Patrick I, King of France and Scotland

Patrick was the only son of Francis II, King of France, and Mary, Queen of Scotland. Born June 19, 1566. Named Patrick because neither country had, had a king with that name. The name was also very popular in Ireland.
 
I thought hard about that. Decided on a name not used by either country. Most common for Scottish Kings, James. For French Kings, Louis then Charles.
 
Yeah, because it makes TOTAL sense that a Scottish Queen and French King would name their son after an Irishman; what with Ireland being under ENGLISH control at the time. Make his middle name Heinrich-Juan and you've got all of Europe covered......:rolleyes:
 
LOL. In real life Patrick was Welsh. Politics can come into play in trying to get control of Catholic Ireland with a King Patrick.
 
That will get you a war for sure, if that's what you're looking for.

And YOU brought up Ireland, I just pointed out political realities involved with that. And WALES???? The heir to the English throne is: The Prince of Wales (which makes Patrick an even worse choice than before).

Seriously, though, you'll have to change the name. Philippe, Henri, Louis, Charles, (since the father is French, the name will usually reflect that) - if the name's not French, it will be Scottish. Suspension of disbelief is required for a successful TL. Patrick in the 16th century is just too much WTF? It is, however, the quickest way to get a rumor started that it's the name of the baby's real father - if what you are trying to do is start a civil war in France. (That Scottish whore's bastard for the throne! This shall not be! - stated by all putative heirs, including Francis' little brothers.)
 
I was just using English versions of the names. I laugh because we in America are so inconsistent when it comes to what language we use for the names of foreign rulers. Look at Charles, we refer to him as Charles not Carlos. But his grandmother we go by Isabella not Elizabeth. But back to the baby's name if I go by French King names I am leaning toward Louis, the name of Francis'es brother who had died by this time.
 
Oh, I know that - the English version. But even back then Isabella and Elizabeth were being used separately in England, France, Spain as names. In the 16th century, names weren't selected because they were "different" but because they represented either a person to be followed (a relative, saint, a godparent), but ROYAL names were even more restricted. If you're king, you name your son after yourself, or your father or a king (preferably a popular one) who preceded him. And naming the child after a foreign monarch is for a second or third son (if you think of James). So, you've got Francis, Henri, Louis, Charles......so Louis (secretly for Francis' late brother, but the populace will think for Louis XII) will work.
 
Oh, I know that - the English version. But even back then Isabella and Elizabeth were being used separately in England, France, Spain as names. In the 16th century, names weren't selected because they were "different" but because they represented either a person to be followed (a relative, saint, a godparent), but ROYAL names were even more restricted. If you're king, you name your son after yourself, or your father or a king (preferably a popular one) who preceded him. And naming the child after a foreign monarch is for a second or third son (if you think of James). So, you've got Francis, Henri, Louis, Charles......so Louis (secretly for Francis' late brother, but the populace will think for Louis XII) will work.

There were a FEW exceptions to this, such as Sebastien I of Portugal, but that usually happened if the monarch was named in honor of a Saint, and that usually happened if their parents believed that the Saint in question helped with the pregnancy/delivery.

Another method for introducing new names to royal families involved children born lower down on the totem pole, in those situations the Monarch in question would have a bit more liberty to be creative. In these cases you could wind up with a 'King Patrick' if there was a string of bad luck and the fourth or fifth son got the crown, OR they had a good enough relationship with their eldest sibling that the heir got named in their honor.

However the name Patrick in this era is seen as VERY sacred among the Irish, to the point where using it as a given name is seen as sacrilegious among them.
 
What if he's born on March 17? It gives them a reason to name him Patrick. It was thanks to St. Eugenius and St. Maximilian that those names entered into the Habsburg naming practices (Isabel Clara Eugenia and various Maximilians), same for St. Claudius in France. But I agree, Andrew would be more likely than Patrick (not saying that Andrew has an any better chance of ending up as a royal name, though)
 
Oh, I know that - the English version. But even back then Isabella and Elizabeth were being used separately in England, France, Spain as names. In the 16th century, names weren't selected because they were "different" but because they represented either a person to be followed (a relative, saint, a godparent), but ROYAL names were even more restricted. If you're king, you name your son after yourself, or your father or a king (preferably a popular one) who preceded him. And naming the child after a foreign monarch is for a second or third son (if you think of James). So, you've got Francis, Henri, Louis, Charles......so Louis (secretly for Francis' late brother, but the populace will think for Louis XII) will work.
Yeah, the only way to differ from this is if he takes his communion name as his regnal one.
 
There were a FEW exceptions to this, such as Sebastien I of Portugal, but that usually happened if the monarch was named in honor of a Saint, and that usually happened if their parents believed that the Saint in question helped with the pregnancy/delivery.

Another method for introducing new names to royal families involved children born lower down on the totem pole, in those situations the Monarch in question would have a bit more liberty to be creative. In these cases you could wind up with a 'King Patrick' if there was a string of bad luck and the fourth or fifth son got the crown, OR they had a good enough relationship with their eldest sibling that the heir got named in their honor.

However the name Patrick in this era is seen as VERY sacred among the Irish, to the point where using it as a given name is seen as sacrilegious among them.

I mentioned a Saint......and that younger sons had more leeway than the first heir. He can have nickname, but in France, things were sooooooo regimented that who would use it? Mary, in their bedchamber? So, yes, Sebastien was named for a saint, but it was saint known to Portugal, not the patron saint of ANOTHER COUNTRY.

This is the 16th century. You have to use the rules that apply here, not some random 21st century notion of naming where we'll name him Ichabod because I loved the "Headless Horseman" story or Reign or Story because it sounds cool; names were traditional and grounded in family, religion, and ambition. (Which is why Charles Brandon kept naming his sons Henry - one Henry died, their was another son and another Henry.) Naming the firstborn son of the French King Patrick unless you are setting the Queen up for a fall is not going to happen. (And I don't see Francis or his mother allowing it in any instance, because both will know what it implies and the inferences that will be drawn.) You're just asking the boy to die 'mysteriously' in his sleep - if only to stop the rumors if nothing else and ESPECIALLY if there is a second son to replace him.
 
Top