| willthepiper | 13 May 2015 10:39 p.m. PST |
Why is that Plantagenet, Edward Longshanks, known to history as Edward I? There were at least three other Edwards in the queue ahead of him (Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor) – how come none of them rate a regnal number? |
| Winston Smith | 13 May 2015 11:24 p.m. PST |
All reigned before William the Conqueror so not deemed legitimate kings in the careful propaganda eyes of Norman chroniclers. |
| Cerdic | 13 May 2015 11:51 p.m. PST |
Good question. William the Conqueror actually tried to legitimise his position by presenting himself as the heir to Edward the Confessor and the line of the old English kings. In a 'business as usual' kind of way. It was only Harold who was portrayed as a brief interloper. I can only guess that, as Winston says, it was later Norman and Plantagenate political spin to start the regnal numbering system with William I. |
| GurKhan | 14 May 2015 2:13 a.m. PST |
Several websites suggest – for instance link – that "The new King initially called himself Edward IV, but for reasons unknown he came to be known as Edward I". But I haven't yet seen an original source for that statement. |
 20thmaine  | 14 May 2015 4:38 a.m. PST |
The counter was reset by William I. |
| Andrew Walters | 14 May 2015 8:14 a.m. PST |
Could this be one of those situations where one kingdom was added to another so he held two kingships? When Elizabeth I died James VI of Scotland became James I of England and Ireland. So he was VI and I at the same time. Perhaps Longshanks started out as IV of one thing, took over another thing (which had not previously had an Edward) and upgraded the moniker? I have no support for this, just suggesting an explanation. |
| Mallen | 14 May 2015 11:54 a.m. PST |
William's prior moniker was "William the Bastard." He probably preferred the rebranding. |
| DonaldCox | 14 May 2015 2:22 p.m. PST |
So if a future heir wanted to use the name Cnut would he be Cnut I or Cnut II? |
| Martin Rapier | 15 May 2015 4:53 a.m. PST |
According to custom and practice he would be Cnut II and the earlier one would be referred to as Cnut I. Queen Elizabeth I was just called Queen Elizabeth until we got another one in 1952. |
| Winston Smith | 15 May 2015 5:00 a.m. PST |
Where did William the Son of a Bitch fit in? |
| sjwalker38 | 16 May 2015 3:19 p.m. PST |
Wherever he wanted to – no-one was going to risk an argument with that SOaB |
| Khusrau | 17 May 2015 4:08 a.m. PST |
She's QE1 in Scotland, we never had a QE before this one. |
| 20thmaine | 19 May 2015 3:14 p.m. PST |
According to custom and practice he would be Cnut II and the earlier one would be referred to as Cnut I. I think he'd actually be Cnut (or Cnut I), as the Norman rebranding effectively reset all counters back to zero. So last Anglo-Saxon king, Edward the confessor, was King Edward III but is not counted in the modern count of kings called Edward. Otherwise Edward VIII – the one that abdicated – would have been Edward XI. Edward I under the new counting was Edward Longshanks, one of the the Plantagenet kings. Convoluted explanations can be found here : link |
| willthepiper | 25 May 2015 9:14 a.m. PST |
thanks for all the comments and theories, everyone |
| Last Hussar | 30 May 2015 5:53 p.m. PST |
Actually Khusrau, she's still II. It became a thing in the 50's because of this Elizabeth 1/2, so Churchill put in place a compromise that monarchs would take the highest reginal number from both countries, to ensure all previous monarchs were recognised. – this means the next James will be James VIII not James III |
experiments with using recessed bases for figures with cast-on bases.
