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.
There are some good early Scottish ones that they could resurrect: Constantine IV, Dub II, Giric II, Macbeth II, Kenneth IV.
Malcolm V would be biting Malcolm X's style a bit though.
MacBeth probably not as he got a bad press from that Shakespear geezer. If there is an after life, WS will be spending it hiding from MacBeth and Richard III.
I suggest a less upper class name. All Hail King Sidney I.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
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?
Not Alfred II, because on the Norman takeover, they ditched the previous kings and started afresh. That is why Edward Longshanks became Edward I and not Edward III.
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.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman.bsky.social / bsky.app/profile/chrastina.net
threads.net/@dannychrastina
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
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.
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.
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.
The "nth and mth" style hasn't been used since 1707, as the kingdoms of England and Scotland no longer exist.
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
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
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
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
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
The more I think of it, the more I want a new King Cnut. It would be f.cking brilliant. Every day would be like the Biggus Dickus scene from Life of Brian.
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.
Egbert is actually an awesome name, from the Old English Ecg-beorht, literally ‘edge bright’ but meaning ‘bright sword’. Shame it sounds lame in modern English.
Our own Egbert P.F. Is in fact also awesome, swords or not.
