Ordinals In The Titles Of Monarchs

[Warren]

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]

[

QUOTE=Warren;1356739]
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Francis (Francois) I of France issued silver coins bearing the legend FRANCISCVS I DE. GR FRANCORV. REX

​

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[CyrilVladisla]

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

 

[Saz83]

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]

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

 

[An Ard Ri]

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]

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]

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

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King William II of England was also de facto Duke of Normandy as William III from 1096 to 1100.

 

[Mbruno]

Francis (Francois) I of France issued silver coins bearing the legend FRANCISCVS I DE. GR FRANCORV. REX

​

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.

Prior to 1716, the Crowns of Castile and Aragon were still technically separate, albeit in personal union under the Kings "of the Spains" (in the plural, as they were called at the time).



When a regnal name was previously used both by Kings of Castile and Kings of Aragon, is the highest ordinal between the latter used to start counting the Kings of Spain bearing the same regnal name?



Incidentally, does that also apply to monarchs of United Kingdom with respect to previous kings of England or Scotland? For example, would a future King James of the United Kingdom be numbered James VIII instead of James III (assuming of course Scotland is still part of the UK at that time) ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When a regnal name was previously used both by Kings of Castile and Kings of Aragon, is the highest ordinal among the latter used to start counting the Kings of Spain bearing the same regnal name?

If I'm not mistaken, the situation wherein the regnal name of a King (or Queen) of Spain had been used on more occasions as a regnal name in Aragon than in Castile hasn't occurred to this date.

However, Spaniards count monarchs who reigned over Castile and Navarre in personal union as Juana I, Carlos I, etc., notwithstanding that earlier monarchs of the same names reigned over Navarre prior to its personal union with Castile. So it seems the policy is to number monarchs of Spain as monarchs of Castile, disregarding the other kingdoms.

Incidentally, does that also apply to monarchs of United Kingdom with respect to previous kings of England or Scotland? For example, would a future King James of the United Kingdom be numbered James VIII instead of James III (assuming of course Scotland is still part of the UK at that time) ?

Guidelines drawn up by the British Parliament in 1952 suggested that the monarch choose the higher ordinal between the two kingdoms, although the monarch's use of regnal name and number are her prerogative.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...m-queen-elizabeth-ii-regnal-name-scotland-spt

 

[Iluvbertie]

A future King James in the UK would be James VIII. This was determined in 1952 when the Scots objected to Elizabeth II being counted as II in Scotland when they had never had a Queen Elizabeth before. The agreement is now that the highest number will be used so James VIII in both England and Scotland and not James VIII and III. It would also be Henry IX in both countries even though Scotland has never had a King Henry.

 

[janelarn]

For the Spanish monarchy, the ordinal that is always followed is that of the kings of Castile, although Navarre, recognizing the Spanish kings as their own, had its own numerals up to a time.
I suppose that Castilla prevailed over the other kingdoms such as León, Asturias, Aragon ... and since the union of Spain, the Castilian numbering is followed. Eleanor will be, Eleanor I, although there was a Eleanor I of Navarre (half-sister of Fernando II of Aragon, the "Catholic"); this queen Eleanor reigned only 15 days and could not be "crowned" in correct conditions.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I had thought that Infanta Leonor might be Queen Regnant as Leonor II because of Leonor I of Navarre.
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte became Emperor Napoleon III of the French even though Napoleon Francois was not crowned as Napoleon II.

 

[An Ard Ri]

For the Spanish monarchy, the ordinal that is always followed is that of the kings of Castile, although Navarre, recognizing the Spanish kings as their own, had its own numerals up to a time.
I suppose that Castilla prevailed over the other kingdoms such as León, Asturias, Aragon ... and since the union of Spain, the Castilian numbering is followed. Eleanor will be, Eleanor I, although there was a Eleanor I of Navarre (half-sister of Fernando II of Aragon, the "Catholic"); this queen Eleanor reigned only 15 days and could not be "crowned" in correct conditions.

Eleanor's father king Juan of Aragon kept tight control of Navarre following his marriage of queen Blanche I .Following the death of Queen Blanche in 1441 the crown should have passed to her eldest son Charles but his father king Juan II usurped the throne .Charles died childless in 1461 and the crown passed to his younger sister Blanche II who died imprisoned and mysteriously in 1464.
It wasn't until the death of King Juan II of Aragon on the 20th of January 1479 that Eleanor was proclaimed queen of Navarre and was crowned on the 28th of January 1479 and died on the 12th of February 1479.

Eleanor had married a French noble Gaston,Comte de Foix ,one of her daughters Marguerite married Francis II, Duke of Brittany and were the parents of Anne of Brittany,twice queen of France.

 

[Blog Real]

I thought Princess Leonor would be Leonor II when she became Queen, exactly because of Queen Leonor I of Navarre.
But it really makes sense to be Leonor I.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I thought Princess Leonor would be Leonor II when she became Queen, exactly because of Queen Leonor I of Navarre.
But it really makes sense to be Leonor I.

Navarre was also in a personal union with France for a period of time and some Monarchs of Navarre were also kings or Queen Consorts of France.

 

[janelarn]

The dynastic union with Aragon occurred in two periods: from the year 1000 to 1035 and from the year 1076 to 1134.
Like all peninsular kingdoms, the different marriages or conquests made the territories belong to different crowns, as happened with León, Asturias, etc.
On February 18, 1513, Ferdinand the Catholic staged the solemn annexation of Navarre to the crown of Castile, swearing his Cortes and his privileges before the procurators.

He had waited for Pope Julius II to promulgate the bull of deposition of the Albret, sovereigns of the kingdom, to impose the rights of his second wife Germana de Foix. In any case, the Duke of Alba had already imposed military logic, in those days much more effective than the dynastic, reaching Pamplona.
In the sights of Fernando II of Aragon, son of Juan II "the great" and therefore stepbrother of Leonor I, was always Navarre, as well as the Italian territories.
Fernando was a typical warrior-king of the time who would not end until his great-grandson, Philip II.
Curiously, the origin of the Bourbons as the reigning dynasty starts with Queen Juana III of Navarra when she married a Bourbon and the Valois branch was considered extinct. And curiously also, the first Bourbon king of France not only had Navarrese origin but also married a great-granddaughter of Juana I "la loca", Maria de Medici (daughter of Archduchess Juana, in turn daughter of Emperor Ferdinand II, brother of Carlos I of Spain)
The Trastamara came to rule in all the peninsular kingdoms with this fact, except Portugal that would be annexed during the reign of Felipe II.
It is a pity that Juana I of Spain could not leave her surname and therefore her dynasty, the Trastamara as it would have been logical.

 

[janelarn]

Navarre was also in a personal union with France for a period of time and some Monarchs of Navarre were also kings or Queen Consorts of France.

As I said before, although the ordinals that were always respected were those of Castile, there was a time when Spanish kings had two ordinals: one for Castile and one for Navarre, although they recognized the same king.
Of course it is much more practical to follow the order of Castile and so there are no problems.
If there are no political problems, Eleanor II will be the next queen of Spain.
It's funny to think that Leonor is a direct descendant of Eleanor of Aquitaine, one of the most interesting women of her time.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Christina of Sweden had never used a numeral to differentiate herself from her grandmother Queen Christina of Sweden, and same for Elizabeth I who are called "the first" later because there is "the second" but not because she had a queen (consort) grandmother who also named Elizabeth. No reason for her to add a numeral (IMO it would be quite embarrassing if you call yourself "the first" but there actually isn't "the second"......)

Likewise, not all deceased monarchs who are called "the second", etc. necessarily used a numeral themselves. In Europe, the usage of ordinals by living monarchs is generally a modern invention.

Normally there wouldn't be numeral if there isn't another namesake monarch right? (Juan Carlos I is the only exception I think.)

I have seen it done in Spain when referring to other monarchs.

Curiously, the origin of the Bourbons as the reigning dynasty starts with Queen Juana III of Navarra when she married a Bourbon and the Valois branch was considered extinct. And curiously also, the first Bourbon king of France not only had Navarrese origin but also married a great-granddaughter of Juana I "la loca", Maria de Medici (daughter of Archduchess Juana, in turn daughter of Emperor Ferdinand II, brother of Carlos I of Spain)
The Trastamara came to rule in all the peninsular kingdoms with this fact, except Portugal that would be annexed during the reign of Felipe II.
It is a pity that Juana I of Spain could not leave her surname and therefore her dynasty, the Trastamara as it would have been logical.

My reply was posted in this thread: Titles of the Royal Family

While the name of Trastámara was retrospectively used by future historians, the royal family of Castile never adopted it as as their surname nor as the name of their dynasty.