umm…that was a joke.
found a summary of the Scottish court case I mentioned, in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed.), vol. 8, para. 870, note 2:
“There is nothing explicit in the Union with Scotland Act 1706, art. I, prohibiting the adoption of the numeral “II”: MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, 1953 S.C. 396.”
jayron,
of course! I still giggle when I remember your masterful flame in the “Lightning Rods on the Vatican” thread.
Wow, I’d forgotten all about that. Yeah, that guy was a tool. What happened to him? I myself am 100% non-religious, but I also * understand * and * respect * religion, and it upsets me greatly when someone thinks that they have some misconception about how they think religion works and then use it to discredit religion.
There’s two ways people here seem to post questions: Either they want to understand how something works, or else they have have found some little bit of what they perceive to be an inconsistency, and then wish to use it to tear down an entire institution. It’s absurd. Some people are looking for an arguement, not an explanation. Going back to the current thread (so this conversation is not a total hijack) would you interpret the O.P. to mean “I don’t understand the numbering scheme of British Monarchs. Can anyone explain.” or “Ha Ha… someone try to explain this: QEI was Queen of England, while the current queen is Queen of Great Britain… Ergo, she should be QEI also. That’s the only logical conclusion.”
Rather then trying to find a reason why she should be QEII, it would appear this whole thread starts with the premise that she * shouldn’t * be QEII, and then use that post-hoc conclusion to refute efforts to explain the tradition of the British monarchy. But, then again, I could just be way off base here and misinterpreting horribly. I apoligize for any stepped on toes if indeed I am off-base.
To further confuse the issue, please note that Elizabeth Tudor was never properly styled Elizabeth I during her lifetime. She only became Elizabeth I once there was an Elizabeth II to distinguish her from.
Has any other reigning monarch every had a popular American television program name after them? 
I dont suppose you would consider “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air?” 
Oh, by the way, jayron, about your inquiry about a future King James: I would assume he would be styled James VIII, not IX.
James VI of Scotland was James I of England; his son was James VII of Scotland and James II of England; his grandson, the Old Pretender, styled himself James VIII/III in exile, but was not recognised by either England or Scotland. So, counting from the last recognized James VII/II, and going one more than the higher of the two numbers, a future James would be King James VIII.
DSYoungEsq - I’m not sure what William of Orange’s numbering was in Scotland. There was one previous King William of Scotland, nicknamed “The Lion” (1165-1214). I would assume that William of Orange would have been William II of Scotland, III of England, since he reigned before the Union, and there were still two distinct monarchies and Parliaments. I will poke around a bit and see if I can turn up anything.
Why can’t it be “There is an apparent inconsistency in the numbering of British monarchs, is there a reason for this?”. Surely that is a reasonable question to ask? The question was not asked in an argumentative style although the OP undoubtedly had an opinion already formed and simply sought rebuttal or confirmation. What is wrong with that?
DSYoungEsq,
I’ve followed up on the issue of William of Orange in Scotland.
Since Scotland was still an independent kingdom in 1688, the decision of the English Parliament to make William and Mary joint monarchs of England obviously did not apply in Scotland.
Instead, the same procedure was followed in Edinburgh: the estates were called together in a convention, not a parliament, and they offered the throne to William and Mary on terms, set out in the Claim of Right, similar to the English Bill of Rights. (The most important term seems to have been the recognition that the Church of Scotland was to be presbyterian, not episcopalian).
Once William and Mary accepted the Claim of Right, they were recognized as joint monarchs.
There had been one previous Scottish king named William (the Lion), so William of Orange was William II of Scotland, III of England.
By a happy coincidence, both England and Scotland had each only had one previous queen regnant named Mary (Mary Tudor in England, Mary Stuart in Scotland), so Mary of Orange was Mary II in both countries.
forgot to add my source: Dynasty: The Stuarts 1560-1807, by John MacLeod.
(Hit “submit reply” instead of “preview.” still getting used to the new software.)
Most people think the Cunard ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2 is named after the British monarch. Not true. There’s a reason why that ship has an Arabic numeral after the name instead of a Roman numeral. The QE2 is simply the second Cunard ship named after Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. The original Queen Elizabeth was built in George VI’s reign.
Similarly, the Cunard line Queen Mary, which is permanently docked in Long Beach, CA is not named after Queen “Bloody” Mary I or Mary II, but the wife of George V…
Also, Toronto’s Queen Elizabeth Way is named after the Queen Mother, not QE II.
Thanks, jti! Now, if you can get the 'puter to disgorge a facsimile of the Act of Union With Scotland of 1707, I’ll love ya to death! I can’t get mine to acknowledge any site with the text of that Act. (sigh)
FWIW, my encyclopedia has entries for the following:
Malcolm II
Malcolm III
Malcolm IV
Malcolm X
I wonder what happened to Malcolms V through IX…
jti, so you don’t have to love me to death or any other state, but here’s a link:
http://www.forscotland.com/aou.html
Let me know if it doesn’t meet your needs, I have tons more.
Please prepend “I’m not” to the previous post. I swear I typed it.
Is there any more disturbing transmission glitch than one that eliminates a “not”?
Thanks, KP! That is what I was looking for, though I have to say that I can’t be sure they didn’t ‘edit’ some of it; there appear to be at least two articles prematurely ended.
From this text, it appears that the naming convention was not addressed in the Act. Thus, when William IV came to the throne, it would have been a question of first impression. Perhaps someone can point to either Act of Parliament or some declaration of the King that established what he would be called.
Thanks to an earlier poster, we now know why Prince Albert chose the name Edward VII after Queen Victoria died instead of the more obvious King Albert.
Is that the same reason why another Prince Albert chose the name George VI after Edward VIII abdicated?
We should remember that the English and Scottish kings became one in 1606, but the United Kingdom didn’t form till 1707 Union of the Parliaments. Thereafter there were no Kings/Queens of Scots and No Kings/Queens of England.
Our present monarch is definitely not Queen of England, as there is no such title.
The correct title is (since 1952) Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
She has different titles and styles in every country in the realms and territories.
It doesn’t make much sense to read too much into the numeral II.
When Scotland gets independence, the 1707 Act of Union will be dissolved, and the situation will revert to the pre 1707 Union of the Crowns, where the Queen will be Queen of Scots, and Queen of England.
There will be no “Rest of the United Kingdom”, because the only two kingdoms were in Great Britain (Great Britain being the major island in the British Isles archipalago, a grouping that includes the whole island of Ireland). Wales isn’t a kingdom, it is a principality. The British Monarch ceased ruling Ireland when Eire became a republic. Northern Ireland is not a kingdom, it is a province.
The tradition in Scotland was that the monarch was the leader of the people (King of Scots), whereas in England, the monarch was the landowner.
Please let me know if this helps anyone.