Ethelred the Unready, circa 968-1016. Illuminated manuscript,
The Chronicle of Abindon, c.1220.
MS Cott. Claude B.VI folio 87, verso, The British Library.
Scanned from the book The National Portrait Gallery History of the Kings and Queens of England by David Williamson, ISBN 1855142287., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6639643

"I can't quite wrap my arms around the title Emperor THE Chuck."

Among the many, many distractions those of us with royal distinctions in our family history must contend, the presence of singularities ranks as one of the highest. It's one thing to have an Uncle Bob and quite another to possess an Uncle THE Bob. I've found innumerable instances throughout the records of someone like my long-lost something great-grandfather Ethelred THE Unready. Who could ask for a sorrier moniker? Ethelred was, predictably, a son of King Edgar THE Peaceful and survived the assassination of his older half-brother, King Edward THE Martyr, to take the English throne at twelve, thereby the unready designation. The unready designation was a play on words. "His epithet comes from the Old English word unræd meaning "poorly advised"; it is a pun on his name, which means "well advised" [Wikipedia]

He lived a suitably noteworthy life, as any half-decent monarch might, though the Danes deposed him after a particularly egregious and unnecessary attempt to slaughter every Dane in England. He eventually managed to lose the whole country to a Dane with the unlikely name of Cnut THE Great (no misspelling). Of all the THEs throughout history, THE Great was, curiously, by far the most common. Charles THE Great, of whom I'm a thirty-seventh great-grandson, might be remembered as THE greatest Great of them all, but he was by no means the only Great or uniquely singular.

Sprinkled through the Fambly chronicle, we find a Hugh THE Great, a Robert THE Strong, and a Pepin THE Short. One even claimed the moniker of Towhead, though apparently not THE Towhead. The audacity impresses me, for how could anybody, whatever era they find themselves born into, claim such a definitive identity? I can understand someone adopting a more limited conditional title. I have no complaint about a plethora of A Greats, but some line gets crossed when declaring the singular and final possession of pretty much any designation. I am most definitely not David THE Schmaltz, nor would I consider it prudent to swipe the potential of any of my progeny to definitively better me and my meager accomplishments, as if that might even prove to be a stretch.

It might be most generous for me to absolve all the grandiose THE grabbers in my Fambly tree. I might easily presume that their brains were affected by too much crown-wearing or that their subjects let adoration go to their heads. I very much doubt that THE Unready was a title the odd serving boy felt comfortable using in the king's presence. I imagine it being something snickered over in the castle sub-basement or grumbled over around a conspiring opponent's supper table. Likewise, I suspect even Charlemagne disdained anyone casually venerating him as THE Great. He might have preferred the more everyday Chuck, reserving the grandiose for ceremonial occasions like when the pope named him the first Holy Roman Emperor. I can't quite wrap my arms around the title Emperor THE Chuck.

©2024 by David A. Schmaltz - all rights reserved

Tags: #Fambly, #PureSchmaltz