One Last Frog Question
 

Frog RIP is no longer with us, and I'm glad it croaked before any more fur, feathers, or webbed feet started flying.

However, it died before I got a chance to ask my question. Why was 1415 given as the year this whole mess began? Why not 1066?

Please limit your replies to historical fact, or informed conjecture. I'm interested in the history,but please let opinions as to who is right/wrong/pc/or not RIP.

These frog threads don't explain why the French are also referred to as Froschfresser in other parts of Europe. Could it be that the frog terminology started with the French discovery of frog legs? This is not just a historical question anymore but also a culinary one.

Because the French (or at least, The Normans) won in 1066. The Norman Conquest was so complete that they became "us", at least for a while. Then the French French and the Norman (English) French fell out and started squabbling over territory. That's when we started calling them names.

I always thought the "frogs" thing was to do with eating frogs' legs. Eating frogs and snails was not an enduring part of the British diet, and I don't know if they were ever commonly consumed here.

Dowland wrote a piece of music called "The frog galliard".
It's supposed to be in honour of Queen Elizabeth's French suitor, the Duc d'Alen‡on.
It's said that she called him "my frog".

The French occasionally call the English <i>rosbif</i> (a distortion of &quot;roast beef&quot;), an obvious culinary reference, so it's reasonable to presume that <i>frog</i> refers to frogs' legs (which, oddly enough, are very rarely consumed by the French). Germans were called <i>kraut</i> in the past (more pejorative than <i>rosbif</i> or <i>frog</i>), another obvious reference to food, in this case sauerkraut.

It seems that specificities of national cuisines often give rise to nicknames for those nationalities. Sometimes they are socially acceptable, sometimes not. Often the specific dishes that give rise to the names are not widely consumed even among those of the targeted nationality (frogs' legs being an example).

Perhaps in the old days, frogs were more common on French menus, and the name stuck.

FWIW, much of today's English language is actually French in origin. The Norman Conquest was overwhelming enough to nearly eliminate English as it then existed, replacing it with a nearly-new language that became today's English.

There's a wonderful French comedy cartoon called &quot;Belleville rendez-vous&quot;
You can see clips at http://tinyurl.com/2xee83
There's one wonderful scene where three old ladies conform to the stereotype and are seen catching and eating frogs.

I've seen that animated film (actually a France/Belgium/Canada/U.K co-production -- now there's 'International' for you!) It was marketed as &quot;The Triplets of Belleville&quot; in North America.

The explanation i find most plausable is that the city of Paris used to be surrounded by marshes (and hence frogs) and that the people who lived in the city disparagingly referred to those from oputside as &quot;frogs&quot; and somehow the name stuck and came to mean all frogs.

This was about the time that we started fighting with the French in France, so the connection is obvious.

The Queen is still Duke of Normandy.

I thought that the words used by the French to the Normans (who mainly spoke a Norse/Irish/French mix) sounded like the coraking of frogs. SO when the Normans (aided by the second sons of a lot of french nobility) came to Hastings they were already poopooing the strange noise the second tier guys were making.

&gt;The Queen is still Duke of Normandy.

Shouldn't she be the Duchess of Normandy?

((I))

WIkipedia says: A woman who holds in her own right the title to such duchy or dukedom, or is the wife of a duke, is normally styled duchess. However, Queen Elizabeth II is known as Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands.

It's a Dukedom no matter who occupies it. The Queen is the direct descendent of William the Bastard - so she's Duke of Normandy (like he was in the 1060s)

Perhaps more than one would wish to know on the Duke of Normandy question:

http://www.jerseylegalinfo.je/public.../le_rouai.aspx

&quot;The Norman Conquest was overwhelming enough to nearly eliminate English&quot;

You are over stating the case there. The first few generations of Normans spoke Norman French, then were assimilated into the English population.

Clearly a lot of French passed into the language, but the English of the time was always spoken by the majority of the population.

1337 should be the kick off for Anglo French hostilities with the start of the 100 years war with Edward the Third of England claiming the throne of France.

&lt;The Queen is the direct descendent of William the Bastard - so she's Duke of Normandy (like he was in the 1060s)&gt;

and then why isn't it King Elizabeth?

Because the title of King/Queen changes with the gender of he incumbent. The title of Duke of Normandy doesn't. It's as simple as that.

Her full title (in the UK) is:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Prince Charles' is:

His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay and Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew and Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.

Sounds like the Crown could save a ton of money on printing by truncating the official titles

and that's the type of answer i would expect from someone with a 'proper' education

Good show

I can't see how Queen Elizabeth is a direct descendant of William the Conqueror. If nothing else we had the whole Henri VII, James I and William and Mary family changes let alone the War of the Roses etc.

There could just possible be some shared genes but along with the population of the rest of Europe.

She's a shirt-tail relative i believe and mainly derives from the Saxe-Cobourg German royals

that's why they say George W Bush and especially his mother Barbara have more English royal blood than Queenie does - even though theirs is not blue.

We've done this before.

There hasn't been an English monarch since 1066, and if the Bushes can trace their ancestry back that far, I'd be astonished.

The Queen is descended from the House of Wessex (two lines), William the Bastard (Normans), Harold Godwinson (last English), The Scottish Monarchy, Charlemagne and the Merovingians (of Da Vinci Code fame)