Ah, I have often thought the same. However, Edward III did much to make English the language of England and, from his spelling of French words when writing in English, his son, Edward of Woodstock (later called The Black Prince) spoke French with what appears to be a London accent ! I mean Poitiers spelt as Petters, even in English father spelt as farver and mother as muvver. I make much of the language differences in two of my novels. The first is "If You Go Down in the Woods" on the 1215-16 French invasion of England, and "The Dark Daring Deeds of Geffrey ðe Wulf", a tale of an English archer in the reigns of Edward III and Richard II. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=geoff+boxell&crid=3AQOVF5RAM8X0&sprefix=%2Caps%2C301&ref=nb_sb_ss_recent_1_0_recent
You bring up excellent points. Indeed, by the time we get to the Hundred Years' War, the French 'rapprochement' had started to ebb, particularly in light of the English barons' reforms to limit the king's power. The counterargument to my assertion that we tend to take on the language and culture of our mothers is that first-generation immigrants sometimes don't teach their kids their home language and culture precisely to acculturate them to their new home. It's clear Isabella of France had her sights on the English crown, and so, given the evidence you bring up of Edward's curious misspellings, it is evidence that perhaps his mother pushed him to be English. The other possibility is that Edward wasn't a very good student ;)
I think Edward of Woodstock's accent makes sense given the situation. Edward obviously felt slighted by the snub from the French administration, and he raised his son entirely in England, presumably speaking English. Growing up, very few of the other 'international' kids around me spoke both languages without an accent. I was lucky that my mother was an English teacher, so I learned American English while living in France. Edward of Woodstock may not have had that chance, just as my eldest son does not speak a lick of French.
All fun things to kick around, even though the evidence is...sparse. But that's what makes it fun! Thanks for sharing your book, I'll check it out.
If you get the books I think you will find my idea of the type of English the stable boys were teaching their Anglo Norman masters (in "If You Go Down in the Woods") amusing. And in my short story on Petters in "The Dark Daring Deeds of Geffrey ðe Wulf ",Prince Edward's conversations with the Cardinals before the battle might raise a smile on your face.
Thanks for the laughs, CJ. What a politically terrible and confusing time that all must have been. I wonder what the regular folks tilling the fields and running the taverns thought of it all? Princes and Politicians gone mad? I think we have some living examples of that sort of thing in our own time. - Kerry
I think the average peasant would have lived and died completely unaware that any of this had happened, except perhaps for some in the affected regions. They had no media, and news traveled slowly. The goings-on of the nobility were not communicated to the people who worked the land. In my opinion, all of this political backbiting stuff might have been self-contained, precisely to avoid the peasants from realizing what was going on, so they wouldn't get too upset. On top of that, in the feudal era, the average peasant may not have known or cared who the king was, just their local lord of their fief, and that's the only one that really mattered. That's why the joke in Monty Python's Holy Grail is so funny: "King of the who?"
That would all change during the Hundred Years' War, however, when Edward of Woodstock began conducting chevauchées specifically to weaken his enemies economically, which made that war and the succession struggle very present in the average person's consciousness. It's when we start to see, particularly in France, the notion from the people of a "France" and "Frenchness" and the start of what would later become nationalism. Basically, saying this isn't about just the nobility anymore, it affects all of us.
Excellent!! This made for a very interesting and inquiring lecture today!
Ah, I have often thought the same. However, Edward III did much to make English the language of England and, from his spelling of French words when writing in English, his son, Edward of Woodstock (later called The Black Prince) spoke French with what appears to be a London accent ! I mean Poitiers spelt as Petters, even in English father spelt as farver and mother as muvver. I make much of the language differences in two of my novels. The first is "If You Go Down in the Woods" on the 1215-16 French invasion of England, and "The Dark Daring Deeds of Geffrey ðe Wulf", a tale of an English archer in the reigns of Edward III and Richard II. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=geoff+boxell&crid=3AQOVF5RAM8X0&sprefix=%2Caps%2C301&ref=nb_sb_ss_recent_1_0_recent
You bring up excellent points. Indeed, by the time we get to the Hundred Years' War, the French 'rapprochement' had started to ebb, particularly in light of the English barons' reforms to limit the king's power. The counterargument to my assertion that we tend to take on the language and culture of our mothers is that first-generation immigrants sometimes don't teach their kids their home language and culture precisely to acculturate them to their new home. It's clear Isabella of France had her sights on the English crown, and so, given the evidence you bring up of Edward's curious misspellings, it is evidence that perhaps his mother pushed him to be English. The other possibility is that Edward wasn't a very good student ;)
I think Edward of Woodstock's accent makes sense given the situation. Edward obviously felt slighted by the snub from the French administration, and he raised his son entirely in England, presumably speaking English. Growing up, very few of the other 'international' kids around me spoke both languages without an accent. I was lucky that my mother was an English teacher, so I learned American English while living in France. Edward of Woodstock may not have had that chance, just as my eldest son does not speak a lick of French.
All fun things to kick around, even though the evidence is...sparse. But that's what makes it fun! Thanks for sharing your book, I'll check it out.
If you get the books I think you will find my idea of the type of English the stable boys were teaching their Anglo Norman masters (in "If You Go Down in the Woods") amusing. And in my short story on Petters in "The Dark Daring Deeds of Geffrey ðe Wulf ",Prince Edward's conversations with the Cardinals before the battle might raise a smile on your face.
Thanks for the laughs, CJ. What a politically terrible and confusing time that all must have been. I wonder what the regular folks tilling the fields and running the taverns thought of it all? Princes and Politicians gone mad? I think we have some living examples of that sort of thing in our own time. - Kerry
Thanks for your comment, Kerry :)
I think the average peasant would have lived and died completely unaware that any of this had happened, except perhaps for some in the affected regions. They had no media, and news traveled slowly. The goings-on of the nobility were not communicated to the people who worked the land. In my opinion, all of this political backbiting stuff might have been self-contained, precisely to avoid the peasants from realizing what was going on, so they wouldn't get too upset. On top of that, in the feudal era, the average peasant may not have known or cared who the king was, just their local lord of their fief, and that's the only one that really mattered. That's why the joke in Monty Python's Holy Grail is so funny: "King of the who?"
That would all change during the Hundred Years' War, however, when Edward of Woodstock began conducting chevauchées specifically to weaken his enemies economically, which made that war and the succession struggle very present in the average person's consciousness. It's when we start to see, particularly in France, the notion from the people of a "France" and "Frenchness" and the start of what would later become nationalism. Basically, saying this isn't about just the nobility anymore, it affects all of us.