…and not Queen Elizabeth III?
Y’know, this one.
Her mother held the title Queen Elizabeth I.
Can someone help the confuddled Yankee out? I’m sure there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation. Why wasn’t the Queen Mum known as Elizabeth II and the current queen as Elizabeth III?
Only queens regnant get numbers. EII’s mother was only a queen consort; her husband was the reigning monarch.
The Queen Mum was never the ruler. Her husband was king. Wives’ names don’t count.
By the way, her official title is “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”.
The last Queen of England was Queen Anne.
When did she stop being Empress of India (or whatever the official title)? Any other realms that have been removed from her official title lately?
My guess would be when India got its independence. When was that, 1946?
She’s never been the Empress of India, since India became independent in 1947, five years before she ascended to the throne. Victoria was the only Empress of India during British rule; Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, and George VI were the only Emperors.
Other countries that ceased to be realms - hmm - well, South Africa became a republic in the 50s. I think Fiji is currently a republic in name, although under military rule. Any of the Commonwealth countries that originally had her as head of state, but have since become republics would be removed from her official titles.
Note that she has different official titles in each Commonwealth realm. The one I cited earlier is the one she uses in the U.K. In Canada, the Royal Styles and Titles Act provides that her styles and titles in Canada are “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
I assume other realms, like Australia, have similar provisions which put the name of the realm in her styles and titles.
Ah, so queen regnant = ruler* of the country and queen consort = wife of the ruler of the country. So the current Elizabeth is only the second queen *regnant *. Got it. Thanks!
*“Ruler” in the broadest possible sense, of course. I’m aware the “ruling” is strictly ceremonial these days.
IIRC her mother was the last Empress of India… off to wiki or someplace…
A ha! 1948.
ETA- ah, hell… got screwing around on Wiki and took longer than I planned… 
…
Sorry - in my post I was referring to Empress Regnant, not Empress Consort. If you include Empress Consort, then yes, George VI’s wife was the last Empress.
She’s the second Queen Elizabeth regnant. There have been other queens regnant of England – Victoria, for example, leaps to mind, as does the aforementioned Queen Anne.
And usually both the queen dowager (the widow of the king) and the queen mother (the king’s widow and the mother of the new king/queen) are simple known as “Queen N” with no actual mention of the words dowager or mother. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was only styled “Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother” because “Queen Elizabeth” by itself would be too easily confused with her daughter. Had Elizabeth II chosen to reigh under one of her other names (as Mary III for example) her mother would have been know as “Queen Elizabeth”. She was also the last Empress of India and Queen of Ireland as both countries became republics during her husband’s reign
Gah. I knew that, really I did. :smack: Is late. Must go bed now night-night.
(Can you tell I had three toddlers running around today?)
Could the current Queen have chosen any name as a regnal name? Anastasia, perhaps? Or Maureen? Janet? Kimiko?
The picture of the Queen Mother when she was a little girl is striking.
It would be unheard of for a British monach to reign under a name not given at baptism.
There was another Queen Regnant: William III and Mary II were joint Sovereigns of England and Ireland. MaryII was not just a “consort”. Note MaryII.
To further confuse matters, if Prince Charles becomes king he would be King Charles III if he chooses to go in that direction, but he could also if he so desired be King George VII (since it’s one of his given names) or he could forego all of his given names and be King Henry IX or King Stephen II or King Jinglebottoms I. Elizabeth’s father, Prince Albert, became King George VI upon his accession just as his grandfather, also Prince Albert (the son of Victoria and her Prince Albert) had become Edward VII upon his. (George VI’s brother and predecessor Prince David became Edward VIII.)
And to make things even more confusing there’s an argument current among Scottish Nationalists (and maybe in Northern Ireland too for all I know) that she should in fact be referred to as Elizabeth I, being the first Elizabeth to be queen of the United Kingdom (an entity which did not exist at the time of Elizabeth I of England)
You can tell these people from their habit of referring to her heir, James as “James I and VI”