It does bother me that when the tradition of numbering the monarchs of England that they began with William the Conqueror.
I think King Edward I of England 1272 - 1307 should be King Edward IV of England.
Are you counting William I the Conqueror to King Stephen as Plantagenets? The numbering of the Kings of England begins with the House of Normandy.
Thank you for pointing that out, Chequer, although I was thinking of that point but in an even wider perspective - by which I mean, the English seem to be historically the only ones that insist on their regnal numbering beginning with the Plantagenets. So, no one before the Conqueror - not even Edward the Confessor. Whereas, on the Continent as you point out there is an acknowledgement of the wider historic reality of previous dynasties - in Spain, before the Borbons. Or, in Norway and Denmark, before their present-day dynasties and houses.
I believe that in Spain the highest regnsl number from the former kingdoms is used. Thus, Leonor will be Leonor II.
It’s sensible and I can’t see why it should not be used in Britain.
Please also see the original article in The Herald which I linked, and which does make the point that the late Queen chose an approach to this issue which relies on the highest number taken into account from both former kingdoms.
He may become the fifth king of his name to reign over the former kingdom of England and the second king of his name to reign over the former kingdom of Scotland but those kingdoms do not exist anymore. He will be William V of the United Kingdom, in Scotland and in England. The absence of a regnal number in a royal cypher does not mean that the monarch intends to be known as “the First”. He will not be “WIIR”.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index