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

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

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

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 19. februar 2008 kl. 1.24

Richardson is clutching at straws, a coronation does not necessarily make a
_ruling king_
What is a king? Someone waiting in the wings to take over?

The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy has a tomb effigy
with an interesting description.
"The Tomb-effigy of Henry, 'the Young King', eldest son of King Henry II, in
Rouen Cathedral. Crowned king in the lifetime of his father, he died in 1183
before he could succeed to the throne. Henry was buried in Rouen, but not
before the citizens of Le Mans tried to appropriate his body as it passed
through their city to bury it there.

He may have been a king in title but not a defacto king. There is also a
Henry X of France, and Henry IX of England, the Popes with the names John
are also an unholy mess.

With your strain of thought, is the present Charles, Prince of Wales also
wrongly named? Should he be known as Charles III, Prince of Wales?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:45 AM
Subject: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry IIB - which do you prefer?


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

-------------------------------
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: 269.20.7/1286 - Release Date: 2/18/2008
6:49 PM


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»