So HM Queen Elizabeth II...she's the second because of Queen Elizabeth from the 1500s? But Elizabeth the II's mother was also Elizabeth....Elizabeth Bowes Lyon...so wouldn't Her Majesty Be Queen Elizabeth III in actuality? ((SERIOUS ANSWERS ONLY PLEASE))
although there is a dispute as to the present queen's regnal number as applicable to Scotland, as the first queen Elizabeth (of England) reigned before the act of union.......
there's only one way to be a king, and that's sitting on the throne. But there are two ways of being a queen: sitting on the throne ("queen regnant") or marrying a king ("queen consort"). The latter don't count for numbering purposes, only queens regnant do.
Prudie there have been quite a few sneering answers on serious threads lately, deriding the OP's lack of knowledge etc. It's a shame people have to ask for serious answers, when that ought to be the norm.
Corby is correct. This question first arose at the accession of William IV and later at that of Edward VII, when it was decided that the higher of two regnal numbers would be used. As there is no king/queen of England/Scotland, but only of the UK, this means that should we ever have another King James he will be styled James VIII and not James III.
Incidentally there have been four queens consort named Anne: Ann of Bohemia (Richard II), Anne Neville (Richard III), Anne Boleyn (Henry VIII) and Anne of Denmark (James I). But only one queen regnant of that name who has no regnal number.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.