Bravo!/Brava! Well played, Sir or Madam. Drinks all around.
I just read this week that Labour politician Denis Healey once publicly referred to Margaret Thatcher as Rhoda the Rhino.
I think the answer to this, at least from the perspective of European royalty, is Queen Victoria’s husband, Prince Albert, who was known as Albert the Kind.
There is a statue in Sydney commemorating him and describing him by his epithet, which is how I first came to know of it.
I know of no other subsequent European royal ruler referred to as having an epithet. Other contemporary royal personages were described without character-descriptive epithets (eg. Empress of India, Emperor of the French).
Won’t be long before we have Charles the Jug-Eared.
Or possibly Charles the Last, if his wife becomes Queen and it spurs the UK republican movement.
I thought I’ve read that if and when Charles becomes king, that Camilla will eschew the title of Queen Consort (which she’d be entitled to) and call herself Princess Consort, just like she’s now publicly using the title of Duchess of Cornwall in preference to the title of Princess of Wales (to which she’s also entitled).
UK dopers? Is that true or false?
Cheers,
bcg
I expect that whichever title she chooses the public at large will continue to refer to her as Horseface.
Not I. I may be in a minority, but I think Charles never should have married Diana in the first place–that was bloody obvious during the first press conference they held to announce the engagement:
When I saw that, my first reaction was, “This marriage isn’t lasting long.”
In an ideal world, if Charles had to marry Diana (so as to breed a proper heir or whatever), Charles should have been able to have Camilla as his Royal Mistress, and Diana could have her boytoys, and the rest of us should have just minded our own business.
Apologies for the threadjack. I’ll get off my soapbox now…
Cheers,
bcg
True.
There was also a not-conspicuously-successful attempt to promote the idea of him as ‘Albert the Good’.
But, as Umbriel2 pointed out in the original thread, there is a later European example - the first German Emperor, Wilhelm I, was known posthumously as Wilhelm the Great. This was mostly as a matter of official policy by his grandson, Wilhelm II.
I believe that’s not unlike how it used to be in past times (other than for the fact that Diana and her boytoys would be guilty of high treason). But many kings have had almost official mistresses.
Ah, for the good old days when being the king’s bastard son entitled you to at least an earldom, if not a duchy!
Cheers,
bcg
As I understand it, Ataturk wanted to be called simply Mustafa Kemal after the adoption of surnames but was given Ataturk by the Turkish Parliament.
And French presidents until quite recently.