History trivia...

[Sylvester 15]

Just to see how well up you are on such wonderful things as the English monarchy;

1) How many king Richards have we had?

2) How many Queen's have been called Mary?

3) How many king William's have there been in Scotland?

4) If Prince William changed his reigning name to James he would be James the how many of Scotland? (Could be tricky this one)

5) How many king Edwards have we had?

[Sylvester 15]

I should add, we are concerned with monarchs that reigned in their own right, not queen consorts.

[Emperor Oli 0]

Just to see how well up you are on such wonderful things as the English monarchy;

1) How many king Richards have we had?

2) How many Queen's have been called Mary?

3) How many king William's have there been in Scotland?

4) If Prince William changed his reigning name to James he would be James the how many of Scotland? (Could be tricky this one)

5) How many king Edwards have we had?

1) How many king Richards have we had?

3.

2) How many Queen's have been called Mary?

2.

3) How many king William's have there been in Scotland?

No idea.

4) If Prince William changed his reigning name to James he would be James the how many of Scotland? (Could be tricky this one)

I think James III of England and VII of Scotland? Unless James II was James VII of Scotland in which case William would be James III & IX.

5) How many king Edwards have we had?

8.

[Sylvester 15]

1) How many king Richards have we had?

3.

2) How many Queen's have been called Mary?

2.

3) How many king William's have there been in Scotland?

No idea.

4) If Prince William changed his reigning name to James he would be James the how many of Scotland? (Could be tricky this one)

I think James III of England and VII of Scotland? Unless James II was James VII of Scotland in which case William would be James III & IX.

5) How many king Edwards have we had?

8.

Interesting answers, some right, some not so right.

The first two are definately correct.

3) and 4) are interesting questions because it supports the Scottish argument that they have to play second fiddle to Westminster.

As far as i can remember Scotland had one king William of it's own, William the Lion sometime back in the 13th century i believe. I never know the dates of Scottish kings.

England of course had two king William's prior to 1603. Which means that William III and IV were II and III of Scotland respectively.

Thus Prince William would be William V of England but only William IV of Scotland. Of course the authorities would probably ignore this.

As for James', You nearly had it right, James II was James VII of Scotland. Which means that a James III of England would be James VIII of Scotland (this is ignoring the claim of James Stuart the Elder Pretender who was declared as King James VIII by the then king of France Louis XIV).

Now should a James turn up any time soon it might be the case that he would be referred to by both numbers, as James VI and VII were.

It might also be nice to point out that Elizabeth II really is Elizabeth I of Scotland.

The answer to question 5 is wrong.

[Emperor Oli 0]

As for James', You nearly had it right, James II was James VII of Scotland.

Oops yeah I skipped one!

Answer 5 is wrong? Then how come we had an Edward VIII?

[Sylvester 15]

As for James', You nearly had it right, James II was James VII of Scotland.

Oops yeah I skipped one!

Answer 5 is wrong? Then how come we had an Edward VIII?

The answer to number 5 is actually 11.

Edward's I-VIII, plus Edward's Elder, Martyr and Confessor.

[Geordie582 18]

As far as i can remember Scotland had one king William of it's own, William the Lion sometime back in the 13th century i believe. I never know the dates of Scottish kings.

William the Lion 1165-1214

[krasnaya_vityaz 0]

At one time I could list every English monarch from William I on up to the present QEII with their regnant dates. Now I would probably muck up the 15th century with the the Henry's and Edwards and the on again off again monarchs, ie Edw IV and Henry VI. I am only good with Scottish monarchs since William I of Scotland.

[Geoff T 3]

I have seen a Scottish coronation medal for Edward VII the legend on which pointedly indicated that he wasn't Edward VII of Scots.

When the present Queen came to the throne new post boxes were installed in Scotland with the royal cypher

E II R. The Scots complained the she wasn't Elizabeth II of Scots, which is why all subsequent Scottish post boxes simply have the Scottish crown with no cypher.

That still doesn't answer the question as to why we don't count our pre-1066 Edwards in our conventional ordinal numbering. Is this a case of us paying second fiddle to the French?

The Old Pretender, BTW, is buried in St. Peter's Rome in an eleborate tomb with an inscription which refers to him as James III.

(And how can you be so numb and vague about Arbella Stuart? )

G

[Geordie582 18]

At one time I could list every English monarch from William I on up to the present QEII with their regnant dates. Now I would probably muck up the 15th century with the the Henry's and Edwards and the on again off again monarchs, ie Edw IV and Henry VI. I am only good with Scottish monarchs since William I of Scotland.

I must admit to 'losing' all the memorised facts on English Monarchy. Very annoying having to look it all up everytime!

[Sylvester 15]

At one time I could list every English monarch from William I on up to the present QEII with their regnant dates. Now I would probably muck up the 15th century with the the Henry's and Edwards and the on again off again monarchs, ie Edw IV and Henry VI. I am only good with Scottish monarchs since William I of Scotland.

I still can, i used to be able to do it with Scottish monarchs too, but alas i've forgotten that side.

I can remember all the monarchs of England (starting in Wessex) from Beorhtric (whom i can't actually spell, but there you go) overthrown by Egbert in 802 right through to the present. However for much of the Anglo-Saxon period i cannot remember all the dates.

Although i can do them from Eadgar through to Queen Elizabeth II, although i continually find certain monarchs trip me up, these being;

Henry VI first reign, William and Mary's start (1688 or 1689?) 1688 is when James abdicated for sure and when they were named successors but did they actually begin their reign in that year or in the next?

William III's death sometimes makes me think, really 1701 (at the time) but now 1702.

Sometimes Anne throws me a little.

[Sylvester 15]

(And how can you be so numb and vague about Arbella Stuart? )

G

Weren't she a relation to Mary Queen of Scots? I know she was glanced over for succession because of some scandal, and didn't she die in prison?

Talking of the many if's and what's...

1) What if Princess Charlotte and her son hadn't died? There would have been no Victoria.

2) What if Anne's children had survived?

3) What if the monarchy had not been reinstated in 1660?

4) Imagine if Mary Tudor had lived long and had produced an heir, would England and Spain be more closely connected? And would Scotland still be independent?

5) If Richard II had fathered a child, there might have been no Dukes of Lancaster getting ideas above their station, thus not jealous Yorkists and no Bosworth...

6) If Richard I had even bothered with his wife and produced an heir... no King John, no Edward I, Piers who? and Edward the Black Prince?

and the cherry on the cake?

7) What if Harthacnut hadn't been poisoned at a wedding and had lived to father children, would England and Denmark still be under the same government, or would the Kings of Norway just taken Denmark in at a later date anyhow...

Too many IFs and BUTs in history.

[Geordie582 18]

What's the old adage? "If if's and and's were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers" Well, tinkers have gone, perhaps another "if" to think about?

[krasnaya_vityaz 0]

2) What if Anne's children had survived?

There were attempts by Anne to have established contacts with the Stuarts in France, seeking their conversion to the Anglican church, in the hopes of keeping the Stuart family on the throne and not having to bring over the Hanoverians. Needless to say all these negotiations came to naught.

4) Imagine if Mary Tudor had lived long and had produced an heir, would England and Spain be more closely connected?

Mary Tudor believed she was pregnant on at least one occasion, however after all the excitement died down, reality set in and she realised she was not pregnant with an heir. Phillip spent very little time in England, he did not care for the climate, and Mary was quite unwilling to travel to Spain. Phillip actually despised Mary, and reported to his aides that her breath smelt of rotten eggs and that thusly it was difficult to be intimate with her. Even after Mary's demise Phillip still believed he had claim of throne in England, and thus the 1588 Armada. QEI had earlier rebuffed his proposals of a marriage alliance.

1) What if Princess Charlotte and her son hadn't died? There would have been no Victoria.

cted?

There was a frenzy to marry right after Princess Charlotte died, if not Victoria, then another would have surely assumed the throne. And here is the big big if on that one, what if the heir had been male, and under Salic Law been eligible to have assumed the throne in Hannover? Britain surely would have had more interests in contemorary German politics, and may have kept Prussia in check thusly.

[Sylvester 15]

1) What if Princess Charlotte and her son hadn't died? There would have been no Victoria.

cted?

There was a frenzy to marry right after Princess Charlotte died, if not Victoria, then another would have surely assumed the throne. And here is the big big if on that one, what if the heir had been male, and under Salic Law been eligible to have assumed the throne in Hannover? Britain surely would have had more interests in contemorary German politics, and may have kept Prussia in check thusly.

Charlotte died in child birth, the child was male.

Maybe he could have claimed the throne instead of his mother.

If the doctor had used forceps to get the child out then it is likely that all three of them would have survived. The child, the mother and of course the doctor (whom committed suicide a few days later).

If Mary Tudor had survived then England would be Catholic again, and we'd have alot of much nicer more colourful churches than we do now. From an architectural point of view we so lost out.

[Geoff T 3]

1) What if Princess Charlotte and her son hadn't died? There would have been no Victoria.

There was a frenzy to marry right after Princess Charlotte died, if not Victoria, then another would have surely assumed the throne. And here is the big big if on that one, what if the heir had been male, and under Salic Law been eligible to have assumed the throne in Hannover? Britain surely would have had more interests in contemorary German politics, and may have kept Prussia in check thusly.

Yes, the child was a boy, but it's likely that he couldn't have succeeded to the throne of Hannover as his descent would still have been in the female line through Charlotte. So it would have been Uncle Ernst after all, but if Charlotte had lived and married to Leopold would the English crown have been united with what eventually became the Belgian one?

It's said that Charlotte's death was partly of her own making. She dismissed all of her physicians who wanted to intervene except one whom she trusted - and the rest is history. When word got out that he had been implict in her death he killed himself six months later.

Others who might have stood in the way of Victoria are the two daughters of William IV - Elizabeth and Sophie - who died in infancy.

One of the big "ifs" is what if Arthur, elder brother of Henry VIII, had lived to succeed Henry VII? Would the English reformation have been avoided or would the forces of change have made their way to England anyway? It might well have been that, if a religious reformation was inevitable, then Lutheran rather than Calvinist thinking would have gained the upper hand here. And if, given Arthur's death, Edward VI had lived and produced heirs, would the Calvinist streak in English protestantism have become yet more marked, with no Elizabethan compromise to check it?

As for Arbella Stuart - that's a line from "1066 and all that" - essential reading for all those who know the history it parodies. She was a descendant of the Earls of Lennox, from the same family as Henry, Lord Darnley, husband of Mary I of Scots and a strong claimant to the Scottish throne in his own right.

G