Historum - History Forums

Historum - History Forums (http://historum.com/)
-   European History (http://historum.com/european-history/)
-   -   Why no more King Arthurs??? (http://historum.com/european-history/121767-why-no-more-king-arthurs.html)

Lawnmowerman September 24th, 2016 03:49 AM

Why no more King Arthurs???
 
Given the legend of King Arthur I find it rather strange that there have been no other English monarchs named after him.

There have however been 2 potential King Arthur's both died young (Henry VII's first born son from an illness - Richard I heir was murdered by John I)

Trying to establish a dynasty on the throne naming your son after the most famous Legendry king of England seems like a wise propaganda move so why was only Henry VII the only monarch to try this???

Domnall Ballach September 24th, 2016 04:40 AM

There've been a few more Arthurs than that, if I recall correctly, but largely the name was relegated to second or third sons because dynastic names were preferred for the one expected to succeed. Often a much more direct dynastic name and sense of continuity from a monarch of the recent past was far more valuable.

Chlodio September 24th, 2016 04:55 AM

Domnall, what's the earliest known Arthur? Was it earlier than Richard I's heir mentioned by Lawnmowerman? I'd be curious to see how popular (or not) the name Arthur was before Geofrey of Monmouth (12th century) and the rise of the medieval romances.

Space Shark September 24th, 2016 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawnmowerman (Post 2616852)
Given the legend of King Arthur I find it rather strange that there have been no other English monarchs named after him.

There have however been 2 potential King Arthur's both died young (Henry VII's first born son from an illness - Richard I heir was murdered by John I)

Trying to establish a dynasty on the throne naming your son after the most famous Legendry king of England seems like a wise propaganda move so why was only Henry VII the only monarch to try this???

My guess is that the legend of King Arthur didn't really take hold until the 1300s or so. Even today you don't see it that often in British royalty (last one was Victoria's third son, and his male line is extinct).

Tulius September 24th, 2016 06:53 AM

“Why no more King Arthurs???”

I got the impression that history is full of King Arthurs. Full of myths that need to be dug out.

cmbanalia September 24th, 2016 07:24 AM

Seems to me Arthur had not been a very lucky name in British monarchy history!

Sent from my LGMS330 using Tapatalk

Commodus September 24th, 2016 07:28 AM

I guess it would be tough to live up to the original?
The Anglicised version of King Arthur is the very model of Knightly virtue and Christian piety, establishing a court of equals and living up to the lofty standards of chivalry.

Who, either in the Medieval age or even in our own modern age, could live up to those ideals? The business of power is so often riddled with compromises and negotiations of ones ethics that there could never be a second King Arthur. There would only be a politician with a familiar name, likely scorned in his own lifetime until bookish sorts like us show up a few years later and meekly point out their good deeds and sparkles of humanity.

It's probably better not to call a King by that name. And is also likely why we will most probably never have another Alfred, either.

WITSEND September 24th, 2016 08:15 AM

Henry VIII elder brother was called Arthur, was prince of Wales and would have been crowned Arthur 1st had he not died prematurely and paved the way for his brother.

Bart Dale September 24th, 2016 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawnmowerman (Post 2616852)
Given the legend of King Arthur I find it rather strange that there have been no other English monarchs named after him.

There have however been 2 potential King Arthur's both died young (Henry VII's first born son from an illness - Richard I heir was murdered by John I)

Trying to establish a dynasty on the throne naming your son after the most famous Legendry king of England seems like a wise propaganda move so why was only Henry VII the only monarch to try this???


If you look at King Arthur's alleged reign, it was a disaster, His bastard son led a revolt against him, his most trusted knight was cheating on him with his wife, he died in battle with all his followers, and his kingdom disappeared without a physical trace. Maybe know British monarch wanted to be named after someone whose reign went to badly, a real loser. You don't see many Johns in the Royal Family either.

Pacific_Victory September 24th, 2016 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WITSEND (Post 2616984)
Henry VIII elder brother was called Arthur, was prince of Wales and would have been crowned Arthur 1st had he not died prematurely and paved the way for his brother.

Someone didn't read the whole OP :D


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.