find interpretations of events agreed upon by historians since what they are trying to do is build the flesh of events upon a skeleton of bare facts. Often these basic facts are disputed since source documents are often full of innaccuracies. History is written by the victors in all conflicts, and there are two sides to every story, one of which is silent. It is as Philip says the debate which provokes thought, and often highlights the most feasible image of past events and characters, and that essentially is what history is. Archaeolgy is the science of confiming or disproving these images, and of providing the bare bones of the story.
------------------ Gordon. |
All times are PT (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | Castles on the Web
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.40
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.
