tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132258260849081357.post85244165988167226..comments2023-03-23T10:17:50.232-04:00Comments on Mony wylsum way: Edward the First, rex Edwardus quartusHannah Kilpatrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06750010843246514032noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132258260849081357.post-16523506234572693952009-09-27T17:44:47.221-04:002009-09-27T17:44:47.221-04:00Coming to this late - but I love it. Edward I is t...Coming to this late - but I love it. Edward I is the focus of interesting naming practices even during his reign: for example, 'signing' himself, and being addressed in correspondence as 'Dei gratia rex Angliae' some two years prior to his corronation. <br /><br />It's true that many other families had long traditions of the same name being passed along, but the issues are Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16096829586344513927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132258260849081357.post-27674934527068250652009-01-18T15:50:00.000-05:002009-01-18T15:50:00.000-05:00Yes, at least the kings are rather better document...Yes, at least the kings are rather better documented. :)<BR/><BR/>And I will, of course, have to cross-reference to the other chronicles and government documents - at the moment I have no grounds for making comparative comments, since those of them that I have read I don't remember in enough detail to comment, but that can come after I've done the first draft of the whole thing. :)Hannah Kilpatrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06750010843246514032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132258260849081357.post-50175679341660852082009-01-18T12:45:00.000-05:002009-01-18T12:45:00.000-05:00That's really interesting. Edward I was frequentl...That's really interesting. Edward I was frequently referred to as such in government documents - that is, as 'Edward I', though also often called 'King Edward, father of the present king' or similar. And in Ed III's reign, his father was often called 'Edward II'.<BR/><BR/>I do particularly love the 8 straight generations of John Maltraverses. Sometimes it's really not possible to differentiateKathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132258260849081357.post-12768731263545165252009-01-14T16:11:00.000-05:002009-01-14T16:11:00.000-05:00Oh, obviously. I think we need (non-generational)...Oh, obviously. I think we need (non-generational) epithets for all the Hughs. Hugh le Despenser le Kingdom-Shatterer?<BR/><BR/>It does mean, of course, that Edward II was actually Edward V, which explains the disappearance/death under mysterious circumstances while captive in a tower.Hannah Kilpatrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06750010843246514032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132258260849081357.post-52268389054656167012009-01-14T11:44:00.000-05:002009-01-14T11:44:00.000-05:00And it wasn't just kings who could cause identity ...And it wasn't just kings who could cause identity problems! <BR/><BR/>Just take for example the Despensers. There were 4 generations of Hughs at least in a straight line - and some others as nephews etc. The Hugh that I study (the infamous one), is generally called 'the younger' or more often 'the son' in documents. <BR/><BR/>Accordingly, his father is known as 'the father' (surprise, surprise) -Jules Frusherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207281934232383811noreply@blogger.com