The Monarchy and the kilt

[McClef]

Another interesting point about regnal numbers.

In the UK at least the first Monarch to reign under a particular name is not given a regnal number until there is a second to reign under that name.

Hence Elizabeth I was only referred to as Queen Elizabeth until 1952. We do not refer to Queen Anne or Queen Victoria as Anne I or Victoria I because they are so far unique usages.

As was James I in England until there was a James II although he kept his regnal number in Scotland.

Queens Consort are not given regnal numbers which can sometimes lead to confusion where they share the name of Queens Regnant, one of the reasons why Queen Elizabeth, consort of George VI became the Queen Mother.

[Schiehallion]

It is also interesting that Prince William the son of Charles and Diana now has more Stuart blood as the Spencer family tree has more Royal Stuart blood than the present Queen.

[McClef]

And Harry too of course - all the more reason why they should wear the kilt!

[Mike_Oettle]

Trefor, I could not agree with you more about William and Harry’s Scottishness (or Stewartness, if you prefer).
They definitely ought to wear the kilt, at least in Scotland. Not to mention wearing Welsh tartan in Cymru, Cornish in Kernow, or Ulster Red in NI.

Regarding regnal numbers, I would say that even though the present numbering was laid down in 1952, it was weighed down with a great deal of precedent.
I think especially of the Queen’s great-grandfather, Edward VII, who was intent on demonstrating his Englishness (as opposed to Germanness), and saw himself as King of England (even though that was not one of his actual titles).
Consequently he styled himself Edward VII, rather than Edward I of Great Britain. (Incidentally he was also Edward II of Ireland . . . )
The question did not arise with either of his successors, since their regnal name was the same as that of the first Hanoverian king.
Anne and Victoria have been the only Queens regnant of their respective names. But before Anne there was Mary, who was Mary II of England (after Mary Tudor) and Mary II of Scotland (after Mary, Queen of Scots).
This was, of course, before the Union of Parliaments, but it is worth noting that Mary II’s husband was William III only in England, but William I in Scotland and Ireland.
And William IV was William II in those two realms . . . perhaps he should simply have styled himself William I of Great Britain.
But since both William IV and Edward VII followed English regnal numbering, it seems as if the Queen was driven by their precedents to style herself Elizabeth II.
I have read that the Duke of Rothesay intends to style himself George VII. It would certainly avoid the complications inherent in Charles III . . .
Regards,
Mike

[McClef]

Mike,

I am sure that many people would be pleased if the Duke of Rothesay were to wear Welsh tartan in his capacity as Prince of Wales or Cornish tartan in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall.

But these tartans are of relatively recent origin and there is no precedent or military tradition for him doing so unless he can be encouraged/persuaded to set one himself. The more Welsh or Cornish folk who wear the Cilt (correct spelling in Welsh though not in Cornish), the more it might become expected.

Mary II was one of those rarities because she was a joint sovereign in her own right.

I am not sure what complications are created by Charles III. However it is entirely the choice of the acceding sovereign to choose by which of their names they wish to be known. The Duke has Charles, Philip, Arthur or George to choose from and only two of these have been born by British sovereigns to date. Edward VII could have chosen Albert instead as could George VI (both were called Bertie within the family) and Edward VIII could have chosen David. Queen Victoria's first name was actually Alexandrina!

[Mike_Oettle]

Hi, Trefor – yes, any tartan from outside Scotland is a new phenomenon.
Black kilts would probably be equally acceptable in Ireland, Wales and Cornwall. But using the recently designed setts (or the reconstructed Ulster sett) would allow a more visible connection between the royals and those specific regions.
As for regnal names, I was aware that several sovereigns had adopted different names on coming to the throne.
And of course Mary II was co-regnant with her husband, otherwise she would not have had a regnal number at all.
One wonders how history would have turned out had she had children – or, for that matter, if her sister had not outlived all her offspring. In either case, though, the crown would have passed to a foreign house, as indeed it did when Albert Edward of Saxe-Coburg became king in 1901.
I feel it highly appropriate that his son, George V, changed the family name to Windsor.
Discussions around the possibility of Rothesay styling himself Charles III have usually centred on the controversies surrounding the reigns of Charles I and II, and the upheavals that convulsed Britain as a result, not least of which was the Glorious Revolution, following the flight of James II.
I am much more comfortable with the thought of King George VII.
It appears highly unlikely that Rothesay will adopt the regnal name Arthur. More than once a crown prince of that name has been succeeded by his brother due to his early death. (Of course, with William and Harry waiting in the wings, it is unlikely that either the Duke of York or the Princess Royal will succeed to the throne.)
There seems to be a desire to avoid the name, as there is also a reluctance for there to be another King John (England’s John was highly unpopular, while King John Balliol is associated with failure).
Regards,
Mike