This is not actually true. Their names in ‘Fixtures’ (the School Almanac published each half) were HRH Prince William of Wales. (Same style for Harry). The beaks would refer to him as Prince William or just William (more common).
Close enough 
Not even in the neighbourhood, I’m afraid.
Was closer than ‘Battenerg’, though…
Perhaps for a native English speaker, I suppose. The rest of us know the difference between a castle and a mountain (pronunciationwise I mean).
Between 1603 and 1707 (when one person was king or queen of two separate kingdoms) two different regnal numbers were used where appropriate. But from the union of England and Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 there has only been one official regnal number.
The Queen’s official title (in the UK) is not “Queen of England” or “Queen of Scotland”; it is “Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. She is the first Queen of the United Kingdom to have born the name Elizabeth. Nevertheless her official style is Elizabeth II; she is never officially referred to as Elizabeth I, even in Scotland. This is also true in other Commonwealth countries, e.g. in Australia she is “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”, despite the fact that there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of Australia.
The convention is that the monarch will always have an official regnal number which is the higher of the numbers that would apply, were England and Scotland still to be separate kingdoms. Hence William IV was so called because he was the fourth king of that name to rule over England, even though he was only the second king of that name to rule over Scotland.
As it happens, all the Kings and Queens since the union in 1707 have had names which either never appeared before the union (George, Anne, Victoria) or appeared in England more than in Scotland (William, Edward, Elizabeth). The convention will not be fully tested until there is a King or Queen with a name which, prior to the union, appeared more in Scotland than in England, such as Robert, James or David.
No, your ‘Flag-waving Scottish nationalist site’ is talking nonsense. Any doubts about the status of the Union of the Crowns of 1603 were ended by the 1707 Acts of Union which specifically spoke of ‘the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain’ and ‘the Imperial Crown of Great Britain’.
In 1953, on being asked to rule on whether the Queen was ‘Elizabeth I’ or ‘Elizabeth II’ in Scotland, the Court of Session ruled that she was ‘Elizabeth II’, on the grounds that, in Scots law, this was a matter for the royal prerogative and so it was entirely up to her how she wished to be numbered. Following this decision, Churchill (as Prime Minister) indicated to Parliament that in future the higher numerial, whether Scottish or English, would be used throughout the UK.
It was a typo - I wrote ‘u’ instead of ‘e’. 
Same thing as when you left out the ‘b’, I guess?
You were right to point it out though, soz for the snappy replies.
[sub]Believe it or not, I’m a post-grad student in German literature. Kinda hard to tell from my posts though, innit :o [/sub]
Apologies, I’ll try to dig myself out of this hole too. I was referring to the question of whether the Queen is referred to as “Queen Elizabeth I” in Scotland. The site I linked to is evidence that she is. The site is wrong, but that doesn’t mean she’s not still referred to by that title (it’s just in error).
[sub]BTW, I’m not intentionally trying to talk b*llocks (despite the fact I’m succeeding magnificently). I’m just using info I’ve found online; when I’ve used reputable book references in the past, the impression I got was that people don’t like it cos they can’t go check it themselves. I’ve no idea which sites are accurate or not, but I know there’s a whole section in the UL that I could go look at which would provide more accurate, reliable info, but no-one would be able to verify it and that rather kills the debate [/sub]
Of course, in Scotland the Queen is usually just referred to as ‘the Queen’. If they need to be more specific, most Scots will happily refer to her as ‘Elizabeth II’, even if they have strong feelings on the matter. I’ve yet to come across any Scot who insists on calling her ‘Elizabeth I’.
And by all means use the CUL to dig up arcane information that no one else can verify - that’s what it’s there for.
Actually, nobody is ever called “Queen Elizabeth I” in their own time unless you are making a laboured political point, which is what that site is doing. “Queen Elizabeth” will do just fine unless and until a second monarch of the same name happens along. Hence there is a Queen Anne, a Queen Victoria and a Queen Mary, but not a Queen Anne I, a Queen Victoria I or a Queen Mary I.
So if the Scots were pursuing a separate regnal numbering sequence, they would refer to the current monarch as just “Queen Elizabeth”, not as “Queen Elizabeth I”.
Geez. I was hoping that e-logic was going to treat us all to some urban legends, but then APB goes and spoils it by talking about a library.
D’oh! It IS Battenberg.
Although, if we really wanted to get technical, Prince Charles’s surname should be Glucksburg.
Oh, and while Diana may not have had more Royal blood than Lilibet (NOT Lizzy!), she certainly had more ENGLISH blood-the Royal family is almost 100 percent German by blood. With the Queen Mum, they regained some, but then Lilibet went and married Philip, who was German by blood.
Huh. Is this binding? If, for example, Charles or Wills decided to use the name “James” on ascending the throne, he’d be James VIII?
Nitpick: There is a Queen Mary I, the designation for “Bloody” Mary Tudor to distinguish her from Mary Stuart who was the second half of William and Mary and was co-regnant as Queen Mary II. But I take your point; in Tudor times nobody would have referred to her as Mary I, just Queen Mary.
Although I’ve seen some writings purporting to be historically accurate that would refer to “His Majesty King X, the first of that name.” Was this usage ever common? Or is it “zoundery”?
No, it’s not binding, but it is difficult to imagine that the principle would be disregarded, especially as the assurances were made by Churchill. As each monarch can chose what name they want to use, there will, in any case, always be a simple way to sidestep the issue.
I suspect its zoundery. Certainly at the time the monarch is reigning if he is the first of that name there is no need to say so; there is no possibility of confusion with any other monarch.