An English history question

ajaan · April 9, 2004 9:55AM

Does any one of you know about Louis I King of England?

coachleonard · April 9, 2004 11:09AM

Not me! Is he like that US president who slept through his entire
time in office?

MacCrimmon · April 9, 2004 11:29AM

Hmmmmm? I believe George I of Hanoverian fame had the second name of Louis. Does that work?

ajaan · April 9, 2004 11:30AM

Sorry Mac. Nope!

Aethelred · April 9, 2004 12:12PM

There was NOT one!

LINK

MSD61 · April 9, 2004 12:41PM

George I Louis HANOVER (King) of ENGLAND Born:1660 Died:1727
Wife: Sophia Dorothea von BRUNSWICK-CELLE
Children: Sophia Dorothea von HANOVER;George II Augustus (King) of ENGLAND
This all I can find. Most Louis were French kings

ajaan · April 9, 2004 12:47PM

Chuck (newsman) will attest to the fact that there was one. He followed King John and ruled for aboaut one year. But the modern day English don't want to admit it. Lloyd, where are you?

Aethelred · April 9, 2004 12:51PM

<< <i>Chuck (newsman) will attest to the fact that there was one. He followed King John and ruled for aboaut one year. But the modern day English don't want to admit it. Lloyd, where are you? >>

Rubbish! John was followed by his son Henry III in 1216.

MSD61 · April 9, 2004 12:58PM

John proved extremely unpopular with his subjects. In addition to the Irish debacle, he inflamed his French vassals by orchestrating the murder of his popular nephew, Arthur of Brittany. By spring 1205, he lost the last of his French possessions and returned to England. The final ten years of his reign were occupied with failed attempts to regain these territories. After levying a number of new taxes upon the barons to pay for his dismal campaigns, the discontented barons revolted, capturing London in May 1215. At Runnymeade in the following June, John succumbed to pressure from the barons, the Church, and the English people at-large, and signed the Magna Carta. The document, a declaration of feudal rights, stressed three points. First, the Church was free to make ecclesiastic appointments. Second, larger-than-normal amounts of money could only be collected with the consent of the king's feudal tenants. Third, no freeman was to be punished except within the context of common law. Magna Carta, although a testament to John's complete failure as monarch, was the forerunner of modern constitutions. John only signed the document as a means of buying time and his hesitance to implement its principles compelled the nobility to seek French assistance. The barons offered the throne to Philip II's son, Louis. John died in the midst of invasion from the French in the South and rebellion from his barons in the North.

The barons offered the throne to Philip II's son, Louis

ajaan · April 9, 2004 1:01PM

Very good. Louis I ruled with the Church's backing. It was the Church who installed Louis as King. In every aspect he was King with many of the lords paying homage to him.

ajaan · April 9, 2004 1:03PM

The above information was obtained today from a History Channel program w/ Terry Jones. It'll run again I'm sure.

Aethelred · April 9, 2004 1:12PM

Perhaps Louis would be better described as a claimant to the English throne. Calling Louis a "King of England" would be rather like calling Harald of Norway (d.1066) an "English king" just because he made the claim and had some support!

ajaan · April 9, 2004 1:14PM

According to the progam he was the de facto King.

Aethelred · April 9, 2004 1:15PM

Terry Jones is a very funny chap, I love his work!

Askari · April 9, 2004 1:55PM

Sounds like the "here a Plantagenet, there a Plantagenet, everywhere a Plantagenet" heir problem. Typically British, eh wot?

An English history question

Comments