Alphonso the Slobberer
Graham Milne
Alphonso the Slobberer. My happiness is complete. Please tell me that
this is a genuine nickname. How did it arise?
Alphonso IX 'The Slobberer', 6th King of Leon (b. 15 Aug 1171 d. 24
Sep 1230)
= Berengaria of Castile (b. 1180 d. 8 Nov 1246)
Ferdinand III, 9th King of Castile (b. 1201 d. 30 May = Joanna of
Danmartin (b. After 1208 d. 16 Mar 1279)
Edward I 'Longshanks', 30th King of England (b. 17 Jun 1239 d. 7 Jul
1307)= Eleanor of Castile (b. 1240 d. 29 Nov 1290)
Edward II, 31st King of England (b. 17 Jun 1284 d. = Isabella 'The
She-Wolf' of France (b. 1292 d. 1358)
Edward III, 32nd King of England (b. 1312 d. 1377) = Philippa of
Hainault (b. 1314 d. 1369)
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (b. 1340 d. 1399) = Catherine Roet
(b. 1350 d. 10 May 1403)
Ralph Nevill, Earl of Westmorland (b. About 1364 d. = Joan Beaufort
Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland (b. 3 Feb 1393 d. 23 May 1455)
= Eleanor Nevill (d. 1463)
Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland (b. 25 Jul 1421 d. 29 Mar
1461)= Eleanor Poynings (b. About 1422 d. About Feb 1483)
Sir William Gascoigne of Gawthorpe (d. 4 Mar 1487) = Margaret Percy
Sir Thomas Fairfax (d. 1520) = Anne Gascoigne
Sir Nicholas Fairfax (d. 1570) = Jane Palmes of Lindley
Sir William Fairfax (d. 1 Nov 1597) = Jane Stapleton
Thomas Fairfax, Viscount Fairfax (b. 1574 d. 1636) = Catherine
Constable (b. 1579 d. 1626)
Sir Thomas Laton of Laton and Saxehowe (b. 1597 = Mary Fairfax (d.
1636)
John Eden of Windlestone and West Auckland (b. = Catherine Laton (b.
1618 d. About 1686)
Sir Robert Eden (b. 1644 d. 17 May 1720) = Margaret Lambton (b. 1651
d. 22 Jul 1730)
Sir John Eden (b. About 1680 d. 2 May 1728) = Catherine Shafto (d. 2
Jul 1730)
Sir Robert Eden (b. About 1718 d. 25 Jun 1755) = Mary Davison of
Beamish (d. 30 Jan 1794)
Thomas Eden (b. 1734 d. 1 May 1805) = Mariana Jones (b. About 1750)
Arthur Eden (b. 9 Aug 1793 d. 1874) = Frances Buncombe-Poulett-
Thomson (d. 25 Mar
Hugh Hammersley (d. 28 Sep 1882) = Dulcibella Eden (d. 1903)
Walter Nassau Senior (b. 1850 d. 1933) = Mabel Barbara Hammersley (b.
1864 d. 1943)
Oliver Nassau Senior (b. 1901) = Dorothy Gardner Smith (b. 31 May
1904)
Denys Gordon Milne, C. B. E. (b. 12 Jan 1926) = Pamela Mary Senior
(b. 23 Aug 1928)
Graham Nassau Gordon Milne (b. 29 Sep 1955)
Tony Hoskins
As W.C. Fields put it, "What a euphonious appellation!"
Wikipedia says this:
"According to Ibn Khaldun, he is said to have been called the Baboso or Slobberer because he was subject to fits of rage during which he foamed at the mouth."
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
Sonoma County Archivist
Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Graham Milne
He frothed at the mouth when he got angry? He is definitely one of my
ancestors. His wife wasn't called Berengaria the Plate Smasher was
she? What a happy couple they would have made.
M Sjostrom
taf
wrote:
>
> Alphonso IX 'The Slobberer', 6th King of Leon (b. 15 Aug 1171 d. 24
> Sep 1230)
> = Berengaria of Castile (b. 1180 d. 8 Nov 1246)
> Ferdinand III, 9th King of Castile (b. 1201 d. 30 May = Joanna of
> Danmartin (b. After 1208 d. 16 Mar 1279)
> Edward I 'Longshanks', 30th King of England (b. 17 Jun 1239 d. 7 Jul
> 1307)= Eleanor of Castile (b. 1240 d. 29 Nov 1290)
These regnal numbers are all out of whack. You can't have Alfonso IX
being the 6th of Leon (of his dynasty), while also Edward I as 30th
king of England (ignoring dynasties). Alfonso is something like 18th
of Leon if you don't count the earlier kings of the same political
entity going under a different name, but he was more like 30th or 31st
(depending on whether you count a briefly-successful 'usurper'). On
the other end, I can't see how you can figure Edward I for the 30th
king of England. Even if you count every case of a debatable claim
(i.e. Ealfweard, Edgar AEtheling and Henry the Young King) I still
can't get to 30, but if you count from Ecgbert you get more than 30.
(And while we are at it, Fernando III was also King of Leon in
succession to his father.)
taf
Graham Milne
When you're descended from Alphonso the Slobberer, who cares? But I
go:
1. Egbert, 1st King of England (b. About 769/780 d. 4 Feb 839)
2. Aethelwulf, 2nd King of England (b. About 806 d. 13 Jan 858)
3. Aethelbald, 3rd King of England (b. About 834 d. 20 Dec 860)
4. Aethelbert, 4th King of England (b. About 836 d. 865/6)
5. Aethelred I, 5th King of England (b. About 840 d. 23 Apr 871)
6. Alfred 'The Great', 6th King of England (b. 846/9 d. 25/26/28 Oct
899)
7. Edward 'The Elder', 7th King of England (b. 875 d. Jul 924)
8. Athelstan, 8th King of England (d. 939)
9. Edmund I, 9th King of England (b. 920 d. 26 May 946)
10. Edred, 10th King of England (b. About 923/5)
11. Edwy, 11th King of England
12. Edgar, 12th King of England (b. 943 d. 975)
13. Edward 'The Martyr', 13th King of England
14. Aethelred II 'The Redeless', 14th King of England (b. 978 d. 23
Apr 1016)
15. Sweyn 'Forkbeard', 15th King of England (b. About 960)
16. Edmund II 'Ironside', 16th King of England (b. 989 d. 30 Nov 1016)
17. Canute 'The Great', 17th King of England (b. About 995 d. 12 Nov
1035)
18. Harthacanute, 18th King of England (d. 8 Jun 1042)
19. Harold I, 19th King of England (d. 17 Mar 1040)
20. Edward 'The Confessor', 20th King of England (b. About 1003/4 d.
4/5th Jan 1066)
21. Harold II Godwinson, 21st King of England (b. About 1022 d. 14 Oct
1066)
22. William I 'The Conqueror', 22nd King of England (b. 14 Oct 1024 d.
13 Nov 1093)
23. William II 'Rufus', 23rd King of England
24. Henry I 'Beauclerc', 24th King of England (b. About 1068 d. 1 Dec
1135)
25. Stephen of Blois, 25th King of England (b. Before 1100 d. 25 Oct
1154)
26. Henry II 'Fitzempress', 26th King of England (b. 5 Mar 1133 d. 6
Jul 1189)
27. Richard I 'The Lionheart', 27th King of England (b. 8 Sep 1157 d.
6 Apr 1199)
28. John 'Lackland', 28th King of England (b. 24 Dec 1167 d. 15 Oct
1216)
29. Henry III, 29th King of England (b. 10 Oct 1206 d. 16 Nov 1272)
30. Edward I 'Longshanks', 30th King of England (b. 17 Jun 1239 d. 7
Jul 1307)
taf
wrote:
> When you're descended from Alphonso the Slobberer, who cares? But I
> go:
I must have lost count somewhere. At any rate, it is somewhat
arbitrary to call Egbert King of England.
That being said:
Kings of Asturias, which became the kingdom of Leon
1. Pelayo
2. Fafila
3. Alfonso I
4. Fruela I
5. Silo
6. Aurelio
7. Mauregato
8. Vermudo I
9. Alfonso II
10. Nepomucino
11. Ramiro I
12. Ordono I
13. Alfonso III
--------
Kings of Leon:
14. (1) Ordono II
15. (2) Fruela II
16. (3) Alfonso IV
17. (4) Ramiro II
18. (5) Ordono III
19. (6) Sancho I
20. (7) Ordono IV (followed by Sancho again)
21. (8) Ramiro IV
22. (9) Vermudo II
23. (10) Alfonso V
24. (11) Vermudo III
25. (12) Fernando II
26. (13) Alfonso VI
27. (14) Sancho II (followed by Alfonso VI again)
28. (15) Urraca (or don't you count queens - some count her husband
Alfonso of Aragon)
29. (16) Alfonso VII
30. (17) Fernando II
31. (18) Alfonso IX
32. (19) Fernando III
My own feeling is that numbering kings opens up an unnecessary can of
worms, and provides so little useful information as to be a pointless
exercise in obsessive description, but that's just me.
taf
Graham Milne
I actually wrote a program that was designed to deal with nobility,
e.g. 6th Earl of Rutland or whatever, which is useful to know. But it
also does the same with monarchs. I think I got the English regnal
order from Alison Weir's book 'Britain's Royal Families'.
Graham Milne
> Berengaria and Alfonso divorced.
Well, what with him frothing at the mouth while she hurls plates
around the place, I am not surprised.
J Cook
wrote:
I'm sure you are aware of your genealogics page here:
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00317927&tree=LEO
"Sir Thomas Fairfax (d. 1520) = Anne Gascoigne "
You may not be aware that the future Queen, Kate Middleton is also a
descendant of this couple.
JC
Graham Milne
Yes thanks, I picked that up from W A Reitwiesner's site.
Graham Milne
wrote:
> On Nov 21, 1:29 pm, J Cook <joec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 8:14 am, Graham Milne <grahammilne...@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 20, 7:51 pm, M Sjostrom <mqs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Berengaria and Alfonso divorced.
>
> > > Well, what with him frothing at the mouth while she hurls plates
> > > around the place, I am not surprised.
>
> > I'm sure you are aware of your genealogics page here:http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00317927&tree=LEO
>
> > "Sir Thomas Fairfax (d. 1520) = Anne Gascoigne "
>
> > You may not be aware that the future Queen, Kate Middleton is also a
> > descendant of this couple.
>
> > JC
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
taf
> You may not be aware that the future Queen, Kate Middleton is also a
> descendant of this couple.
Given the success rate of first marriages in the previous generation
of Windsors, you may be jumping the gun a little bit in this
characterization.
taf
Peter Stewart
"taf" <t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:08b6b6e6-f52f-4b34...@y31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
And given the rate of parent > heir apparent succession since William the
Conqueror, the chances of Elizabeth II > Charles III > William V are not all
that strong anyway (assuming the monarchy can survive the Windsors for two
more generations in the first place).
Peter Stewart
Graham Milne
Oh my God! Haven't you realized that you can't compare survival rates
through the Wars of the Roses and the Black Death (for example) to
today?
Peter Stewart
"Graham Milne" <grahamm...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9b7e9ce8-5e9e-40d5...@s9g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
I didn't make any such comparison, of course. Try reading posts more
carefully before responding to them - this time I wrote "since William the
Conqueror" because I meant "since William the Conqueror", not just in the
14th and 15th centuries.
The orderly succession of heirs apparent has come unstuck in various ways
over the past millennium, not only through mortality. You might recall that
there was an abdication in the 20th century.
Peter Stewart
John Watson
When a person becomes monarch, they can choose their royal title from
any of their given names. So Prince Charles, who was baptized as
Charles Philip Arthur George could become King Philip I, or King
Arthur I or King George VII if he wished (yes I know its extremely
unlikely).
Regards,
John
Peter Stewart
"John Watson" <watso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bab890e9-256f-4c58...@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> When a person becomes monarch, they can choose their royal title
> from any of their given names. So Prince Charles, who was baptized
> as Charles Philip Arthur George could become King Philip I, or King
> Arthur I or King George VII if he wished (yes I know its extremely
> unlikely).
About as unlikely as Camilla choosing to be known as "Princess Consort
Rosemary".
I think Prince Charles is already on the record saying that he anticipates
the regnal name and number "Charles III" - in any case, his media advisers
and 10 Downing Street will surely have more sense than to countenance a
change of name at that delicate stage in his affairs, even if he doesn't.
Peter Stewart
John Watson
> "John Watson" <watsonjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
On second thoughts - that should be King Philip II. Queen (bloody)
Mary's husband Philip II of Spain was legally King of England,
although only mentioned in passing in my school history books and not
noticed at all in most lists of British monarchs.
Regards,
John
Peter Stewart
> On second thoughts - that should be King Philip II. Queen
> (bloody) Mary's husband Philip II of Spain was legally King
> of England, although only mentioned in passing in my
> school history books and not noticed at all in most lists of
> British monarchs.
That's becuase a "monarch" is exactly what he was not, since the word means
the rule (or reign) of one alone: Philip was only king-consort, reigning in
tandem with his wife for as long as their marriage lasted.
WIlliam III on the other hand was elected king by parliament and reigned in
this right after the death of Mary II, enjoying a very different
constitutional status.
Peter Stewart
Graham Milne
> "Graham Milne" <grahammilne...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apologies! I make a point of never reading posts before firing off a
reply and never thinking before opening my mouth. But, then again, I
should be made President of the USA on the basis of honest stupidity -
as opposed to stupid dishonesty.
Peter Stewart
> On Nov 22, 12:36 am, "Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > "Graham Milne" <grahammilne...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > > rates through the Wars of the Roses and the Black Death (for
> > > example) to today?
> > >
> > > I didn't make any such comparison, of course. Try reading posts
> > > more carefully before responding to them - this time I wrote
> > > "since William the Conqueror" because I meant "since William
> > > the Conqueror", not just in the 14th and 15th centuries.
> >
> > The orderly succession of heirs apparent has come unstuck in
> > various ways over the past millennium, not only through mortality.
> > You might recall that there was an abdication in the 20th century.
> >
> > Peter Stewart
>
> reply and never thinking before opening my mouth. But, then again,
> I should be made President of the USA on the basis of honest
> stupidity - as opposed to stupid dishonesty.
Going from memory, the last time two English sovereigns in turn were
succeeeded by their eldest sons occurred in the 15th century anyway: Henry
IV - Henry V - Henry VI.
The only other instance I can think of was John - Henry III - Edward I. This
has not yet happened for any of the the queens regnant.
If this is correct, the precedents for Elizabeth - Charles III - William V
are hardly frequent.
Peter Stewart
Ian Goddard
Victoria > Edward VII > George V?
Also George V > Edward VIII. Edward VIII succeeded his father. He
could hardly have abdicated otherwise. So that makes a third.
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
Peter Stewart
No, neither of these.
Victoria - Edward VII and Geroge V - Edward VIII, but that's as far
as either succession went from sovereign to eldest son since George V
was not the eldest son of Edward VII.
If Prince Charles eventually succeeds his mother, there will be
another instance (George VI - Elizabeth II - Charles III) that will be
the first since 1066 involving a queen regnant.
Peter Stewart
taf
> If Prince Charles eventually succeeds his mother, there will be
> another instance (George VI - Elizabeth II - Charles III) that will be
> the first since 1066 involving a queen regnant.
Or before 1066, for that matter.
taf
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fd08bc5b-c744-4d19...@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> Victoria - Edward VII and Geroge V - Edward VIII, but that's as
> far as either succession went from sovereign to eldest son since
> George V was not the eldest son of Edward VII.
>
> If Prince Charles eventually succeeds his mother, there will be
> another instance (George VI - Elizabeth II - Charles III) that will
> be the first since 1066 involving a queen regnant.
Obviously that should be "another instance of two successions in turn by the
eldest child", not the eldest son in the case of Elizabeth II herself.
If the criterion is changed to "eldest surviving son" (or daughter, failing
a son) then Victoria - Edward VII - George V - Edward VIII would be the
second-longest unbroken line after John - Henry III - Edward I - Edward II -
Edward III.
By that calculation you might also stretch to include the triad of James I -
Charles I - Charles II, ignoring the interregnum.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:icf520$13h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
And Henry VII - Henry VIII - Edward VI.
Strange to note, all apart from the Stuarts and Saxe-Coburgs/Windsors
involve either a direct usurpation or else a king who had killed his
immediate rival for the succession.
Maybe a precedent for Prince Harry to contemplate...
Peter Stewart
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
> Charles gets a second divorce.
Or unless Queen Kate succeeds Queen Elizabeth ...
On Nov 22, 5:21 pm, Johnny Brananas <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > over the past millennium, not only through mortality. You might recall that
> > there was an abdication in the 20th century.
>
> Am I among the few to think that Mrs. Simpson of Baltimore was the
> only interesting person to marry into this family in the last two
> hundred years at least?
>
> > About as unlikely as Camilla choosing to be known as "Princess Consort
> > Rosemary".
>
> I'm sure it'll be plain "Queen Camilla," stress on plain. Unless
> Charles gets a second divorce.
Jwc...@aol.com
In terms of the English /British eldest
son succeeding his father or mother Don`t Edward II - Edward III., George I-
George II and George III - George IV also meet the criteria put forth ? In
Addition we have in Scotland William I - Alexander II- Alexander III ,
Robert I - David II , Robert II - Robert III, James I- James II - James III -
James IV - James V - Mary I - James VI I think.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Peter Stewart
<Jwc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.12.12905678...@rootsweb.com...
> Dear Peter Et alia,
> In terms of the English /British eldest
> son succeeding his father or mother Don`t Edward II - Edward III., George
> I-
> George II and George III - George IV also meet the criteria put forth ?
The point was to list the uncommon instances of two successions in turn,
i.e. by the eldest son (or daughter failing a son), as initially projected
from Elizabeth II to Charles to William.
There is nothing at all uncommon about single successions, as from Edward II
to Edward III, etc.
> In Addition we have in Scotland William I - Alexander II- Alexander III
> ,
> Robert I - David II , Robert II - Robert III, James I- James II - James
> III -
> James IV - James V - Mary I - James VI I think.
Not all of these either: James I was a younger son of Robert III, and Mary
inherited only as the surviving child of James V after the deaths of her
brothers.
Peter Stewart