An odd question about Henry VII's son Arthur

The son that died, that is, leaving Henry VIII the heir. I was just wondering, would the legend of King Arthur have been such a big deal to England's national identity and all that that Prince Arthur would've been crowned King Arthur II had he survived? Or would the strict Norman counting have been stuck to and he would've been King Arthur (or Arthur I, as the case may be)?
 
Although the young Prince of Wales was named after the legendary King Arthur, there is no reason to believe that he would have been called Arthur II had he ascended the throne. Before the modern era, it was not common for reigning monarch's to distinguish themselves numerically from their predecessors. Hence, Henry VIII called himself Henry during his reign, as did their father, Henry VII. The legendary King Arthur was never seriously considered a true monarch of Britain and would not have influenced the numbering system of the monarchs.
 
Although the young Prince of Wales was named after the legendary King Arthur, there is no reason to believe that he would have been called Arthur II had he ascended the throne. Before the modern era, it was not common for reigning monarch's to distinguish themselves numerically from their predecessors. Hence, Henry VIII called himself Henry during his reign, as did their father, Henry VII. The legendary King Arthur was never seriously considered a true monarch of Britain and would not have influenced the numbering system of the monarchs.

English/British monarchs prior to the Norman Conquest remain outside the modern numbering system. The 3 pre-conquest kings named Edward are prime examples. This is why in the 20th Century the UK had kings Edward VII & VIII rather then X & XI. So, if in the future there is a King Harold or Edmund each would be the 1st not the 3rd. Likewise, if along comes a King Alfred or Arthur, each would be the 1st not the 2nd.

An off topic note -- It's interesting that the pre conquest Edmunds, Harolds, and even the Ethelreds are numbered but the Edwards are not.

How can we blame Thande for this historical inconsistancy?
 
So the general verdict is: romanticism about the King Arthur myth does not extend to the point of including him in the numbering system.

But it does raise another interesting question, about what people of the time would think about literally having a King Arthur.
 
It should be noted that most of the romanticism of the Arthurian myth came from the Victorian age as a way to symbolise and justify the imperial regime of England/Britain.

If Arthur Tudor becomes King but there are no other King Arthurs then a similar later regime would likely just call him King Arthur Tudor with the earlier figure referred to as King Arthur Pendragon; only a few biographers would label him Arthur II.
If, however, there are subsequent King Arthurs then he'll be King Arthur I. And the previous possibly referred to as the High King.
 
Arthur was seen as a hisrtorical figure and the chivalric ideal as far back as Edward I.

I think it POSSIBLE that he would have been crowned as Arthur II in that the Tudors were deliberately playing up the glorious past, as they saw it.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
English/British monarchs prior to the Norman Conquest remain outside the modern numbering system. The 3 pre-conquest kings named Edward are prime examples. This is why in the 20th Century the UK had kings Edward VII & VIII rather then X & XI. So, if in the future there is a King Harold or Edmund each would be the 1st not the 3rd. Likewise, if along comes a King Alfred or Arthur, each would be the 1st not the 2nd.

This. If it helps, the style "Henry VIII" etc actually comes from the full form which is:

Henry, the Eighth of that Name since the Time of the [Norman] Conquest

Slowly that form got reduced firstly to "Henry the Eighth of that Name" and then to "Henry the Eighth" (Henry VIII), but the form is still unquestionably only counting kings since William the Conqueror. Arthur would have been Arthur I.
 
This. If it helps, the style "Henry VIII" etc actually comes from the full form which is:

Henry, the Eighth of that Name since the Time of the [Norman] Conquest

Slowly that form got reduced firstly to "Henry the Eighth of that Name" and then to "Henry the Eighth" (Henry VIII), but the form is still unquestionably only counting kings since William the Conqueror. Arthur would have been Arthur I.

Precisely.

Arthur was seen as a hisrtorical figure and the chivalric ideal as far back as Edward I.

I think it POSSIBLE that he would have been crowned as Arthur II in that the Tudors were deliberately playing up the glorious past, as they saw it.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

As you say, the Tudors were hoping to promote the dawn of a "New Arthurian Age of English greatness" and to promote King Arthur Tudor as the "King Arthur for our age". So, I suppose that it is possible that within some court circles and in some court records during his lifetime he might be referred to as Arthur II, though most probably not after his death (unless his son or grandson purposely styles himself as Arthur III).
 

Thande

Donor
I seem to remember reading somewhere that he was going to be Arthur II - as others have said, that is against the usual naming system but the Welsh Tudors had a particular reason to appeal to the Arthurian legends.
 
An off topic note -- It's interesting that the pre conquest Edmunds, Harolds, and even the Ethelreds are numbered but the Edwards are not.
QUOTE]

Mind you, most people just use the epithets for pre-conquest kings, Edmund the Magnificent rather than Edmund I. Not surprising really, as the only person who could be styled Edmund II after him was the Viking Edmund Ironsides, and he never used the title.
 
Top