Sounds too French for my tastes.
Isn't it more Spanish.
Personally I think it's high time we had another king by that most English of names. John II anyone?
Sounds too French for my tastes.
That's refreshing. Most Spain-dominates-Earth timelines (stuff like Pavane) tend to assume that it's going to produce some backwards planet with innovation suppressed by the Catholic Church- quite implausibly, in my view.
You're preaching to the converted, mateThat's because the rol of the Spanish Inquisition is greatly overpowered in English-speaking media. Actually, the first guy who seriously claimed that the human heart was a simple bomb for the blood and not the residence of human soul was a Spaniard, Miguel Servet, who was burn as heretic by Calvinist protestants in Switherland. Other thing that people use to forget is that the Spanish Inquisition also regarded witchcraft as a simple superstition of ignorant people, or an evidence of mental illness at most, while the Germans, French and English were burning thousands of women in the sme epoch. This practice didn't spread to Spain or other countries when France or Britain replaced it as dominant power on Europe, by the way...
In short words, the real owner of the Spanish politics was the own Spanish Monarchy, not the Vatican, and the Spanish Inquisition was just another puppet of the Crown destined to hunt the opponents of its political system. Just remember that the own introductors of the Inquisition in all Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella, were in fact excomuniated in their youth because they used a false papal bull in order to get married. This doesn't change anything in their acttitude and ultimately they became the "Catholic Monarchs" and champions of Christ... very ironic. Their grandson Charles, who is regarded also as a fanatical Catholic, had not any problem to sack Rome in 1527 and chase the Pope Clemens VII for political reasons. Even his son, Philip II (who was called "Demon of the South" by the English) never tried or even though to introduce the Inquisition in the only of his dominions that had protestant population, Flanders.
Actually, when Spain refused more to introduce modern innovations was during the 19th century, when the country was in the peak of its decadence. And the middle of the 19th century was, actually, one of the periods of History in wich Spain had worse relations with the Church.
Thanks for the mention. You'll find a few in Norman Sicilly that might intrest you as well.Word of explanation: History is full of potential kings or queens who died before their accession and so the crown went to a younger sibling. What in your opinion are the most interesting ones to survive and do AHs about?
Here are some for England/Britain:
- William Adelin (son of Henry I, would have been William III) - killed in White Ship disaster - as see in Oth's timeline. OTL King superseded: Stephen
That would be Felipe.Isn't it more Spanish.
George VII because it's a traditional British monarch's name, emphasises continuity (as you said, his grandfather was so called).
I'm not sure if the Victoria thing you quoted is accurate - I thought Victoria insisted that no future kings be called Albert, in memory of Prince Albert.
As for Charles, his full name is 'Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor'. The choice of George is also because 'Charles III' carries unfortunate connotations - Charles I was executed, and also the Jacobites regard Bonnie Prince Charlie as Charles III so it could cause iffiness. This is reportedly what Charles has said himself - he wants to be crowned as George VII.
However, I think it's quite likely that the public will insist he be Charles III just because that's what they've always known him as.
You'd be surprised at the Jacobite sympathies in Scotland. It's not like they'd actually go and depose the current monarchy or something, but you get things like Scots spray-painting out the 'II' in 'Elizabeth II' on post boxes etc. because she's not THEIR second queen called Elizabeth...That iffiness, as you put it, kind of limits his options: I can't see him using Philip since it calls to mind the Spanish monarch that sent the Armada, and Arthur is too intimately associated with the legend. Unless I'm way wrong, wouldn't it be a very tiny minority of Scots nationalists/unreconstructed Jacobites that would balk at Charles III? On the other hand, what sort of outcry would there be if he went with George VII instead of Charles III?
Emperor Yuan Shi Kai of the Zhao Dynasty. The real last Emperor of China, haha.
You'd be surprised at the Jacobite sympathies in Scotland. It's not like they'd actually go and depose the current monarchy or something, but you get things like Scots spray-painting out the 'II' in 'Elizabeth II' on post boxes etc. because she's not THEIR second queen called Elizabeth...
Fortunately the royal family is sensitive to these things and, bizarrely, the current line (ever since George IV) has been fascinated by the romanticism of the Jacobite legend and basically started promoting it once they were sure that there weren't any serious pretenders left.
For instance, in Holyroodhouse (one of the royal residences in Edinburgh open to the public), there are portraits of the Old Pretender and Bonnie Prince Charlie alongside those of the Hanoverian monarchs, and they are labelled 'James VIII and III' and 'Charles III'. So you can see why Charles might want to avoid that (he's nuts about Scotland himself), and there's also the unfortunate association with Charles I.
However, if there is any objection to 'George VII' I think it will just come from English people who refuse to call him by any time other than the one they've always known him by. On the other hand, George VI was often referred to by the public as Bertie (his real name being Albert).
Yeah, as far as I know, he has to go with ONE of his given names.This is fascinating. So he has no options other than Charles or George, in effect, given other potential associations? Obviously John is out and has been for nearly 800 years; William, Henry, and Richard are also not open as possibilities (can't imagine the latter; there hasn't been one for--what?--about 550 years)?
Other thing that people use to forget is that the Spanish Inquisition also regarded witchcraft as a simple superstition of ignorant people, or an evidence of mental illness at most, while the Germans, French and English were burning thousands of women in the sme epoch. This practice didn't spread to Spain or other countries when France or Britain replaced it as dominant power on Europe, by the way...
I seem to recall seeing (possibly on QI) that precisely two women were burned as witches in England throughout the whole of recorded history...about seventy more were, as you say, hanged. Just seventy-two.There indeed were many thousands of witches burnt in France and especially Germany, although there was actually no burning of witches in England. As I remember, there were only a few hundreds (or possibly even less) women in England put to death for witchcraft - and even those weren't actually burnt - they were simply hung instead.