Ordinals In The Titles Of Monarchs

[CrownPrinceLorenzo]

But my original question was, if it's a male thing.

 

[Furienna]

It's mostly a male thing, but some sovreign queens have numbers too.

 

[Alexandria]

Seriously though, many of you did not read my posts properly.

I DID NOT SAY ELIZABETH TUDOR WAS ELIZABETH II.

NOR DID I SAY ELIZABETH BOWLES-LYON, THE QUEEN MOTHER WAS ELIZABETH I.

I have no idea where you people got those. Jesus Christ...

Let's just take a breather. There's no need to "yell" or use the Lord's name in vain, even if you are frustrated.

Sometimes posts are not read clearly enough or sometimes people misunderstand posts. Such confusion is to be expected when people are typing to a screen rather than talking face to face.

It's all a misunderstanding -- it's nothing to get into a complete tizzy about and to yell at each other for.

Alexandria
Royal Forums Administrator

 

[User0501]

OMG what are you talking about?! I SAID ELIZABETH I IS ELIZABETH TUDOR. I said no such thing that Elizabeth Tudor was Elizabeth II. Re-read my posts please.

In your earlier post you mentioned this "OMG, I already said I wasn't referring to Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon (Queen Mother) I said I was referring to Elizabeth Tudor (Elizabeth II).I asked if MONARCHS (males in particular) if they always ordinals. I know consorts(even male ones) do not have ordinals". Please read your post again carefully where you mentioned Elizabeth II in the brackets after Elizabeth Tudor as bolded in the above sentence taken from your post.

 

[User0501]

Warren... if you want to go back ::cue spooky music:: WAAAAAY back, then in ancient Egypt the Romanesque queens of the Pharoah had numbers; Cleopatra of 'Anthony and Cleopatra' fame was Cleopatra VII, it was the tradition that Pharaoh, usually called Ptolomey, would take a bride Cleopatra and both would take numerals. Cleopatra VII held the power of a dowager through her own cunning and because her husband the Pharaoh Ptolomey was dead. Other than that I don't know.

Edited to add: Srivishnu said:

"But male consorts usually do not use the regnal number in their official name as they are not the monarch but female consorts is allowed to use the regnal number if they want to as they are the consort of the Head of State."

I don't know who told you this but they misled you. Queen consorts in Britain never, and I mean never, use a regnal number; it is reserved for the Head of State, the monarch. William III and Mary II were techincal co-regnants.

Queen consorts in Britain never used a regnal number because they choose not to use them.

 

[Elspeth]

There's no reason for a person who isn't a monarch regnant to use a regnal number. It's not so much a matter of choice as a matter of irrelevance. A female consort is every bit as much a consort rather than a ruler as a male consort is.

 

[User0501]

There's no reason for a person who isn't a monarch regnant to use a regnal number. It's not so much a matter of choice as a matter of irrelevance. A female consort is every bit as much a consort rather than a ruler as a male consort is.

None of the Queen consort in Britain used a regnal number as none of their official names were a repetition of their predecessors.

 

[Elspeth]

None of the queens consort in Britain used a regnal number because they weren't regnant.

You'll notice that regnal numbers among kings and queens regnant are used whether the immediately preceding king or queen had the same name as the following one or not. Therefore, the notion that regnal numbers would be used for successive consorts with the same name is absurd.

 

[Frothy]

srivishnu hi,

Your posts on this are incorrect; consorts in Britain are not permitted to use a regnal number. Consorts with the same name have happened to come one after the other (the term 'succeeded' would be inappropriate) and of course, regnal numbers were not used as they had no right to them. Eg: Matilda of Flanders, queen of the Conqueror; next queen consort, Matilda of Scotland, to Henry I. Eleanor of Castille (queen to Edward I) was immediately after Eleanor of Provence (queen to Henry III).

 

[Toledo]

Maybe this will help: Monarchical ordinal
and Monarchical Ordinals from Answers.com. Scroll down past the Wikipedia tie in referrence, next to the picture of the Pope John Paul I you get this quote:
As a rule of thumb, medieval European monarchs did not use ordinals at their own time, and those who used were rarities and even their use was sporadical.

Scroll down even further, next to the picture of Princess Grace Kelly there is another quote to help out:
...While reigning monarchs use ordinals, ordinals are not used for queens consort and princesses consort...The lack of an ordinal in the case of queens consort and princesses consort complicating the recording of history, as there may be a number of consorts over time with the same name with no way to distinguish between them. For that reason, royal consorts after their deaths are recorded in history books and encyclopaedias through the use of their maiden name or pre-marital name.

...or the place they came from, remember that last names/surnames (as we know them today) are like new invention/trend in the middle ages.
Hope the links helps to shed some light on this thread's subject

 

[Vecchiolarry]

Ordinals - A Male Thing

Hi,

Lorenzo -
Maybe ordinals are a male thing because there are predominantly more male monarchs than female in history.
All those Fredericks and Christians in the Danish Royal Family and Gustavs in the Swedish and Nicholas and Alexanders in the Russian - confusing......

Furienne -
Thank you for posting the Swedish kings and their wives; I always get them all mixed up!!

Larry

 

[Furienna]

Thank you! Just be sure to remember, that Margareth of Connaught never became our queen, and that Gustaf Adolf Edmund and Sibylla of Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha never became king and queen.

 

[User0501]

No. A regnal number implies ruling authority which consorts do not have.

Both male and female monarchs do not use a regnal number if they are the first. We in Britain speak of "King John" and "Queen Anne" Not John I and Anne I. Not until they have successors with the same name would they be designated as the first.

It is absolutely wrong to say Elizabeth is called 'II' because she is second in the House of Windsor, houses do not matter and consorts do not matter when it comes to regnal numbers.

There has only been one King Consort of England and that was Phillip II of Spain, King Consort to Mary I.

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the second Elizabeth in the House of Windsor else she would be known as Elizabeth III as there were Elizabeth I in the House of Tudor if the regnal number be continued from other houses of the same name from the English Royal Family.

 

[User0501]

Hi,

Lorenzo -
Maybe ordinals are a male thing because there are predominantly more male monarchs than female in history.
All those Fredericks and Christians in the Danish Royal Family and Gustavs in the Swedish and Nicholas and Alexanders in the Russian - confusing......

Furienne -
Thank you for posting the Swedish kings and their wives; I always get them all mixed up!!

Larry

Yes I agree with you that there are more male monarchs than female but I don't agree that ordinals or regnal number is a male thing as Elizabeth II,Margerethe II and Elizabeth I are female monarchs.

 

[Furienna]

But since more men than women have been monarchs, it sort of becomes a male thing, even if females can have numbers too, if they become monarchs.

 

[Warren]

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the second Elizabeth in the House of Windsor else she would be known as Elizabeth III as there were Elizabeth I in the House of Tudor if the regnal number be continued from other houses of the same name from the English Royal Family.

I don't understand what's going on here. Regnal numbers relate to reigning monarchs. There have been two Elizabeths as reigning Queens, thus we have today Elizabeth II. The number of times the same Queen Consort's name appears within a House or over centuries is irrelevant.

 

[User0501]

I don't understand what's going on here. Regnal numbers relate to reigning monarchs. There have been two Elizabeths as reigning Queens, thus we have today Elizabeth II. The number of times the same Queen Consort's name appears within a House or over centuries is irrelevant.

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning monarch of Britain and the consort of HRH Prince Philip,the Duke of Edinburgh.So the Duke of Edinburgh is the Queen's Consort and not The Queen unless HRH Prince Philip is the reigning monarch then The Queen is the King's Consort.

 

[Frothy]

Srivishnu,

You are just wrong, and perhaps we could ask a moderator to clarify that.

Elizabeth II is NOT known as 'II' because she is the second queen called Elizabeth in the house of Windsor.

She is known as the second "II" because she is the second ruling monarch of England called Elizabeth. Before her, Queen Elizabeth I was just referred to as 'Queen Elizabeth' in the same way that Queen Anne or King John are currently referred to without a "I" because there have been no further ruling Queens Anne or Kings John.

Like I told you, Srivishnu, Queens Consort with the same name have followed each other and no numerals have been used.

The regnal numeral has nothing to do with the house of the monarch; it is simply an indicator of how many monarchs of that name have ruled England.

Elizabeth is the second Queen Regnant of that name hence Elizabeth II. Nothing to do with her late Majesty the Queen Mother. Nothing to do with the House of Windsor.

Consorts have no right to a regnal number - at this point maybe a moderator should clarify that in case your posts are confusing anybody - I'm sure you mean well, but you have been misled on this by somebody!

Edited: In fact Warren's post above does clarify that you are wrong, and it should be definitive.

 

[Elspeth]

Correct, Frothy. The current numbering system started after the 1066 conquest and has run ever since, regardless of which House has occupied the throne. Hence Edward I wasn't the first king of England called Edward, but he was the first after the Conquest. No consorts have been numbered except for Mary II, and that's because she was Queen in her own right as well as William III's consort. It has nothing to do with how many consorts called Mary preceded her, but it indicates that only one Queen Regnant named Mary preceded her.

 

[User0501]

Srivishnu,

You are just wrong, and perhaps we could ask a moderator to clarify that.

Elizabeth II is NOT known as 'II' because she is the second queen called Elizabeth in the house of Windsor.

She is known as the second "II" because she is the second ruling monarch of England called Elizabeth. Before her, Queen Elizabeth I was just referred to as 'Queen Elizabeth' in the same way that Queen Anne or King John are currently referred to without a "I" because there have been no further ruling Queens Anne or Kings John.

Like I told you, Srivishnu, Queens Consort with the same name have followed each other and no numerals have been used.

The regnal numeral has nothing to do with the house of the monarch; it is simply an indicator of how many monarchs of that name have ruled England.

Elizabeth is the second Queen Regnant of that name hence Elizabeth II. Nothing to do with her late Majesty the Queen Mother. Nothing to do with the House of Windsor.

Consorts have no right to a regnal number - at this point maybe a moderator should clarify that in case your posts are confusing anybody - I'm sure you mean well, but you have been misled on this by somebody!

Edited: In fact Warren's post above does clarify that you are wrong, and it should be definitive.

Yes,I know that Queen's Consort do not use the numerals as they are not the rightful heir to the throne such as HRH Prince Philip,the Duke of Edinburgh,HRH Prince Henrik of Denmark,the Prince Consort and HRH Prince Albert (HM Queen Victoria's husband).Elizabeth from the House of Tudor is known as Elizabeth I not just Queen Elizabeth.Maybe I have been misled by Buckingham Palace.So sorry for any confusion.

 

[Warren]

breathe deeply...

Yes,I know that Queen's Consort do not use the numerals as they are not the rightful heir to the throne such as HRH Prince Philip,the Duke of Edinburgh,HRH Prince Henrik of Denmark,the Prince Consort and HRH Prince Albert (HM Queen Victoria's husband).Elizabeth from the House of Tudor is known as Elizabeth I not just Queen Elizabeth.Maybe I have been misled by Buckingham Palace.So sorry for any confusion.

srivishnu, we have already clarified this issue.
Let's not now go down the same confused and meandering track by throwing regnal numbers and "rightful heirs to the throne" into the mix.
Forget Queen Consorts, forget heirs to thrones. Regnal numbers refer only to Monarchs. Full stop.

 

[Emperor Roku XIV]

Historical highest ordinal on a monarch?

I was wondering, what is the highest ordinal ever used by a monarch? The highest I can recall is Louis XIX, who reigned for only 20 minutes.

 

[Meraude]

Heinrich XXIV, Prince Reuss of Greiz: Heinrich XXIV, Prince Reuss of Greiz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prince Heinrich XXIV Reussof Köstritz, Prince Heinrich XXIV Reuss of Köstritz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MAfan]

Reuss family is a peculiar case, because all male members bore and bear the name Heinrich followed by an ordinal number; the highest ordinal was LXXII (Fürst Heinrich LXXII Reuss zu Ebersdorf, 1797-1852).

 

[hellokittylover]

I was wondering, what is the highest ordinal ever used by a monarch? The highest I can recall is Louis XIX, who reigned for only 20 minutes.

I would like to hear the rest of this story. Wasn't Louis XVI the last King of France? I know he had a son, that some people call Louis XVII, but he died as a child. Where did Louis XVIII and XIX come from?

 

[MAfan]

Louis XVIII was the brother of Louis XVI; he succeeded to his nephew Louis XVII claiming the French throne and eventually became King of France in 1814-1815 after the fall of Napoleon.

Louis XIX, also known as the Duke of Angouleme, was the son of King Charles X, the younger brother of Louis XVI and Louis XVIII and successor to the French throne at the death of the latter. When Charles X abdicated in 1830, he was succeeded by his son Louis (XIX), who himself signed about 20 minutes later his own abdication.
Louis XIX was married to his cousin Marie Therese, the daughter of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

 

[Ultramare]

Beyond the Reuss Princes, John XXIII is the higher ordinal...

 

[Ultramare]

Interestingly, every Austro-Hungary Emperor used 1st: Francis I, Ferdinand I, Francis Josef I and Charles I...

 

[tommy100]

i'm not usually a fan of wikipedia but i have to say the page on this very issue is pretty clear and i have to say seems to correspond to current practices in Europe.

Monarchical ordinal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Queens consort

While reigning monarchs use ordinals, ordinals are not used for royal consorts. So whereas King George V of the United Kingdom used an ordinal to distinguish him from other kings in the United Kingdoms called George, his wife, Queen Mary, had no ordinal.
The lack of an ordinal in the case of royal consorts complicates the recording of history, as there may be a number of consorts over time with the same name with no way to distinguish between them. For that reason, royal consorts after their deaths are recorded in history books and encyclopaedias through the use of their maiden name or, if from a noble family, its Royal House (dynastic name) or the name of the corresponding titled land.

"The first"

In some monarchies it is customary not to use an ordinal when there has been only one holder of that name. For example, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom will not be called Victoria I until there is a Victoria II. This tradition is applied in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Norway. It was also applied in most of the German monarchies and in the Hungarian. In Sweden, the practice is not consistent, as Sigismund and Adolf Frederick never have ordinals, whereas Frederick I often does.
Other monarchies do assign ordinals to monarchs who are the only ones of their name. This is a more recent invention and appears to be done for the first time when King Francis I of France issued testoons (silver coins) bearing the legend FRANCISCVS I DE. GR. FRANCORV. REX. This currently is the regular practice in Belgium, Spain and Monaco (at least for Prince Albert I, as Princess Louise Hippolyte, who reigned 150 years earlier, doesn't appear to have used an ordinal). It was also applied in Brazil, Italy, Mexico, Montenegro, Portugal (where, although this is the general rule, Kings Joseph and Luís are usually referred to as "Joseph I" and "Luís I", although there were no Joseph II, nor Luís II) and by the Papacy under Pope John Paul I. The ordinal for King Juan Carlos I of Spain is used in both Spanish and English, but he is sometimes simply called King Juan Carlos of Spain in English. In Russia, use of "The First" ordinal started with Paul I. Before him, neither Anna of Russia nor Elizabeth of Russia had the "I" ordinal.

 

[asma]

I get confused by this thread.What I know is the regnal number is used for the ruling monarch either male or female and not for consorts except some cases when the consort is himself or herself a ruling monarch for another country or both monarchs joined the two countries under their joint reign.
It's certainly not a male thing to use regnal number but as earlier poster mentioned there are a lot of male monarchs with the same neme in the same royal family which is confusing so the use of regnal number is more obvious for male monarchs.

Btw, At the royal family of Italy,the regnal numbers are realy confusing as the first king of italy was called Vittorio Emanuele II and his son the second king was called Umberto I.