Talk:Duke of Normandy

Merged with the British crown?
Isn't the title merged with the British crown? This information could be incorporated into the article:. I believe all this would be better placed at Duke of Normandy --Jiang 01:11 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * (1) No, any claims to be "Duke of Normandy" were given up by the Treaty of Paris in 1295 1259. (2) If a title merges with the Crown, it ceases to exist until it is regranted. And, no, before you ask, Queen Elizabeth is not the Duke of Normandy, no matter how she is toasted in the Channel Islands. -- Someone else


 * Why then does the official royal website continually state that she is Duke of Normandy? Here is the specific question answered in the royal magazine: --Jiang 02:28 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Because they're wrong. It's not the only mistake on the official royal website, either! -- Someone else 02:43 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * The English monarch is the Duke or Duchess of Normandy only in his or her own kingdom, now. I.e. only in the Channel Islands. There is no Duke of Normandy in continental Normandy. Ideportal (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer the original question: no, because it's not a British title; the theory behind "merging" is that the monarch cannot be his own vassal. If it survived 1259 then it merged into the French crown in 1340. —Tamfang (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Treaty was in 1259, not 1295, but otherwise, Someone else is correct, I believe. Perhaps that should be listed in the article, and John and Henry III listed as titular dukes up to 1259? john 04:02 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I think that's probably a good idea. Anything to prevent bad corrections. (I'm (non-tacitly) changing the date above, acknowledging the error yet "subtly" preventing its repetition...) -- Someone else 04:23 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Moving
I'm moving this to Duke of Normandy. --Jiang


 * ... where, indeed, I have now moved it back to, and made List of Dukes of Normandy and Dukes of Normandy redirects. Given that this is the only talk page of the three, I will move this, too.
 * James F. (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Duke of Normandy and Duchy of Normandy
I've tried to sort out the material on the two pages to keep the list of Dukes (and info about the claims to the title) separate from Duchy of Normandy, which I think is a better place for the history and culture of the Duchy. Hope this is useful. Man vyi 13:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Correction
The Treaty of Paris of 1259 had nothing to do with the title "Duke of Normandy." The treaty recognised that mainland Normandy and certain other territories were no longer the property of the Henry III in his capacity as Duke of Normandy but now belonged to the King of France, while insular Normandy (today, the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey) remained under the Duke of Normandy - who, from 1066 to 1707 (except for 1649-1660) was also King or Queen Regnant of England, then subsequently of Great Britain (1707-1801) and United Kingdom (since 1801). The Treaty also provided that Henry III could keep the Acquitaine and some other French territory, but only as vassal to the King of France.

The title "Duke of Normandy" has never been abandoned by any monarch. Like "Duke of Lancaster," it is personal to the sovereign and may not be borne by anyone else. The two titles together are so strongly tied to the historic right of the bearer to the English/British crown, that the sex is never changed for a queen regnant. Elizabeth II, like Victoria, Anne, Mary II, Elizabeth I, Mary I, and (for those who include her) Jane before her, is a female Duke of Normandy and Duke of Lancaster. This is because the British Constitution, while recognising Queens Regnant, has only recognised "duchess" as indicating the wife of a duke. So, if she were the Duchess of Normandy or Lancaster, that would mean Philip was the Duke -- which would suggest he had a bizarrely abstract right to be king, by virtue of being the Duke of Normandy and the Duke of Lancaster - because those titles are personal to the sovereign. So, to avoid any question among the really die-hard traditionalists (e.g., people like the ones who signed the Scottish "National Covenant" in their own blood), the Queen is "Duke" of Normandy and Lancaster, instead of "Duchess."

Beyond its historic ceremonial value, of course, "Duke of Normandy" is still an active title -- because, although mainland Normandy was lost to France in 1259, the British monarch is still the personal sovereign of INSULAR (island) Normandy, namely Jersey and Guernsey. Duke of Lancaster is also still an active title, because it's still an active dukedom (or duchy). As Duke of Lancaster, the Queen owns land in Lacashire and London (the latter including the land on which the Savoy Hotel sits), and uses the income from the Dukedom of Lancaster to buy her clothes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Britain has had several Duchesses in their own right, starting from Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk. Nowhere there has been any hesitation them to be Duchess, so Duke as masculine form applied specifically to those females has not been in done in those cases. Marrtel 09:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Using List of dukedoms in the peerages of the British Isles, I tracked down all the duchesses in their own right:
 * Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk, created 1397, died 1399
 * Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton, succeeded 1651, died 1698
 * Anne Scott, 1st Duchess of Buccleuch, created 1663, died 1732
 * Barbara Palmer, 1st Duchess of Cleveland, created 1670, died 1709
 * Louise de Kérouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth, created 1673, died 1734
 * Melusine von der Schulenburg, Duchess of Kendal and Munster, created 1719 and 1716 respectively, died 1743
 * Henrietta Godolphin, 2nd Duchess of Marlborough, succeeded 1722, died 1733
 * Cecilia Underwood, 1st Duchess of Inverness, created 1840, died 1873
 * Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife, succeeded 1912, died 1959
 * —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

rolled back some changes
Please see ... if article regulars agree that the removed material was POV please feel free to revert my reversion. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Executed 100 Christians after his death
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN HOW ROLLO "EXECUTED 100 CHRISTIANS UPON HIS DEATH"? HOW DOES SOMEONE EXECUTE ANYTHING AFTER HE DIES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.40.3 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on Rollo's page and title's page mentions this. After more research, it appears it's been a loose belief that he ordered it on his deathbed. But if we remember that he himself was a former pagan and foreigner to France - his court most likely did not carry out the order. This is all speculation though. GeoMedrek (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

newbie question
Why is the current holder of this title, Queen Elizabeth II, styled as the Duke of Normandy instead of the Duchess of Normandy? Ronnotel (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * never mind - I read the paragraph above. Ronnotel (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is nonsense, but never mind ... —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

James II
Can someone please provide a source for the assertion that James II was created Duke of Normandy by the King of France? Opera hat (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of Queen Elizabeth
Although Queen Elizabeth is the current Duke of Normandy, she is not a person that readers would commonly associate with the title, since the title was of far greater significance 800 or 1000 years ago than it is today, and the article text (as opposed to the lists) deals with the history of the Dukes from 911 to 1660. I propose to return to the image Image:Rollo statue in falaise.JPG, which was at the top of the article until recently. The image Image:William I, Lichfield Cathedral.jpg would be an acceptable alternative. Scolaire (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an unwritten rule to have the current holder of the title at the top of the page. I agree that it would be a good idea to have a historic image also. Perhaps further down would be a good idea? --Cameron* 17:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But even if it is a current title, it is really only of historical interest. I'd be more in favour of having the historic image at the top and the picture of the Queen further down.  Also, although it is a lovely photograph, I find it somewhat out of keeping with the subject of the article.  Image:Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, 07 Mar 2006 crop.jpeg, though it is of far inferior quality, has much more of a "current holder of the title" feel to it.  Scolaire (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The same could be said for most titles. ;) --Cameron* 15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by that! Monarchy of the United Kingdom is an article about the current status of the monarchy, with an added history section; the same is true of President of the United States, and any other article about a position or title that is likely to be in the news on a regular basis.  This here is a history article, which effectively ends in 1660, with a very brief mention in the lead that the title still exists and Queen Elizabeth is the current holder.  The same can't be said of any other article I can think of.  Scolaire (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree with what you've said there. But do you find this article any more history orientated than, say, List of English monarchs? --Cameron* 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now here's something I didn't know. The British monarchs continue to hold the title Duke of Normandy, interesting. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cameron, again I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. List of English monarchs is a history article and it doesn't have anybody's picture on the top.  Maybe this one shouldn't either?  Does the Duke of Normandy have his/her own coat of arms?  Maybe that's what belongs there.  At any rate, GoodDay just made my point for me there - the great majority of readers don't associate "Duke of Normandy" with Queen Elizabeth.  Scolaire (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found the arms of the Duchy at Image:Blason duche fr Normandie.svg. Per your comments below I'm being bold and adding it. Scolaire (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

List of English & British Dukes?
That section, should be divided into List of English Dukes of Normandy & List of British Dukes of Normandy, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! ;) Next time, be bold! :) Best, --Cameron* 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I feared, my republicanism might've made me suspect. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that anyone who wants a list of kings of England (and Britain) since 1259 can readily find one, so why duplicate it here? If this article does list them, it ought to say why the present duke is not named François or Michel. —Tamfang (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Valentine Heywood

 * "The equally widely-held belief that [the British monarch] is Duke of Normandy is even more fantastic [than that of Lancaster]. All claims to that style on the part of the English Crown were surrendered when, by the Treaty of Paris in 1259, Henry III recognised the French conquest of the Duchy, and they have never been resumed. Even had the title of Duke of Normandy survived apart from actual possession and sovereignty of the Duchy, there could be no lineal claim to it by the present Royal House. The vicissitudes of the descent of the English Crown have been such that any such shadowy claim would lie elsewhere than in this Royal House.
 * "Patriotic inhabitants of the Channel Islands – or the Norman Isles, as that stalwart islander the late Lord Portsea preferred to call them – will stoutly resist this doctrine, but I fear their case is hopeless. The Channel Isles are an apanage of the English and not of the Norman ducal Crown. They are a remnant of the Duchy retained by the English Crown when the sovereignty of the mainland portion of the Duchy was conceded to France, but their retention implies no right or claim to the ducal style."
 * —British Titles by Valentine Heywood, 1951; pp.5–6
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamfang (talk • contribs) 04:09, 18 November 2008

Nice one, Tamfang. Can you summarise/paraphrase that and add it to the article? Scolaire (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see a good way to make it concise without throwing away what makes it convincing; perhaps someone else can. One might add (if not for WP:OR) that if the ducal title survived 1259 then it merged into the French royal title in 1340. —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Appanage
I have expanded the Duchy of Normandy article adding, inter alia, everything that's in the Appanage section. Since the title "Duke of Normandy" had different meanings in France and in England after 1259, and since this article is primarily about the English title, I propose to delete the Appanage section from this article. Scolaire (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done... ;) --Cameron* 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent :-) Scolaire (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Gender Confusion
Since Elizabeth II is a woman, shouldn't she be titled as the "Duchess" of Normandy, and not the "Duke" of Normandy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.152.109 (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Even though Elizabeth II is a women all monarchs who hold the Duchy of Normany are styled Duke (I'm not sure why but thats how it is). The Quill (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's equally daft either way. —Tamfang (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. It's supposed to contain facts and accurate information. Whether you think a tradition is "daft" or not is irrelevant, but displays P.O.V. bias.142.167.102.186 (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The question was not whether the tradition exists, but whether it shouldn't be something slightly different. —Tamfang (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If Elizabeth is a duke, what does that make her husband? (Quiet, please - I'm trying to be serious.) --Wikiain (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

-Well; she isn't a 'Duke' because Henry III of England gave up the title of Duke of Normandy in 1259 and none of his successors have used the title since. Since the cessation of Normandy to the Kings of France, several junior members of the French Royal Family were granted the Duchy of Normandy before the abolition of the monarchy there. At any rate; we have that lovely word for a female Duke in the English language: 'Duchess' for women who hold a duchy or dukedom in their own right (rather than just by being married to a Duke). That and the fact that inheritance of the Duchy was governed by Salic Law (because it was part of France)-i.e. that a woman cannot inherit titles or land, nor can a man inherit lands or titles through a woman either- means that even were the Duchy to still exist, HM the Queen could not possibly hold it. (and neither for that matter could Henry VII, Mary I, Elizabeth I, James I, Mary II, William III, Anne, George I, or Victoria for that matter-or in fact any of the English/British monarchs from Henry VII onwards.)

At no time between 1259 and the present day have the Channel Islands constituted a notional 'Duchy of Normandy' either. (unless you want to talk about the period during the hundred years war when Normandy was a notional part of the English monarch's theoretical French realm-something theoretically valid until the renunciation of the title 'King of France' by George III in 1801.) They are simply the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and the Queen has no separate title for either entity. The idea that the monarch is also 'Duke of Normandy' is a common misconception (even erroneously repeated on the royal website-although it doesn't actually say that they actually hold the title-which is a fair point because they don't) that has absolutely no legal basis. The Duchy and title were renounced in 1259. End of story. Even if they had, the fact that in the eyes of English law, after 1340 the King of England was also King of France would mean that the Duchy of Normandy would have become merged in the crown, meaning the notional 'King of England and France' was no longer Duke of Normandy because it is impossible for a monarch to hold a title from himself-a monarch cannot be his own feudal inferior and any lesser title is replaced by the the grander title of 'King'-to give a parallel, there were several members of the French Royal family who held Duchies under the French crown that ceased to use those particular titles when they inherited the crown (the Dukes of Valois, Vendome, Bourbon, Orleans and Angouleme amongst others).

As regards HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, the only state of which the Queen is Head of State of that he has a title in relation to is the UK. The Queen is quite separately Queen of Canada and Queen of Australia, for example, as regards those countries and she bears those titles (legally and officially by Act of Parliament-the Royal Titles Act) as she does in relation to a total of 16 separate sovereign states in addition to the UK. In none of those countries does HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, nor HRH the Prince of Wales nor any other member of the Royal family for that matter have a particular title assigned to them in right of that country; only the Queen herself as she is the sovereign of each particular country. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Henry VII onwards? Try Henry II, the first to inherit the crown of England through his mother. —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

But Henry II's mother, Matilda, was never accepted by the nobles of Normandy as Duchess (in fact only the lords of the border districts did so) and instead proclaimed Stephen as Duke. Henry II's father, Geoffrey of Anjou, conquered Normandy in 1141 and was accepted there as Duke of Normandy, thus becoming Duke by right of conquest (which trumps any rights by inheritance.) Thus Henry II technically inherited Normandy through his father, not his mother (as she was never Duchess herself), though Henry's descent from her was of course of great importance.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A correction, absolutely none of the french medieval peerages were governed by Salic law. Every single one of them passed to women at least once, multiple times in the cases of Toulouse and Brittany, with the sole exception of Normandy because Henry I's succession was a complete clusterfuck. 74.56.208.54 (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

oh come now
It would be nice if those who are so firm in the conviction that the Queen is Duke of Normandy would dispute the counterarguments rather than ignoring them. For example:
 * cite the clause of the treaty of 1259 that allowed Henry to keep the style;
 * explain how the ducal title was not merged into the (titular) crown of France after 1340;
 * explain the amazing coincidence by which the ducal succession went through exactly the same irregularities as the royal succession of England; or, if the ducal title is attached to the English crown rather than descending independently, explain why this article should repeat what amounts to a list of the monarchs of England in full numbing detail when it's readily available elsewhere.

Somewhere or other I've seen the full styles of Queen Mary (Tudor) and King Philip (Habsburg); I think it's in Fox-Davies The Art of Heraldry but couldn't find it through the index. I do remember that the list includes "erles of Tirol", so if Mary claimed dukeship of Normandy it ought to be in there; if it's not, will anyone's mind be changed? —Tamfang (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha! Found it in Philip II of Spain: "Their joint royal style after Philip ascended the Spanish throne in 1556 was: Philip and Mary, by the Grace of God King and Queen of England, Spain, France, Jerusalem, both the Sicilies and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Burgundy, Milan and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tirol." —Tamfang (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * These styles are also recited in Style of the British Sovereign; which also mentions: In 1204, England lost both Normandy and Anjou. Nevertheless, they did not renounce the associated titles until 1259. —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No takers in seven weeks. Can't say I'm terribly surprised. So eventually I'll get around to deleting the popular nonsense again, and someone will immediately go "is too!!!1!". —Tamfang (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the Queen must occasionally sign something relating to the islands, and at least some such documents must be in the public record. How would one go about finding the text thereof? Either it contains some formula such as "In the name of Her Majesty the Duke" or it doesn't. —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If this agreement was with the French Monarch
And the French Monarch was overthrown then how could this still remain active??? Did the new French Republic recognise this agreement? Even Squatters rights would have kicked in by now. This claim sounds to me to be as frivolous as Russia's claim on Alaska. CaribDigita (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not entirely clear what you mean by this agreement. You might consider, for comparison, the principalities of Monaco and Andorra. —Tamfang (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

kings of France

 * In 1204, the King of France confiscated the Duchy of Normandy and subsumed it into the crown lands of France. The followings Kings of France ruled as Dukes of Normandy:

Wrong. No one was ever simultaneously duke of Normandy and king of France: the king cannot be his own vassal. Accordingly, none of the articles on the kings mention their holding such a title. The article Philip VI of France refers to his son the future king as duke of Normandy, but John II of France does not!

A few kings of France may have been simultaneously dukes of Brittany, before Brittany (like French Navarre a bit later) was annexed to the kingdom proper; but I don't think the kings of France ever denied that Normandy was part of their kingdom. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

" However King of France was the de jure overlord of local duchies since Capetian era, even though King didn't have de facto control over duchies, he should not be able to become duke of any ancient provinces. " Am I correct ? —Siyac (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. What are you quoting? —Tamfang (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette's Dad
Wasn't Marie Antoinette's father a Duke of Normandy? I think I read something about that in Kathryn Lasky's "Royal Diaries" about her, but, then again, it is historical fiction, so I could be wrong. (Read the book! It is sooo good!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.132.202 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * According to her article, she was "the youngest daughter of Emperor Francis I and Empress Maria Theresa of the Holy Roman Empire." That's a long way from Normandy!  Scolaire (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He was formerly duke of Lorraine (and gave it up in the settlement of 1735, in exchange for Tuscany). Lorraine is (now) in northern France, so is that close enough? —Tamfang (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

-Marie Antoinette's son; Louis Charles (the future titular Louis XVII of France) was styled Duke of Normandy between 1785 and 1789.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II
There is not much on HM in this article... Flosssock1 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because her ancestor gave up the English claim to the title in 1259 (see previous discussion). If you want info on the present head of the Commonwealth, I see that there is an article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I confused by this but what I think I'm getting is that because the Jersey Islands are still apart of the United Kingdom they consider her the Duke of Normandy. I would like to see this elaborated on.--129.130.209.245 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Letters Patent of 1565 by Elizabeth I, gifting the island of Sark to Helier de Carteret clearly says in the second paragraph WHEREAS our Island of Sark, situate near our Islands of Guernsey and Jersey, within our Duchy of Normandy. See here If Elizabeth I still recognised herself as having a Duchy of Normandy in 1565 long after the treaty of Paris in 1259 it must have still existed, if only as a name to call the territory. Furthermore on the British royal website regarding the Channel Islands it says that They are dependent territories of the English Crown, as successor to the Dukes of Normandy, it go's on to say that ...they owe allegiance to The Queen in her role as Duke of Normandy see here. It looks as if the issue is that the role and title has continued as there was nothing else to call them, after all the islands are/have never been not part of the old Kingdom of England or of the UK today, so no other titles the Queen has covers that territory. ThinkingTwice ''contribs 10:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And isn't their toast on the islands to "The Queen, Our Duke? The C of E (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Toasts don't have much force of law. —Tamfang (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to me the royal website contradicts itself: "the English Crown, as successor to the Dukes of Normandy" does not say the English monarch is a Duke of Normandy, it says she is the successor-in-interest to the Dukes (who no longer exist). It's exactly like saying "The President of the French Republic is a co-prince of Andorra, as successor to the Kings of France."
 * The 1565 usage is interesting. (I'd say "claimed" rather than "recognised herself as having".)  The question remains, why wasn't Normandy mentioned among the styles of her predecessors Mary & Philip (quoted above)? —Tamfang (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth I claimed to be Queen of France, so "our Duchy" likely means only "our province" rather than "the duchy of which we are Duke". The ducal title, if it survived after 1259, would have merged in the French crown in 1340. —Tamfang (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse the late arrival into the conversation, however, does www.royal.gov.uk not state clearly that "In fulfilling its responsibilities to the Islands, the Crown acts through the Privy Council. The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor is the Privy Counsellor primarily concerned with the affairs of the Channel Islands." She is, therefore, still the crown and the new notes reflect this - they show Her Majesty with her crown rather than Duke of Normandy garb. The site does go on to acknowledge that "In the Channel Islands The Queen is known as The Duke of Normandy. At official functions, islanders raise the loyal toast to 'The Duke of Normandy, our Queen'." This is merely a quirky bit of fun - NOT a reflection of the true legal and constitutional position of Her Majesty.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.179.100 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 28 July 2012

Reigning Duchess of Normandy
The article Empress Matilda seem to say, as far as I understand, that she was reigning duchess of the Duchy of Normandy jointly with her spouse from 1144 until 1149. Is this correct? If so, then should she not have an sucessionbox which states this, and should she not also be included in the List of rulers of the Duke of Normandy? It should also be stated exactly which years she ruled Normandy in the absence of her son. --Aciram (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that Geoffrey Plantagenet was Duke of Normandy by the right of conquest.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Is King Charles is now Duke of Norandy?
Someone with abit more knowledge than I might like to update this page. Shipsview (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is already in the article: "In the Channel Islands, the British monarch is known informally as the "Duke of Normandy", irrespective of whether or not the holder is male" Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there is nothing to update, the title of duke of Normandy was surrendered with all the continental holdings when Henry III signed or sealed the treaty of Paris of 1259. A little funny fact is the Anglo-Norman Islands were considered by the treaty to be part of the duchy of Aquitaine (later called Guyenne) as it was the largest holding under French suzerainty that belonged to Henry III.
 * The islands' status changed at the treaty of Brétigny in 1360, they would no longer be part of the duchy of Aquitaine nor under the suzerainty of the king of France which also meant any claims of an eventual title of duke of Normandy weren't raised as this title and the vast majority of the lands of Normandy were still part of the French King' suzerainty. All in all the idea of the British monarch being the duke of Normandy seems pretty and truly medieval, but it is a myth as strong as the one he is also the duke of Lancaster.
 * Some islanders in the Pacific said one day that Philip, late husband of Elizabeth II, was a living god. it didn't make true because they said it, that's the same with the loyal toasts made in the Channel Islands, it's not because they say "our duke" that the British monarch is duke of Normandy.
 * There is an interesting article from the Bailiwick express on that topic https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/charles-iii-our-duke/ 2A01:CB15:806A:1E00:30D9:F7DA:1F10:B467 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ... it didn't make true because they said it, that's the same with the loyal toasts made in the Channel Islands, it's not because they say "our duke" that the British monarch is duke of Normandy... 
 * Even if Philip were a living god, the rest of this is certainly true. Afaik, there have even been 20th century international court cases that have held as much, while still upholding English rule over the Channel Islands despite the loss of the previously associated duchy. See
 * for more. — Llywelyn II   00:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * for more. — Llywelyn II   00:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BIAS: King John wasn't the sole legal claimant & that was the whole problem
I get that it's normally English language and Euro-American bias versus other languages and cultures, but this article seems a rather silly example of English bias against the French. Philip Augustus didn't 'declare the title forfeit' out of the ether: John wasn't the sole legitimate claimant and went out of his way to (possibly personally) murder the other guy. That should at least be mentioned in the article and the list as the basis (along with John's refusal to appear before Philip to even answer to the charges) for the French seizure, if nothing else. — Llywelyn II   00:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)