The problem of the three missing Edwards

When the kings and queens of England are numbered, the Conquest is always treated as the starting point. In reality, the English monarchs of course go back to Alfred the Great. This generally doesn’t matter too much as most of the Anglo-Saxon (and Danish) kings’ names weren’t used post-conquest; confusion is thus limited. The notable exception is Edward: Edward VIII should really be Edward XI.

Anyway, for a while no-one was interested in pre-conquest England; it was part of the Dark Ages and best forgotten as a rather unpleasant episode between the Romans leaving and the Middle Ages proper. In the 19th Century there was something of a reawakening of interest in the Anglo-Saxons, but despite this, Anglo-Saxon England is still not generally accepted as being properly England, but rather, almost as a placeholder until 1066.

So, with a POD in, say, the 19th Century, is a scenario where the generally accepted history of the Kingdom of England begins with Alfred the Great plausible? No fringe nationalist rebellions rewriting the history books or the descendant of Alfred or Harold claiming the throne, but rather, an accepted shift in historic perceptions, for preference with all the Edwards being moved on three places and similar changes that at first might be difficult to get used to, but eventually everyone adapts. Would this have any significant impact on how the United Kingdom conducted itself in its affairs with other nations, or between the government and the people?

I possible thought I had in how to bring about the scenario (in a rather dramatic way) was that if both Victoria and the Prince of Wales died fairly early on, Prince Alfred would become king. Given that there is already a very well known and well regarded King Alfred in the general public consciousness, maybe it would be decided to crown him as King Alfred II, and other changes, and an even greater interest in Anglo-Saxon England, flow on from there.

Thoughts about the plausibility of that scenario or other ways to achieve a similar aim?
 
The problem with this is that the device <King's name> the <number>th was not like this is its original form. It first came in I think somewhere around Henry III's reign as a form for the Chroniclers to note where their monarchs, who had generally commissioned their work, came in history. The style originally was, for example,

Henry, the third of that name, since the time of the Conquest

After a few centuries it became, say "Henry, the fifth of that name" and then "Charles the Second".

So the problem here is you have to find a style involving the Anglo-Saxons at a time when all such references to the King needed to be in a way that he thought was flattering (because you were never going to have your Chronicles commissioned if the King sponsoring you thought you were going to glorify his ancestors' enemies) at a time when the Kings still saw themselves as fundamentally Norman and above the Anglo-Saxons. There's another thing as well - that in this era, not many people knew the order of the Anglo-Saxons Kings, even if they knew their names because of the stories, and many of those...frankly didn't care about them. There's little reason why you would start counting from the Anglo-Saxons in this era.
 

Thande

Donor
Falastur is correct. However I do recall that if Arthur Tudor (Henry VIII's older brother) had lived and become King, he would have called himself Arthur II taking the semilegendary King Arthur into account. The fact that the Tudors were Welsh and identified with Arthurian Brythonic Britain helped, of course. So something analogous could perhaps happen later on with the Anglo-Saxons - for example in the eighteenth century when there were various attempts to distance England's language and culture from the French thanks to the philosophical cold war that accompanied the Second Hundred Years' War.
 
The problem with this is that the device <King's name> the <number>th was not like this is its original form. It first came in I think somewhere around Henry III's reign as a form for the Chroniclers to note where their monarchs, who had generally commissioned their work, came in history. The style originally was, for example,

Henry, the third of that name, since the time of the Conquest

After a few centuries it became, say "Henry, the fifth of that name" and then "Charles the Second".

So the problem here is you have to find a style involving the Anglo-Saxons at a time when all such references to the King needed to be in a way that he thought was flattering (because you were never going to have your Chronicles commissioned if the King sponsoring you thought you were going to glorify his ancestors' enemies) at a time when the Kings still saw themselves as fundamentally Norman and above the Anglo-Saxons. There's another thing as well - that in this era, not many people knew the order of the Anglo-Saxons Kings, even if they knew their names because of the stories, and many of those...frankly didn't care about them. There's little reason why you would start counting from the Anglo-Saxons in this era.

I wasn't really thinking about changing the original chronicles when they were written, but rather, a broader shift several centuries after the designations of Normans and Anglo-Saxons had lost all effective significance and everyone essentially considered themselves English (or British) first and foremost. I'm sorry if my post was ambiguous.
 
So something analogous could perhaps happen later on with the Anglo-Saxons - for example in the eighteenth century when there were various attempts to distance England's language and culture from the French thanks to the philosophical cold war that accompanied the Second Hundred Years' War.

Say, in a timeline where a French army had just invaded England, ravaged the South, destroyed London and executed the King?

Just to use a purely hypothetical example, of course.
 
Top