Scrutable

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:01 am

Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:30 pm

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:05 pm

It was Elizabeth who was succeeded by a king of Scotland; James VI, who became James I. Charles II was succeeded by his brother James II.
But yes, the track record of Charles's is not terrific.

Weird factoid. Because the UK monarch is now the ruler of both England and Scotland, were there to be another King James, they wouldn't be James III, they would be James VIII, because they would have to take into account the James's in the Scottish line (James VII is who we know as James II)

CF

Crect. And Robert IV, David III, etc. It's a shame the monarchs have been trapped in an Edward/William/George cycle for so long. It'd be good to see some other names come in.

Imrael wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 28, 2021 2:31 pm

Or we could copy the ninth century king of West Francia and go for Charles the Bald.

There was also a Burgundian Charles the Bold, who was more bold than successful as I remember, and eventually fatally annoyed the Swiss.

Isnt there a sort-of tradition of a monarch being able to pick a new name on ascending the throne, so Charles could opt for Alfred the 2nd in theory?

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:23 am

with your dreadful obsequience continually being handed on down through the peasantry we’ll be getting Zoltan MMXCVII and Palpatine VIII.

Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:30 pm

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:05 pm

IvanV wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:04 pm

... it is sometimes speculated that he might choose a different regnal name, on the suggestion that Charles is an unpropitious name for an English king. One had his head chopped off. The other had no legitimate children, resulting in the throne passing to the King of Scotland. And there was also "Bonnie Prince" Charles Edward Stuart who was a failure in his attempt to get the throne.

It was Elizabeth who was succeeded by a king of Scotland; James VI, who became James I. Charles II was succeeded by his brother James II.
But yes, the track record of Charles's is not terrific.

Weird factoid. Because the UK monarch is now the ruler of both England and Scotland, were there to be another King James, they wouldn't be James III, they would be James VIII, because they would have to take into account the James's in the Scottish line (James VII is who we know as James II)

CF

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:23 am

with your dreadful obsequience continually being handed on down through the peasantry we’ll be getting Zoltan MMXCVII and Palpatine VIII.

plodder wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:49 am

Zoltan, Ming, it’s like we’re culturally programmed to mistrust foreigners...

Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:41 am

Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:30 pm

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:05 pm

It was Elizabeth who was succeeded by a king of Scotland; James VI, who became James I. Charles II was succeeded by his brother James II.
But yes, the track record of Charles's is not terrific.

Weird factoid. Because the UK monarch is now the ruler of both England and Scotland, were there to be another King James, they wouldn't be James III, they would be James VIII, because they would have to take into account the James's in the Scottish line (James VII is who we know as James II)

CF

Weird truthoid: When an Elizabeth ascended to the throne, they didn't call her Elizabeth the First and Second: they just ignored the fact that the Scots had never had an Elizabeth before. This didn't go down too well in the Northern country: I seem to remember that red pillar boxes marked E2R got blown up. And I remember a popular song which went

"Scotland disnae hae a King, it disnae hae a Queen,
How can there be a second Liz, when the first yin's never been?
We'll mak our land Republican, at the Scottish Breakaway"

Incidentally the last King of Scotland was Idi Amin. The traditional style of the monarch was King or Queen of Scots (possibly up to the Union of the Crowns). Which actually makes a bit of a philosophical difference.

Imrael wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 28, 2021 2:31 pm

Or we could copy the ninth century king of West Francia and go for Charles the Bald.

There was also a Burgundian Charles the Bold, who was more bold than successful as I remember, and eventually fatally annoyed the Swiss.

Isnt there a sort-of tradition of a monarch being able to pick a new name on ascending the throne, so Charles could opt for Alfred the 2nd in theory?

Grumble wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:16 pm

Imrael wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 28, 2021 2:31 pm

Or we could copy the ninth century king of West Francia and go for Charles the Bald.

There was also a Burgundian Charles the Bold, who was more bold than successful as I remember, and eventually fatally annoyed the Swiss.

Isnt there a sort-of tradition of a monarch being able to pick a new name on ascending the throne, so Charles could opt for Alfred the 2nd in theory?

I’m not sure England had ever had a King Alfred? Surely he’d be Alfred I

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:34 pm

Grumble wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:16 pm

Imrael wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 28, 2021 2:31 pm

There was also a Burgundian Charles the Bold, who was more bold than successful as I remember, and eventually fatally annoyed the Swiss.

Isnt there a sort-of tradition of a monarch being able to pick a new name on ascending the throne, so Charles could opt for Alfred the 2nd in theory?

I’m not sure England had ever had a King Alfred? Surely he’d be Alfred I

England didn’t really exist in Alfred’s time as such. Aethelstan is the most common choice for the first king of England (or King Of All The Angles)l Numbering started with William 1 which is why we don’t call Edward The Confessor instead Edward 1

ETA Whoops! Or Edward The Third. I lost a couple of Teddies https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/num ... in-138689/

Grumble wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:06 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:34 pm

Grumble wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:16 pm

I’m not sure England had ever had a King Alfred? Surely he’d be Alfred I

England didn’t really exist in Alfred’s time as such. Aethelstan is the most common choice for the first king of England (or King Of All The Angles)l Numbering started with William 1 which is why we don’t call Edward The Confessor instead Edward 1

ETA Whoops! Or Edward The Third. I lost a couple of Teddies https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/num ... in-138689/

My point exactly. Alfred was never king of my bit of England - even if he was overlord.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:06 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:34 pm

Grumble wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:16 pm

I’m not sure England had ever had a King Alfred? Surely he’d be Alfred I

England didn’t really exist in Alfred’s time as such. Aethelstan is the most common choice for the first king of England (or King Of All The Angles)l Numbering started with William 1 which is why we don’t call Edward The Confessor instead Edward 1

ETA Whoops! Or Edward The Third. I lost a couple of Teddies https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/num ... in-138689/

My point exactly. Alfred was never king of my bit of England - even if he was overlord.

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:21 pm

We should have an Egbert again. Sounds like a children’s character.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:12 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:21 pm

We should have an Egbert again. Sounds like a children’s character.

Only if it's our Egbert.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:12 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:21 pm

We should have an Egbert again. Sounds like a children’s character.

Only if it's our Egbert.