CrownPrinceLorenzo
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 229
- City
- Bensenville
- Country
- United States
But my original question was, if it's a male thing.
CrownPrinceLorenzo said: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...
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.CrownPrinceLorenzo said: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.
Queen consorts in Britain never used a regnal number because they choose not to use them.Frothy said: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.
None of the Queen consort in Britain used a regnal number as none of their official names were a repetition of their predecessors.Elspeth said: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.
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.Frothy said: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.
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.Vecchiolarry said: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
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.srivishnu said: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.
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.Warren said: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.
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.Frothy said: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.
srivishnu, we have already clarified this issue.srivishnu said: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.
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.