# (British) King Numbers **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 15, 2002, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880 "2002-12-15T13:53:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@cart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cart)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2002, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/1 "2002-12-15T13:53:05Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2002, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/2 "2002-12-15T15:05:53Z")
They weren’t very good at math in those days. I believe numbering Kings is a more recent thing. ---
**Author:** ![3waygeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/e95f7d/32.png) [@3waygeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3waygeek)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2002, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/3 "2002-12-15T15:10:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **They weren’t very good at math in those days.** As demonstrated in the fine documentary film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_; King Arthur consistently thought five came after two. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2002, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/4 "2002-12-15T15:31:30Z")
Some sources such as this actually do list Edward the Confessor as Edward III: [http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon20.html](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”. ---
**Author:** ![fandango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b5ac83/32.png) [@fandango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fandango)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/5 "2002-12-16T02:24:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yabob \* > \*\* > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/6 "2002-12-16T04:10:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yabob \* > **numbering started over again after the establishment of the Norman Kings, so the Plantagenet Edward Longshanks gets to be Edward I.** _William the first was the first of our Kings, Not counting Ethelreds, Egberts and things._ 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@cart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cart)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/7 "2002-12-16T10:33:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yabob \*\*\*Some sources such as this actually do list Edward the Confessor as Edward III: > > [http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon20.html](http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon20.html) > \*\* That’s an interesting site. It also appears to recognise Svein Forkbeard and Matilda as monarchs - reasonably in my opinion - unlike other sources. > [@](#): > > \*\*At any rate, numbering started over again after the establishment of the Norman Kings, so the Plantagenet Edward Longshanks gets to be Edward I. > \*\* Are you saying that the Normans deliberately reset the count for all monarchs? Or did the Plantagenets just make a mistake? > [@](#): > > \*\*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. > \*\* 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? > [@](#): > > \*\*What we need is some royal clown in modern times to style himself “Harold” or “Egbert”. \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![cart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@cart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cart)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/8 "2002-12-16T10:39:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apollyon \* > \*\*_William the first was the first of our Kings, > Not counting Ethelreds, Egberts and things._ > > 🙂 \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![cart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@cart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cart)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/9 "2002-12-16T10:40:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by fandango \* > \*\*Isn’t “King Harold” third in line to the throne? \*\* Sadly not, “Harry” is short for “Henry”. ---
**Author:** ![Go\_alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@Go\_alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_alien)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/10 "2002-12-16T12:22:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/11 "2002-12-16T12:37:41Z")
It’s because Ethelred wasn’t ready. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/12 "2002-12-16T12:40:19Z")
[This page](http://acasun.eckerd.edu/~oberhot/eplant.htm) 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”.](http://www.irishcoinage.com/X00005.HTM) ---
**Author:** ![cart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ec8ea/32.png) [@cart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cart)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-king-numbers/142880/13 "2002-12-17T11:15:29Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Go alien_ > **However, most had an epithet that distinguished them** Epithet - good word, much more academic sounding than ‘nickname’. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Steve Wright \* > \*\*[This page](http://acasun.eckerd.edu/~oberhot/eplant.htm) 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”.](http://www.irishcoinage.com/X00005.HTM) \*\* 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.