Queen Elizabeth Iii?

[smurfchops]

The first Queen Elizabeth was the daughter of Henry VIII. The second Queen Elizabeth was the Queen Mother. So why is our Queen, Elizabeth the Second, and not the Third?

[ToraToraTora]

gawd elp us, hiow can you walk with a chip that biug on your shoulder, QM! PMSL, get "independence", please!

[Quizmonster]

Wanting things to be historically accurate is not a sign of having a chip on one's shoulder, TTT! Perhaps you're happy to allow government or royal edicts to overrule the facts...I'm not! As Rabbie Burns wrote about two and a half centuries ago, "Facts are chiels that wonna ding." Simply put, you may not like the facts, but you cannot overturn them just by wishing it so.

[Quizmonster]

I genuinely have no idea why you addressed your comment to me, Murdo. Did you bother reading all the earlier responses before providing yours? My point above and earlier is that it is an historical fact that - since the Union of the Crowns in 1603...ie effectively the creation of Great Britain...there has been only one reigning monarch called Elizabeth and she is the current inhabitant of Buckingham Palace. That makes her, in historical fact, Queen Elizabeth the First. As I have also pointed out, governmental or royal decisions/edicts cannot alter that.
I have no interest in Queens Consort or any other irrelevant factors.

[dannyk13]

The Queen Mother was not a ruling monarch.

[Peter Pedant]

It is a social construct

first time for the courtiers that the Dowager Queen ( Elizabeth ) had the same name as the reigning monarch ( er also Elizabeth) and so unlike Queen Mary ( lately married to the late Georgie-Porgie er V that is !) there would be confusion.

so they made up "Queen Mother" - not as Queen and Mother but an irregular genitive Queen's Mother

Aaaaaanyway I thought you were gonna point out that Scotland had no Elizabeth ( 1) and England had ( II ) and the United Kingdom hadnt ( I)
so why wasnt she Elizabeth I, II and I ?

Hmm Yeah.....

When James became King of England after being King of Scotland
they sat down with pencils in their mouths and .....

came up with an act of parliament
Titulary Act 1603 I think - and said his name would be ... James VI and I
First time I think a king without a predecessor got a regnal number
( pope F is Pope Frankie NOT Francis I )

and you will find a titulary act in 1952
where her name shall be .......

sorry long answer but you did ask

[Peter Pedant]

Murdo......
calm yourself

we are talking about a monarch who may be DYING as we write ......

[dieseldick]

dont know but i wish they were done away with altogether

[Quizmonster]

Edward VI was an English king, not a British one! I'm simply stating my view that, when a "new" country is established, its line of rulers thereafter should start afresh as well. How can any Queen reasonably be dubbed "the Second" of any given country, when there has never been one called "the First" of that same country?
But what the hey! I'll leave it at that and you can go on believing what you want.

[Quizmonster]

The four answers immediately preceding my latest simply weren't there when I started to write mine, so apologies for any confusion!

[THECORBYLOON]

PP I had a look for a Titulary Act for 1952 and couldn't find one. I know a court case was brought over the use of the Queen's regnal number but it was ruled a case could not succeed as it was a matter of Royal Prerogative what she called herself.

[HansUrbancka]

The present queen of the UK is... Elizabeth 1 Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; despite her being known in many parts of the world as Queen Elizabeth 11 of England.

Hans.

[THECORBYLOON]

She is the Queen in other countries and she is called Queen Elizabeth II there even though she is their first queen of that name.

[jno]

and that's the answer, isn't it, TCL - they can call themselves what they like (as can we all). If she wants to rename herself Betty Bountous XVII, she can.

[Quizmonster]

Quite, TCL and Jno. As I mentioned earlier, it seems it was none other than a "royal edict"...as in "Listen up, subjects, this is how I'm gonna be named and numerically classified. If you don't like it because it's not historically accurate, you can just lump it!"

[mushroom25]

read about the "titular" case (from 1953) here:-

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1953/1953_SC_396.html