Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 452
Reply with quote  #1 
You know, it's a little bit frustrating to have the monarchs of a Kingdom have the same regnal name over and over again.

Even if we include just the house of Oldenburg onwards they'd still have John to resort to, of course they still have such names as Eric, Christopher or Valdemar.

It's a pet peeve of mine but still, I preffer variety among my royal names.
TuiMangareva

Registered:
Posts: 49
Reply with quote  #2 
I agree it is a bit boring. At least the Dutch can't be accused of that.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,815
Reply with quote  #3 
On the contrary I sort of like the 1513-1972 Christian/Frederik pattern. It's unique. And I'm glad it's set to resume after the present reign.
bator

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #4 
as a dane i fully agree with you royalcello. also it makes it easier to get high regal numbers chich i like, and you can actually use simple maths to calculate who was the third king before a certain one. and the royal line is easy to remember. at least that part of it. thanks for your support dear royalcello
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,032
Reply with quote  #5 
You've got my support too, for what it's worth. As royalcello says, the alternating names are a unique feature of Danish royal tradition, established for hundreds of years now, and feeling a bit bored doesn't seem much of a justification for altering as opposed to celebrating the tradition. Incidentally, the first name of both Frederik VIII and Frederik IX was in fact Christian, though they each did have Frederik among their further names. All the other Frederiks and Christians in the alternation were actually using their own first names, rather than a different name as a regnal choice.

Had Danish succession law not been changed to allow the present Queen's accession, her father Frederik IX would have been succeeded by her uncle Hereditary Prince Knud rather than herself. Would he, I wonder, have reigned as Knud VII? Though he was in full Knud Frederik Christian Michael, so Frederik X and Christian XI would both have been options, with the last perhaps the most likely choice.
Elizabelo_II

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 452
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
You've got my support too, for what it's worth. As royalcello says, the alternating names are a unique feature of Danish royal tradition, established for hundreds of years now, and feeling a bit bored doesn't seem much of a justification for altering as opposed to celebrating the tradition. Incidentally, the first name of both Frederik VIII and Frederik IX was in fact Christian, though they each did have Frederik among their further names. All the other Frederiks and Christians in the alternation were actually using their own first names, rather than a different name as a regnal choice.

Had Danish succession law not been changed to allow the present Queen's accession, her father Frederik IX would have been succeeded by her uncle Hereditary Prince Knud rather than herself. Would he, I wonder, have reigned as Knud VII? Though he was in full Knud Frederik Christian Michael, so Frederik X and Christian XI would both have been options, with the last perhaps the most likely choice.


Having a king named Knud would have been better than a King nammed Frederick again : P
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 309
Reply with quote  #7 
I can't say that I have any objections to it. Christian and Frederick are both certainly better names for a royal child than... Ugh... "Archie." And as others have said, it's a unique national tradition. I've always liked the Anglo-Saxon royal tradition of names beginning with an "a." Shame that didn't continue after the conquest.
__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,032
Reply with quote  #8 
Well, not too many traditions did, the Conquest was an abrupt and violent breach in continuity, the overthrowing of the entire established order of things and its replacement with imported customs and traditions. But Edward I had a son called Alfonso, who while he lived was heir. Sadly he only made it to ten or so, otherwise he would have somewhat fitted your bill. And then Henry VII nearly got followed by Arthur instead of Henry VIII. And if Edward VII and George VI had used their first rather than regnal names and been Alberts I and II, that would have met your wish, albeit a touch belatedly. Oh yeah, and before that Victoria could have reigned as Alexandrina instead. Though the Alexandrinian era would have been a bit of a mouthful.

But the fact is most kings of the English prior to the seismic events of 1066 didn't have names beginning with 'A'. They began with the ligature Æ; Ælfred, Æthelred and so on. Which I know is being super, super pedantic, but hey, what else do you expect from me? Here's to Frederik XXVIII and his successor Christian XXIX, and many more thereafter.
bator

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
You've got my support too, for what it's worth. As royalcello says, the alternating names are a unique feature of Danish royal tradition, established for hundreds of years now, and feeling a bit bored doesn't seem much of a justification for altering as opposed to celebrating the tradition. Incidentally, the first name of both Frederik VIII and Frederik IX was in fact Christian, though they each did have Frederik among their further names. All the other Frederiks and Christians in the alternation were actually using their own first names, rather than a different name as a regnal choice.

Had Danish succession law not been changed to allow the present Queen's accession, her father Frederik IX would have been succeeded by her uncle Hereditary Prince Knud rather than herself. Would he, I wonder, have reigned as Knud VII? Though he was in full Knud Frederik Christian Michael, so Frederik X and Christian XI would both have been options, with the last perhaps the most likely choice.


thank you very much, and indeed you as a person knowing so much about royal names, your support means much to me :-) since you think christian xi would have been the most likely name for knud, which regal name would you think would be the most likely for his son prince ingolf?
bator

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
I can't say that I have any objections to it. Christian and Frederick are both certainly better names for a royal child than... Ugh... "Archie." And as others have said, it's a unique national tradition. I've always liked the Anglo-Saxon royal tradition of names beginning with an "a." Shame that didn't continue after the conquest.


hmm what about edward the confessor? that also doesnt start with an a or æ
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,032
Reply with quote  #11 
Prince Ingolf Christian Frederik Knud Harald Gorm Gustav Viggo Valdemar Aage of Denmark certainly had plenty of options in the event that he were to succeed. Frederik X being perhaps the favourite among them. Eadweard, Eadgar, Eadwig, Eadmund (Edward, Edgar, Edwy, Edmund in modern spellings) were all old English royal names starting with E, occurring thrice, twice, once and twice respectively. There was an Eadred (Edred) as well. Only Edward ever got used after the Conquest, the first such bearer of the name actually being christened in honour of the Confessor but nevertheless not numbered so as to acknowledge him or his predecessors the Martyr and the Elder. Which I have always felt was wrong, not that I would campaign for the disastrous Edward VIII say to be posthumously renumbered Edward XI. Confusion would be unbounded, and every time you mentioned a King Edward the whatever you would have to specify old or new numbering.
Hovite

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 68
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Eadweard, Eadgar, Eadwig, Eadmund (Edward, Edgar, Edwy, Edmund in modern spellings) were all old English royal names starting with E, occurring thrice, twice, once and twice respectively. There was an Eadred (Edred) as well. Only Edward ever got used after the Conquest.


Eadmund/Edmund has been used, but no prince with that name has become king since 1066. However, the second son of Henry III was Edmund, Earl of Leicester and Lancaster, and the fifth son of Edward III was Edmund, Duke of York.

Eadgar/Edgar has also survived in use, and a King Edgar reigned in Scotland from 1097 to 1107.

This curious habit of using names commencing with E- (or Æ- or Ea-) originated in the Jutish Kingdom of Kent, the earliest reasonably certain example being King Eormenric, father of King Æthelbeorht I. The nearby kingdoms of Essex and Wessex had similar customs: most Kings of Essex had names beginning with S-, while in Wessex names with C- (modern K-) were used.

In 789 Wessex and Mercia formed an alliance (sealed by a royal marriage) and conquered Kent. Two princes, who later became Kings Eadbeorht III and Ecgbeorht III, fled to France. King Eadbeorht III returned to Kent in 796 but he was deposed by a further Mercian conquest in 798 and taken into captivity. The paternity Eadbeorht III is not recorded, but Ecgbeorht III was the son of King Ealhmund of Kent. After thirteen years in France, Ecgbeorht III returned in 802 and took Wessex, adding Kent in 823, and also reigning as King of Mercia for one year, during 829-830. This amalgamation of three kingdoms under one king is the origin of the Kingdom of England.

The Anglo-Saxon form of Archie was Eorcenbeald. There were no kings of that name, but there was an Eorcenbeorht, who was King of Kent, 640-664, and was the father of Ecgbeorht I, 664-673.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,032
Reply with quote  #13 
I was aware of those Edmunds, also of Edmund, Earl of Kent, a younger half-brother of Edward II, and Edmund, Earl of Rutland, a younger brother of Edward IV. And there was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, seen by many as a claimant to the throne. The rest of your very interesting information however was new to me, and thank you for it.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,032
Reply with quote  #14 
As an afternote, I did of course also know of the Scots king Edgar, a son of Malcolm III and Margaret of Wessex. His elder brothers, all of whom lived to adulthood though for one reason or another none succeeded, were incidentally named Edward, Edmund and Ethelred, in that order. It was however King Edgar's younger brothers Alexander I and David I whose names were used by subsequent monarchs, his and his elder siblings' very English names not being emulated in further generations. There was though a further and much later English royal Edgar; Edgar, Duke of Cambridge, a son of the future James II and his first wife Anne Hyde. He lived only to the age of three, but during his life was heir presumptive to the English, Scottish and Irish thrones after his father.

As a further afternote, and by pure coincidence, shortly after posting the above I came across this fascinating and very relevant article on the remains of some of our earliest royalty lying at Winchester Cathedral, which I should think Hovite in particular would want to read.
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 410
Reply with quote  #15 
It's too bad about the vandalism of the old Anglo-Saxon royal caskets at Winchester Cathedral by the Parliamentarian troops, but it's fortunate that Rev. Ryves, who came from a prominent royalist family, was able to record the names and information about the likely identity of many of the ancient royal and ecclesiastical bones. It seems that the people of the locality valued the cathedral and objected to the vandalism  that was taking place, and that  some of the Parliamentarian commanders with a respect for history were able to intervene and prevent further desecration of the remains. 

Up until recently, I'd always pronounced the Anglo-Saxon phoneme th (which often follows the diphthong AE, as in Aethelwulf) with a soft sound (as in 'thing' or 'throw'). But according to online sites in Anglo-Saxon pronunciation, it's evidently supposed to be pronounced with the hard th sound (as in 'them' or 'that').

I'd have preferred Archibald for the new baby's name, or even Eorcenbeald, which although a bit dated, still carries an aura of old and honorable authority behind it. It's regrettable that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have adopted the current fashion of choosing diminutive and cute names for their offspring. "Archie" would be suitable as a nickname. I wonder if the choice of name for the new baby represents  some peculiar ancestral propensity derived from the Duchess' paternal bloodline which is only now coming to the forefront. 



__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.