Richard The Lion Heart Did Not Speak English!

[Soldier of Macedon]

Not sure how many of you knew, but the man who is arguably one of England's greatest kings spoke only French, and could not speak English. Here are some links:

http://www.essentially-england.com/richard-the-lionheart.html

Richard the Lionheart spoke no English and he spent just ten months of his ten-year-reign in England.

http://www.oxfordstreetsouthampton.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=10

Richard The Lion Heart was king for only nine years, of that he only spent 6 months in England and the only Christmas he spent in England was in the royal castle in Southampton. The Three lions of England are Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and their son Richard the Lion Heart. Of these three, none of them spoke English, they were Normans so spoke French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England

Although speaking only French and spending very little time in England (he lived in his Duchy of Aquitaine in the southwest of France, preferring to use his kingdom as a source of revenue to support his armies), he was seen as a pious hero by his subjects. He remains one of the very few Kings of England remembered by his epithet, rather than regnal number, and is an enduring, iconic figure in England.

There is also the case of the Celtic King Arthur, who England likes to claim as its own from time to time. Well, I guess it's not that odd when compared to certain other countries, like Greece for example, where the first president (Kondouriotes) spoke only Albanian, and could not speak Greek, or where they falsely claim Macedonian kings who fought against the ancient Greeks as their 'own'.

[George S.]

That is excellent what you have bought up som i have allways assumed that richard the lionheart could speak english amazing.
If you split up england into it's ethnic groups there would be hardly anything english.If you took oout the scottish & the welsh.etc there would be hardly anything else left.You foind that famous kings that one would think are english are really french & even king athur. is amazing.
I forgot to mention that greece & probably other countries like this fixation to the ancients.If they gaze long enough & twist & turn things they can claim to them similar to the british scenario.

[Onur]

Also, one more thing i know about this;

King Arthur`s English knights of the round table was actually not English. They were horseback warrior people from Eurasian steppes, presumably Sarmatians. But everything is so shallow about pre-christianity England cuz after their christianization, they destroyed everything about their former lives. There was debates about the king Arthur`s existence too. Maybe he was only a fictional character.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Also, one more thing i know about this;

King Arthur`s English knights of the round table was actually not English. They were horseback warrior people from Eurasian steppes, presumably Sarmatians. But everything is so shallow about pre-christianity England cuz after their christianization, they destroyed everything about their former lives. There was debates about the king Arthur`s existence too. Maybe he was only a fictional character.

There is a lot of myth surrounding King Arthur. The Sarmatian theory is contested, see below:

http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/historicity/arthur.htm

Therefore the case, as set out by Malone and nodded at by Padel, for Lucius Artorius Castus as the 'original' Arthur is, initially at least, based on the name alone. If the Artorius derivation is accepted as the only likely etymology of the name Arthur then this identification does seem to be the most reasonable and it would help explain the continental invasion tale (though it is not necessary to any such explanation). However, it requires us to see Arthur as a figure who was first of all historical, then became totally absorbed into Celtic folklore and then, at a later point, was historicised into a entirely different era from that in which he had his origins. Whilst not impossible, some might think it a little over complicated. In recent years though, an alternative argument in favour of Lucius Artorius Castus has emerged -- Littleton and Malcor (1994) have argued that in post-Galfridian Romance a number of features can be discerned in the legend which could be Scythian in origins, and the only evidence of Scythians in Britain comes from the second century, when a group of Sarmatians were brought over to northern Britain as Roman cavalry by one Lucius Artorius Castus. Essentially the authors argue that the 'most important' of Arthurian figures and themes (which include, according to Littleton and Malcor, the sword in the stone, the Holy Grail and the return of Arthur's sword to the lake), on the basis of the parallels they observe, originated in the culture of the nomadic horse-riding peoples who inhabited the Eurasian steppes, an area known as Scythia to the Romans and Greeks, and that they were imported into western Europe by two of these tribes, the Sarmatians and the Alans -- in their eyes Arthur is simply a different name attached to the the legend of Batraz, the hero of the Scythian Narts tales (Lancelot is seen in almost identical terms, with 'Arthur' being the insular British development of this Batraz, via the Sarmatians, and Lancelot the continental development, via the Alans).

Certainly such a view of the process is intriguing, the parallels identified are very interesting, and by simply having Lucius Artorius Castus give his name to a pre-existing folkloric cycle one can avoid the problems of having him as the origins of such a cycle (though one could object that he could have just as easily simply given his name to a pre-existing insular Celtic folkloric cycle, perhaps related to the Fionn cycle). The main problem with this theory is, however, the 1000 years of silent transmission of these Scythian folktales as central to the Arthurian legend that the authors require us to accept, both in Britain and on the continent -- all the 'Scythian' elements appear in the post-Galfridian works, from Chrétien de Troyes onwards, and some of the most striking apparent parallels between the Arthurian legend and the eastern Batraz story make their very first appearances in Malory's Le Morte Darthur! There is simply no trace of Lancelot in continental literature before Chrétien de Troyes in the twelfth century and none of the 'most important of Arthurian themes' are even hinted at in the reasonably large body of insular Arthurian traditions that we have preserved in Culhwch, Pa gur?, the Triads etc.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is a bit of irony. Richard the Lionheart spoke French instead of English, spent more time in France than England, and had more French ancestry than English, but is celebrated in English nationalism. Richard's greatest foe was Saladin, a Kurd who fought for the Muslim cause against the Crusaders, and is celebrated in Arab nationalism.

[chentovist]

I believe Catherine the Great, and some of Russia's other monarchs only spoke French also.

[George S.]

so much for the pureness of people even the queen traces her roots to the germans.
The greeks adopted the king of austria otto or something other.So that it makes a mockery of royalty being traced back to a country.Other stuff about the king arthurs around the table not english amazing.