# "The Tudors" and signatures of historical personages

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tudors-and-signatures-of-historical-personages/493573>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [April 18, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tudors-and-signatures-of-historical-personages/493573 "2009-04-18T21:48:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\
**Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tudors-and-signatures-of-historical-personages/493573/1 "2009-04-18T21:48:49Z")

</div>

On an episode of _The Tudors_, Peter O’Toole as Pope Paul III signed a document “Paul III.” Would this have really happened? I know that the signature of the English monarch, for example, is “Elizabeth R[egina],” not “Elizabeth II.” Similarly, I expect that Henry VIII’s signature would have been “Henry R” (or perhaps even “Henricus R”?). Henry has been shown signing documents, and, although I can’t see what he’s writing, his hand movements make me think he’s writing “Henry VIII,” which would be historically inaccurate.

So, what do people know about historical signatures? Would Paul III have signed his name “Paul III”? I suspect it would have been “Paulus E.R.” (Episcopus Romanus).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\
**Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tudors-and-signatures-of-historical-personages/493573/2 "2009-04-18T21:56:27Z")

</div>

He signed with an “R” not an “VIII”. Lots of examples on the web. See [here](http://www.geocities.com/tudorhist/tudor.htm).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gotterfunken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gotterfunken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gotterfunken)\
**Post date:** [April 19, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tudors-and-signatures-of-historical-personages/493573/3 "2009-04-19T02:23:50Z")

</div>

Popes normally do include their ordinal number as part of their signature, although their name would take the Latin form, as you rightly suspect. Plus, he would have added “PP” between his name and the number. [Wiki cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope):

> [@](#):
>
> The best-known title of the Popes, that of “Pope” . . . is commonly used in the titles of documents, and appears, in abbreviated form, in their signatures. Thus Pope Paul VI signed as “Paulus PP. VI”, the “PP.” standing for “Papa” (“Pope”).

So on most documents, Paul III would have signed them as “Paulus PP III.” You can see Paul III’s actual signature on the following page in the form of a rota, which would have been used in signing papal bulls: [http://asv.vatican.va/en/dipl/rota\_it.htm](http://asv.vatican.va/en/dipl/rota_it.htm) (Paul’s rota is on the bottom right on that page; his name appears below the cross arm, with “Paulus” in the lower left quadrant, and “PP III” in the lower right)

If you look at Benedict XVI’s signature, you’ll find the pope still signs things in the “[name] PP [ordinal number]” format: [example](http://libraries.cua.edu/papalexhibit/commemvisit/pages/1_60daysite15.html)