Regnal numbers areordinal numbers—often written asRoman numerals—used to distinguish among persons with the sameregnal name who held the same office, notablykings,queens regnant,popes, and rarelyprinces andprincesses.
It is common to start counting either since the beginning of the monarchy, or since the beginning of a particular line of state succession. For example,Boris III of Bulgaria and his sonSimeon II were given their regnal numbers because the medieval rulers of theFirst andSecond Bulgarian Empire were counted as well, although the recent dynastydates only back to 1878 and is only distantly related to the monarchs of previous Bulgarian states.[1] On the other hand, thekings of England andkings of Great Britain and the United Kingdom are counted starting with theNorman Conquest. That is why the son ofHenry III of England is calledEdward I, even though there were three English monarchs named Edward before the Conquest (they were distinguished byepithets instead).
Sometimes legendary or fictional persons are included. For example, theSwedish kingsEric XIV (reigned 1560–68) andCharles IX (1604–11) took ordinals based on a fanciful 1544 history byJohannes Magnus, which invented six kings of each name before those accepted by later historians.[2] A list of Swedish monarchs, represented on the map of the Estates of the Swedish Crown,[3] produced by French engraverJacques Chiquet [fr] (1673–1721) and published inParis in 1719, starts withCanute I and shows Eric XIV and Charles IX as Eric IV and Charles II respectively; the only Charles holding his traditional ordinal in the list isCharles XII. Also, in the case of EmperorMenelik II of Ethiopia, he chose his regnal number with reference to a mythical ancestor and first sovereign of his country (a supposed son of biblical KingSolomon) to underline his legitimacy into the so-calledSolomonic dynasty.[4]
Monarchs with the same given name are distinguished by their ordinals:
Ordinals may also apply where a ruler of one realm and a ruler of that realm'ssuccessor state share the same name:
Practice varies where monarchs go by two or moregiven names. ForSwedish monarchs, the ordinal qualifies only the first name; for example,Gustav VI Adolf, known as "Gustav Adolf", was the sixth Gustav/Gustaf, but the third Gustav Adolf. By contrast, theKingdom of Prussia was ruled in turn byFriedrich I,Friedrich Wilhelm I,Friedrich II, andFriedrich Wilhelm II; and later byWilhelm I. LikewisePope John Paul I, who chose his double name to honour predecessorsJohn XXIII andPaul VI, and was succeeded byJohn Paul II.
In any case, it is usual to count only the monarchs or heads of the family, and to number them sequentially up to the end of the dynasty.[citation needed] A notable exception to this rule is theGermanHouse of Reuss. This family has the particularity that every male member during the last eight centuries was named Heinrich, and all of them, not only the head of the family, were numbered. While the members of the elder branch were numbered in order of birth until the extinction of the branch in 1927,[5] the members of the younger line were (and still are) numbered in sequences that began and ended roughly as centuries began and ended.[6] This explains why the current (since 2012) head of the Reuss family is called Heinrich XIV, his late father Heinrich IV and his sons Heinrich XXIX and Heinrich V.
It is rare, but some German princely families number all males whether head of the family or not; for example,Hans Heinrich XV von Hochberg was preceded asPrince of Pless by Hans Heinrich XI and succeeded by Hans Heinrich XVII; the ordinals XII, XIII, XIV, and XVI were borne by von Hochbergs who were not Prince of Pless. Similarly for theHouse of Reuss, where all men were numbered Heinrichs and some were reigning Princes ofReuss-Gera orReuss-Greiz.
Pretenders and rulers of formerly deposed dynasties are often given regnal numbersas if non-reigning pretenders had actually ruled. For exampleLouis XVIII of France took a regnal number that implicitly asserts thatLouis XVII had been king, though he never reigned; his pretendership was during theFirst French Republic. A similar case is that ofNapoleon III whose regnal number implicitly asserts a rulingNapoleon II. Louis XVIII numbered hisregnal year from the death of Louis XVII, something Napoleon III never did.
Almost all West European monarchs and popes aftermedieval times have used ordinals. Ordinals are also retrospectively applied to earlier monarchs in most works of reference, at least as far as they are not easy to distinguish from each other by any other systematical means. In several cases, various sorts of "semi-regnal" members of dynasties are also numeraled, to facilitate their individuality in works of reference – in cases such as co-regents, crown princes, succession-conveyingconsorts, prime ministers and deputy monarchs. In the first centuries after the Middle Ages, the use was sometimes sporadic, but became established by the 18th century. In the past couple of centuries, European monarchs without an official ordinal have been rarities.
As a rule of thumb, medieval European monarchs did not use ordinals at their own time, and those who used were rarities and even their use was sporadic. Ordinals for monarchs before the 13th century areanachronisms, as are also ordinals for almost all later medieval monarchs. Still, they are often used, because they are a practical way of distinguishing between different historical monarchs who had the same name.
Popes were apparently the first to assume official ordinals for their reigns, although this occurred only in the last centuries of the Middle Ages. It is clear, from renumberings of Popes John XV–XIX and Popes Stephen II–IX, that as of the 11th century the popes did not yet use established ordinals. The official, self-confirmed numbering of John XXI means that at latest from the 13th century the popes did take official ordinals in their accession.
Emperor Frederick II, KingCharles II of Naples and KingPremislas II of Poland evidently used ordinals sometimes during their reign, whereas most of their contemporary monarchs did not. In the 14th century,Emperor Charles IV sometimes used that ordinal. Presumably, use of the ordinal of kingFrederick III of Sicily also is contemporaneous. The royal chroniclers of theAbbey of Saint-Denis were using ordinals to refer to theFrench kings as early as the thirteenth century with the practise entering common usage among royalty and the nobility by the late fourteenth century. TheBritish tradition of consistently and prevalently numbering monarchs dates back toHenry VIII andMary I; however, sporadic use occurred at least as early as the reign ofEdward III. Some early accounts ofEdward I number him the fourth, thus including the three pre-Norman Edwards.[7]
The long history of the papacy has led to difficulties in some cases. For example,Stephen was only pope for three days before dying ofapoplexy, and was never consecrated. Because not all list-makers count him as having been pope (asStephen II), there has been some confusion in regard to later popes who chose the name Stephen. Later Stephens are sometimes numbered with parentheses, e.g., his immediate successor (in name) is denoted either Stephen (II) III or Stephen III (II). The church did consider Stephen II a pope until 1960, when he was removed from the list of popes in 1961. The history of thenumbering of popes taking the regnal name "John" is even more convoluted, owing to the long history of popes taking the name (a common name, chosen frequently to honourthe Apostle), bad record-keeping, and political confusion; among other results, the regnal name "John XX" is completely skipped under all reckonings.
In the case ofpersonal unions, some monarchs have had more than one ordinal, because they had different ordinals in their different realms. For instance,Charles XV of Sweden was also king of Norway, but in Norway he went under the name Charles IV. The Swedish-Norwegian union was in force 1814–1905 and both realms had had kings called Charles before the union, but Sweden had had more kings by that name.
In the event of one kingdom achieving independence from another but retaining the same monarch, the monarch often retains the same number as was already used in the older realm. KingChristian X of Denmark thus became King Christian X of Iceland when Iceland became an independent kingdom in personal union with Denmark in 1918. The same is true forCommonwealth realms, where the monarch retains the regnal number from the British line of monarchs (see below).
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(December 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Beginning in 1603, whenEngland andScotland began toshare a monarch but were still legally separate realms, their monarchs were numbered separately. The king who began the personal union was James VI of Scotland who was also James I of England, and his name is often written (especially in Scotland) asJames VI and I. Similarly, his grandson isJames VII and II.Mary II's ordinal coincidentally relates to both her predecessorsMary I of England andMary I of Scotland; her co-sovereign husband isWilliam III and II (here the English number is first).Charles I andCharles II had a name not used in either country before 1603.
After the realms were united with theActs of Union 1707, separate numbers were not needed for the next five monarchs:Anne and the four Georges. However, whenWilliam IV acceded in 1830, he was not called William III in Scotland.[citation needed] (George Croly pointed out in 1830 the new king was William I, II, III, and IV: ofHanover, Ireland, Scotland, and England respectively.[8]) Nor wereEdward VII andEdward VIII known as Edward I and Edward II (or possibly II and III, if one counts the disputed reign ofEdward Balliol) of Scotland. These kings all followed the numbering consistent with the English sequence of sovereigns (which, incidentally, was also the higher of the two numbers in all occurring cases). This was not without controversy in Scotland, however; for example, Edward VII's regnal number was occasionally omitted in Scotland, even by the establishedChurch of Scotland, in deference to protests that the previous Edwards were English kings who had "been excluded from Scotland by battle".[9]
The issue arose again with the accession ofQueen Elizabeth II, as Scotland had never before had a regnant Queen Elizabeth, theprevious queen of that name having been queen of England only. Objections were raised, and sustained, to the use of theroyal cypher EIIR anywhere in Scotland, resulting in several violent incidents, includingthe destruction of one of the first new EIIRpillar boxes in Scotland, atLeith in late 1952. Since that time, the cipher used in Scotland on all government and Crown property and street furniture has carried no lettering, but simply theCrown of Scotland from theHonours of Scotland. A court case,MacCormick v Lord Advocate, contesting the style "Elizabeth II" within Scotland, was decided in 1953 on the grounds that the numbering of monarchs was part of theroyal prerogative, and that the plaintiffs had no title to suethe Crown.
To rationalise this usage, it was suggested byWinston Churchill, thePrime Minister of the day, that in future, the higher of the two numerals from the English and Scottish sequences would always be used.[10] This had been the casede facto since theActs of Union 1707; nine of the thirteen monarchs since the Act had names either never previously used in England or Scotland (Anne, six Georges, and Victoria) or used in both only after the1603 Union of Crowns (three Charleses), which sidestepped the issue, while the English numbers for the remaining four monarchs' names have consistently been both higher and the ones used (William, two Edwards, and Elizabeth). Under the Churchill rule, if a future British monarch were to use the regnal nameAlexander, even though there has never been a King of England of that regnal name, they would be Alexander IV, there having been three Kings Alexander of Scotland (reigning1107–1124,1214–1249, and1249–1286).
As theLordship of Ireland (1171–1542) andKingdom of Ireland (1542–1800) were subordinate to theKingdom of England, the English ordinals were used in Ireland even before theActs of Union 1800.William III of England andWilliam IV of the United Kingdom were still called "William III" and "William IV" in Ireland, even though neitherWilliam I orWilliam II ruled any part of Ireland. Similarly, the various Kings Henry are numbered II–VIII as they are in England even thoughHenry I of England never ruled any part of Ireland.Elizabeth I of England is referred to inIrish regnal year legal citations as "Elizabeth" rather than "Elizabeth I" becauseIreland became a republic beforeElizabeth II became queen.[11]
 | This sectionpossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(January 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
In some monarchies it is customary not to use an ordinal when there has been only one holder of that name. For example,Queen Victoria will not be calledVictoria I unless there is a Victoria II. This tradition is applied in theUnited Kingdom,Belgium,Luxembourg,Norway and theNetherlands. It was also applied in most of the formerGerman monarchies and inHungary.
Other monarchies assign ordinals to monarchs even if they are the only ones of their name. This is a more recent invention andappears to have been done for the first time whenFrancis I of France issued testoons (silver coins) bearing the legend FRANCISCVS I DE. GR. FRANCORV. REX. This currently is the regular practice inSpain andMonaco (at least for Prince Albert I, as Princess Louise Hippolyte, who reigned 150 years earlier, does not appear to have used an ordinal). It was also applied inBrazil,Greece,Italy,Mexico, andMontenegro. The ordinal for KingJuan Carlos I of Spain is used in bothSpanish and English, but he is sometimes simply called King Juan Carlos of Spain in English. InRussia, use of "The First" ordinal started withPaul I of Russia. Before him, neitherAnna of Russia norElizabeth of Russia had the "I" ordinal. InEthiopia, EmperorHaile Selassie used the "I" ordinal (Ge'ez:ቀዳማዊ,qädamawi) although previous Ethiopian monarchs had not used it, and they are not referred as "the first" unless there were successors of the same name.
In Portugal and Sweden, the practice is not consistent. In Portugal, KingsJoseph,Louis andCharles are usually referred to as "Joseph I", "Louis I" and "Charles I" although there has not yet been any Joseph II, Louis II or Charles II, but KingsDenis,Edward,Sebastian andHenry are usually referred without the ordinal In Sweden,Sigismund andAdolf Frederick never have ordinals, whereasFrederick I often does.
The Catholicpapacy used the ordinal I underPope John Paul I, but early popes who are the only ones to have reigned under a certain name are not referred to as "the first" (for instance, Peter the Apostle; his immediate successor,Pope Linus, as well asPope Anacletus, are referred to without an ordinal), but all of them reigned before regnal numbers became a common practice. The most recent,Pope Francis (2013–2025), however expressly declined the use of an ordinal, but his Orthodox counterpart,Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, uses one, as doesAram I, thecatholicos of theArmenian Apostolic Church.
InAustria, EmperorsFrancis,Ferdinand,Francis Joseph andCharles all styled themselves as "the first" although all were the only Emperors of Austria with those names. Three of those names were previously the names of Austrian Archdukes (the Archduchy of Austria was a state within the Holy Roman and the Austrian Empires), which makes three of these emperors Francis II, Ferdinand V, and Charles IV in their capacity as Archdukes. Francis Joseph was the first Austrian Archduke of that name.
The use of "The First" ordinal is also common to self-proclaimed ephemeral kings or emperors, such asNapoleon I inFrance;Jacques I,Henri I andFaustin I inHaiti;Agustín I inMexico;Zog I inAlbania;Bokassa I in theCentral African Empire;Boris I inAndorra;Theodore I inCorsica; and"Emperor" Norton I inSan Francisco. In those cases, they wanted to emphasize the change of regime they introduced or attempted to introduce.
It is traditional amongst the various strands ofmonarchism in France to continue to number theirpretenders even though they have never reigned.Henri IV (died 1610)Philippe VI (died 1350) andLouis Philippe I (abdicated 1848) were the last reigning kings of their respective names.Henri, Count of Chambord wasLegitimist pretender as "Henri V" from 1844 to 1883.Prince Philippe, Count of Paris was "pure"Orléanist pretender as "Louis Philippe II" (1848–1873) and "unionist" (joint Orléanist–Legitimist) pretender as "Philippe VII" (1883–1894) since Legitimists had not recognised Louis Philippe I. There have been later unionist pretenders numberedHenri VI andHenri VII, and a rivalLegitimist Henri VI.
Non-consecutive ordinals of reigning monarchs may indicate dynastic claims for non-regnant monarchs. For example, afterLouis XVI was executed during theFrench Revolution, Legitimists consider him to have been succeeded by his young son, whom they calledLouis XVII. Although the child died in prison a few years later and never reigned, his uncle, who came to the French throne in theBourbon Restoration, took the nameLouis XVIII in acknowledgement of his dynasty's rights. Similarly, after EmperorNapoleon I's regime collapsed, he abdicated in favour of his four-year-old son, who was proclaimedNapoleon II. The young emperor was deposed only weeks later by Napoleon's European rivals and was never recognized internationally; but when his first cousin Louis Napoleon Bonaparte proclaimed himself Emperor in 1852, he declared himselfNapoleon III in recognition of his predecessor.
Following theGlorious Revolution, aline of pretenders descended from the dethronedJames VII and II claimed the throne and declared themselves to beJames VIII and III,Charles III andHenry IX and I. They numbered themselves separately for Scotland and England because they did not recognize theActs of Union, which joined the two kingdoms into one in 1707, as valid.
James VII's last legitimate descendant died in 1807, and the claim passed to descendants of his sisterHenrietta, Duchess of Orléans. Although none of them has actively claimed the throne, their supporters have assigned them the regnal numbers that they "should have had"; for example, from 1919 to 1955, the claim was held by"Robert I & IV", which was numbered for England and Scotland respectively.
This custom is currently not followed by any other ethnic groups other than the French and British (Jacobites), being unique to them, monarchists from other nations do not usually use royal numbers for the pretenders they support.
While reigning monarchs use ordinals, ordinals are not used for royal female consorts. Thus, whileKing George V used an ordinal to distinguish him from other kings in the United Kingdoms called George, his wife,Queen Mary, had no ordinal.
The lack of an ordinal in the case of royal consorts complicates the recording of history, as there may be a number of consorts over time with the same name with no way to distinguish between them. For that reason, royal consorts are sometimes after their deaths recorded in history books and encyclopaedias by the use of their premarital name or, if they were from royalty or sovereign nobility, the name of the dynasty or the country. For example,Henry VIII's fifth wife,Katherine Howard (of noble but not sovereign ancestry), is known by her maiden surname, andGeorge V's wife (a descendant of the sovereign ducal house of Württemburg) is commonly known asMary of Teck (after her father's title) andEdward VII's wife (a daughter of the King of Denmark) is known asAlexandra of Denmark.
.svg)
