On the matter of a King Arthur

If the British Royal Family had a son named Arthur that became king, would they call him King Arthur II? This has been bugging me all week.

Was King Arthur even real? I don't know my midieval history that well, tbh.

If he was, then yes. if no, then no.

Maybe they could put in another name like King Noah Arthur. or King George Arthur. Ya that's the most likely thing.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Was King Arthur even real? I don't know my midieval history that well, tbh.

That's the problem, it's unsure. Many believe that there was a King Arthur of some kind, but he didn't do the things in the Round Table stories.

No, because since no one knows, better leave out the two, just in case. Besides, During the reign of any King Louis, did they refer to him as the fourth or six or whatever?

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.

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.

"Your Highness"? Not "Your Majesty"?

I'm pretty sure that Highness is for children of the current monarch, Majesty for the monarch. (Though that may be only in England.)


Well, that's my nit-pick for the day.


Anyways, an interesting question, made even more fun by the fact that it, at least used to be, that if a monarch ruled two+ countries they could have two different numbers after their name, which one they used depended on which country they were in at the time.

But I think Galedeep's answered it pretty conclusively.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

"Your Highness"? Not "Your Majesty"?

I'm pretty sure that Highness is for children of the current monarch, Majesty for the monarch. (Though that may be only in England.)


Well, that's my nit-pick for the day.

It was late and I was tired, but Cody decided the question was important enough that he'd actually link it to me on msn because I wasn't on the forums at the time. Not my fault if there are inconsistancies .

No he would not be Arthur II. Regardless of whether he esxisted or not, he would have been Celtic king long before the Norman Conquest. Our monarchs are only dated from that time in terms of numbers