Fw: Numbering Of Peers

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Numbering Of Peers

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 18. februar 2008 kl. 22.28

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty,
soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: Numbering Of Peers
<snipped sniping>

Leo's snide remarks aside, the controversy is real enough. There are
two systems of counting peers. Complete Peerage uses BOTH of them.
I happen to prefer one system over the other, because it is far more
consistent and far easier to follow.

Nonetheless, I hasten to add that both systems are arbitrary. Neither
system is contemporary to the medieval period. They are both modern
inventions.


And so is the use of the term Plantagenet.

CP explains their use quite clearly and simply : "The Roman Numerals
indicate the number of persons who have borne the dignity, while the Arabic
ones show how many of the same family have inherited it.

Richardson seems to want us to believe that the, as he sees it, anomaly is
recent. In 1993 The Royal Descent of 500 Immigrants was published by his
friend and benefactor Gary Boyd Roberts, all you need to do is go the index,
page 501, here we find Humphrey de Bohun, 4the Earl of Hereford, two entries
later William de Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton, CP tells he was the 6th
person to be Earl of Northampton.

My oldest Burke's Peerage is of 1899 and they are doing it there.
Richardson has in the past promoted "consensus", I think the numbering per
creation is the general accepted consensus.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia



Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date: 2/17/2008
2:39 PM

Renia

Re: Fw: Numbering Of Peers

Legg inn av Renia » 18. februar 2008 kl. 23.49

Leo van de Pas wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Richardson"
royalancestry@msn.com
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty,
soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: Numbering Of Peers
snipped sniping


Leo's snide remarks aside, the controversy is real enough. There are
two systems of counting peers. Complete Peerage uses BOTH of them.
I happen to prefer one system over the other, because it is far more
consistent and far easier to follow.

Nonetheless, I hasten to add that both systems are arbitrary. Neither
system is contemporary to the medieval period. They are both modern
inventions.


And so is the use of the term Plantagenet.

CP explains their use quite clearly and simply : "The Roman Numerals
indicate the number of persons who have borne the dignity, while the
Arabic ones show how many of the same family have inherited it.

Richardson seems to want us to believe that the, as he sees it, anomaly
is recent. In 1993 The Royal Descent of 500 Immigrants was published by
his friend and benefactor Gary Boyd Roberts, all you need to do is go
the index, page 501, here we find Humphrey de Bohun, 4the Earl of
Hereford, two entries later William de Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton,
CP tells he was the 6th person to be Earl of Northampton.

My oldest Burke's Peerage is of 1899 and they are doing it there.
Richardson has in the past promoted "consensus", I think the numbering
per creation is the general accepted consensus.

My oldest Burke's Peerage is 1829 and they use it there.

Each creation of a title is an individual and separate creation,
reglardless the same titles are oft repeated.

Douglas Richardson is wrong and is too embarrassed to admit it.

Douglas Richardson

King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefer?

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19. februar 2008 kl. 0.49

Dear Renia ~

This is so much faux-English waffle on your part.

I frequently use the "counting body" system. However, if you prefer
the other system (counting earls of various creations), you're
certainly welcome to do so. Neither of us would be wrong. That is
why Complete Peerage employs BOTH systems. Frankly, both counting
systems have serious flaws. By their nature, the two systems are
completely arbitrary. Neither system reflects contemporary medieval
practice.

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up. King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king. Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III. He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is not
considered such by "modern" minds today. So is he King Henry II-1/2?
or King Henry IIB? You can't say he wasn't king, because he was. Now
go figure.

This is why I say modern numbering systems are arbitrary in nature.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Gjest » 19. februar 2008 kl. 1.04

On Feb 19, 10:45 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(malicious cross-posting removed)

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up.  King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king.   Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III.  He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles,

Please cite one contemporary chronicle that refers to him as "King
Henry III".

Thanks in advance,

Michael Andrews-Reading

Peter Stewart

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19. februar 2008 kl. 1.19

[Cross-postings removed]

On Feb 19, 10:45 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Renia ~

This is so much faux-English waffle on your part.

Renia is really English and writes in real English, of course; and she
wrote a sensible comment.

I frequently use the "counting body" system.  However, if you prefer
the other system (counting earls of various creations), you're
certainly welcome to do so.  Neither of us would be wrong.

So why did you pretend that Susan was wrong in the first place?
Remember this:

Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f071ea95-a7ba-470d-88ac-bce464a57c33@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com....

Dear Susan ~

Where have you gone wrong?

What exactly did you mean, when you now say that she was not wrong
after all? Just opportunistic nastiness for its own sake when you
thought you could get away with it?

 That is why Complete Peerage employs BOTH systems.  Frankly, both counting
systems have serious flaws.  By their nature, the two systems are
completely arbitrary.  Neither system reflects contemporary medieval
practice.

Modern genealogy does not reflect medieval practice, but that is no
reason we should not engage in it.

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up.  King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king.   Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III.  He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is not
considered such by "modern" minds today.  So is he King Henry II-1/2?
or King Henry IIB?  You can't say he wasn't king, because he was. Now
go figure.

Young King Henry WAS counted as Henry III, reflecting medieval
practice: Richard of Devizes described Richard I as son of Henry II
and brother of Henry III ("Ricardus ex Alienor filius regis Henrici
secundi, frater regis Henrici tercii"). But he was only the junior
king, and not a link in the succession when this passed from Henry II
to Richard, John and the latter's son who in his own reign was, as he
has been even since, called Henry III. The young Henry was the third
man of that name to be crowned king, but not the third Henry in the
succession as it worked out over time, so the ordinal was dropped from
his designation. This is more akin to a courtesy title of a peer's
eldest son and heir today, where they do not count as successors to
the title they use.

This is why I say modern numbering systems are arbitrary in nature.

So what? Naming is arbitrary in nature, but we still talk about King
"Henry" II and King "Henry" III, not King "Fitz Geoffrey" and King
"Fitz John" or any other possible system of identification.

This thread is yet another paroxysm of Richardson's endless need for
self-justification, no matter what kind or degree of error he has
made.

Peter Stewart

John Briggs

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av John Briggs » 19. februar 2008 kl. 1.20

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Renia ~

This is so much faux-English waffle on your part.

I frequently use the "counting body" system. However, if you prefer
the other system (counting earls of various creations), you're
certainly welcome to do so. Neither of us would be wrong. That is
why Complete Peerage employs BOTH systems. Frankly, both counting
systems have serious flaws. By their nature, the two systems are
completely arbitrary. Neither system reflects contemporary medieval
practice.

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up. King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king. Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III. He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is not
considered such by "modern" minds today. So is he King Henry II-1/2?
or King Henry IIB? You can't say he wasn't king, because he was. Now
go figure.

It's hardly fair to blame Renia for this - the fault probably lies with
Henry V, if not Henry IV.

This is why I say modern numbering systems are arbitrary in nature.

OK - try this one: where, precisely, was Alfonso X the 10th Alfonso of?
--
John Briggs

Gjest

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Gjest » 19. februar 2008 kl. 1.34

On Feb 18, 4:21 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

OK - try this one: where, precisely, was Alfonso X the 10th Alfonso of?

Asturias.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19. februar 2008 kl. 1.49

On Feb 18, 5:18 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

< So what? Naming is arbitrary in nature.
<
< Peter Stewart

Humans are arbitrary in nature, not names.

DR

Peter Stewart

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19. februar 2008 kl. 1.59

On Feb 19, 11:47 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:18 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

So what? Naming is arbitrary in nature.

Peter Stewart

Humans are arbitrary in nature, not names.

This is meaningless, and indeed "faux-English" on your part - note
that I didn't say "names" are arbitrary, as your stupid response
implies, but rather that "naming" is arbitrary.

Whoever chooses a name is the arbiter, and my point is perfectly
straighforward both as to commonsense and English.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19. februar 2008 kl. 2.04

Dear Newsgroup ~

Young Henry was joint king with his father, King Henry II. He is the
only associate king in post-Conquest English history [Reference:
English Historical Review, 116 (2001): 297-326]. He was crowned joint
King of England 14 June 1170. He was recrowned together with his
queen in 1172.

Fryde, Handbook of British Chronology (1986): 36 says of him: "[He]
used style rex Anglorum... hence called by contemporaries and certain
chroniclers King Henry III."
..
For an example of a charter in which he styled himself "rex Angliae,"
please see the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ryoIAA ... ls#PPR4,M1

So is he King Henry III, King Henry II-1/2, or King Henry II-B? You
decide.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Gjest » 19. februar 2008 kl. 2.09

On Feb 19, 11:18 am, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

Young King Henry WAS counted as Henry III, reflecting medieval
practice: Richard of Devizes described Richard I as son of Henry II
and brother of Henry III ("Ricardus ex Alienor filius regis Henrici
secundi, frater regis Henrici tercii").

Thanks, Peter.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Gjest » 19. februar 2008 kl. 2.44

On Feb 19, 12:03 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(malicious cross-posting removed)

Dear Newsgroup ~

Young Henry was joint king with his father, King Henry II.  He is the
only associate king in post-Conquest English history [Reference:
English Historical Review, 116 (2001): 297-326].  He was crowned joint
King of England 14 June 1170.  He was recrowned together with his
queen in 1172.

King Stephen tried very hard to get his son and heir, Eustace,
crowned, but was thwarted by a reluctant Archbishop - ODNB states of
the archiepiscopal refusal, "the papacy referred to English custom,
and declined to approve Eustace's coronation" - and then Henry of
Anjou's invasion, and Eustace's early death (1153) made the matter
moot.

After Henry II's experience with his rebellious son, it is no wonder
that the experiment was not readily repeated.

Fryde, Handbook of British Chronology (1986): 36 says of him: "[He]
used style rex Anglorum... hence called by contemporaries and certain
chroniclers King Henry III."

Ah, I wondered what your source for this was. At best a secondary
one, as expected.

(snip)

So is he King Henry III, King Henry II-1/2, or King Henry II-B?  You
decide.

History has already decided - he is 'Henry, the Young King". A "body-
count" or revisionist approach to according him some kind of ordinal
would be ridiculous.

MA-R

Peter Stewart

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19. februar 2008 kl. 4.01

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dba81e73-7d7f-493c-89f2-1289be6e36bc@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

Young Henry was joint king with his father, King Henry II. He is the
only associate king in post-Conquest English history [Reference:
English Historical Review, 116 (2001): 297-326]. He was crowned joint
King of England 14 June 1170. He was recrowned together with his
queen in 1172.

This is misleading - the younger Henry was not crowned "joint" king in the
sense of starting a new joint reign along with his father, for instance in
the manner of William and Mary. He was associated as junior king, to ensure
later succession for his own proper reign that would begin - and would be
dated - from Henry II's death rather than either of these two anticipatory
crownings.

Fryde, Handbook of British Chronology (1986): 36 says of him: "[He]
used style rex Anglorum... hence called by contemporaries and certain
chroniclers King Henry III."
.
For an example of a charter in which he styled himself "rex Angliae,"
please see the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ryoIAA ... ls#PPR4,M1

What is this supposed to prove? He was hardly likely to title himself "King
of Blue Sky" or of anywhere else but his father's kingdom.

So is he King Henry III, King Henry II-1/2, or King Henry II-B? You
decide.

This is senseless as he did not survive to become king in a succession,
hence the ordinal was dropped as inapproriate for him. As said before, he
was the third Henry to be crowned, but he was not the third Henry to reign
in sole right as king of England.

In any case, this is not strictly relevant to the discussion of ordinals for
an earldom. He might have been the third Henry crowned, but to be analogous
to a peerage succession he was in line to become the sixth king since the
Conquest, or the seventh monarch if you chose to count his paternal
grandmother Matilda as "lady of the English". However, this strictly
chronological counting of persons by itself can only be confusing for their
identification to readers.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19. februar 2008 kl. 4.34

On Feb 18, 8:01 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

< What is this supposed to prove? He was hardly likely to title
himself "King
< of Blue Sky" or of anywhere else but his father's kingdom.

What nonsense. Young Henry was never "King of the Blue Sky." He was
crowned King of England, just as his charter attests. His wife,
Margaret, was also crowned queen. He was known as King Henry III to
his contemporaries, but he isn't to the modern man.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19. februar 2008 kl. 5.14

[Cross-posts deleted]

On Feb 19, 2:32 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:01 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com
wrote:

What is this supposed to prove? He was hardly likely to title
himself "King of Blue Sky" or of anywhere else but his father's
kingdom.

What nonsense.  Young Henry was never "King of the Blue
Sky."

Exactly the point that you are calling "nonsense". Your basic
comprehension skills are not improving, but surely even you can
interpret "hardly likely" and "anywhere else but".

 He was crowned King of England, just as his charter
attests.  His wife, Margaret, was also crowned queen.  He was
known as King Henry III to his contemporaries, but he isn't to the
modern man.

No-one disputes that he was crowned King of England, obviously - the
question was, What is this supposed to prove? You have not even tried
to answer, just tied yourself into yet another knot trying to be
superior when you are in no position to bring this off.

And Henry was never generally known as "Henry III" to his
contemporaries: the occurences of such descriptions of him are few &
far between. Once again, you are extrapolating to suit yourself, from
insufficient evidence that you only know of at second hand.

If you go on like this, even Hines will become embarrassed to employ
you in his new real estate scam.

Peter Stewart

John Briggs

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av John Briggs » 19. februar 2008 kl. 14.07

Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:01 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

What is this supposed to prove? He was hardly likely to title
himself "King
of Blue Sky" or of anywhere else but his father's kingdom.

What nonsense. Young Henry was never "King of the Blue Sky." He was
crowned King of England, just as his charter attests. His wife,
Margaret, was also crowned queen. He was known as King Henry III to
his contemporaries, but he isn't to the modern man.

Or, presumably, to Henry III (let alone Henry IV, V or VI.)
--
John Briggs

Paul J Gans

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Paul J Gans » 19. februar 2008 kl. 18.09

In soc.history.medieval Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Young Henry was joint king with his father, King Henry II. He is the
only associate king in post-Conquest English history [Reference:
English Historical Review, 116 (2001): 297-326]. He was crowned joint
King of England 14 June 1170. He was recrowned together with his
queen in 1172.

Fryde, Handbook of British Chronology (1986): 36 says of him: "[He]
used style rex Anglorum... hence called by contemporaries and certain
chroniclers King Henry III."
.
For an example of a charter in which he styled himself "rex Angliae,"
please see the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ryoIAA ... ls#PPR4,M1

So is he King Henry III, King Henry II-1/2, or King Henry II-B? You
decide.

I did. See previous post.

From the standpoint of history (not geneology) what matters is who
had the real authority. It wasn't the young king.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Paul J Gans

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Paul J Gans » 19. februar 2008 kl. 18.10

In soc.history.medieval Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Renia ~

This is so much faux-English waffle on your part.

I frequently use the "counting body" system. However, if you prefer
the other system (counting earls of various creations), you're
certainly welcome to do so. Neither of us would be wrong. That is
why Complete Peerage employs BOTH systems. Frankly, both counting
systems have serious flaws. By their nature, the two systems are
completely arbitrary. Neither system reflects contemporary medieval
practice.

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up. King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king. Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III. He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is not
considered such by "modern" minds today. So is he King Henry II-1/2?
or King Henry IIB? You can't say he wasn't king, because he was. Now
go figure.

Figuring is easy. The practice of crowning the heir was common in
France but rarely done in England. it was, of course, an attempt
to ensure that the throne did, in fact, pass to the designated heir.
The point was to ensure that the heir was annointed, since that
meant that the Church (supposedly) would back the annointed one.

In practice, of course, it meant little or nothing. Henry IIB never
reigned. Even in his lifetime he and everyone else knew that
Henry Pere was THE KING and paid little attention to the fiction.
Which is why after the death of Henry IIB, the next son wasn't
annointed.

What counts historically is the person who actually reigned.
Geneologists have different problems.

This is why I say modern numbering systems are arbitrary in nature.

Each system was invented to serve a purpose. If it serves *your*
purpose as well, use it. Otherwise, don't.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Paul J Gans

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Paul J Gans » 20. februar 2008 kl. 5.16

In soc.history.medieval Soren Larsen <Wagnijo@yahoo.youknowwhere> wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
In soc.history.medieval Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com
wrote:
Dear Renia ~

This is so much faux-English waffle on your part.

I frequently use the "counting body" system. However, if you prefer
the other system (counting earls of various creations), you're
certainly welcome to do so. Neither of us would be wrong. That is
why Complete Peerage employs BOTH systems. Frankly, both counting
systems have serious flaws. By their nature, the two systems are
completely arbitrary. Neither system reflects contemporary medieval
practice.

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up. King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king. Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III. He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is not
considered such by "modern" minds today. So is he King Henry II-1/2?
or King Henry IIB? You can't say he wasn't king, because he was. Now
go figure.

Figuring is easy. The practice of crowning the heir was common in
France but rarely done in England. it was, of course, an attempt
to ensure that the throne did, in fact, pass to the designated heir.
The point was to ensure that the heir was annointed, since that
meant that the Church (supposedly) would back the annointed one.

Over here it was done to make sure that the kings heir also was
the one who was elected the next king.

The election was a lot easier to control as long as the old king could deal
with alternative candidates.

That's why the French did it and why Henry II did it. There
was never any suggestion that the newly crowned king actually
RULED. Henry II never shared that with anybody.


--
--- Paul J. Gans

Gjest

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Gjest » 21. februar 2008 kl. 5.26

On Feb 18, 7:21 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Renia ~

This is so much faux-English waffle on your part.

I frequently use the "counting body" system. However, if you prefer
the other system (counting earls of various creations), you're
certainly welcome to do so. Neither of us would be wrong. That is
why Complete Peerage employs BOTH systems. Frankly, both counting
systems have serious flaws. By their nature, the two systems are
completely arbitrary. Neither system reflects contemporary medieval
practice.

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up. King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king. Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III. He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is not
considered such by "modern" minds today. So is he King Henry II-1/2?
or King Henry IIB? You can't say he wasn't king, because he was. Now
go figure.

It's hardly fair to blame Renia for this - the fault probably lies with
Henry V, if not Henry IV.

This is why I say modern numbering systems are arbitrary in nature.

OK - try this one: where, precisely, was Alfonso X the 10th Alfonso of?
--
John Briggs

The Asturias, and its outgrowth kingdoms (Galicia, Leon, Castille,
Toledo).

Jean Coeur de Lapin

François R. Velde

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av François R. Velde » 21. februar 2008 kl. 6.15

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> os
suum:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:01 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

What is this supposed to prove? He was hardly likely to title
himself "King
of Blue Sky" or of anywhere else but his father's kingdom.

What nonsense. Young Henry was never "King of the Blue Sky." He was
crowned King of England, just as his charter attests. His wife,
Margaret, was also crowned queen. He was known as King Henry III to
his contemporaries, but he isn't to the modern man.

Or, presumably, to Henry III (let alone Henry IV, V or VI.)

I thought regnal numbering started later in England (under Edward son of Edward
son of Edward, which made the "X son of Y" style ambiguous for the first time).
What is the evidence that Young King Henry was numbered in his lifetime?
--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

Gjest

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Gjest » 21. februar 2008 kl. 6.31

On Feb 18, 6:45 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Renia ~

This is so much faux-English waffle on your part.

I frequently use the "counting body" system. However, if you prefer
the other system (counting earls of various creations), you're
certainly welcome to do so. Neither of us would be wrong. That is
why Complete Peerage employs BOTH systems. Frankly, both counting
systems have serious flaws. By their nature, the two systems are
completely arbitrary. Neither system reflects contemporary medieval
practice.

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up. King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king. Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III. He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is not
considered such by "modern" minds today. So is he King Henry II-1/2?
or King Henry IIB? You can't say he wasn't king, because he was. Now
go figure.

This is why I say modern numbering systems are arbitrary in nature.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

But this is a silly argument to have at all. Numbering systems for
monarchs are a historian's convenience and have nothing to do with
fact. (Elizabeth II is often referred to without her numeral in newly
empowered Scotland, but her great-grandfather was called Edward VII
there, not Edward II or III; and William IV was not called William III
in Scotland. Nor was Alfonso XIII known as Alfonso VII in Aragon.)

Le roi jeusnes (as he was known) was never Henry III; he bestowed no
charters, he led no parliaments, he coined no coins. He was the
official heir apparent, and in the French tradition, that usually
meant his being crowned in his father's lifetime. He was never
actually king, and no one ever seriously said he was, including le roi
jeusnes. The eldest son of Emperor Frederick II was crowned king of
Germany as Henry VII -- but he was put to death by his father. When
Henry of Luxembourg was elected in 1308, he took the title of Henry
VII and no one ever objected to it. The eldest son of Louis VI was
crowned king of France, but he predeceased his father -- he is not
counted as Philippe II -- that honor belongs to his nephew. The
kingdom of England has only one legitimate king at a time, and Henry
le roi jeusnes never made it. His father held the title throughout his
life and for six years beyond. Period.

Jean Coeur de Lapin

Gaveston

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Gaveston » 21. februar 2008 kl. 12.41

On Feb 21, 12:31 am, atsarisb...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 6:45 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:





Dear Renia ~

This is so much faux-English waffle on your part.

I frequently use the "counting body" system.  However, if you prefer
the other system (counting earls of various creations), you're
certainly welcome to do so.  Neither of us would be wrong.  That is
why Complete Peerage employs BOTH systems.  Frankly, both counting
systems have serious flaws.  By their nature, the two systems are
completely arbitrary.  Neither system reflects contemporary medieval
practice.

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up.  King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king.   Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III.  He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is not
considered such by "modern" minds today.  So is he King Henry II-1/2?
or King Henry IIB?  You can't say he wasn't king, because he was. Now
go figure.

This is why I say modern numbering systems are arbitrary in nature.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

But this is a silly argument to have at all. Numbering systems for
monarchs are a historian's convenience and have nothing to do with
fact. (Elizabeth II is often referred to without her numeral in newly
empowered Scotland, but her great-grandfather was called Edward VII
there, not Edward II or III; and William IV was not called William III
in Scotland. Nor was Alfonso XIII known as Alfonso VII in Aragon.)

Le roi jeusnes (as he was known) was never Henry III; he bestowed no
charters, he led no parliaments, he coined no coins. He was the
official heir apparent, and in the French tradition, that usually
meant his being crowned in his father's lifetime. He was never
actually king, and no one ever seriously said he was, including le roi
jeusnes. The eldest son of Emperor Frederick II was crowned king of
Germany as Henry VII -- but he was put to death by his father. When
Henry of Luxembourg was elected in 1308, he took the title of Henry
VII and no one ever objected to it. The eldest son of Louis VI was
crowned king of France, but he predeceased his father -- he is not
counted as Philippe II -- that honor belongs to his nephew. The
kingdom of England has only one legitimate king at a time, and Henry
le roi jeusnes never made it. His father held the title throughout his
life and for six years beyond. Period.

Jean Coeur de Lapin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, agreed, he was never actually King Regnant. His coronation and
honors were in reality more akin to that of a Queen Consort.

John Briggs

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av John Briggs » 21. februar 2008 kl. 13.46

atsarisborn@hotmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 7:21 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Renia ~

This is so much faux-English waffle on your part.

I frequently use the "counting body" system. However, if you prefer
the other system (counting earls of various creations), you're
certainly welcome to do so. Neither of us would be wrong. That is
why Complete Peerage employs BOTH systems. Frankly, both counting
systems have serious flaws. By their nature, the two systems are
completely arbitrary. Neither system reflects contemporary medieval
practice.

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up. King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king. Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III. He
was considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is
not considered such by "modern" minds today. So is he King Henry
II-1/2? or King Henry IIB? You can't say he wasn't king, because
he was. Now go figure.

It's hardly fair to blame Renia for this - the fault probably lies
with Henry V, if not Henry IV.

This is why I say modern numbering systems are arbitrary in nature.

OK - try this one: where, precisely, was Alfonso X the 10th Alfonso

The Asturias, and its outgrowth kingdoms (Galicia, Leon, Castille,
Toledo).

No, by my count he was Alfonso IX of Asturias.
--
John Briggs

Gjest

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Gjest » 22. februar 2008 kl. 2.23

On Feb 21, 4:31 pm, atsarisb...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 6:45 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up.  King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king.   Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III.  He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is not
considered such by "modern" minds today.  So is he King Henry II-1/2?
or King Henry IIB?  You can't say he wasn't king, because he was. Now
go figure.

But this is a silly argument to have at all. Numbering systems for
monarchs are a historian's convenience and have nothing to do with
fact. (Elizabeth II is often referred to without her numeral in newly
empowered Scotland, but her great-grandfather was called Edward VII
there, not Edward II or III; and William IV was not called William III
in Scotland. Nor was Alfonso XIII known as Alfonso VII in Aragon.)

Le roi jeusnes (as he was known) was never Henry III; he bestowed no
charters, he led no parliaments, he coined no coins. He was the
official heir apparent, and in the French tradition, that usually
meant his being crowned in his father's lifetime. He was never
actually king, and no one ever seriously said he was, including
le roi jeusnes. (snip) The kingdom of England has
only one legitimate king at a time, and Henry le roi jeusnes
never made it. His father held the title throughout his
life and for six years beyond. Period.

FWIW, I came across an interesting contemporaneous reference to King
Henry II in the Rievalux Chartulary (Surtees Soc. Pub., vol 83, 1887,
pp 185-186), dated 21 December 1160:

"Henrici Junioris, Regis Angliae... avus ejus Rex Henricus..."

"Henry the Younger, King of England, [and] King Henry, his
grandfather"...

MA-R

Graham

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Graham » 23. februar 2008 kl. 1.17

On Feb 21, 5:31 am, atsarisb...@hotmail.com wrote:
But this is a silly argument to have at all. Numbering systems for
monarchs are a historian's convenience and have nothing to do with
fact. (Elizabeth II is often referred to without her numeral in newly
empowered Scotland, but her great-grandfather was called Edward VII
there, not Edward II or III; and William IV was not called William III
in Scotland.

Though I think that William III may have been known as
William II in Scotland (William I of Scots being William the
Lion). As he came before the Union of the Crowns, like his
father-in-law and uncle James II & VII.

Gjest

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Gjest » 23. februar 2008 kl. 16.28

On Feb 22, 6:46 pm, Graham <graham.truesd...@virgin.net> wrote:

Though I think that William III may have been known as
William II in Scotland (William I of Scots being William the
Lion). As he came before the Union of the Crowns, like his
father-in-law and uncle James II & VII.

I bet anyone who acknowledged him as king at all called him William
III.
Most Scots would have called him merely the Prince of Orange -- and
that was in polite company. And before Glencoe.

Jean Coeur de Lapin

Graham

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av Graham » 24. februar 2008 kl. 0.23

On Feb 23, 3:29 pm, atsarisb...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:46 pm, Graham <graham.truesd...@virgin.net> wrote:

Though I think that William III may have been known as
William II in Scotland (William I of Scots being William the
Lion).  As he came before the Union of the Crowns, like his
father-in-law and uncle James II & VII.

I bet anyone who acknowledged him as king at all called him William
III.
Most Scots would have called him merely the Prince of Orange -- and
that was in polite company. And before Glencoe.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... cd=5&gl=uk

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

Graham

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av Graham » 24. februar 2008 kl. 0.25

On Feb 23, 11:23 pm, Graham <graham.truesd...@virgin.net> wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:29 pm, atsarisb...@hotmail.com wrote:> On Feb 22, 6:46 pm, Graham <graham.truesd...@virgin.net> wrote:

Though I think that William III may have been known as
William II in Scotland (William I of Scots being William the
Lion).  As he came before the Union of the Crowns, like his
father-in-law and uncle James II & VII.

I bet anyone who acknowledged him as king at all called him William
III.
Most Scots

Including those who sat in, and elected, the Convention which
passed the Claim of Right?

would have called him merely the Prince of Orange -- and
that was in polite company. And before Glencoe.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... age141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience.  How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

François R. Velde

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av François R. Velde » 24. februar 2008 kl. 4.37

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham <graham.truesdale@virgin.net> os suum:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:ADOpYb6-3VAJ:www.parliament.uk/actofunion/lib/visuals/pdf/FamilyTree.pdf+%22William+II%22+Scotland+-Rufus&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=uk
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King William struck
in Scotland any number put after his name; those who had the direction of that
affair being sensible, that although he was the second king of Scotland of his
name, and the third of England, he was really the first of that name that was
king of Great Britain."
--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

John Briggs

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av John Briggs » 24. februar 2008 kl. 15.26

François R. Velde wrote:
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham
graham.truesdale@virgin.net> os suum:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... cd=5&gl=uk
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King
William struck in Scotland any number put after his name; those who
had the direction of that affair being sensible, that although he was
the second king of Scotland of his name, and the third of England, he
was really the first of that name that was king of Great Britain."

Yes and No. "Great Britain" as a polity didn't formally come into existence
until after William's death.
--
John Briggs

Hovite

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av Hovite » 24. februar 2008 kl. 16.23

On Feb 24, 2:26 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
François R. Velde wrote:
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham
graham.truesd...@virgin.net> os suum:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... nt.uk/a....
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King
William struck in Scotland any number put after his name; those who
had the direction of that affair being sensible, that although he was
the second king of Scotland of his name, and the third of England, he
was really the first of that name that was king of Great Britain."

Yes and No. "Great Britain" as a polity didn't formally come into existence
until after William's death.
--
John Briggs

In any case, he wasn't just king of Great Britain, he was king of all
Britain, as he reigned in both Great Britain (Albion) and Little
Britain (Ireland). At a much later date, some British coins style the
king Britanniarum Rex or even Britt. Omn. Rex.

François R. Velde

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av François R. Velde » 24. februar 2008 kl. 21.47

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> os
suum:
François R. Velde wrote:
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham
graham.truesdale@virgin.net> os suum:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... cd=5&gl=uk
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King
William struck in Scotland any number put after his name; those who
had the direction of that affair being sensible, that although he was
the second king of Scotland of his name, and the third of England, he
was really the first of that name that was king of Great Britain."

Yes and No. "Great Britain" as a polity didn't formally come into existence
until after William's death.

But as a style it had come into existence in 1604. See James I's proclamation
of Oct. 24, and the great seals of all four Stuart kings, as well as their
coinage.
--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

John Briggs

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av John Briggs » 24. februar 2008 kl. 22.47

François R. Velde wrote:
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> os suum:
François R. Velde wrote:
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham
graham.truesdale@virgin.net> os suum:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... cd=5&gl=uk
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King
William struck in Scotland any number put after his name; those who
had the direction of that affair being sensible, that although he
was the second king of Scotland of his name, and the third of
England, he was really the first of that name that was king of
Great Britain."

Yes and No. "Great Britain" as a polity didn't formally come into
existence until after William's death.

But as a style it had come into existence in 1604. See James I's
proclamation of Oct. 24, and the great seals of all four Stuart
kings, as well as their coinage.

As style, but not as a polity - so it wouldn't affect the numbering of
kings (which is the point at issue.)
--
John Briggs

Renia

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av Renia » 25. februar 2008 kl. 0.14

François R. Velde wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> os
suum:

François R. Velde wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham
graham.truesdale@virgin.net> os suum:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... cd=5&gl=uk
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King
William struck in Scotland any number put after his name; those who
had the direction of that affair being sensible, that although he was
the second king of Scotland of his name, and the third of England, he
was really the first of that name that was king of Great Britain."

Yes and No. "Great Britain" as a polity didn't formally come into existence
until after William's death.


But as a style it had come into existence in 1604. See James I's proclamation
of Oct. 24,

There, he styles himself: Given at our Palace of Westminster the fifth
day of March, in the first year of our reign of England, France and
Ireland, and of Scotland the seven-and-thirtieth, A.D. 1603.

The style King of Great Britain didn't come into play until 1707. The
Stuart kings used it as a kind of shorthand, but it wasn't technically
correct, because the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist at that time.


and the great seals of all four Stuart kings, as well as their
coinage.
--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

Gjest

Re: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefe

Legg inn av Gjest » 25. februar 2008 kl. 1.43

On 18 fév, 18:45, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Renia ~

This is so much faux-English waffle on your part.

I frequently use the "counting body" system.  However, if you prefer
the other system (counting earls of various creations), you're
certainly welcome to do so.  Neither of us would be wrong.  That is
why Complete Peerage employs BOTH systems.  Frankly, both counting
systems have serious flaws.  By their nature, the two systems are
completely arbitrary.  Neither system reflects contemporary medieval
practice.

Even the numbering of English kings has been screwed up.  King Henry
II of England crowned his son, Henry, joint king.   Thus "Young
Henry" (as he is called) should be counted as King Henry III.  He was
considered as such by some contemporary chronicles, but he is not
considered such by "modern" minds today.  So is he King Henry II-1/2?
or King Henry IIB?  You can't say he wasn't king, because he was. Now
go figure.

This is why I say modern numbering systems are arbitrary in nature.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

La tradition adoptée par certains souverains européens consistant à
faire couronner leur héritier de leur vivant n'était qu'une procédure
visant à assurer le pouvoir dynastique. L'autorité suprême demeurait
entre les mains du chef de famille et cela ne faisait aucun doute dans
l'esprit des contemporains. Il n'y a donc pas lieu de trébucher dans
les fleurs du tapis et d'insérer un Henry 2,5 dans la crhonologie des
souverains anglais. Et si un quelconque couronnement implique un
règne, il faudrait insérer Henry VI d'Angleterre dans la chronologie
des rois de France et faire du royaume des lys, pour un certain temps,
non pas une monarchie mais une diarchie, à l'image de Sparte.
L'histoire du Moyen-Age européen me semble déjà bien pourvue en
problématiques sans qu'il soit utile de se complexifier la tâche...

Janko Pavsic

François R. Velde

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av François R. Velde » 25. februar 2008 kl. 3.20

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> os suum:
François R. Velde wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> os
suum:

François R. Velde wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham
graham.truesdale@virgin.net> os suum:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... cd=5&gl=uk
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King
William struck in Scotland any number put after his name; those who
had the direction of that affair being sensible, that although he was
the second king of Scotland of his name, and the third of England, he
was really the first of that name that was king of Great Britain."

Yes and No. "Great Britain" as a polity didn't formally come into existence
until after William's death.


But as a style it had come into existence in 1604. See James I's proclamation
of Oct. 24,

There, he styles himself: Given at our Palace of Westminster the fifth
day of March, in the first year of our reign of England, France and
Ireland, and of Scotland the seven-and-thirtieth, A.D. 1603.

The proclamation dates from 1604, not 1603.

The style King of Great Britain didn't come into play until 1707. The
Stuart kings used it as a kind of shorthand, but it wasn't technically
correct, because the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist at that time.

Neither was he king of France. Nor was George VI king of Ireland after 1949,
even though he continued to use that style for four years.

We are discussing styles. Political reality does not define what the correct
style is.

Fact: in the proclamation of 24 Oct 1604, James did "these Presents, by force of
our Kingly Power and Prerogative, assume to Our selfe by the cleerenesse of our
Right, The Name and Stile of KING OF GREAT BRITTAINE, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c. as followeth in Our just and lawfull Stile".

That is no shorthand. That is the technically correct style.

and the great seals of all four Stuart kings, as well as their
coinage.

Do look at those some day.
--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

François R. Velde

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av François R. Velde » 25. februar 2008 kl. 3.20

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> os suum:
François R. Velde wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> os
suum:

François R. Velde wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham
graham.truesdale@virgin.net> os suum:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... cd=5&gl=uk
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King
William struck in Scotland any number put after his name; those who
had the direction of that affair being sensible, that although he was
the second king of Scotland of his name, and the third of England, he
was really the first of that name that was king of Great Britain."

Yes and No. "Great Britain" as a polity didn't formally come into existence
until after William's death.


But as a style it had come into existence in 1604. See James I's proclamation
of Oct. 24,

There, he styles himself: Given at our Palace of Westminster the fifth
day of March, in the first year of our reign of England, France and
Ireland, and of Scotland the seven-and-thirtieth, A.D. 1603.

The proclamation dates from 1604, not 1603.

The style King of Great Britain didn't come into play until 1707. The
Stuart kings used it as a kind of shorthand, but it wasn't technically
correct, because the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist at that time.

Neither was he king of France. Nor was George VI king of Ireland after 1949,
even though he continued to use that style for four years.

We are discussing styles. Political reality does not define what the correct
style is.

Fact: in the proclamation of 24 Oct 1604, James did "these Presents, by force of
our Kingly Power and Prerogative, assume to Our selfe by the cleerenesse of our
Right, The Name and Stile of KING OF GREAT BRITTAINE, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c. as followeth in Our just and lawfull Stile".

That is no shorthand. That is the technically correct style.

and the great seals of all four Stuart kings, as well as their
coinage.

Do look at those some day.
--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

François R. Velde

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av François R. Velde » 25. februar 2008 kl. 3.20

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> os suum:
François R. Velde wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> os
suum:

François R. Velde wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham
graham.truesdale@virgin.net> os suum:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... cd=5&gl=uk
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King
William struck in Scotland any number put after his name; those who
had the direction of that affair being sensible, that although he was
the second king of Scotland of his name, and the third of England, he
was really the first of that name that was king of Great Britain."

Yes and No. "Great Britain" as a polity didn't formally come into existence
until after William's death.


But as a style it had come into existence in 1604. See James I's proclamation
of Oct. 24,

There, he styles himself: Given at our Palace of Westminster the fifth
day of March, in the first year of our reign of England, France and
Ireland, and of Scotland the seven-and-thirtieth, A.D. 1603.

The proclamation dates from 1604, not 1603.

The style King of Great Britain didn't come into play until 1707. The
Stuart kings used it as a kind of shorthand, but it wasn't technically
correct, because the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist at that time.

Neither was he king of France. Nor was George VI king of Ireland after 1949,
even though he continued to use that style for four years.

We are discussing styles. Political reality does not define what the correct
style is.

Fact: in the proclamation of 24 Oct 1604, James did "these Presents, by force of
our Kingly Power and Prerogative, assume to Our selfe by the cleerenesse of our
Right, The Name and Stile of KING OF GREAT BRITTAINE, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c. as followeth in Our just and lawfull Stile".

That is no shorthand. That is the technically correct style.

and the great seals of all four Stuart kings, as well as their
coinage.

Do look at those some day.
--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

François R. Velde

Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr

Legg inn av François R. Velde » 25. februar 2008 kl. 3.20

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> os suum:
François R. Velde wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> os
suum:

François R. Velde wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham
graham.truesdale@virgin.net> os suum:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AD ... cd=5&gl=uk
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King
William struck in Scotland any number put after his name; those who
had the direction of that affair being sensible, that although he was
the second king of Scotland of his name, and the third of England, he
was really the first of that name that was king of Great Britain."

Yes and No. "Great Britain" as a polity didn't formally come into existence
until after William's death.


But as a style it had come into existence in 1604. See James I's proclamation
of Oct. 24,

There, he styles himself: Given at our Palace of Westminster the fifth
day of March, in the first year of our reign of England, France and
Ireland, and of Scotland the seven-and-thirtieth, A.D. 1603.

The proclamation dates from 1604, not 1603.

The style King of Great Britain didn't come into play until 1707. The
Stuart kings used it as a kind of shorthand, but it wasn't technically
correct, because the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist at that time.

Neither was he king of France. Nor was George VI king of Ireland after 1949,
even though he continued to use that style for four years.

We are discussing styles. Political reality does not define what the correct
style is.

Fact: in the proclamation of 24 Oct 1604, James did "these Presents, by force of
our Kingly Power and Prerogative, assume to Our selfe by the cleerenesse of our
Right, The Name and Stile of KING OF GREAT BRITTAINE, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c. as followeth in Our just and lawfull Stile".

That is no shorthand. That is the technically correct style.

and the great seals of all four Stuart kings, as well as their
coinage.

Do look at those some day.
--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»