Where did the name “Charles” come from, for Charles I, King of Scots and of England? He was the first Charles in either monarchy, and I can’t recall any other Prince Charles in English or Scottish history?
The only thing I can think of is that his mother, Alexandra of Denmark, named him “Charles” as an Anglicization of the German/Scandinavian “Karl”, but that’s just a guess.
As Tamerlane says, the “anglicization” is just a direct copy from French, which yes, had gotten it from a Germanic language but with Latin thrown in (the Latin version is Carolus). Both Martel and his grandson were Franks.
His parents put the name in the line because they had supernatural foresight. “Bonnie Prince Malcolm” would be more Scottish, but it just wouldn’t work! “Rise and Follow Malcolm”? Hoot!
Charlemagne is just a contraction of “Charles le Magne,” which is French for “Karl der Grosse” or “Carolus Magnus.” And he was named after Charles Martel. So the “Charles” form goes back before Charlemagne.
It is not a name at all. His name was Charles. Charlemagne is a corruption of the Latin Carolus Magnus, meaning Charles the Great. I am pretty confident he was not given the name “the great” when he was born.
Actually, the future Charles I did have one very close relative called Charles, even closer than his great-uncle.
[spoiler]His father, James VI, had been baptised as ‘Charles James’. In that case, the name had almost certainly been chosen as a tribute to his godfather, his mother’s former brother-in-law, Charles IX of France.
That he reigned only as ‘James’ had been a way of stressing his Scottishness. But, of course, that was a decision in which James himself had played no more part than in the choice of his original names.[/spoiler]
Well, Carolus Magnus transliterates into English much more nicely than Karl der Grosse. The latter makes him sound either hideous or that he’s a grocer.
That’s interesting, thanks for that. I’m surprised no one mentioned that before in this thread. It seems a big tribute for a godfather, though - the first name rather than a middle name.
It wasn’t what Charles IX had done to deserve it; it was what he might do for Mary in the near future. By 1566 Mary was already in serious difficulties. Her attempts to work with the Protestants were breaking down and the previous year she had faced open rebellions by some of the leading Protestant nobles, including her half-brother, Moray. Even more seriously, the increasing opposition from the Protestants, culminating in the murder of Rizzio, only added to the psychodrama disaster that was her marriage to Darnley. Mary knew that her position was precarious. One solution might have been to seek support from a foreign ally. But Mary had never resolved the dilemma of whether to ally with the French or, in the hope of being named her successor, with Elizabeth I. And her unfolding domestic dramas within Scotland only made her ever less attractive as a potential ally for either of them. So for her son’s baptism, Mary hedged her bets and named both Charles IX and Elizabeth as the godparents. However, there was no way Elizabeth was ever going to intervene in Scotland except in support of the Protestants. Not that the French were much keener, but, rather to their horror, Mary had already been dropping hints that she might yet need their military support. What, as always, complicated her relations with France was her difficult relationship with her former mother-in-law, Catherine de’ Medici, who was only ever prepared to ally with Mary on the most unfavourable terms. But with him reaching maturity, there seemed a possibility - albeit one that turned out to be completely unrealistic - that Charles might assert himself against his mother and adopt a different policy.
One other point to note is that by 1566 Mary’s closest male blood relative, apart from Moray, was also called Charles, namely the Cardinal of Lorraine. But by then his relations with Mary were rather strained and, in any case, he was no longer anything like the heavyweight political figure in France he had once been.