British monarchy - Elizabeth 2nd or 1st?

Factual Questions
1

Hi, I have a question for you regarding the british monarchy.

as you are no doubt aware, when the crowns of scotland and england joined in the early 1600’s, the monarchs were James 6th of Scotland and Elizabeth 1st of England. Elizabeth died, and after that the crowns were joined, and because there was no previous monarch of great britain called james - indeed none at all - he became James 1st of great britain.

Why then, is Elizabeth 2nd so called. There has been no other monarch of Great Britain called elizabeth, only of england. so why is she not called elizabeth 1st of britain?

2

England’s numbering of monarchs takes precidence. If Chuck & Di’s son William becomes king (and keeps his name) and if there had been a King Willaim X of Scotland, he would be William V, based on the numbering of English kings.

3

Don’t you think it would be just a bit* confusing to have only two queens named Elizabeth and have them both named Elizabeth I*?

And since the English pretty well dominated Parliament and all related matters until fairly recently, they probably figured that what was good enough for England was good enough for Britain.

4

Just about as confusing as having 2 Kings called James I. There IS no confusion. Just as James I of Scotland is different to James I of Great Britain, Elizabeth I of England is different to Elizabeth I of Great Britain. What is confusing about that?

5

Should have read all of this and replied in one posting, nevertheless…

Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953, would you be so kind as to fill me in as to how England “dominated Parliament and all related matters” in this time frame?

6

Why, when it was the scottish monarchy’s bloodline which filled the vacant title. Surely the english monrchy died out ath that point, and all monarchs since descended from the jacobites? (with a bit if “unusual” marriage between then and now)

7

James I was also part of the English bloodline, a direct descendant of Henry VII.

The Jacobites never took the throne. The monarchy is descended through another branch of the family.

As for Elizabeth II, the ruler determines what he or she will be called (The king who should have been named Albert I used Edward VII to conform with Victoria’s wishes that there be no king name Albert.)

8

Just to muddy the water a little, isn’t Elizabeth II’s mother also known as Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother?
This would mean that there have been * three * English queens called Elizabeth.

9

The Queen Mother was never the Queen, she was a consort.

10

She might not have been the monarch, but that doesn’t make her not the Queen. While her husband was alive she was still the Queen, but by virtue of being married to the King, who was the monarch. She was Queen consort, not Queen regnant, or Queen by virtue of having aceeded to the throne in her own right (like Victoria or Elizabeth II.)

11

The Queen Mother is not significant in the line of succession because she was simply the wife of the Monarch. That’s why she was not Queen Elizabeth v1.5 :slight_smile:

have a look http://www.royal.gov.uk/history/since802.htm

12

But… The queen mother was never monarch, only consort. She may have held the title “queen” but she was certainly not the monarch on the throne. She only had the title “queen” by being married to the monarch. PS does that mean philip is “king”? :slight_smile:

Also,
Elizabeth Tudor (1558-1603) was monarch of england
Elizabeth Windsor (1926 - ) is monarch of great britain

Both queens named elizabeth, but of different kingdoms

On an earlier note, I referred to jacobites when I should have referred to the stuarts

13

I suppose I shouldhave thrown an only in there somewhere. To have only two reigning queens on the island, both named Elizabeth I, seems as though it would provide just a bit of confusion. With James, you have five predecessors in history so that anyone mentioning James knows that they have to be clear on which James from the get go. The same sort of thing happens with Charles V/I on the continent. There are a plethora of Charles running around France, Spain, Austria, the HRE, (not to mention Britain), and a few other areas. Anyone who refers to “Charles” knows that they need to identify which Charles from where because there are so many of them. There are only two Elizabeths who held power on the isle of Britain and I suggest that it would be confusing to call them both “the first.”

Don’t get testy. I am not dismissing the Scottish presence on the island. I am only pointing out that most of the language used in terms of the monarchy tends to have an English tilt to it. Do you disagree? The OP was not what should E. Windsor be called, but why she was called QE II. If the appropriate appellation should have been QE I of GB, then, if there was not a general English domination, I would have thought that all those fierce Scots would have insisted on it in 1953.

If you want to disagree with the term “domination” I can amend it. Select a better one. I do notice, however, that she is not known as QE I of GB.

14

indeed, this is true that there was an englishman’s seed in the scottish royal family. that does not change the fact that it was the scottish royal family, the stuarts, who took the throne over Britain, ending the english royal family, making that line become the british royal family. You could argue that the current royal family is not truly british, but part german, greek, etc - but it is still the british royal family

The name, yes, but not the number. Charles could not suddenly have himself referred to as Charles xxxvi when he becomes king

15

Yikes, let’s at least get history straight before we try to answer questions…

James I of England (James VI of Scotland) was a Stuart. The Stuarts had ruled Scotland since 1371, when Robert II (Stuart), son of Walter Steward and Marjory Bruce, ascended to the throne. The name was spelled Stewart, from Steward, until Mary Stuart, who was quite the Francophile, changed the spelling. The monarchs of Scotland were, in order, Robert II, Robert III, James I, James II, James III, James IV, James V, and Mary. James IV was married to Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII of England.

Mary Stuart abdicated the Scots throne in 1561, and her son, James VI was made king. When his first cousin twice-removed Elizabeth I of England died, he was accepted as king of England (by act of Parliament if I am remembering correctly, as well as by law of primogeniture.

James I (VI) was followed by Charles I, Charles II, his brother James II (VII), Mary II (who was also Mary II in Scotland) who was James’ daughter, and Anne (no designation, there having been only one Anne who was queen regnant), another daughter of James. At that point, Anne having failed to produce an heir who managed to outlive her, the direct Stuart ruling line ended (there were, of course, the son and grandson of James, known as the Old Pretender and the Young Pretender (also known as Bonnie Prince Charlie).

After James I (VI) became King of England (retaining his title as King of Scots), he ruled as the king of both countries. This was not new, particularly; dual monarchies had existed before in Europe and Henry VI had theoretically been King of England and King of France (he was the grandson of King Charles VI; his claim was disputed by his uncle, who became, with the help of Jeanne d’Arc, Charles VII despite the Treaty of Troyes, in which the French had agreed to have the succession go through Charles VI’s daughter Catherine, who had married Henry V of England). The kingdoms of Scotland and England were not fused until the Act of Union (1707), when the parliaments of both countries were united, and the country became the Kingdom of Great Britain. Thus, as you can see, until 1707, the nomenclature wouldn’t have to have changed. (Someone with better understanding than I can look up and address what the Scots called William III of England)

The first king/queen whose name would have forced the United Kingdom to decide what to do about nomenclature was William IV (ascended 1830). Someone with more understanding than I can provide information about whether the issue was addressed by Act of Parliament (for all I know it is addressed in the Act of Union (1707). I’ll poke about to see if I can find the answer.
As for queens who were not rulers, their names do not figure into the numbering scheme, just as prince consort names do not. There were numerous Marys, Elizabeths, Isabelles, etc. who were queen in England; the fact that the English didn’t ever see fit to come up with a new term for a ruling queen doesn’t affect this issue.

Information used herein came from several sources, including Compton’s Online Encyclopedia (Compton’s Online) and A History of Scotland, J. D. Mackie.

16

Actually, the Tudors were Welsh, not English, and had precious little royal blood when Henry VII became king. The Tudors took over at the end of the War of the Roses, which was fought between the houses of York and Lancaster, which were simply two divergent lines of the Plantagenet family. The Plantagenet family were decended from Geoffry Plantagenet, Duke of Anjou, and thus was a truly French Family. The Angevin “Plantagenet” family had taken over from King Stephen, count of Blois, also a Frenchman, who had taken over from the Normans, vikings who settled in France. The Normans had taken over the kingdom from a time when it was ruled by Danes mostly, though IIRC, Harold Godwinson, the last pre-norman King of England, was actually English.

Moving forward, the Stuarts were replaced eventually by the Hanover family, a family so German that it wasn’t until George III that they became fulkly anglicized. The Windsor family is actually a made-up name. The real family name is Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, also German. Interestingly, for the first time in history, the royal family name, Windsor, is being passed down matrilineally. Charles, under tradition, should be the start of the “Montcalm” line. Prince Philip Montcalm, is of course of the Greek royal family, making him nearly 100% German. Lost yet?

Thus, the last truly “English” king was Harold (II) Godwinson, in 1066, and the monarchy went, in order, from Norman French to French to Welsh to Scottish to German. The practice of numbering monarchs didn’t begin until the second coming of the English family lines (the original English rulers were driven out for about 100 years by a Danish line). Thus Edward VIII is actually the tenth or eleventh King of England named Edward.

This is of course all in a country that maintains a tradition of hereditary monarchy when in fact it hasn’t been truly hereditary since Henry IV got Parliament to nullify the reign of Richard II and name him king. The same thing happend when Henry VII overthrew Richard III (who conveniently died in battle, however Henry, not the best candidate upon Richard’s death, was still elected king by Parliament). Again, it was Parliament that re-established the monarchy after the Cromwells by inviting Charles II to become king, and which voted his brother James out of office and voted in William and Mary. Since Mary died first, William, a Ducthman, was king exclusively for a while, and had he had any living protestant children, there may have been a long standing Dutch line. After the death of Anne, it was Parliament again who chose George, Elector ot Hanover, to become King, who was only one of several decent protestant candidates for successor.

So why we should be so concerned with whether tradition mandates that the current Queen Regnant be numbered Elizabeth II or Elizabeth I is utterly rediculous. The system is what ever the system is as it is interpreted at the moment. Since there was no precedent for renumbering begining with James Stuart (or with Anne, for that matter, when Scotland and England became officially joined) then she can be Elizabeth II. Since that is what she is, there is no use changing it for any perceived tradition that may or may not be being violated. It’s obvious that there isn’t one, if you look closely enough at English/British history, so why worry over it.

17

The reigning monarch decides whether his or her spouse is given the title of “king” or “queen.” QE2 has not proffered the designation upon Philip, so he is Prince Consort.

18

I believe this is the explanation why, following the union, there were Kings William IV and Edward VIII, which followed the English numbering, not the Scottish. However, I don’t believe it is still the case.

This issue was raised by Scottish nationalists at the time of Eliabeth II’s accession. Some nationalists went to court and argued that nothing done under the authority of the so-called QEII had lawful effect in Scotland, since there had never been a QEI of Scotland. I believe the courts ruled that the number after the monarch’s name is not legally necessary for the validity of acts done in her name.

Since then, QEII has decided, under her prerogative authority over royal styles and titles, that henceforth, the monarch’s number will be based on the highest number of her/his predecessor of the same name, whether Scots or English. So, the current Queen is Elizabeth II, but if a future monarch used a name from the Scottish royalty, like Malcolm, Duncan or Lulach, the numbering would be based on the Scots numbering.

For example, the last king named Malcolm was King Malcom II of Scotland. A monarch taking that name would be Malcolm III of the United Kingdom.

(I believe that it was Winston Churchill who first advanced this proposal when he was a radical young M.P. at the beginning of the last century. I will check around to see if I can confirm that point.)

19

p.s. - Jayron - welcome back! where you been?

20

Hm… So does that mean that that the next James will be James III or James IX? Is it most recent predecessor or highest number predecessor?

And that seems a relatively wonderful compromise, and since there are only a few duplicate names among Scottish and English kings, it shouldn’t be much of a problem. (English kings are most commonly named Edward, Henry, Charles, or William. Scottish Kings are most commonly named Malcom, James, Robert, or Alexander IIRC).

This may not seem like a big deal, especially with my dismantling of monarchical history a few posts previous, but with the rising nationalist movements in Scotland and Wales, it MAY make a big difference.

Well, I was student teaching for the past few months, and so didn’t have as much time to screw around online. But I’m back at my old job for the summer, which means I’m back here! Did ya miss me?