Talk:Regnal number

After Elizabeth II

In order to avoid controversy, it was announced after the accession of Elizabeth II that, in the future, the highest numeral from each sequence would be used.

I'm still confused. The next James to take the British throne will be:

• James III, because of James II of England was the last official King to hold that name?
• James VIII, becase he was James VII of Scotland?
• James IV, because we should count James III the pretender?
• James IX, becase the pretender claimed Scotland too?

It seems clear to me. The next King James would be James VIII, because eight is higher than three. I doubt the Jacobite pretenders would be included in the counting. (Perhaps it would be better if I changed the word 'sequence' into some other word, like 'counting'?)

BTW shouldn't this be moved to Wikipedia:Use of ordinals by monarchs? Mintguy 12:39, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why? Is the present title misleading? —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

He will be King James III, because the United Kingdom is a continuation of the old state of England, not that of Scotland. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but he'll be called James VIII, unless the convention is dropped for some better reason than English nationalism. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In Scotland he will indeed. In the rest of the world he'll be called James III, just as James VI and James VII are generally known as James I and James II everywhere except Scotland. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes little to no sense. The rest of the world will call him whatever the British call him and the British will probably call him whatever he wants to be called. The rest of the world does not know and/or does not care how many kings named James England had. It is very unlikely that people on the Continent, for example, would reject the name "James VIII" and use "James III" instead just for the sake of English nationalism. Surtsicna (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to wait and see what a conjectural future King James chose to call himself. Frankly, I would be very surprised if he chose anything other than James III. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be surprised if they went back on their own word. Of course, Churchill was not able to predict the future, but this is quite enough to make it likely that the next James/David/Alexander/Robert would be James VIII/David III/Alexander IV/Robert IV. Perhaps even Margaret II? Has any subsequent head of government said otherwise? Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that the title of the monarch has zero to do with the head of government, who in this instance acts only in an advisory capacity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I realize this is a discussion that has been dormant for six years, but I would be extremely surprised if a conjectural future King James chose James III. The Sovereign of the United Kingdom chooses His/Her regnal name with the advice of the Accession Council, and the Accession Council would be very much guided by the overriding momentum of the British Monarchy, that being to tend to choose the path that results in the least controversy (a principle that has worked very well in perpetuating the British Monarchy in the midst of the last Century, when the vast majority of the other monarchies in Europe were falling like flies). Depending on the mood prevalent in Scotland at the time of the accession of this conjectural future King James, it's very much possible that choosing the name James III, and thereby devaluing Scotland as a part of the United Kingdom, could set off a chain of events leading to the dissolution of the United Kingdom altogether. Consequently, I would be very surprised if the members of the Accession Council were so holden to English nationalism that they would not very strongly urge against a choice that might, for no good reason, threaten the integrity of the Union. Going with the highest ordinal is the smart choice and the choice that the Accession Council and the Government would almost certainly, very insistently, advise.--MNTRT2009 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Counting the Old Pretender would be conceding his claim. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be as if the present king called himself Charles IV. —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has its own conventions on the use of ordinals by monarchs. Erwin 14:06, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think this makes a good article

I couldn't agree more :-) Erwin 14:25, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

on its own and doesn't need to be moved. Rmhermen 14:08, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, I was just a bit thrown by the line This article is purely for the purpose of information.. assuming it was intended to assist editors. Mintguy 14:13, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wrote that line in order to avoid deviations from the wiki conventions, which differ from the actual use of ordinals in some monarchies. If you're interested in the "full story" behind that line, you might want to read the last nine or ten messages at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Erwin 14:25, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I see that the article that you were thinking about merging this one with is gone. so i'll remove the message--Olsdude 08:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused about this as well. Should we follow the english manner of naming monarchs with the ordinal only if there are more than one of the same name, or do we follow the conventions of the country of which the monarch is monarch (ugh)and put the ordinal for the first if they do? For example, Juan Carlos of Spain is refered to, in Spain, as Juan Carlos I. Stephen Kennedy 17:03, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The article mentions that Edward VII was the second Edward to be king of Scotland but surely he was hte first unless you are counting Edward I of England's occupation of Scotland. Penrithguy 17:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

He is the second of Scotland, counting Edward Balliol, who actually reigned there. If counting also that occupation (untenable), would be as much as third. Marrtel 03:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Edward I never showed any interest in using titles such as "King of Scotland" or similar, because he actually pretended to erase the Scottish realm, to be integrated as a province into the Kingdom of England, so in my opinion we can't count him.--Habibicb (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Source of use of ordinals in medieval and later Europe

[1] Marrtel 04:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "Ordinals for monarchs before the 13th century are anachronisms, as are also ordinals for almost all later medieval monarchs." in the 2nd paragraph of #2 needs a source. The above link is now dead. Mcljlm (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Distant cousin?

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was the son of Louis Bonaparte, brother of Napoléon I, and so he and Napoleon II were first cousins. 200.117.139.129 (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Consorts

Most of the section on consorts is totally irrelevant to the article. Would there be any objections to it being cut out? Sadly I'm not sure any of the info has a place in the Queen consort article either. Pontificake (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Accurate with one exception

Consorts normally do not have numerals. The only exception is Ancient Egypt, which did assign numerals to Queens Consort. Queen Consort Cleopatra VII briefly became Queen Regnant after Marcus Antonius had her husband killed in order to marry her himself. She retained the name Cleopatra VII, which explains why she is Cleopatra VII even though Cleopatra is a girls' name and only 2 women ever held the office of Pharaoh. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Our articles about Ptolemaic queens of Egypt and Ptolemaic dynasty suggest that they were co-monarchs, not consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

By the end of her reign, Queen Cleopatra VII was a sole monarch, not a co-monarch, but I digress. Is the same true of Ancient Egyptian Queens Consort prior to the Ptolemaic Dynasty? If you see the Article on the Fourth dynasty of Egypt, for example, the wives of Pharaohs are listed with ordinals as Queen Consort. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because all that endogamy precludes distinguishing them with dynastic surnames as for modern consorts? —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Double numbering

I'm sure I've seen some listing of monarchs where those who had two names, like Wilhelm Friedrich or Louis-Philippe, had a separate number for each of the names. Can someone tell me I'm not dreaming? —Tamfang (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean monarchs of one specific realm (though I forget which one) — not a table that lists e.g. Louis Philippe of France as "Louis XX Philip VII". —Tamfang (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems noone knows if this might be true... I haven't heard about it, and I think it would seem unnecessary to have two numbers for one person. The Horn Blower (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I heard of double numbering of this nature. I do NOT see that as the case with King Juan Carlos (I) of Spain, Emperor Franz Josef (I) of Austria, or Popes John Paul I & II. (I have never seen a number used for King Louis Philippe.)

Citations for Saxon Edwards?

I think the Saxon Edwards, at least the Edward the Confessor, are sufficiently well-known that we don't need to cite them, any more than we need a citation for Elizabeth II being the second Elizabeth. Sometimes the "citation needed" tag is just irritating, and so I'm deleting some of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikeangel (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese uniques

Other monarchies do assign ordinals to monarchs who are the only ones of their name. ... [This practice] was also applied in ... 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) ...

I don't understand the first 'although'. —Tamfang (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. I'll remove it. The Horn Blower (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ancient monarchs

Ancient monarchs (i.e. Egyptian rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar II, Alexander III of Macedon) also assigned an ordinal number by later historians (i.e. after the use has become established in 18th century). On what section should this factoids be written? Bennylin (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be stated in the text, that all ordinals of ancient monarchs has been added by historians much later, and so acctually are anachronistic but are used as a practical way of distinguishing different historical kings from eachother, just as they are used in the same way in more recent centuries. The Horn Blower (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The title of the page

The term "monarchical ordinal" is an abomination - it isn't plain English, it is wilfully obscurantist and ought to be changed to "regnal number." It is typical of certain strands in American (and Indian) English usage which puts a premium on flowery and obscure 'pseudo-learned' terms above readily understandable language. Urselius (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

English is not my first language, but it's yours. You seem to have a valid point, so I think I agree with it. The Swedish term also is close to your suggestion: "regentnummer". I'll suggest a move. The Horn Blower (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Monarchical ordinal → Regnal number – A more readily understandable term. Also, the ordinals are not only used by monarchs (popes and patriarchs are also using them). The Horn Blower (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support as they're indeed, also used by popes & patriarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely the WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Double numbering

The Khan of Kalat list includes some with number before the house/family name, some with number after, and some with both. Excluding those with neither, we have:

• 1601–1610 Mir Ahmad Khan Qambrani I
• 1629–1637 Mir Ahmad Sani Khan Qambrani II
• 1637–1647 Mir Altaz Khan Qambrani I
• 1656–1666 Mir Altaz Sani Khan Qambrani II
• 1666–1695 Mir Ahmad I Khan Qambrani III ( Changed his Royal family name from Qambrani to Ahmadzai )
• 1695–1697 Mir Mehrab Khan Ahmadzai I
• 1714–1716 Mir Ahmad II Khan Ahmadzai
• 1749–1794 Mir Muhammad Nasir Khan I Ahmadzai
• 1794–1817 Mir Mahmud Khan I Ahmadzai I
• 1817–1839 Mir Mehrab Khan Ahmadzai II
• 1841–1857 Mir Nasir Khan II Ahmadzai
• 1893–1931 Mir Mahmud Khan II Ahmadzai

Dunno if this is sloppy editing or something more interesting. jnestorius^(talk) 17:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There is definitely a consistency error there, but I'd have to see a formal published list of names before feeling comfortable editing them. Since it appears that the entire name is what receives the regnal number, it should always go at the end, but some of the names have additional names that break that rule, so I really can't say. Any decisions may also impact Template:Khans of Kalat, which has a secondary list of all the khans, as well as a non-standard use of succession boxes that should probably be detangled from the main template. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 19:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The first - Austrian example

'despite' seems a bit silly here. If they styled themselves 'the first' then naturally they wouldn't have had any predecessors with the same name. They wouldn't know at the time about successors with the same name. Mdrb55 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

King Arthur

If William were to choose one of his other given names, all three are subject to potential controversy as they are Arthur (see King Arthur), Philip (see Philip II of Spain, who was a co-monarch to Mary I of England) and Louis (see Louis VIII of France, who claimed the throne during the First Barons' War).

If King Arthur existed, he died before 1066, just like Edward the Confessor. I can understand that a future king might be uneasy about taking the name Arthur with no number, but it seems to me he'd as readily disambiguate with ‘first’ (since that other Arthur has never been numbered) as with ‘second’. —Tamfang (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I reckon we can do without that whole section "Future regnal numbers". Undue weight / crystal ball. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

pretender counts

This custom [of assigning numbers to pretenders] is currently not followed by any other ethnic groups other than the French and British (Jacobites), being unique to them, monarchists from other nations do not usually use royal numbers for the pretenders they support.

I am tempted to cut this sentence. It is hard to support a negative; and "ethnic groups" seems inappropriate. (Does the current Bonaparte heir have a number, by the way?) —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

His article – Charles, Prince Napoléon – says He would be known as Napoleon VII, which is ambiguous. —Tamfang (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

What about peerages?

I realize that "regnal" particularly refers to monarchs, but I was hoping this page had a section or at least a See Also link for how ordinal numbers are used with peerage. For example, John Smith, 5th Baron Someplaceoranother. Does that practice have a specific name? Jyg (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Bulgaria

… Boris III of Bulgaria and his son Simeon II were given their regnal numbers because the medieval rulers of the First and Second Bulgarian Empire were counted as well even if the present Bulgarian state dated only back to 1878 and were only distantly related to the monarchs of previous Bulgarian states.

I would either change state to dynasty or delete monarchs of. (And were to was, either way.) Preferences? —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)