On the Significance of Historic Names

One thing that has popped up in my consciousness over the years is that we often don’t appreciate the significance of names in history, mostly because we’ve been too heavily influenced by one individual who has that name. Because of their importance, they dominate the landscape, and block our view of what they themselves had seen.

To illustrate what I mean, consider a case where the person hadn’t become important – the case of Arthur, Prince of Wales, the son of Henry VII of England. He’s become sort of a footnote in history, because he died young, before he could attain the throne. If Americans know him at all, it’s because he married Catherine of Aragon, and his brother Henry VIII’s interaction with all of that lead to the breaking away of the Church of England.

That wouldn’t have happened had Arthur lived – the circumstances wouldn’t have arisen, and British history would’ve been very different. But, besides there not being a tussle with the Catholic Church, there was something else – Arthur, by his name alone, evoked the legendary King Arthur, and he would have been a second Arthur (would he have been called “Arthur II”? Doubtful, but people would have thought about it.) Arthur’s name was a conscious decision to strengthen the claims of the Tudors (which was still a pretty new “house”). Henry VII deliberately had his birth at Winchester, at the time associated with Camelot.

We don’t think about the Tudor King Arthur when we hear about “King Arthur”, but that’s only because Arthur Tudor died of “sweating sickness”.

But our attention was diverted in other cases:

Cleopatra – Admit it – you immediately thought of the Queen of Egypt who dallied with Caesar and Marc Antony, famously portrayed by Liz Taylor (among others). But in her time, “Cleopatra” was a HIstoricName. The name isn’t Egyptian at all, but Greek, meaning “Glory of the Father”. She was the wife of King Meleager in The Iliad. “Cleopatra” was also the name of the mother of King Idomeneos of Crete, and another Cleopatra was the sister of Alexander the Great. And there are at least four other mythological characters named “Cleopatra”, and several other, lesser-known queens. But in her time someone saying “cleopatra” might as easily be referring to the character from the Iliad or to Alexander the Great’s sister.

Brutus – not the alternative name of Popeye’s nemesis, but Marcus Junius Brutus, the guy who stabbed Julius Caesar and who pop culture thinks of being addressed by Caesar with the words “Et to, Brute?” (although that comes from Elizabethan plays, not any historical report).

What most of us don’t appreciate today is that Brutus was from a long line of Romans who traced their ancestry back to Lucius Junius Brutus, who was supposed to have overthrown Tarquinus Superbus, the Last King of Rome. To him, THIS was the Famous Brutus, and he might have felt himself inspired by the example of his ancestor who had put away an absolute ruler and saved a republic.

Jesus – from Yeshua or Yehoshua. It’s the same name as Joshua, and the most famous of that name was Moses’ military right-hand man, and who git his own book in the Old Testament. Even written in its Greek form as “Jesus” there was preceding the famous one Jesus ben Sirach, the author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes)

Arthur Tudor probably wouldn’t have been Arthur II for the same reason that Edward I wasn’t Edward IV (preceded by Martyr, Ironsides, and Confessor, I think… or was it Edmund Ironsides?).

She was, in fact, Cleopatra VII.

There’s no reason to assume that a real-life King Arthur would have “outshined” his mythological namesake. The Russians had a bunch of Tsars called Peter and Alexander, but even the greatest of them were never the first men you think of when you hear those names.

Besides, if Arthur Tudor had been a great king, he’d almost certainly have successors named after him, which means that history would have remembered him as King Arthur I - avoiding confusion with plain old King Arthur.

There was almost a Plantagenet King Arthur 300 years before Arthur Tudor. Arthur of Brittany was the son of Henry II’s eldest son Geoffrey. He had a claim after his father preceded the death of his grandfather (Richard I took the throne, instead) and again after Richard’s death. Richard’s brother and heir, King John, felt threatened enough to (probably) have Arthur murdered.

Does anyone else think that Tarquinus Superbus is an awesome name?

Yes, I had the same thought, and I’m torn if the better interpretation of the name is “the superb one” or “super-bus”.

I saw that movie.

Alexander.

You may think of Alexander the Great, king of Macedon. But he was actually the third Macedonian monarch of that name. And they were all named after a character in the Iliad.

You might have heard of that Alexander. He was better known by the name “Paris”.

Well, we’ll always have Paris…

This is precisely the sort of thing I’m looking for – Alexander the Great was named for a character in the Iliad, and might conceivably have looked to him as inspiration.

Winston Churchill.

No one remembers the American best-selling author. When the future prime minister started writing for newspapers, he asked the US author for permission (which he got) and used “Winston S. Churchill” as his byline.

Or the 17th Century politician and historian, father of the Duke of Marlborough.

The name Hannibal was made famous by the Carthaginian general and nemesis of the Roman Republic. Unfortunately now probably more famous now for the fictional serial killer (as a child in the 80s it was more famous as the leader of the A Team, to me at least)

I’d say this is one of the more famous examples of the significance of a famous name changing over time. For most of the last 300 odd years the name Churchill was firmly associated with the Duke of Marlborough, and his military achievements. Now he’s almost completely unknown and it’s entirely associated with the wartime PM

Random related anecdote: I remember a docent giving me a tour of the Churchill family home (Blenheim Palace) pointing at the tapestries of his military victories saying “you probably remeber the mnemonic device you were taught at school to remember these battles”. I didn’t have the heart to tell her not only is the mnemonic device no longer taught, the entire war (and career of John Churchill) is no longer taught

There is also Charlemagne. Possibly this is me showing my age but I’ll never see a headline about Charlemagne the God and not think “why is an 8th century Frankish king beefing with Drake?”

Englebert Humperdinck.

People are more likely to know the singer than the German composer.

Maybe but probably getting less so as the singer becomes more obscure.

He wouldn’t have been Arthur II, because (a) the original Arthur was not King of England - England didn’t exist at the time he was supposed to have lived, (b) because we only ‘date’ Kings of England from William I and (c) the original might only have been a mythical person.

One could argue that Arthur fought hard all his life to prevent England from existing.

I actually have specific expertise here, and I can tell you that the information we have suggests that:

  1. There are figures who contributed to the late medieval “King Arthur,” at least one of whom is clearly historical, at least one of whom is certainly legendary but possibly based on a historical person, and although scholars like to connect him to Celtic myth, there’s not really a great reason to do so;
  2. In the earliest sources, he isn’t a king (in addition to your point about it all being before England)

However, those pieces of information weren’t known to the Tudors, because in their day Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work was taken much more seriously as history (if not universally or literally accepted as such). They probably would have excluded him from the numbering system for the reason you state (pre-Conquest), same as the reasons for the Edwards re-starting with I.