Discussion:
Bad Luck Royal Names?
(too old to reply)
Grrarrggh
2004-08-29 04:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Are there any royal names that are considered bad luck, and probably won't be
used again, or at least for a long while?

Tam
edespalais
2004-08-29 05:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Grrarrggh
Are there any royal names that are considered bad luck, and probably won't be
used again, or at least for a long while?
Tam
Adolf, but not as royal name : Luxemburg
David Pritchard
2004-08-31 23:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
An Englishman, an American and a Frenchman are all in Saudi Arabia,
sharing a smuggled crate of booze when, all of a sudden, Saudi police
rush in and arrest them. The mere possession of alcohol is a severe
offense in Saudi Arabia, so for the terrible crime of actually being
caught consuming the booze, they are all sentenced to death! However,
after many months and with the help of very good lawyers, they are
able to successfully appeal their sentences down to life imprisonment.
By a stroke of luck, it was a Saudi national holiday the day their
trial finished, and the extremely benevolent Sheik decided they could
be released after each receiving just 20 lashes of the whip.

As they were preparing for their punishment, the Sheik announced:
"It's my first wife's birthday today, and she has asked me to allow
each of you one wish before your whipping."

The Englishman was first in line, he thought for a while and then
said: "Please tie a pillow to my back."

This was done, but the pillow only lasted 10 lashes before the whip
went through. When the punishment was done he had to be carried away
bleeding and crying with pain.

The Frenchman was next up. After watching the Engishman in horror he
said smugly: "Please fix deux pillows to my back."

But even two pillows could only take 15 lashes before the whip went
through again and the Frenchman was soon led away whimpering loudly
(as they do).

The American was the last one up, but before he could say anything,
the Sheik turned to him and said: "You are from a most beautiful part
of the world and your people are the kindest and most generous in the
world. For this, you may have two wishes!"

"Thank you, your Most Royal and Merciful highness", The American
replied. "In recognition of your kindness, my first wish is that you
give me not 20, but 100 lashes."

"Not only are you an honorable, handsome and powerful man, you are
also very brave". The Sheik said with an admiring look on his face.

"If 100 lashes is what you desire, then so be it. And your second
wish, what is it to be?" the Sheik asked.

"Tie the Frenchman to my back."
Georges Dufoux
2004-09-01 08:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Pritchard
An Englishman, an American and a Frenchman are all in Saudi Arabia,
sharing a smuggled crate of booze when, all of a sudden, Saudi police
rush in and arrest them. The mere possession of alcohol is a severe
offense in Saudi Arabia, so for the terrible crime of actually being
caught consuming the booze, they are all sentenced to death! However,
after many months and with the help of very good lawyers, they are
able to successfully appeal their sentences down to life imprisonment.
By a stroke of luck, it was a Saudi national holiday the day their
trial finished, and the extremely benevolent Sheik decided they could
be released after each receiving just 20 lashes of the whip.
"It's my first wife's birthday today, and she has asked me to allow
each of you one wish before your whipping."
The Englishman was first in line, he thought for a while and then
said: "Please tie a pillow to my back."
This was done, but the pillow only lasted 10 lashes before the whip
went through. When the punishment was done he had to be carried away
bleeding and crying with pain.
The Frenchman was next up. After watching the Engishman in horror he
said smugly: "Please fix deux pillows to my back."
But even two pillows could only take 15 lashes before the whip went
through again and the Frenchman was soon led away whimpering loudly
(as they do).
The American was the last one up, but before he could say anything,
the Sheik turned to him and said: "You are from a most beautiful part
of the world and your people are the kindest and most generous in the
world. For this, you may have two wishes!"
"Thank you, your Most Royal and Merciful highness", The American
replied. "In recognition of your kindness, my first wish is that you
give me not 20, but 100 lashes."
"Not only are you an honorable, handsome and powerful man, you are
also very brave". The Sheik said with an admiring look on his face.
"If 100 lashes is what you desire, then so be it. And your second
wish, what is it to be?" the Sheik asked.
"Tie the Frenchman to my back."
An excellent illustration of American selfishness
Lindgren
2004-09-01 17:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Perhaps American selfishness but it did show good ole American know
how. Also it was a cute joke.

Carl--
Post by Georges Dufoux
Post by David Pritchard
An Englishman, an American and a Frenchman are all in Saudi Arabia,
sharing a smuggled crate of booze when, all of a sudden, Saudi police
rush in and arrest them. The mere possession of alcohol is a severe
offense in Saudi Arabia, so for the terrible crime of actually being
caught consuming the booze, they are all sentenced to death! However,
after many months and with the help of very good lawyers, they are
able to successfully appeal their sentences down to life imprisonment.
By a stroke of luck, it was a Saudi national holiday the day their
trial finished, and the extremely benevolent Sheik decided they could
be released after each receiving just 20 lashes of the whip.
"It's my first wife's birthday today, and she has asked me to allow
each of you one wish before your whipping."
The Englishman was first in line, he thought for a while and then
said: "Please tie a pillow to my back."
This was done, but the pillow only lasted 10 lashes before the whip
went through. When the punishment was done he had to be carried away
bleeding and crying with pain.
The Frenchman was next up. After watching the Engishman in horror he
said smugly: "Please fix deux pillows to my back."
But even two pillows could only take 15 lashes before the whip went
through again and the Frenchman was soon led away whimpering loudly
(as they do).
The American was the last one up, but before he could say anything,
the Sheik turned to him and said: "You are from a most beautiful part
of the world and your people are the kindest and most generous in the
world. For this, you may have two wishes!"
"Thank you, your Most Royal and Merciful highness", The American
replied. "In recognition of your kindness, my first wish is that you
give me not 20, but 100 lashes."
"Not only are you an honorable, handsome and powerful man, you are
also very brave". The Sheik said with an admiring look on his face.
"If 100 lashes is what you desire, then so be it. And your second
wish, what is it to be?" the Sheik asked.
"Tie the Frenchman to my back."
An excellent illustration of American selfishness
Gillian White
2004-08-29 05:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Grrarrggh
Are there any royal names that are considered bad luck, and probably won't be
used again, or at least for a long while?
I have heard that the Windsors do not like the name John, because both Queen
Alexandra and Queen Mary had sons called John who did not survive.
Apparently, Diana wanted to use the name in honour of her father, but was
persuaded to use William instead.

And did Prince Charles not once say that he did not want to be King Charles
III, because the name was associated with a beheaded king? Tough luck there,
eh?

Gillian
James Dempster
2004-08-29 06:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 05:48:29 GMT, "Gillian White"
Post by Gillian White
Post by Grrarrggh
Are there any royal names that are considered bad luck, and probably won't
be
Post by Grrarrggh
used again, or at least for a long while?
I have heard that the Windsors do not like the name John, because both Queen
Alexandra and Queen Mary had sons called John who did not survive.
Apparently, Diana wanted to use the name in honour of her father, but was
persuaded to use William instead.
I think that the dislike of the name John goes back further since
there has only been one King John. I don't think that it was his
reputation that was the problem, maybe something else. The dislike
also applied to Scotland since the only person called John to inherit
the throne of Scots decided to reign as Robert III

James
James Dempster (remove nospam to reply by email)

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.
David Webb
2004-08-29 10:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Is it true that the P. of Wales intends to reign as King George VII?
Post by Gillian White
Post by Grrarrggh
Are there any royal names that are considered bad luck, and probably
won't
Post by Gillian White
be
Post by Grrarrggh
used again, or at least for a long while?
I have heard that the Windsors do not like the name John, because both Queen
Alexandra and Queen Mary had sons called John who did not survive.
Apparently, Diana wanted to use the name in honour of her father, but was
persuaded to use William instead.
And did Prince Charles not once say that he did not want to be King Charles
III, because the name was associated with a beheaded king? Tough luck there,
eh?
Gillian
Louis Epstein
2004-08-29 19:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Webb
Is it true that the P. of Wales intends to reign as King George VII?
I believe he DOES intend to be Charles III
but that asking him to spell that out publicly
is considered improper as it invites contemplation
of the Queen's death.

I saw a report years ago that someone asked him
what name he planned to reign under and he replied
in some bafflement "My own,of course",implying
Charles III.

Later I saw an attribution of the same response to
the present Queen when asked on her father's death
and I don't know if either exchange is documented
enough to be more than an "urban legend".

In any case,whatever self-deprecating musings H.R.H.
has made I think he regards choosing a regnal name
other than one's usually used pre-regnal name as
contrived,and it doesn't seem his style.
Post by David Webb
Post by Gillian White
Post by Grrarrggh
Are there any royal names that are considered bad luck, and
probably won't be used again, or at least for a long while?
I have heard that the Windsors do not like the name John, because
both Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary had sons called John who did not
survive.
Apparently, Diana wanted to use the name in honour of her father, but
was persuaded to use William instead.
And did Prince Charles not once say that he did not want to be King
Charles III, because the name was associated with a beheaded king?
Tough luck there, eh?
Gillian
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
David Salo
2004-09-01 03:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Webb
Is it true that the P. of Wales intends to reign as King George VII?
Perhaps it would go over better than "King Philip II".
Xchamber10r1x
2004-08-30 03:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
And did Prince Charles not once say that he did not want to be King Charles
III, because the name was associated with a beheaded king? Tough luck there,
eh?

He can use one of his other names
Claude Latremouille
2004-08-30 04:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gillian White
And did Prince Charles not once say that he did not want to be King Charles
III, because the name was associated with a beheaded king? Tough luck there,
eh?
He can use one of his other names
*
How about Georges VII?

--
*** ***@ncf.ca ** ***@ncf.ca ***
C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gidzmo
2004-08-30 20:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gillian White
And did Prince Charles not once say that he did not want to be King Charles
III, because the name was associated with a beheaded king?
Post by Gillian White
He can use one of his other names
His given names are Charles Philip Arthur George. Charles could reign as one
of the following:

a) Charles III--even with the association with a beheaded King.

b) Philip--the UK's never had a King Philip, so this would be a first.

c) Arthur--whether he'd be the first or second Arthur depends on whether you
believe that a King Arthur existed ages ago.

d) George VII--this would be taking the name of his grandfather (Prince Albert
George, the present Queen's father, who reigned as King George VI).

A first would be a compound name--which Victoria's son (Albert Edward)
considered before he chose Edward VII. His reason: Prince Albert (his father)
was so well thought-of by everyone that Edward decided the name of "Albert"
should stand alone.

Victoria's constant comparisons of Edward to Albert (with Edward on the short
end of it) probably influenced his decision.
Don Aitken
2004-08-30 20:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gillian White
Post by Gillian White
And did Prince Charles not once say that he did not want to be King Charles
III, because the name was associated with a beheaded king?
Post by Gillian White
He can use one of his other names
His given names are Charles Philip Arthur George. Charles could reign as one
a) Charles III--even with the association with a beheaded King.
b) Philip--the UK's never had a King Philip, so this would be a first.
Nope. You forget Mary I's husband, who was King of England.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Gidzmo
2004-08-31 18:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
b) Philip--the UK's never had a King Philip, so this would be a first.
Nope. You forget Mary I's husband, who was King of England.
Mary I was Queen of England. Philip was a Prince (and eventually King) of
Spain.

Did Philip share Mary's authority in England, or was he a consort? And
vice-versa for Mary in Spain?
edespalais
2004-08-31 19:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
b) Philip--the UK's never had a King Philip, so this would be a first.
Nope. You forget Mary I's husband, who was King of England.
Mary I was Queen of England. Philip was a Prince (and eventually King) of
Spain.
Did Philip share Mary's authority in England, or was he a consort? And
vice-versa for Mary in Spain?
At least was Philipp styled king .., one has seen documents with this fact.
Check with BL (manuscript department), Sotheby's in London (same)
Don Aitken
2004-08-31 19:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
b) Philip--the UK's never had a King Philip, so this would be a first.
Nope. You forget Mary I's husband, who was King of England.
Mary I was Queen of England. Philip was a Prince (and eventually King) of
Spain.
Did Philip share Mary's authority in England, or was he a consort? And
vice-versa for Mary in Spain?
"By force of which marriage so celebrated and consummated, the said
most noble prince Philip shall during the said marriage have and enjoy
jointly together with the said most gracious queen his wife, the
style, honour and kingly name of the realms and dominions unto the
said most noble queen appertaining", as the marriage treaty and
subsequent Act of Parliament put it. The full text is at
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/mary.html#164

He didn't get much more than the title, but that he did get (limited
to Mary's life). The statute book for those years gives the regnal
years of "Philip and Mary", as seen in subsequent documents on that
web page.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Francois R. Velde
2004-08-31 21:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
b) Philip--the UK's never had a King Philip, so this would be a first.
Nope. You forget Mary I's husband, who was King of England.
Mary I was Queen of England. Philip was a Prince (and eventually King) of
Spain.
[...]
He didn't get much more than the title, but that he did get (limited
to Mary's life). The statute book for those years gives the regnal
years of "Philip and Mary", as seen in subsequent documents on that
web page.
See also http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1554

I was going to say that this belongs in the FAQ, until I checked and realized
that it's already there.

Nor is this the first time that the PP is being corrected on this point:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20011222165413.05532.00000508%40mb-bh.aol.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030219162438.23910.00000562%40mb-fz.aol.com
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Gidzmo
2004-08-31 22:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Looked at your Googles (my past postings). Only one mentions Philip and Mary
as King and Queen of England.
Francois R. Velde
2004-09-01 02:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gidzmo
Looked at your Googles (my past postings). Only one mentions Philip and Mary
as King and Queen of England.
Both say that Philip was not king and that another Philip would be the first.

This is the third time you repeat this mistake. And this is hardly the first
time you post nonsense. Read the FAQ once in a while, will you?

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
David Salo
2004-09-01 17:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Aitken
He didn't get much more than the title, but that he did get (limited
to Mary's life). The statute book for those years gives the regnal
years of "Philip and Mary", as seen in subsequent documents on that
web page.
On a similar instance of the Crown Matrimonial: I note that McFerran
lists Cardinal York as "Henry IX [of England] and I [of Scotland]"
(http://www.jacobite.ca/kings/henry.htm). Shouldn't that be "Henry IX
and II"? Mary Stuart's ill-fated consort was also a Henry.
Don Aitken
2004-09-01 23:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Salo
Post by Don Aitken
He didn't get much more than the title, but that he did get (limited
to Mary's life). The statute book for those years gives the regnal
years of "Philip and Mary", as seen in subsequent documents on that
web page.
On a similar instance of the Crown Matrimonial: I note that McFerran
lists Cardinal York as "Henry IX [of England] and I [of Scotland]"
(http://www.jacobite.ca/kings/henry.htm). Shouldn't that be "Henry IX
and II"? Mary Stuart's ill-fated consort was also a Henry.
Now there's an interesting thought; he certainly was. By the same
token, King Francis II should be "Francis II and III", since Mary's
first husband was also King of Scots.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Gidzmo
2004-08-31 22:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"By force of which marriage so celebrated and consummated, the said most noble
Prince Philip shall during the said marriage have and enjoy jointly together
with the said most gracious Queen his wife, the
style, honour and kingly name of the realms and dominions unto the said most
noble Queen"

Wasn't there talk at one time (during Henry VIII's reign) of Mary marrying
Philip? Or was it another Spanish Prince?
Louis Epstein
2004-09-01 01:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Don Aitken
"By force of which marriage so celebrated and consummated, the said
most noble Prince Philip shall during the said marriage have and enjoy
jointly together with the said most gracious Queen his wife, the style,
honour and kingly name of the realms and dominions unto the said most
noble Queen"
Wasn't there talk at one time (during Henry VIII's reign) of Mary
marrying Philip? Or was it another Spanish Prince?
Not sure when the idea was first raised,but they didn't marry until
1554,the year after Mary had ascended the English throne.
At that time Philip was still a Prince,but his father abdicated
the Spanish throne to him in 1556.

(Charles V only formally became the sole ruler of Spain in 1555
on the death of his mother Juana the Mad,but she had been shut
away almost his whole life...shortly after abdicating Spain he
also abdicated as Holy Roman Emperor,in favor of his brother).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Francois R. Velde
2004-09-01 02:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Louis Epstein
Not sure when the idea was first raised,but they didn't marry until
1554,the year after Mary had ascended the English throne.
At that time Philip was still a Prince,but his father abdicated
the Spanish throne to him in 1556.
He was a king, not a prince. His father arranged for him to be king of Naples
in time for the marriage.

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Don Aitken
2004-09-01 02:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:04:50 -0500, Louis Epstein
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Don Aitken
"By force of which marriage so celebrated and consummated, the said
most noble Prince Philip shall during the said marriage have and enjoy
jointly together with the said most gracious Queen his wife, the style,
honour and kingly name of the realms and dominions unto the said most
noble Queen"
Wasn't there talk at one time (during Henry VIII's reign) of Mary
marrying Philip? Or was it another Spanish Prince?
Not sure when the idea was first raised,but they didn't marry until
1554,the year after Mary had ascended the English throne.
At that time Philip was still a Prince,but his father abdicated
the Spanish throne to him in 1556.
I believe, though this is from memory, that Charles abdicated the
throne of Naples in favor of Philip *before* the marriage, to ensure
that his rank would be equal to his wife's.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
A Tsar Is Born
2004-09-01 18:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gidzmo
"By force of which marriage so celebrated and consummated, the said most noble
Prince Philip shall during the said marriage have and enjoy jointly together
with the said most gracious Queen his wife, the
style, honour and kingly name of the realms and dominions unto the said most
noble Queen"
Wasn't there talk at one time (during Henry VIII's reign) of Mary marrying
Philip? Or was it another Spanish Prince?
Mary was formally betrothed to Philip's father, the Emperor Charles
(King Carlos I of Spain), who came to England in person, during
Henry's reign. Philip, obviously, was neither born nor thought of at
the time. Mary was nine or ten years old. Charles was about 20, and
betrothed to one of Francois I's daughters (Louise? Charlotte?), but
never mind that. Subsequently, without informing Henry or Mary, he
married Isabel of Portugal, who gave birth to Philip in 1527.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
David Salo
2004-09-01 19:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Mary was formally betrothed to Philip's father, the Emperor Charles
(King Carlos I of Spain), who came to England in person, during
Henry's reign. Philip, obviously, was neither born nor thought of at
the time. Mary was nine or ten years old. Charles was about 20, and
betrothed to one of Francois I's daughters (Louise? Charlotte?), but
never mind that. Subsequently, without informing Henry or Mary, he
married Isabel of Portugal, who gave birth to Philip in 1527.
I've read stuff by people who are under the impression that a
betrothal is equivalent to a marriage, and any other marriage
contracted subsequently is bigamous and invalid, and the offspring of
such marriages illegitimate...

ds
Candide
2004-09-02 02:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Salo
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Mary was formally betrothed to Philip's father, the Emperor Charles
(King Carlos I of Spain), who came to England in person, during
Henry's reign. Philip, obviously, was neither born nor thought of at
the time. Mary was nine or ten years old. Charles was about 20, and
betrothed to one of Francois I's daughters (Louise? Charlotte?), but
never mind that. Subsequently, without informing Henry or Mary, he
married Isabel of Portugal, who gave birth to Philip in 1527.
I've read stuff by people who are under the impression that a
betrothal is equivalent to a marriage, and any other marriage
contracted subsequently is bigamous and invalid, and the offspring of
such marriages illegitimate...
ds
And this is quite so, Henry VIII tried to use Anne of Cleves contract of
marriage to Francis of Lorraine, to have his own marriage invalidated.
In the end Henry with the pre-contact and threw in non-consummation for
good measure as his grounds to have his fourth marriage voided.

Candide
Don Aitken
2004-09-02 03:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Candide
Post by David Salo
I've read stuff by people who are under the impression that a
betrothal is equivalent to a marriage, and any other marriage
contracted subsequently is bigamous and invalid, and the offspring of
such marriages illegitimate...
And this is quite so, Henry VIII tried to use Anne of Cleves contract of
marriage to Francis of Lorraine, to have his own marriage invalidated.
In the end Henry with the pre-contact and threw in non-consummation for
good measure as his grounds to have his fourth marriage voided.
There is a distinction between a marriage *contract* (or "spousals")
and informal betrothal. The medieval rule, as laid down by
Innocent III in the 13th century, was that a valid and binding
marriage was created by the exchange of vows, no formal ceremony, and
no priest or witnesses, being required. This caused constant trouble,
since a later formal marriage in church could be invalidated by the
existence of such a "precontract". Henry VIII's case is only one such
example - this sort of problem arose all the time. The Catholic Church
finally dealt with it by a decree of the Council of Trent, in 1563,
providing that a public ceremony before a priest, with two or more
witnesses, and an entry in the parish register, were essential to
constitute a valid marriage. It took England almost two centuries to
catch up with this reform; Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 contained
exactly the same provision.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Francois R. Velde
2004-09-02 05:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Aitken
The Catholic Church
finally dealt with it by a decree of the Council of Trent, in 1563,
providing that a public ceremony before a priest, with two or more
witnesses, and an entry in the parish register, were essential to
constitute a valid marriage.
No, not essential. What was essential, i.e., the absence of which renders the
marriage null, was the presence of a priest and two or three witnesses.
Publicity, bans, entry into a register, etc. were required but their absence did
not make the marriage invalid.

See http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html

--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Gidzmo
2004-09-02 20:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Henry VIII tried to use Anne of Cleves' contract of marriage to Francis of
Lorraine, to have his own marriage invalidated.

Reminds me a bit of Anne Boelyn (Henry's second wife).

He had previously been involved with Anne's elder sister, Mary. When Henry
tired of Anne and wanted the marriage ended, he brought up the
"previously-undiscovered impediment" of his relationship with Mary.

Add to that Anne's prior involvement with the heir to either the Earl of
Northumberland or Shrewsbury. Cardinal Wolsey and the Earl found out about
that and ended it rather swiftly: the Earl's son was threatened with
disinheritance (he had been espoused to a daughter of the Talbots, IIRC), and
Anne was packed off to Hever Castle.
edespalais
2004-09-02 21:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Candide
Henry VIII tried to use Anne of Cleves' contract of marriage to Francis of
Lorraine, to have his own marriage invalidated.
Reminds me a bit of Anne Boelyn (Henry's second wife).
He had previously been involved with Anne's elder sister, Mary. When Henry
tired of Anne and wanted the marriage ended, he brought up the
"previously-undiscovered impediment" of his relationship with Mary.
Add to that Anne's prior involvement with the heir to either the Earl of
Northumberland or Shrewsbury. Cardinal Wolsey and the Earl found out about
that and ended it rather swiftly: the Earl's son was threatened with
disinheritance (he had been espoused to a daughter of the Talbots, IIRC), and
Anne was packed off to Hever Castle.
A Tsar Is Born
2004-09-02 03:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Salo
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Mary was formally betrothed to Philip's father, the Emperor Charles
(King Carlos I of Spain), who came to England in person, during
Henry's reign. Philip, obviously, was neither born nor thought of at
the time. Mary was nine or ten years old. Charles was about 20, and
betrothed to one of Francois I's daughters (Louise? Charlotte?), but
never mind that. Subsequently, without informing Henry or Mary, he
married Isabel of Portugal, who gave birth to Philip in 1527.
I've read stuff by people who are under the impression that a
betrothal is equivalent to a marriage, and any other marriage
contracted subsequently is bigamous and invalid, and the offspring of
such marriages illegitimate...
ds
The answer to that is: If Charles had wanted to divorce Isabel, he
could easily have found an excuse to do so. Besides, after 1527, he
owned the pope.

Jean Coeur de Lapin

(If you read medieval aristocratic and royal genealogical charts, you
will find that men in such positions were usually able to divorce and
remarry at will, often without declaring the children of their
previous unions illegitimate -- St. Fernando Rey, e.g., was the son of
parents divorced for consanguinity, and his father legally remarried,
but Fernando remained the heir to both their kingdoms. Any regular
here can give you fifty instances. The sacraments were never
sacrosanct -- or not before the Reformation, Martin Luther's gift to
the Catholic church, for which the ingrates never have thanked him.
Any comment from David/Amicus on all this? Tee-hee.)
Rico
2004-08-31 01:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gillian White
Post by Gillian White
And did Prince Charles not once say that he did not want to be King Charles
III, because the name was associated with a beheaded king?
Post by Gillian White
He can use one of his other names
He doesn't even have to use one of his given names, for all we know he might
like to reign ans King Bob
Post by Gillian White
His given names are Charles Philip Arthur George. Charles could reign as one
a) Charles III--even with the association with a beheaded King.
b) Philip--the UK's never had a King Philip, so this would be a first.
c) Arthur--whether he'd be the first or second Arthur depends on whether you
believe that a King Arthur existed ages ago.
d) George VII--this would be taking the name of his grandfather (Prince Albert
George, the present Queen's father, who reigned as King George VI).
A first would be a compound name--which Victoria's son (Albert Edward)
considered before he chose Edward VII. His reason: Prince Albert (his father)
was so well thought-of by everyone that Edward decided the name of "Albert"
should stand alone.
Victoria's constant comparisons of Edward to Albert (with Edward on the short
end of it) probably influenced his decision.
Louis Epstein
2004-09-01 00:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gillian White
Post by Gillian White
And did Prince Charles not once say that he did not want to be King Charles
III, because the name was associated with a beheaded king?
Post by Gillian White
He can use one of his other names
His given names are Charles Philip Arthur George. Charles could reign
a) Charles III--even with the association with a beheaded King.
And for him to change names on taking the Throne
strikes me as totally alien to his style.
Post by Gillian White
b) Philip--the UK's never had a King Philip, so this would be a first.
As noted elsewhere,Philip of Spain was King Consort
when he was married to Queen Mary I.
Post by Gillian White
c) Arthur--whether he'd be the first or second Arthur depends on whether
you believe that a King Arthur existed ages ago.
If the earlier one DID exist,he still didn't rule any of
the merged polities whose sovereigns are considered
for numbering purposes.
Post by Gillian White
d) George VII--this would be taking the name of his grandfather (Prince
Albert George, the present Queen's father, who reigned as King George VI).
A first would be a compound name--which Victoria's son (Albert Edward)
considered before he chose Edward VII. His reason: Prince Albert (his father)
was so well thought-of by everyone that Edward decided the name of "Albert"
should stand alone.
Victoria's constant comparisons of Edward to Albert (with Edward on the
short end of it) probably influenced his decision.
As *I* have always heard it (what are your sources?) Queen Victoria
had wanted all future Kings to be named Albert or Albert (Something),
and Prince Albert Edward dropped the Albert to defy her intent.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Michael Rhodes
2004-08-29 08:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I think the British royal family have avoided the name Charlotte since
the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales in 1817.


...Michael
Anne
2004-08-29 11:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think the British royal family have avoided the name Charlotte since
the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales in 1817.
...Michael
The Earl of St Andrews' elder daughter is Marina Charlotte Alexandra
Katharine Helen, with MARINA CHARLOTTE in capitals in Marlene's QVD,
implying both names are used.. Mark Lascelles' eldest daughter is Charlotte
Patricia (and his cousin Henry Lascelles' son is Maximillian John Gerald).

Queen Victoria certainly did not use Charlotte as one of the given names of
her five daughters, even though Queen Charlotte was her grandmother. Edward
VII's youngest daughter was Maud Charlotte Mary Victoria. Neither George
V's daughter nor George VI's two daughters had Charlotte among their names.

Anne
Candide
2004-08-29 23:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think the British royal family have avoided the name Charlotte since
the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales in 1817.
...Michael
Women, both royal and common dying in childbirth was nothing new and was
just as tragic for the husband/family of a woman living in
Northumberland as the RF in 1817. That the Pss of Wales was who she was
and much loved may have made the situation more newsworthy.

Confinement in those days was a risky business, and many women still
made out their last will and testaments before commencing labour in case
of complications or the dreaded child-bed fever meant a woman didn't
survive. This is why birth announcements usually said "safely delivered
of a ......" .

There was quite a bit of medical incompetence then too, which no doubt
played a role in things. Remember it still was not the done thing for a
physical to "touch" a lady, much less examine her body "there" by
actually touching. Much was done either over sheets, or hands under
sheets but eyes above, and always with one or several respected ladies
present.

Candide
Anne
2004-08-30 17:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Candide
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think the British royal family have avoided the name Charlotte since
the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales in 1817.
...Michael
Women, both royal and common dying in childbirth was nothing new and was
just as tragic for the husband/family of a woman living in
Northumberland as the RF in 1817. That the Pss of Wales was who she was
and much loved may have made the situation more newsworthy.
Confinement in those days was a risky business, and many women still
made out their last will and testaments before commencing labour in case
of complications or the dreaded child-bed fever meant a woman didn't
survive. This is why birth announcements usually said "safely delivered
of a ......" .
When did women who were not widows begin making wills in the UK?
As women were the possession of their husband before some point in time
there would not have been a will, all property belonged to the husband
whether or not the wife lived or died.
Candide
2004-08-30 20:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anne
Post by Candide
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think the British royal family have avoided the name Charlotte since
the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales in 1817.
...Michael
Women, both royal and common dying in childbirth was nothing new and was
just as tragic for the husband/family of a woman living in
Northumberland as the RF in 1817. That the Pss of Wales was who she
was
Post by Anne
Post by Candide
and much loved may have made the situation more newsworthy.
Confinement in those days was a risky business, and many women still
made out their last will and testaments before commencing labour in case
of complications or the dreaded child-bed fever meant a woman didn't
survive. This is why birth announcements usually said "safely delivered
of a ......" .
When did women who were not widows begin making wills in the UK?
As women were the possession of their husband before some point in time
there would not have been a will, all property belonged to the husband
whether or not the wife lived or died.
IIRC a woman could make a will that began along the lines of "in
accordance and agreement with my husband/husband's wishes".

In England/Great Britain, a woman's family and their lawyers could set
up what was known as a "separate property" and or "separate estate".
This was a trust overseen by the Chancery Court which gave a woman
access to her property/funds by application to her trustee. While the
woman received access to her property, it was off limits to her husband,
his family and creditors. Such an arrangement was common for heiresses
since it prevented a man from marrying a woman just to get his hands on
her estate.

In many "dark" dramas you hear of a husband bringing some poor wife
"papers to sign". If love making didn't produce the desired result, many
men were not above the use of physical violence/force, hence the use of
trusts so a woman's property could not be kissed or kicked out of her.

In addition the laws in England/Great Britain were altered sometime in
the 1800's to allow women money/property that was outside of the
marriage contract to be hers outright. Again such reforms were necessary
to deal with women's husbands running through his wife's fortune and
either leaving her and her children destitute or buried in the rose
garden.

Candide
Louis Epstein
2004-08-31 00:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Candide
Post by Anne
Post by Candide
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think the British royal family have avoided the name
Charlotte since the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales
in 1817.
...Michael
Women, both royal and common dying in childbirth was nothing new
and was just as tragic for the husband/family of a woman living
in Northumberland as the RF in 1817. That the Pss of Wales was
who she was and much loved may have made the situation more
newsworthy.
Confinement in those days was a risky business, and many women
still made out their last will and testaments before commencing
labour in case of complications or the dreaded child-bed fever meant
a woman didn't survive. This is why birth announcements usually
said "safely delivered of a ......" .
When did women who were not widows begin making wills in the UK?
As women were the possession of their husband before some point
in time there would not have been a will, all property belonged to
the husband whether or not the wife lived or died.
IIRC a woman could make a will that began along the lines of "in
accordance and agreement with my husband/husband's wishes".
In England/Great Britain, a woman's family and their lawyers could set
up what was known as a "separate property" and or "separate estate".
This was a trust overseen by the Chancery Court which gave a woman
access to her property/funds by application to her trustee. While the
woman received access to her property, it was off limits to her husband,
his family and creditors. Such an arrangement was common for heiresses
since it prevented a man from marrying a woman just to get his hands on
her estate.
In many "dark" dramas you hear of a husband bringing some poor wife
"papers to sign". If love making didn't produce the desired result, many
men were not above the use of physical violence/force, hence the use of
trusts so a woman's property could not be kissed or kicked out of her.
In addition the laws in England/Great Britain were altered sometime
in the 1800's to allow women money/property that was outside of the
marriage contract to be hers outright. Again such reforms were necessary
to deal with women's husbands running through his wife's fortune and
either leaving her and her children destitute or buried in the rose
garden.
I believe you are thinking of the Married Women's Property Acts
of 1857 and 1870.Before the 1857 Act married women had essentially
no rights to property,I suppose apart from the chancery arrangements
described above.I'm not sure what arrangements were for widows (recall
in Wuthering Heights,Heathcliff has his dying son marry an heiress so
that when the son dies,he controls the property,not the son's widow).

The 1857 Act was prompted by a court case establishing that as the
laws then stood,a man who deserted his wife and children obliging
her to work to support the children was entitled to collect her
salary from her employer and go drink it away,the employer was
prohibited from paying it to the wife instead of the husband.
However,that Act essentially provided for deserted wives,those
who still lived with their husbands had no independent property
rights until the 1870 Act.A further Act in the 1880s essentially
completed the reforms.


-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Don Aitken
2004-08-31 01:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:09:54 -0500, Louis Epstein
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Candide
Post by Anne
Post by Candide
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think the British royal family have avoided the name
Charlotte since the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales
in 1817.
...Michael
Women, both royal and common dying in childbirth was nothing new
and was just as tragic for the husband/family of a woman living
in Northumberland as the RF in 1817. That the Pss of Wales was
who she was and much loved may have made the situation more
newsworthy.
Confinement in those days was a risky business, and many women
still made out their last will and testaments before commencing
labour in case of complications or the dreaded child-bed fever meant
a woman didn't survive. This is why birth announcements usually
said "safely delivered of a ......" .
When did women who were not widows begin making wills in the UK?
As women were the possession of their husband before some point
in time there would not have been a will, all property belonged to
the husband whether or not the wife lived or died.
IIRC a woman could make a will that began along the lines of "in
accordance and agreement with my husband/husband's wishes".
In England/Great Britain, a woman's family and their lawyers could set
up what was known as a "separate property" and or "separate estate".
This was a trust overseen by the Chancery Court which gave a woman
access to her property/funds by application to her trustee. While the
woman received access to her property, it was off limits to her husband,
his family and creditors. Such an arrangement was common for heiresses
since it prevented a man from marrying a woman just to get his hands on
her estate.
In many "dark" dramas you hear of a husband bringing some poor wife
"papers to sign". If love making didn't produce the desired result, many
men were not above the use of physical violence/force, hence the use of
trusts so a woman's property could not be kissed or kicked out of her.
In addition the laws in England/Great Britain were altered sometime
in the 1800's to allow women money/property that was outside of the
marriage contract to be hers outright. Again such reforms were necessary
to deal with women's husbands running through his wife's fortune and
either leaving her and her children destitute or buried in the rose
garden.
I believe you are thinking of the Married Women's Property Acts
of 1857 and 1870.Before the 1857 Act married women had essentially
no rights to property,I suppose apart from the chancery arrangements
described above.I'm not sure what arrangements were for widows (recall
in Wuthering Heights,Heathcliff has his dying son marry an heiress so
that when the son dies,he controls the property,not the son's widow).
The 1857 Act was prompted by a court case establishing that as the
laws then stood,a man who deserted his wife and children obliging
her to work to support the children was entitled to collect her
salary from her employer and go drink it away,the employer was
prohibited from paying it to the wife instead of the husband.
However,that Act essentially provided for deserted wives,those
who still lived with their husbands had no independent property
rights until the 1870 Act.A further Act in the 1880s essentially
completed the reforms.
The "chancery arrangements" were a bit less hit-and-miss than Candide
made them sound. The practice of appointing trustees ("feofees to
uses" was the early term) was established as early as the 16th
century. And, although the trustees had to be men, a woman could be
given a "power of appointment" which enabled her to specify by will
who the property was to go to after her death, even though she could
not own it herself. All this became standard among landowning
families; hence the importance attached to the marriage settlement,
which set up these arrangements.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Candide
2004-08-31 01:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Candide
Post by Anne
Post by Candide
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think the British royal family have avoided the name
Charlotte since the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales
in 1817.
...Michael
Women, both royal and common dying in childbirth was nothing new
and was just as tragic for the husband/family of a woman living
in Northumberland as the RF in 1817. That the Pss of Wales was
who she was and much loved may have made the situation more
newsworthy.
Confinement in those days was a risky business, and many women
still made out their last will and testaments before commencing
labour in case of complications or the dreaded child-bed fever meant
a woman didn't survive. This is why birth announcements usually
said "safely delivered of a ......" .
When did women who were not widows begin making wills in the UK?
As women were the possession of their husband before some point
in time there would not have been a will, all property belonged to
the husband whether or not the wife lived or died.
IIRC a woman could make a will that began along the lines of "in
accordance and agreement with my husband/husband's wishes".
In England/Great Britain, a woman's family and their lawyers could set
up what was known as a "separate property" and or "separate estate".
This was a trust overseen by the Chancery Court which gave a woman
access to her property/funds by application to her trustee. While the
woman received access to her property, it was off limits to her husband,
his family and creditors. Such an arrangement was common for heiresses
since it prevented a man from marrying a woman just to get his hands on
her estate.
In many "dark" dramas you hear of a husband bringing some poor wife
"papers to sign". If love making didn't produce the desired result, many
men were not above the use of physical violence/force, hence the use of
trusts so a woman's property could not be kissed or kicked out of her.
In addition the laws in England/Great Britain were altered sometime
in the 1800's to allow women money/property that was outside of the
marriage contract to be hers outright. Again such reforms were necessary
to deal with women's husbands running through his wife's fortune and
either leaving her and her children destitute or buried in the rose
garden.
I believe you are thinking of the Married Women's Property Acts
of 1857 and 1870.Before the 1857 Act married women had essentially
no rights to property,I suppose apart from the chancery arrangements
described above.I'm not sure what arrangements were for widows (recall
in Wuthering Heights,Heathcliff has his dying son marry an heiress so
that when the son dies,he controls the property,not the son's widow).
The 1857 Act was prompted by a court case establishing that as the
laws then stood,a man who deserted his wife and children obliging
her to work to support the children was entitled to collect her
salary from her employer and go drink it away,the employer was
prohibited from paying it to the wife instead of the husband.
However,that Act essentially provided for deserted wives,those
who still lived with their husbands had no independent property
rights until the 1870 Act.A further Act in the 1880s essentially
completed the reforms.
Wrote about the above in either this or AGR, and the case was quite
famous which sparked changes in the law.

"After the 1880 General Election William Gladstone became Prime Minister
of a government that promised legislation that would reduce the legal
inequalities between men and women. One example of this was the passing
of the 1882 Married Women's Property Act. Under the terms of the act
married women had the same rights over their property as unmarried
women. This act therefore allowed a married woman to retain ownership of
property which she might have received as a gift from a parent. Before
the 1882 Married Women's Property Act was passed this property would
have automatically have become the property of the husband. The passing
of the 1893 Married Women's Property Act completed this process. Married
women now had full legal control of all the property of every kind which
they owned at marriage or which they acquired after marriage either by
inheritance or by their own earnings."

IIRC the court case which sprang changes was Caroline Norton's petitions
for divorce and custody of her children. You can read more here:
http://www.writepage.com/others/nortonc.htm

Candide
A Tsar Is Born
2004-09-01 19:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Candide
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think the British royal family have avoided the name Charlotte since
the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales in 1817.
...Michael
Women, both royal and common dying in childbirth was nothing new and was
just as tragic for the husband/family of a woman living in
Northumberland as the RF in 1817. That the Pss of Wales was who she was
and much loved may have made the situation more newsworthy.
Candide, you know PERFECTLY WELL Charlotte was NOT princess of Wales!

She was Princess Charlotte of Wales and, at the time of her death,
Princess Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. But she never was nor would
have been Princess of Wales.

By the way: "Charlotte" was one of the names proposed by Edward, Duke
of Kent, when his daughter was born. The Regent had already vetoed
"Elizabeth," and now said he could not bear that his child's name be
used either. (Though it was, after all, Kent's mother's name.) That's
when they turned, with overwhelming historical and geographical
effect, to "Alexandrina."

Jean Coeur de Lapin
David Salo
2004-09-01 19:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Candide
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think the British royal family have avoided the name Charlotte since
the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales in 1817.
[snip]

That the Pss of Wales was who she was
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Candide
and much loved may have made the situation more newsworthy.
Candide, you know PERFECTLY WELL Charlotte was NOT princess of Wales!
She was Princess Charlotte of Wales and, at the time of her death,
Princess Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. But she never was nor would
have been Princess of Wales.
I think that the distinction between _N Title of P_ and _Title N of
P_ may be a little obscure to some; especially since (say) "Elizabeth
Queen of England" is often used interchangeably with "Queen Elizabeth
of England", not to mention "Elizabeth of England Queen". Is there a
broad generalization to be made about all such titles and/or styles?
Rico
2004-09-02 15:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
'A Tsar Is Born',

You need to look at the grammar in Candide's message, when she wrote the
phrase 'the pss of Wales', she used a lower case 't' and 'p', that would
signify to most readers that 'of Wales' was part of the princesses title, if
on the other hand she had used a capital 'T' and 'P', then one would assume
that it was a title by right.

Princess Charlotte was the princess of Wales, when written in this fashion
can mean that Charlotte was the only princess by right in the Wales line of
the Royal Family, just as Lady Louise the princess of Wessex means that she
is the only person who by right can be called a princess in the Wessex line.
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Candide
Post by Michael Rhodes
I think the British royal family have avoided the name Charlotte since
the tragic demise of Princess Charlotte of Wales in 1817.
...Michael
Women, both royal and common dying in childbirth was nothing new and was
just as tragic for the husband/family of a woman living in
Northumberland as the RF in 1817. That the Pss of Wales was who she was
and much loved may have made the situation more newsworthy.
Candide, you know PERFECTLY WELL Charlotte was NOT princess of Wales!
She was Princess Charlotte of Wales and, at the time of her death,
Princess Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. But she never was nor would
have been Princess of Wales.
By the way: "Charlotte" was one of the names proposed by Edward, Duke
of Kent, when his daughter was born. The Regent had already vetoed
"Elizabeth," and now said he could not bear that his child's name be
used either. (Though it was, after all, Kent's mother's name.) That's
when they turned, with overwhelming historical and geographical
effect, to "Alexandrina."
Jean Coeur de Lapin
A Tsar Is Born
2004-09-01 19:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Grrarrggh
Are there any royal names that are considered bad luck, and probably won't be
used again, or at least for a long while?
Tam
John, at least in Great Britain.

When John II came to the Scottish throne in 1390, he said, "THAT'S not
a lucky name!" (thinking of both Balliol and Lackland) and announced
he was Robert III. It didn't work. For one thing, his brother Bob,
Duke of Albany, never forgave him. John hasn't been a lucky name in
France or Spain either. Portugal, however....

Sophia, famously, is banned among the Romanovs, and anyone who marries
into the family who has that name must change it, e.g. Catherine the
Great. This is because of Peter the Great's sister.

Any male name but William is unlucky in the House of Orange.

There's a kibosh on Richard in the English royal family since 1485;
it's revival for the Duke of Gloucester -- born the younger son of a
younger brother, remember -- was considered iffy. Like John in the
previous generation.

Edward VII and George V loathed double names: Albert Edward, Albert
Victor, Victoria Mary, Franz Ferdinand. Still, George VI named his
daughter Margaret Rose.

Alfonso XII's dying wish was that his pregnant wife not name their son
Alfonso XIII, but that was because of the number. He commanded her to
name the child (if a boy) Fernando VIII. She ignored him. The rest is
history....

Jean Coeur de Lapin
t***@gmail.com
2017-02-01 02:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Grrarrggh
Are there any royal names that are considered bad luck, and probably won't be
used again, or at least for a long while?
Tam
The one worst name for English royalty has to be Arthur. No Prince named Arthur ever made it to kingly dignity in England. But it gave history Kings like Richard Ceur de Lion and Henry VIII. So its not all bad I guess... And you needed a dane to point this out.
Graham
2017-02-17 23:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Grrarrggh
Are there any royal names that are considered bad luck, and probably won't be
used again, or at least for a long while?
Tam
The one worst name for English royalty has to be Arthur. No Prince named Arthur ever made it to kingly dignity in England. But it gave history Kings like Richard Ceur de Lion and Henry VIII. So its not all bad I guess... And you needed a dane to point this out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_I,_Duke_of_Brittany was the son of Richard Coeur de Lion's younger brother Geoffrey, and disputed the throne with Geoffrey's younger brother John after Richard's death.
Loading...