Talk:Dieu et mon droit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, Anglo-French was already a dead language by Henry VI's time. Like Latin, it's a traditional language for things like mottoes (E Pluribus Unum) and legal jargon. The bailiff of the U.S. Supreme court calls "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!" (the Anglo-French equivalent of the more familiar "Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye!") when the court convenes.

Well..my name is Michael Raymond i am a vary far decendent of king henry and his prhase that he had i own the royal coat of arms thus it was pasted down to me but the phrase is vary vary old and to me back than the words didnt need to make since as long as they have the meaning they want they dont care...but please if you have any questions about the history please contact me at ekimlaerecnam@aim.com have a good day!

I've seen some references to the idea that this motto preserves an archaic spelling (or a simple mispelling) and should actually be read as "Dieu est mon droit" - i.e. God is my right - which makes more sense to me as a motto. Is this verifiable? fabiform | talk 09:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A misspelling is certainly possible, but an archaic form is not. Both et and est are very old, possibly (though I'm not sure) going all the way back to Latin. Xyzzyva 22:23, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Correct

[edit] "Honi soit qui mal y pense"

Why is the comment about "Honi soit qui mal y pense" necessary? The Order of the Garter was founded ~65-70 years earlier, and the fact that it has a French motto seems irrelevant unless there is some other connection that hasn't been mentioned here. Kyriosity 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] use of the Royal Arms and Royal motto in courts

This is my 1st Article about; Wikipedia articles on: The use of the Royal Arms and Royal motto in courts. In all courts throughout England and Wales, all Judges and Magistrates sit beneath the Royal Coat of Arms with the motto; “DIEU ET MON DROIT - GOD AND MY RIGHT” In the Queens Coronation oath, she makes her solemn oath in the sight of all the people by “laying her right hand upon the Bible saying: So help me God.” This oath is in accordance with Magna Carta Statutes: “John, by the grace of God King of England,” “Know that before God.” [61] “We give public and free permission to take the oath …we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.” This oath is compelled to be sworn by jurors, witnesses and the accused, in all law courts. The Court Usher compels the subject to place their left hand upon the Bible [representing God] and to raise their right hand. They then state the oath; “I swear by almighty God.....” Accordingly I/we all swear on oath by “God (h)and my right” - before and using - "God and my right". The Court’s use of DIEU - GOD, is not to British Monarchs, as this originates from the pledge of allegiance to English Kings/Queens; “In the name of God, King and Country.” Pledges of allegiance to all Germanic British Kings/Queens since the 1701 Act of Union, replaced this pledge with; “In the name of the King/Queen, his/her heirs and successors.” Stephen2nd (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Any comments ? [References]: [Coquetdale Magistrates Court]: Road Traffic Act: GH/GH/0033022. 3/01 to 21/09/1995. Chief Constable of Northumbria Police: John Stevens v. Stephen Mowbray McDermott. G Hogg [re Lord Chancellor]: Royal Arms displayed in all courts in England and Wales. [NB: not in all courts throughout the country]Stephen2nd (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Any Comments ? [Wikepedia]: Royal Coat of Arms: Motto: Magna Carta: Coronation and Judicial OathsStephen2nd (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the quotes and some other parts of the argument that "Dieu et mon Droit" derives from oath taking. I left the basic proposition with a fact tag. If the basic proposition is not given serious, verifiable sourcing by Friday, 25 April, I will remove it. -Rrius (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As indicated in reference to my 1st article, this is a substantial ongoing work in progress. Although I accept your right to edit Wikepedia articles, please allow me my right to cite my full research evidence into the public domain, on the Royal Arms, Motto and Garter. This link between the Motto “Dieu et mon droit” and its meaning as “God and my right” has been only been established in terms of its French, to its English language translation, which can equally be said of the Magna Carta, in its translations from Latin to English. People consult encyclopedias in their research for and hopeful discoveries of knowledge. In terms of academic research, as in judicial procedings, it is up to the jury to determine what is the truth, or the facts of the case, based on their hearing all of the case evidence. I’ve only began submitting evidences, including; defending the monarchs rights to rule.

The basic proposition that Dieu et mon droit derived from oath taking is a matter of law. According to the law, it is a legal requirement that you must use both hands as part of the ritual of taking the Oath. One hand on the Bible [God] and you must raise the other hand. It is also factual that all courts in England and Wales display the Royal Arms, containing the motto’s hidden and un-translated meaning of the specific phrase; “God and my right.” It is a verifiable fact that Magna Carta is Kings Statute law, and courts are courts of law. The Magna Carta, which many believe is the foundation of both the law, and of rights, is the earliest known legal document to actually state the relevant phrases; to take the oath; swear it at our command; sworn; without deceit; Witness, and also; Given by our hand.

Modern religious and political usage and meaning of “God” are as infinitesimal as the meanings of “my right,” which can equally be said of Magna Carta and rights and laws. The meanings of the motto and Magna Carta in their original forms were concealed in a secret and disguised way of writing, ie French and Latin, until transformed into English. The historical meanings of Magna Carta text in 1215ad, were only known to the people actually involved in its creation, had access to the document and or could interpret Latin. In its original Latin form, the Magna Carta was incomprehensible to the majority of the 1215; people of this land, which could neither speak Latin, or even read or write English. [Magna Carta BL]: “The translation sets out to convey the sense rather than the precise wording of the original Latin.” Further evolutions may also seem relevant in this context: Freedom of the Churches elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it; in elections today, we still put a C13th “X” rather than write our name? That the ‘English Church’ be free and have its rights undiminished – Church of England?

The term given by our hand, has many historical, royal, political and modern meanings, laterally thinking; [phonetic] Write is right. [Logic] Most hands are extensions of Arms. [C11th MS] Edgar; King of the English 959-975: depicted holding a palm in his hands, which is the earliest known reference to the term; Palm of the hand. [Longcroft’s C14th: Chronicle of England]: Henry II debating with Becket emphasizing on fingers and hands. [Brockhaus]: C19th Nazi salute: Installation and coronation of German kings with "Heil". Hitler and Himmler regarded Nazi salute as identical with the rendering of a judicial oath. Since 1945, this salute and the judicial oath are now forbidden by law in Germany. Thus witnesses and accused, cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during a trial.

NB: Sensus verborum est anima legis: Dieu et mon Droit: Scire debes cum quo contrahis. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The most charitable thing I can say is that your argument is original research, which is not the province of any encyclopedia. It is therefore against Wikipedia policy. See WP:No original research. As such, I am going to delete the conclusion that "Dieu et mon droit" originates with oath swearing. I would suggest that if you wish to include this conclusion in the article, you ought to prepare text that is fully sourced. That includes the conclusion itself, not just premises. I would also suggest that you make the text more reader friendly than your last attempt. -Rrius (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Like Rrius, I encourage you to read "Wikipedia:No original research", especially the section "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" before continuing to contribute to this article. Even if individual facts are verifiable, the conclusion that they lead you to cannot be included in the article unless it has been verifiably published by a reliable source.

“A Message from his Majesty the King" :

"To all serving in my Forces by sea or land, or in the air, and indeed, to all my people engaged in the defence of the Realm, I commend the reading of this book. For centuries the Bible has been a wholesome and strengthening influence in our national life, and it behoves us in these momentous days to turn with renewed faith to this Divine source of comfort and inspiration.” George VI: (father of Queen Elizabeth.) 15th September 1939. Ref: Holy Bible: Active Service Edition.

King James Version of the Holy Bible:

“Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent your Majesties Royal Person to rule and reign over us... (e.g.: Divine right of kings.) …we may rest secure and supported within the truth and innocency of a good conscience, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.”Stephen2nd (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)