The Royal Styling of Arthur Tudor
- Thread starter Clandango
- Start date
Why would he be Arthur II?
I mean, yeah, the whole Arthurian legend was certainly popular during this time-period, but i find it doubtful he would be Arthur II.
I mean, yeah, the whole Arthurian legend was certainly popular during this time-period, but i find it doubtful he would be Arthur II.Just Arthur. He wouldn't be Arthur I until there was an Arthur II later on. Also, English monarchical numbering started at 1 with the Norman Conquest, so the semilegendary Arthur, King of the Britons, doesn't count.
Looking up Edward the Confessor I can see the precedent for not putting the greats into the numerical order. As for the One, I had gotten conflicting information about it in the past, though it was probably bad form to suggest that the monarch would die. What would King Arthur be called from then on?
English numbering only really started in the time of Edward III and was, IIRC, in the style Third of his Name since the Conquest.
Thus Arthur Tudor would if a second Arthur become king be named Arthur I (/First of His name (since the Conquest)) King of England and of France and Lord of Ireland
Thus Arthur Tudor would if a second Arthur become king be named Arthur I (/First of His name (since the Conquest)) King of England and of France and Lord of Ireland
Thande
Donor
There was definitely speculation at the time that he would be Arthur II--not just to cash in on the popular Arthurian mythos, but also because the Tudors were Welsh and it would be a clever way of reminding the annoyed and restive English population that this King Arthur they were all massive fans of was actually a Welshman who fought against the English.
They would be able to start calling the Kings Britons again, wouldn't they?
He definitely referred to England as an empire; the preface to the Act of Supremacy (I think) begins "This realm of England is an Empire..." The idea that England was an empire, and therefore its sovereign owed no obedience to any authority below God, was a key support for the legal theories Henry's lawyers cooked up to justify his split with Rome. I'm not aware of the use of "Britannia," though.
Thande
Donor
A lot of monarchs in that period made those kinds of declarations without actually doing anything to back them up. James VI and I always acted like he'd enacted an Act of Union without actually doing so when it came to the language he used in his pronouncements, like insistently referring to England and Scotland as "South Britain and North Britain".
^^ Exactly, the idea that Henry VIII's England was an "empire" was nothing but a legalistic fig leaf to help justify actions that were awfully hard to justify. But he couldn't have it written down in an Act of Parliament that he'd become infatuated with a younger woman and would do anything to get rid of his wife, after all.
Whatever he chose.
The whole matter is strictly within the Royal Prerogative. Monarchs may call themselves what they will.
Well, to be fair, many of the ecclesiastical rights Henry wanted were already conferred upon the French monarch for his church.
That and the Spanish looted Rome, had complete control of the Spanish Inquisition, and did whatever the hell they wanted in the Americas without too much complaining. They stayed friendly with Henry VIII, though.
The problem was not that and Henry VIII's actions was pretty easily to justify: his infatuation for Anne Boleyn was just why he chose her as his second wife, not the reason for the divorce from Catherine who had other reasons (the Tudors dinasty was young and not very stable and he badly needed a male heir who Catherine can not give him and this convinced Henry that their marriage was cursed). Other Kings in the same situation of Henry had obtained quite easily the annulment of their marriage and the possibility of remarriage by the Pope only that Catherine was the aunt of Emperor Charles who at that time had the Pope in his power and was obviously against the annulment.