This is a very exciting post, because it features . . . a guest columnist! But first, our topic.
I mentioned in a
recent post that if I married Prince William (fingers crossed!) and gave birth to a future heir to the throne, if said heir was a boy, I'd want to name him Henry. This attracted
some comment--the name "John" was suggested as an alternative. Well, it can't be John. The only John there was--well, he was no good. Remember the Magna Carta? His nobles forced him to sign that because they were sick and tired of his nonsense. Remember Robin Hood? That
weaselly, maneless lion? That's John. Similarly, Charles is ruled out (the current Prince Charles is going to go by George once he's king, so I hear) because of the ax-related unpleasantness ("The most interesting thing about King Charles I is that he was 5 foot 6 inches tall at the start of his reign, and only 4 foot 8 inches tall at the end of it"--Monty Python's "Oliver Cromwell"). Richard is also unworkable, what with Richard III having been pure eeeeeeeeevil. Oh, and Arthur would be great, but anytime you name an heir to the throne that, he dies an extremely untimely death.
Anyway.
The name Henry also got bagged on by this week's guest columnist, the incomparable Lesley Skousen. Lesley is my second-year mentor in the history department. We both study early modern England, although she's more of a Reformation scholar.
Ha, ha! I just totally pissed her off right there.
Seriously, though, Lesley knows her stuff about kings 'n' whatnot, although she's wrong about what the best name for my kingbaby would be, claiming that Edward is the best choice. In an effort to settle the me vs. Lesley, Henry vs. Edward debate, each of us have presented our argument and YOU, the readers, can decide.
No voting for John.
The Case for Edward
"Edward" is the best Kingbaby name. It is the most frequent and most ancient of English king names; with three famous Saxon kings that makes 11 Kings Edward of England total. Not only is it regal, but it comes with many fun nicknames - Ed, Ted, Ward, and Eddybaby (the Kingbaby), among others.
Edward has been the name of many a successful ruler, with brilliant qualities. Edwards I and III were exteremely strong kings that led England to social peace and proto-national security. Edward I built the Tower of London into what it is today. His son, Edward II, was a bit spoiled, and he sure loved him some Gaveston (his little "Ganymede"), but his weak reign had more to do with being spoiled and silly than with his regal name. When his wife conspired to kill him, and succeeded, Edward III did the appropriate thing and punished the traitors - but showed mercy towards his mother, granting her permenant banishment from court instead of the hangman's noose. See? Edward is powerful, but merciful and family-oriented.
Edward IV continued the Edward style of I & III. Despite the Wars of the Roses, he managed to rule in relative peace. What an achievement. However, he died (bravely and in style), leaving young Edward V in the hands of Richard (aka "Richie Rich" "Hunchback Rich" or "Dick") - a dispicable name. Edward V was murdered, but I bet he died a brave death, protecting his younger (and inferiorly-named) brother Richard.
Edward VI had 3 strong namesakes to live up to, and one namesake to avenge. He took this responsibility seriously, and implemented radical political, religious, and social change. He was prococious, daring, clever, and innovative. In an attempt to preserve his work after he realized he was dying, he orchestrated a creative interpretation of inheritance law to give the crown to Jane (the Nine Days' Queen). What a name.
After a century of Scottish rulers and another century of German rulers, Victoria named her successor Edward VII, after so many illustrious Edwards of the past. Since she lived soooo long, he became king as a grandfather. But don't let your oppressive ideas of ageism fool you - he was a fun-loving playboy with a great sense of humor, infamous for his parties and fun times, even in old age. What a great guy.
Finally, Edward VIII did the most courageous thing of any other Edward - he chose Love over the Throne. Forbidden by Parliament to marry an American divorcee, Edward gave the Crown to his brother, married Mrs. Simpson, and lived Happily Ever After in Paris.
So what would Rachel get with a Kingbaby named Edward? She'd get a strong king, a lover, a fun guy, and an authority figure. She'd get a king able to manage law and finances, provide religious and moral guidance, build great architecture, be a patron of the arts, quell social upsrisings and civil war, and fall in love without being a jackass about it.
Clearly, "Edward" is the best name possibile for a Kingbaby.
--Lesley
The Case for Henry
It's been far too long since England has had a Henry. Henry VIII ("The Big Ocho"?) kicked the bucket 460 years ago and they've been bereft of Henries ever since. This is a shame, because having a King Henry makes life much more interesting.
Henry I: Probably had his own dumb brother shot (by an arrow—it was 1100, yo) so he could take over, and holds the English monarch record for acknowledged illegitimate children (20 + !)
Henry II: Married one of the coolest babes in the history of history, Eleanor of Aquitane. Together, they ruled a whole bunch of France, went on a pretty successful Crusade, and then fought like cats in a bag for a while. That’s the kind of thing that gets you portrayed on
screen by Peter O’Toole and Katherine Hepburn. (And then
later by Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close. I don’t even have to remind you that Patrick Stewart = fantastic, do I?)
Henry III: Dullsville. I’ll just take the hit on this one.
Henry IV: He just pretty much decided he’d be better at the whole “kinging” thing than Richard II, so he locked Richie up and took the throne. Usurpation is the spice of life! That’s either a well-known saying or something I made up just now. You decide.
Henry V: As most historians acknowledge, France has gotten OWNED several times throughout history. But few people OWNED France as thoroughly as Henry V.
Henry VI: Meek, pious, kind of stupid, lost all the stuff his daddy had won in France, got overthrown twice. That . . . that’s not easy to accomplish.
Henry VII: As you should all know by now, Henry VII is my fav-o-rite English monarch. Like John Adams, much of my favor stems from the fact that he is sorely underappreciated. I mean, the man grows up in exile because the current king wants to take him out, overthrows one of the greatest villains in all British history (the abovementioned Richard III), wins the Wars of the Roses, puts down like five major rebellions, founds one of the kickin’est dynasties in Europe ever, and still all anybody knows about him if they know anything at all is that he was greedy. Come on. Anyway, I intend to be The World’s Foremost Henry VII Scholar someday (I mean, since I’m the only one who cares, it should be easy, right?), so it would only be fitting to name my firstborn after him if I were also the future Queen of England.
Henry VIII: The more I learn about Henry VIII, the more intensely I dislike him. However, there’s no doubt that he was a fascinating character, and he and his wives (Catherine! Anne! Jane! Anne! Catherine! Catherine!) are responsible for my initial fascination with English history. Also, I have a totally sweet coffee mug that has a picture of Henry VIII, and then pictures of all his wives that DISAPPEAR when you put hot water in the mug! I’ve got to hand it to Henry VIII--what other monarch could have inspired a drinking apparatus of such greatness?
So if I named my kingbaby Henry, would he kill people? Get married over and over (and over and over)? Usurp something? Deal some serious SMACK to his enemies? Any of these are possible! Clearly, in this age of figurehead monarchs, what the people want--nay, what the people
need--is an exciting and unpredictable monarch, not just to liven up their tabloids, but to carry on the fine English tradition of wild and crazy Henries.
--Rachel
Click here to read more . . .
8:51: Jim Nantz: "They call him [I don't know, some OSU guy] Microwave because he can heat up so quickly!" They do? That's pretty lame of them.
