First, it would have to be established as to whether King Arthur really existed. Despite evidence going either way, it hasn't been determined, with any real certainty.
Secondly, naming conventions that required the Roman Numerals to differentiate between monarchs didn't really come into regular use in Europe until well after the Roman Empire fell. If Arthur existed, it was likely after the fall of the Empire, but only be a few centuries, perhaps he is excluded from the running, as he was not a part of any ruling family before or since.
Finally, there's the fact that before the Norman invasion in 1066 the system of monarchy that is most commonly associated with the British Isles didn't exist. There was not a strong central monarchy, and things were mostly done by districts controlled by Lords. It wasn't really until William the Conqueror took over that England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales began to really have what could be considered Royal Families that reigned over their countries. Arthur, if he did exist, ruled over a realm that was much different than that ruled by Henry the VIII or Charles II or Elizabeth I or Edward IV.
So, basically, I doubt it. It's like he'd be King Arthur I. But I doubt anyone in the Royal Family would name their kid Arthur, simply to avoid this situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus Shinra
Besides, During the reign of any King Louis, did they refer to him as the fourth or six or whatever?
|
Well, yes, in that any King Louis would have a number after their name when it came to signing documents, or records kept of their reign. But it's not likely that anyone called them "King Louis the nth" in conversation...or even "King Louis" at all. "Your Highness" probably did the job...or "Votre Altesse," rather.