Alternate Kings of Wherever

natemamate

Banned
Here is a Example
King Robert XX of Scotland (House of Dunkeld) 1456-1457
King Louis of England (House of Tudor) (1444-1487)
 
Here is a Example
King Robert XX of Scotland (House of Dunkeld) 1456-1457
King Louis of England (House of Tudor) (1444-1487)

Why would a English King be called Louis? That was quite a French name back then and somewhat off for the chronology for having Tudor on the throne.
 
Why would a English King be called Louis? That was quite a French name back then and somewhat off for the chronology for having Tudor on the throne.

Agreed. Without any explanation it seems weird. An explanation like "Louis VIII of France's reign in England in 1216 is officially acknowledged in the regnal list of English Kings as Louis I, and for some wacky reason the Tudors adopt it after the War of the Roses" would have sufficed.

Now, I don't meant to hijack the thread, and I apologize to the OP in advance, but may I suggest that instead of simply placing a name for a fictional King, each poster presents a name and then explains in a very short paragraph how it came to be? Or, perhaps, even more interesting, if one poster points out a name, much like OP did, and the poster after him tries to explain how this scenario could play out, like one those "ATL Cultural threads". This could be a fun thought exercise. Anyways, I'm sorry if OP indeed had some plans to this thread; again, it was just a suggestion.
 
Agreed. Without any explanation it seems weird. An explanation like "Louis VIII of France's reign in England in 1216 is officially acknowledged in the regnal list of English Kings as Louis I, and for some wacky reason the Tudors adopt it after the War of the Roses" would have sufficed.

Now, I don't meant to hijack the thread, and I apologize to the OP in advance, but may I suggest that instead of simply placing a name for a fictional King, each poster presents a name and then explains in a very short paragraph how it came to be? Or, perhaps, even more interesting, if one poster points out a name, much like OP did, and the poster after him tries to explain how this scenario could play out, like one those "ATL Cultural threads". This could be a fun thought exercise. Anyways, I'm sorry if OP indeed had some plans to this thread; again, it was just a suggestion.

I quite like the first suggestion. Mind if I have a crack at it?
 
Now while I acknowledge that the Kingdom of Wherever has an Intriguing History (on more than one level - who could forget the conspiracy that turned King Cadmus into Princess Cadmea?) one must admit that as a proud native of Somewhere I am better acquainted with the likes of the Emperor Nemo and his ilk, so one shall in future maintain a discrete silence rather than risk revealing my ignorance.
 
On a more serious note one of the more interesting possibilities would be King Philip of England (25th January 1327-21st June 1377), who in Our Timeline was Edward III - had King Edward II been more open to his In-Laws petition that the child be named for his Maternal Grandfather, one has to wonder if the remarkable glut of Edwards in the King Lists of the Royal Family would have been replaced with a squadron of Phillips (given the Grandeur that might well accrue to the name, had Phillip the First been the equal of Edward III).

Give that there were only two Kings from the Conqueror's line called Edward before Edward of Windsor, while no fewer than five followed him (even if Edward VIII was never crowned, this still leaves "Edward" in joint first place with "Henry" as a Kingly name in England, with James of Scotland and George of Great Britain second and third on VII & VI respectively) it does make me wonder.
 
Edward I of Scotland. Brother to Robert the Bruce, and a campaigner during the First War for Scottish Independence, Bruce would return from Ireland in 1318, dejected, having had his campaign to unite Ireland behind his Kingship rejected and defeated by the Anglo-Irish lords. Bruce would narrowly avoid death through chance, and would retreat and eventually retire back to Scotland. In the Parliament of 1318, held in Fife, due to his brother lacking a male heir of his own body-despite having a grandson from his daughter Marjorie- Edward was confirmed as his heir, and as such was also formally reconfirmed as Earl of Carrick. Over the next few years, Edward would help his brother in solidifying Bruce control over Scotland defeating any who rose up against his brother, as well as the many small English incursions that occurred. His status as heir apparent was lessened when his brother's wife Elizabeth finally gave birth to twin boys, named David and John, thus pushing Edward down to third in line for the throne, via another act of Parliament in 1325. However, following John's death in 1327, Edward once more became second in line to the throne. Edward was a signatory of the Declaration of Arbroath as well as a witness to the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton. He was named regent for his nephew, King David, when his brother died, and as such played a large part in keeping Scotland under Bruce hands during the Second War of Scottish Independence. His relationship with his nephew would be cordial and at times tense, David would be desperate for an heir but his marriage to Joan of England would produce little success. David would eventually end up dying during The Battle of Neville's Cross in 1345, fought as part of the Hundred Years war, his death meant that Edward would ascend the throne in 1345 as Edward I, his reign short though it might've been would definitely be an interesting one.
 
Edward I's son Alphonso was heir until he died aged 11 or 12. We could literally have had a run of Alphonsos equivalent to how George later took off.

If Henry VI had died young, we would have had a King Thomas

Henry Frederick, eldest son of James I

King Arthur, heir of Henry VII - I wonder what regnal number he would have taken?

Of course, we should had had a King Arthur earlier, heir of Geoffrey, the younger brother of King Richard and elder brother of King John

And we could easily have had a King Robert, if William I's eldest son hadn't spent most of his time locked away

Oh, and a King Eustace - I believe Eustace of Boulogne intended to invade England at one time

Not to mention King Canute, we could have had a second one - he invaded in 1086. If he had taken Canute II as his regnal number, we would not have reset the Edward numbers
 
Top