The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Ceremony and Protocol (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/)
-   -   Ordinals In The Titles Of Monarchs (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/ordinals-in-the-titles-of-monarchs-10311.html)

Warren 01-10-2012 03:18 PM

:previous:
The Italian numeration followed that used by the Dukes of Savoy.
Vittorio Amedeo II, Duke of Savoy, became King Vittorio Amedeo II of Sardinia in 1720 when the Kingdom was ceded to the Dukes of Savoy;
King Vittorio Emanuele II of Sardinia became King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy in 1861 when the Savoy dynasty assumed the new Crown following Italian unification.

asma 01-10-2012 05:34 PM

[
Quote:

QUOTE=Warren;1356739]:previous:
The Italian numeration followed that used by the Dukes of Savoy.
Vittorio Amedeo II, Duke of Savoy, became King Vittorio Amedeo II of Sardinia in 1720 when the Kingdom was ceded to the Dukes of Savoy;
King Vittorio Emanuele II of Sardinia became King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy in 1861 when the Savoy dynasty assumed the new Crown following Italian unification.
[/QUOTE]


Thanks warren.I want to add that Umberto I was supposed to be Umberto IV according to Dukes of Savoy numeration but he chose to be called the first as he was the first Umberto of the kingdom of Italy.

PrincessKaimi 01-10-2012 06:34 PM

Wikipedia looks correct to me (and detailed in its explanation).

When people misunderstand each other in text, it often helps to put more paragraph breaks in. Some of the misunderstood posts on this thread have used the dreaded "wall of text" format.

King John is another example of a male monarch without a number.

Meraude 01-13-2012 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furienna (Post 478856)
I believe our Swedish king Oscar I was always known as Oscar I after he had become our king, even before his son was known as King Oscar II. But I'm not sure.

Oscar I was not known as Oscar I during his reign, you can check these coins minted during his reign, the inscription says "Oscar Sveriges Norr. Goth. och Vend. Konung" without any numeral. Oscar I

So if Victoria and Daniel have a son and gives him the name Wilhelm, there wouldn't be any numeral in his name when he becomes king as there haven't been any Swedish king named Wilhelm before him.

PrincessKaimi 01-13-2012 01:29 PM

Great post, Maude - I guess we have to keep track of this nation by nation. Seems the majority of nations are similar to England...while those more closely connected to the Holy Roman Empire are apt to putting a number when one isn't strictly needed to distinguish the person? I'm sort of guessing what the summary of all this might be.

Furienna 01-13-2012 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meraude (Post 1357942)
Oscar I was not known as Oscar I during his reign, you can check these coins minted during his reign, the inscription says "Oscar Sveriges Norr. Goth. och Vend. Konung" without any numeral. Oscar I

So if Victoria and Daniel have a son and gives him the name Wilhelm, there wouldn't be any numeral in his name when he becomes king as there haven't been any Swedish king named Wilhelm before him.

I see. Well, I said I wasn't sure.

CyrilVladisla 09-02-2014 11:30 PM

Francis (Francois) I of France issued silver coins bearing the legend FRANCISCVS I DE. GR FRANCORV. REX
:franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3::franceflag3:
There were times when sovereigns had more than one ordinal.
Ferdinand II was King of Aragon from 1479 until 1516. As Ferdinand V he was King of Castile from 1475 to 1504.

Charles I was King of Spain from 1516 until 1556. As Charles V he reigned as Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 to 1556.

Mbruno 04-01-2018 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 2087975)
There were times when sovereigns had more than one ordinal.
Ferdinand II was King of Aragon from 1479 until 1516. As Ferdinand V he was King of Castile from 1475 to 1504.

The next King of Spain to bear the name Ferdinand called himself Ferdinand VI, following the numbering of the kings of Castile. Why ?

Gawin 04-01-2018 09:21 PM

It seems all Spanish monarchs followed the numbering of the kings of Castile after the death of Ferdinand II/V in 1516.

Philip II (1527-1598) was actually Philip I in Aragon as his grandfather Philip I only ruled Castile.

Alfonso XII (1857-1885) followed the numbering of King Alfonso XI of Castile but was only the sixth Alfonso in Aragon.

I don't why but I suspect it was because Castile and Aragon were still two separate crowns (under one ruler) until they were united after the War of the Spanish Succession & the higher ordinal number was preferred.

Gawin 04-02-2018 04:49 PM

That's a good point. I suppose because the HRE wasn't Spanish it didn't count in terms of the Spanish ordinal - only Castile & Aragon.

Mbruno 04-02-2018 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 2088261)
Charles I was King of Spain from 1516 until 1556. As Charles V he reigned as Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 to 1556.

Indeed. That is why the next King of Spain after the Emperor with the name Charles was 'Charles II'.

An Ard Ri 04-02-2018 06:11 PM

He was also Charles II of Sicily and Charles IV of Naples.

CyrilVladisla 04-04-2018 05:28 PM

Charles III was King of Spain from 1759 until 1788. He ruled Naples as Charles VII and Sicily as Charles V.

Saz83 11-08-2018 02:20 PM

I have often wondered with the disputed British Queens Matilda and Lady Jane Grey, whether if we ever had a future Queen Matilda or Jane whether they would be known as Matilda/Jane II.

Ish 11-08-2018 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saz83 (Post 2168856)
I have often wondered with the disputed British Queens Matilda and Lady Jane Grey, whether if we ever had a future Queen Matilda or Jane whether they would be known as Matilda/Jane II.


I think thatís ultimately why they remain disputed while Edward V is not. His reign was confirmed retroactively by Edward VI. Matilda and Janeís reigns have never been confirmed this way, despite Matilda at least having ruled longer.

An Ard Ri 11-08-2018 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saz83 (Post 2168856)
I have often wondered with the disputed British Queens Matilda and Lady Jane Grey, whether if we ever had a future Queen Matilda or Jane whether they would be known as Matilda/Jane II.


Why would she have been Jane II?

Iluvbertie 11-08-2018 05:03 PM

Saz83 is suggesting that a future Quee Jane would be Jane II as there was Lady Jane Grey - the 9 days Queen. If she was actually a Queen she would surely be Jane I.

Matilda is a different case because at her time the title of King/Queen wasn't used until they were crowned and she never was. The best she was was the Lady of the English. She was approaching her coronation when her demands became so harsh that the people of London rose up against her and refused to allow her to be crowned. There was also the small question that there was a living consecrated King who had not abdicated but was simply a prisoner.

I would suspect that due to these controversies neither name would be used again for an heir apparent.

Gawin 11-08-2018 07:40 PM

No doubt there would experts for Queen Matilda or Jane to consult on the matter.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises