The kingdom of france is the territory for the frankish lands. The king is the leader of the kingdom. The king was ordained (loose definition) long ago by royal families. A familial dynasty was attached to the kingship. These royal families thst were not part of the kingly dynasty held lands in return for being loyal to the king. Tldr: the kingdom was under the watch of tge king but he chopped it up and gave it to other royals as appeasement. The king has his own personal lands which is the roya domain or demesne. He exacts tribute for his demesne as well as from his local nobles' lands as well.
That is a poor attempt at explaining a very complex structure, particularly in the situation of france. But i hope it helped.
>>56848 The Royal Domain is the demense (land which is owned) of a particular Lord. A Kingdom is a title which is the second highest in feudalism (Emperor being higher). So the Royal Domain is the lands which the French King held himself. The Kingdom of France are all the areas which are de jure part of his Kingdom and which are supposed to swear fealty to him as vassals.
I think I get this. So does this mean that the King of England and the King of France both had equal royal claims to territory in France, and thats why they embarked on a centuries-long conflict over who actually ran it?
Still learning feudalism, thanks a lot for helping!! :)
>>56848 You need recommendations my friend? Let me say this though. In medieval history you have to distinguish between the political authority of the king, and the land the king owned. I haven't read my French history, but I going by my experience of England, the king would own massive amounts of land, which he would lease out to nobles or would rent out to peasants directly. So I'm guessing that the Royal Domain is the King's land. The lands outside the Royal Domain were owned by nobles/magnates, gentry (rich farmers with no title bestowed by the king) and free peasants (most peasants being under the thumb of the nobility working on their estates as serfs). However, while the big magnates had quite a free hand in their affairs, they owed fealty to the king and might have to collect taxes for him (although they ALWAYs sent as little tax money as they could) and provide him with military service in return for which the king recognized the big shot lord's legal right to the land and the king also provided protection with forces collected from other parts of the kingdom.
>>57144 the kings of england and the king of france both fought over the crown of france due to inheritance conflict
england claims the crown via female line of the original (capet?) dynasty but french said fuck that we dont wanna be ruled by some norman/english/occitan king we want this guy from a cadet branch of the dynasty
>>57144 yes, they both claimed to be the rulers of the Kingdom of France, meaning that the lords of the land had to choose whom to swear their fealty to.
>>57158 let me add also that it was common in medieval political theory that the Royal Domain should provide enough resources to the king for him to run the WHOLE kingdom. The famous phrase was that the king should "live of his own." The reality was much more complex. The king's resources tended to shrink over time, as he sold off his lands or mortgaged them to nobles in order to get immediate cash for fight his wars. This meant he had less and less resources over time to rule the realm, usually leading to debt. This played into the noble's hands, as the King would turn to them for money when he got into debt over wars and stuff. In order to get the loan, however, the nobles would force the king to make crippling concessions (nobles get more land, nobles get control of the courts and peasants in their lands, nobles are immune from punishment, nobles cannot have their land seized by the king, the nobles get to have an assembly to limit the king's decision making on domestic and foreign problems etc. etc.).
Think of it as a game of thrones thing, amerilard.
Imagine if the Lannister lands were suddenly owned by some city from Essos. That city would still be independant from the seven kingdoms, but about the land it owns in Westeros, it would have to recognize the (distant) authority of King's landing.
Kings of england had to pay hommage to the king of France about the lands they owned in France. Of course a king paying hommage to another was very butthurt-inducing, so sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't.
Our strongest kings conquered most of that angevin shit and forced the english kings to pay hommage about what was left of their continental territories, way before the 100 years war, and way before any dynastic problem between them. Of course then we lost it, reconquered it, lost it again, reconquered it again, etc.
No. Not at all. Being a landlord in France, not matter how powerful you are, and not matter if you also own a foreign kingdom, didn't give you a right to the french crown.
English kings had a claim because they were related to the french royal family, and because the main line of the french dynasty died. They tried to use both that dynastic claim and what was left of their territories in France to get the french throne.
The King of England was theoretically a vassal of the King of France as far as his possessions in France went. Of course he refused to act as such, which started all conflicts between both kingdoms of that era, there were more than one, the HYW was the last.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.