Why is it that the first three King Edwards - Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor - don’t have numbers?
It isn’t that numbering began later - Ethelred I predates them all. And it can’t be because they were distinguishable by their nicknames, as Ethelred the Unready was Ethelred II.
Can anyone answer this before the scandal brings down the monarchy?
They weren’t very good at math in those days. I believe numbering Kings is a more recent thing.
As demonstrated in the fine documentary film Monty Python and the Holy Grail; King Arthur consistently thought five came after two. 
Some sources such as this actually do list Edward the Confessor as Edward III:
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon20.html
At any rate, numbering started over again after the establishment of the Norman Kings, so the Plantagenet Edward Longshanks gets to be Edward I.
I suspect they don’t usually number the first three Edwards because you would then confuse Edward the Elder, Martyr and Confessor with the Plantagenet bunch. Other pre-Norman names haven’t been used by post-Norman monarchs. What we need is some royal clown in modern times to style himself “Harold” or “Egbert”.
Isn’t “King Harold” third in line to the throne?
William the first was the first of our Kings,
Not counting Ethelreds, Egberts and things.
That’s an interesting site. It also appears to recognise Svein Forkbeard and Matilda as monarchs - reasonably in my opinion - unlike other sources.
Are you saying that the Normans deliberately reset the count for all monarchs? Or did the Plantagenets just make a mistake?
That would certainly explain why they aren’t generally numbered retrospectively. But it wouldn’t have been confusing if the Plantagenet Edward I had been crowned Edward IV.
Did the first three Edwards (or to be more accurate, the second and third Edwards) have numbers when they were alive? If not, what about Ethelred II and Harold II? Were their numbers added by historians too?
I believe that Prince Charles plans not to call himself Charles when he becomes king. He apparently considers the name Charles to be unlucky and wants to be King George instead. But, yes, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t get King Cnut II.
Well this is another good point, and another thing I don’t understand. Why don’t the “Ethelreds, Egberts and things” seem to count? They were just as much Kings of England as William I, but from what we are taught you would be forgiven for thinking that English history began in 1066.
Sadly not, “Harry” is short for “Henry”.
The Saxons didn’t number their kings. William I was followed immediately by William II but he was also referred to as WIlliam Rufus. Also, the Normans came from mainland Europe where the tradition of naming rulers by the same names as their predecessors was fairly strongly established (e.g all the French kings named Charles). However, most had an epithet that distinguished them - Charles the Fat, Charles the Bald, Charles the Simple. By Edward I, the Saxon kings were pretty much discounted (after all, every king wanted to trace their lineage back to King Arthur, not Alfred), so he was the first Plantagenet king called Edward. Whether Edward II was numbered or not, I don’t know.
Does anybody know exactly when kings were numbered? A numismatist might be the best bet i.e. which kngs had numbers after their names on their coins.
It’s because Ethelred wasn’t ready. :eek:
This page has a piccy of a Henry III penny with obverse inscription HENRICVS REX TERCI. (Henry III was 1216-72, for the Plantagenetally challenged). Here’s another one, with a definite “III”.
Epithet - good word, much more academic sounding than ‘nickname’.
I had a look round for coins of earlier kings but couldn’t find any that featured the king’s number, so maybe Henry III was the first to use numbering, with earlier monarchs acquiring numbers posthumously. I would be interested to know if this really is the case or not.
And as Henry III came before all the Plantagenet Edwards, it would appear that it was Edward I who either made a mistake or, as Go alien suggests, just didn’t think the pre-Norman kings counted.
Thank you everyone for your answers.