Edward I

[Keith F. Lynch]

Why was England's Edward I called Edward I rather than Edward IV?
He was preceded by three previous English kings named Edward:
Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor.

[Chris Pitt Lewis]

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Why was England's Edward I called Edward I rather than Edward IV?
Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor.

The original formula was "King Edward the third since the conquest",
used for example in legal documents giving dates by reference to his
regnal year.

The usual explanation is that the numbering began in Edward III's time.
His two predecessors could be distinguished by patronymics - "King
Edward son of King Henry" and "King Edward son of King Edward". A
different formula was needed to distinguish the third Edward in a row
from his father.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis

Post by Keith F. Lynch
Why was England's Edward I called Edward I rather than Edward IV?
Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor.

The original formula was "King Edward the third since the conquest",
used for example in legal documents giving dates by reference to his
regnal year.
The usual explanation is that the numbering began in Edward III's time.
His two predecessors could be distinguished by patronymics - "King
Edward son of King Henry" and "King Edward son of King Edward". A
different formula was needed to distinguish the third Edward in a row
from his father.

There was a certain conceit that the Conquest reinvented the Kingdom
(the governing language changed).

The settlement in the 1950s when the "E II" postboxes were getting
bombed in Scotland (Elizabeth I of England never reigned in Scotland)
was that the highest number applicable to any part of Britain would
be the one used for future Monarchs...so if Prince George's firstborn
is a son Robert,he would be Robert IV because Scotland had three
Roberts though England had none).

Ambiguity remains on the Constantines,of whom there were four in
steadily growing fractions of Scotland who in their own time were
distinguished by patronymics...many feel the first one didn't reign
over enough of Scotland to count...so a future British next King
Constantine might be Constantine IV or Constantine V.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Louis Epstein
There was a certain conceit that the Conquest reinvented the Kingdom
(the governing language changed).

The governing language changed from English to Norman French. The
language of the people changed from Old English to Middle English.

(Middle English ended the day Richard III died. It, like the day
Harold died in 1066, must have been a very confusing day, everyone
in England having to learn a new language overnight. I hope they
won't have to do so again when their current king dies.)

Post by Louis Epstein
The settlement in the 1950s when the "E II" postboxes were getting
bombed in Scotland (Elizabeth I of England never reigned in
Scotland) was that the highest number applicable to any part of
Britain would be the one used for future Monarchs...so if Prince
George's firstborn is a son Robert,he would be Robert IV because
Scotland had three Roberts though England had none).

I've since read the fascinating Wikipedia article on regnal numbers,
in preparation for creating an OEIS page listing the regnal numbers of
English/British kings. I wasn't sure that would be appropriate for
OEIS, which is focuses more on things such as the Fibonacci sequence,
the prime numbers, and numbers that are palindromes in both binary and
ternary. It doesn't contain the word "regnal" anywhere. But it does
contain something as non-mathematical as NYC subway stops. And when
I noticed that it does contain the numbers of Danish monarchs, and of
popes, I decided to go ahead.

One of the curiosities I learned was that Mary II of England is also
Mary II of Scotland, but it's due to a different Mary I in each
country (Bloody Mary in the former, Mary Queen of Scots in the latter).

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Louis Epstein
There was a certain conceit that the Conquest reinvented the Kingdom
(the governing language changed).

The governing language changed from English to Norman French. The
language of the people changed from Old English to Middle English.
(Middle English ended the day Richard III died. It, like the day
Harold died in 1066, must have been a very confusing day, everyone
in England having to learn a new language overnight. I hope they
won't have to do so again when their current king dies.)

Post by Louis Epstein
The settlement in the 1950s when the "E II" postboxes were getting
bombed in Scotland (Elizabeth I of England never reigned in
Scotland) was that the highest number applicable to any part of
Britain would be the one used for future Monarchs...so if Prince
George's firstborn is a son Robert,he would be Robert IV because
Scotland had three Roberts though England had none).

I've since read the fascinating Wikipedia article on regnal numbers,
in preparation for creating an OEIS page listing the regnal numbers of
English/British kings. I wasn't sure that would be appropriate for
OEIS, which is focuses more on things such as the Fibonacci sequence,
the prime numbers, and numbers that are palindromes in both binary and
ternary. It doesn't contain the word "regnal" anywhere. But it does

Do not forget the many Heinrichs of Reuss,who all get numbers though
only a small minority got to reign.

Post by Keith F. Lynch
contain something as non-mathematical as NYC subway stops. And when
I noticed that it does contain the numbers of Danish monarchs, and of
popes, I decided to go ahead.
One of the curiosities I learned was that Mary II of England is also
Mary II of Scotland, but it's due to a different Mary I in each
country (Bloody Mary in the former, Mary Queen of Scots in the latter).

There are monarchies where every successor gets the same name
(Every king of Thailand in the current dynasty is Rama [number]
and every Susuhunan of Surakarta is Paku Buwono [number] for example).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.