# UK monarch naming/numbering Q **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 21, 2010, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-monarch-naming-numbering-q/561425 "2010-11-21T11:44:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-monarch-naming-numbering-q/561425/21 "2010-11-22T21:48:34Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > ? He was the son of Geoffry of Brittany, older brother to King John, and by strict primogeniture rules, should have inherited ahead of John. Worth noting though, that strict primogeniture was not yet firmly established at the time of Richard I’s death. Different inheritance customs in different sections of the Angevin realm meant that John and Arthur’s competing claims were accepted in different areas. > [@DrDeth](#): > > _Egbert, Aethelwulf, Aethelbald, Aethelberht, Aethelred_, Alfred, _Athelstan,_ Edmund, _Eadred, Eadwig_, Edgar, Edward, \*Aethelred, Sweyn \*(?) ,Edmund, _Canute_, Harold, _Harthacanute,_ , Edward, Harold. Most of those would have seem rather odd for a Norman/Plantagnent King. All of them would have. One of the most interesting facets of the Norman conquest was that the native Anglo-Saxon nobility were almost completely displaced with a few years and their names with them. Edward and Edmund, and only those two, returned to the fold only under Henry III, who was fascinated by the cult of Edward the Confessor. Harold ( like Sweyn, Canute and Harthacanute ) was actually a Scandinavian name and wasn’t typical even of the Anglo-Saxons. The Godwin dynasty was effectively Anglo-Danish ( Godwin’s wife was a Dane ) and Earl Godwin’s eldest sons all received Scandinavian rather than Anglo-Saxon names - Swegen/Sweyn, Harold and Tosti/Tostig. Only the youngest three ( Gyrth, Leofwine and Wulfnoth ) received more traditional Anglo-Saxon names. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-monarch-naming-numbering-q/561425/22 "2010-11-23T10:30:35Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > The numbering convention seems to go back to William I. Is this by design, or have there just not been any new Canutes or Ethelberts or Boadiceas? Although the numbering now starts with William I, that was only ever retrospective. The use of regnal numbers only started with Edward III. And that was because he faced the problem of being the third Edward in a row. It had previously not been much of a problem referring to earlier kings in official documents, even when they happened to have the same name as the current king. But Edward III began to call himself ‘Edward III’ so that his father and grandfather could be distinguished as ‘Edward II’ and ‘Edward I’. One by-product of this was that later when the numbers began to be applied to earlier kings, none of the pre-1066 King Edwards could be given numbers and, in any case, it was only with the name Edward that there was an issue at all. So, by default, the numbers were deemed to start with the Norman Conquest. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-monarch-naming-numbering-q/561425/23 "2010-11-23T10:42:33Z")
Just to piss off the English, my Scottish Nationalist friends used to refer to the current monarch as “Elizabeth I”. Because of course, she _is_ the first Elizabeth to rule Scotland. See also: “James the First and Sixth” ---
**Author:** ![Meurglys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/258eb7/32.png) [@Meurglys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meurglys)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-monarch-naming-numbering-q/561425/24 "2010-11-23T11:52:33Z")
In Scotland, if we want to say that, we say ‘James the Sixth and First’ because he was the sixth James to be crowned king in Scotland before becoming the first James on the English throne… Also applies to James the 7th & 2nd. We hadn’t had a monarch called Charles before the Union of the Crowns so the numbering was the same for them anyway. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-monarch-naming-numbering-q/561425/25 "2010-11-23T14:18:11Z")
> [@APB](#): > > Although the numbering now starts with William I, that was only ever retrospective. The use of regnal numbers only started with Edward III. And that was because he faced the problem of being the third Edward in a row. It had previously not been much of a problem referring to earlier kings in official documents, even when they happened to have the same name as the current king. But Edward III began to call himself ‘Edward III’ so that his father and grandfather could be distinguished as ‘Edward II’ and ‘Edward I’. > > One by-product of this was that later when the numbers began to be applied to earlier kings, none of the pre-1066 King Edwards could be given numbers and, in any case, it was only with the name Edward that there was an issue at all. So, by default, the numbers were deemed to start with the Norman Conquest. Interesting–I was not aware that the numbering didn’t actually start until the reign of Edward III. I expect that this is why most of the earlier kings had epithets associated with them to distinguish them, such as William Rufus (William II), Richard the Lionheart (Richard I), Henry of Winchester (Henry III), and Edward Longshanks (Edward I). ---
**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-monarch-naming-numbering-q/561425/26 "2010-11-23T14:29:49Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I expect that this is why most of the earlier kings had epithets associated with them to distinguish them, such as William Rufus (William II), Richard the Lionheart (Richard I), Henry of Winchester (Henry III), and Edward Longshanks (Edward I). Not forgetting, of course, William the Bastard – whose _real_ motivation for conquering England was to justify a change of epithet. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![dhkendall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9adbd/32.png) [@dhkendall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dhkendall)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-monarch-naming-numbering-q/561425/27 "2010-11-23T18:22:43Z")
I believe [Ralph](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102216/) is also out as a regnal name as well. 🙂 On a more serious matter, it should be mentioned that a ruler can take whatever regnal name he or she wants from their birth names (which is why many of them have scads of middle names to pick from). For example, the birth name of King George VI is Albert Frederick Arthur George, he chose the last one as his regnal name. (I recall that when QE2 was crowned, she was asked what her regnal name would be, and she replied quizzically with “Well, my own, of course!”) Adressing **Aspidistra** ’s Scottish Nationalist friends, the numbering scheme has a unique rule in it: the number must be the latest of whichever is in Scotland or England. So, a future Edward would be IX, even though there hasn’t been nearly that many Edwards regnant in Scotland. A future Robert would be IV, even though all three previous Roberts were kings of Scotland only. Churchill suggested this solution, and it turns out that all the monarchs since 1707 have adhered to this rule anyways! ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-monarch-naming-numbering-q/561425/28 "2010-11-23T18:51:05Z")
> [@Jim\_s\_Son](#): > > Before World war I. First Sea Lord Winston Churchill wanted to name a new battleship after William Pitt. King George V shot that down, saying he had served in the navy and he knew what unflattering nickname sailors would give to a ship named “Pitt”. Churchill also asked for a ship named after Oliver Cromwell, arguing he was the founder of the modern Navy. KGV shot that one down too, don’t name anything after a regicide. > > Of course when yo notice how inept the Hanover George’s were (III loses America and goes nuts, IV was a lecherous slime), you wonder how the royal family could keep assigning that name. George V and VI were decent kings – especially the latter, I would say. (I believe George V was named after his uncle, King George of Greece, who was Queen Alexandra’s favorite brother) > [@alphaboi867](#): > > More recently than King John the last Prince John (George V’s youngest son) was an epileptic who died in childhood. [Yes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_John_of_the_United_Kingdom) – I think that’s when the name John started becoming taboo. George III – actually, I believe the view of him in Britain is very different than in the U.S. He’s considered to be a quite popular and decent king. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-monarch-naming-numbering-q/561425.md?page=1)