Author Topic: Insights into an Era  (Read 690 times)

Online pharmaT

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Insights into an Era
« Reply #9 on: Sunday 30 September 18 13:19 BST (UK) »
I did wonder if he was taking a risk making a note of it. If Cromwellís men had seen it, it might not have gone down too well.

Surely only a risk if he wrote down that he disapproved? He could argue that he was celebrating the event.
Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Retriever

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Insights into an Era
« Reply #10 on: Sunday 30 September 18 13:26 BST (UK) »
I donít think the fact he gave the king his full title and didnít refer to him as ďthat .... previously known asĒ would have been looked at favourably.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline CarolA3

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,477
  • My adopted home
    • View Profile
Re: Insights into an Era
« Reply #11 on: Sunday 30 September 18 16:49 BST (UK) »
The one that stays with me, although stupidly being new to research/recording I didn't note down where I saw it, was:

On this day King Charles the first was beheaded

If it said 'the first' then logically it couldn't have been written before the coronation of 'the second' in 1661 :)

Carol
OXFORDSHIRE / BERKSHIRE
Bullock, Cooper, Boler/Bowler, Wright, Robinson, Lee, Prior, Trinder, Newman, Walklin, Louch

Offline Retriever

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Insights into an Era
« Reply #12 on: Sunday 30 September 18 17:26 BST (UK) »
Oops, you are right of course. I should have just put King Charles.

At the time I donít suppose they ever expected there would be another.

Offline CarolA3

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,477
  • My adopted home
    • View Profile
Re: Insights into an Era
« Reply #13 on: Sunday 30 September 18 18:35 BST (UK) »
Tip of the day - if you come across a coin, document, or indeed anything referring to '(Monarch) the First' don't buy it - it won't fund your retirement ;D

Ditto anything dated 'BC'.

Carol
OXFORDSHIRE / BERKSHIRE
Bullock, Cooper, Boler/Bowler, Wright, Robinson, Lee, Prior, Trinder, Newman, Walklin, Louch

Online Viktoria

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,933
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Insights into an Era
« Reply #14 on: Sunday 30 September 18 22:10 BST (UK) »
Sorry but I donít see why the Regnal number would not be used  on the date of his execution.
He was the first king of that name and yes it did not look as if there would ever be a second but it is a question of was it proper protocol to use his Regnal number.
We donít know how many more Elizabeths there will be but we use the Regnal number.
I do agree that Victoria was also the first of that name but we do not say Victoria The First.
It is an interesting point
Viktoria.

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,718
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Insights into an Era
« Reply #15 on: Monday 01 October 18 01:16 BST (UK) »
Sorry but I donít see why the Regnal number would not be used  on the date of his execution.
He was the first king of that name and yes it did not look as if there would ever be a second but it is a question of was it proper protocol to use his Regnal number.

His son & heir was also Charles. If the curate was Royalist he would have thought of him as King Charles the Second of that name. When Charles 2 finally got his throne back he probably dated his accession from the date of his father's death. (It's a long time since O Level history.)
Anyway Retriever can't remember the register and may have forgotten the exact wording. It may have been "this day was the King  executed". The present monarch is referred to as "the Queen" in news reports &c in Britain; it's not necessary to name her, there's no risk of a reader, viewer or listener confusing her with another monarch.  :)

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,718
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Insights into an Era
« Reply #16 on: Monday 01 October 18 01:29 BST (UK) »
A Catholic priest in rural 18th century Lancashire used space in the notebook containing baptisms, marriages and deaths for anything else he wanted to write. There are recipes, cures and journal entries such as invitations to supper. It may have been the only notebook he had.

An Irish register has a piece of paper stuck on a page. It seems to be about settlement of a dispute or a debt between 2 parishioners, witnessed and recorded by the priest. Unfortunately the paper obscures most entries on the page.

Online Sloe Gin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,909
    • View Profile
Re: Insights into an Era
« Reply #17 on: Tuesday 02 October 18 00:19 BST (UK) »
Sorry but I donít see why the Regnal number would not be used  on the date of his execution.
He was the first king of that name and yes it did not look as if there would ever be a second but it is a question of was it proper protocol to use his Regnal number.
We donít know how many more Elizabeths there will be but we use the Regnal number.
I do agree that Victoria was also the first of that name but we do not say Victoria The First.
It is an interesting point
Viktoria.

A regnal number is never used before there is a second monarch of that name.
So we have King Stephen, King John, Queen Anne, Queen Victoria.  None of these will be referred to as "the First" until there is a Second.
UK census content is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk  Transcriptions are my own.