tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post337582161317249511..comments2023-10-10T05:17:55.737-07:00Comments on Crushed By Ingsoc: Why Kings Can't CountCrushedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02479751225625007588noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-34722552812567887922009-01-13T12:52:00.000-08:002009-01-13T12:52:00.000-08:00Hey, how are you doing?Hey, how are you doing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-7780596394980668492009-01-13T15:13:00.000-08:002009-01-13T15:13:00.000-08:00All the Kings of Albania were called Zog... this i...All the Kings of Albania were called Zog... this is true by the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-76827905240446687642009-01-13T15:49:00.000-08:002009-01-13T15:49:00.000-08:00I really enjoyed this..monarchy is a strange thing...I really enjoyed this..monarchy is a strange thing. I am really into reading About gings on in renaissance times, but the names can be confusing. One of my faves is Lucretia Borgia...I am at the moment about to read the likely fluffy/trashy? "The Cronicles of Diana" by Tina Brown...juicy!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-77422909898280853772009-01-13T15:54:00.000-08:002009-01-13T15:54:00.000-08:00Blimey. Let's go back to the Original way of doing...Blimey. Let's go back to the Original way of doing it.<br><br>Prince Charles - The Gt. Pretender (but only before and after his marriage). Ooh and I DO know he isn't a Queen quite yet, even though he plays with Sooty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-82492299317742729602009-01-13T17:30:00.000-08:002009-01-13T17:30:00.000-08:00I agreed with Mugged, the old way is much more fun...I agreed with Mugged, the old way is much more fun. Your current one could be Elizabeth The Grumpy and your next one, Charles The Silly, oh and his sons, what options there are there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-1539287661597775972009-01-13T20:32:00.000-08:002009-01-13T20:32:00.000-08:00I really enjoyed this post. Royal histories are s...I really enjoyed this post. Royal histories are so full of secret twists and turns its a wonder we believe any of it.<br>My family roots (on my mom's side) are traced back to England's Edgar The Unready...but when I make a stupid mistake - I feel more like its Eddie The Idiot...<br>:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-20796733198006991812009-01-13T23:54:00.000-08:002009-01-13T23:54:00.000-08:00Don't they argue that they count English kings and...Don't they argue that they count English kings and Queens from when they were kings of all of England, not just bits of it.<br><br>Then there is the matter of James I of England having two number sequences in separate counts. An English one and a Scottish one and technically I guess subsequent to him also.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-66086174828079092372009-01-14T03:04:00.000-08:002009-01-14T03:04:00.000-08:00I like the old way better too. Lets go back to it....I like the old way better too. Lets go back to it. It gives you much more of an insight into what the people really thought of their monarch!<br><br>What would our recent and present monarchs be know as I wonder?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-92138327491954965222009-01-14T09:10:00.000-08:002009-01-14T09:10:00.000-08:00So what should we have called George Bush?And now ...So what should we have called George Bush?<br><br>And now Obama?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-89649653664808083452009-01-14T10:48:00.000-08:002009-01-14T10:48:00.000-08:00Leon- So so.Mutley- Oddly enough, your comment has...Leon- So so.<br><br>Mutley- Oddly enough, your comment has a twist...<br>The twist is that indeed, at first glance Albania' mnoarchical history begins- and ends with Zog I.<br><br>However...<br><br>Albania did have another King in the twentieth century. The throne was offered to Prince Wilhem of Weid in 1913. He did land there, but the country was kind of in a state of anarchy and he never really established himself before war broke out. And after the war he didn't return. And being German, he was now a bit out of favour with the allies. A number of competing regimes ruled for the next few years, some of them ostensibly in his name, others not. His reign may be said to have ended legally in 1925 when Zog declared a Republic. and then decided three years later to be King instead of President.<br><br>So the twist? Well, the twist is that the Albanians have a national hero called Skanderbeg. Now in reality, he wasn't a King. More a kind of Hereward the Wake type rebel against the Turks.<br><br>But. Just to be confusing, Zog I, like old Sigismund II who is also Augustus I, Zog I ALSO used the title...<br>Skanderbeg III.<br><br>As in, counting Skanderbeg as an Albanian King.<br>So who was Skanderbeg II? This confused me too. It turns out, he's Wilhelm of Weid. As far as I know, he never used that title himself, I'm guessing Zog decided that in retrospect he was Skanderbeg II.<br><br>But the point is- all Albanian Kings get to be called Skanderbeg...<br><br>Candy Minx- It's difficult to separate fact from fiction regarding the Borgias. Cesare Borgia seems to have been a spoilt brat with very little talent, but his father's main fault seems more to have been blatant nepotism. I don't think he was a very saintly man, but he seems to have loved the mother of his children very much.<br><br>I've been Mugged- There were some good ones in the Spanish epithets. Alphonso the Slobberer we've noted. But there was also Bermudo the Gouty and Wilfred the Hairy. Turkey had Selim the Grim and Selim the Drunkard, Byzantium had Justinian the Noseless, Denmark had Harald Bluetooth.<br><br>King Charles the Botanist?<br>King Charles the Wierd?<br><br>Gingatao- Well, William the Vacant and Harry the Bastard seem in keeping with tradition...<br><br>Sweet Cheeks- One thing always gets me, is how many of them aren't royal lines. You just don't know.<br><br>By that I mean, there are at least three good examples of thrones which may well have left the royal line due to some royal cuckoos showing up.<br>Selim the drunkard, named above was the surprisingly ginger haired alleged son of Suleiman the Magificent and Roxana, his chief concubine. who had a favorite slave. Who was ginger.<br>Fro this point on ginger hair was a common feature of Ottoman princes.<br>And after Suleiman the magnificent, most Ottoman rulers are useless. whereas as before they were stern stuff.<br><br>Louis XIV son of Louis XIII? Maybe not. I think it rather unlikely.<br><br>And it's often agreed that Isabella II of Spain being the life loving and lust driven woman she was and her husband being- well, gay- that the current King of Spain is descended from horseguard stock.<br><br>It's actually suggested- and it pans out- that if you were to be able to find out all the living descendants of Ethelred the Unready, it would be several million. It's probably true, Queen Victoria already has about 250 living descendants.<br><br>They say you can't be Irish and NOT claim descent somehow from a King. it isn't genetically possible, due to the number of Kingdoms that existed.<br><br>Sue- I think the current one would get away with something reasonable. But Charles, no.<br><br>Sometimes the names give us a hint, but they can mislead. Ivann the terrible for example was terrible in the sense of 'terrible majesty'. And Ethelred the unready wasn't unready, he was 'unraed', an obsolete word meaning ill advised.<br><br>Charles- George the Simple sounds about fair...<br><br>Successor to Bill the Slippery.<br><br>As for Obama, well, we'll need to see...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-64145776539561992872009-01-14T11:47:00.000-08:002009-01-14T11:47:00.000-08:00Very interesting. Poor old Louis the Impotent!Very interesting. Poor old Louis the Impotent!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-87448948926731012712009-01-14T14:42:00.000-08:002009-01-14T14:42:00.000-08:00Re. the double numbering of kings in England and S...Re. the double numbering of kings in England and Scotland - ie. James I & VI (I in England, VI in Scotland).<br><br>This was not an issues after James II (& VII) so was largely forgotten about during the Act of Union... until 1952.<br><br>So it is now the case that, if Scotland and England potentially have a different regnal number for any monarch, the highest number goes. Thus we have Elizabeth II across the UK, even though Scotland never had an Elizabeth I.<br><br>This does tend to favour England as Donald, James, Alexander etc. tend not to be names used anymore.<br><br>Incidentally, British monarchs do not necessarily reign under their own name - George VI's name was Albert, for example - and it has been suggested that Prince Charles may possibly not choose to reign as Charles III, what with the slightly dodgy reputation of the previous two, and may indeed choose to be George VII.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-90442068624912770072009-01-14T15:56:00.000-08:002009-01-14T15:56:00.000-08:00Moggs- Sorry you got missed there, not sure how th...Moggs- Sorry you got missed there, not sure how that happened...<br><br>Well, Athelstan certainly ruled all England. After him, they ruled the lot. But convention calls Alfred the Great the first King of England.<br><br>After the act of Union, British monarchs have only used the highest ordinal so as to avoid too many numbers, as John Birch below points out. <br><br>It's the same in Spain actually. Monarchs there take the highest number from Castile and Aragon.<br><br>However, having separate numbers for separate countries is not unusual. The last Austro-Hungarian ruler was Emperor Charles I of Austria and King Charles IV of Hungary.<br><br>Welshcakes- Henry :)<br>In fact, I don't think he ever knew. I think women who went with him were told to tell him he was a bit of a stud. Allegedly, he believed he was.<br><br>John- I could imagine a King Alexander IV, though the others I can't see being used, I'll be honest.<br>Of course, the name and number a King takes DOES make a historical statement, in a sense. There was some debte when John XXIII became Pope if he'd be XXIII or XXIV. And LOUIS XVIII going for XVIII not XVII of course, made a statement that nothing between 1792 and 1814 was valid.<br>If we had a Queen Jane, for example, would she be first or second? Would she acknowledge the nine day Queen?<br><br>I guess I'd find it hard to see Prince Charles as Charles III. I suppose instinctively I see Charles III as being the Young Pretender.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-84890042016745350792009-01-14T23:18:00.000-08:002009-01-14T23:18:00.000-08:00Now in his favour it does have to be said that Cha...Now in his favour it does have to be said that Charles was into sustainability, organic farming methods and green practices long before they became fashionable.<br><br>In fact that was one of the things the tabloid press used to try to brand him as nutty. Who's agenda?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com