Timeline for What will be the regnal number of the next Queen Mary in the UK?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2020 at 16:12 | comment | added | Spencer | Thank you for the addition. (I guess it would just be making trouble to bring up Henrietta Maria, who (much to her dislike) was called "Queen Mary" in England). | |
| Apr 13, 2020 at 3:32 | comment | added | supercat | @sempaiscuba: So I guess there wouldn't have been any ambiguity until after the reign of George VI, at which point the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II and the assumption of the new name Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother would eliminate the ambiguity that would have otherwise arisen. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 23:03 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @supercat If they were asking about the king's wife during the reign of George VI, they would just have asked "When was the Queen born?" After Elizabeth II became Queen, they would have asked "When was the Queen Mother born?" | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 22:59 | comment | added | supercat | @sempaiscuba: If during the reign of George VI, someone was asked "When was Queen Elizabeth born", would the response more likely have been "4 August 1900" or "7 September 1533"? I can't find any reference to George VI's wife being referred to as anything other than "Queen Elizabeth" until after her daughter became "Queen Elizabeth II", making her "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother". | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 22:54 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @supercat No, she was just "Queen Elizabeth". Much as Victoria is just Queen Victoria now, but if there is ever another Queen Victoria, then people would start calling the first one "Queen Victoria I" | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 22:38 | comment | added | supercat | During the reign of King George VI, what name would have been used for the monarch now known as "Queen Elizabeth I" to distinguish her from Queen Elizabeth (wife of King George VI)? Would people have started referring to "Queen Elizabeth I" when discussing the former monarch, despite the fact that there wasn't yet a Queen Elizabeth II, or what? | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 17:20 | vote | accept | billpg | ||
| Apr 12, 2020 at 17:17 | comment | added | user22453 | Should Scotland ever become independent, (which would probably result from the repealing of the 1707 Acts of Union) there would be a legal and customary precedent for the monarch to be separately crowned monarch of Scotland were the personal union to be maintained, as it was in the case of Kings Charles I and II, who were separately crowned in Scotland. Note that there was never a separate coronation ceremony for the monarch in Ireland, nor even a physical crown to crown the monarch with. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 17:16 | comment | added | user22453 | As regards the Scottish coronation, while it is true that there was 'one coronation' in 1953 (for her Majesty in respect of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon)-and all these countries were included in the coronation oath and the floral emblems of them all were included in the Queen's coronation dress. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 17:10 | comment | added | user22453 | In addition, she was formerly Queen of Pakistan, Ceylon, South Africa, Malawi, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Mauritius, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, and Fiji, all of which have since become republics. In none of them does she (or did she) have the regnal number 'I', despite being the first Queen Elizabeth of all of them. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 17:09 | comment | added | user22453 | To add to the list of numeral anomalies, her present majesty is Queen (quite separately) of, in addition to the UK, of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, and Belize. In all of these states she has a notional separate crown (and throne). No separate regnal number for any of them. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 16:54 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @Pere My Scottish family see things differently. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 16:26 | comment | added | Pere | @sempaiscuba - Predictions about future are hard, but I would see it as a transition from 16 crowns in the same head, to 17 crowns in the same head, so I wouldn't expect a change of rules. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 16:23 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @Pere Should Scotland become independent, the situation is likely to be different from the Commonwealth countries in that it will once again be "one monarch, two crowns" for the UK's successor states, as it was in the reigns of James I/VI and James II/VII. However, as I said above the details would presumably have to be decided by the Act of the UK Parliament that created the new states. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 16:03 | comment | added | Pere | Judging by the Australian and Canadian example, we shouldn't expect a different numbering in an independent Scotland. In fact, having been all Commonwealth realms monarchs also monarchs of the United Kingdom, extending the "highest number" scheme to them would yield the same regal number as the current one with England and Scotland. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 15:31 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
content from comments into answer.
|
| Apr 12, 2020 at 15:17 | comment | added | Spencer | I think you need to specifically mention her as a Queen Mary who isn't counted. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 14:02 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @Spencer Penultimate paragraph: "... only Queens Regnant are counted" | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 13:24 | comment | added | Spencer | You need to explain why George V's consort isn't Queen Mary III. | |
| Apr 12, 2020 at 12:38 | comment | added | user27960 | @Jurp Elizabeth II is not only the queen of the UK, but also of e.g. Australia or Canada. But there was only one coronation. | |
| Apr 11, 2020 at 23:40 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarification of reason for QE2's regnal number
|
| Apr 11, 2020 at 20:38 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @Jurp Honestly, I can tell you what happened in the past, but I'm not qualified to comment on what may, or may not, happen in the future. If there should be a future independent Scotland, the heads-of-state would presumably be initially set out in the Act of the UK Parliament that created the new states, and subsequently on the laws passed by those states. | |
| Apr 11, 2020 at 20:22 | comment | added | Jurp | Given the nature of the Scottish independence movement, this may become a moot point in a few years. This does bring up an interesting point that I haven't seen addressed. Should Scotland declare independence tomorrow, I assume that Queen Elizabeth II would still be Queen of Scotland as well as of England (with the crowns no longer being united). I have no idea how that would work in practice - I would guess there would have to be separate Coronations and separate Parliamentary "Queen's Speech"es (if that's the word I'm looking for). Would be interesting. | |
| Apr 11, 2020 at 19:31 | history | answered | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |