The 101 Most Influential People Who Never Lived

[Drolefille]

Interesting though that no Arthur has really been king since the potential Arthur of legend (who would have been around the 1200s, way too early for the medieval image people have of him). Every time an British royal names their son Arthur (and he's actually in line for the throne) he dies young...

[honeychile]

Well, I had only read the posted 25 when I posted, as I was busy at work. I'll have to go read the rest.

I think the myth of English heirs to the throne with Arthur in their name has been blown - Prince Charles is officiallly "Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor", and his youth has come & gone!

Althought Prince William also has Arthur: "William Arthur Philip Louis Mountbatten-Windsor". Hmmm...

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Interesting though that no Arthur has really been king since the potential Arthur of legend (who would have been around the 1200s, way too early for the medieval image people have of him).

The "historical" Athur would have been a king from around 480 - 520; at least going from the battles and placenames mentioned in the earliest manuscripts.

Incidentally the 1200's is the beginning of the "Late Middle Ages"... really latest 'image' of Arthur from legend and even Hollywood.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

King Arthur was really an ascended Ancient named Myrddin who constructed a weapon called the Sangraal to defeat the Ori....


Or not.

Man, that show went downhill fast when Richard Dean Anderson left, didn't it?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by RACooper

The "historical" Athur would have been a king from around 480 - 520; at least going from the battles and placenames mentioned in the earliest manuscripts.

Incidentally the 1200's is the beginning of the "Late Middle Ages"... really latest 'image' of Arthur from legend and even Hollywood.

a) my memory sucks, thank you I just took a random stab at it... please forgive

and just because Arthur is IN their names, they won't be "King Arthur" They may not even be King William or Charles..

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

and just because Arthur is IN their names, they won't be "King Arthur" They may not even be King William or Charles..

They might not be King Arthur. But you're right -- they get to choose which name they will rule under, so however unlikely, they could choose to be King Arthur. (But would Charles be Arthur I or Arthur II?)

Charles may well choose to reign as Charles III since he is so well known by that name already, and who knows when he will ascend the throne. On the other hand, his grandfather reigned as George VI, even though everyone had known him as Prince Albert (or "Bertie"). In fact, three of the the last six monarchs ruled under names other than the names they were typically called.

Some have speculated that Charles may not be inclined to be Charles III, since history has not been kind to King Charleses in Britain. If he is not King Charles, he will probably be King George VII. Very unlikely that he would be King Arthur, given the legends surrounding the idea of the return of Arthur and the baggage using that name would bring about.

So back to main topic, the Loch Ness Monster is on a list (#56) of "The 101 Most Influential People Who Never Lived"? My son would take issue, both with the Loch Ness Monster being a person and with the contention that it never lived. He's sure it's there -- it's one of his favorite things to read about. He's currently writing a story about it in 3rd grade. (No. Not proud at all, not even while I type this and look at the Nessie on my desk. )

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

They might not be King Arthur. But you're right -- they get to choose which name they will rule under, so however unlikely, they could choose to be King Arthur. (But would Charles be Arthur I or Arthur II?)

Charles may well choose to reign as Charles III since he is so well known by that name already, and who knows when he will ascend the throne. On the other hand, his grandfather reigned as George VI, even though everyone had known him as Prince Albert (or "Bertie"). In fact, three of the the last six monarchs ruled under names other than the names they were typically called.

Some have speculated that Charles may not be inclined to be Charles III, since history has not been kind to King Charleses in Britain. If he is not King Charles, he will probably be King George VII. Very unlikely that he would be King Arthur, given the legends surrounding the idea of the return of Arthur and the baggage using that name would bring about.

So back to main topic, the Loch Ness Monster is on a list (#56) of "The 101 Most Influential People Who Never Lived"? My son would take issue, both with the Loch Ness Monster being a person and with the contention that it never lived. He's sure it's there -- it's one of his favorite things to read about. He's currently writing a story about it in 3rd grade. (No. Not proud at all, not even while I type this and look at the Nessie on my desk. )

I think it would be hard these days to change your royal name. How's the public going to accept Charles becoming George in 20XX (or William... Charles could still be skipped)

The people thing is iffy... Kermit is not a people.. he's certainly a frog.

[RU OX Alum]

i wonder why...nevermind, i won't go there

[Drolefille]

On the, "were they real" note.. I thought that Robin Hood was more likely to have been real than King Arthur... that there were several possible candidates (although the legend was greater than the man..)

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I think it would be hard these days to change your royal name. How's the public going to accept Charles becoming George in 20XX (or William... Charles could still be skipped)

Not that hard, I don't think. Karol Wotyla became John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger became Benedict XVI with few bats of an eye. When it's part of the convention and the tradition (and this is Royal Family were talking about), I don't think it throws too many people.

The people thing is iffy... Kermit is not a people.. he's certainly a frog.

At least he can talk.

And I think Darth Vader (and maybe Obi Wan) deserves to be on the list as much or more than Luke Skywalker (#85)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not that hard, I don't think. Karol Wotyla became John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger became Benedict XVI with few bats of an eye. When it's part of the convention and the tradition (and this is Royal Family were talking about), I don't think it throws too many people.

At least he can talk.

And I think Darth Vader (and maybe Obi Wan) deserves to be on the list as much or more than Luke Skywalker (#85)

True, but the popes didn't have press from their birth to their crowning...

I agree w/ DV and I don't think the Marlboro man should have been #1

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

a) my memory sucks, thank you I just took a random stab at it... please forgive

and just because Arthur is IN their names, they won't be "King Arthur" They may not even be King William or Charles..

Now understood!

I take it Lady Godiva was real?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I take it Lady Godiva was real?

Yes. She was the wife of Leofric (968–1057), Earl of Mercia.

The popular story about her -- that she was concerned about the way her husband was overtaxing the people of Coventry and begged him to take some pity, that he finally told her he would grant her wish if she would ride through the streets of Coventry naked, that she did so in order to help the people of Coventry, that all the people went inside and shut their doors and windows so as not to embarrass her (except for one Tom, who peeked through his shutters and became the first "peeping Tom"), and that her hsuband kept his promise and relaxed the taxes -- is probably just legend. It was, however, a common form of penance for women at the time to make a public procession in the equivalent of a modern slip. Godiva might have done that at some point, and that may have given rise to the legend, which appeared in writing as early as the 13th Century.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Yes. She was the wife of Leofric (968–1057), Earl of Mercia.

The popular story about her -- that she was concerned about the way her husband was overtaxing the people of Coventry and begged him to take some pity, that he finally told her he would grant her wish if she would ride through the streets of Coventry naked, that she did so in order to help the people of Coventry, that all the people went inside and shut their doors and windows so as not to embarrass her (except for one Tom, who peeked through his shutters and became the first "peeping Tom"), and that her hsuband kept his promise and relaxed the taxes -- is probably just legend. It was, however, a common form of penance for women at the time to make a public procession in the equivalent of a modern slip. Godiva might have done that at some point, and that may have given rise to the legend, which appeared in writing as early as the 13th Century.

I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter... where do I sign up?

[BadSquirrelBeta]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Now understood!

I take it Lady Godiva was real?

I will let you know when I get back from riding my horse.

I would also have put on the list: Scout Finch, Atticus Finch and Boo Radley (forgive if I spelled incorrectly). (Now I do know the author of this lovely work, H. Lee, was a GLO member, I can't recall which one and I am too tired to google...)

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Atticus Finch is #57.

ETA: See what I get for not clicking on the link! Good, I am glad he is on there.