It makes sense to elide 'de' because it was elided in classical Latin already.
Oh! The Song of Roland's ambdui vus en taisez. Yes, that would be a better choice.Thanks As for the eliding, I found the phrase "Cez sunt les leis e les custumes que li reis Will. grantad al pople de Engleterre" in the "leis Willelme," which was written in the 11th century, so I decided that it might be a fine choice. I guess I can chalk it up to scribal differences, so I'll use "d'Engleterre" to be safe.
And as for the "ambdui vos ne dites veir" part, I'm considering saying "ambdui vos en taisez", a quote from the Song of Roland, instead, because I discussed it with someone else and they said that might be more forceful and authoritative.
I know, right? I'll use "de Engleterre", it seems more "authentic" that way, if you will. Oh, and the "Leis de Willelme" was actually written in the 12th century, sorry for the typo ^^;Oh! The Song of Roland's ambdui vus en taisez. Yes, that would be a better choice.
I am surprised I didn't know about all these unelided de prepositions. The more you know.
So, in a word to word translation, you're, of course, absolutely correct that it translates this and that way, but I would argue that from the point of phraseology/lexicology the Latin strongly preferred the phrase "King of [People-of-the-nation_gen-pl]" where modern languages say "King of [Country]". From that point, it would be more correct to translate "King of [Country]" or "King of [Country_adjective]" as "King of [People-of-the-nation_gen-pl]". Of the top of my head: Persārum Rēx and Rēx Persārum - very frequent (more than few examples), while all other mutations (Rex Persiae, Rex Persicus are virtually if not absolutely non-exstant...)It's grammatically right, but it literally means 'king of the English'. 'king of England' would be rex Angliae.