Talk:Kings of Kemr

From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Padraic, wasn't this and England left mostly blank for historical "discovery" and whimsy? Not that I object to Zahir's filling it in, mind, just wondering what you had in mind for it. BoArthur

I'm just one of those people who likes to see lists kinda complete. For the record, I wasn't planning on adding more details to those kings for a while, at least not without some overt encouragement to fit some established detail. But then...maybe I'm being too self-concious. Zahir 12:16, 29 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Nope! Any contribution is welcome in my book! BoArthur

Just a couple of points, here. IIRC, it's QSS that Eirlan I Emreis was the first King of Kemr. The Brithenig form of "Llywelyn" (note the spelling, for the love all the gods!) is Llewfelen. Prince "Nigol" should be Prince Ewein- he was the first Kemrese monarch to call a parliament (in 1406, as it happens). Finally, I wouldn't expect to see Norman names like "Gwilim", "Gwallter" or "Rhoberth" before 1066 at least. In fact, considering the conservative nature of Royal naming practices, I wouldn't expect to see them at all, nor would I expect to see English names like "Edwardd" or "Gion" at all- particularly not "Gion" as it's just a straight borrowing of English "John" (like Welsh "Sion" is *here*). Also, why the variation between Constenhin and Costenhin? Deiniol 13:49, 29 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I've made a series of changes, removing Gwilim and Gwallter for example. And standardized the spelling of Costenhin. I've left in Rhoberth (while moving its first appearance forward) because it seemed to me two such odd names might easily pop up over a long haul. Likewise I simply left "Gion Pawl" because that struck me as funny. But please feel free to change anything you feel totally wrong--or order me to do it! Zahir 16:12, 29 Sep 2005 (PDT)
While it's QSS that Eirlan I Emreis is first King of Kemr I have always placed Arthur as the first king on this list. Among the Chomro the semi-legendary hero of Mount Badon is the father of the nation, the only one they ever refer to as 'The Emperor'. Since the Battle of Mount Badon is 516 that makes Arthur first batter-up on this list. Eirlan Emreis (Aurelian Ambrosius in Arthurian history) is probably the last of the warlords of Britain who preceded him. We are talking antiquarian history, not objective history here. We will need to find good dates for Eirlan. As for Prince Ewein I never imagined him as a ruling prince. He comes from a cadet line: a proud Comro who saw himself as a national leader, attacked the Saxons whenever he could and made the Ffens bloody for generations to come. He saw himself as a kingmaker and called the Senad with representatives from every Centref, sought ecclesial leadership for Kemr independent of Canterbury. The ruling powers saw him as a threat and when his popularity waned, imprisoned him. I see him as Owen Glendower acting as Simon de Montfort. Note that for a long time the Kemrese followed a conservative naming practice: children are named for grandparents (paternal first) and then for siblings, hence long and repetitive patronomics. I have been parsimonious at setting the number of Gereints at XIII. BTW, do we have the full quota of Pedrs? There should be V. - AndrewSmith
There are five. Given the patronomic system you describe, wouldn't it be possible some Kings chose to rule under a different name just to maintain a sense of their own identity? As in "My name is Gereint but upon assuming the throne I wish to be known as Pedr"? Just a thought... Zahir 23:12, 29 Sep 2005 (PDT)
Off hand, I can't think of europeans monarchs (apart from the popes) who did that. Doesn't prevent it of course, just make it less likely.--Marc Pasquin 11:17, 30 Sep 2005 (PDT)
Well, the following monarchs of the UK were known by other names prior to their coronations: George VI, Edward VII and even Queen Victoria. Prince Charles has said that on his coronation he'll be known as George (I think). So it's far from without precedent. Deiniol 12:30, 30 Sep 2005 (PDT)
Actualy, the ones you mentioned did have these names as part of their full birth name: Albert Frederick Arthur George, Albert Edward, Alexandrina Victoria and Charles Philip Arthur George. In every case, they took what francophone refer to as their prename (the one just before the surname) as their reigning name. I`d be curious to see if there is one who took a name which he was not baptised with.--Marc Pasquin 12:48, 30 Sep 2005 (PDT)
Indeed. However, what's to say Prince Geraint's full name is Gereint Pedr Ewein Ioan ffeil Emreis Padarn? As I say, ascending the throne in a different name to that which you've been known as before is not uncommon in British monarchs at least. Deiniol 13:46, 30 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Prince vs. King

If I understand this correctly, all of the individuals listed used the title Ill Teruin, so is the difference between "prince" and "king" restricted to English, or did the teruins (what's the plural?) use additional titles of "prince" or "king", or perhaps simply considered their title, in early days, to be equal to Prince, and in later times to King? Nik 18:31, 4 December 2005 (PST)

probably they originaly used the term "prince" in relation to their power and legitimacy coming from the byzantine emperor to whom they owed fealty. After the colapse of the eastern roman empire, they would have swiched to king in that they were now fully sovereign both within (as they had always been) and without. --Marc Pasquin 18:41, 4 December 2005 (PST)
My question is, was there a change of term in Brithenig, or was it purely a matter of how they described themselves in Latin and other languages? Nik 18:59, 4 December 2005 (PST)
I think that there was a change of terminology after the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire. Previously the title would have been Princeb and had been since the establishment of the principality (princibdad). The full title of the monarch was, ll Teruin, Princeb Kemr Byr e lla Ferch, 'The Land-King, Prince of Cambria Pura and the March', the second covering a more restricted title than the first, Ill Teruin covered vassal territories in Kerno, Man, and (sometimes) Ireland. The Chomro would argue that the Prince of Kemr was no less a title in power and authority than a foreign king. Nevertheless when Kemr was declared to be the last remnant of the Roman Imperium the monarch changed the title to Rhui, 'king'. This was constructed to cover the fact that I orginally started using 'prince' as the title of the monarch of Kemr and later changed my mind to whether Kemr should be a princibdad or a rheon (kingdom). - AndrewSmith.

Error Fix

I realized in looking over the facts that had been established about Victoria and her parents did not jibe with what I'd written about the Kemrese monarchs of that period. Yet they had been accepted, months ago, and presumably were covered by QSS. So now I've proposed a fix, with Iewan IV first being regent then successor to his nephew Gereint, who dies very young of exactly the ailment that his cousin Tsar Alexei would have. Andrew, I hope this solution meets with your approval? Zahir 00:17, 21 December 2005 (PST)

I think it is a good save. I had completely forgotten about the Twin Monarchs. I think I wanted to keep the existing proposals intact. That's an oversight by me as much as anyone else. Would this be the only case of a hemophiliac or would there be others in the latter day dynasty?
That also leaves us with an empty spot at King No. 5. Contenders could be an extra Hewel, Pawl or Llewfelen. Otherwise we can come up with another First Entry Only. - AndrewSmith 01:18, 21 December 2005 (PST)
I have no preference as to King No. 5's name. And thank you. I was doing some checking and found that Tsar Alexei was Victoria's great grandson, and that one of her children also had hemophilia. So it seemed a logical enough progression. I also recently watched the BBC's The Lost Prince so the image of a royal boy dying at a young age was in my mind. If you think some other hemophiliacs should pop up, I say "okay." Zahir 06:38, 21 December 2005 (PST)
Personal tools
discussion