The Palace

New series on ITV UK tomorrow, Monday, called The Palace, a fictional
tale of a royal family in which the eldest son becomes king on the
sudden death of his father.
Of interest to us is that he becomes King Richard IV, which may well
result in discussion of his using the name Richard, a no no in the
British royal family since our beloved monarch lost his life at
Bosworth.
Paul




"Richard Liveth Yet!"

makes you wonder why they chose richard as this fictional king's name. are they going to make him a baddie, or are they going to try to rehabilitate the name richard?

another name that isn't used by kings of england/uk is john. after bad ole king john lackland..who like r3 received really unfair press.

and there is something about the name arthur too.

king john is supposed to have killed a nephew named arthur who had a better claim to the throne. if i recall arthur was the son of geoffery.
h7's son arthur never made it to king.
prince charles arthur..something, something windsor. his wearing of the crown is often placed in doubt.

can anyone else think of other kingly names considered cursed?

roslyn

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
New series on ITV UK tomorrow, Monday, called The Palace, a fictional
tale of a royal family in which the eldest son becomes king on the
sudden death of his father.
Of interest to us is that he becomes King Richard IV, which may well
result in discussion of his using the name Richard, a no no in the
British royal family since our beloved monarch lost his life at
Bosworth.
Paul

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

John is equally cursed in Scotland.

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: The Palace


makes you wonder why they chose richard as this fictional king's name. are they going to make him a baddie, or are they going to try to rehabilitate the name richard?

another name that isn't used by kings of england/uk is john. after bad ole king john lackland..who like r3 received really unfair press.

and there is something about the name arthur too.

king john is supposed to have killed a nephew named arthur who had a better claim to the throne. if i recall arthur was the son of geoffery.
h7's son arthur never made it to king.
prince charles arthur..something, something windsor. his wearing of the crown is often placed in doubt.

can anyone else think of other kingly names considered cursed?

roslyn

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
New series on ITV UK tomorrow, Monday, called The Palace, a fictional
tale of a royal family in which the eldest son becomes king on the
sudden death of his father.
Of interest to us is that he becomes King Richard IV, which may well
result in discussion of his using the name Richard, a no no in the
British royal family since our beloved monarch lost his life at
Bosworth.
Paul

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Stephen, which Diana wanted to name William. No way said the
Windsors. Unlucky!
Mind you, no Henry since the 8th, as Henry Prince of Wales, son of
James 1st, died before he could succeed, and no James since the 2nd
was kicked out/ran away. I think a lot of people were surprised when
Charles was given his name. No King Charles since the 17th century.
And look what happened to the first! Mind you I suppose even the
Windsors can get bored with George.
Paul

On 13 Jan 2008, at 21:20, Stephen Lark wrote:

> John is equally cursed in Scotland.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:08 PM
> Subject: Re: The Palace
>
>
> makes you wonder why they chose richard as this fictional king's
> name. are they going to make him a baddie, or are they going to try
> to rehabilitate the name richard?
>
> another name that isn't used by kings of england/uk is john.
> after bad ole king john lackland..who like r3 received really
> unfair press.
>
> and there is something about the name arthur too.
>
> king john is supposed to have killed a nephew named arthur who
> had a better claim to the throne. if i recall arthur was the son of
> geoffery.
> h7's son arthur never made it to king.
> prince charles arthur..something, something windsor. his wearing
> of the crown is often placed in doubt.
>
> can anyone else think of other kingly names considered cursed?
>
> roslyn
>
> Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
> New series on ITV UK tomorrow, Monday, called The Palace, a
> fictional
> tale of a royal family in which the eldest son becomes king on the
> sudden death of his father.
> Of interest to us is that he becomes King Richard IV, which may well
> result in discussion of his using the name Richard, a no no in the
> British royal family since our beloved monarch lost his life at
> Bosworth.
> Paul
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

At 22:14 13/01/2008, Paul wrote:
>Stephen, which Diana wanted to name William. No way said the
>Windsors. Unlucky!
>Mind you, no Henry since the 8th, as Henry Prince of Wales, son of
>James 1st, died before he could succeed, and no James since the 2nd
>was kicked out/ran away. I think a lot of people were surprised when
>Charles was given his name. No King Charles since the 17th century.
>And look what happened to the first! Mind you I suppose even the
>Windsors can get bored with George.

George is an option for Charles. Arthur is presumably unlucky and Philip
would be unprecedented.


Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - January choice - Reading Lolita in Tehran:
A Memoir in Books by Azar Nafisi
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

There is a current royal Richard - the Duke of Gloucester, grandson of George V. At the time of his birth in 1944 he wasn't all that far from the succession. The present Queen was heir presumptive, followed by Princess Margaret, then Richard of Gloucester's father and elder brother, William of Gloucester (is his death in a flying accident in 1972 the reason why William was thought unlucky?)

Arthur is also not a terribly uncommon royal name. Queen Victoria's third son was Arthur, Duke of Connaught (named after his godfather, the Duke of Wellington). He had a son named Arthur, and Arthur has been common enough a a royal middle name since (George VI was Albert Frederick Arthur George, which is probably where Prince Charles gets it from).

What surprises me a little about Charles being baptised Charles was that when he was born in 1948 the royal family were seriously embarrassed about Charles Edward, Duke of Coburg, a grandson of Queen Victoria and born a British prince, who had served in the German Army in the First World War (poor chap really had no choice about that, as he was the ruler of a German state) and been heavily involved with the Nazis in the 20s and 30s (there was a C4 programme about him just before Christmas).

Philip as the name of a British monarch would be unpopular, I suspect, because of Philip II of Spain.

It'll be intersting to see whether the next ruler is Charles III or George VII.



----- Original Message ----
From: Christine H <christinelheadley@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 14 January, 2008 9:26:25 AM
Subject: Re: The Palace

At 22:14 13/01/2008, Paul wrote:
>Stephen, which Diana wanted to name William. No way said the
>Windsors. Unlucky!
>Mind you, no Henry since the 8th, as Henry Prince of Wales, son of
>James 1st, died before he could succeed, and no James since the 2nd
>was kicked out/ran away. I think a lot of people were surprised when
>Charles was given his name. No King Charles since the 17th century.
>And look what happened to the first! Mind you I suppose even the
>Windsors can get bored with George.

George is an option for Charles. Arthur is presumably unlucky and Philip
would be unprecedented.

Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - January choice - Reading Lolita in Tehran:
A Memoir in Books by Azar Nafisi
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

I read a book a few months ago called King, Kaiser, Czar Three Royal Cousins Who Led The World To War By Joseph P. Marshall lll. I found it interesting and a good read.

A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote: There is a current royal Richard - the Duke of Gloucester, grandson of George V. At the time of his birth in 1944 he wasn't all that far from the succession. The present Queen was heir presumptive, followed by Princess Margaret, then Richard of Gloucester's father and elder brother, William of Gloucester (is his death in a flying accident in 1972 the reason why William was thought unlucky?)

Arthur is also not a terribly uncommon royal name. Queen Victoria's third son was Arthur, Duke of Connaught (named after his godfather, the Duke of Wellington). He had a son named Arthur, and Arthur has been common enough a a royal middle name since (George VI was Albert Frederick Arthur George, which is probably where Prince Charles gets it from).

What surprises me a little about Charles being baptised Charles was that when he was born in 1948 the royal family were seriously embarrassed about Charles Edward, Duke of Coburg, a grandson of Queen Victoria and born a British prince, who had served in the German Army in the First World War (poor chap really had no choice about that, as he was the ruler of a German state) and been heavily involved with the Nazis in the 20s and 30s (there was a C4 programme about him just before Christmas).

Philip as the name of a British monarch would be unpopular, I suspect, because of Philip II of Spain.

It'll be intersting to see whether the next ruler is Charles III or George VII.

----- Original Message ----
From: Christine H <christinelheadley@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 14 January, 2008 9:26:25 AM
Subject: Re: The Palace

At 22:14 13/01/2008, Paul wrote:
>Stephen, which Diana wanted to name William. No way said the
>Windsors. Unlucky!
>Mind you, no Henry since the 8th, as Henry Prince of Wales, son of
>James 1st, died before he could succeed, and no James since the 2nd
>was kicked out/ran away. I think a lot of people were surprised when
>Charles was given his name. No King Charles since the 17th century.
>And look what happened to the first! Mind you I suppose even the
>Windsors can get bored with George.

George is an option for Charles. Arthur is presumably unlucky and Philip
would be unprecedented.

Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - January choice - Reading Lolita in Tehran:
A Memoir in Books by Azar Nafisi
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos








---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

The advantage to the names Charles and George is that a king of that
name would have the same numeric in both England and Scotland. I was
a little surprised at the choice of the name William as he would
become William V of England and William III of Scotland - the latter
having obvious ramifications in Ireland. They could, of course, start
a name previously unheld by a British King - as Queen Victoria
intended when she named her eldest son Albert, although he chose to
defy her wishes and was crowned as Edward VII. And of course Edward
VIII could have been King David..........

I always find it interesting that no British King has ever had an "X"
in his numeric - Henry and Edward have so far stopped at VIII, James
stopped at VII, and George at VI. The French fascination with kings
called Louis led them as far as XVIII before they gave up and became
a Republic !

No-one named Richard was expected to become King of England at the
time of his baptism - Richard I came after his elder brother Henry,
Richard II came after his elder brother Edward, and Richard III was
the fourth son of his father (the latter, despite his greater claim
than the Lancastrians, was not seriously likely to inherit when born,
although it would be interesting to know if the choice of name was
deliberately intended to suggest that he was the true heir to the
line of Richard II, or just that he was named after his father).

The new programme is the second time in recent years that television
has given us a King Richard IV - the first being memorably portrayed
by Brian Blessed in the original Black Adder series.

Richard G

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> There is a current royal Richard - the Duke of Gloucester, grandson
of George V. At the time of his birth in 1944 he wasn't all that far
from the succession. The present Queen was heir presumptive, followed
by Princess Margaret, then Richard of Gloucester's father and elder
brother, William of Gloucester (is his death in a flying accident in
1972 the reason why William was thought unlucky?)
>
> Arthur is also not a terribly uncommon royal name. Queen Victoria's
third son was Arthur, Duke of Connaught (named after his godfather,
the Duke of Wellington). He had a son named Arthur, and Arthur has
been common enough a a royal middle name since (George VI was Albert
Frederick Arthur George, which is probably where Prince Charles gets
it from).
>
> What surprises me a little about Charles being baptised Charles was
that when he was born in 1948 the royal family were seriously
embarrassed about Charles Edward, Duke of Coburg, a grandson of Queen
Victoria and born a British prince, who had served in the German Army
in the First World War (poor chap really had no choice about that, as
he was the ruler of a German state) and been heavily involved with
the Nazis in the 20s and 30s (there was a C4 programme about him just
before Christmas).
>
> Philip as the name of a British monarch would be unpopular, I
suspect, because of Philip II of Spain.
>
> It'll be intersting to see whether the next ruler is Charles III or
George VII.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Christine H <christinelheadley@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 14 January, 2008 9:26:25 AM
> Subject: Re: The Palace
>
> At 22:14 13/01/2008, Paul wrote:
> >Stephen, which Diana wanted to name William. No way said the
> >Windsors. Unlucky!
> >Mind you, no Henry since the 8th, as Henry Prince of Wales, son of
> >James 1st, died before he could succeed, and no James since the 2nd
> >was kicked out/ran away. I think a lot of people were surprised
when
> >Charles was given his name. No King Charles since the 17th century.
> >And look what happened to the first! Mind you I suppose even the
> >Windsors can get bored with George.
>
> George is an option for Charles. Arthur is presumably unlucky and
Philip
> would be unprecedented.
>
> Best wishes
> Christine

There were three Edwards before the Conquest but, as was said in another place, they have not counted towards the total.

----- Original Message -----
From: rgcorris
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: The Palace


The advantage to the names Charles and George is that a king of that
name would have the same numeric in both England and Scotland. I was
a little surprised at the choice of the name William as he would
become William V of England and William III of Scotland - the latter
having obvious ramifications in Ireland. They could, of course, start
a name previously unheld by a British King - as Queen Victoria
intended when she named her eldest son Albert, although he chose to
defy her wishes and was crowned as Edward VII. And of course Edward
VIII could have been King David..........

I always find it interesting that no British King has ever had an "X"
in his numeric - Henry and Edward have so far stopped at VIII, James
stopped at VII, and George at VI. The French fascination with kings
called Louis led them as far as XVIII before they gave up and became
a Republic !

No-one named Richard was expected to become King of England at the
time of his baptism - Richard I came after his elder brother Henry,
Richard II came after his elder brother Edward, and Richard III was
the fourth son of his father (the latter, despite his greater claim
than the Lancastrians, was not seriously likely to inherit when born,
although it would be interesting to know if the choice of name was
deliberately intended to suggest that he was the true heir to the
line of Richard II, or just that he was named after his father).

The new programme is the second time in recent years that television
has given us a King Richard IV - the first being memorably portrayed
by Brian Blessed in the original Black Adder series.

Richard G

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> There is a current royal Richard - the Duke of Gloucester, grandson
of George V. At the time of his birth in 1944 he wasn't all that far
from the succession. The present Queen was heir presumptive, followed
by Princess Margaret, then Richard of Gloucester's father and elder
brother, William of Gloucester (is his death in a flying accident in
1972 the reason why William was thought unlucky?)
>
> Arthur is also not a terribly uncommon royal name. Queen Victoria's
third son was Arthur, Duke of Connaught (named after his godfather,
the Duke of Wellington). He had a son named Arthur, and Arthur has
been common enough a a royal middle name since (George VI was Albert
Frederick Arthur George, which is probably where Prince Charles gets
it from).
>
> What surprises me a little about Charles being baptised Charles was
that when he was born in 1948 the royal family were seriously
embarrassed about Charles Edward, Duke of Coburg, a grandson of Queen
Victoria and born a British prince, who had served in the German Army
in the First World War (poor chap really had no choice about that, as
he was the ruler of a German state) and been heavily involved with
the Nazis in the 20s and 30s (there was a C4 programme about him just
before Christmas).
>
> Philip as the name of a British monarch would be unpopular, I
suspect, because of Philip II of Spain.
>
> It'll be intersting to see whether the next ruler is Charles III or
George VII.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Christine H <christinelheadley@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 14 January, 2008 9:26:25 AM
> Subject: Re: The Palace
>
> At 22:14 13/01/2008, Paul wrote:
> >Stephen, which Diana wanted to name William. No way said the
> >Windsors. Unlucky!
> >Mind you, no Henry since the 8th, as Henry Prince of Wales, son of
> >James 1st, died before he could succeed, and no James since the 2nd
> >was kicked out/ran away. I think a lot of people were surprised
when
> >Charles was given his name. No King Charles since the 17th century.
> >And look what happened to the first! Mind you I suppose even the
> >Windsors can get bored with George.
>
> George is an option for Charles. Arthur is presumably unlucky and
Philip
> would be unprecedented.
>
> Best wishes
> Christine

I remember learning in some history class that the French had developed a naming system for their royal sons, with the eldest almost always named Louis, the second-born Philippe (I think), then Charles (or maybe the other way around). The eldest son being the heir-apparent, and assuming the eldest son lived long enough, it was a safe bet that there'd be a fair number of Louies running up to take the crown.

Castile, Aragon, and the eventual united Spanish crown, had an awful lot of Alfonso's as ruling king. The last king of Spain before Franco was Alfonso XIII. At one confusing period, you had a Juan II of Castile at the same time as you had a Juan II of Aragon. Earlier on, you had Pedro I of Castile ("the Cruel"), Pedro I of Portugal, and Pedro IV of Aragon living at the same time.

Maria
elena@...


----------
>
>...>I always find it interesting that no British King has ever had an "X"
>in his numeric - Henry and Edward have so far stopped at VIII, James
>stopped at VII, and George at VI. The French fascination with kings
>called Louis led them as far as XVIII before they gave up and became
>a Republic ! ...

>
>Richard G

I think with so many naming their offspring with the same names over and over it was quite confusing. Also there were Henrys in England and in France.

Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote: I remember learning in some history class that the French had developed a naming system for their royal sons, with the eldest almost always named Louis, the second-born Philippe (I think), then Charles (or maybe the other way around). The eldest son being the heir-apparent, and assuming the eldest son lived long enough, it was a safe bet that there'd be a fair number of Louies running up to take the crown.

Castile, Aragon, and the eventual united Spanish crown, had an awful lot of Alfonso's as ruling king. The last king of Spain before Franco was Alfonso XIII. At one confusing period, you had a Juan II of Castile at the same time as you had a Juan II of Aragon. Earlier on, you had Pedro I of Castile ("the Cruel"), Pedro I of Portugal, and Pedro IV of Aragon living at the same time.

Maria
elena@...

----------
>
>...>I always find it interesting that no British King has ever had an "X"
>in his numeric - Henry and Edward have so far stopped at VIII, James
>stopped at VII, and George at VI. The French fascination with kings
>called Louis led them as far as XVIII before they gave up and became
>a Republic ! ...

>
>Richard G






---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

The really confusing period is the late 17th century, when Charles II was on the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland, and another Charles II was the Habsburg ruler of Spain and other continental territories. I remember being really puzzled when I first read that the War of the Spanish Succession was triggered by the death of Charles II.

The simple answer, of course, is to refer to the Habsburg ruler always as Carlos II, which, presumably, is the way his subjects knew him.



----- Original Message ----
From: norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January, 2008 7:24:41 PM
Subject: Re: The Palace

I think with so many naming their offspring with the same names over and over it was quite confusing. Also there were Henrys in England and in France.

Maria <ejbronte@optonline. net> wrote: I remember learning in some history class that the French had developed a naming system for their royal sons, with the eldest almost always named Louis, the second-born Philippe (I think), then Charles (or maybe the other way around). The eldest son being the heir-apparent, and assuming the eldest son lived long enough, it was a safe bet that there'd be a fair number of Louies running up to take the crown.

Castile, Aragon, and the eventual united Spanish crown, had an awful lot of Alfonso's as ruling king. The last king of Spain before Franco was Alfonso XIII. At one confusing period, you had a Juan II of Castile at the same time as you had a Juan II of Aragon. Earlier on, you had Pedro I of Castile ("the Cruel"), Pedro I of Portugal, and Pedro IV of Aragon living at the same time.

Maria
elena@pipeline. com

----------
>
>...>I always find it interesting that no British King has ever had an "X"
>in his numeric - Henry and Edward have so far stopped at VIII, James
>stopped at VII, and George at VI. The French fascination with kings
>called Louis led them as far as XVIII before they gave up and became
>a Republic ! ...

>
>Richard G

------------ --------- --------- ---
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

There were certainly various Louiss with younger brothers called Charles and Philippe. But the parents of Louis XVI obviously particularly liked the name Louis, as one of his younger brothers, the future Louis XVIII. was also called Louis (there was another brother called Charles, who eventually became Charles X and the last of the direct Bourbon line).


----- Original Message ----
From: Maria <ejbronte@...>
To: ;
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January, 2008 5:28:04 PM
Subject: Re: The Palace

I remember learning in some history class that the French had developed a naming system for their royal sons, with the eldest almost always named Louis, the second-born Philippe (I think), then Charles (or maybe the other way around). The eldest son being the heir-apparent, and assuming the eldest son lived long enough, it was a safe bet that there'd be a fair number of Louies running up to take the crown.

Castile, Aragon, and the eventual united Spanish crown, had an awful lot of Alfonso's as ruling king. The last king of Spain before Franco was Alfonso XIII. At one confusing period, you had a Juan II of Castile at the same time as you had a Juan II of Aragon. Earlier on, you had Pedro I of Castile ("the Cruel"), Pedro I of Portugal, and Pedro IV of Aragon living at the same time.

Maria
elena@pipeline. com

----------
>
>...>I always find it interesting that no British King has ever had an "X"
>in his numeric - Henry and Edward have so far stopped at VIII, James
>stopped at VII, and George at VI. The French fascination with kings
>called Louis led them as far as XVIII before they gave up and became
>a Republic ! ...

>
>Richard G

I think the reason for the pre-Conquest Edwards not being 'counted' is that up to Edward III kings with the same name as a predecessor were distinguished by the use of their father's names, hence 'King Henry, son of King William' and 'King Henry son of King John'. Edward I was King Edward son of King Henry and Edward II King Edward son of King Edward, but Edward III was also the son of a King Edward, so became 'King Edward, the Third after the Conquest'.


----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January, 2008 5:23:53 PM
Subject: Re: The Palace

There were three Edwards before the Conquest but, as was said in another place, they have not counted towards the total.

----- Original Message -----
From: rgcorris
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: The Palace

The advantage to the names Charles and George is that a king of that
name would have the same numeric in both England and Scotland. I was
a little surprised at the choice of the name William as he would
become William V of England and William III of Scotland - the latter
having obvious ramifications in Ireland. They could, of course, start
a name previously unheld by a British King - as Queen Victoria
intended when she named her eldest son Albert, although he chose to
defy her wishes and was crowned as Edward VII. And of course Edward
VIII could have been King David....... ...

I always find it interesting that no British King has ever had an "X"
in his numeric - Henry and Edward have so far stopped at VIII, James
stopped at VII, and George at VI. The French fascination with kings
called Louis led them as far as XVIII before they gave up and became
a Republic !

No-one named Richard was expected to become King of England at the
time of his baptism - Richard I came after his elder brother Henry,
Richard II came after his elder brother Edward, and Richard III was
the fourth son of his father (the latter, despite his greater claim
than the Lancastrians, was not seriously likely to inherit when born,
although it would be interesting to know if the choice of name was
deliberately intended to suggest that he was the true heir to the
line of Richard II, or just that he was named after his father).

The new programme is the second time in recent years that television
has given us a King Richard IV - the first being memorably portrayed
by Brian Blessed in the original Black Adder series.

Richard G

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, A LYON <A.Lyon1@... >
wrote:
>
> There is a current royal Richard - the Duke of Gloucester, grandson
of George V. At the time of his birth in 1944 he wasn't all that far
from the succession. The present Queen was heir presumptive, followed
by Princess Margaret, then Richard of Gloucester's father and elder
brother, William of Gloucester (is his death in a flying accident in
1972 the reason why William was thought unlucky?)
>
> Arthur is also not a terribly uncommon royal name. Queen Victoria's
third son was Arthur, Duke of Connaught (named after his godfather,
the Duke of Wellington). He had a son named Arthur, and Arthur has
been common enough a a royal middle name since (George VI was Albert
Frederick Arthur George, which is probably where Prince Charles gets
it from).
>
> What surprises me a little about Charles being baptised Charles was
that when he was born in 1948 the royal family were seriously
embarrassed about Charles Edward, Duke of Coburg, a grandson of Queen
Victoria and born a British prince, who had served in the German Army
in the First World War (poor chap really had no choice about that, as
he was the ruler of a German state) and been heavily involved with
the Nazis in the 20s and 30s (there was a C4 programme about him just
before Christmas).
>
> Philip as the name of a British monarch would be unpopular, I
suspect, because of Philip II of Spain.
>
> It'll be intersting to see whether the next ruler is Charles III or
George VII.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Christine H <christinelheadley@ ...>
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Monday, 14 January, 2008 9:26:25 AM
> Subject: Re: The Palace
>
> At 22:14 13/01/2008, Paul wrote:
> >Stephen, which Diana wanted to name William. No way said the
> >Windsors. Unlucky!
> >Mind you, no Henry since the 8th, as Henry Prince of Wales, son of
> >James 1st, died before he could succeed, and no James since the 2nd
> >was kicked out/ran away. I think a lot of people were surprised
when
> >Charles was given his name. No King Charles since the 17th century.
> >And look what happened to the first! Mind you I suppose even the
> >Windsors can get bored with George.
>
> George is an option for Charles. Arthur is presumably unlucky and
Philip
> would be unprecedented.
>
> Best wishes
> Christine

Prince William would be William IV in Scotland rather than William III - there was William the Lion (1167-1214).

I read somewhere that after some Scottish objections to the present Queen being Elizabeth II in Scotland, a decision has been taken to use the higher number, so Prince William should be William V in both realms. Not ideal, but at least consistent.

And there is inconsistency abroad too. When the Hohenzollern Elector Friedrich III became King in Prussia in 1701, he renumbered himself as Friedrich I. However, when another Friedrich succeeded as Kaiser in 1888, he became Friedrich III, keeping his numbering as King of Prussia (although he apparently wanted to follow the three Holy Roman Emperors of the same name and be Friedrich IV - Bismarck vetoed it).


----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January, 2008 5:23:53 PM
Subject: Re: The Palace

There were three Edwards before the Conquest but, as was said in another place, they have not counted towards the total.

----- Original Message -----
From: rgcorris
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: The Palace

The advantage to the names Charles and George is that a king of that
name would have the same numeric in both England and Scotland. I was
a little surprised at the choice of the name William as he would
become William V of England and William III of Scotland - the latter
having obvious ramifications in Ireland. They could, of course, start
a name previously unheld by a British King - as Queen Victoria
intended when she named her eldest son Albert, although he chose to
defy her wishes and was crowned as Edward VII. And of course Edward
VIII could have been King David....... ...

I always find it interesting that no British King has ever had an "X"
in his numeric - Henry and Edward have so far stopped at VIII, James
stopped at VII, and George at VI. The French fascination with kings
called Louis led them as far as XVIII before they gave up and became
a Republic !

No-one named Richard was expected to become King of England at the
time of his baptism - Richard I came after his elder brother Henry,
Richard II came after his elder brother Edward, and Richard III was
the fourth son of his father (the latter, despite his greater claim
than the Lancastrians, was not seriously likely to inherit when born,
although it would be interesting to know if the choice of name was
deliberately intended to suggest that he was the true heir to the
line of Richard II, or just that he was named after his father).

The new programme is the second time in recent years that television
has given us a King Richard IV - the first being memorably portrayed
by Brian Blessed in the original Black Adder series.

Richard G

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, A LYON <A.Lyon1@... >
wrote:
>
> There is a current royal Richard - the Duke of Gloucester, grandson
of George V. At the time of his birth in 1944 he wasn't all that far
from the succession. The present Queen was heir presumptive, followed
by Princess Margaret, then Richard of Gloucester's father and elder
brother, William of Gloucester (is his death in a flying accident in
1972 the reason why William was thought unlucky?)
>
> Arthur is also not a terribly uncommon royal name. Queen Victoria's
third son was Arthur, Duke of Connaught (named after his godfather,
the Duke of Wellington). He had a son named Arthur, and Arthur has
been common enough a a royal middle name since (George VI was Albert
Frederick Arthur George, which is probably where Prince Charles gets
it from).
>
> What surprises me a little about Charles being baptised Charles was
that when he was born in 1948 the royal family were seriously
embarrassed about Charles Edward, Duke of Coburg, a grandson of Queen
Victoria and born a British prince, who had served in the German Army
in the First World War (poor chap really had no choice about that, as
he was the ruler of a German state) and been heavily involved with
the Nazis in the 20s and 30s (there was a C4 programme about him just
before Christmas).
>
> Philip as the name of a British monarch would be unpopular, I
suspect, because of Philip II of Spain.
>
> It'll be intersting to see whether the next ruler is Charles III or
George VII.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Christine H <christinelheadley@ ...>
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Monday, 14 January, 2008 9:26:25 AM
> Subject: Re: The Palace
>
> At 22:14 13/01/2008, Paul wrote:
> >Stephen, which Diana wanted to name William. No way said the
> >Windsors. Unlucky!
> >Mind you, no Henry since the 8th, as Henry Prince of Wales, son of
> >James 1st, died before he could succeed, and no James since the 2nd
> >was kicked out/ran away. I think a lot of people were surprised
when
> >Charles was given his name. No King Charles since the 17th century.
> >And look what happened to the first! Mind you I suppose even the
> >Windsors can get bored with George.
>
> George is an option for Charles. Arthur is presumably unlucky and
Philip
> would be unprecedented.
>
> Best wishes
> Christine

At 12:42 16/01/2008, A Lyon wrote:
>The really confusing period is the late 17th century, when Charles II was
>on the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland, and another Charles II
>was the Habsburg ruler of Spain and other continental territories. I
>remember being really puzzled when I first read that the War of the
>Spanish Succession was triggered by the death of Charles II.
>
>The simple answer, of course, is to refer to the Habsburg ruler always as
>Carlos II, which, presumably, is the way his subjects knew him.

I wouldn't mind knowing why Charles/?Karl/?Carlos V ruled Spain before
Carlos II.


Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

Because this Charles actually goes by two numberings: the son of Juana of Castile (aka Juana la Loca) and Philip Hapsburg ("the Handsome"), he became Charles V as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and Carlos I of Castile and Aragon (not my favorite historical figure, either, not by a very long shot).

Maria
elena@...

>I wouldn't mind knowing why Charles/?Karl/?Carlos V ruled Spain before
>Carlos II.
>
>
>Best wishes
>Christine
>
>Christine Headley
>Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>

So was William of Orange numbered William II of Scotland in his
lifetime, and William of Clarence numbered William III ?

Richard G

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...
> wrote:
>
> Prince William would be William IV in Scotland rather than William
> III - there was William the Lion (1167-1214).
>
> I read somewhere that after some Scottish objections to the present
> Queen being Elizabeth II in Scotland, a decision has been taken to
> use the higher number, so Prince William should be William V in both
> realms. Not ideal, but at least consistent.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> Prince William would be William IV in Scotland rather than William
III - there was William the Lion (1167-1214).
>
> I read somewhere that after some Scottish objections to the present
Queen being Elizabeth II in Scotland, a decision has been taken to use
the higher number, so Prince William should be William V in both
realms. Not ideal, but at least consistent.
>


King Robert III of Scotland was actually christened John. The Scots
ducked the matter of whether he would be John I or John II (ie,
whether to recognize John Balliol, Edward I's appointee, as ever
having actually been king) by crowning John Stewart as Robert. To
confuse matters even more, he had a younger brother whose name
actually was Robert.

Katy

That bears out what I said about John being equally cursed in Scotland.

Similarly, George VI (Albert) had a younger brother named George. Had Edward VIII used his real forename (David), there had been Kings of that name in Scotland in early medieval times.

Furthermore, although numbers were only used in England after the Conquest, the Scots king at the time was Malcolm III (Canmore). Either he was known solely as Canmore and the numbers were added by later historians (English? French?) or he had a number as soon as he displaced Macbeth.
----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: The Palace


--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> Prince William would be William IV in Scotland rather than William
III - there was William the Lion (1167-1214).
>
> I read somewhere that after some Scottish objections to the present
Queen being Elizabeth II in Scotland, a decision has been taken to use
the higher number, so Prince William should be William V in both
realms. Not ideal, but at least consistent.
>

King Robert III of Scotland was actually christened John. The Scots
ducked the matter of whether he would be John I or John II (ie,
whether to recognize John Balliol, Edward I's appointee, as ever
having actually been king) by crowning John Stewart as Robert. To
confuse matters even more, he had a younger brother whose name
actually was Robert.

Katy

Not sure. They should have been William II and William III respectively, but whether they actually were is another matter.

Logically, William of Orange would have been William II in Scotland, since this was before the Act of Union and so the kingdoms were still separate.

There wasn't much political nationalism in Scotland in the 1830s, so I suspect the point wasn't considered in relation to William IV (III?)


----- Original Message ----
From: rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 17 January, 2008 2:04:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Palace

So was William of Orange numbered William II of Scotland in his
lifetime, and William of Clarence numbered William III ?

Richard G

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, A LYON <A.Lyon1@...
> wrote:
>
> Prince William would be William IV in Scotland rather than William
> III - there was William the Lion (1167-1214).
>
> I read somewhere that after some Scottish objections to the present
> Queen being Elizabeth II in Scotland, a decision has been taken to
> use the higher number, so Prince William should be William V in both
> realms. Not ideal, but at least consistent.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> That bears out what I said about John being equally cursed in Scotland.
>
> Similarly, George VI (Albert) had a younger brother named George.
Had Edward VIII used his real forename (David), there had been Kings
of that name in Scotland in early medieval times.
>
> Furthermore, although numbers were only used in England after the
Conquest, the Scots king at the time was Malcolm III (Canmore). Either
he was known solely as Canmore and the numbers were added by later
historians (English? French?) or he had a number as soon as he
displaced Macbeth.


"Canmore" is a descriptive rather than an actual name. It means
"big-head." It harks to the days when no one, not just royals, had
surnames, so when a family or group got large enough that there was a
need to differentiate between, say, several men named John, a
descriptive was tacked on.

I think that's a lot more interesting than numbering, as a way to tell
which person you're talking about.

Katy