Miztivoi said:
lawkeeper said:
Harold was half danish, like Miztivoi said, and St Edward was the half-brother of Hardicanute, so I would place both in the Danish line.
Edward "the Confessor" was the son of Æthelred "the Unready" and Emma, daughter of Richard of Normandy. He was most certainly an "Anglo-Saxon" king, though he did have considerable comfort with the continental outlook of his mother's relatives, the Normans. The fact that his mother was forced to accept marriage to Cnut and gave birth to Harthacnut hardly makes Edward "Danish."
Harold doesn't really matter, of course, he was king from 6th January to 14th October of 1066. But he wasn't "Danish" either, though his mother was Danish; his father, Godwin was an Anglo-Saxon, and the acknowledged leader of the Anglo-Saxon nobility in England. Lineage at the time usually flowed from the father; conclusion, Harold was an "Anglo-Saxon king, to the extent he was king at all.
lawkeeper said:
A few english noblemen swore fealty to Louis (future VIII), and he only relinquished his claim for money (a nice sum in fact, IIRC ). Louis was occupying a lot of southern England, and a war would have cost the
But in the same sense, Charles VI is reckonned to have been King of France, tough he was a mere puppet, without any actual power. No power, but King indeed.
Fealty does not kingship make. Crowning does. England does not count Louis as a ruler of England. End of that discussion.
lawkeeper said:
It could be said that both dynasties were ruling at that time, due to the existence of two crowned Kings (so, Lancaster until 1471, and York starting in 1461).
The Wars of the Roses are indeed complex, and you would have to script a hell of a lot of events in the game to cover what actually happened. However, from a practical standpoint, Edward IV was in charge of the country from 1461 through 1470, Henry VI having fled the country after Towton. Although there were periods of alternating control of the mechanics of government from 1453 (when Henry first had a period of madness) through 1460, when Richard, Duke of York captured Henry VI and then allowed himself to be killed at Wakefield, one would consider this a period of Henry's rule; indeed Richard was required to accept the concept of protectorship during Henry's life after capturing Henry. But in March of 1461, Edward had himself crowned, and, as noted, Henry then fled the country. Henry was subsequently captured in 1465. I believe the official line from the English monarchy is that Edward was king during this period.
lawkeeper said:
Reason invoked for that last change of name : they may no longer use of their german titles.
I believe that Charles will be crowned as Mountbatten-Windsor, since there is now a precedent.
George V, in an Order in Council, issued 7th July, 1917, declared that male line descendants would bear the surname Windsor. It is generally accepted as fact that this was done because of unhappiness in the kingdom over the German sounding house name, and also German sounding personal surname (Wettin, for the interested) inherited from Prince Consort Albert, Victoria's husband. It should be noted that the royal family never had the rule of the duchy of "Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha" because the Prince of Wales (the future Edward VI) renounced the throne in favor of his younger brother, Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh. By 1900, the title had fallen to Victoria's youngest brother, who ruled the duchy as Karl Eduard.
In an Order in Council issued in 1960, the family again changed things up; the House name is still Windsor, but the surname for the family is Mountbatten-Windsor. Thus, if no other order is issued, Charles, should he inherit, would become Charles III Windsor (assuming he keeps his name of Charles upon ascension; some doubt he will). He would be personally surnamed Charles Windsor-Mountbatten. Interesting tidbit: he would also inherit the house name of "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg", from his father.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
