Re: Prince Harry's children?
- From: David <dsalo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:15:07 -0700
On Aug 24, 7:24 am, The Bensham Cunt <soonm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:25 pm, Hovite <paulvhe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:24 am, atsarisb...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Self-confident dynasties risk new names, e.g. George and Frederick
(when the House of Hanover came to England), James and Charles
(Stuarts in England)
James VI, King of Scots, considered James to be an unlucky name and
called his sons Henry Frederick, Charles, and Robert.
George was not a new name in England. Beside the husband of Queen
Anne, Prince George of Denmark, Anne's sons were called William and
George, and the sons of Edward IV were Edward, Richard, and George.
Why did he consider James to be unlucky considering there had been six
in a row ?
It helps to look at specific instances of the five Jameses before
James I was captured by the English at the age of twelve, was a
prisoner from 1406-1424 -- the first 18 years of his reign -- and was
assassinated 21 February 1437 in a plot by the Earl of Atholl to take
the throne. He was 42.
James II, like his father, came to the throne a minor (aged seven).
After a civil war of three years with the clan of Douglas, he gained
full power in Scotland and was able to indulge in his passion for the
new wonder weapon, cannon. On 3 August, 1460, during a siege of
Roxburgh castle (held by the English), James was standing near a
cannon that happened to be poorly cast or bound. As it was being
fired, it exploded, and James was mortally wounded by one of the
flying pieces. He was only 29.
James III also came to the throne as a minor (aged eight). The great
noble families regained their power. During a war with England in
1482, James was imprisoned by rebellious nobles for several months. A
few years after he regained his freedom, there was another rebellion.
At the Battle of Sauchieburn, on 11 June 1488, James was killed. He
James IV had been among the rebels against his father. He succeeded at
the age of fifteen, and in penance for his part in his father's death
wore an iron chain for the rest of his life. In 1513, he invaded
England with a great force. On 9 September they were cut down by the
English at the battle of Flodden, King James with them. The King was
James V succeeded as a minor, at the age of one. From 1525 to 1528 he
was imprisoned by the Earl of Angus, who was the regent at the time.
In 1542 James sent another army to invade England. At the battle of
Solway Moss on 24 November the army was slaughtered. The King fell
ill and died on 14 December. He was 30. He left behind him an infant
daughter, the ill-fated Mary.
James VI was the luckiest of all the Scottish Jameses, but his early
years in Scotland were also fraught with danger. Like his
predecessors, he came to the throne a minor (aged one). Scotland in
his youth was the plaything of civil and religious factions, all of
whom tended to derogate the royal power. In 1582 to 1583 James was
kidnapped and imprisoned for a year by rebels. In 1587 he was forced
to sit by to the judicial murder of his mother by the English. In 1600
there was another plot to kidnap or assassinate James (the details are
dark and were probably never publishable, as reflecting poorly on the
King's impulses and judgment). And, of course, in 1605, James and the
English Parliament narrowly escaped being blown sky-high in the
gunpowder plot. However, he survived and lived to the age of 59 --
older than any of his predecessors.
Now, why would James VI and I have thought the name "James" unlucky?
It should be noted that while James VII & II (a prisoner and an exile
in his youth, and then deposed 1688, during the "Glorious Revolution")
and "James VIII & III" (leader of several failed attempts to regain
the English throne) carried on the reputation of the name for ill-
luck, *not* having the name James didn't save Charles I from a
stunning series of catastrophes that must have amazed the ghosts of
all his forebears, could they, like the Baronets Murgatroyd, step out
of their picture frames to observe them. Indeed, the only two Stuarts
who can be called halfway "lucky" were James I and Charles II, and
they both suffered ill-fortune in their younger days, and could see
the storm-clouds gather over their successors' reigns as they lay
- Prev by Date: Re: Marquessates in the British Royal Family
- Next by Date: Re: given names, british royal family (was Re: Prince Harry's children?
- Previous by thread: Re: Prince Harry's children?
- Next by thread: Re: Prince Harry's children?