# Okay, I'll bite. What about the Cadaver Synod? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 5, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625 "2015-10-05T17:18:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/1 "2015-10-05T17:18:41Z")
Re: [How does a new pope decide what name to take?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3251/how-does-a-new-pope-decide-what-name-to-take), by SDStaff **paperbackwriter** , Oct. 5, 2015. > [@paperbackwriter](#): > > So there you have it: There are no official rules but instead a practice guided by history and tradition. Nothing strange about it, really. Now, if you really want to know about something strange, next time ask about the Cadaver Synod. Okay. Tell us about the Cadaver Synod. ---
**Author:** ![yellowjacketcoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/4bbf92/32.png) [@yellowjacketcoder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yellowjacketcoder)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/2 "2015-10-05T17:23:51Z")
[Ask and ye shall receive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod) A quick summary is that a pope dug up the body of one of his predecessors, put the corpse on trial, had the corpse found guilty, and declared the corpse’s papacy invalid. The corpse then had three fingers cut off, was reburied, then dug back up and tossed into the Tiber. Such was the medieval church. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/3 "2015-10-05T18:02:00Z")
Well, exciting times, those! They couldn’t even settle on what number Stephen (VI) VII was. The Wiki page for [Pope Stephen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope-elect_Stephen) says the confusion over the numbering goes all the way back to Stephen II (or was it III?) ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/4 "2015-10-05T18:11:51Z")
It should perhaps be noted that the tradition of Papal regnal names is not so different from that of other monarchies. In England, for instance, the King or Queen is free to select his or her regnal name, though I believe they are limited to one of their legal given names. (For instance, the current heir to the throne could choose to be King Charles III, King Philip I, King Arthur I, or King George the VII. On the other hand, his mother, Elizabeth, when she was asked what name she wished to reign under, is reported to have said “My own, of course—what else?”) Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/5 "2015-10-05T21:00:34Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > It should perhaps be noted that the tradition of Papal regnal names is not so different from that of other monarchies. In England, for instance, the King or Queen is free to select his or her regnal name, though I believe they are limited to one of their legal given names. > > (For instance, the current heir to the throne could choose to be King Charles III, King Philip I, King Arthur I, or King George the VII. On the other hand, his mother, Elizabeth, when she was asked what name she wished to reign under, is reported to have said “My own, of course—what else?”) > Powers &8^] I believe it is any name they want under the Royal Prerogative. ---
**Author:** ![Kiwi-Ian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9fc348/32.png) [@Kiwi-Ian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiwi-Ian)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/6 "2015-10-06T02:58:27Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > It should perhaps be noted that the tradition of Papal regnal names is not so different from that of other monarchies. In England, for instance, the King or Queen is free to select his or her regnal name, though I believe they are limited to one of their legal given names. > > (For instance, the current heir to the throne could choose to be King Charles III, King Philip I, King Arthur I, or King George the VII. On the other hand, his mother, Elizabeth, when she was asked what name she wished to reign under, is reported to have said “My own, of course—what else?”) > Powers &8^] Poor Charles. Charles I was beheaded and England became a Commonwealth (effectively a republic), Charles II was Catholic and possibly poisoned. Not a lucky name. Philip was consort to Queen Mary and was King of Spain against whom England was almost constantly at war for the next 150 years (for religious, territorial and colonial reasons). Name with a bad history. King Arthur was the heroic king of legend, was he or wasn’t he he real (i.e. would it be King Arthur or Arthur II)? And could he take a hero’s name? That leaves King George VII. In which case 3rd in line Prince George might be George VIII. Or Charles could pick another name entirely. King Bigears? (as a royal subject, I’m allowed to mock, those born of a republic aren’t!!) ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/7 "2015-10-06T04:19:55Z")
> [@Kiwi-Ian](#): > > Or Charles could pick another name entirely. King Bigears? (as a royal subject, I’m allowed to mock, those born of a republic aren’t!!) I think if Charles was really free to pick any name he wanted, he would be King Louis, after his great uncle and mentor Louis Mountbatten. But that name is too closely associated with the long line of French kings, including once who claimed the title of King of England. He did give the name to his son, William Arthur Philip Louis. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/8 "2015-10-06T06:28:09Z")
I remember reading, about the time Prince William was born, lots of discussion and speculation in the press over what his name would be (before Charles and Diana announced what they would name him). The discussions largely consisted of reviews of past regal names, and why many of them were “bad” names that, presumably, should be forever blackballed. Another shit-listed name was Edward, due to the disgrace brought to the throne by Uncle Ed’s abdication. The implication was always that they were trying to find a name to give him that he could easily use as his regnal name as well. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/9 "2015-10-06T06:37:58Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > It should perhaps be noted that the tradition of Papal regnal names is not so different from that of other monarchies. In England, for instance, the King or Queen is free to select his or her regnal name, though I believe they are limited to one of their legal given names. Japan follows a different tradition that I’m not aware of being used anywhere else: The Emperor reigns under his own given name (e.g., Hirohito) and is given a “regnal name” when he dies, by which he will be known to history. (Hirohito is now Emperor Showa.) Although, to be sure, the Japanese themselves follow a slightly different tradition for referring to their own Emperor than the rest of the world follows in referring to him. They never refer to the current living Emperor by his name, and after he dies, they refer to him solely by his posthumous name. The rest of the world tends to call him by his given name (e.g., Emperor Hirohito) during his life and thereafter as well. ETA: From Wikipedia article [Emperor of Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_Japan#Addressing_and_naming) > [@](#): > > Outside of Japan, beginning with Emperor Shōwa, the Emperors are often referred to by their given names, both whilst alive and posthumously. For example, the previous Emperor is usually called Hirohito in English, although he was never referred to as Hirohito in Japan, and was renamed Shōwa Tennō after his death, which is the only name that Japanese speakers currently use when referring to him. > > The current Emperor on the throne is typically referred to by the title Tennō Heika (天皇陛下, literally “His Majesty the heavenly sovereign”) or Kinjō Heika (今上陛下, literally “his current majesty”) or simply Tennō when speaking Japanese. The current Emperor will be renamed Heisei Tennō (平成天皇) after his death and will then be referred to exclusively by that name in Japanese. Non-Japanese speakers typically refer to him now as Akihito, or “Emperor Akihito”, and will almost certainly continue to do so after his death. It is considered a major faux pas to refer to a living Emperor by his posthumous name, though. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/10 "2015-10-06T07:30:05Z")
> [@Kiwi-Ian](#): > > Or Charles could pick another name entirely. King Bigears? (as a royal subject, I’m allowed to mock, those born of a republic aren’t!!) Do they not have lese majeste rules in Old Blighty? Carry on, then. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/11 "2015-10-06T14:18:09Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Japan follows a different tradition that I’m not aware of being used anywhere else: The Emperor reigns under his own given name (e.g., Hirohito) and is given a “regnal name” when he dies, by which he will be known to history. (Hirohito is now Emperor Showa.) > > Although, to be sure, the Japanese themselves follow a slightly different tradition for referring to their own Emperor than the rest of the world follows in referring to him. They never refer to the current living Emperor by his name, and after he dies, they refer to him solely by his posthumous name. The rest of the world tends to call him by his given name (e.g., Emperor Hirohito) during his life and thereafter as well. > > ETA: From Wikipedia article [Emperor of Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_Japan#Addressing_and_naming) So the Posthumous name is given while he’s still alive? How interesting, and what a perspective to have throughout your life! You are so high that no one may politely use your name, but you know what they’ll call you after your death - it’s quite the ballast. Who decides the Posthumous name, and at what age? Does the Emperor know it as a child? ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/12 "2015-10-06T15:44:27Z")
There was never a John II and likely never will be. He lost the royal family too much of its power to ever be forgiven. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/13 "2015-10-06T19:21:13Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > The implication was always that they were trying to find a name to give him that he could easily use as his regnal name as well. It certainly seems as if Liz has firmly set that precedent, despite two facts: that her father, her great-grandfather, and her great-great-grandmother all chose to forgo their first names, and that her son may very well do the same! Elizabeth’s father used “George” instead of his first name “Albert” (“Bertie” to his intimates), though that was primarily to emphasize continuity with his father George V after Edward VIII abdicated. Edward VII was named Albert Edward by his mother, Queen Victoria, who fully intended him to reign as King Albert I (Vicky’s devotion to her husband, Prince Albert, was legendary). But out of deference to his father, Edward VII chose his second name. Victoria herself, of course, was born Alexandrina Victoria, but I haven’t uncovered the reason for her forsaking her first name in favor of her second. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/14 "2015-10-07T01:35:05Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > So the Posthumous name is given while he’s still alive? How interesting, and what a perspective to have throughout your life! You are so high that no one may politely use your name, but you know what they’ll call you after your death - it’s quite the ballast. > > Who decides the Posthumous name, and at what age? Does the Emperor know it as a child? All’s I know is what I wrote above, more-or-less. I first learned that Hirohito would become Emperor Showa from some news article that mentioned it, shortly _before_ he died (a time when he was on his death-bed and there was lots of chatter in the media about him). As the Wiki article shows, Akihito’s posterity name is also established. In doing my due-diligence research for making that post, it was the first I learned that in Japan they never mention the living emperor’s name. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/15 "2015-10-08T02:33:41Z")
Considering that Henry V had a brother named John, and Edward VII and George V both had sons named John, I think that’s incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/16 "2015-10-08T02:43:31Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > It should perhaps be noted that the tradition of Papal regnal names is not so different from that of other monarchies. In England, for instance, the King or Queen is free to select his or her regnal name, though I believe they are limited to one of their legal given names. It’s actually completely different. For about a thousand years, popes have generally taken a regnal name other than their baptismal name. By contrast, all English or British monarch have reigned under one of their baptismal names. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/17 "2015-10-08T04:44:47Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Considering that Henry V had a brother named John, and Edward VII and George V both had sons named John, I think that’s incorrect. John of Lancaster was born before his father seized the throne. Edward VII’s “John” son died a day after birth, and was named Alexander John, anyway. George V’s “John” son was indeed named John, but he was a fifth son. (He was also physically, and probably mentally, defective.) ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Shine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr_shine/32/464_2.png) [@Mr\_Shine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Shine)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/18 "2015-10-08T09:01:35Z")
> [@Kiwi-Ian](#): > > was he or wasn’t he he real (i.e. would it be King Arthur or Arthur II)? Royal numbering only goes back to 1066, (e.g Edward the Confessor whilst undoubtably king of England is not included in the 8 Edwards.) So even if Arthur was real this would not affect Charles. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/19 "2015-10-21T19:23:21Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > George V’s “John” son was indeed named John, but he was a fifth son. (He was also physically, and probably mentally, defective.) Really think this is incorrect. Prince John was epileptic probably because of another syndrome but I’ve never read anything that indicated he had a developmental disorder. And FYI, “defective” is a very offensive term for someone with a disability. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625/20 "2015-10-21T19:53:37Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > It certainly seems as if Liz has firmly set that precedent, despite two facts: that her father, her great-grandfather, and her great-great-grandmother all chose to forgo their first names, and that her son may very well do the same! > > Elizabeth’s father used “George” instead of his first name “Albert” (“Bertie” to his intimates), though that was primarily to emphasize continuity with his father George V after Edward VIII abdicated. > > Edward VII was named Albert Edward by his mother, Queen Victoria, who fully intended him to reign as King Albert I (Vicky’s devotion to her husband, Prince Albert, was legendary). But out of deference to his father, Edward VII chose his second name. > > Victoria herself, of course, was born Alexandrina Victoria, but I haven’t uncovered the reason for her forsaking her first name in favor of her second. > Powers &8^] Victoria was her mother’s name, so she probably decided to go with that. Edward VIII was known by his family as David till he took the throne. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-ill-bite-what-about-the-cadaver-synod/733625.md?page=2)