The Queen's Arms . . .

Oh do. I always thought the name originated with poor Mary, Queen of the Scots, and rightful heir to the throne.

http://www.majorpeters.com/pages/journeys.html#1

There it is.
It doesn´t seem definitive but it´s interesting.

Thanks for looking it up. The article reminded me of those J. Peterman catalogs (which I loved).

I also noted that Bloody Mary was a reference to Mary I, not Mary Queen of Scots.

<hanging head in shame for not remembering all of the British monarchy>

Whoosh that one´s gone right by me.J.Peterman?

Time for a cold beer.

J. Peterman (who is now out-of-business) sold gorgeous men's and women's clothing. Each piece had a story... how he found it in a bazaar in Fez, or copied a dress from one seen in a little-known museum outside Vienna before the guard could stop him. The catalogs were great reading.

With a cold beer in my belly I´ll scour the net for this Peterman person.

Not knowing the monarchy is nothing to be ashamed of, Boss. From the murder of William Rufus (Bill 2), to the abdication of Edward VIII, so many have shown a talent for being absolutely forgetable. But, just so's ya know, here's the Anglo-Norman-British-German monarchical descent (i've not included the Anglo-saxon, as none were ever, technically, kings of all of the old Angle-land):

William
William Rufus (murdered, french knight framed, modern criminologist review evidence and pronounce frenchman framed, suggest a plot by . . .)
Henry
Steven of Blois (with intermittant irruptions of Maud the Empress during a 13 year civil war)
Henry II
Richard
John
Henry II (Regency of the first "Lord Protector," Guillaume le Marechal--William Marshall--formerly a life long retainer of Eleanor of Acquitain, mother to Richard and John)
Edward (one mean s.o.b.--see Braveheart for non-history with a good protrayal by McEwen)
Edward II (very likely murdered by or at the behest of his wife and her lover)
Edward III (started the Hundred Years War, for no particularly good reason, just possible political advantage . . . )
Richard II ("Boy King" who suckered the peasants in the "Wat Tyler" rebellion, which peasants were rewarded by the faithfulness to the crown by a general slaughter--deposed in young manhood by . . . )
Henry IV
Henry V ("won" the hundred years war, married the daughter of Charles le Bon--the mad king of France, died while his son was still an infant, who became . . . )
Henry VI (lost the Hundred Years War--hey, i thought his Daddy won that one--murdered, finally, in the early stages of the Wars of the Roses, by or at the behest of . . . )
Edward IV
Edward V (disappeared, age 12, with his 10-year-old brother, the Duke of York--identified with remains found under a stair in the tower of London in the late 17th century)
Richard III (not a bad man, who got really nasty press from Shakespeare, among others, may have murdered the boys mentioned above . . .)
Henry VII (defeated Richard III at Bosworth-- " . . . a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse . . ." --effectively ending the Wars of the Roses--also the grandson of Catherine of France, widow of Henry V, who married Owen Tudor after the death of the King)
Henry VIII (don't need to tell you how much fun he was, do i?)
Edward VI (another "Boy King," didn't live long enough to truly screw up)
Mary (Bloody Mary)
Elizabeth
James
Charles (hardheaded, he fought and lost a civil war with Parliament, which cured his hardheadedness by removing his head in 1649)
(interregnum, Oliver Cromwell as "Lord Protector")
Charles II
James II ( . . . married catholic Mary of Modena, produced an heir--the infamous, aleged "baby in the warming pan"--run out of Dodge)
William III and Mary II (son of his father-in-law's sister, married his first cousin)
Anne
George I
George II
George III(episodes of mental incompetence culminating in "madness" in 1810--George, Prince of Wales as regent)
George IV
William IV
Victoria
Edward VII
George V
Edward VIII (abdicated to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson, and generally annoy everyone for several decades)
George VI
Elizabeth II

(Did that all from memory, Boss. The best way to remember these sorts of things it to read so much history, that they all become familiar figures--took me less than 50 years, Boss, there's still hope for ya . . . )

All from memory? Omigosh, and I don't even have time to read it and marvel. I have to have a flu shot in... 12 minutes. Owie Owie Owie. I'l be back.

Whew. OK, I'm back and have read through all. Pronounce you King of all England, Wales, Scotland (only if you'll be nice to the Picts) and whatever bits of Ireland you can manage, and, oh heck, take Canada, too.

Did you really do that from memory??? Honestly, some people.... I suppose there is an explanation for this?

Think you're right though, none of them seem good enough to boast about, however I'm sure your reign will be different.

By the by, shot didn't hurt a bit. All those owie's for nothing.

Now, 'alf a mo, here, boyo ... We'll ignore Arthur, who was King in legend only, and I'll grant Alfred The Great and his successor Edward the Elder were but Kings of Wessex, but mind you now, by his victories and treaties, Athelstan, son of Edward, grandson of Alfred, was from 937 King of England. His brother Edmund The First continued the consolidation, then there were Edred, Edwy, Edgar, Edward the Martyr (only a teenager, but briefly King at least in name if not reign), none of whom did much of note beyond holding Aethelstan's gains. Admittedly the next King, Aethelred The Unready undid most of what Athelstan and his successors had accomplished. The Dane Swegn The Forkbeard was elected by The Witan on Aethelred's abdication and reigned for about a year, to be himself replaced by the return of Aethelred, who in turn on the occasion of his much-welcomed second abdication, was replaced by Edmond (II) Ironside, Aethelred's most able son. Unfortunately, Ironside lived but a few months after assuming the throne, and was unable to regain what Aethelred had squandered. The Witan then elected Edmond Ironside's old nemesis Canute, Forkbeard's son, as King. Canute married Emma of Normandy, Aethelred's widow, hoping to forestal conflict with Normandy. Over the next two decades, Canute not only undid the damage done by Aethelred, he became as well King of England, King of The Danes and King of Norway. His son by Emma, Harthacanute, was legitimate heir to the Throne of England, but what with the troubles among Norway and Denmark, and some Machiavellian palace machinations( involving Emma and her freind Godwin), Harold, his half-brother, was placed on the throne, holding it for nearly five years. Harthcanute managed to obtain the throne on Harold's death, but spent his brief reign primarily occupied with the persecution of Harold's supporters, accomplishing nothing else of note. His death ended the period of Danish Rule. This left Emma's surviving son, the pious Edward, later known as Edward the Confessor, and the founder of Westminster Abbey, as sole legitimate heir. Edward revenged himself on his mother by rescinding her entitlement lands and confiscated all her possesions. Thoroughly Normanized by his upbringing, Edward's ties to his Norman cousins brought increasing Norman influence to the English Court, a happenstance rather irritating to the Saxon nobility. There nearly followed civil war, and William, Duke of Normandy, firmly set his sights on the throne he was convinced (not entirely without justification) was his by right. On Edward The Confessor's death in early January of 1066, Harold, son of Godwin, was made King by Edward's deathbed exhortation "I commend my wife to your care, and with her, my whole Kingdom." This very much incensed William of Normandy, who had expected the throne. A bit less than ten months later, William had the throne, and Harold, and the Angles and the Saxons, passed into history.


Most of the above was from memory, but I confess I had to do a bit of research to get the exact order of succession right. It was great fun revisiting a subject with which I had been mostly unconcerned since my teens, and brought about the recall of many hours of pleasant, fascinated reading. Thank you, Setanta, for providing the impetus. I'm a Celt AND a Saxon by heritage, and still have reservations about William's accession.

Now, did anyone follow that? Does anyone care?



timber

Could you lay it out in easy-to-follow format as the boss did??? It is a bit confusing.

I have full sympathies for the Saxons who were terribly wronged in 1066 and gave us so many 4 letter words.

Oh, it is confusing however it is laid out, Piffka. There likely, though not certainly, even was an "Arthur" of sorts; Arturius is the name of a Sixth Century "King" among several other contemporary "Kings" of the Saxons. Anyhow, there is an interesting website that offers a fairly concise and scholarly view of the whole sordid affair of Proto-Britain from The Divine Julius all the way through The Norman Conquest. There are misspellings and gramatical errors, and some of the graphics don't load correctly, but it nonetheless is a great place to spend an afternoon or so. There are many, many pages, but it is fun if you enjoy history.

With the aforementioned caveats in mind, go to:

http://www.battle1066.com/intro.shtml



timber

Well, Boss, Arthur very likely did exist, and he was a Roman citizen, likely of British descent. His great achievement was to defeat the Saxons at Mount Baden--so he certainly would not qualify as an Anglo-Saxon King.

Alfred and his descendants were, in fact, Earls of Wessex--it is modern scholarship which names them kings. His eldest son and daughter held the line of boroughs (fortified camps established along the borders with the Danes--as safe places for commerce, towns and cities grew up in those locations, leading to the use of the term borough for an independent municipal entity) against the Danes and the Norge allies, but definitely, Edmond was no king--his sister was known universally as the Lady of Mercia, because she had married the Earl of Mercia, who was shortly thereafter killed in battle with the Vikings. English scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries created a myth of the "Heptarchy," the seven kingdoms of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. But this was imposition of a modern concept upon the history of peoples who knew no kings, and would only acknowledge kings at sword point. The only "King" to rule all of what is today England, in his own right, was Canute, and he was a Dane--not a Saxon nor an Angle. Additionally, the scholars who created the chimerical Heptarchy had to really stretch things to come up with a tale of seven contiguous and continuous kingdoms--they included Kent in the reckoning, even though Kent was almost always under the thumb of whomever in East Anglia, Sussex or Essex was currently most militarily powerful--Kent was the avenue of communication with the continent, and, having been settled by the Jutes, the weakest colonization effort in the Anglo-Saxon period, they were almost never in a condition to resist.

For very good political reasons, the Earls of Wessex could not claim Kingship--they needed the support of the subjugated but unreconciled populations of North Umbria and Mercia to effectively oppose the Danes and their Norge allies, and could not afford to get in a pissing match over authority with the rump of East Anglia, if they were effectively to carry out this legacy of Alfred.

As for Aethelrede--here's his story. His name was Aethelrede--Aethel meaning princely or noble, and rede meaning counsel, so that his name meant "noble counsel." However, upon succession to the dignity of Jarl (Earl) of Wessex, he immediately cashed in on behalf of his cronies, most of whom, of course, had attached themselves to him years before in anticipation of just such an event. These were schemers and sybarites who likely would have had little good advice for him in any event, but who offered plenty of advice, if they thought they saw their main chance in it. The people of Wessex began to call him Aethelrede Unrede--"Noble counsel--ill-counselled." A 15th or 16th century Anglo-Saxon scholar, writing some marginalia in one of the four extant copies of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, translated his name as Ethelred the Unready--which was, in fact, sort of in the spirit of the true translation of the name, but was a tongue in cheek effort, designed to amuse other Anglo-Saxon scholars reading the text. The name stuck, however, as the chronicles have been researched by thousands who could not read Anglo-Saxon, and didn't get the joke.

Gosh!!! Wish I could do that..I tend to remember very few, and only pull the others out of my memory if I have to, and I can.

Now I need a drink.

Here ye go, darlin' . . . one barrel of "SoCo," comin' up . . .

ah..and thankee sire!

Setanta, your appraisal is certainly accurate and informed. Still, perhaps its a matter of interpretation. I consider Athelstan much more than a mere Earl of Wessex as were his predecessors, who were just beyond being petty tribal chieftans. Perhaps he was not King of England as we know England today, but it was his doing that led to the England we know today, and for that, I feel he really was The First King of England. Washington was the first President of The United States, of which contemporarilly there were only 13. Now that there are 50 states in no way lessens Washington's claim to First President (And to heck with the previous "Presidents" chosen by the various Continental Congresses ... Washington was elected by the populace through The College of Electors, making him, in my book, the legitimate "First"). Anyhow, thanks again for drawing me to revisit a segment of history I had long neglected. I've waded into my library and dug up some very old freinds with whom I am eager to renew acquaintence.

Oh, back to Aethelred/Aethelrede ... sure "The Unready" was a much later translator's play on words ... but appropriate, given the circumstances. He squandered money which could have been used for effective defense on trying to bribe the Danes into complacence. By the time he finally became disenchanted with the idea, due to the incessant and ever more exhorbitant demands of the Danes, it was too late. "Unrede" can be translated variously as " ill-counselled" or "uncounselled" or "without counsel". Whichever, Aethelred's incompetence pretty much assured the eventual Norman Conquest.


What an intriguing Tavern Conversation ... you never know, do you? Sure am glad I stopped by. You are without doubt the most erudite barkeep I've encountered in many, many years. For that I lift my glass to you, and invite you to join me with a quaff of your own favorite libation. Put it on my tab, if you would, thanks.




timber

One Dr. Pepper fer the barkeep, comin' up . . .

All of which reminds me, Boss, if you've never read 1066 and All That, i know you would be greatly amused . . .