Timeline for Is George Louis known to have considered the assumption of a different regnal name in Great Britain?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 12:57 | vote | accept | gktscrk | ||
| Jun 11, 2020 at 3:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackHistory/status/1270913718663163904 | ||
| Jun 10, 2020 at 14:54 | comment | added | mmmmmm | Charles might have been an OK name but James definitely would not have been as the last one was deposed and was the reason George was in line for the throne and was also the name of the pretender to the throne. | |
| Jun 10, 2020 at 13:25 | answer | added | Lars Bosteen | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jun 10, 2020 at 9:31 | comment | added | gktscrk | @Generalissimo: That's fair enough. He may have ruled in Hanover with one name and in Great Britain with another. In any case, I'm curious as to whether he himself expressed his opinion on this topic (or perhaps one of his courtiers?) and I'm hoping someone here knows. | |
| Jun 10, 2020 at 9:21 | comment | added | user22453 | The subject of choosing regnal names and also the numbering on accession is something I personally find quite interesting. As regards George I, I think note must be taken of the Welf dynasty's and in particular the Hanoverian branch's naming practices: family members tended to be named after important predecessors in the family, hence the reason why there's been a Ernest Augustus/Ernst August pretty much every generation. So I'm guessing that the precedent in the dynasty was more important than any national considerations. | |
| Jun 10, 2020 at 9:17 | history | edited | gktscrk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 119 characters in body
|
| Jun 10, 2020 at 7:29 | history | asked | gktscrk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |