"Titles of pretense" and ambassadors after the Hundred Years' War

Factual Questions
1

During the Hundred Years’ War, the Kings of England tried to lay claim to the throne of France, but even after they were clearly beaten, the English (and later the British) formally claimed the throne of France until 1801.

So, what happened when England (or later Great Britain) sent an ambassador to France? Granted, England/Britain and France were at war with each other a fair bit even after the end of the Hundred Years’ War, but they weren’t always at war. When an ambassador from, say, James I of England (James VI of Scotland) showed up in France and was announced as “His Grace the Duke of Earl, the ambassador from His Majesty James, By the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc”, did everyone just sort of stare fixedly into space, or have a coughing fit when the word “France” was pronounced, or would they just leave that part out? And conversely, when a French ambassador showed up at the Court of St. James, how would they handle that? “Your Majesty, the ambassador from that guy who insists on calling himself His Most Christian Majesty the King of France is here.” (And not just ambassadors, but also what about official letters and treaties and such.)

And more generally, how did everyone handle blatantly conflicting “titles of pretense”? (The English–later British–claim to the throne of France being just one of the more obvious ones.)

2

Not an informed guess at all, but I imagine realpolitik became necessary if they didn’t want to exhaust themselves in eternal conflict. I imagine they handled it in the same way as, say, Britain and Argentina handle clashes over the Falklands, i.e. using it as a means to rally their populations/mock the foreigners, and every now and then bristling about it in diplomacy, but otherwise getting on with life.

3

By being very careful. At the top level, this stuff is second nature, and being careful is what you are paid to do.

At the bottom level your job is to stay out of the way, and not speak unless spoken too.

In between, you have people who will get trouble from their boss/supervisor if they use the incorrect form of address.

Just like normal life, what you call yourself is not always what other people call you.

4

Well, granted, after a certain point I doubt anyone on either side of the Channel took the claim very seriously. (I’m imagining the 18th century French telling the King of Great Britain, “We are tired of all these Louis! Please take your rightful place as King of France!” I would bet the response in London would be one of utter consternation.)

I just wondered if anyone had any idea how the silly claim was handled as a matter of protocol (protocol being veddy veddy important in diplomacy).

5

Let’s try answering this with some actual evidence.

Diplomats, even when they were being at their most formal, tended to avoid using monarchs’ full titles. That saved time and ink, but, more importantly, it was a useful way of sidestepping these sorts of problems. In the specific case of Anglo-French dealings, the English/British monarch would just be called the King/Queen of England/Great Britain by themselves and by the King of France. Conversely, the King/Queen of England/Great Britain just referred to the King of France as ‘the King of France and Navarre’ without mentioning that he or she claimed the first of those titles for themselves.

You can see plenty of examples of this in the documents printed in the various volumes of Frances Gardiner Davenport’s European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies.

European treaties bearing on the history of the United States and its dependencies : Davenport, Frances Gardiner, 1870-1927 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (pp. 232, 245, 273, 302, 319)
European treaties bearing on the history of the United States and its dependencies : Davenport, Frances Gardiner, 1870-1927 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (pp. 134, 314, 328, 360)
European treaties bearing on the history of the United States and its dependencies : Davenport, Frances Gardiner, 1870-1927 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (pp. 8, 22, 164, 208, 220)
European treaties bearing on the history of the United States and its dependencies : Davenport, Frances Gardiner, 1870-1927 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (pp. 12, 13, 27, 37, 41, 69, 70, 71, 76, 86, 92, 147, 152, 155, 157)

A good example of how careful the British could be over such details is that in his commission to his ambassadors sent to conclude the 1667 Anglo-French treaty, Charles II calls himself ‘Magnae Britanniae, Francaiae, et Hiberniae rex’, whereas he calls Louis XIV ‘Galliarum et Navarrae regem’ (Davenport, ii. 137), but Charles is only ‘Magnae Britanniae regem’ in the final treaty (Davenport, ii. 134). Oddly, Charles did call himself ‘roy de la Grande Bretagne, France, et Irlande’ when ratifying the Secret Treaty of Dover, but any discordancy was avoided by referring to Louis as ‘le roy Tres Chrestien’ (Davenport, ii. 180-2). I don’t suppose that, in the circumstances, Louis would have seen much point in making a fuss.

Another interesting case is the 1718 treaty. That throws in (some of) George I’s German titles (Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg, elector of the Holy Roman Empire), but still uses the short version of his British titles, ‘Magnae Britanniae Rex’ (Davenport, iv. 13).

6

These claims could be safely ignored by all, until a situation arose where they might be useful.

For instance to get King James VI to turn into James I, and avoid his technical disqualification, the English Privy Council choose to rely on England’s long dormant claim of overlordship over Scotland

7

Thank you! Those are very helpful resources.