What’s in a royal name: the longer historical view of “George” and “James” Now that we know the name of the newest royal—George Alexander Louis—the analysis has started. As BBC reports “George” is in honour of Elizabeth’s father George VI, whom you remember as Albert “Bertie” from the “King’s Speech”. Albert became George only when he assumed the throne following his older brother’s decision to abdicate and marry the woman he loved: the American divorcée Wallace Simpson. Alexander is perhaps the masculine version of Elizabeth’s middle name Alexandra. Louis is for, we think, Lord Louis Mountbatten, a close uncle of Philip. But let’s dig a little deeper. First, why James would have not been a good choice: too much baggage. There have been two (three if you are a staunch royalist and Jacobite) King James. James I (he was also James VI of Scotland, but no need to confuse the matter) followed Elizabeth I as king in 1603 and ruled until his death in 1625. James was so glad to be out of Scotland with its poverty, lack of amenities, and occasional witchcraft attacks on his person, that when he arrived in London, he immediately rewarded all his Scottish cronies with money and plumb jobs. Sure he also arranged the production of the King James Bible, first published in 1611 (still the best literary version of the Bible, with apologies to my Catholic readers, but the KJV is best. It even has those contested Apocrypha books. I was in England in 2011 and bought a 400th anniversary edition. It is splendid), but he also tore the English Church apart with his tendencies towards ceremony in the churches, an aspect hated by your more Puritan members of the Church of England. James was also not much of a father. His first son Henry died in 1612 and thus James had to turn to his second son Charles to succeed him (this only proved the truth of the saying: you need two sons an heir and a spare). James had not trained Charles to be king and when James died in 1625 an unprepared spoiled brat held the reigns of power as Charles I. How did that turn out: Civil Wars and beheading of a monarch. Okay, James II (1685-1688). James II was the son of Charles I. James II was a devoted Catholic and made no secret of this. It might not be that bad, people though: James had no son and at most would live a few years and then his lovely Protestant daughter Mary would take the crown. James II announced that his second wife was pregnant in 1688 and many English Protestants panicked. Have you ever seen Protestant panic? It isn’t pretty. All that worry over predestination and such. When the queen gave birth, it was a boy. James II being vain and completely unimaginative with names, called his son James. Now England faced a Catholic dynasty. This was too much and a secret message was sent to the Dutch Republic to invite William the Prince of Orange (he was married to James II’s daughter Mary), a devote Protestant to come and secure the English Church against Catholics. This led to the Glorious Revolution in 1688 (or sometimes known simply the English Revolution), which toppled James II, created Jacobites who still believed James rules and after his death proclaimed his son James III, and turned England into a Constitutional Monarchy. Needless to say, neither James nor his son nor grandson regained the thrown, but they did inspire a number of rebellions in the 18th century. William became William III and Mary was now Mary II. This was also the time in which it was ruled (and still is the case) that no English monarch can be Catholic and they cannot marry one. It is because the monarch is the head of the English Church (Anglicanism) and one sort of has to be Anglican to lead the church even if it is more honorary at this point. So, why would James be a terrible choice: James I set the stage for the Civil Wars and James II’s Catholicism (and some other stuff) led to the Glorious Revolution and subsequent Dutch invasion. Not the sort of weight a new baby needs on his shoulders. Okay, George. George I (1714-1727) was German and the great-grandson of James I. His path to the English crown is a bit complicated (take HIST 207 and learn more). When he came to England George I was 54. What he could boast in bravery and political know-how, he lacked in personality. He knew little English (learned even less when he became king) and communicated the business of state in French. He also had no imagination with children’s name. His son was George Prince of Wales. Now George I was not really that fond of the English. In November 1717 when the Prince, whom George suspected of being too cosy to the English, had a son, whom George I insisted on naming the Godparents. After a further misunderstanding, George placed his son under house arrest. After his release the Prince and Princess took home at Leicester House, where he attracted young up and comers. His court would serve as base of England’s political opposition. So father and son rivalries were the order of the day. The Prince of Wales became George II in 1727 (1727-1760). Afterward came the infamous George III (1720-1820) the grandson of George II. George III was not well, there is a reason the movie was called “The Madness of King George” (incidentally, it is not the “Madness of King George III” because it was thought American audiences would wonder how they missed parts I and II, at least according to UK authors). He also has the distinction of losing the American colonies during the Revolution. His mind was so bad that from 1810 to 1820, George III’s son had to rule for him in a regency (hence the Regency Period). So taking the long view, James was not a good choice and there is some awkwardness with George despite some decent recent example. Still either is probably better than Charles. Don’t get me started, at least for a while yet. ☺ Continue to have a great summer everyone!
Posted on: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:52:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015