question about Europe Monarchy

After two generations the Junior/Senior distinction becomes blurred.

I shudder when I see birth announcements for John Smith, II. I would use "Junior" but I shudder even more when I read the police notes and see that Henry Brown, IV, has been arrested for mugging little old ladies.

I have male cousins with fairly unusual first names. Rather than get into the "IV" and the "Junior" confusion, each of them named a son for a brother.

0 Replies

I don't see that anyone has mentioned that dynastic names do not necessarily relate to the given names of those who get the dynastic name.

For example, the eldest son of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha and Queen Victoria was named Albert. Everyone called him Bertie. When Victoria died, he became King Edward VII. Tradition is an incubus which fixes itself ever more surely on each succeeding generation of monarchical broods, as they desparately cling to a past made hazily glorious in comparison to the tawdry present.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

After two generations the Junior/Senior distinction becomes blurred.

I haven't noticed that three generations carry the same christian name, but I agree that this would get a bit confusing ... as long as they are all still alive, doing the same business or similar :wink:

0 Replies

Re: question about Europe Monarchy

WannaBeRoyal wrote:

Actually NO Monarch has ever chosen a name and added "I" to it. The number is a designator as to WHICH monarch of that name. King John will become King John I ONLY when another King John comes along as King John II.

In general, this is correct, but there are exceptions. Some monarchs have been known as "the first" even if there was never any "the second." The last emperor of Austria was known as Charles I (Karl I), probably to distinguish himself from all the Holy Roman emperors named "Charles" who came before him (as king of Hungary, he was Charles IV). Because the Austrian monarchy ended in 1918, there has been no "Karl II."

WannaBeRoyal wrote:

Along this topic also is that by tradition they can use ANY of their given names. Prince Charles does not necessarily HAVE to become King Charles III. He can be either King Charles III, King Philip II, King Arthur OR King George VII

I seem to recall that there was a law passed which gave the Scottish numbering of monarchs parity with the English. Thus, if someone named "James" became king, he would be "James VII," not "James III." That rule wouldn't affect prince Charles, who would be "Charles III" under either system.

0 Replies

That is, if he chooses Charles for his dynastic name. I would suggest that this is likely, but not certain. By the time his mother dies, or abdicates in his favor (unlikely so long as she enjoys relative good health), there won't be many left who remember her father, George VI, so i doubt that that name would be used to make a positive image for him. There has been no William as monarch since the predecessor to Victoria, William IV--which might mitigate rather in its favor. Of course, depending upon the extent to which the national history matters to those involved, Charles might be an unfortunate choice of name. The first Charles was a pigheaded, proud man who was as responsible as anyone else in England for his own execution. His son's fame for his "equipment," and the use he put it to with numerous mistresses, official and otherwise, producing quite a brood of royal bastards, might not be the best image for this Charles to conjure, either.

0 Replies

Quote:

I seem to recall that there was a law passed which gave the Scottish numbering of monarchs parity with the English. Thus, if someone named "James" became king, he would be "James VII," not "James III."

It didn;t need a law to be passed; it's just that Scotland was and is a different kingdom from England (this is not a technicality; it still has a separate legal system) and whereas the present monarch is Queen Elizabeth II of England she is Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland. The correct form is "Queen Elizabeth II and I". NB that there has already been a James VII of Scotland, so if there were to be another King James he would be King James III & VIII.

0 Replies

In her speech to Parliament at the Silver Jubilee in 1977, Queen Elisabeth II stated "I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

She is Queen [queen regnant and head of state] of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Scottish throne was replaced with that of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.

0 Replies

And I just copy the last English monarchs from Wikipedia:

Quote:

The Stuart restoration
Charles II (1660-1685), also King of Scots
James II (1685-1688), also King James VII of Scots
William III and Mary II (1689-1694), as co-monarchs, also King and Queen of Scotland
William III (1694-1702), continued as single monarch, also King of Scotland
Anne (1702-1707), also Scotland, then Queen of Great Britain after 1707 until her death in 1714

William III, Mary II and Anne used the styled "of Scotland" rather than "of Scots"

0 Replies

Again from above quoted source (because it's much easier than write all this myself :wink: )

Quote:

HM Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom, is descended from King James VI of Scotland, the first Scottish monarch to also be King of England (James I of England from 1603).

While some controversy has simmered amongst the Scottish public over her official title since her coronation (many believe that, being the first Queen Elizabeth of Scotland, she should use the style "Elizabeth I"), the courts of Scotland have confirmed "Elizabeth II" as her official title. She has said that in the future monarchs will follow the international ordinal tradition that, where a monarch reigns in a number of non-independent territories (or independent territories that agree to share a monarch) that each have a differing number of previous monarchs of the same name, the highest ordinal used in any of the territories is the one used across all. (Past Scottish-English monarchs such as James VI & I and James VII & II reigned over legally separate kingdoms and hence used a dual ordinal.)

Properly, the Scottish monarch was known as "King/Queen of Scots", and referred to as "your Grace", rather than "your Majesty".

0 Replies

Thanks Walter, I knew I had heard something like that. And yes, syntinen, I was looking at a list of Scottish monarchs, so I forgot to include James II of England as James VII of Scotland. Any future monarch of the UK named James will be King James VIII -- of everything, not just of Scotland.

0 Replies

syntinen wrote:

it's just that Scotland was and is a different kingdom from England (this is not a technicality; it still has a separate legal system)

Although I responded on this already above, here some more info about the "cottish situation", which I forgot to add:

Quote:

The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts also is reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Source

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

That is a good question John-Bush.

Sorry to jump in here - is John-Bush JB? I personally thought he chose it to stand for jeremy bentham: philosopher, utilitarian and english academic.

0 Replies

Re: question about Europe Monarchy
It was not always the first born son who was named after his father; a child was sometimes given a name of some importance and sometimes not. Henry I (King of England & one of my great-grandfathers) was known as Henry I because he was the first Henry and Henry III was known as the third because he was the last one to be called Henry. Not as confusing as it seems. Hope this helps!

0 Replies

Re: question about Europe Monarchy

irishred1955 wrote:

Henry I (King of England & one of my great-grandfathers) was known as Henry I because he was the first Henry and Henry III was known as the third because he was the last one to be called Henry.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean . . . beginning with Bolingbroke in 1399, you have a series of Henry's. Bolingbroke became Henry IV, and was succeeded by his son, Henry V, succeeded by his son, Henry VI. After Edward IV put Henry VI out of the way, and the Wars of the Roses were fought to a conclusion, Henry, Earl of Richmond, took the dynastic name Henry VII. When his son Arthur died, he was succeeded by his second son, who took the dynastic name Henry VIII. Surely you knew that? Why have you made that contention?

0 Replies

I thought (and had looked it up by now) that the Hernies started with Henry Beauclerk (the learned) in 1100, followed by Henry II Courtmantle ...

0 Replies

Yeah the first Henry showed up in England with unseemly haste after William Rufus was murdered, and a visiting, hapless Frenchman framed for the murder.

0 Replies

I believe irishred is talking about his own family as well as about the crowned heads of England.

In his line there are only three Henrys.

0 Replies

Very well put Noddy! Indeed I was referring to my 3 Henry's...you know your history well! just for the record, this IrishRed1955 is of the female persuasion. For my great-grandfathers/grandmother's I have 3 Henry's, 3 Edward's, more Matilda's that I can count, 3 Malcom's, a handful of Isabela's, and quite a few Harald's, Richard's, and Edmund's. No one can second guess why people named their children as they did. As the old saying goes, "Our is not to ask why, ours is but to do and die." Hopefully we can all delay that last bit for awhile! Laughing

0 Replies

If you look at the various dynasties across Europe, you'll see that there are dynastic names. Charlemagne's family used the names Charles (Carl) and Pippin. The Conqueror's family used the name William. Often names alternated every other generation.

0 Replies

Also, during the middle ages, when women married into families, they were sometimes given new names, especially if the new wife's original language was not that of her husband. Women were trained in other languages during the middle ages to make them better pawns in the political game of marriage and marriage was a political game.

0 Replies

question about Europe Monarchy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know