British Lion

[Dont be a lemon]

Bonjour.

Over the years I've often noticed that the lion is used as a symbol for the United Kingdom and England. It's even featured multiple times in the royal coat of arms

But it's not until recently that I've thought to myself "Why is this so?". To my knowledge lions have never been native to Great Britain or Ireland.

What are the historical reasons for this state of symbolic affairs?

Start explaining yourself, pom scum

 

[Mr P@H]

Richard the Lionheart.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

First used in 1198 by Richard I.

And then by the family who is still the rightful heirs to the English throne.

Instead of the Hun ruling now.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

First used in 1198 by Richard I.

And then by the family who is still the rightful heirs to the English throne.

Instead of the Hun ruling now.

What are Harald's decsendents up to these days?

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

What are Harald's decsendents up to these days?

William the Conqueror had more claim to the English throne than Harald did.

Harald only got the job because his sister married the King (Edward the Confessor).

 

[MightyFighting]

William the Conqueror had more claim to the English throne than Harald did.

Harald only got the job because his sister married the King (Edward the Confessor).

Harald was elected king and was therefore legitimate according to Anglo-Saxon law.

William's claim was based on the foreign concept of hereditary monarchy, which was a political fiction.

 

[FIGJAM]

What were their native options? The fox? The badger? The cod?

 

[evo]

The Hedgehog.

Now there's a noble animal to rally behind.

 

[Niximus]

AFAIK Unicorns aren't native there either.

 

[Roylion]

William the Conqueror had more claim to the English throne than Harald did.

No he didn't. William had no hereditary claim to the throne of England. His wife Matilda of Flanders had more claim than he did, as she was a descendant of Alfred the Great. Alfred's daughter married a count of Flanders.

Harald only got the job because his sister married the King (Edward the Confessor).

Harold was also a relation of the King of Denmark who was also the King of England, Canute the Great. Harold's own first cousin was Sweyn II of Denmark.

As well as this, some genealogists have concluded that Harold's paternal grandfather Wulfnoth Cild of Sussex was a direct descendant of King Ethelred I, King Alfred's elder brother.

Incidentally the present Queen is also a direct descendant of Harold Godwinsson.

 

[Roylion]

First used in 1198 by Richard I.

That was the three lions shield. it is beleived that he may well have used one or two rampart lions before 1198.

Lions were used by the English Royal Family before this. Richard's father Henry II is beleived to have used a lion rampart as his shield. His father Geoffrey of Anjou is believed to perhaps have used six or even seven gold lions on a blue background.

And then by the family who is still the rightful heirs to the English throne.

I take it you mean the Stewarts?

Instead of the Hun ruling now.

Perhaps on her father's side. However the Queen's mother comes from the Scottish Bowes Lyon family which is descended from many famous Scots. For example the Queen is descended from Robert the Bruce through several hundred different lines of descent.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

No he didn't. William had no hereditary claim to the throne of England. His wife Matilda of Flanders had more claim than he did, as she was a descendant of Alfred the Great. Alfred's daughter married a count of Flanders.

William had blood relatives that tied him to the previous Danish Kings of England through the Dukes of Normandy and their family ties to the English crown.

Harold was also a relation of the King of Denmark who was also the King of England, Canute the Great. Harold's own first cousin was Sweyn II of Denmark.

As well as this, some genealogists have concluded that Harold's paternal grandfather Wulfnoth Cild of Sussex was a direct descendant of King Ethelred I, King Alfred's elder brother.

Incidentally the present Queen is also a direct descendant of Harold Godwinsson.

William the Conqueror was the grand nephew of Emma of Normandy wife of King Ethelred the Unready and later of King Canute the Great.

Meaning he was a cousin of more than one King.

Harald's claims to other past kings are still being debated so it's speculation at this point to say he was a direct descendant of those Ethelred line.

 

[evo]

Harold was also a relation of the King of Denmark who was also the King of England, Canute the Great. Harold's own first cousin was Sweyn II of Denmark.

King Canute!.

They don't make royalty like that anymore.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Harald was elected king and was therefore legitimate according to Anglo-Saxon law.

William's claim was based on the foreign concept of hereditary monarchy, which was a political fiction.

So one foreign method of electing a king was replaced by another.

Anglo-Saxons weren't the legitimate anything of Briton.


They were invaders just like the Normans.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

I take it you mean the Stewarts?

Indeed.

James Stewart should have been King, not William of Orange.

Mary should have been Queen, not Elizabeth.

Perhaps on her father's side. However the Queen's mother comes from the Scottish Bowes Lyon family which is descended from many famous Scots. For example the Queen is descended from Robert the Bruce through several hundred different lines of descent.

And yet through those Stewart lines there still exists from the maternal lines through Charles I daughter Henrietta families with rightful claims to the English crown.

But of course due to their Roman Catholicism they could never make such a claim.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

So basically the answer is because a king 900 years ago used it as part of his emblem and nickname?

****, what an incredibly underwhelming explanation

 

[Roylion]

William had blood relatives that tied him to the previous Danish Kings of England through the Dukes of Normandy and their family ties to the English crown.

Very, very remote compared to Harold. William's great, great grandfather Rollo (or Rolf) was the son of Ragnvald the Wise Jarl of More in Norway...who himself was the grandson of Ivar Jarl of the Uppalders, who himself was the descendant of Haldan the Stingy in the 8th century.

William the Conqueror was the grand nephew of Emma of Normandy wife of King Ethelred the Unready and later of King Canute the Great.

But not a blood descendant of Alfred the Great or his grandfather Egbert, widely acknowledged as the first King of 'England', although personally I would say the first King of England was really Alfred the Great's grandson Athelstan.

Meaning he was a cousin of more than one King.

A uterine cousin. William had no blood claim to the English throne.

Harald's claims to other past kings are still being debated so it's speculation at this point to say he was a direct descendant of those Ethelred line.

Very strong speculation and accepted by a great many historians including Alfred Anscombe and D.H.Kelley and renowned royal genealogist Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, BT. And Harold was at least a native of England being an Anglo-Dane.

In 1014, the will of King Ethelred's son the Ætheling Athelstan states that Godwin [Harold's father] was to receive "the estate at Compton which his father possessed." This land was willed by Alfred the Great for the descendants of his elder brother Ethelred I. Another son of Ethelmaer the Great's was Aethelnoth, who became Canute's chaplain and later Archbishop of Canterbury (even though Canute executed his elder brother). The circumstances of Harold's grandfather Wulfnoth's death are rather obscure, but occurred in 1015 at the same time as Canute's takeover. Professor Frank Barlow, an authority on Anglo-Saxon England also refers to Archbishop Aethelnoth as Godwin's uncle.

The descent generally recognised is as follows:

Ethelred I King of England d. 871
|
Ethelhelm Ealdorman of the Western Provinces d. 923 (elder brother was claimant to the throne of England at death of Alfred the Great)
|
Ethelfrith d. 927
|
Eadric
|
Ethelweard 'the Historian' Ealdorman of the Western Provinces d. c. 988
|
Ethelmaer 'the Great' or 'the Stout' Ealdorman of the Western Provinces (also called 'Cild of Sussex') d. 1015. His elder son Ethelweard II was executed by King Canute.
|
Wulfnoth Cild Thegn of Sussex d. c. 1015
|
Godwin Earl of Wessex d. 1053
|
Harold II King of England d. 1066

Even without this descent, Harold's claim given that his sister Edith married Edward the Confessor is just as good as William's great aunt Emma marrying Ethelred the Unready of England.

 

[Roylion]

Indeed.

James Stewart should have been King, not William of Orange.

Probably. But the legitimate line of the Stewarts died out with Bonnie Prince Charlie's younger brother Henry Benedict "Cardinal York" (d. 1807).

Mary should have been Queen, not Elizabeth.

Only if you're Catholic.

And yet through those Stewart lines there still exists from the maternal lines through Charles I daughter Henrietta families with rightful claims to the English crown.

Yes probably. But they're not Stewarts. Henrietta's husband was Philip Duke of Orleans, brother of Louis XIV of France and they had only daughters.

But of course due to their Roman Catholicism they could never make such a claim.

True. Therefore the issue of Sophia Electress of Hanover was the senior Protestant line.

 

[Roylion]

So basically the answer is because a king 900 years ago used it as part of his emblem and nickname?

Is it that surprising?

It's not difficult to see why. The lion has been a symbol of strength and nobility for thousands of years...at least right back to the ancient Egyptians and most probably up to 30,000 years ago. In the warrior culture of the Middle Ages, it's not difficult to see why medieval kings would seek to identify themselves with such a creature. Richard Couer de Lion of England. William the Lion of Scotland, Henry the Lion of Saxony, Count Robert III the Lion of Flanders. It's also not difficult to understand why other people in awe of a fierce and brave medieval figure would identify them with an animal widely regarded as the King of Beasts.

Even modern sporting teams do the same and in quite a few of those areas, the Lion is not native..the Brisbane Lions of the AFL, the former Fitzroy Lions, the Detroit Lions. Aston Villa have a lion on their coat of arms. So do the Rangers and Dundee from the Scottish Premier League.

Lion motifs are also found in China, Japan, India, Sri Lanka, Singapore (where the emblem of the city is a Lion) and Tibet. Even the emblem of the City of Jerusalem is a lion standing in front of the Western wall. No doubt it derives from the 'lion of Judah' mentioned in the Bible. The Lion is found prominenyl in Arthurian legend. Even the symbol of St Mark (the writer of the second (and possibly earliest gospel) is a lion.

Even French car companies Peugeot, Holden and the international beer company Lion Nathan use the lion as an emblem.

Even places that do not have lions are named after the animal. Leon in Spain is an example. Also in Greece. The name of Leeuwarden, capital of the Dutch province of Friesland, is derived from the Dutch word for "lion" ("leeuw").

****, what an incredibly underwhelming explanation

What did you expect?

 

[Falchoon]

AFAIK Unicorns aren't native there either.

LOL

The Dragons are native though.

 

[medusala]

So basically the answer is because a king 900 years ago used it as part of his emblem and nickname?

****, what an incredibly underwhelming explanation

Actually Britain formerly had all sorts of animals now seen in the savannah

www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/files/43feat_ancenct_human_occup_britain-3012.pdf

The early humansliving there went to the chalk cliffs of the South Downs nearby, picking out cores of flint, knappingtheir artefacts and using them to butcher animals including horse, deer, and even rhinoceros.Butchered bones have been found indicating that in this very dangerous, open landscape where wolves, lions and hyenas roamed, these people were able to secure the carcasses of rhinos andsystematically disarticulate them using the stone tools they had made

 

[dan warna]

LOL royalty.

possibly the only good thing the french ever did in their miserable history was to nobble their inbred royals.

pity he english didn't do the same

 

[Roylion]

possibly the only good thing the french ever did in their miserable history was to nobble their inbred royals.

Only just. After the Bourbon monarchy was abolished in 1791, it was restored under Louis XVIII in 1814 after the defeat and exile of Napoleon Bonaparte. The monarchy was ended again in 1848 when the Second Republic was proclaimed. That ended when Napoleon III proclaimed himself Emperor in 1852. Even when Napoleon III was defeated in 1870, the National Assembly offered the Crown to Henri de Chambord, grandson of Charles X who abdicated in 1830. Even when a Third Republic was proclaimed it was originally intended to be temporary until the Count of Paris, (the grandson of King Louis Phillipe of France who abdicated in 1848) came of age. However public opinion had changed by the time that occurred.

pity he english didn't do the same

They did for a while. (1649-1660). Clearly the English found a republic unsatisfactory.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Harald was elected king and was therefore legitimate according to Anglo-Saxon law.

William's claim was based on the foreign concept of hereditary monarchy, which was a political fiction.

Someone paid attention in school. I commend thee.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

LOL royalty.

possibly the only good thing the french ever did in their miserable history was to nobble their inbred royals.

pity he english didn't do the same

No, the saddest bit is they did - Charles 1 - and then lost their nerve after a while and invited them back.