Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 368
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

To begin with my own country, and its constituent realms of England, Scotland and Ireland (only part of the last remaining in union), the first controversy is with the equal most frequently-used name, Edward. We got up to Edward VIII, though his dismal history makes an IX unlikely, but why was he not Edward XI? Before the official Edward I there had been Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor, all undoubted Kings of the English as the title was then.

When numbering began to be used, which it wasn’t in their day hence the by-names that distinguish them, why did Edward I who was actually named after Edward the Confessor not acknowledge the existence of his predecessor, namesake and remote uncle and his two predecessors, namesakes and respectively uncle and great-great-grandfather and call himself Edward IV? Beats me, and everyone else it would seem.



I was under the impression that Edward I did not, in fact, chose to call himself "Edward I" at all; the earliest reference to him as such that I am aware of is on his tomb, as part of the (in)famous inscription Edwardus Primus Scottorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva. Edward was primarily known in is own lifetime by the nickname Longshanks, or else as Edward, son of Henry. So if the pre-Norman Edwards feel slighted, they should take up their case against Longshanks' successors, not the man himself. I also recall reading somewhere that the regnal number "I" was originally a shortened form of the style "First of that name after the Conquest," which would make sense; however I can't remember where I read it and have been unable to find any other source to corroborate, so take that theory with a pinch of salt.

Quote:

Ideally, the Acts of Union would have contained an agreed system, obviating future complaints (well, probably not obviating, but at least reducing the basis for them). But they didn’t. The alternatives would have been 1) follow England, as the senior and larger realm;



On what grounds would you consider England to be the senior realm? Larger, certainly; but the traditional founding date of the Kingdom of Scotland is 843 AD, when Kenneth MacAlpin unified the thrones of Dál Riata and the Picts. It wasn't until the 880s that Alfred the Great assumed the style "King of the Anglo-Saxons," and one could argue that the unification of England wasn't completed until 927 when King Æthelstan secured recognition as King of the English and effective overlord of the whole of Great Britain. So by most accounts Scotland is the older nation and was the older kingdom.

__________________
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: 7,534
Reply with quote  #17 
Okay, I'll excuse Edward I and blame Edward II instead. While Kenneth McAlpin was certainly a historical figure, whether he was a historical King of both the Picts and Scots is very doubtful -- just the Picts seems far more likely. It is very difficult to define a credible and defensible date for Scotland's coherence as a unified kingdom, and there is also more than one date that could reasonably be proposed for England, with Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder and Athelstan all arguably first proper King of the English. But whatever date you go for it is likely to be earlier than the date for Scotland. Finally, from the beginning English kings claimed and sometimes exercised supremacy over those of Scotland, while the reverse never happened.

This is not to deny Scotland's sovereignty, but it is to affirm England's seniority. And it being so much larger, wealthier and more populous does count for something. Castile was way junior to León as a kingdom, but the combined realms were always known under the name of the larger and more prominent of the two, as a foreign precedent actually predating the Scottish Wars of Independence (in which the right side won, in my view), never mind the Union of the Crowns.

Lots of Stephens in Serbia too, Windemere, though usually with something added to the name. And lots of Michaels in the Eastern Empire. One Sigismund as Holy Roman Emperor, and a very significant one who was also King of both Hungary and Bohemia. I could have put in the Polish Johns but didn't really think about it, I was no more striving for comprehensiveness than royalcello was originally, just seeking to bulk up a little, and in particular didn't add any names he'd left alone. No reason not to do so, and perhaps if we all carry on we will end up with something fairly comprehensive. Hope so.
CyrilSebastian

Registered:
Posts: 257
Reply with quote  #18 
Poland had 3 kings named Augustus.                   
Augustus II of Poland was also Elector of Saxony as Frederick Augustus I.  

__________________
Laszlo Gere
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #19 
And August III was as Friedrich Augustus II.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.