"Upset" & other nomenological phenomena

[James A. Landau]

In a message dated 11/19/02 10:52:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
JMB at STRADLEY.COM writes:

>         The line of succession given at http://www.begent.freeserve.co.uk/
> history/succession.htm does not list any Johns in the next 150 people in
line
> for the throne, but the equally unlikely Arthur may be found at number 15,
> Arthur David Nathaniel Chatto.

You seem to have missed number 1 in the line of succession, one Charles
Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales.

I don't know if there is a rule that a King of England must use his first
given name, although as far as I know it is customary to do so, e.g. Edward
Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David became (temporarily) King Edward
VIII, although he was generally known in private life as "David".  On the
other hand, Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover became Queen Victoria.

Then of course Jean Baptiste Jules Bernadotte became King Charles XIV John of
Sweden, even though he did not have a Charles to his name.  And there is the
unforgettable Sophie Fredericke Auguste von Anhalt-Zebst.

England almost had a historical King Arthur.  On the death of Richard the
Lion-Hearted, the throne should have gone to Arthur, son of Richard's next
younger brother Geoffrey, but was taken instead by Richard's youngest brother
John.

As for the popularity of John among royals, there is the current King of
Spain, Juan Carlos ("John Charles").  If you include the Papacy, there were
23 Popes named John (not counting the Antipope John XXIII) plus two John
Paul's. Most popular name in any secular dynasty appears to be Louis, of whom
the French had 18, not counting Louis Philippe.

       - Jim Landau

                  - Jim Landau