It must have often occurred to students of English history that the
current and usual lists of English sovereigns somewhat arbitrarily
reject all mention of some who, though for short periods, have enjoyed
the regal position and power in this country. There will at once occur
to every reader the names (first) of the Empress Maud, who, in a
charter, dated Oxford in 1141, styled herself "Matilda Imperatrix,
Henrici regis filia, et Anglorum Domina;" (secondly) the young King
Henry, the crowned son of Henry II.; and (thirdly) Lady Jane Grey, who,
in a few public and private documents, is cited as "Jane, Queen of
England, Domina Jana, Dei Gratia Angliæ, Franciæ et Hiberniæ Regina,"
&c.
I am desirous now of calling the attention of your historical readers to
the second case, my attention to the subject having been specially
directed thereto by recently consulting the _Chronicon Petroburgense_
(edited for the Camden Society by Mr. Stapleton), in which occur various
notices of Henry, the crowned son of Henry II., as Henry _III._ I beg to
quote these passages. Under the year MCLXIX. the chronicler records
that--
"Hic fecit Henricus Rex coronare filium suum ab archiepiscopo
Eborum."
Sir Harris Nicholas, in his _Chronology of History_, states that he was
crowned on Sunday the 14th June, 1170. Benedictus Albus Roger, of
Wendover (_Flowers of History_), says that "A.D. 1170, on the 13th of
July," the king's eldest son was crowned by Roger, Archbishop of York.
His wife Marguerite, of France, was also afterwards crowned in England,
in consequence of her father's complaint that she had not been included
in the former coronation of her husband, Henry the younger (Rex Henricus
junior), as he was commonly styled in this country; _li reys Josves_ in
the Norman language, and _lo reis Joves_ in the dialect of the southern
provinces of France. He himself afterwards assumed the title of _Henry
III._ regarding his father as virtually dead, owing to the fond, but
thoughtless, assertion of his indulgent sire, at the period of the son's
coronation, that "from that day forward the royalty ceased to belong to
him,"--"se regem non esse protestari." (_Vit. B. Thomæ_, lib. ii. cap.
31.)
The _Chronicon Petroburgense_, again, under the year 1183, records the
death of the younger king in these words, "Obiit Henricus tertius rex,
filius Henrici regis;" and afterwards notices the monarch usually styled
Henry _III._ as "Henricus rex iiiitus.," Henry _IV._ Sir Harris Nicholas
says, that Henry the younger is also "called by chroniclers Henry
_III._"
It is a curious point, because such a distinction must often surely have
been made in the days of the jointly reigning Henrys, and immediately
after that time. The father and son certainly seemed to have been
regarded as for years jointly reigning. For example, Roger of Wendover
records that, in 1175, William of Scotland declared himself the liegeman
of Henry, for the kingdom of Scotland and all his dominions, and did
homage and allegiance to him as his especial lord, "_and to Henry the
king's son_, saving his faith to his father." In the following year both
went through England, "promising justice to every one, both clergy and
laity, which promise they afterwards fully performed." (Roger of
Wendover.) Surely, then, for distinction sake, if not as a matter of
right and custom, the younger Henry should have been always styled Henry
III.; and if so, while he (not to mention the Empress Maud and Queen
Jane) shall remain excluded, therefore, may I not again with some show
of reason ask, are our lists of English sovereigns complete?