The England football team's (and FA's) "three lions" shield is royal heraldry, however it's actually not used by the current royal family of the UK and England who have a completely different coat of arms. The three lions were used by King Richard I from 1198 until 1340. i.e. the House of Plantagenet. Since then it has been only a small part of later heraldry.This was a time when England was part of the Angevin empire, consisting of:>England (but not Wales)>Normandy>Anjou>Bordeaux>BrittanyThis might seem an odd choice for England's football symbol, but there are two relevant points to take into account.1) Anachronistic references in football colours/symbols are not confined to England. For example the German national football colours are the black and white of Prussia, the same Prussia which was literally wiped off the map following WW1 only exists today in the German national team colours2) Although officially renounced, England remains the rightful owner of the above modern French territories, and the three lions serve as a useful reminder to the French team - if faced in this world cup by England - that their rightful place is as subjects to the English crown.
did norway's history autist switch sides
I think they just chose it because the 3 lions look cool
>>156689738it was also the last time that england was actually ruled by a monarch that could be considered an englishman>the tudors were welsh>the stuarts were scottish>the georgians and everyone after them are germans
>>156689738This is a common phenomenon. Brazil's NT logo is a cross of the Order of Christ, a Portuguese and later also Brazilian chivalric order that ultimately descends from the Portuguese branch of the Templar Knights that was nationalized by the Portuguese Crown after the supression of the order. The Brazilian branch of the order was the highest honor in the country until the fall of the monarchy in 1889 but the cross itself is most associated with Portugal.
>>156689738>however it's actually not used by the current royal family of the UK and England who have a completely different coat of arms.what is the actual one? is it too different from the lions?
>>156689893Very interesting thank you
>>156689880>the tudors were welsh>the stuarts were scottishLOLWhen Henry VII first arranged the marriage of his daughter to James IV of Scotland, his nobles were outraged as they foresaw the day when a Scottish monarch would inherit the throne of England. Henry astutely observed:>'What then? Should anything of the kind happen (and God avert the omen), I foresee that our realm would suffer no harm, since England would not be absorbed by Scotland, but rather Scotland by England, being the noblest head of the entire island, since there is always less glory and honour in being joined to that which is far the greater, just as Normandy once came under the rule and power of our ancestors the English'And he was absolutely right. It merely accelerated the Anglicisation of Scotland, and between 1651 and 1822 no monarch even set foot in the country. England was always a bigger, more powerful and more influential country than Scotland, which is why James VI described his ascent to the English throne as being like 'swapping a stony couch for a feather bed'.
>>156689909The full version has a lion and unicorn on either side, but the most comparable version is this. You have the harp for Northern Ireland, and the single lion in the top right for Scotland. Wales doesn't get its own quarter but it was part of the Kingdom of England, it was conquered by England. Whereas Ireland and Scotland entered into a union with England.
>>156690014>>156689909>Wales doesn't get its own quarter but it was part of the Kingdom of Englandbecause* it was part of
>>156690014it's almost the same thing then... also it's the england NT so only the lion are more representative than adding the scotland lion and the irish harp
>>156689738>Although officially renounced, England remains the rightful owner of the above modern French territories, and the three lions serve as a useful reminder to the French team - if faced in this world cup by England - that their rightful place is as subjects to the English crown.Top kek
>>156690123I know but it was representative of all those places in France as well, back when it was actually used. The territories in France combined were bigger than England.
>>156689738"Part of" is the keyword.You were ruled by a house of hitherto mildly powerful French counts, who lucked out by inheriting the lands of the House of Normandy and Aliénor of Aquitaine. They were from Anjou, whence the name Angevin.Throughout his reign, Richard I the Lionheart stayed only six months in England, choosing to spend the rest partaking in the medieval French traditions of crusading and waging war with other French lords over his inheritance. He spoke Old French and Old Occitan, identifying most strongly with the southern heritage of courtly love bequeathed to him by his mother Aliénor. He was a troubadour king who wrote sirventes poems and laments. His remains were split and buried in several locations in France—the only way an Anglo could possibly visit his tomb is by crossing the Channel and going to Rouen or Angers.It was only centuries after the humiliation of 1214 (the rout at Bouvines, which led to John Lackland earning his moniker and having to sign the Magna Carta) that his house finally began to feel English, because spending 300 years stranded in Albion will corrupt even the noblest of people. So did the Manchus start acting like sissies after ruling the Chinese for a similar amount of time.Today, English has more words of French origin than Anglo-Saxon, and it is partly thanks to them.
>>156690417I wanted to provoke something like this and now I consider myself successful. The truth is, if the British Army landed in Bordeaux tomorrow, they would be welcomed as liberators. There are probably old wine-owning families who still have some ancestral memory of how business was better when their ruler was the English King.
