Double regnal names in England and Scotland

It is not big "what if' question, not some ground-shaking event, but I still find this question quite interesting. How likely is adoption of this solution by Stuart monarchs after taking throne of England? Say James I and VI has a son named Henry James (most common regnal names in England and Scotland respectively), who succeeded father and decided to rule as Henry James I, not as Henry IX and I? Double regnal names were frequently used in HRE and Savoy at the time, but in England and Scotland it would be something new. But just like england and Scotland united under one dynasty, such merging of names could symbolize start of new era in history of two British kingdoms?
 
This seems plausible, and it could have been the case had the Stuarts stuck around, or if they had been followed by another local (i.e. English or Scottish) house. But fairly soon after the acts of Union, they were succeeded by a foreign dynasty with an affinity for the name George.
If Anne had a child, Henry James could have been a perfect regal name for the first King of the Union.
 
OTL, James VI and I's eldest son was named "Henry Frederick" after his two grandfathers. He died relatively young of Typhoid Fever, so his brother Charles ended up succeeding their father instead. I'm not sure if had he survived he would have reigned as "Henry Frederick I" or as "Henry IX and I".
 
It is not big "what if' question, not some ground-shaking event, but I still find this question quite interesting. How likely is adoption of this solution by Stuart monarchs after taking throne of England? Say James I and VI has a son named Henry James (most common regnal names in England and Scotland respectively), who succeeded father and decided to rule as Henry James I, not as Henry IX and I? Double regnal names were frequently used in HRE and Savoy at the time, but in England and Scotland it would be something new. But just like england and Scotland united under one dynasty, such merging of names could symbolize start of new era in history of two British kingdoms?

Not likely. James was the first king of England/Scotland to have two names: Charles James.
He could easily have decided to rule as King Charles - in theory - since neither country had previously had a king by that name. So, I'm not sure it would've necessarily happened.
 
Double names are usually linked to godparents. It was usual in the 16th c. to have foreign monarchs as godfathers of young princes. Problem could arise when relations went sour with said monarch. For example, James Charles Stuart (King James Ist and VI) got his second name from his godfather King Charles IX of France. The protestant nobility of Scotland would never have allowed their King to use the name of a catholic King. In France François Maximilien de Valois (King Francis II) got his second name from Maximilian II of Austria, but in 1561, things were tensed with the Habsburgs. His brother Alexandre Edouard (King Henry III) was named after Edward VI of England, but it was felt unwise to have the heir to the throne with a name what claimed "Protestantism", so his name was changed at his confirmation. Of course the Henri was his father's, himself named after his godfather, Henry VIII of England.
 
I think the reason that double names didn't take off in England for a while was because when it started popping up in the west, it was mainly Catholic nations that were engaging in the practice, the Habsburgs were most obvious example. Maybe there was some stigma from that end, don't want people in Protestant England thinking you and your children are Catholic.
 
I think the reason that double names didn't take off in England for a while was because when it started popping up in the west, it was mainly Catholic nations that were engaging in the practice, the Habsburgs were most obvious example. Maybe there was some stigma from that end, don't want people in Protestant England thinking you and your children are Catholic.

No Habsburg had a double regnal name, so I do not see your point here. Nor did France or Portugal or in fact any Catholic King.

Around 1600, the main dynasty using double names were the (Protestant) Hohenzollern of Brandenburg/Prussia.
 
Henry James could have been a perfect regal name for the first King of the Union.

220px-Henry_James_by_John_Singer_Sargent_cleaned.jpg
 
No Habsburg had a double regnal name, so I do not see your point here. Nor did France or Portugal or in fact any Catholic King.

Around 1600, the main dynasty using double names were the (Protestant) Hohenzollern of Brandenburg/Prussia.

Oh, I thought he meant REGULAR names like Maria Antoine, or Isabella Claria Eugenia, or Philip Prospero.
 
I think the reason that double names didn't take off in England for a while was because when it started popping up in the west, it was mainly Catholic nations that were engaging in the practice, the Habsburgs were most obvious example. Maybe there was some stigma from that end, don't want people in Protestant England thinking you and your children are Catholic.

No Habsburg had a double regnal name, so I do not see your point here. Nor did France or Portugal or in fact any Catholic King.

Around 1600, the main dynasty using double names were the (Protestant) Hohenzollern of Brandenburg/Prussia.
Sweden's Gustavus Adolphus was the champion of protestantism in the first half of the 17th century, later followed by Charles Gustavus.
 
The best chance for a double regnal name would have been in more recent history. For example Edward VII who was christened Albert Edward, or perhaps had he lived, his eldest son, the Duke of Clarence, who was christened Albert Victor Christian Edward, so named by his grandmother Queen Victoria, but known to the family as "Eddy." Officially he was known to the public as Prince Albert Victor.

Of course "Albert' was too germanic for some in the UK. Even though Edward VII dropped "Albert" as he said to allow his father who had died 40 years before to "stand alone," I always wondered if he used "Edward" to spite his late mother Queen Victoria, who had imagined a long line of British kings named "Albert", or perhaps he used "Edward" to honor his late son "Eddy." Is there any indication historically had he lived what Albert Victor would likely have used as a regnal name?
 
Top