|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
Browsing the Britannica Encyclopaedia 2002 CD/DVD I found that they list the victor in the Battle of Hastings as William I the Conqueror. It seems to me that using the extension "the Conqueror" would make the "I" unneccessary. Is this redundant, superfluous, or just normal procedure?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Jazz: I don't see a problem. There was more than one William, so the number is OK. The use of "the
Conquerer" ensures that the reader will know who is being referred to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618 |
The use of "the Conquerer" ensures that the reader will know who is being referred to.
As does the use of the number, which I believe is Jazzo's point. Written as "William I the Conqueror" it bothers me, but it is important to include both 'I' and 'the Conqueror' togather at least once. I would have written it "William I, the Conqueror" or "William I, known as William the Conqueror". It is redundant only if you already know that Will I and Will the Winner are one and the same, which you probably wouldn't if you were looking him up in an encyclopaedia.
Edit: Yeah, like Max said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I like the comma too. I also prefer to think of him as Willie the Mamzer. Keeps a sort of perspective on the Divine Right of Kings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
I agree that 'William I the Conqueror' is quite wrong, and some punctuation, either commas or brackets, is needed to clarify the two styles. You also couldn't say 'William II Rufus'.
Or William the Corn-curer as may old Dad always says; him and Edward the Confectioner.
As an encyclopaedic head-word it's a quandary. Even worse when other languages require translations: Mehmet II Fâtih (the Conqueror), or Süleyman the Magnificent, who in Turkish is not called Magnificent but Kanuni 'the Lawgiver'. Not sure what you use for a head-word for these.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
I've always thought of William I as the formal title .. the first William in the line of English Kings and "William the Conqueror" as a kind of nickname bestowed by historians.
But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
maybe they are getting ready for the day when prince william becomes king?
he like his grandmother will be " the second of England", but the first of Scotland..
(or have there already been scotish kings named william-- making William The Conqueror the first in england?-- but not the first in UK?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
I agree that 'William I the Conqueror' is quite wrong, and some punctuation, either commas or brackets, is needed to clarify the two styles.
Yep, me too. Not least because whatever the letters say we surely all read William I as "William the first", so there is an additionally unhandy the~the duplication. The only time I would actually say only the numeral would be a play by Shakepeare - but mayhap they do it diffurrinly in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
or have there already been
Both. We get into the numbering conventions of British monarchs. William the Lion was king of Scotland 1165-1214. he was the only William who was solely king of Scotland.
Meanwhile in England we have William I (1066-1087) and William II (1087-1100).
Cut to 1603, when James VI of Scotland inherits the throne of England and becomes James I. Sometimes he is styled "James VI and I", but usually we just assume England outranks Scotland and call him James I.
His next two successors were called Charles, and as neither country had had a Charles before, they're unproblematically Charles I and Charles II. Then comes James II, as he's usually called, or who could pedantically be called James II and VII. He is deposed in 1688 and the throne of both countries is given to William and Mary. Luckily both countries have already had one Mary, so she's Mary II of both. He is always called William III, never William III and II.
In 1707 the two countries were united under Anne, who became first monarch of Great Britain. Neither old kingdom had had an Anne, George, or Victoria before, so these didn't present a problem. When another William came the throne in 1830 he became William IV, and when Edward acceded in 1901 he became Edward VII, both taking the English regnal number, which was also the higher one.
In about 1910 a new rule was adopted, that where there was a difference in regnal numbers, the higher number would be used. So the next James will become James VIII, and if there's a Robert he'll be Robert IV.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Nicholas--how do you DO that? [admiring look e]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618 |
*resting happily in the knowledge that NicW and I concur*
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,343
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
757
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
