Monarchs' Numeration

[Queen Marie]

Maybe this is a silly question but, if you don't ask you'll never know!:o

Our last king named Edward was the eighth British king to bear that name.
BUT, there were three Anglo-Saxon Edwards (I The Elder, II The Martyr and III The Confessor) who don't seem to be counted. The count begins again with the Plantagenet King Edward I Longshanks. Also, there was Edward Balliol of Scotland.
All that would mean that Edward VIII was in fact Edward XII.

I have submitted this question to the official royal website many times, but have received no response.
I'm wondering if anyone here might be able to help me.

[Elspeth]

They started counting with William the Conqueror, so kings before him aren't included. If we get a King Alfred in the future, he'll be Alfred I, because Alfred of the burned cakes won't count even though he was the only king ever to rate the description "The Great."

I don't know if it's just convention or if England wasn't thought to be really united until William I came along, but whatever the reason, he's the starting point for the counting system.

[Queen Marie]

Excellent! Thank you very much indeed!:)

[felicia]

From what I understand the other Edwards aren't counted in the numbering system because they have other names - the Elder, the Martyr and the Confessor. Also Elspeth is right that the counting started anew with William the Conqueror not because he was the first king after the Norman conquest, but because William I was the first king to actually rule over the WHOLE of England. The others all had bits being ruled over by Scandinavian countries and others I think. Kings before William the Conqueror are included, but just not Edward I think, because the Edwards were not numbered before the conquest. For instance, if we had another King Harold, he would be Harold III to distinguish between Harold I and Harold II king of England. Well that is what I believe to be correct, I am not a total expert.

[felicia]

Originally Posted by Queen Marie

Maybe this is a silly question but, if you don't ask you'll never know!:o

Our last king named Edward was the eighth British king to bear that name.
BUT, there were three Anglo-Saxon Edwards (I The Elder, II The Martyr and III The Confessor) who don't seem to be counted. The count begins again with the Plantagenet King Edward I Longshanks. Also, there was Edward Balliol of Scotland.
All that would mean that Edward VIII was in fact Edward XII.

I have submitted this question to the official royal website many times, but have received no response.
I'm wondering if anyone here might be able to help me.

Actually, just to clarify, if the first three kings you mention were counted in the present numbering order then Edward VIII would have been Edward XI. Kings who were just kings of Scotland and not England do not count in the numbering system. For example James VI of Scotland was James I King of England, not James VII king of England. So Edward Balliol of Scotland could never count in the numbering system because he was not king of England.

[Frothy]

Actually the lists have him as 'James VII and II' and so forth; we use 'James II' as a shorthand. You must list the title of a monarch of Scotland under the current rules. There are many pedants :) who will still say 'James VI and I'. Where it would get interesting is if we had a Queen Margaret, she would be Margaret II of Scotland (after the Fair Maid of Norway) and yet plain Margaret in England.

[felicia]

Yes Frothy you are right, but I meant that we do not say King James VII of England when refering to James I. He is James I of England, and VI of Scotland. We don't add them up together. The Scottish Kings had some interesting names that no King of England has ever had - Alexander, David, Constantine, Duncan, Kenneth, Macbeth, etc. I like those names a lot. Far more interesting than Henry, etc.

[chrissy57]

One thing to remember is that James I and VI was James VI of Scotland BEFORE he became James I of England. As a result it would be hardly possible to suddenly start renaming him in Scotland.

[felicia]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

One thing to remember is that James I and VI was James VI of Scotland BEFORE he became James I of England. As a result it would be hardly possible to suddenly start renaming him in Scotland.

Of course, I didn't say otherwise. I meant we don't add up the numbers of I of England and VI of Scotland to call him James VII of England.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by felicia

Of course, I didn't say otherwise. I meant we don't add up the numbers of I of England and VI of Scotland to call him James VII of England.

Who ever suggested that we did add the numbers together?

I simply was pointing out a valid reason why James I and VI is referred to that way and to a lesser extent James II and VII is sometimes referred to that way (but most of my books simply call him James II - bad luck about the Scottish numbering).

Using the I and VI is not that same as adding the numbers together to get to VII but he is correctly called James I and VI (1 of England and VI of Scotland but before he inherited the English throne so he kept both).

[felicia]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

Who ever suggested that we did add the numbers together?

I simply was pointing out a valid reason why James I and VI is referred to that way and to a lesser extent James II and VII is sometimes referred to that way (but most of my books simply call him James II - bad luck about the Scottish numbering).

Using the I and VI is not that same as adding the numbers together to get to VII but he is correctly called James I and VI (1 of England and VI of Scotland but before he inherited the English throne so he kept both).

I was refering to the original post in this thread which said that Edward VIII would have been Edward XII of England if previous kings of England named Edward were counted in the present numbering system, which they are not. I was trying to explain that in fact we would say that Edward VIII was Edward XI of England if the 3 previous kings were counted (the elder, the martyr and the confessor) and we would not count Edward Balliol because he was JUST king of Scotland and not England. Simple misunderstanding.