There were also Mary I (Elizabeth I’s sister) and Lady Jane Grey, their Mother-in-Law.
Correct.
The Royal Style and Titles Act (Cth) 1973 gives her style and titles in Australia as “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her
other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.”
As stated it’s unheard of but not impossible.
However Queen Agnes doesn’t quite have the same ring to it as Elizabeth 
The Queen’s full name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. So she could have chosen to be Queen Alexandra or Queen Mary III if she had wished.
James the VI and I, please! He was James the Sixth of Scotland long before he also became James the First of England…
What does it matter in Scotland? Elizabeth I was the first queen of a united England and Scotland. James VI, King of Scotland, died, and the throne was passed to Elizabeth of England, whom I believe was his cousin. James’ death basically united England and Scotland under one throne.
You’ve got that backwards. James VI ascended to the throne of Scotland in 1567, and Elizabeth I was the last Tudor Queen of England, from 1558 until she died in 1603. Having no immediate heirs, the crown passed to her cousin Jimmy-boy, who ascended to the throne of England as James I in 1603.
From then on the two crowns were united under one monarch, but they remained separate states with their own governments. It wasn’t until the Acts of Union in 1706 and 1707 that the state of Great Britain was created.
I don’t know if there is a legal basis, but as a practical matter, the monarchs of Great Britain have considered themselves the successors to the monarchs of England. So Lizzy is Elizabeth II, and if there were another James, he’d be James III. (AFAIK).
Let’s just average it out and call him James 3.5
Lady Jane Grey was not Mary and Elizabeth’s mother-in-law, she was a cousin*. She was a great-granddaughter of Henry VII. Her grandmother, Mary Tudor, was the sister of Henry VIII. Mary’s daughter, Lady Frances Brandon, was the mother of Lady Jane Grey and gave up her place in the succession so her daughter could take the throne. Edward VI - a Protestant - didn’t want to leave the throne to his Catholic half-sister Mary, and in any case both Elizabeth and Mary had been declared illegitimate during their father’s reign. Unfortunately Edward’s will lacked the authority to overturn his father’s Act of Succession, and overlooked the fact that the people of England supported Mary’s claim to the throne. Lady Jane’s reign was brought to an end after just nine days and she was executed at the grand old age of 16.
- First cousin once removed, I believe
Excellent correction. Just as a minor note, 1707 was the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain as a unified governmental/political entity. In the period 1603-49 and 1660-1707, England (incorporating Wales) and Scotland were separate kingdoms, distinct govenmental entities, sharing a common monarch and with increasingly more common laws and institutions shared between them (as when English money came to the rescue of a failing Scottish colony somewhere in the Americas). The name adopted by James (VI and) I for his combined thrones was the name of the island, Great Britain, and the usage was common on and off throughout the 17th Century before the actual union of the kingdoms by the 1707 Act of Union.
The Stuart, Hanover, and Windsor monarchs have always considered themselves heirs to both the English and Scottish thrones, and, though it’s seldom made an issue, of the three Welsh royal houses and the four Irish ones as well. The point you were going for, though, is that in reference to regnal numbers, the (post-Conquest) English series is the one commonly used.
Elizabeth I never married, so she had no mother-in-law.
Mary I married Prince Phillip, later King Phillip II of Spain, so her mother-in-law was Isabella of Portugal, who also held the titles of Empress of the Holy Roman Empire and Queen of Spain.
That would be the Darien Scheme. There wasn’t any English money, in fact the English Government forbade any investment so as not to antagonize Spain. This lead the Company of Scotland to raise all the money locally
with disastrous consequences when the colony failed.
Actually, no, a future King James would be James VIII.
Following the ruling in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate in 1953, Churchill (as Prime Minister) indicated that future monarchs would use whichever regnal number was higher. Such a promise is hardly binding, but it is unlikely to be ignored because (1) the Scots would make a huge fuss, (2) it was a rather neat solution to the controversy and (3) a future PM wouldn’t want to be seen to be contradicting Churchill. Then there’s the fact that most of the names for which the Scottish numbering would apply - Malcolm, Duncan, Macbeth (!), Lulach (!), Donald, Edgar, Alexander, David, Margaret, Robert and James - are not ones that the Royal Family seem likely to want to use in the near future. Perhaps only an Alexander IV, David III or Margaret II are really conceivable. James VIII would sound too Jacobite. So, in practice, the Scottish numbering is unlikely ever to be needed. But it was the symbolic concession of this point in 1953 that mattered.
She looks just like the girl that was in the picture frame I bought at Target last week. And kind of of hot as well. 
So is her shortened name “Elizabeth Faith”? Seriously, what would her “real” name be?
Just curious- does Jane officially count as a monarch? Let’s say William had a daughter and he names her Jane. Would she ascend as Jane II?
“Defender of the Faith” is a title, not a surname. I think there’s some dispute about what her surname is, but if the UK were to become republic, she would probably use the surname Windsor.
I’m sure there was one precedent. Memory a bit vague, don’t recall which king it was. I think his birth name was John, or maybe Charles. But he didn’t want to be another King John. So he took his brother’s name, instead.
Yeah, but what would she do for a living if they got rid of the monarchy? I can’t exactly see her working as a greeter at Wal-Mart, wearing a blue smock and a nametag that reads, “Hi, I’m Liz. How can I help you?”
She’s only enough to draw the old-age pension if she lost her job. But is reality, part of the deal might be some kind of superannuation package at least as good as that given to former senior politicians and civil servants.