Printable View
OK, its not really a q but - Edward the Confessor was King of England prior to Harold II Godwinson who immediately preceded William the Bastard. (or the Conqueror, as he bacme known) About two hundred years on Edward Plantagenet came to the throne and is styled Edward I. Why not Edward II? That has always bugged me. If you can find the answer, I will be most impressed.
Cheers,
P.
Not sure about this answer, but I'll give it anyway.
The Pope selects a name upon election by the Cardinals. In
this manner every non-unique name is a "direct" descendant
of some other Pope.
Kings, on the other hand, keep their name. Thus, Edward II
would be the direct LINEAL descendant of Edward I.
Edward the Confessor, besides being a disembling wuss, did
not sire a male heir, or any other heir as far as that
goes. William, Duke of Normandy was apparently named the
heir. This was then rescinded in favor of Harold Godwinson
when the exiled Godwin, Earl of Wessex, returned from exile
in Flanders and threatned civil war.
King Hradraka of Norway (the 3rd pretender to the English
throne) invaded the North of England and was completely
routed, losing his head and about 90% of his followers.
This effectively ended the Norwegian presence on the the
world political stage, and allowed the Swedes and Danes to
concentrate of kicking each others asses. Without the
presumptive claim of Hradraka, it is very possible that the
Swedes and Norwegians would have conquered the Danes. This
in turn would have led to a Scandanavian Northern Europe,
instead of fragmented Germanic Northern Europe.
Harold II was defeated by William the Conquerer, thus
ending the line of Saxon kings of England. From that time
on, the Kings of England were Norman or German.
Edward I, son of Henry III and Eleanor was considered a
lineal descendant of William. Thus, he is the first of
that name.
With a clear delineation of heir to the throne, England
would probably not have been "Normanized" for another 200
years, Northern Europe (from Flanders north)and Western
Russia would have been Scandanavian and would have formed a
powerful barrier to the spread of the Roman Catholic Church.
[Edited by DerFarm on 12-19-2000 at 11:04 AM]
I think it's because back in the 1000 - 1200 region, their wasn't much records on who was king and their hadn't been any prior kings with the same name. Also in that time mostly all kings were "King someone the something". The "King someone the first" is more to do with modern times and as king edward the first didn't have a title as such, he became edward I
Just a hunch
I would also go along with what derfarm say's as well
Not bad boys. I think that it has everything to do with Edward's need for prestige.
Incidentally DF, your knowledge is excellent and I am impressed, but it is slightly flawed. If you are interested, here goes.
Kings of England have been Norman, Angevin (Henry II was not Norman but was sired by Geoffrey of Anjou) and several other mixtures of French-English. This line runs out in the reign of Richard II when the Throne is usurped. Henry IV is probably the first authentic 'English' King but that line lasts less than 50 years before civil war and usurpation again (Wars of the Roses). This results in the undoubtedly Welsh Tudors who give way to the undoubtedly Scottish Stuarts. They in turn are turned away in favour of a Dutchman (William III) whose claim lies through his Stuart wife. The Stuarts finish with Anne (whose children pre-decease her) and they give way to the Hanoverians (who were chosen from a European protestant beauty parade by parliament). These are definitely German and they can trace directly to the present Queen. However she can also show direct lineage back to Alfred the Great in the tenth century!
So. Germans and Normans - not quite - but a hell of a lot of foreigners. We are much more open minded than you Yanks - you can only be President if you are an American citizen.
Nice one.
Cheers,
P.
Are you saying that prior to Henry IV, the territory ruled by William, Harold, etc was NOT known as England?
They were certainly known as kings. If the territory is
known as England, then they are English Kings.
That is 'English' as in I am English - they were Kings of England but not English Kings - see what I am getting at? Until the reign of Edward III, English was not even spoken at court - French again.
Mind you, no good moaning about the French Normans - they were Danish Vikings that decided northern France looked a bit nicer than Jutland - they were literally the North Men.
Incidentally, you are not too keen on Papal power are you? In its beginnings, that office held 'primacy of honour' and he was simply 'first among equals'. A lot of modern Catholics would question the precise nature of the Popes role and authority without questioning his place as leader of the Church. The Roman Curia has a lot to answer for. As an English Catholic, I feel that we have a distinctive voice and Roman insensitivity to local needs is one of the big challenges the RC Chucrch faces in the 21st Century.
Cheers,
P.
yeah, I figured that you were coming from the language aspect of the rulers, but I wanted to make sure.
As for my keeness (or lack of it) of the Papal power, the friction between temporal (kings, counts, dukes, etc) and religious rulers (bishops, abbots, popes and the like) WAS the defining conflict of western Europe.
Yep.
P.