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
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2020 at 18:40 | comment | added | TheHonRose | @PieterGeerkens - I agree the metre isn't brilliant, I think possibly it uses a "dramatic" pause before "and King". A sort of clinching phrase? Although I'm rubbish at prosody! ;-) | |
| Jun 12, 2020 at 8:24 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | @TheHonRose: Yes, on about my tenth reading of that stanza I finally parsed it correctly. The rhythm is still better (in my Central Canadian accent) with two more syllables,as the syllables of the first line are all much longer than those on the bottom, elided "-i-" of "champion" notwithstanding. | |
| Jun 12, 2020 at 8:20 | comment | added | TheHonRose | @PieterGeerkens "Because St George our Champion is, and King I read this as a statement of (present) fact, not a future conditional. George is King, by law and title, not will be. | |
| Jun 11, 2020 at 23:12 | comment | added | Lars Bosteen | @gktscrk I did see some documents from both before and after 1714 but don't remember seeing that (but then I wasn't focused on that). One from 1709 simply referred to him as 'the Elector of Hanover' throughout. | |
| Jun 11, 2020 at 17:24 | comment | added | gktscrk | Lars, I'm wondering if there's another angle to this (not that you need to expand on it). Would he not have been referred to in Hanoverian documents as "George Louis"? Did this continue after he assumed the British throne? | |
| Jun 11, 2020 at 12:57 | vote | accept | gktscrk | ||
| Jun 11, 2020 at 12:45 | history | edited | Lars Bosteen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added text, added links
|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 3:04 | history | edited | Lars Bosteen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo
|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 1:51 | history | edited | Lars Bosteen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added text, added sources
|
| Jun 10, 2020 at 19:31 | comment | added | gktscrk | @PieterGeerkens: I think it uses matching syllables; both come to ten in my count (but I'm notoriously bad with syllables) so the rhyme matches exactly in the present tempo. | |
| Jun 10, 2020 at 14:57 | history | edited | Lars Bosteen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added text, added sources
|
| Jun 10, 2020 at 14:39 | comment | added | Lars Bosteen | @PieterGeerkens Yes, it does make you stop and re-read, but I checked the book again and there's nothing left out. Unfortunately, I can't find the original 1714 source other than behind a paywall, but it's also cited in Smith & Richardson. | |
| Jun 10, 2020 at 13:43 | history | edited | gktscrk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Jun 10, 2020 at 13:42 | comment | added | gktscrk | Yes, the "absence of evidence" I'd say could be refuted if all available documents by George don't mention it, then it didn't really feature in considerable depth (that we could prove). I noted the Scottish precedent above though he might not have known of it. A good find with the quote! The link to St George was, however, very fortuitous! | |
| Jun 10, 2020 at 13:33 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | Is that quote missing a '"and will be" Both the rhyme and grammar are much better with it than without. | |
| Jun 10, 2020 at 13:25 | history | answered | Lars Bosteen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |