Re: CHAT: reign names
| From: | Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, September 20, 2004, 6:42 |
|---|
On Sunday, September 19, 2004, at 08:19 , Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> Ray wrote:
>> But 'George' is one of the Prince of Wales's names! Many people had been
>> hoping he would choose one of his other names, 'Arthur' (which BTW,
>> unlike
>> either Charles or George, is spelled the same in Welsh as in English).
>
> So, if he were to adopt Arthur as his regnal name, would he
> be called "King Arthur II"?
No. There is no evidence that there was ever a historic 'King Arthur' of
anywhere. If the Arthur of legend has any basis in reality, then 'Arthur'
was probably a Romano-British leader (presumably called Arctorius) holding
out against Saxon encroachment after the legions had withdrawn from
Britain.
> For that matter, what status do
> any of the preconquest kings have? A few of the very early
> names are still in use:
In England, they have no standing. The monarchs of England are numbered
from William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, who is styled "William I". I
do not know when the Scots lists of monarchs starts; the Normans didn't
bring Scotland under their control.
[snip]
> name.) Heck, if Sargon II of Assyria (r. 722-705 BC) can be called
> thus because of Sargon I the Great of Akkad (r. 2371-2315 BC), I
> suppose anything can happen.
Yep - you're probably right there!
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
Reply