Royal Numeration in Britain

[wind2706]

I seem you are very expert of British Monarchy, which is difficult to understand for me, so I’ve two other questions, if I can: I read that a new Law changed the numeration of Kings and Queens, so that future rulers will follow not only the ordinal number of the Kings of England, but also the one of the Kings of Scotland. Is it right? Well, the first question is: why the Kings of Scotland only and not also the Princes of Wales, the Kings of Ireland, the Kings of ancient English States (such as Wessex), the Kings of Commonwealth Realms? This is unfair again. My second question is: why they didn’t simply begin a new numeration related to the current State, which is the United Kingdom? It would be Anne I – George I – George II – George III – George IV – William I – Victoria I – Edward I – George V – Edward II – George VI – Elizabeth I. I don’t seem there are other States following the numeration of Kings of previous States! Somebody told me that this way was chosen to don’t change the numeration of previous Kings and Queens, but I don’t seem so: there were two Kings James, who were VI and VII of Scotland and I and II of England and Ireland. What about a future King James? Would he be James VIII?

[observer]

Short answers to your questions which may help:
(a) The UK is essentially a union of two previously independent and co-equal kingdoms. The Principality of Wales, legally, was part of the Kingdom of England and not an equal partner in the kingdom. There had been no independent King of all Wales from whom to take a regnal number. The former Kingdom of Ireland is no longer part of the UK, so why would the UK sovereigns use a regnal number derived from there? Moreover, as legally the King of Ireland was such because he was King of England, the former Irish Kingdom used the English regnal numbers. The Kingdom of Ireland was subordinate to the Kingdom of England, too.
(b) with regard to Commonwealth realms, they traditionally use the British regnal number - as the old Kingdom of Ireland did.
c) Other kingdoms have used odd regnal numbers. Haakon VII revived a numbering system used by ancient Norse kings, though there hadn't been a separate Kingdom of Norway since the end of the 14th century. Boris III and Simeon II of Bulgaria similarly used numbers derived from a previous medieval Bulgarian kingdom. Constantine II of the Hellenes is sometimes known as Constantine XIII, in succession to the former rulers of the Byzantine Empire. The Austrian Emperors adopted new numbers when they ceased being Holy Roman Emperors and became emperors rather than archdukes of their Austrian possessions In some cases, I think, regnal numbers like regnal names are a matter of interpetations of history.

[paulchen]

Fair or not, someone has to make a decision and draw the line somewhere.

As far as I know there is no law, just an "understanding" which arose from the situation when the present Queen ascended the Throne. The Scots were vocal over the fact that the new monarch was being called Queen Elizabeth II as there had never before been a Queen Elizabeth in Scotland. To all intents and purposes the present Queen was their first Elizabeth.

Your reference to Kings called James is correct as it was then "agreed" to go for the higher number if there was any ambiguity.

[observer]

Paulchen, of course, is correct about someone having to draw the line somewhere.

If one counts all the kings of England, Edward VIII should have been Edward X! as there were three kings Edward before the Norman Conquest whom the Normans, etc., never counted. If pre-Conquest kings were to be counted, and under the highest numeral convention, as well as copying, e.g, Norwegian and Bulgarian precedent. then the UK could have a Harold III, Edmund III, and so on. An interesting counterpoint, perhaps, to an Alexander IV, Robert IV or David III based on Scots numbering.