Would King Arthur Tudor be Arthur II ?

Henry VIII's older brother Prince Arthur died in 1502 aged 15. Their father as part of the post War of the Roses reconstruction had used Anglo-Welsh mythology to try to create a unified national identity and naming his first son Arthur was a clear part of that.

Question is, if Arthur lives and comes to the throne does the Crown recognise the legendary Arthur Pendragon as a real king and does the prince get crowned Arthur II ?

Also do you think the new King Arthur would continue to draw from the image of the Britons in a cultural way and if so how?
 
Numbering started again from William the Conqueror otherwise Edward I would have been at least Edward III. If they ignored real historical Saxon Kings then they wouldn't let Arthur Pendragon a legend affect the regnal number so he would be Arthur I.
 
The Tudors liked to play up their welsh (Owen Tudor) roots whenever they felt so inclined. Can definitely see Arthur making the most of it.
 
Arthur Tudor is the Prince of Wales.
Upon his father Henry VII's death on April 21, 1509, Arthur becomes King of England as Arthur II.
He and Catherine have a magnificent coronation at Westminster Abbey.
Arthur is fascinated with the reign of Alfred the Great, King of Wessex. Arthur's eldest son is named Alfred.
Henry VII had Richmond Palace built. King Arthur II has a new palace that surpasses the magnificence of Richmond. The new edifice is named Camelot Palace.
 
He could call himself what ever he liked as King of England.

However historians would always call him King Arthur of England, and if there becomes another King Arthur, he would then be known as King Arthur I.
 
I can see him taking it, maybe also claiming the title of King of the Britons? He's got the welsh heritage and probably the ego to do it.
 
I can see him taking it, maybe also claiming the title of King of the Britons? He's got the welsh heritage and probably the ego to do it.

It would make Scots and French mad (Brittany).

But like others here have said, Arthur would known as Arhur I not Arthur II. Numbering really began from William the Conqueror.
 
From what I understand, numbering in England actually began with the three Edwards in a row - all the earlier ones were numbered ex post facto, and since Edward was the only name present both before and after the Conquest, that's what it ended up looking like (if it was post-Norman Conquest, William would likely be William II, as he was of Normandy). It's worth noting that Henry VIII was OTL the first to consistently use a regnal number, even if Edward III was the first to at all, so there wouldn't even be much established tradition around it when Arthur became king.
If he wants to be Arthur II, he'll be Arthur II, consistency be damned (or possibly introduced). Or just about plausibly even Arthur III, if he wants to claim the Duke of Brittany was the legitimate king.
It wouldn't exactly be the first time mythical monarchs have made it into the regnal numbers - look at the Popes, or the Kings of Sweden.
 
OwenM said:
(if it was post-Norman Conquest, William would likely be William II, as he was of Normandy).
Nope. William the Conqueror is William I of England for it is he who conquered England. He can't be William II post-conquest when he is the one who did the conquest in the first place...

Unless you mean he kept his regnal number as Duke of Normandy. Thing is the numbering is split between two realms. So William the Conqueror was King William I of England and Duke William II of Normandy.

A more convenient example of this are the Spanish Hapsburgs and the huge number of titles they held. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was also King Charles I of Spain, Archduke Charles I of Austria, Duke Charles II of Burgundy (titularly), Duke Charles II of Brabant, Duke Charles III of Luxemburg, Count Charles III of Flanders, King Charles IV of Naples and King Charles II of Sicily among many others.

His son King Philip II of Spain was Duke Philip V of Burgundy (Titularly), Duke Philip IV of Brabant, Duke Philip III of Luxemburg, Count Philip V of Flanders, King Philip II of Naples and King Philip I of Sicily as well as King Philip I of Portugal and King Philip I of England jure uxoris (though the latter is contested).
OwenM said:
If he wants to be Arthur II, he'll be Arthur II, consistency be damned (or possibly introduced)
I think that, on the contrary, Chroniclers love consistency very much. Which is why the English monarchs are numbered post-conquest because otherwise, we would be calling Edward Longshanks Edward IV instead of Edward I. Not to mention that Henry VIII's son was named Edward VI, and you mentionned Henry VIII as the first to use a consistent regnal name: which would mean that Arthur would most likely follow that path and be Arthur, first of his name, King of England by the grace of God.
OwenM said:
It wouldn't exactly be the first time mythical monarchs have made it into the regnal numbers - look at the Popes, or the Kings of Sweden.
The Regnal Numbers of the Papacy are a mess true but that's because the numbering acknowledge some Antipopes (that shouldn't count): so it's not because it uses fictionnal people, but because it uses people who were in conflict for the Papal Tiara with the official Pope. The few Popes that could have been fictionnal are probably among the first ones and even then that doesn't do much in terms of regnal numbering because the tradition of taking a Papal Regnal Name came long after the Papacy came to exist when Mercurius became Pope John II in 533. Sure you had a few popes who kept their first name as regnal name (the last one was Marcellus II in 1555) but the regnal naming tradition is a pretty solid one.

Sweden is a bit more relevant, but then again I think this only applies to the Charles and Eric who ruled over Sweden because of a few acknowledged mythical figures. Otherwise, the naming remains pretty consistent.

I think overall we can point out that this basically means that we have a regnal numbering error that was kept for consistency in both cases... People don't really care that Charles XVI of Sweden shouldn't be Charles XVI after all...
 

jahenders

Banned
Arthur Tudor (as king) would probably play up the King Arthur link and wrap himself in that history/mythology, but he would be King Arthur I.
 
I think that, on the contrary, Chroniclers love consistency very much. Which is why the English monarchs are numbered post-conquest because otherwise, we would be calling Edward Longshanks Edward IV instead of Edward I. Not to mention that Henry VIII's son was named Edward VI, and you mentionned Henry VIII as the first to use a consistent regnal name: which would mean that Arthur would most likely follow that path and be Arthur, first of his name, King of England by the grace of God.
Chroniclers do, I don't think kings necessarily care that much what they think.
The Regnal Numbers of the Papacy are a mess true but that's because the numbering acknowledge some Antipopes (that shouldn't count): so it's not because it uses fictionnal people, but because it uses people who were in conflict for the Papal Tiara with the official Pope. The few Popes that could have been fictionnal are probably among the first ones and even then that doesn't do much in terms of regnal numbering because the tradition of taking a Papal Regnal Name came long after the Papacy came to exist when Mercurius became Pope John II in 533. Sure you had a few popes who kept their first name as regnal name (the last one was Marcellus II in 1555) but the regnal naming tradition is a pretty solid one.
I was thinking of John XXI here (who should have been John XX, but felt there weren't enough numbers because a scribe had counted John XIV twice).
 
Top